To the Reverend and True Father,
John Staupitz, Professor of Sacred Theology, Vicar of the Augustinian Order,
Brother Martin Luther, your disciple, sends greetings and himself.

I remember, Reverend Father, among your most pleasant and salutary stories, through which the Lord Jesus used to console me marvelously, that you once mentioned the term “penance,” where you pitied the consciences of many and the tormentors who teach infinite and unbearable rules of confession (as they call them), and I received, as if from heaven, that true penance does not begin unless it is from the love of justice and God. And this is rather the beginning of penance, which is considered by them to be the end and completion.

This word of yours stuck in me like a sharp arrow from a powerful hand, [Psalm 120:4] and thereafter I began to compare it with the Scriptures that teach penance, and behold, I found the most delightful game, as words from everywhere played with me and clearly smiled and leapt towards this sentiment, so that, whereas before there was scarcely any word in all of Scripture more bitter to me than “penance” (although I also diligently tried to simulate and express a feigned and forced love before God), now nothing sounds sweeter or more pleasant to me than “penance.” For the commandments of God become sweet when we understand them not only in books but in the wounds of the sweetest Savior.

After this, through the diligence and grace of the most learned men who most devotedly teach us Greek and Hebrew, I learned that the same word in Greek is called “Metanoia” from “meta” and “noia,” that is, from “after” and “mind,” so that penance, or metanoia, is a change of mind after receiving damage and recognizing one’s error, a realization of one’s evil, which is impossible without a change of affection and love, all of which so aptly correspond to Pauline Theology that nothing could more aptly illustrate Paul, at least in my opinion.

Finally, I advanced and saw that “Metanoia” can be derived not only from “after” and “mind” but from “beyond” and “mind” (though it may be forced), so that “Metanoia” signifies a transformation of mind and affection, which seems to breathe not only a change of affection but also the manner of change, that is, the grace of God. For that passage of mind, that is, true penance, is celebrated in the sacred writings, [Exodus 12:11] as that ancient Passover once signified, [1 Corinthians 5:7] Christ exhibited, and long before Abraham also prefigured when he began to be called a Hebrew, [Genesis 12:6] that is, a passer-over, having crossed over into Mesopotamia, as Burgensis learnedly teaches. And that title of the Psalm concurs, where Idithun, that is, the passer-over, is introduced as the singer. [Psalm 39:1]

Clinging to these thoughts, I dared to think those were mistaken who attributed so much to the works of penance that they left us scarcely anything of penance except for certain cold satisfactions and the most laborious confession, led by the Latin word which denotes more an action than a change of affection and in no way satisfies the Greek “Metanoia.”

While my meditation was thus burning, suddenly there began to resound around us, indeed to trumpet, new indulgences and the trumpets of remissions, by which, however, we were not inspired to the ardent pursuit of battle. Briefly, neglecting the doctrine of true penance, they presumed to so magnify not penance, not even its vilest part, which is called satisfaction, but the remission of that same vilest part, as it has never been heard so magnificently extolled: finally, they taught impious, false, and heretical doctrines with such authority (I meant to say “temerity”), that anyone who dared to mutter against them was immediately considered a heretic doomed to fire and guilty of eternal damnation.

Unable to withstand their fury, I decided to modestly dissent from them and call their dogmas into question, relying on the opinion of all doctors and the whole Church, which also teaches that it is better to satisfy than to remit satisfaction, that is, to redeem indulgences. And there is no one who ever taught otherwise. Therefore, I disputed, that is, in summary, I stirred up everything high, low, and in between against my own head, as much as can be done and completed by these zealots of money (alas, I should have said “souls”). For these sweet men, armed with the thickest cunning, when they cannot deny what I said, pretend that the power of the Supreme Pontiff is harmed by my disputations.

This is the reason, Reverend Father, that I now unhappily come forward in public, who have always been a lover of the corner and chose rather to observe the most beautiful game of wits in our age than to be observed and ridiculed. But, as I see, it is necessary to appear even among vegetables and to stand as a black statue among white ones, for the sake of decorum and grace.

Therefore, I beg you to accept these my foolishnesses and, if possible, to transmit them with the utmost industry to the best Pope Leo the Tenth, so that they may serve as a kind of advocate for me against the studies of the malevolent, not that I wish to involve you in danger with me; I wish these things to have been done at my own peril alone. Christ will see whether the things I have said are His or mine, without whose will not even the Supreme Pontiff’s speech is in his tongue, nor is the king’s heart in his hand. [Proverbs 21:1] For this I expect a judge pronouncing from the Roman seat.

As for those threatening friends of mine, I have nothing to say to them except that Reuchlinian phrase, “He who is poor fears nothing, has nothing to lose.” I have neither possessions nor desires for them, and if I had fame and honor, I have now steadily lost them, for he who loses, loses: one weak and constantly fatigued body remains, which if they take away by any force or deceit (in service to God), perhaps they will make me poorer by one or two hours of life. My sweet Redeemer and Propitiator, my Lord Jesus Christ, suffices for me, to whom I will sing as long as I am. But if anyone does not want to sing with me, what is that to me? Let him howl, if he likes, either alone or with others. May the Lord Jesus Himself keep you forever, my dearest father. Wittenberg, on the Day of the Holy Trinity, 1518.

Letter to Leo X

TO THE MOST BLESSED FATHER LEO THE TENTH, SUPREME PONTIFF,
BROTHER MARTIN LUTHER, AUGUSTINIAN,
WISHES ETERNAL SALVATION.

I have heard the worst news about me, Most Blessed Father, from which I understand that certain friends have made my name stink most grievously before you and yours, as if I were trying to diminish the authority and power of the keys and the Supreme Pontiff: hence I am accused as a heretic, apostate, treacherous, and with six hundred names, indeed ignominies. The ears shudder, and the eyes are astonished. But one refuge of confidence stands, an innocent and quiet conscience: I hear nothing new. For these most honorable and truthful men, that is, most wickedly aware of themselves, who try to impose their monstrosities on me and glorify their ignominies through my ignominy, have adorned me with such insignias in our region. But the matter itself, Most Blessed Father, may you deign to hear from me, an infant and unavenged.

A jubilee of Apostolic indulgences began to be preached among us recently and advanced to such an extent that the preachers, under the terror of your name, thought everything was permitted to them, teaching the most impious and heretical things openly and boldly, to the greatest scandal and mockery of ecclesiastical authority, as if the decretals concerning the abuses of questors did not pertain to them at all. And not content with spreading their poisons with the freest words, they even published pamphlets and spread them among the people, in which, to say nothing of the insatiable and unheard-of greed that almost every letter reeks of most crassly, they established those same impious and heretical things, and established them so that they forced confessors to swear an oath to faithfully and insistently inculcate these things to the people. I speak the truth, nor is there any place for them to hide from this heat. The pamphlets exist, and they cannot deny it. Meanwhile, these things were being done prosperously, and the people were being drained by false hopes, and as the prophet says, they were taking the flesh from their bones, [Micah 3:3] while they themselves were feeding most fatly and sweetly in the meantime.

There was one thing by which they used to calm the scandals, namely the terror of your name, the threat of fire, and the reproach of being called a heretic. It is incredible how eagerly they resort to these whenever they sense any contradiction, even in their mere opinions and trifles. However, if this is how they calm scandals and not rather provoke schisms and seditions through sheer tyranny, it is indeed a wonder.

Nevertheless, the tales of priestly avarice and the slanders against the keys and the Supreme Pontiff continued to spread through the taverns, as the voice of this entire land bears witness. Indeed, I must confess that, out of zeal for Christ—as I saw it—or if you prefer, out of youthful fervor, I was burning with passion. Yet, I did not see it as my place to establish or do anything in these matters; therefore, I privately advised several magnates of the churches. Some received me, others found me ridiculous, while still others viewed me differently. The terror of your name and the threat of censures prevailed. Finally, since I could do nothing else, it seemed at least proper to resist them gently, that is, to call their doctrines into question and debate them. So I issued a disputation sheet, inviting only the more learned, if anyone wished to discuss it with me, as must be clear even to the opponents from the preface of the same disputation.

Behold, this is the fire by which they complain the whole world is being consumed, perhaps because they are indignant that I, by your Apostolic authority as a Master of Theology, have the right to dispute publicly in the school according to the custom of all universities and the whole Church, not only about indulgences but also about the power, remission, and divine indulgences, matters incomparably greater. Yet I am not much moved by the fact that they envy me this faculty granted by your Beatitude’s authority, for I am forced, against my will, to favor them in much greater matters, namely, that they mix Aristotle’s dreams into the very essence of theology and dispute sheer trifles against and beyond the authority given to them.

Furthermore, what fate drives these particular disputations of mine above all others—not only mine but those of all Masters—to spread over almost the entire earth, is a marvel to me. They were published among our own and for our own, and so published that it seems incredible to me that they could be understood by all: for they are disputations, not doctrines, not dogmas, set forth in the usual obscure and enigmatic manner. Otherwise, if I could have foreseen this, I would certainly have taken care to make them easier to understand, at least from my side.

Now, what am I to do? I cannot retract them, and I see that great envy arises against me from their dissemination: I reluctantly come into the public and dangerous and varied judgment of men, especially I, unlearned, stupid in mind, empty of erudition, moreover in our flourishing age, which for its felicity in letters and minds could even compel Cicero to retreat to a corner, otherwise not a cowardly follower of light and the public. But necessity compels me, a goose, to cackle among swans.

Therefore, to both soften my adversaries and fulfill the desires of many, I send forth these my explanatory trifles of my disputations, I send them forth, however, that I may be safer under the protection of your name and under the shadow of your protection, Most Blessed Father, in which all who wish may understand how purely and simply I have sought and honored ecclesiastical authority and the reverence of the keys, and at the same time how unjustly and falsely my adversaries have defamed me with so many names. For if I were the kind of person they want me to appear to be, and if what I had handled by the faculty of disputing had not been treated correctly, it could not have happened that the Most Illustrious Prince Frederick, Duke of Saxony, Elector of the Empire, &c., would have allowed this pestilence in his University, since he is easily one of the most loving defenders of Catholic and Apostolic truth, nor would I have been tolerated by the most ardent and studious men of our study: indeed, I am doing what I can when those sweetest men do not hesitate to publicly disgrace both me and the Prince and the University with equal infamy. Therefore, Most Blessed Father, I offer myself prostrate at the feet of your Beatitude with everything I am and have. Revive, kill, call, recall, approve, reprove, as it pleases you: I will recognize your voice as the voice of Christ presiding and speaking in you. If I have deserved death, I will not refuse to die. For the earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof, [Psalms 24:1] who is blessed forever, Amen, who also may keep you forever, Amen. In the year 1518.

Protestation

Because this is a theological disputation, to calm the minds perhaps offended by the bare text of the disputation, I will here repeat the protestation usually made in the schools.

First, I protest that I neither say nor intend to hold anything other than what is first in and from the Holy Scriptures, then in the writings of the Church Fathers accepted by the Roman Church, which have been preserved to this day, and from the Canons and Pontifical Decretals as is and can be held. If anything cannot be proven or disproven from these, I will hold it for the sake of disputation alone, according to the judgment of reason and experience, yet always with the judgment of all my superiors saved.

I add only this one thing and claim it for myself by right of Christian liberty, that the opinions of Blessed Thomas, Bonaventure, or other Scholastics or Canonists, when placed naked without text and proof, I wish to refute or accept according to my judgment, as Paul advises, ‘Test everything; hold on to what is good,’ [1 Thessalonians 5:21] even though I know the opinion of some Thomists who wish to believe that Blessed Thomas has been approved by the Church in all things. It is sufficiently clear how much authority Blessed Thomas holds. I believe this protestation makes it clear enough that while I may err, I will not be a heretic, however much they who think otherwise may rage and fume.

Resolutions on the Disputations About the Power of Indulgences

Conclusion 1. Our Lord and Master Jesus Christ, by saying “Repent &c.”, intended the entire life of believers to be one of repentance.

I assert this and do not doubt it.

Yet I first prove it from the Greek word itself, ‘Metanoite’, that is, repent, which can most strictly be translated as ‘change your mind’, that is, ‘put on a different mind and understanding, rethink, make a transition of mind and spirit,’ so that now you savor heavenly things, who have hitherto savored earthly things, as the Apostle says in Romans 12[:1]: ‘Be transformed by the renewal of your mind.’ This rethinking is so that the transgressor may return to his heart and hate his sin. It is certain, however, that this rethinking or self-hatred must occur throughout life, according to the saying: ‘Whoever hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life.’ [Matthew 10:39] And again: ‘Whoever does not take up his cross and follow me is not worthy of me.’ [Matthew 10:38] And there: ‘I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.’ [Matthew 10:34] Matthew 5[:4]: ‘Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted.’ And Paul in Romans 6 and 8 and many other places commands to mortify the flesh and its members which are on the earth. And Galatians 5[:24] teaches to crucify the flesh with its desires. And 2 Corinthians 6[:4–5] says: ‘Let us commend ourselves in much patience, in many fastings, &c.’ I present these things at length, as if dealing with those who are ignorant of our teachings.

Therefore, I prove the same thing secondly by reason. Because Christ is a teacher of the spirit, not of the letter, and His words are life and spirit, [John 6:63] it is necessary that He teaches that repentance which is done in spirit and in truth, not the kind that even the most arrogant hypocrites can do outwardly, in their fasts with disfigured faces, [Matthew 6:16] praying in corners, and giving alms with trumpets. Christ must teach that repentance which can be practiced in any kind of life, which a king in purple, a priest in purity, princes in dignity, can practice no less than a monk or beggar in their rites and poverty, just as Daniel and his companions practiced in the midst of Babylon. For the doctrine of Christ ought to be suitable for all men, that is, for people of all conditions.

Thirdly, we pray and must pray throughout our whole life, ‘Forgive us our debts,’ therefore we repent throughout our whole life and are displeased with ourselves, unless someone is so foolish as to think he should pray hypocritically for the remission of debts. For the debts are real and not to be despised, for which we are commanded to pray, even if they are venial, yet we cannot be saved unless they are forgiven.

Conclusion 2. The statement about sacramental penance (confession and satisfaction, which is celebrated through the ministry of priests) cannot be understood.

I assert this too and prove it.

First, because sacramental penance is temporal and cannot be done at every moment; otherwise, one would have to be constantly talking to the priest and doing nothing else but confessing sins and executing imposed satisfaction. Therefore, it cannot be that cross which Christ commands us to take up, nor is it the mortification of the passions of the flesh.

Second. Sacramental penance is only external and presupposes the internal, without which it is of no value. But this internal penance exists without the sacramental.

Third. Sacramental penance can be feigned, this one cannot be anything but true and sincere. If it is not sincere, it belongs to hypocrites, not to the penance Christ teaches.

Fourth. There is no command of Christ regarding sacramental penance. But it is established by Popes and the Church (at least as far as its third part, namely satisfaction), therefore it is also changeable at the discretion of the Church. But evangelical repentance is a divine law, unchangeable at any time, since it is that continual sacrifice which is called a contrite and humbled heart. [Psalm 51:19]

Fifth. It pertains here that by unanimous consent the Scholastic doctors distinguish the virtue of repentance from sacramental penance, placing the virtue of repentance as the matter or subject of the sacrament of penance.

Conclusion 3. Nevertheless, He does not intend only the inner, indeed the inner is nothing unless it produces various mortifications of the flesh outwardly.

And I assert and prove this.

First, in Romans 12[:1], the Apostle commands us to offer our bodies as a living sacrifice, holy, and pleasing to God. And he explains clearly and broadly how this is done when he teaches to think humbly, serve one another, love, be constant in prayer, have patience, &c. [Romans 12:3ff] Likewise, in 2 Corinthians 6[:4–5], he says: ‘Let us commend ourselves in much patience, in fastings and watchings &c.’ But also, Christ in Matthew 5 and 6 teaches to fast, pray, and give alms correctly. Also elsewhere: ‘But give what is within as alms, and behold, everything will be clean for you.’ [Luke 11:41]

Whence it follows that those three parts of satisfaction, fasting, prayer, and almsgiving, do not pertain to sacramental penance in terms of the substance of the actions, because they are commanded by Christ, but they pertain to it in terms of a certain mode and time, as the Church has ordained, namely, how long one should pray, fast, and give. Likewise, how much and what should be prayed, how much and what should not be eaten, how much and what should be given. But as they pertain to evangelical penance, fasting includes all chastisements of the flesh without distinction of foods or difference in garments, prayer includes all mental endeavors in meditating, reading, hearing, praying, almsgiving includes all service to one’s neighbor, so that by fasting one may serve oneself, by prayer one may serve God, and by almsgiving one may serve one’s neighbor. By the first, one conquers the concupiscence of the flesh and lives soberly and chastely; by the second, the pride of life and lives piously; by the third, the lust of the eyes and lives justly in this world. Therefore, all mortifications which a repentant man inflicts on himself belong to inward repentance as its fruits, whether they be vigils, labors, poverty, studies, prayers, fleeing from sex and delights, insofar as they promote the spirit.

Secondly, the Lord Himself and all His saints did so. Finally, He commanded: ‘Let your light shine before men, that they may see your good works.’ [Matthew 5:16] For without doubt, good works outwardly are fruits of repentance and the spirit, since the spirit does nothing but produce the voice of the turtledove, that is, the groan of the heart, the root of good works.

Against these three conclusions of mine, someone in anger, walking in the guise of a lion, has asserted that it is an error if anyone denies that the word ‘repentance’ can also be understood to mean sacramental penance. First, it is not my intention to refute each of his positions, which are composed so stupidly and ignorantly that it is impossible for me to believe they were understood either by him whose name they are published under or by him who composed them, which would be easily apparent to anyone of moderate intelligence and learning in the scriptures. Nevertheless, to show even to these their ignorance (if they can be taught), I will judge this first position. I admit that under the name of repentance it can also be understood Judas’ repentance, even God’s repentance, even feigned repentance, and as logicians often do, materially and secondarily taken repentance, therefore also the sacrament, that is, satisfaction. Or who denies that theologians have been allowed, not a few times, to corrupt almost the entire scripture more boldly with their distinctions and newly coined ambiguities, so that we read Paul-centos and Christ-centos instead of Paul and Christ? I have spoken about the genuine and proper meaning of the word which Christ intended in that word, or at least that which John the Baptist intended, who did not have the authority to institute a sacrament and yet came preaching the baptism of repentance, saying ‘repent.’ [Matthew 3:2] Christ repeats this word, [Matthew 4:17] and so it is understood, I believe, not to refer to the sacrament. Yet let their dream be true. Let us see what follows.

Christ is without doubt a divine lawgiver and His teaching divine law, that is, what no power can change or dispense. But if the repentance taught by Christ in that place signifies sacramental repentance, that is, satisfaction, and this the Pope can change and in fact changes at his discretion, then either the Pope has divine law at his discretion, or he is a most impious adversary to his God, making void the commandment of God. If those who claim to dispute for the glory of God and the defense of the Catholic faith and the honor of the Holy Apostolic See, for revealing the truth and suppressing errors, dare to assert this, then if they thus honor the Church and defend the faith, with the terrifying and immanently (I almost said ‘inanely’) brandished title of inquisitors of heretical depravity, what, I ask, is left for the most insane heretics with which they may also blaspheme and slander the Pope and the Apostolic See? I pronounce these people not inquisitors but propagators of heretical depravity with a free voice. Such and so prudently placed are almost all the conclusions which that most ample and innocent paper carries about, subject to vanity not willingly. [Romans 8:20] If I wished to refute them all, a great volume would be needed, and almost the whole chaos of the Fourth Book of Sentences would have to be unraveled with its scribes. But you, reader, be free and candid, so that you may learn from this one to understand all.

Conclusion 4. Therefore, the penalty remains as long as self-hatred (that is, true inward repentance) remains, namely until the entrance into the kingdom of heaven.

And I assert and show this.

First. It follows as a certain corollary from what has been said, because if the whole life is repentance and the cross of Christ is not only in voluntary afflictions but also in the temptations of the devil, the world, and the flesh, and even in persecutions and sufferings, as is clear from the foregoing, from the whole scripture, from the example of the holy of holies Himself and all martyrs, it is certain that that cross lasts until death and thus until the entrance into the kingdom.

Secondly. It is also clear in other saints. Saint Augustine had the seven penitential psalms written for him, and he prayed and meditated on them with tears, saying, even if a bishop has lived justly, he should not leave this world without repentance. Thus, Blessed Bernard, agonizing, cried out: ‘I have lived badly because I have wasted time; I have nothing unless I know that a contrite and humbled heart, O God, you will not despise.’ [Psalms 51:19]

Thirdly. By reason: that cross of repentance must last as long as, according to the Apostle, [Romans 6:6] the body of sin is destroyed and the oldness of the first Adam with its image perishes and the new Adam is perfected according to the image of God. But sin remains until death, though it diminishes daily by the renewal of the mind from day to day.

Fourthly. At least the penalty of death remains for all, the fear of death too, certainly the penalty of all penalties and graver than death itself in many, to say nothing of the fear of judgment and hell, the trembling of conscience, &c.

Conclusion 5. The Pope neither wants to nor can remit any penalties other than those imposed by his own or the Canons’ discretion.

I dispute this and humbly ask to be taught, and as I asked in the preface, so I still ask, let him who can stretch out his hand and attend to my arguments.

First, let us gather the types of penalties that the faithful may suffer.

The first is eternal, the hell of the damned, about which nothing pertains to the topic. For it is certain that this is not in the power of either the highest or the lowest pontiff, as all hold throughout the entire Church, which only God remits through the forgiveness of guilt.

The second is purgatorial, about which we will see below in its conclusion: in the meantime, we accept that it is not in the power of the Pope or any man.

The third is the voluntary and evangelical one, about which it was said above that spiritual repentance works, according to 1 Corinthians 11[:31]: ‘If we judged ourselves, we would not be judged by the Lord.’ This is that cross and mortification of the passions, as above in conclusion III. But since this is commanded by Christ and is of the essence of spiritual repentance and absolutely necessary for salvation, it is by no means in the power of any priest, neither to increase nor to diminish. For it does not depend on human discretion but on grace and spirit, indeed this penalty is less in the Pope’s power than all other penalties of any name. For he can at least remove eternal, purgatorial, and afflictive penalties by prayer before God, just as he can obtain justifying grace for the sinner. But this one he cannot remove, not even by prayer. Rather, he ought to obtain and impose it on the sinner, that is, declare it imposed, no less than he obtains grace: otherwise, he would nullify the cross of Christ and join the remnants of the Canaanites to his sons and daughters, and not destroy the enemies of God, that is, sins, to the point of annihilation, unless he saw some excessively zealous people afflicting themselves more than would be expedient for their salvation and others' needs. Then he must not only remit but prohibit it, as Saint Paul says to Timothy: ‘Drink no longer water &c.’ [1 Timothy 5:23]

The fourth is punitive and the scourging of God, of which Psalm 89[:31]: ‘If his children forsake my law and do not walk according to my judgments, I will visit their iniquities with the rod and their sins with scourges.’ Who doubts that this penalty is beyond the hands of pontiffs? Since it is said to impose it even on the innocent in Jeremiah 49[:12]: ‘Behold, they to whom it was not appointed to drink the cup will surely drink, and are you to go unpunished? You shall not go unpunished, but you shall surely drink.’ And in Jeremiah 25[:29]: ‘Behold, I am beginning to bring disaster on the city that is called by my name, and shall you go unpunished? You shall not go unpunished.’ Hence, Blessed Peter 1 Peter 4[:17]: ‘For the time has come for judgment to begin at the house of God, and if it begins with us first, what will be the end of those who do not obey the gospel of God?’ Revelation 3[:19]: ‘As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten.’ And Hebrews 12[:6]: ‘He chastens every son whom he receives.’ But if the Supreme Pontiff wanted to remit this or if the sinner believed it to be remitted, surely it would result in their becoming adulterous and spurious, as Hebrews 12[:8]: ‘If you are without discipline, of which all have become partakers, then you are illegitimate and not sons.’ For even John the Baptist and the most holy ones suffered this.

However, I would admit that through the prayers of the Church, such things could be removed for the weak, namely diseases, sicknesses, plagues, fevers, as Blessed James [5:14] taught to bring in the elders of the church and anoint the sick, so that the Lord may lift up the sick because of the prayer of faith. And why do I delay? As if it were doubtful to any Christian that the scourges of God can only be removed by tears and prayer, and more by the imposition of other penalties than by remission, as the Ninevites deserved to avert the scourge of destruction intended for them by humbly afflicting themselves with penances. But if a priest of the Church, whether the highest or the lowest, can remove this penalty by the power of the keys, then let him remove plagues, wars, seditions, earthquakes, fires, murders, robberies, likewise the Turks and Tartars and other infidels, whom no one except a poorly informed Christian is ignorant of being the scourges and rod of God. For Isaiah 10[:5] says: ‘Woe to Assyria, the rod of my anger, and the staff in their hand is my indignation.’ Although many now and those the same great ones in the Church dream of nothing else than wars against the Turk, that is, not against iniquities, but against the rod of iniquity, and they will wage war against God, who says He visits our iniquities with that rod because we do not visit them ourselves.

The fifth is canonical penalty, that is, established by the Church. It is without doubt in the plenary right of the Supreme Pontiff, yet under the condition (as they say) of a just cause for their remission, and the key does not err. But I (with my temerity) would not take that just cause as rigidly as many are accustomed to. For it seems that the pious will of the Pontiff is sufficient and that this is a sufficiently just cause, nor do I see how in this remission the key could err, or if it did err, what harm it would cause, since the soul would still be saved, even if such penalties were not remitted by error.

It is more to be observed that the Supreme Pontiff in plenary remission does not remit all canonical penalties, which is evident because he does not remit the entrance or intrusion of some into the monastery, which is nevertheless a not insignificant penalty in the Canons, nor even civil or rather criminal penalties inflicted by civil law, although legates do this somewhere where they are personally present. Therefore, he seems to remit only those imposed regarding fasts, prayers, alms, and other labors and disciplines, some for seven years, some less, some more. And in this penalty, I include also what the priest of the Church imposes at his discretion. So now consider and teach me who can. He cannot remit the first four penalties: what else does he remit except canonical and discretionary penalties?

Again, that lion growls at me that penalties required by divine justice or to be atoned for in purgatory are remitted. To which I reply, it is most impious to believe that the Pope has the power to change divine law and relax what divine justice has inflicted. For it does not say, ‘Whatever I bind, you will loose,’ but ‘whatever you loose will be loosed.’ Nor will you loose everything bound, but only what you have bound, not what I have bound.’ Yet they understand it as, ‘Whatever you loose, whether in heaven or on earth, will be loosed,’ when Christ added ‘on earth,’ then by operation restricting heaven to earth, knowing that otherwise, they would have perforated all the heavens.

The sixth is what I want to imagine until I am otherwise instructed, which they say is required according to divine justice, that satisfaction be made to divine justice. But if this is different from the third and fifth (as it must be if it is to be the sixth), it cannot be imagined otherwise than that where the third and fifth were not sufficient, then it would be imposed, namely more prayer, fasting, almsgiving. And so it would differ from the fifth or third only in degree of intensity. For it cannot be understood as civil punishment, because as I said, it is not remitted; otherwise, letters of indulgence would remove all gallows and executioners through the Church. But it cannot be understood as canonical punishment imposed by the judgment of a contentious forum either, because excommunications, interdicts, or any ecclesiastical censures inflicted are not remitted, as is sufficiently evident in experience. Therefore, what I just imagined remains. But that it does not exist, I am persuaded of this by the fact that it cannot be taught by any authority of scripture, doctors, Canons, or probable reason that such a punishment exists, and it is highly absurd to teach something in the Church for which no cause can be given in scripture, doctors, Canons, or at least reasons. Secondly, if such a penalty existed, it would not pertain to the Pope’s remission, since it is voluntary and imposed beyond the Canons, indeed not imposed, but voluntarily assumed: because it is different from those imposed, as was said above regarding the fifth penalty.

But if you say, ‘How then would satisfaction be made to divine justice, if in some way the canonical or sacerdotal penalties were not sufficient?’ I answer: sufficient satisfaction is made by the third and fourth according to the measure known to God. For it is not read anywhere that God ever required any except the third sometimes and the fourth, as in David and the sons of Israel in the books of Judges and Kings. But almost always He is content with a contrite heart and the penalty of the third kind. And hence I wonder at the negligence of some who, to assert satisfaction, say that Christ absolved the adulteress in the Gospel without satisfaction, but Mary Magdalene not without satisfaction, and therefore that the Lord is to be imitated in Mary, not in the adulteress, so that no one should be forgiven sin without satisfaction. ‘For He did not cleanse the lepers except by imposing that they satisfy the law and show themselves to the priest. Therefore, this is the penalty that divine justice requires beyond those already mentioned.’ But I answer: That adulteress (in my judgment) bore more penalties than Mary Magdalene and made more satisfaction. For she was already suffering death, seeing nothing else but the harshest judgment: therefore, she was tortured and grieved far more than Mary, to whom the judgment of death was not impending. Therefore, her penalty was of the fourth kind and the third, because she bore the scourge of death in a contrite heart. But Mary Magdalene bore penalties of the third kind, nor can it be proven that there was any other penalty, as is evident. Regarding the lepers, I say that they were commanded to show themselves not for satisfaction, but for testimony: for leprosy was not sin, but signified sin: showing sin is not satisfaction but seeks the judgment of the priest, as is sufficiently known.

Secondly, I prove the conclusion as follows. Those two powers of binding and loosing are equal and over the same matter. But the Supreme Pontiff has no power to bind and impose a penalty other than the canonical or fifth, therefore he has no power to loose or remove any other, or we must say that those two powers are of unequal breadth. But if this is said, no one is bound to believe it, for it is not proved by any scriptures or canons, since the text is clear where Christ gave to bind on earth and to loose on earth, measuring and extending both equally.

Thirdly, Extra de Pœn: et Remiss: Li: V: c. Quod autem expressly says, remissions are not valid unless they have been made by their judge, since no one can be bound or loosed by a judge who is not his own. But it is certain that a man is not under the Pope’s jurisdiction in the first, second, third, fourth, and sixth penalties, but only in the fifth, as is clearly evident and will become more evident below.

Corollary

It follows that sacramental satisfaction is not so called because it fully atones for guilt (since the third and fourth penalties make up for guilt), but because it satisfies the guilt according to the statutes of the Church. Indeed, one satisfies God most by leading a new life, etc. But it must also be proven by the Scriptures that no satisfaction for sins is required.

Here stands John the Baptist, who was sent to preach repentance according to the purpose and decree of God, and who said, “Repent,” [Matthew 3:2] and again, “Bring forth fruits worthy of repentance.” [Luke 3:8] He explained these words himself when he responded to the crowds asking what they should do: “Whoever has two tunics, let him give to the one who has none, and whoever has food, let him do likewise.” [Luke 3:11] Do you not see that he imposed nothing other than the observance of God’s commandments for repentance and therefore wished for repentance to be understood only as conversion and a change to a new life? But more clearly: behold, the publicans came and said, “Teacher, what shall we do?” [Luke 3:12] And he said, “Do no more than what is required of you.” Did he say here, “You must make satisfaction for past sins”? Likewise, to the soldiers he said, “Do not extort money from anyone by threats or false accusations, and be content with your wages.” [Luke 3:14] Did he impose anything other than the common commandments of God here? So, if this doctor of repentance, instituted by God for this very purpose, did not teach us satisfaction, it is clear that he either misled us or did not sufficiently teach the duty of repentance.

The second example is Ezekiel 18[:21]: “If a wicked man turns away from his wickedness and does what is lawful and right, he will live and not die.” Behold, he imposes nothing but what is lawful and right, which must be done throughout one’s life, as in the saying: “Blessed are those who do what is just and right at all times.” [Psalm 106:3] So, did Ezekiel mislead us here? The third example is from Micah 6[:8]: “I will show you, O man, what is good and what the Lord requires of you: to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.” You see what God requires from man for satisfaction. Finally, he mocks those who want to make satisfaction through works, saying, “What shall I bring before the Lord? Shall I bring burnt offerings and calves a year old? Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams or with ten thousand rivers of oil? Shall I offer my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?” [Micah 6:6–7] In other words, “No, because God does not require any such thing for sin, but rather justice, mercy, and fear of God, as it is said, that is, a new life.”

Conclusion 6. The Pope cannot remit any guilt except by declaring and approving it as remitted by God, or certainly by remitting cases reserved to himself, which, if disregarded, the guilt would entirely remain.

The first part is so evident that even some confess that it is an improper statement when the Pope grants remission of guilt, while others admit they do not understand it. For all confess that guilt is remitted by God alone, according to Isaiah 43[:25]: “I, I am he who blots out your transgressions for my own sake, and I will not remember your sins.” And John 1[:29]: “Behold the Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world.” And Psalm 130[:3]: “If you, Lord, keep a record of sins, Lord, who could stand? But with you, there is forgiveness.” And further: “With the Lord is mercy, and with him is plentiful redemption, and he will redeem Israel from all his iniquities.” [Psalm 130:7] And Psalm 51[:12]: “Create in me a clean heart, O God,” etc. There are many other such passages in the Scriptures. And St. Augustine, in his works against the Donatists, frequently argues that sins are remitted by God alone.

The second part is similarly clear because anyone who disregards reserved cases would surely not have any guilt remitted. “He who rejects you,” says the Lord, “rejects me,” [Luke 10:16] and indeed no one comes with remitted guilt from God unless they also carry with them respect for the keys.

Since all concede the truth of this conclusion, there is no need for it to be confirmed by my assertion. However, I will point out what moves me and will again confess my ignorance if anyone deigns to instruct me and elucidate this matter more clearly. First, regarding the first part, this phrase or sentence seems improper and incongruous with the evangelical text when it is said that the Supreme Pontiff releases, that is, declares released, guilt or approves it. For the text does not say, “Whatever I loose in heaven, you shall loose on earth,” but rather the opposite, “Whatever you loose on earth, I shall loose, or it shall be loosed in heaven,” where it is more understood that God approves the priest’s loosing rather than the reverse. Secondly, regarding the second part, it is certain that whatever cases the Pope looses, God also looses, and no one can be reconciled to God unless they are first reconciled to the Church, at least by intention, and God’s offense is not removed while the Church’s offense remains. But the question arises whether one reconciled to the Church is immediately reconciled to God. The text certainly indicates that whatever is loosed on earth is also loosed in heaven, but it does not seem to follow from this that therefore everything is simply loosed in heaven, but only those things that are loosed on earth. These two questions, in my judgment, are not of little importance, and I may expand my opinion on them in the following conclusion.

Conclusion 7. God remits no guilt without simultaneously subjecting the penitent in all humility to his priest as a vicar.

I assert this, and it needs neither disputation nor proof, so approved it is by the consensus of all. But I still struggle with its understanding, and foolishly, I first express my sense: because this, with the preceding conclusion, asserts that God does not remit guilt unless the priest first remits it, at least by intention, as the text clearly sounds: “Whatever you bind,” etc. [Matthew 16:19] And in Matthew 5[:24]: “First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift.” And “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s,” [Matthew 22:21] and in the Lord’s Prayer: “Forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.” [Matthew 6:12] In all these, a prior remission on earth is signified before that which is in heaven. It is rightly asked how these can be done before infused grace, that is, before God’s remission, since without God’s grace first remitting the guilt, a person cannot even have the intention of seeking remission. Here is what I think and understand: When God begins to justify a person, he first condemns him, and whoever he wants to build up, he first destroys; whoever he wants to heal, he strikes; whoever he wants to make alive, he kills, as it says in 1 Samuel 2[:6] and Deuteronomy 32[:39]: “I will kill, and I will make alive,” etc. This he does when he breaks a person down and humiliates him in the knowledge of his sins and terrifies him so that the wretched sinner says: “There is no peace in my bones because of my sins; there is no health in my flesh because of your indignation.” [Psalm 38:4] Thus the mountains melt like wax before the Lord. So, he sends forth his arrows and troubles them: [Psalm 18:15] from your rebuke, O Lord, and from the breath of your anger. So, sinners are turned into hell, and their faces are filled with shame. David, who often experienced this shaking and trembling, confesses it with many groans in different psalms. In this trouble, salvation begins, for “the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.” [Psalm 111:10] Here, the Lord (as Nahum 1[:3] says) purifying, makes no one innocent, and in the storm and tempest, his ways are, and the clouds are the dust of his feet: here his lightning flashes, the earth sees and trembles: here his arrows pass through and pierce, and the voice of his thunder rolls, that is, it is heard, the waters see and fear: here finally, God works his alien work, that he may work his proper work: this is true contrition of the heart and humiliation of the spirit, a most acceptable sacrifice to God: here is the victim slain, the limbs cut into pieces, and the skin stripped off, burned as a holocaust. And here (as they call it) grace is poured out, as Isaiah 41[:3] says: “He will pursue them and pass over in peace.” And Isaiah 66[:2] says: “Upon whom will my Spirit rest, if not upon him who is humble and contrite, and who trembles at my word?” And Hezekiah in Isaiah 38[:16]: “Lord, such is life, and in such things is the life of my spirit, so you will correct me and make me live.” But then man is so ignorant of his justification that he considers himself near to damnation, nor does he think this to be the infusion of grace but rather the pouring out of God’s wrath upon him. Yet blessed is he if he endures this temptation because when he believes himself to be consumed, he will rise as the morning star. While this wretched confusion of his conscience stands, he has no peace or consolation except by fleeing to the power of the Church and asking for solace and remedy by confessing his sins and miseries: for he cannot bring peace to himself by his own counsel or help, but would eventually be overwhelmed by sadness into despair. Here the priest, seeing such humility and contrition, presumes most fully, trusting in the power given to him to show mercy, and pronounces him absolved, granting peace to his conscience. But the penitent must avoid all doubt that his sins are forgiven by God, and be at peace in his heart: for even if, because of his confusion of conscience, he is uncertain (as should be the case, if the contrition is true), nevertheless, he must rely on another’s judgment, not because of the prelate or his power, but because of the word of Christ, who cannot lie, saying: “Whatever you loose on earth.” [Matthew 16:19] For faith in this word will bring peace to the conscience, just as the priest has loosed according to that word. But if anyone seeks peace by another way, such as by experience within, he surely seems to tempt God and to seek peace not in faith but in something else. For you will have as much peace as you believe in the word of the promise: “Whatever you loose,” etc. [Matthew 16:19] For our peace is Christ, but in faith. And if anyone does not believe this word, even if he were absolved a thousand times by the Pope himself and confessed to the whole world, he will never be at peace.

This, then, is that sweetest power, for which we ought to give the highest thanks to God from the bottom of our hearts, who has given such power to men, which is the only consolation for sinners and troubled consciences, provided they truly believe that Christ has promised it. From this, it is now clear what was previously questioned, namely that although the remission of guilt occurs through the infusion of grace before the priest’s remission, such an infusion of grace is so hidden under the form of wrath (since its traces are not known, Psalm 66 [Psalm 77:20], and its path does not appear [Isaiah 41:3]), that a man is more uncertain of grace when it is present than when it is absent. Therefore, as a general rule, the remission of guilt is not certain to us except by the judgment of the priest, nor indeed by the priest unless you believe in Christ’s promise: “Whatever you loose,” etc. [Matthew 16:19] But as long as it is uncertain to us, there is no remission, for it is not yet remission to us, but rather, a man would perish worse if it were not made certain, because he would not believe that the remission was made for him. Thus Christ said to Simon the leper about Mary Magdalene: “Her sins are forgiven,” [Luke 7:47] by which he certainly signified that grace had already been infused into her. But she did not know this infusion, for there was no peace in her bones because of her sins until he turned to her and said: “Your sins are forgiven, your faith has saved you,” [Luke 7:48] that is, because she believed in the one who forgives, therefore, it follows: “Go in peace.” [Luke 7:50] And to the woman taken in adultery, [John 8:3] her sins were already forgiven before Christ raised himself up. But she did not know this because so many accusers were still standing around her, until she heard the voice of the bridegroom saying: “Woman, has no one condemned you? Neither do I condemn you.” And David, when he sinned and was rebuked by the prophet Nathan by the command of God, [2 Samuel 12:13] would have died immediately if, while the grace of justification was working in him, he had not cried out: “I have sinned” (for this is the voice of the righteous first accusing themselves), and unless Nathan had immediately said, as if absolving him: “The Lord also has taken away your sin; you will not die.” For why did he add “you will not die” unless he saw him being crushed and fainting under the terror of his sin? Hezekiah, too, upon hearing that he would die, would have died if he had not again received consolation from Isaiah [38:4ff] and a sign of entering the temple, in which he believed and at the same time obtained peace and remission of sins, as he says: “You have cast all my sins behind your back.” [Isaiah 38:17] And indeed, how could their confidence in God’s mercy and the remission of sins have stood firm in the Old Testament unless God had shown by appearances, inspirations, the burning of offerings, the manifestation of a cloud, and other signs that he was pleased with whatever they did? Now he wants this to be done by the word and judgment of the priests.

Therefore, God’s remission works grace, but the priest’s remission works peace, which is itself a grace and a gift of God because it is the faith of remission and present grace. And in my understanding, I would say this is what our teachers say is effectively conferred by the sacraments of the Church, not the first justifying grace, which must be present before the sacrament in adults, but, as Romans 1[:17] says, “Faith to faith”: for it is necessary for the one who approaches to believe. [Hebrews 11:6] But the baptized must also believe that he has believed correctly and has approached, or else he will never have peace, which is obtained only through faith. Therefore, Peter does not loose before Christ, but declares and shows the loosing. Whoever believes this with confidence has truly obtained peace and remission from God (that is, be certain that you are absolved), not by the certainty of the thing but by the certainty of faith because of the infallible merciful word of the promise: “Whatever you loose,” etc. [Matthew 16:19] So Romans 5[:1]: “Having been justified freely by his grace, we have peace with God through faith,” not, of course, through the thing, etc.

If I understand this correctly and truly, it is not false nor improper (as they claim) to say that the Pope remits guilt; indeed, the remission of guilt is incomparably better than the remission of any penalties, although they so exclusively preach this that they have made the remission of guilt to be of no account in the Church, whereas the truth is the opposite: for where a man has been pacified by the remission of guilt (which he cannot give to himself since no one ought to believe in himself, unless he prefers to create two disturbances out of one), then every penalty is no penalty at all to him. For the confusion of conscience creates painful penalties, but the joy of conscience makes penalties desirable.

And this understanding of the power of the keys is abundant among the people, who seek and receive absolution with simple faith. However, some more learned individuals vacillate with their own contritions and works and confessions, trying to quiet themselves, and they accomplish nothing other than moving from one disturbance to another because they trust in themselves and their own works, whereas if they felt the evil of conscience, they ought to believe Christ saying: “Whatever you loose,” etc. [Matthew 16:19] The recent theologians contribute too much to this evil of conscience when they treat and teach the sacrament of penance in such a way that the people learn to trust in their own contritions and satisfactions, presuming vainly that they can erase their sins, which can do nothing but make them like the hemorrhaging woman in the Gospel, who, having spent all her substance on physicians, [Mark 5:26] only grew worse. First, faith in Christ, the generous giver of remission, ought to be taught, and the despair of one’s own contrition and satisfaction ought to be persuaded, so that, with the confidence and joy of heart firm in the mercy of Christ, they might eventually cheerfully hate sin, be contrite, and make satisfaction.

Nor are the jurists negligent authors of the same torment, who, while they excessively extol the power of the Pope, have made his power more esteemed and admired than the word of Christ, which should be honored by faith. For people should be taught to learn to trust not in the power of the Pope but in the word of Christ’s promise through the Pope, if they wish to have peace in their consciences. For you have nothing because the Pope gives it, but if you believe you receive it, you have it: you have as much as you believe because of Christ’s promise.

If the power of the keys were not so effective for the peace of the heart and the remission of guilt, then indeed, as some say, indulgences would be devalued. For what great benefit is conferred if only the remission of penalties is granted, since it is the duty of Christians to despise even death?

Likewise, why did Christ say, “Whose sins you forgive, they are forgiven,” [John 20:23] unless it was because no one’s sins are forgiven unless they believe they are forgiven by the priest who forgives them? Therefore, in the word “Whose sins you forgive,” power is conferred, but in the word “they are forgiven,” the sinner is provoked to believe in the remission, just as in the word “Whatever you loose,” power is given, and in the word “it will be loosed,” our faith is stirred. He could have said, “Whose penalties you remit or whose punishments,” if he wanted to be understood that way. But he knew that a conscience already justified by grace would vomit up grace in its trepidation unless it was aided by faith in the presence of grace through the ministry of the priest; indeed, sin would remain unless one believed it to be forgiven. For the remission of sin and the gift of grace are not enough, but it is also necessary to believe that it has been forgiven, and this is the testimony that the Spirit of God gives to our spirit, that we are the children of God, [Romans 8:16] because being a child of God is so hidden (since he appears to himself to be an enemy of God) that unless it is believed to be so, it cannot be so. Thus the Lord makes his saints so wonderful that no one would endure the hand of the justifying and healing one unless he believed him to justify and heal, just as a physician of the body, cutting the sick, is not believed to be doing it for healing by the sick unless good friends persuade him.

Therefore, whether the priest is a cause without which the remission of sins cannot be obtained or something else, I do not care, as long as it is in some way established that the priest remits sins and guilt, just as the friends of the sick are truly credited with his health, since their persuasion made the sick person believe in the physician who was cutting.

Nor here is it necessary to consider ‘what if the priest errs?’ because that remission relies not on the priest but on the word of Christ. Therefore, whether the priest does it for gain or honor, you only wish for remission without pretense and believe in the promising Christ: indeed, even if he absolved frivolously, you would still obtain peace from your faith, just as baptism or the Eucharist is given, whether he seeks gain or is frivolous and jesting, your faith fully receives it. So great is the word of Christ and faith in it. For we read among the acts of the martyrs that a certain mime, in jest, indeed mocking, wished to be baptized and, during the baptism, was truly baptized by his fellow mockers, who were Gentiles, and was immediately crowned with martyrdom by the same. Likewise, St. Athanasius, as a boy, baptized boys, whom the Bishop of Alexandria later judged to have been baptized, as is recorded in ecclesiastical history. And St. Cyprian, although he reprimanded a peace granted too hastily by a certain Bishop Therapio, nonetheless wanted it to be valid. Therefore, we are justified by faith, pacified by faith, not by works, penances, or confessions.

Concerning this sixth and seventh conclusion, that lion of ours triumphs with glory, indeed, sings an encomium over me before the victory, and from that sink of opinions distinguishes one penalty as satisfactive and vindicative, another as medicinal and curative, as if it were necessary to believe these things even if they were dreamed, although they prudently conceal this distinction before the people, lest indulgences, or rather profits, become cheapened if the people understood that such meager and sterile vindicative (that is, fictional) penalties were being remitted, then to make it known to all that they know neither what is old nor what is new about the priesthood. They introduce another cloud of words and a distinction of the keys, some of authority, some of excellence, some ministerial. So our most excellent teachers, inquisitors of heretical depravity and defenders of the Catholic faith, know nothing, except what they have sucked from the scraps and dregs of the questions of the fourth book of Sentences, perhaps wanting that whatever Christ looses with the keys of excellence in heaven (for he does not loose on earth), it will be loosed in heaven above by God. Again, as God is a priest, another superior God must be invented, with whom whatever he looses with the keys of authority in heaven above will be loosed. But let the nonsense cease: we know only one set of keys, given only on earth. Now, when they infer ‘Therefore, one errs who says the priest of the new law only looses by approving and declaring,’ (for this was the duty of the priesthood), O the acumen of intellect and the great weight of learning, men truly worthy to inquire into heretics and defend the Catholic faith, but against stones and wood! How much more rightly does the Apostle Paul assert that the old priesthood consisted in judging lepers, in purifications and cleansing of the flesh, in food and drink, and dress and feast days, etc.! By which as a figure were signified the justifications in spirit and cleanliness of the heart, which Christ works in the Church by the ministry of the new priesthood. Although I did not propose the sixth conclusion from my heart, as I said there, but because others think so, yet since even the adversaries with all their Masters cannot show to this day how the priest remits guilt unless they bring forth that heretical but common opinion that the sacraments of the new law give justifying grace to those who do not place an obstacle, although it is impossible for the sacrament to be conferred beneficially except to those who already believe and are just and worthy (for it is necessary for the one who approaches to believe, [Hebrews 11:6] and then not the sacrament but the faith of the sacrament justifies): therefore, whatever the sophists of opinion chatter, it is more likely that the priest of the new law only declares and approves the solution of God (that is, shows it) and by this declaration and judgment calms the conscience of the sinner, who is bound to believe and have peace by his judgment. Just as the old priest calmed those whom he judged clean in body or clothing, though he could cleanse no one, not even himself. For what that priest did in bodies, this one does in consciences, and thus I responded, the spirit of the letter and the truth of the figure. And I await these defenders of the Catholic faith to show how they can explain the power of the keys without heretical depravity.

Conclusion 8. Penitential canons are imposed only on the living, and nothing should be imposed on the dying according to the same canons.

This I argue, though many may wonder that it is a matter of doubt.

First, it is proven by Romans 7[:1]: “The law has dominion over a man as long as he lives,” etc. Since the Apostle interprets this regarding the divine law, it is even more true of human law. Hence he says in the same place: “When her husband has died, the woman is released from the law of her husband.” [Romans 7:2] Much more is the dead man himself released from the law of his living wife. The Apostle argues from the lesser: If the living is released by the death of the other, much more is the dead himself released, by whom the living is released.

Secondly, Canonical laws are bound to the circumstances of time, place, and persons, just as all other positive laws are, Distinction 29, as is known to all. For only the word of Christ is said to be: “Forever, O Lord, your word is firmly fixed in the heavens; your truth endures to all generations.” [Psalm 119:89] And “His righteousness endures forever.” [Psalm 111:3] But the word and righteousness of men last only for a time. Therefore, when those circumstances change, the laws cease, unless it is said that even after the city is devastated, the deserted place itself is still held to all that the city previously did, which is absurd.

Thirdly, if the law requires dispensing even with the living and changing the law when the condition of the law ceases or turns for the worse, since (as Pope Leo says) it ought not to contend against charity what was instituted for charity, then certainly when it begins to contend against unity, peace, etc., laws should be abolished for the dying, since not only does the condition of the laws cease there, but the one himself for whom and whose conditions they were placed.

Fourthly, from the very words of the law, in which days and years are clearly expressed, fasting, vigils, labors, pilgrimages, etc., which are manifestly of this life and cease with death when a man migrates into another life, where he neither fasts nor weeps nor eats nor sleeps, as he who has no body. Therefore, John Gerson dares to condemn indulgences granted under the title of many thousands of years, so that it is a miracle to me what has happened to the inquisitors of heretical depravity that they have not even burned him dead, who with such confidence pronounces against the custom of all stations in the city, especially against the use of that great dispenser of indulgences, Sixtus IV, urging prelates to correct and provide for these things in their offices, calling such indulgences' titles foolish and superstitious, etc.

Fifthly, considering the intention of the legislator of the canons, it is certain that they did not even think of imposing such canons on the dying. Imagine us asking a pontiff who enacts such laws, “Whom do you intend, O father, in your law, the living or the dead?” What would he respond but “Indeed the living? For what can I do with the dead, who have left my jurisdiction?”

Sixthly, it would be most cruel for a priest of Christ not to release a brother as he would want to be treated himself, and there is no reason why he should not, since it is in his power.

Seventhly, if penitential canons remain for the dead, then by the same reasoning, all other canons as well. Therefore, they should celebrate, observe festivals and vigils, say canonical hours, not eat eggs, milk, or meat on certain days, but only oil, fish, fruits, legumes, wear black or white garments according to the distinction of days, and other very heavy burdens, with which the miserable, once very free Church of Christ, is now oppressed. For there is no reason why some canons should cease because of time and not all. But if those that are good and meritorious for life cease, how much more those that are afflictive to them and sterile and hindering? Or are we here again inventing a substitution, so that just as they suffer other penalties proportionate to those, so they perform other works proportionate to them there, so that they are still said to be reading canonical hours?

Eighthly, in fact, canons are removed for those who are physically ill, even if they are not dying, both penitential and moral canons. For a sick priest is not bound to pray or celebrate, nor are others bound to fast, keep vigil, or abstain from meat, eggs, or milk. And all are not only free but even forbidden from what was previously holy commandments. For when the hand of the Lord touches them, they are told: “Why do you persecute me as God and are satisfied with my flesh?” [Job 19:22] Therefore, I argue: Canons are imposed not on the sick but on the healthy and strong, much less on the dead but on the living, or if the dying and dead are not free, why are the sick also not burdened and vexed by them? Finally, when health is restored, they are not bound to repeat what was omitted in sickness; how then can they be believed to repeat or pay canons after death?

But here some say, “What if someone omits the penances imposed on them while healthy and then confesses when they are dying? It seems that such a person must necessarily pay them in purgatory, even if other penances are not imposed or not imposed.” I respond that by no means, because by such omission, nothing else has happened except that the Church’s commandment has been violated, for which one must grieve, not repeat and fulfill for the past but only for the future. Sufficient for the day is its own trouble; [Matthew 6:34] the future will take care of itself. But if the transgression of any commandment were to be repeated so that none remains, it would especially need to be done in God’s commandments. But it is impossible for adultery not to be committed once chastity is lost.

Ninthly, whoever undergoes a greater penalty than was imposed on him is deservedly and by natural law released from lesser ones, but the dying undergo the ultimate, supreme, and greatest of penalties, namely death. Therefore, in the presence of death, every other penalty should be removed, since hardly anyone can bear this one penalty alone. And again, imagine someone dying in the presence of the legislator, offering himself to death, would he not immediately retract his laws?

Tenthly, certain illustrious doctors in the Church say that any Christian is most wealthy because by voluntary death, he can pay everything and immediately ascend, since nothing is greater than voluntary death undertaken for God: therefore, canons reserved for that are in vain. This is the opinion of William of Paris, Gerson, and they are followed by a considerable multitude not unreasonably.

Eleventhly, if death is not enough of a penalty unless the dead person also bears canons, then the penalty of the canons will be greater than the penalty of death, which lasts beyond death, and it will be an insult to the death of Christians, of which it is said: “Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of his saints.” [Psalm 116:15]

Twelfthly, imagine a sinner being seized and, in the very act of confessing Christ, immediately undergoing martyrdom before satisfying the canons (as is read of St. Boniface, the martyr), will purgatory delay him so that he may not be with Christ? And will it happen that prayers will be offered for the martyr in the Church? But whoever voluntarily dies (for we are speaking of this, that is, of a Christian) also dies for the will of God.

Thirteenthly, why do not civil laws also remain to be fulfilled after death, since they also bind before God and in heaven, not by their own power, but by that of Christ [Matthew 22:21] and the Apostles Peter [1 Peter 2:13] and Paul [Romans 13:1], who teach that one must be subject to them with sincerity and for conscience’s sake, for such is the will of God?

Fourteenthly, canons cease when a penitent layperson changes status, for example, into the priesthood, or a priest into the episcopate or into monasticism. And this cessation occurs in this life, and not in the change of death? What could be more absurd?

Fifteenthly, this opinion of canons to be fulfilled after death has absolutely no authority of Scripture, canons, or probable reason but seems to have been introduced by the mere inertia and negligence of priests, as many other superstitious practices.

Sixteenthly, to this, we have examples of the ancient fathers and certainly one Cyprian, the strictest observer of ecclesiastical censures and disciplines: yet he orders in Epistle 17, Book 3, that peace be granted to those who are in danger of death so that they may come to the Lord in peace, having made their confession to either a priest or deacon, as he says there. But that granting of peace is nothing other than what is now called plenary remission, as is evident to those who are attentive.

Therefore, we conclude that canons should only be imposed on the living and even then only on the healthy and strong, indeed only on the sluggish and those who are unwilling to do better on their own. Certainly, I would not have extended this so widely if I did not know that some hold the contrary opinion too tenaciously, which they cannot prove by any means. For if I wished to deal with intelligent and learned men, I would rather be silent than speak.

But here someone may say, “To speak thus is to vilify indulgences too much if only canonical penalties, not all, and not even those of this life, are remitted.” I answer: It is better for indulgences to be devalued than for the cross of Christ to be emptied, and it is better to have indulgences held in low esteem than to teach anything in the Church that can be accused of fiction to the confusion of the Church. I openly confess and protest with a free conscience that I do not care much about indulgences concerning the remission of penalties (in which they alone glory), but I highly venerate, embrace, and rejoice in them concerning the remission of guilt according to my understanding above, which they think does not exist at all.

To this eighth conclusion, one leaden dagger is objected, namely, that it is found in the laws that even the dead are excommunicated, as is testified above all by Canon “A nobis,” Extra. de sen. excom. How I feared they might also say that sensitive penalties and satisfactions are inflicted on the dead! But it is well that they only said the dead are excommunicated: thus also the dead can be absolved, no one denies that. But what does that absolution have to do with the remission of penalties? Is this the most subtle dialectic by which they teach that one cannot be a theologian without it? Perhaps in the fifth figure that conclusion holds, ‘Someone is absolved from excommunication, therefore satisfactory penalties are remitted.’ So why do they lavish indulgences if the one absolved from sin immediately also has the remission of penalties? But if satisfaction remains for those absolved, how does absolution benefit or remove penalty for the dead? Therefore, this syllogism is futile: just as excommunication extends to the dead, so too the remission of penalties. Indeed, as the jurists themselves say: excommunication of the dead does nothing to the dead, just as absolution confers nothing, but all these things are done for our terror, except that such a person is not publicly prayed for. Therefore, he suffers no more from such excommunication than a house or garment would if excommunicated: thus, again, he is no more helped by absolution. But I will refrain from confuting these loquacious contradictions further since they contain nothing but scholastic opinions neither based on Scriptures nor on ecclesiastical fathers nor canons. They always beg the question or, if they do not do so, at least blabber like angry women with these words: ‘Error, rage, madness, error, error.’ In these words, they want to see the sum of their wisdom and knowledge established.

Conclusion 9. Therefore, the Holy Spirit does us good by always excepting in the Pope’s decrees the article of death and necessity.

This conclusion is more of a proof of the preceding one. It is certain that if the Supreme Pontiff wants the articles of temporal necessity to be excepted, much more the necessity of eternity, to which man goes by death, since the sick or legally impeded person is bound only by temporal impotence. Indeed, even if the Supreme Pontiff does not except necessity, it is nonetheless understood as excepted, since necessity has no law. But death is the necessity of necessities and the ultimate and greatest impediment of all.

Conclusion 10. Unlearned and wrong are the priests who reserve canonical penances for purgatory for the dying.

And this too is a manifest corollary of the ninth conclusion. Certainly, there are some who marvel if these things are done by priests. But indeed, they are done. Yet to do so is to weigh the obedience of canons more than the obedience of the calling of God and to prefer the lesser works of the canons to the price of the most precious death of Christians. I do not know if those who are imbued with such an opinion hold the rule of true faith.

Secondly, it is known and celebrated among distinguished authors in the Church that if God were to rapture a man into ecstasy or give him a singular illumination in the very midst of the works of ecclesiastical obedience, that man is bound to interrupt the work and leave the obedience of the Church to obey God rather than men. [Acts 5:29] Indeed, they say that even in the canonical hours, attention to the words must be omitted against the commandment of the Church if some heavenly illumination and affection arises. Therefore, if the laws of the Church are suspended in these vocations, how much more should they be suspended in the vocation and ecstasy so great, namely, of death? Unless perhaps it follows that the multitude of the foolish must be obeyed, who are so stuck in their ceremonial works that they often postpone manifest obedience to God and men for the sake of those and think they have done rightly if they have done those things only, but never the rest.

Thirdly, the Church would indeed be quite impious toward God if it were to retain him in its lower court whom God is already calling to his supreme tribunal. Or when does the Supreme Pontiff allow a defendant to be held under the law and jurisdiction of the lower court of a bishop or prelate after he has been summoned to appear before his court? Does he require that from his subordinates, which he himself does not permit to his superior God? Does a man close God’s hand, and can a man not close a man’s hand? Far from it. But certainly, if he imposes canons on the dying, it is clear that he judges and punishes him according to his own court.

These are, therefore, nearly twenty reasons that have moved me (as I hope) not to doubt the matter of canonical penalties, since there is no authority, canon, reason, or universal usage of the Church on the contrary, but only the abuse of some.

Conclusion 11. The tares of changing canonical penalties into purgatorial ones seem certainly sown by sleeping bishops.

So then, no one should think that I am slandering the bishops by saying they have slept. The words of the Gospel, not mine, are these, except that it does not name the bishops but men. [Matthew 13:25] It is certain, however, that by ‘men’ it means the greater and rulers of the Church, unless you take the spirit and mind of each person over their body by a trope. Therefore, the pontiffs of the Church do not teach these things, for (as I said) we have no canon or statute from them by which this could be taught. Therefore, some canonists labor in vain, trying to show what those years, days, and quadragenas in purgatory are, when in truth there are none or at least none proven to be, but the error comes from not considering that the canons are statutes for the time of this life and bind on earth, like those who change their municipality, and the municipal laws are changed along with it. But if something is owed, he is compelled to satisfy it before changing. Therefore, nothing at all should be imposed on the dying, nor should they be remitted to purgatory with the residue of penance (as Gerson asserts in some place) but rather (as the same more wisely opines elsewhere) to be encouraged to accept death firmly and willingly for the will of God.

Here we must consider that comment and futile quibble by which they wish to frighten little children with phantoms, saying that because the priest does not know the measure of the contrition of the absolved, he may not impose as much satisfaction as divine justice requires, so it is necessary to satisfy this either by one’s own work or by indulgences.

First, see how their bare words sound like oracles without any proof, while the prophet says: “The Lord does nothing without revealing his secret to his servants the prophets.” [Amos 3:7] Nor is it credible that since our God is the one who teaches us what is useful, [Micah 6:8] as he speaks through the prophet, he would not also reveal this exacting of his justice somewhere.

Then I do not know whether those who say so wish to make God an usurer or a merchant, who does not remit freely unless satisfaction is given as if it were a price. Or perhaps they want us to deal with our sins before God’s justice, before which no man is justified?

Thirdly, if this is so, why then does the Pope grant plenary absolution, since he equally does not know the measure of contrition, nor can he supply the imperfection of contrition? But his perfect absolution does not need it. And he does not have a different kind of power than another priest, but a different quantity, because he remits all sins, while others remit some, and as much satisfaction as others can remit in some, he can remit in all, and no more. Otherwise, the Church would be a monster constituted of a power of a different kind.

Fourthly, the primitive Church also did not know the measure of contrition and the weight of spirits, yet it nonetheless remitted sins fully after the penance was performed, which, according to their opinion, it could not know to have been sufficient.

Fifthly, again the dream arises from the fact that they build the remission of sins not upon faith and the merciful word of Christ but upon the work of man’s running, because they imagine that full remission cannot be granted except to those perfectly contrite, of whom there is none in this life. And yet they concede it is granted by the Pope even to those imperfectly contrite.

Sixthly, if God’s justice requires something, it is now beyond the Church’s power, which has nothing to change what God wills or imposes. For the firm sentence stands: “My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose.” [Isaiah 46:10]

The same reasoning also confutes that which others say, that canonical penalties are declaratory of the penalties required by divine justice. First, that is not proven: therefore, it is dismissed with the same ease. If it declares, then it is impossible for the Church to remit the same, because it did not impose them, but declares those imposed by God, or they will be forced to say that Christ’s word should be ordered thus: “Whatever I bind, you will loose.”

Conclusion 12. In the past, canonical penalties were imposed not after, but before absolution as tests of true contrition.

Again, this twelfth conclusion proves the eighth because canonical penalties are so temporal that they have their end in absolution itself. But since no one about to die should not be absolved (other things being equal), it is clear that not only should they not be imposed but those already imposed should be relaxed: if the ancient custom of the Church had been observed until now, this error would not have arisen. Now, however, when absolution precedes penalties, it has come to pass that in the injury of absolution, they remit not the absolved but send them to death, making a thing very similar to a monster when, in absolving, they do not absolve and in the same voice bind the absolved.

First, the conclusion is proven by the very use of solemn penance described in the canons, of which either the example or remnant is still practiced in the penance for homicide. For why do they absolve the living from penance here and not remit them to others to be performed in life, when they are so rigid with the dying?

Secondly, thus Blessed Jerome writes that his Fabiola was absolved. Thus Blessed Ambrose absolved his Theodosius. Finally, it is found most frequently in the letters of the glorious martyr Cyprian, Book 3. Also in the Ecclesiastical and Tripartite History. Also in Dionysius in the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, the state of penitents and energumens is described. In all these, we see that sinners were not received into grace and absolution except after penance was performed.

Thirdly, nor did Christ absolve Mary Magdalene and the adulteress except after tears, anointing, and the most vehement and humble affliction.

Fourthly, we read in Genesis 44 that Joseph afflicted his brothers with many trials to see if they were truly affectionate toward him and Benjamin, and when he found this, he revealed himself to them and received them into grace.

Conclusion 13. Those who are about to die resolve everything through death and, according to the laws of the Canons, they are already dead, having by right a release from them.

This conclusion is self-evident. It would indeed be a strange matter if someone who is about to die is released from all works, things, laws, and men, and moreover from the very laws of God, where it is commanded to give alms, to pray, to fast, to bear the cross, to labor, and to perform whatever can be done with the body, and finally from the very works of holy love towards one’s neighbor (which alone never fails), and yet is not able to be released from the mere laws of the Canons. Then the Christian would be more miserable than all other peoples, as if even the dead were vexed by the laws of the living, when rather such a person should be free among the dead through Christ, in whom he lives.

Let us now finally gather the summary, so that we may see how many penalties are remitted through indulgences. It seems to me that six kinds of people are exempted, who do not need indulgences: Firstly, the dead or those about to die; Secondly, the infirm; Thirdly, those legitimately hindered; Fourthly, those who have not committed crimes; Fifthly, those who have committed crimes but not publicly; Sixthly, those who perform better deeds. We shall demonstrate these and at least make them appear plausible.

The first and perhaps most compelling point is that indulgences are only necessary for public crimes, such as adultery, homicide, usury, fornication, drunkenness, rebellion, etc. If these crimes are secret, they do not seem to pertain to the Canons. First, because the Canons establish public penances, and the Church does not have the authority to judge secret sins. Secondly, because a secret sin, just as it should not be punished publicly, likewise does not require public remission, but indulgences are public remissions and are granted in the presence of the Church, as is evident. In fact, some even think that there is a certain difference between indulgences granted through public Bulls and those granted privately in the forum of conscience. Thirdly, the Church is not offended by secret sins, but only by public ones: therefore, it is not bound to impose public penance to repair scandals and rebuild what has been destroyed. Fourthly, nowadays even jurists do not publicly condemn criminals unless they are notoriously known by law, tolerating those who are notoriously known by deed, whose sentence I certainly do not disapprove of nor consider erroneous, since no one is permitted to judge, condemn, or despise another, no matter how sinful, unless they have the authority to judge over him, lest it be said to them, ‘Who are you to judge another’s servant?’ [Romans 14:4] Nevertheless, the negligence of charity is reprehensible both in prelates and subjects, for allowing notorious sinners to act freely and not caring that they be made notorious by law, according to the command of Christ: ‘Tell it to the Church, if the Church does not listen,’ etc. [Matthew 18:17]

Secondly. I believe it is clear to everyone that Canonical penalties are imposed solely for crimes: therefore, indulgences (if they are remissions of Canons) are only useful to criminals. Hence, those who lead a common life, which is not without venial sins, do not need indulgences, especially since penalties should not be imposed for venial sins, and they are not even required to confess them: much less do they need to redeem indulgences. Otherwise, it would be necessary to bear Canonical penalties at all times, since no one (as I said) lives without venial sins. And furthermore, I shall say: indulgences are not to be redeemed for every mortal sin. I demonstrate it thus: No one is certain that he does not always sin mortally due to the most hidden vice of pride. Therefore, if Canonical penalties were imposed for every mortal sin, the entire life of the faithful would be beyond the evangelical cross, but also a purgatory of Canonical penalties. Consequently, indulgences would always have to be redeemed, and nothing else would be done. If this is absurd, it is clear that indulgences are only for sins punished by the Canons: however, sins can only be punished by the Canons if they are certain and public crimes. Or if I am much pressed, at least those that are certain to be crimes, as I said about adultery, theft, homicide, etc., that is, manifest works done openly. Therefore, the consent of any mortal does not pertain to Canonical penalties either to be imposed or remitted, nor even the word of the mouth, unless it is the occasion of a future act, as is also clear from the words of the Canons.

Thirdly. Canons are not imposed on crimes in such a way that they cease if someone does better works, as if he enters a monastery or dedicates himself to the service of the poor and hospital or suffers for Christ or dies according to the will of God or does something similar or greater than these: in these cases, it is clear that Canonical penalties cease, nor do indulgences benefit them. Hence, they are imposed only on the idle, those who repent coldly, and the delicate, i.e., sinners: therefore, indulgences seem to be properly granted only to the harsh and impatient.

Fourthly. For those who are justly hindered so that they cannot bear penalties, it is undoubted that they are understood not to be imposed, as if someone were a captive to the Turks and infidels, or if a servant is bound to obey a master under the command of the Gospel or even to repay a debt, to serve his wife and children by working with his hands and seeking sustenance: since he is hindered by these, he is not bound to abandon them, indeed he is bound to do them and omit the Canons and obey God. Therefore, he does not need the remissions of those whom he was not capable of imposing.

Fifthly. The Canons impose nothing on the infirm, so they are sought for the healthy, and those who are not among those who say: ‘The hand of the Lord has touched me.’ [Job 19:21] For to them, not the imposition of penalties, but visitation and consolation is due, according to the saying of Christ: ‘I was sick, and you did not visit me.’ [Matthew 25:43] Otherwise, it will be said to the pontiffs: ‘For those whom you have struck, they have persecuted, and they have added to the pain of my wounds,’ [Psalm 69:27] and that of Job [19:22]: ‘Why do you persecute me like God?’ Therefore, indulgences are not necessary for them.

Sixthly. Finally, for the dead and dying, as has been said. You see, therefore, how many Christians there are who do not need indulgences, nor are they useful to them: but I return to the conclusion so that I may finally finish this matter and strike them with their own sword.

It is known by everyone in the church that in the agony and moment of death, any priest is a Pope, therefore he remits everything to the dying. If a priest is absent, surely the vow suffices: therefore, he is absolved from everything from which the Pope can absolve him, hence indulgences seem to confer nothing at all to the deceased, since whatever can be dissolved has been dissolved in death. From this, it is also clear that the difference in degrees and laws is understood only concerning the living and healthy. Therefore, indulgences are clearly useful to manifest criminals, living, healthy, and strong, not hindered and unwilling to do better. Here, if I am wrong, let someone who can and knows recall me.

But if you ask ‘from what penalties then are souls redeemed, or what do they suffer in purgatory, if they suffer nothing from the Canons?’ I say: If I knew this, why would I dispute and inquire? I am not as experienced and knowledgeable about what God does with separated souls as those most copious redeemers of souls, who pronounce everything so confidently, as if it were impossible for them to be human. The difficulty is added by the fact that there are doctors who think that souls suffer nothing from fire, but only in the fire, so that the fire is not a torturer but a prison for souls. Therefore, I enter into a very doubtful and disputable matter here, and I present what I have perceived concerning these matters.

Conclusion 14. The imperfect health or charity of the dying necessarily involves great fear, and the greater the fear, the less the charity.

This is evident from 1 John 4[:18]: ‘There is no fear in charity, but perfect charity casts out fear, for fear has to do with punishment.’ Therefore, if perfect charity casts out fear, it is necessary that imperfect charity does not cast out fear. And because of this, fear exists with imperfect charity. But where is that perfect charity? And (to digress a little) who is without fear of death, judgment, hell? For in a man, no matter how holy, there are remnants of the old self and sin, and the children of Israel cannot entirely destroy the Jebusites, Canaanites, and the other nations at this time, the mark of the old Adam remains. This old self is error, concupiscence, anger, fear, hope, despair, a bad conscience, horror of death, etc. These belong to the old and carnal man: they are diminished in the new man, but not extinguished until he himself is extinguished through death. As the Apostle says: ‘Although our outer man is perishing, the inner man is being renewed day by day.’ [2 Corinthians 4:16] Therefore, these remnants of the old self are not removed by indulgences or by begun contrition, but they begin to be removed and are more and more removed by progress. This is the health of the spirit, nothing else but faith or charity in Christ.

Given this, the conclusion is sufficiently clear because if someone is overtaken by death before perfect charity, which casts out fear, has been attained, he necessarily dies with fear and horror until charity is perfected and casts out that fear. But this fear is the very bad and trembling conscience due to the lack of faith. For there is no fearful conscience except that which is either empty or imperfect in faith. Thus also the Apostle says that the blood of Christ liberates our consciences from dead works. [Hebrews 9:14] And again in Hebrews 10[:22]: ‘Sprinkled hearts from a bad conscience in the fullness of faith.’

In short, if I can prove that the cause of horror and fear is mistrust, and again that the cause of security is faith, I believe I have simultaneously proven that someone dying with imperfect faith necessarily fears and trembles. But that mistrust is the cause of terror, despair, damnation, is frequently read in the Gospel. Firstly, when Peter ordered the Lord to depart from him, ‘for I am a sinful man,’ [Luke 5:8] he said. Secondly, when he began to sink because of his little faith. [Matthew 14:30] Thirdly, when the disciples, due to their disturbance, wanted to cry out when they saw Christ walking on the sea, thinking him to be a ghost. [Matthew 14:26] Fourthly, when they were troubled and thought they were seeing a spirit when he entered to them with the doors closed. [Luke 24:37] In all these instances, it is shown that mistrust is the cause of fear and horror: therefore, all disturbance comes from mistrust, all security from trust in God, and trust comes from charity because it is necessary that one pleases in whom he trusts.

Conclusion 15. This fear and horror alone (without mentioning other things) is sufficient to constitute the punishment of purgatory, as it is very close to the horror of despair.

I do not speak of the fire and place of purgatory, not because I deny them, but because that is a different discussion which I have not undertaken, and furthermore, because I do not know where the place of purgatory is, although Blessed Thomas thinks it to be under the earth. For now, I remain with Blessed Augustine, who believes that the places of souls are hidden and removed from our knowledge. I say this so that the heretic Pighardus does not think he has triumphed over me by claiming that purgatory does not exist because I confess that the place of it is unknown, nor that the Roman Church errs because it does not reject the opinion of Blessed Thomas. I am most certain that purgatory exists, and I am not much moved by what heretics babble, especially since more than a thousand years ago Blessed Augustine in his “Confessions” (Book IX) prayed and requested prayer for his mother and father. His saintly mother, as he writes, desired that her memory be honored at the Lord’s altar at her death, and he narrates that this was done by Blessed Ambrose. If purgatory did not exist in the time of the Apostles (as the arrogant Pighardus claims), is it to be believed that a heretic, who was born scarcely fifty years ago, is right and that the faith of so many centuries is false? Especially since he does nothing but say “I do not believe,” thus proving all his claims and disproving all ours, as if wood and stone do not also disbelieve. But these matters are for another work and time.

Therefore, it is conceded that horror exists in souls: now I will prove that this is a punishment of purgatory or at least the greatest of its punishments.

First. Everyone agrees that the punishments of purgatory and hell are the same, except that they differ in eternity. Yet Scripture describes the punishments of hell as turmoil, fear, horror, and flight, as in Psalm 1[:4]: “Not so the wicked, not so, but they are like chaff which the wind drives away.” In Job, Isaiah, and many other places, the wicked are compared to chaff and dust carried and scattered by a whirlwind, signifying the horrible flight of the damned. Again, in Psalm 2[:5]: “Then He will speak to them in His wrath, and in His fury He will terrify them.” And in Isaiah 28[:16]: “Whoever trusts in Him will not be confounded,” meaning he will not hasten, will not be afraid, nor flee confused and horrified, clearly indicating that those who do not trust will be confounded and afraid. Proverbs 1[:33]: “Whoever listens to me will dwell securely and will be at ease, without dread of disaster.” And in Psalm 112[:7]: “He will not fear bad news.” In these and other passages of Scripture, terror, horror, fear, trembling are expressed as the punishment of the wicked, while the opposite is asserted for the righteous. Finally, Blessed James [2:19] says that demons believe and tremble. And Deuteronomy 28[:65] clearly pronounces that the punishment of the wicked is fear, saying: “The Lord your God will give you a trembling heart,” etc. For if that fear were not present, neither death nor hell nor any punishment would be distressing, as is stated in the Song of Songs [8:6]: “Love is strong as death, jealousy as cruel as the grave,” which has been sufficiently shown in the Martyrs, to the extent that the Spirit says of the wicked in Psalm 13 [14:5]: “They trembled with fear where there was no fear,” and in Proverbs 28[:1]: “The wicked flee when no one pursues, but the righteous are bold as a lion.” Otherwise, why does one fear death and suffer, while another scorns it, unless because he lacks the inner confidence of righteousness and fears where he should not fear?

Second. 2 Thessalonians 1[:8]: “Those who do not believe the Gospel will pay the penalty of eternal destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His might,” because with His face alone, God torments and afflicts them, for it is unbearable to them. Therefore, they will flee and not escape but will be caught in distress. Thus, Wisdom [6:5]: “He will appear to you suddenly, fearfully.” And Psalm 20 [21:10]: “You will make them as a blazing oven in the time of your anger.” Otherwise, where does that cry come from: “Mountains, fall on us, and hills, cover us,” [Hosea 10:8] and that of Isaiah 2[:10]: “Enter the rock and hide in the dust from the terror of the Lord and from the glory of His majesty,” and that of Job [14:13]: “Oh, that You would hide me in Sheol, that You would conceal me until Your wrath is past!” It is evident, therefore, that their greatest punishment arises from the presence of the Lord, while they are confounded by their most filthy impurity when compared to such purity.

Third. And the Church, in the person of souls, sings and groans in Psalm 6[:3]: “My bones are troubled, and my soul is greatly troubled.” And in Psalm 114: “The sorrows of death surrounded me, and the dangers of hell found me.” [Psalm 116:3] Hence, the most common prayer is that we wish them rest, obviously understanding that they are restless. But punishments do not cause unrest, as is evident in the Martyrs and steadfast men, but horror and the flight from punishments, which arises from a lack of confidence in God. As each one believes, so it is for him, and such are his punishments and everything else, as he himself is. Therefore, the righteous are not disturbed by whatever happens to them (says Wisdom [Proverbs 12:21]). Again, the wicked are terrified (Leviticus 26[:36]) by the sound of a flying leaf, and Isaiah 57[:20]: “The wicked are like the troubled sea, when it cannot rest, whose waters cast up mire and dirt; there is no peace for the wicked,” says the Lord God.

Fourth. Some living people have tasted these punishments, namely of hell: therefore, it is much more believable that they are inflicted on the dead in purgatory, for David, having experienced it, says: “If the Lord had not helped me, my soul would almost have dwelt in hell.” [Psalm 94:17] And elsewhere: “My soul is full of evils, and my life has drawn near to hell.” [Psalm 88:4] And again: “Our bones are scattered at the mouth of hell.” [Psalm 141:7] And: “I am counted with those who go down to the pit.” [Psalm 28:1] And again: “You have shown me many troubles and evil, and again brought me up from the depths of the earth.” [Psalm 71:20] Hezekiah, indeed, says: “I said, 'In the middle of my days, I shall go to the gates of Sheol.’” [Isaiah 38:10] And below: “‘Like a lion, He breaks all my bones,’ which certainly can only be understood as having been done through intolerable horror.” [Isaiah 38:13]

Fifth. How many are there who still taste these punishments today! For John Tauler, in his German sermons, teaches nothing else but the passions of these punishments, of which he also brings some examples. And I know indeed that this teacher is unknown to the Schools of Theologians and perhaps therefore despised, but I have found more solid and sincere theology in him (though he is entirely written in the vernacular of the Germans) than in all the Scholastic doctors of all universities in their sentences.

But I also know a man who asserted that he had often suffered these punishments, though in a very short time, but so great and so infernal that neither tongue can speak, nor pen write, nor the inexperienced believe, that if they were completed or lasted for half an hour, even for the tenth part of an hour, he would utterly perish, and all his bones would be reduced to ashes. Here God appears terribly angry, and with Him, all creation together. Then there is no escape, no consolation, neither within nor without, but accusation from all sides. Then he weeps this verse: “I am cast out from before Your eyes,” [Psalm 31:23] nor does he dare even to say: “Lord, rebuke me not in Your wrath.” [Psalm 6:2] In this moment (wonderful to say), the soul cannot believe that it can ever be redeemed unless it feels that the punishment is not yet completed. It is, however, eternal, nor can it consider it temporal, it only leaves a bare desire for help and a horrible groaning, but it does not know from where to seek help. Here is a soul stretched out with Christ, so that all its bones may be counted, nor is there any angle in it not filled with the bitterest bitterness, horror, fear, sadness, but all these are eternal. And to give a somewhat similar example: if a sphere passes over a straight line, any point on the line touched by it bears the whole sphere, but does not comprehend the whole sphere. So the soul in its point, when touched by the passing eternal flood, feels and drinks nothing but eternal punishment, but it does not remain, for it passes again. Therefore, if such an inferior punishment happens to the living, that is, that intolerable fear and inconsolable, it seems much more likely that such a punishment, but continuous, is for souls in purgatory. And this is that internal fire much more atrocious than the external. But if anyone does not believe these things, we do not contend, but only assert that those who proclaim indulgences say many things which they either do not know or doubt, too boldly. For it is more credible to believe those who have experienced these things than those who are inexperienced.

Sixth. The authority of the Church also supports this, which sings: “Deliver them from the mouth of the lion, lest Tartarus swallow them up,” and also “from the gates of hell”: by these words, it certainly seems to be indicated that souls are as if already at the gate and entrance of damnation and at the beginning of hell, which I said is close to despair, nor do I believe the words of the Church are in vain.

Conclusion 16. Hell, purgatory, and heaven seem to differ as despair, near despair, and security differ.

If anyone considers the two preceding conclusions to be true, he will also easily accept this one. Indeed, since we believe that peace, joy, and security reign in heaven in the light of God, and on the contrary, despair, pain, and horrible flight in outer darkness reign in hell, purgatory is, however, a middle state between the two, yet closer to hell than heaven (because they do not have joy and peace, indeed they participate in nothing of heaven, since the punishment is the same as hell, differing only in duration), it is clear enough that there is also despair, flight, horror, and pain in it. But I added “near despair” because that despair eventually ceases. Otherwise, truly, while in it, the soul feels nothing but despair, not that it despairs, but because it is in such turmoil and confusion of fear that it does not feel itself to hope. Only the Spirit helps their infirmities most intensely, interceding for them with unutterable groans. [Romans 8:26] Thus it also happens to those tempted in this life, that they do not know whether they hope or despair, indeed they seem to themselves to despair, with only a surviving groan for help. By this sign, others understand, not themselves, that they still hope. But I refrain from speaking more at length about this matter, which is very abstruse, lest the indulgence sellers accuse me of speaking without proof, although I do not assert what I do not know, but I say and inquire, and I contend that their presumed certainty is doubtful, indeed none.

Conclusion 17. It seems necessary for the souls in purgatory that as horror decreases, so charity increases.

And this relies on the preceding three Conclusions. But let us clarify it and propose (as we began) three kinds of souls of the departed. The first is those who are entirely devoid of faith (that is, damned): it is necessary that they be seized by extreme horror and despair at death, according to the saying: “The wicked man is caught in his own iniquity at his death,” [Proverbs 5:22] and again: “The death of sinners is the worst,” [Psalm 34:21] because they have no trust in God, therefore wrath seizes them. The second is those who are entirely full and perfect in faith (that is, blessed): it is necessary that they be received at death with supreme security and joy, according to the saying: “The righteous man, though he falls, shall not be cast down, for the Lord upholds him with His hand,” [Psalm 37:24] and again: “Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of His saints,” [Psalm 116:15] and again: “The righteous man, if he dies prematurely, shall be at rest.” [Wisdom 4:7] And the cause of both is that the unrighteous finds what he feared, and he always feared death and punishment. The righteous man, however, full of this life, most of all desired to be dissolved, therefore his desire was granted to him. The former did not complete his days, while the latter extended his sojourn beyond perfection: therefore, what the former dreads, the latter seeks, being affected by the most different zeal; what is supreme horror to the former is supreme gain and joy to the latter. The third is those who have imperfect faith, and these vary differently between full and no faith. But I believe it is not denied by anyone that some souls depart with imperfect faith, yet we will more fully persuade of this below. Therefore, since the imperfection of faith is nothing else but an imperfect renewal of life in the spirit, and still a remnant of the old nature of the flesh and Adam (for if it were perfect, they would not fear punishment nor die unwillingly, or depart from this life with earthly attachment), it seems clear that it is necessary for souls not only to remove punishments but also to add the perfection of newness and remove the residue of the old nature (that is, the love of life and the fear of death and judgment): for however much the punishment might be removed (if it were possible), by this removal alone they would not be healed, just as in this life one does not become better by the removal of punishments alone, but by the addition of grace and the removal of sin: therefore, first, sin must be removed from them, that is, the imperfection of faith, hope, and charity.

Second. No punishment is overcome by flight or fear. For the proverb is true: “He who fears hell will descend into it,” indeed, “he who fears frost, snow will fall on him,” Job 6[:16], that is, more will fall on him than he feared. Every punishment is increased and strengthened by fear of itself, just as it is diminished and weakened by love. Punishment is overcome by love and the embrace of itself: then no punishment is distressing while it is overcome: therefore, to one who loves, punishments and death are not distressing, but sweet, because they are overcome by love and spirit; they are distressing to the fearful, because they dominate him through fear and the letter. Therefore, if purgatory afflicts souls and fear is distressing to them, it is evident that love and the spirit of freedom are lacking to them, and that the letter and fear are present, and I call this lack of love an imperfect healing of the spirit: but since without perfect healing no one will enter heaven, I finally conclude that it is necessary for them to have charity and healing increased, just as horror is decreased.

If anyone denies or does not believe these things and contends that the souls there are perfect in the life of the spirit and only atoning for past penalties, I first reply: let them prove their position, which I deny and am certain they will prove with either no or weaker reasons. Second, I ask: Do they deny the threefold kind of souls of the departed mentioned above? If they admit the third kind, let them respond to the foregoing, how the pusillanimity of the spirit and fear are removed, when a perfect man, like his Father God, fears nothing, can do all things, endures all things, rejoices and delights in all things. If they do not admit it, but think that faith is perfected at death, and thus only penalties are left to be paid, and this is all that purgatory is, namely the reason for owed penalties, then beyond the very strong and irrefutable argument I have already produced, namely, that no Scripture or reason can prove their position, I will still proceed with a persuasive argument. For those opining and glossing do the same.

First. Why does God want the perfect in spirit to be punished? For satisfaction? On the contrary: Satisfaction of charity surpasses all satisfaction: for God Himself also seeks nothing else even through punishments than that charity be perfected. Charity indeed (unless the Apostle [1 Peter 4:8] lies) covers a multitude of sins. But God is most satisfied by charity, where He does not find the means, or those who were already of perfect charity.

Second. God is most satisfied by the will, where He does not find the means, as the whole Church feels with Blessed Augustine. But those, if they are of perfect charity, necessarily have such a will, and yet they do not have the means due to the defect of life, therefore they necessarily satisfy abundantly by will alone.

Third. Such perfect ones render all to God, whatever they owe, because they owe nothing more than to offer themselves wholly with their innermost will: for God requires nothing more from man than his whole self, as He says: “Give me, my son, your heart,” [Proverbs 23:26] indeed through punishments, He compels man to do this, that he may offer himself wholly, how then do punishments remain after this is done? For what do they compel?

Fourth. Imagine a soul at death of perfect faith and charity, which perhaps still owes seven days of fasting or to fulfill some other canonical penalty. Is God then so cruel that He does not forgive these seven days due to the supreme charity towards Him and the neighbor, which are the greatest of all alms, who yet in the Gospel says that all is forgiven and cleansed [Luke 11:41] to those who give not from the heart, but from what is surplus as alms, and to a servant who only asks and does nothing but promises, [Matthew 18:26] He forgave all debt with even a freely given promise. Does God not even consider in this matter that it is so easy for the living and without the danger of death to grant such things, but to those dying and already pressed by the greatest danger, He is so difficult to remit such small things for such great charity? Who will believe this? Or by what ways will they persuade? Therefore, either they should cease to preach their positions so confidently, or strengthen them better and refute these. Meanwhile, we will think that souls in purgatory are not suffering merely for the penalty itself, but rather for the lack of charity in the penalty, because here they did not want to labor for perfection, or if they are perfect, they are free from all penalties with love triumphing over all: nor do I conceive such an opinion of God’s goodness that He does not remit for some a short temporal penalty due to the view of perfect and eternal charity, who remits eternal punishment for a little charity everywhere, and who has often forgiven all penalties in life for one work of initiated charity, does not ever remit some penalties at death for all works of consummated charity. However, these things are debated because God is wondrous in His saints: we would do better if we left such doubtful matters and taught other more certain things to the people, for God is able to act with them neither according to this nor that opinion: for they are no longer subject to our judgment but to His own, because He can also punish there gratuitously, to show the glory of His grace, as He did with Job and Paul. Nevertheless, I lastly and

Fifthly persuade this conclusion. If purgatory is only a place of penalties, why is it not called a punishing place rather than purgatory? For the reason and force of the word imply some purification, which cannot be understood except of the remaining old nature and sin, by which they are unclean, by which they are unclean, who by earthly attachment impede the purity of faith. But if they, as ready as they are for distinctions, use a new equivocation saying that purgation here means the same as payment, so that they are said to be purged when the penalties are paid, I answer: this is dismissed with the same ease with which it is proven. But if they too disregard the force of the word to extend to the purification of vices, so be it, I do not contend: yet the effect is the same, that both are doubtful, therefore one of their positions is dispersed with such certainty among the people, especially since neither the reasoning of the name matches their position.

Sixth. And this is supported by Gregory’s Distinction 25, Chapter “What Kind,” where he says that not only penalties are remitted in the future, but also sins, namely venial, as he gives examples there. But the remission of sin is not done without the infusion of grace, and the horror of death is a venial sin for the saints, but not a small one.

Conclusion 18. It does not seem proven by any reasons or Scriptures that they are beyond the state of merit or the increase of charity.

For this is my strongest argument against the opposing opinion, namely, that it is taught without authority. But ours certainly relies on that authority, that without added grace no fear is driven away, [1 John 4:18] which only perfect charity casts out. This conclusion also anticipates the argument of those who would say against me “they are beyond the state of merit, therefore the three preceding conclusions are false.” But I, continuing as I began, by opinion and disputation, asserting nothing, say: If purgatory is only a place for paying penalties and the souls in it are unclean in their disposition (as I think), and are not purified from this vice, purgatory will become the same as hell, for hell is where punishment is with remaining guilt. But in the souls of purgatory there is guilt, namely the fear of penalties and the lack of love, since the righteous according to Isaiah 8[:13] should fear nothing but God alone, therefore they sin without interruption, as long as they dread the penalties and seek rest. I prove this because they seek what is theirs more than the will of God, which is contrary to charity. But if they love God, they love Him with a love of concupiscence (that is, with a vicious love), since they should love God and glorify Him even in their penalties, and endure them bravely. And to assert something amid so many thorns of disputation, I freely confess that I believe no soul is redeemed from the penalties of purgatory because of its fear, until, with fear laid aside, it begins to love the will of God in such a penalty and loves God’s will more than it fears the penalty, indeed it loves only the will of God, despises the penalty or even loves it in God’s will. For it is necessary to love righteousness before being saved, and righteousness is God, who works this penalty. Then that of Christ: “Whoever does not take up (that is, willingly and lovingly bear) his cross and follow me is not worthy of me,” [Matthew 10:38] and the cross of souls is that penalty. Since these things are so, and I believe them to be very true, let him say who can, how this love of penalties can be changed with fear without the infusion of new grace. I confess I do not know unless you say that purgatory has no terror of penalties, and therefore is not similar to hell against what has been said before, and then we pray in vain for those whom we hear wishing and loving to be without fear of their penalties.

Second, I prove that charity is increased in them. The Apostle says: “For those who love God, all things work together for good,” [Romans 8:28] but this good cannot be understood except as the increase of the good already possessed: therefore purgatory also increases the good of the love of God, indeed it increases it most of all, just as hell is hard as jealousy and in so many evils still loves, just as the furnace makes gold purified, so the penalty makes love.

Third. Virtue is perfected in weakness. [2 Corinthians 12:9] For every penalty, if charity is present, is salutary and profitable: for the most precious and fruitful charity does not allow anything sterile to be with it. But in purgatory there is the greatest weakness, therefore it most perfectly increases charity.

Fourth. It is impossible for there to be a state of being on the way, but the way of God is charity tending towards God: therefore, it is necessary for souls either to proceed or to recede from the love of God, since they are not yet at the end and in vision, as is evident.

Fifth. It is impossible for any creature to have perseverance unless it constantly receives more and more: hence some say acutely that the preservation of a thing is its continued creation. But to create is always to make something new, as is evident in streams, rays, heat, cold, especially when they are outside their principle. Therefore, spiritual heat, that is, the love of God in souls, needs continuous preservation (until they are absorbed into their divine principle) and by this, it is an increase, even if it were true that they were perfect, though being outside God and having not yet reached and being perfect are contrary.

But it is worth seeing what causes move them to deny or prove that souls are beyond the state of merit.

First, that very common saying of Blessed Augustine: “Here all merit is gained, after death none:” “therefore,” they say, “purgatory is not a place of merit.”

I reply: Blessed Augustine and whoever said similar things speak from the authority and use of Scripture, which speaks much more strongly in this sense, as it is in Galatians 6[:9]: “Let us do good while we have time.” And Christ in John 9[:4]: “Night comes, when no one can work.” And in Revelation [14:13]: “For their works follow them,” and that most manifest Hebrews 9[:27]: “It is appointed for men to die once, and after that comes judgment,” then the end. Galatians 6[:7]: “For whatever a man sows, that he will also reap.” Again: “We must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil.” [2 Corinthians 5:10] And many others that altogether sound as if after death there is wholly judgment to receive as has been done, that is, merit here, according to that of Ecclesiastes [11:3]: “Wherever the tree falls, there it will be.”

But all these things equally oppose the whole of purgatory, for they do not posit a middle state between the dead who are damned and the blessed. If, therefore, purgatory is defended notwithstanding these things, it can also be defended that grace is increased in them, notwithstanding what is said, here all merit is gained, because it does not speak of purgatory, just as those authorities say nothing of purgatory, but speak of heaven or hell: therefore purgatory is interrupted on both sides. Therefore those words of Augustine are not to be applied to purgatory: “All merit here, none there,” that is, not in heaven or hell. Finally, according to Blessed Augustine, even here that merit is gained by which a man is worthy to be helped in purgatory by intercession. Otherwise, in heaven or hell, he has no merit by which he deserves to be helped there, but then indeed he looked to purgatory, here, however, not at all.

But if anyone more contentious wishes to assert that the authorities already adduced do not oppose purgatory at all, that they can be saved through a double judgment or double retribution after death, temporal, namely that which is of purgatory, eternal which is of hell, and thus different merit of the purgatory-bound, different hell-bound, again another merit their works follow to purgatory, another to hell, here I reply: By saying this, those authorities are rather destroyed than saved with purgatory, through such a violent and arbitrary equivocation, when the other part of the equivocation can never be proven, and I believe it is not lawful, far from being a good use that has hitherto been observed by some, namely to divide the simple sense of sacred Scripture into equivocal and doubtful. For it is better to say that this authority does not speak of this matter than, while trying to understand it of both matters, to leave none certain: for the blanket is too short, says Isaiah [28:20], it cannot cover both, and as it is commonly said, “It is not right to pray at one altar with the nudity of another.” Therefore it must be said that a man reaps what he sows here, it is understood of the present and future life. The harvest without our twisting and equivocation of our arbitrariness should be left in that signification in which Scripture uses it, namely of the future and universal judgment. And so those authorities do not oppose purgatory, not by the caviling of equivocation but by the removal of the sense. Likewise, that “here all merit, there none.” Otherwise, how much sweat was required of my ingenuity, if I too equivocated merit as double, namely that after death there is no merit of this time, but indeed the merit of that state, and Augustine speaks of the first: but I did not want to.

But what will they say to that of Ecclesiastes [11:3]: “Wherever the tree falls, whether to the north or the south, there it will be?” if they understand by fall, death. If therefore by the north, hell, by the south, heaven, where will those who enter purgatory fall? They will say “to the south,” but equivocally. But what will they say to “there it will be?” “There it will remain?” Therefore, they will never leave purgatory? Or will they equivocate here too, temporal and eternal residence? It is clear, therefore, that this authority rightly works against purgatory, indeed through its equivocation it makes purgatory into hell. It cannot, therefore, be solved unless it is said (as I said) that it says nothing about purgatory, no more than that: “The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ.” [Matthew 1:1]

Conclusion 19. Nor does it seem to be proven that they are certain and secure about their beatitude, at least not all of them, even though we are most certain.

For we, because we believe that no one enters purgatory unless they are among the number of the saved, are certain of their beatitude, just as we are certain of the salvation of the elect. However, I do not strongly oppose those who assert that they are certain; I do not say that all of them are certain. But because the whole matter concerning souls in purgatory is highly concealed, I therefore declare this conclusion more by suggestion than by demonstration.

First, from the above, if the punishment of purgatory is that fear and horror of damnation and hell, and all fear makes the soul disturbed, uncertain, lacking in counsel and assistance, and the more so the more intense and unexpected it is. But in the case of souls, it is the most intense and unexpected of all, as has been said above, and Christ said: “That day will come upon you like a trap.” [Luke 21:35] And the Apostle: “The day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night.” [2 Peter 3:10] [1 Thessalonians 5:2] Therefore, it is very probable that they, due to confusion, do not know what state they are in, whether damned or saved; indeed, they seem to themselves to be already heading toward damnation and descending into the pit, entirely at the gates of hell, as Hezekiah says. [Isaiah 38:10] But also in 1 Samuel 2[:6]: “The Lord brings down to the grave and brings up.” Therefore, they feel nothing other than the beginning of their damnation, except that they feel the gate of hell has not yet been closed behind them, nor have they yet given up hope and desire for help, although it appears nowhere: for thus speak those who have experienced it. Let us take a similar case. If someone unexpectedly comes to the judgment of death, for example, falling into the hands of robbers, who, while threatening him with death on every side, even if they have decided to terrify him but not to kill him, they are certain that he will live, but he sees nothing but imminent death and is therefore already dying, the only thing left for him is that he is not yet dead and can still be redeemed from death, but he does not know from where (for he sees them capable but unwilling), therefore he differs little from the dead: Thus it seems to happen in the fear of eternal death, that they feel nothing but eternal death imminent on every side. Thus the Church sings for them: “Deliver their souls from the gate of hell, and rescue them from the mouth of the lion, lest Tartarus swallow them, etc.” The only remaining knowledge they have is that God can redeem them, but He seems unwilling to do so. The damned, however, immediately add blasphemy to this evil, while the others only utter inexpressible complaint and groaning, supported by the spirit. For the Spirit is carried above the waters, where there is darkness over the face of the abyss. [Genesis 1:2] But this was discussed more extensively above.

Secondly, many examples are read in which it is stated that some souls have confessed this uncertainty about their state, for they appeared as if going to be called to judgment, as in the case of St. Vincent, etc. Again, many are read in which they confessed their certainty. To which I say: First, I said that not all are certain. Secondly, perhaps it is better according to the above, that they were not certain but, due to their excessive desire for help, requested to be helped as if they were certain, so that they rather thought and timidly presumed themselves to be certain than actually knew, just as in the Gospel it is said of the demons that they knew Him to be Christ, that is, they strongly believed it, as the gloss says. For it naturally happens in all anguish and fear that we strongly believe we are still redeemable, though there is more desire for redemption than hope or knowledge, just as in the demons there was more desire to know than knowledge. For the knowledge of salvation does not fear or tremble, but confidently endures everything most strongly.

It is said here:

“What then of the particular judgment, which is reputed to take place at the death of each person and Innocent attests to? For it seems that through it a person becomes certain of their state.” I respond that it does not follow that they become certain, even if it is a particular judgment. It can happen that a person is judged at death, indeed accused, but the sentence is deferred and not revealed to them. Meanwhile, with their conscience accusing, demons pressing, and the wrath of God threatening, the miserable soul does nothing but tremble in expectation of a sentence awaited with horror at every moment, just as Deuteronomy 28[:65] threatens concerning bodily death: “The Lord will give you a fearful heart and your life will hang in doubt before you. In the morning you will say, ‘Would that it were evening!’ and in the evening you will say, 'Would that it were morning!’” Thus, eternal death similarly strikes with fear and tortures the soul with horrible dread, nor is this sentence far from the truth, since in Matthew 5[:21] the Lord distinguishes between one guilty of judgment, one guilty of council, and one guilty of hellfire, that is, between the accused, the convicted, and the damned. But also some notable authors with knowledge more than reputation dare to say that some souls are snatched away in death due to the fearfulness of their lives and are cast by God in such a way that they do not know until the end of the world whether they are damned or saved. And if the story of the dying monk who, due to the sin of fornication, was seemingly damned and blaspheming, then returned to health, is accepted, it is quite clear that the judgment and accusation of hell can afflict a soul, and yet the definitive sentence has not yet been pronounced. To the same point, what St. Gregory recounts in a certain homily about a young man whom a dragon wanted to swallow at death.

Therefore, I propose these things about the entire matter of the pains of purgatory as likely, moved first by the nature of horror and fear, then because Scripture attributes this pain to the damned, and finally because the whole Church says that the pains of hell and purgatory are the same, and thus I believe that this opinion of ours is sufficiently founded in Scripture. However, the trumpeters of indulgences seem to imagine the pains of souls as if they are inflicted externally and are entirely external, not born from within in the conscience, as if God only removes the punishments from them, when the truth is rather that He removes the souls from the punishments, as it is written: “He removed the burden from their shoulder,” [Psalm 81:7] not “He removed the burdens from their shoulder.” And again: “When you pass through the fire, the flame will not harm you.” [Isaiah 43:2] How will it not harm? Unless He gives confidence to the heart so that it does not fear the fire, not that the fire does not exist, since it must pass through it. Therefore, the diversion of the back from the burdens is not accomplished except by healing the soul’s fear and strengthening it, as was said above, that no punishment is overcome by its own fear, but by love and contempt. Yet indulgences do not remove fear, indeed they inflict it as much as they can, while persuading that the punishments to be relaxed are something odious. But God has proposed to have children who are fearless, secure, eternally and perfectly noble, who fear nothing at all, but through the confidence of His grace triumph over and despise everything, considering punishments and deaths as trifles. As for the cowardly ones, who are entirely confounded by fear, even at the sound of a flying leaf.

Again, it is objected:

“If the souls willingly bear their punishments, why do we pray for them?” I respond: If they did not bear them willingly, they would certainly be damned, but should they not therefore desire prayers? When even the Apostle desired prayers to be made for him, that he might be delivered from the unbelievers and that a door for the word might be opened to him, [Colossians 4:3] although he boasted of being full of all confidence in despising death. Even if the souls did not desire prayers, it would still be our duty to sympathize with their labor and to help them with prayer, just as we do with anyone else who suffers bravely. Moreover, since the souls are not as troubled by the present punishment as by the horror of impending and threatened damnation, it is not surprising that they desire assistance, that they may persevere and not falter in confidence, since they are uncertain (as I said) about their state, and they fear not so much the punishments of hell as the hatred of God, which is in hell, as it is said: “In death there is no remembrance of you; in hell who will give you thanks?” [Psalm 6:6] And thus it is clear that they do not suffer from the fear of punishment, but from the love of justice, as above. For they fear more that they will not praise and love God (which would happen in hell) than that they will suffer. And this holy but anxious desire of theirs is rightly aided by the whole Church as much as possible, especially when God Himself desires that they be helped by the Church. And here let there finally be some end to this obscure and doubtful dispute about the punishments of souls. To those who can offer better, I do not begrudge it, provided they do so based on better scriptural authority, not clouded by the smoky opinions of men.

Conclusion 20. Therefore, the Pope, by the plenary remission of all punishments, does not mean simply all, but only those imposed by himself.

I discuss this; I do not yet assert it stubbornly. My reasons are:

The first from what was said in conclusion 5: That only Canonical punishment is remitted by the power of the keys, therefore this conclusion is a corollary of that, and if that is denied, this one is denied as well.

The second from the very style of the Pope, where he says, “We mercifully relax the penalties imposed.” Therefore, he does not relax those not imposed by himself or by the Canons. Nor do I think it is worth caring about the arbitrary commentary of some, who say, “When the Pope does not add this clause about the penalties imposed, then the remission of all punishments is simply understood.” I would say: And if it is not added, it is still implied, as a necessary and essential clause of the style, unless they prove with some text what they say.

The third. I come to my usual argument, but the strongest of all, and I ask: By which authors do they prove that any other penalties than Canonical ones are removed by the keys? And they present me with Antoninus, Peter of Palude, Augustine of Ancona, Capreolus. Then even Angelus the Summist introduces his Francis of Mayronis to them and urges them strongly to pronounce them meritorious, if it pleases Christ. As if these men are so great that whatever they have thought must immediately be counted among articles of faith. But they are more to be blamed, who to our shame and their injury, quote them in support of assertions that those men expressed out of pious study, paying no attention whatsoever to the Apostle’s faithful admonition: “Test everything; hold on to what is good,” [1 Thessalonians 5:21] far more foolish than the Pythagoreans, for while these men asserted only what Pythagoras had said, those men also assert what others have doubted. But let us come to the origin and source of these streams, that is, Blessed Thomas and Bonaventure. For from them they partly received and partly added of their own. These are holy and serious men with clear authority. But since they too more opined than asserted, and finally, St. Bonaventure confesses that this matter is entirely dubious and uncertain, is it not clear that nothing can be built on them either? Do they bring forth any text or scripture? Nor is it surprising that they assert nothing. For since this matter is a certain article of faith, if it were determined, it so little pertains to doctors to define it, that it must be reserved for the judgment of an ecumenical council alone, and not even the Supreme Pontiff should rashly determine anything in these matters of faith, except for the sole trumpeters of indulgences. For them, everything they please is permitted. Yet they all have one sole reason for their opinion, which Panormitanus also brings in his Book V, “On Penitence and Remission,” that is, this: If indulgences are said to remit only Canonical penalties, this is to vilify indulgences too much. Therefore, lest indulgences be cheapened, it pleased them more to imagine what they do not know, when there is no danger to souls if indulgences were nothing, much less if they were cheap, but it is very miserable to preach fabrications and illusions to souls, even if indulgences were the most useful thing. We care so little for the salvation of souls, but only that we seem to have taught the best doctrine, we labor more for the glory of our word, even if it is not necessary, than for the simple faith of the people entrusted to us, which alone is necessary. But before I respond to Blessed Thomas and Bonaventure, it seems worthy to recount opinions about indulgences, lest I appear to be the first or the only one to have called them into question.

The gloss on the chapter “Quod autem,” Book V “On Penitence and Remission,” assuming the declaration on the efficacy and virtue of indulgences, begins thus: “What such remissions avail is an old complaint and still quite doubtful.”

Some say that they avail as far as God is concerned, but not as far as the Church is concerned. For if someone dies without mortal sin but has not yet completed their penance, they will feel less the pains of purgatory according to the measure of the remission granted to them, but the Church does not for this reason release the satisfaction for the living. This opinion is condemned by Panormitanus there, and its condemnation is pleasing.

Others say that they avail as far as penance imposed here is concerned, out of abundance and caution, that is, only those punishments which were imposed not according to the measure, but out of caution, more abundantly than the sin deserved. And this is more to be condemned than the former.

Others, that they avail as far as God and the Church are concerned, but the one granting the indulgence takes upon themselves the satisfaction for that person. And this is absurd.

Others, that they avail for the remission of penance negligently omitted. Panormitanus, condemning this, says that this rewards negligence. But in my judgment, this is not entirely false, because indeed all penalties are remitted, even those negligently omitted, provided that negligence displeases, and even those not negligently omitted and still to be completed.

Others, that they avail for the relaxation of imposed penance, provided the priest who imposed the penance allows it so that the penance can be commuted with the remissions. And this is a good and true opinion in fact, except that it restricts the power of the one granting indulgences. For it is true that imposed penances are relaxed, but the consent of the one who imposed them is not required.

The sixth, which Panormitanus adds beyond these five in the above gloss, is that they avail as far as the words sound, both for God and for penance imposed here, and this he says is held by Goffredo, Hostiense, and Johannes Andrea. And this I also hold, as it lies and sounds in the words. But I do not follow the understanding of all, especially concerning the word “as far as God.” By which if they understand that even punishments imposed by God are remitted, whether here or in purgatory, beyond the penances imposed by the Church or the Canons, I do not believe it to be true, except under such moderation, because the penalties of purgatory are remitted without the power of the keys by contrition alone. Therefore, if someone were perfectly contrite, I believe that they are absolved as far as God is concerned from purgatory. But as for the penalties of this life, I say that it has no authority, as was sufficiently stated above in conclusion V. For there is no penalty to be named that is believed to be remitted as far as God is concerned. Therefore, I would say that the phrase “as far as God” should be understood not of penalties imposed by God, but of the same ones imposed by the Church, so that the sense is: That remission of penances imposed by the Church holds both with God and with the Church, because God approves this remission of His Church according to that: “Whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” He does not say, “Whatever you loose on earth, something else will be loosed in heaven,” but “the same thing you loose, I will also have loosed.” Because by this God wants men to be subject to the priest, which would not happen unless we knew that God approves the actions of the priest.

You see, therefore, that everything still rests in opinions. Moreover, what Angelus brings from his Francis of Mayronis, that indulgences also avail for the increase of grace and glory, he does not notice that indulgences are not good works, but remissions of good works for the sake of another lesser work. For although the good work for which indulgences are granted is meritorious, indulgences are not meritorious for this reason, since the work done separately would be no less meritorious and perhaps more so. But indulgences, taken separately, are rather demeritorious, because they are remissions of good works. Therefore, since in all disputed matters it is licit for anyone to dispute and oppose, I too say that I dissent from Blessed Thomas and Bonaventure in this matter until they prove their case better or refute ours. For I see nothing that they prove beyond opinions, nor even a single Canon, while I have produced so many scriptures above in conclusion V for my part. And now, lest I speak without Canons, too, behold.

The fourth reason. In the chapter “Cum ex eo,” Book V “On Penitence and Remission,” it says: “Penitential satisfaction is enervated by indulgences.” Although the Pope says this more from sorrow than from grace, yet the Canonists understand it as it sounds. Therefore, if penitential satisfaction is enervated, it is clear that only Canonical punishment is remitted, since penitential satisfaction is nothing other than that third part of ecclesiastical and sacramental penance. For as for evangelical satisfaction, it has nothing to do with the Church, as was said above.

But if someone opposes me, saying that the Pope does not deny that even other punishments are enervated, but only affirms without excluding when he says “penitential satisfaction is enervated,” I respond: then prove that he also relaxes other punishments and does not speak exclusively, which when you have not done, I prove that he speaks exclusively by the chapter “Cum ex eo,” as above, where he says that alms questors are not allowed to propose anything to the people beyond what is contained in their letters. But nothing is contained in any Apostolic letters beyond the remission of sacramental satisfaction, as the Pope himself says: “Penitential satisfaction is enervated by indiscriminate and superfluous indulgences.” Indeed, by this word, the Pope restricts indulgences even more, because if superfluous indulgences only enervate sacramental satisfaction, then moderate and legitimate ones do not even enervate that penitential satisfaction, much less any other penalties. But these matters are not of my forum or profession; let the Canonists see to it.

Conclusion 21. Thus, the Commissioners of Indulgences are in error when they say that by the Pope’s indulgences a man is freed from all punishment and saved.

I fully affirm and prove this.

Because at least the third punishment remains, that is, the Evangelical one, and even the fifth, such as death and sickness, and in many cases the greatest of all punishments, namely, the horror of death, the trembling of conscience, the weakness of faith, and the faint-heartedness of spirit. If you compare these punishments with those remitted by indulgences, it is like comparing the substance with the shadow. Nor is it the Pope’s intention, as they so frivolously and impudently babble, as is evident from the chapter “Cum ex eo.”

But if they say, “We do not claim that these punishments are removed by indulgences,” I respond: Why, then, do you not instruct the people about the punishments you remit, but instead shout that all are remitted, whatever they would have to pay for their sins before God and the Church? How will the people understand on their own what you speak of so obscurely and broadly?

Conclusion 22. Indeed, he remits nothing to the souls in purgatory that they should have paid in this life according to the Canons.

I do not assert this more broadly than the eighth conclusion, from which it follows as a corollary that penitential Canons do not extend into the afterlife. Because all temporal punishment is transformed into the punishment of death, and indeed, because of the punishment of death, it is removed and must be removed. Even suppose (to persuade more broadly) that the Roman Church were as it still was in the time of Blessed Gregory when it was not above other churches, at least in Greece, it would be clear that canonical penalties did not bind the Greeks, just as they do not now bind Christians not subject to the Pope, such as in Turkey, Tartary, Livonia. Therefore, none of these indulgences are necessary for them, but only for those established in the world of the Roman Church. So if these living people are not bound, much less the dead, who are under no church.

Conclusion 23. If any remission of all punishments can be given to anyone, it is certain that it is given only to the most perfect, that is, to the very few.

I understand this regarding punishments of all kinds, and thus I assert it. For there is no doubt that the remission of penitential satisfaction can be given to everyone, as has been sufficiently stated. Indeed, I correct this conclusion and say that absolutely no remission of all punishments can be given, whether to the most perfect or imperfect. I prove this: For although God does not inflict scourges, that is, the fourth kind of punishments, on the most perfect, at least not on all and always, yet the third remains, namely, the Evangelical one, and even the fourth, such as death and the punishments related to death. For although God could perfect all in grace, perhaps without punishments, He has not determined to do so but rather to conform everyone to the image of His Son, [Romans 8:29] that is, to the cross. And what need is there to say more? However magnificently the remission of punishments is extolled, what, I ask, is achieved in the case of someone who has death and the fear of death and judgment before his eyes? If all other remission is preached to him and this is not conceded, I do not know if he will receive any consolation. Therefore, consider the horror of death and hell, and whether you wish it or not, you will not care about the remission of punishments, and thus indulgences, which do not remove the fear of death, will be devalued, not by our effort, but by the necessity of the matter.

Conclusion 24. It is therefore necessary that the greater part of the people be deceived by that indifferent and magnificent promise of punishment being remitted.

And this I affirm and know to be the case. For I myself have heard many understand it no differently than that they would fly away without any punishment through indulgences. Nor is it surprising, since they write, read, and proclaim that if someone obtains indulgences and dies before relapsing, they will immediately fly away. They speak of all this as if there were no sins except actual ones, as if the remaining tendency to sin were no impurity, no obstacle, no medium to delay entrance into the kingdom. Since, unless it is healed, it is impossible to enter heaven, even if no actual sin is present. For nothing unclean will enter. [Apocalypse 21:27] Therefore, the very horror of death, since it is a vice of the tendency to sin and a sin itself, alone prevents entry into the kingdom. For he who does not die willingly does not obey God calling him, except unwillingly, and thus does not do the will of God to the extent that he dies unwillingly. And he sins to the extent that he does not obey the will of God. Therefore, it is very rare for someone, even after all indulgences, not to sin in death unless they desire to be dissolved and call for death. So, in order not to completely disagree with them, I say that if someone is perfectly contrite, that is, hating themselves and their life and greatly loving death, they will immediately fly away, having had their punishments remitted: but how rare this is, you can judge.

Conclusion 25. The Pope has no more power over purgatory in general than any Bishop and Pastor has in his diocese and parish in particular.

This is the blasphemy that made me worthy of a thousand deaths, in the judgment of those who question me, not to mention those who profit from this. But before I show this conclusion, I will preface a little about my intention. First, I say again that I dispute here not according to the opinion I intend by these words (for I firmly assert this, as the whole Church holds it) but according to the words. Then I also ask my adversaries to bear with my pain, with which I am tormented when I hear things preached in the Church of Christ that were never written or established. When we read that it seemed most dangerous to the holy fathers of old to teach anything beyond what was prescribed by heaven, as Hilary says, and St. Spyridon, Bishop of Cyprus, was such a strict observer of this discipline that he interrupted the sermon of one who had used only a Greek word with a different meaning, saying “Take up your bed and walk” instead of “Take up your pallet or couch and walk,” rebuking him for something that had not changed the sense at all. And I believe that I am most justly owed forgiveness by them for this pain of mine when we are forced to endure, never asked or warned, their presumptions by which they delight in preaching things that torture us to hear.

I do not say or do these things because I am so arrogantly impudent as to think I should be numbered among the learned of the holy Church, much less among those who are to establish or decide these matters. And may I at least deserve to become the last member of the Church someday! But I do this rather because, although there are in the Church both the most learned and the most holy men, such is the misfortune of our age that even they cannot help the Church. For what teaching and pious zeal could achieve today has been sufficiently proven by the unfortunate outcome of those most learned and holy men who, under Julius II, strove to reform the Church, having been established for this purpose in the council. There are also others everywhere whom I know to be excellent and learned pontiffs, but the example of a few imposes silence on many. For it is indeed the worst time (as the prophet Amos [5:13] says), therefore the prudent person will be silent in that time. Finally, today we have a most excellent Pope, Leo X, whose integrity and learning are a delight to all good ears. But what can that most gentle man do alone in such a great confusion of affairs, truly worthy of pontificating in better times, or for his pontificate to have better times? Our age is only worthy of having pontificates of Julius II, Alexander VI, or others like the atrocious Mezentiuses that the poets have depicted. For today even Rome itself laughs at good men, indeed Rome more than anywhere else: in what part of the Christian world do they play more freely, even with the highest pontiffs, than in that true Babylon, Rome? But enough of that. Since the Church, besides countless private individuals, has in its sees the most learned, if I wished to be considered prudent by their example, I too would remain silent. But it is better that truth be spoken even by fools, by children, by the drunk, than that it be entirely silent, so that the confidence of the learned and wise may be emboldened when they hear us, the rude common people, finally crying out because of the excessive indignity of the matter, as Christ says: If these were silent, the very stones would cry out. [Luke 19:40]

Having prefaced these things, I come to the conclusion, first according to its meaning, then according to the words or meaning of others. Therefore, in this conclusion, I speak nothing of the power of jurisdiction, which I deny in the following conclusion, as I also denied it in the 22nd and 8th. For they began from these words to claim that power, of which I say as I said: Let the Church establish the other part of this question, and I will follow it most willingly. Meanwhile, let the reckless advocates of their dreams cease. I doubt and dispute whether they have the power of jurisdiction over purgatory. And as far as I read and see up to this point, I hold the negative, ready to hold the affirmative once the Church so decrees. Meanwhile, here I speak of the power of ability, not of rights, of the power of acting, not of commanding, so that the sense is: The Pope indeed has no power over purgatory, nor does any other pontiff. But if he has any, certainly it is such that it is shared with the inferiors. This is the power by which the Pope and any Christian can intercede, pray, fast, etc., for the souls of the deceased, the Pope generally, the Bishop particularly, the Christian individually. Thus the conclusion is very clear. For just as the Pope, together with the whole Church, intercedes for souls (as happens on All Souls' Day), so too can any Bishop with his diocese (as happens on the days they call “common days”), and a Pastor in his parish (as happens in funeral services and anniversaries), and any Christian in his devotion. Therefore, either deny that intercession is suffrage, or concede that any prelate with his subjects can intercede for souls. Therefore, I think these things are not as doubtful as those bold claims about the Church’s jurisdiction over purgatory.

Conclusion 26. The Pope does well by granting remission to souls, not by the power of the keys (which he does not have) but by way of intercession.

I do not think it necessary to protest again what I am arguing or asserting, but since our age has such zealous inquisitors of heretical depravity that they attempt to coerce Christians into heresy, it would be opportune to protest against every syllable. For what else have John Pico of Mirandola, Lorenzo Valla, Pietro Ravennate, Johannes Vesalia, and recently Johannes Reuchlin and Jacques Lefèvre d’Étaples done, who were compelled to believe wrongly despite their correct beliefs, unless it was perhaps because they neglected to protest against each syllable (as I said)? Such is the tyranny of the childish and effeminate in the Church today. Therefore, I protest anew that I will do two things in this conclusion: First, to argue against the power of the keys in purgatory and to prove the negative until someone better proves the affirmative. Second, to inquire about that method of intercession.

First, I prove thus:

Firstly, by that commonly used reasoning of Hostiensis, namely: If the keys extended to purgatory, they could empty purgatory, and the Pope would be cruel for not emptying purgatory.

They resolve this by saying: The Pope can, but should not empty purgatory unless there is a just and reasonable cause, lest he acts rashly against divine justice. I hardly believe they would offer such a weak and drowsy solution unless they either did not notice what they were saying or thought they were speaking among deeply slumbering sea calves. Thus, one absurdity given leads to more. And, as he said, a lie requires seven lies to appear true.

Therefore, the argument could hardly be strengthened more than by such a solution. For we ask, what then will be the name of this reasonable cause? It is evident that indulgences are granted either for war against infidels, for sacred construction, or for some other common necessity of this life. But none of these are so great that charity, which is incomparably greater, is not more just and reasonable. If, therefore, divine justice is not offended when indulgences are granted to protect the bodies and possessions of the faithful or for inanimate structures or for the very brief use of this corruptible life, as many as he wishes (even if all are included in that number, so that purgatory is thereby emptied), how much more is it not offended if all are redeemed for holy charity? Unless perhaps divine justice is so unfair or melancholy that it favors charity towards the bodies and wealth of the living more than towards the souls in such need, especially since it is such a great thing to help souls, that the faithful ought to prefer serving the Turks and being physically killed rather than not redeeming souls. Therefore, if for what is less infinite and perhaps for this very reason all are redeemed, why not also for what is greatest, that is, charity? However, I would advise them, when cornered, to say that no reasonable cause can exist, so that they may safely evade this objection. And so, if the Pope can do what is in his power, he still cannot do what pertains to the cause, which cannot exist.

Secondly, the very style of the Pope proves the same, in which it is said concerning the penances imposed on the penitent. It is evident that he grants as much as is stated, and in the manner it is stated. Thus, as a bishop grants forty days, and a cardinal a hundred days of penance imposed on the penitent, so the Pope entirely remits all the days imposed. But the penalties of purgatory have not been imposed by any key. Here, however, a certain pleasant dreamer speaks thus: When the Pope says, “We grant indulgences for all sins from the penance imposed,” it is understood of the penalty imposed by the priest. But when he says, “We grant indulgences for all sins of which they are contrite and confessed,” then the forgotten or unknown are not remitted. But when he says, “We grant remission of all sins,” then if one were to die, they would fly away. And so it is in the Pope’s power to save whom he will. Oh, fury! See how confidently this pronouncer asserts, as if he were uttering an oracle. If I were to say to him: “I beg you, will you prove these things if I am commanded to give an account of this faith?” Perhaps he will invent other lies to support the earlier ones with greater ones. Unhappy Christians, who are forced to hear everything, however foolish, that the most foolish men have at last chosen to babble, as if we did not have the Scripture itself, which, by Christ’s command, we should teach to the people, and give them the measure of wheat, not a mess of cockle and thistles. Among other monstrosities that this most delightful author fabricates, he also dares to persuade us that it is in the Pope’s power to remit or not remit unknown or forgotten sins, as if the whole Church were not aware that after every solution by the Pope, it remains for all the faithful to say: “Who can understand his errors? Cleanse me from secret faults, O Lord.” [Psalm 19:13] And that even our good works with Job [9:28] must be feared, lest they be found to be horrendous sins before God. But the keys of the Church neither know nor judge whether good works are evil before God, much less do they remit them. Secondly, his dream proceeds from that laborious and useless art of confessing, nay, despairing and losing souls, by which we have been taught to number the sand, that is, to scrutinize, collect, and weigh each sin to make contrition. When we do this, we either rekindle lusts or hatred by the memory of past events, and while we grieve over the past, we sin anew. Or certainly, if the desired contrition is achieved, it is only violent, sad, and purely artificial, simulated only out of fear of punishments. Thus, we are taught to break our sins, that is, to attempt the impossible or to strive for the worse. Since true contrition begins from the kindness and benefits of God, especially from the wounds of Christ, so that a man first comes to his ingratitude by contemplating divine goodness and from that to self-hatred and love of God’s kindness: then tears will flow, and he will hate himself from the heart, yet without despair. Then he will hate sin, not because of the punishment, but because of the view of God’s goodness, which, when observed, keeps him from despairing and causes him to hate himself ardently, even with joy. Thus, when there is true contrition for one sin, there will be for all at once. So Romans 2[:4]: “Do you despise the riches of his kindness, forbearance, and patience, not realizing that God’s kindness is meant to lead you to repentance?” Oh, how many are ignorant of this, holy Paul, even the teachers of others! So we read in Numbers [21:9] that the children of Israel were not delivered from their fiery serpents by looking at and fearing them, but rather by turning their gaze from them and looking at the bronze serpent, that is, Christ. Likewise, they were terrified by the sight of the Egyptians, but, turning their backs to them, they crossed the sea and were saved. [Exodus 14:10-22] So our sins should be dealt with more in the wounded Christ than in our conscience. For there they are dead, here they live. Otherwise, if their carnage must be observed, it would happen that if someone were suddenly taken to death, they could not be saved because they do not have time to gather their sins. But they have something to say here.

Therefore, it can be said in response to that commentator’s comment: In every remission of the supreme pontiff, especially that public one before the Church (as is done in plenary indulgences), this clause about the penances imposed must be understood, whether they are forgotten sins or unknown. For these do not belong to the forum of the Church.

This sea of words (as it seems to me) arose from a certain neglect of examining the origin of indulgences. For at the time when the penitential canons were in force, it was a great thing to remit four days; after that, a hundred days began to be given, then a thousand days, finally many thousands of days and years, and even hundreds and thousands of years. Thus, the greater and greater generosity of indulgences gradually progressed. After this, a third part of all sins was remitted, then a half part, and finally a plenary remission of all sins was granted, as can still be seen in the stations of the city of Rome. If penance imposed is understood in the first steps, certainly in plenary remission it is to be understood.

Thirdly, the style of the Pope again saying ‘by way of intercession.’ For it is necessary that the mode of intercession differs from the mode of power. But if we are to believe the Pope (as we should) more than those and ourselves, it is clear that there is no power, but intercession prevails in purgatory. It is safer for me to think with the Pope than with them. The Pope does not arrogate power to himself, but claims intercession. And I am quite surprised by what confidence they dare to preach more than what is contained in the Pope’s letters against the express prohibition in the chapter “When by the result,” since only the mode of intercession is contained there. But if they understand it thus, he does not have jurisdictional power in purgatory, but he has the power of the keys to apply intercessions to it. Here I also say that no one denies this: the power of applying either intercessions or satisfactions or praises of God is entirely in the hand of the supreme pontiff. But whether that power is solely the Pope’s, as was said in the preceding conclusion, or whether I do not yet understand the manner of this application, I will speak in the second part of this conclusion. In the meantime, let us pursue this first part.

Fourthly, and most strongly of all, Christ says not ambiguously but with clear, open, and round words: “Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” [Matthew 16:19] He did not add ‘on earth’ without reason. Otherwise, unless he wished to restrict the power of the keys, it would have been sufficient to say, ‘Whatever you loose shall be loosed.’ Either Christ is superfluous in words like a babbler, or the power of the keys is solely on earth. But here, oh good God, how prompt is the superstition of some, who without the knowledge and will of the Pope want to give him power in these words, where he claims only intercession for himself. And when they felt that these words of Christ strongly resisted them and refuted their error, they did not abandon the defense of error and accommodate their sense to the uncorrupted words of Christ, but they accommodate and twist Christ’s words to their own corrupt sense, saying: That ‘on earth’ can be construed in two ways: One way, it pertains to the binder, another way, to the bound. And the first way is how Christ is to be understood, namely, ‘Whatever Peter, while on earth, binds, shall be bound in heaven,’ perhaps wanting that even if he were to loose the devil (as long as the looser is on earth), it would be loosed in heaven. For whoever says ‘whatever’ and adds nothing to restrict it, certainly shows that everything is loosable. I do not know with what words to attack this rough and tasteless superstition, nay, presumption. Jerome’s stomach and eloquence were worthy of this author, so that such bold violence and corruption of Christ’s holy words might be avenged. And to omit grammar, which alone could have taught them that this sense of theirs cannot stand with these words (but they follow new dialectics rather than true grammar), these people seem to have been so wise as if Christ feared that there would someday be such a Peter or Pope who, even dead, would want to bind and loose, and therefore it was necessary for him to prevent and prohibit so great ambition and tyranny of dead pontiffs from binding or loosing unless they are alive and on earth. And perhaps (to duly mock such worthy interpreters of Scripture) Christ did not fear without reason, namely, that it might happen that a dead pontiff would bind something and his living successor would loose it. Then there would be a great error in heaven, and Christ, anxious, would not know whose office to approve, since he had rashly allowed the same office to both, and had not added ‘on earth’ to curb the dead. For if they do not thus think, what do they sweat? What do they labor to show that ‘on earth’ pertains to the binder? Behold, oh truly golden little work of a golden doctor and most worthy of golden letters, and lest nothing be ungolden, to be handed down to golden disciples, those, namely, of whom it is said: “The idols of the nations are silver and gold, the work of human hands, they have eyes but do not see” [Psalm 135:15] etc. These people walk straight against Christ. For Christ added ‘on earth’ so that the pontiff, who can only be on earth, may not presume to bind or loose what is not on earth, as if he was deliberately preventing and prohibiting the foulest flatterers of our time, who begin to hand over to the pontiff, against his will and refusal, the kingdom of the dead. Jerome would have called these people theologians, that is, speakers of God, but imagine the one who in Virgil inspires great fury in the poets, unless we are indeed acting against them.

Firstly, if by this understanding the keys loose the dead, then they also bind, because on both sides it is added ‘on earth,’ saying: “Whatever you bind on earth.” Therefore, here too it is necessary to distinguish with the same industry and sharpness, ‘on earth’ can be construed in two ways, one way pertaining to the bound, another way to the binder, so that they conclude for us that the pontiff can bind underground in purgatory, provided we ensure (by the work of the intercessors) that he does so while alive and while he is on earth. For the dead could not bind. But if the first part of Christ’s words does not admit of this twisting and violent evasion, as they themselves assert without judgment, with what face will they dare to do violence to the other part when it is composed in a similar scheme in every respect? Unless perhaps, according to their custom, they are allowed to equivocate, equivocate, and juggle, as they please and where they please. Let them say then that ‘on earth’ in the first part pertains to the binder, but in the second part pertains to the looser. Since they have even greater monstrosities brought into the sacred scriptures according to their praiseworthy custom.

Therefore, since all deny that the keys can bind in purgatory, it is necessary to deny that they can loose, since these two powers are equal and equally given by Christ to his Church. Some not so bad jurists hold this opinion: whether they are wiser than others, let them decide.

Secondly, this opinion is also refuted by the very antithesis because just as ‘in heaven’ certainly pertains to loosing in heaven, so ‘on earth’ must pertain to loosing on earth. And again, ‘in heaven’ pertains to the bound, therefore ‘on earth’ must refer to the bound. Hence Christ, as if intentionally, did not say ‘I will loose in heaven,’ but ‘it shall be loosed in heaven,’ so that if anyone were to seek a false understanding of the first word, namely ‘Whatever you loose on earth,’ the following would refute it, nor would it be permitted to apply it to loosing, because ‘it shall be loosed in heaven’ certainly compels the understanding of ‘loosed on earth,’ not the looser. And ‘bound in heaven’ compels the understanding of not the binder, but the bound on earth, or at least both.

Thirdly, if the key is extended to purgatory, why do they labor in vain? Why do they not remove the word ‘intercession’? Why do they not persuade the pontiff to say by way of power and authority rather than intercession to loose and bind? For whatever he looses (only be careful that he is not dead) will be loosed. Why does he burden us with the word ‘intercession,’ which no one understands as power, but all understand as intercession? Why do we not go further and ask the Pope to abolish purgatory from the realm of nature altogether? For if the keys of the Church, even as far as loosing is concerned, extend to it, it will be in his hand to empty the entire purgatory. Which I prove thus: Let him grant plenary remission to all existing there, secondly let him grant the same remission to all Christians about to die, then it will be certain that none will remain there, none will enter it, but all will fly away, and purgatory will cease. He ought to do this, and there is a most just cause, namely charity, which must be sought above all things, in all things, and through all things. Nor is it to be feared that divine justice will be offended by charity, to which it rather urges us. When this has been done, let us abandon the entire office for the dead, which is today troublesome and yet neglected, and let us change it into festive offices.

Fourthly and lastly, if the penalty of purgatory is punitive and afflictive, as in conclusion V, then it is certain that it cannot be resolved by the power of the keys. But there is no other, as I think is sufficiently clear from the sufficient division.

Thus the first part of this conclusion is sufficiently proven, and therefore the whole is sufficiently firmly established, that intercession, not jurisdiction, enters purgatory.

Secondly, as to that mode of intercession, although it was not my intention to inquire into it, nor is it required for my positions to know what or what kind it is, yet I will explain it in what I could justly omit, lest I seem to seek a corner, always saving my protestation that it is not mine, but the Pope’s, or perhaps a Church Council’s role to determine what that mode is. My role is to inquire and dispute, and, with reasons given, to indicate what I understand or do not yet understand.

Therefore, intercession is expended on souls in two ways. First, in reality and present office, as happens when a priest prays with the people, fasts, sacrifices, and does other named works for named souls. There is no doubt about this intercession, but that it greatly benefits and redeems souls according to what is seen fit by God and what they have merited, according to Blessed Augustine. I said above in the preceding conclusion that the bishop has this power in his diocese specifically, as the Pope does generally, namely not of jurisdiction, but of making intercession in purgatory. This mode is not in question here, as is known.

Secondly, intercession is expended without office or work, but by mere jurisdiction, pronounced through letters or words. And this also from two treasures.

The first is the treasure of the Church triumphant, which is the merit of Christ and his saints, who deserved more than they owed. And they say that this treasure is left in the Church so that it may be rewarded and compensated here.

The second is the treasure of the Church militant, such as the merits, good works of living Christians, which the supreme pontiff has in his hand, to apply them either for the satisfaction of the penitent, for the intercession of the dead, or for the praise and glory of God. Thus I also sometimes taught and wrote that the Pope has in his power the merits of the Church militant in three ways: First, to offer them to God for the satisfaction of others, secondly for the intercession of souls, thirdly for the praise of God. And this spiritual faculty, if it is true, I firmly believe the bishops have in their dioceses, or, if I err, let him who can revoke me. Otherwise, how will those fraternities stand without error, in which both the greater and lesser prelates share their studies and works? Also, monasteries and orders and hospitals and parishes. For it cannot be truly understood unless the work of one person truly satisfies, intercedes, and glorifies God for another.

I say therefore:

Although I completely do not understand how these merits of the Church militant are in the Pope’s hand, yet in the meantime I will piously believe so until some Gordius solves this knot. The reason why I do not understand is this:

First. If he offers works of the living for the living, I do not see how this is a free remission and not rather true and just satisfaction and payment down to the last penny. Although the one to whom remission is granted does not work, others work and satisfy. Then it will happen that what everyone constantly denies, namely, that the grantor binds himself to satisfaction: for then the Pope would not be remitting but satisfying, that is, through his subjects.

Second, that the keys of the Church would do nothing at all, except what is already done in the Church even without the keys. For by the law of charity, everyone is obliged to pray for everyone. And the Apostle says: “Bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ.” [Galatians 6:2]

Third, that the name of indulgence contradicts this opinion because it ought to remit, that is, to remit so that it does not do what is due, but not to impose it on another or say that it is imposed so that indulgence utterly extinguishes the debt, not, however, pay it through another. Wherefore, it seems rather that the naked power of the keys suffices for indulgences without that treasure, especially since only canonical, not evangelical satisfaction is remitted. Or again, it must be said here, as was said above concerning the remission of guilt, that thus also the penalties are remitted through this treasure, that is, it is declared to be done what is done even without it, namely, that the Church satisfies for him to whom it is remitted. In which way Blessed Augustine says that no one is raised unless the unity of the Church raises him, as he says in the figure of the widow. But the first and second reasons still hold, that it is then rather satisfaction than remission, whether it is declared or granted.

Fourth. That treasure of the Church militant works more grace of the Spirit than the remission of penalties and seems to be treated rather basely if it is applied for the remission of penalties when the remission of penalties is the most base gift in the Church, even the most donable, and with the power of the keys alone, as it seems.

I say secondly:

I do not understand how or what is done when the Pope applies that treasure for the intercession of the dead. The reason is this:

First, because again it does not seem to do more than what is already done in fact. For the whole Church in fact prays and intercedes for the dead unless it is again thought that he does this declaratively. Nor do I see what difference it makes that it is said about the Mass, which is more beneficial if it is applied by the priest to one person than if it is celebrated without application for all. I admit that I believe this to be true. But the Pope as the supreme and general priest of all certainly cannot apply it except generally, indeed he ought to do so, even without letters of indulgences.

Secondly, since only canonical penalties are remitted by indulgences, I cannot at all understand what is remitted to souls, since the canons do not bind them. Lastly, in death they are absolved from them since every priest is a Pope at the hour of death. Also, that no soul suffers in purgatory for crimes and mortal sins, but only for venial sins, as in distinction XXV, chapter Qualis. But the canons were not imposed on venial sins, indeed not on hidden mortal sins, but only on known crimes, as said above. Let those who can say how indulgences intercede for them, that is, remissions of canons, unless not only indulgences are granted, but also with them, as in superabundant caution (as the dead are often absolved in the face of the Church), an application of the merits of the Church is made, and then certainly indulgences do not become intercession but are given with intercession as another gift to souls, that is, they are declared to be given or applied.

I say thirdly:

I will speak below in conclusion LVII about the treasure of the merits of Christ and the saints applied to the remission of penalties. You see, therefore, how all things are most obscure and doubtful, therefore most dangerous to teach. I say and see one thing, that the Pope in the chapter “On Penances and Remissions,” condemns this opinion of redeeming souls by indulgences when he says: “They falsely assert that they extract a soul from purgatory.” Where the gloss on the word ‘falsely’ says ‘because they are reserved for God’s judgment,’ and cites to this distinction XXV, chapter Qualis. And certainly, it seems to me to judge correctly. For if they are redeemed by intercession, it does not necessarily follow that they immediately fly away: it is not the same thing to intercede and to redeem or liberate. Therefore, I thus far think that I see indulgences and the intercession of the merits of the Church as two very different things, one of which can be given without the other and with the other. Indulgences suffice by the power of the keys alone without that treasure, which can still be added or given alone. Given alone, it makes one a participant in the goods, as has been sufficiently said above. If these things were certain and true, it would follow that indulgences, insofar as they are such, would not benefit souls at all, except that they would be absolved before the Church, that is, it would be declared that they are absolved, or if they did benefit, it would not be by the virtue of the indulgences themselves, but by another gift added to them, namely, the merits of the Church. This donation is again to be distinguished from the general application by which the Church in fact intercedes for souls without the Pope’s application, and it is to be seen what it avails. But the labor of inquiry must be left to others, who are not yet weary of study in so many doubts.

Now it is objected:

Firstly, it is commonly held that a certain Master in Paris maintained in his disputation that the supreme pontiff has power in purgatory, and the Pope, upon learning this and after the Master had died, granted the asserted remission as a commendation.

I reply: I am not moved by what pleases or displeases the supreme pontiff. He is a man like others: there have been many supreme pontiffs who not only approved of errors and vices but even monstrosities. I listen to the Pope as the Pope, that is, as he speaks in the Canons and according to the Canons or determines with a Council, not when he speaks according to his own mind, lest I be forced with some who wrongly know Christ to say that the horrible slaughters of Julius II among the Christian people were certain benefits of a pious shepherd bestowed on the sheep of Christ.

Secondly, Blessed Bonaventure in Book IV, Distinction XX says it is not to be resisted importunately if someone asserts that the Pope has power in purgatory.

I reply first: The authority of Blessed Bonaventure in this matter is not sufficient. Secondly: When the Pope asserts it, it should not be resisted. Thirdly: Bonaventure speaks rightly because he adds, explaining himself, ‘provided it is established by manifest authority or reasonable judgment,’ but that has not yet been established by manifest authority.

Here it is further objected:

Firstly, it is said that Sixtus IV determined that by way of intercession that mode does not diminish the fullness of indulgences.

I reply: First, if someone wanted to be stubborn, they would say: Prove what you say, good father, especially since it is not the Pope’s role alone to establish new articles of faith, but to judge according to the established ones and resolve questions of faith. This, however, would be a new article: therefore, its determination belongs to an ecumenical council, much more than the conception of the Blessed Virgin, especially since here there is no danger to souls, whereas there was great and significant danger there. Otherwise, since the Pope is one man who can err in faith and morals, the faith of the whole Church would constantly be at risk if whatever seemed good to him had to be believed as true.

Secondly, even if the Pope, with a large part of the Church, felt thus or otherwise, and even if he did not err, it is still not a sin or heresy to think the contrary, especially in a matter not necessary for salvation, until it has been reprobated by a universal council and the other approved. This is proved by one single instance, namely that the Roman Church, even with the universal Council of Basel and almost the whole Church, holds that the Blessed Virgin was conceived without sin, yet since the other part has not been reprobated, those who think otherwise are not heretics.

Thirdly, I say that I have not yet seen that determination of Sixtus. But this has appeared to me, that indulgences are granted to the dead by way of intercession, from which it does not yet follow that therefore the souls will fly away to whom that mode is granted.

Fourthly, I cannot be an interpreter of another’s word, much less of the supreme pontiff. Therefore, until he interprets himself, in the meantime, let us opine, for the sake of honor, by defending the unknown saying. It can be understood in two ways. First: The mode of intercession does not diminish the fullness of indulgence, that is, although indulgences are granted there not by way of indulgence, but by way of intercession, yet by such intercession and intercession it nonetheless happens that those to whom it is expended completely fly away. And so they fly away not by loosing, but by interceding. I do not hold this, but they think it was said thus. Secondly: The mode of intercession does not diminish the fullness of indulgences, that is, the application of indulgences by way of intercession allows them to be what they are, namely full indulgences, nor does it take away what they are by their nature, only that they do not act as indulgences, but as intercession. And I admit this and add: That if it does not diminish anything, much more does it not increase indulgences by that intercessory application. From this, it follows that souls do not fly away by that mode. And these are also the words, because it does not say ‘That mode of intercession fully redeems souls,’ but ‘does not diminish the fullness of indulgences,’ namely that indulgences, although full, nevertheless do only as much as intercession can do, and no more.

Again it is objected:

The form of Apostolic absolution says ‘Remitting to you the penalties of purgatory, insofar as the keys of the holy mother Church extend.’ And this form is used by the Pope’s penitentiaries, even in the city.

I reply: First. These are outside the proposition because it is the form of absolving the living and dying, not the form of applying indulgences to those already dead.

Secondly. However, for the sake of seeking the truth, I say that, since these words are doubtful and obscurely placed, it is not possible to err in faith if someone thinks differently than they are supposed to be understood. For why does that form tremble? Why does it, as if doubting, say ‘Insofar as the keys extend’? That trembling tail is suspect to me. I am not bound to firmly believe what he himself does not dare to pronounce confidently. Why does he only add here and nowhere else ‘insofar as the keys extend’? Do we not yet see how vigilant Christ is in his Church, so that even those who wish to err are not permitted to err? If only we did not neglect his warning and rush into error ourselves.

Thirdly, I say as before: Even if the Pope with his penitentiaries did not err here, it is still not heresy for those who deny his meaning or do not believe until it has been determined by the judgment of a universal council which of the parts is defined or reprobated. For just as indulgences are granted for the feast of the Conception as if it were a matter of faith, they do not, however, condemn or bind those who do not seek the solution of such indulgences. Thus, however much indulgences are granted, it is not necessary to believe that form to be true until the Church establishes it. And again, you see how great the necessity of a legitimate and universal council is. But I fear our age is not worthy of being granted one, but rather that we may be deluded by works of error, as we have deserved. [2 Thessalonians 2:11]

Conclusion 27. They proclaim a man, who, as soon as the coin in the coffer rings, they say the soul flies out.

They proclaim a man, that is, vanity and lies, according to the saying: “Every man is a liar.” [Psalm 116:11] And again: “Every living man is vanity.” [Psalm 39:6] And this position, in my opinion, does not need proof. However, it is proven by the following conclusion, because the suffrage of the Church depends on God’s will and the merit of the soul. Therefore, even if their opinion were true, that suffrages benefit in this way, it does not follow that the soul immediately flies out.

First. It is not the suffrage itself but the hearing and acceptance of it that liberates, since it is not the Church that liberates by praying, but God who acts.

Second. God acts in nature in such a way that He quickly hears, but delays in giving, as is evident in the prayers and teachings of all the saints, to test perseverance. Therefore, suffrage, hearing, and execution of the same are far apart.

Third. This is said newly without any authority against the prohibition of the Canon, which states that nothing should be said beyond what is contained in the letters. Therefore, they do not speak of God and the Church, that is, the truth, but their own, that is, lies.

Fourth. There is no difference between someone who knowingly speaks falsehoods and someone who asserts something certain when he does not know it to be certain. For even someone who speaks the truth sometimes lies. But those who say what has been said know it to be uncertain and yet affirm it as certain, as if it were the Gospel: for they can prove them to be certain by neither authority nor reason.

Fifth. Then that suffrage would be better in another’s office and by accident rather than in its own, because it does not benefit the worker as much as the other for whom it is done. In fact, this is peripatetic: therefore, I pass over it, especially since they dare to concede that it does not benefit the worker but the soul, etc. I could also mock and ridicule these tales as they ridicule the truth through them, but I desist, lest I seem to be proposing a dogma rather than a problem.

Conclusion 28. It is certain that, when the coin in the coffer rings, gain and avarice can be increased, but the suffrage of the Church is at the discretion of God alone.

It is surprising that they do not preach the very salutary Gospel of Christ with the same zeal and clamor. This makes the business suspect, as they seem to consider gain more than piety, unless they are justly excused by this, that they are ignorant of the Gospel of Christ. Therefore, since indulgences are of no piety, merit, or commandment, but merely certain licenses, although the work by which they are redeemed may be pious, it seems that gain is increased through them more than piety, while they are treated so lavishly and the Gospel is scarcely recited.

First, I prove this because the suffrage of the Church is not the jurisdiction of the Pope, nor in his hand as to the acceptance of God, but only as to the offering, even if their opinion on the redemption of souls by it stands.

Second. The widespread opinion of Blessed Augustine would be false, that suffrages benefit only those who have deserved them, because they would benefit by the power of the Pope, not by the merit of the soul, whomever they might benefit.

Third. It is against the nature and force of the word to say that it is in the Pope’s power to redeem by suffrage. For no matter how excellent the work may be, if it is turned into suffrage, it operates not as a work but as a suffrage. The hearing of the suffrage redeems rather. Therefore, either they speak of the thing itself under other names and then deceive worse, or if they speak of their matter with the proper word, then their opinion does not stand, contradicting the meaning and understanding of suffrage.

Fourth. Then there would be absolutely no difference between suffrage and power except in word only: in reality, they would be the same because they achieve the same thing without any other requirement beyond the Pope’s will. Why then does suffrage not remain silent, and why do they force us to understand other things by suffrage than by power?

Here again, I protest, dear reader, that I am speaking of suffrage as if it were truly such. For I have said my opinion above, that I doubt whether such a thing exists or can exist. I say this so that no one may imagine me contradicting myself, as if here I am asserting the suffrage that I almost denied earlier.

Conclusion 29. Who knows whether all souls wish to be redeemed from purgatory, as is narrated about Saint Severinus and Paschal?

Indeed, I have not read a credible scripture about these two. However, I have heard it narrated that they could have been liberated by their merits if they had wished to be glorified less: therefore, they endured rather than diminish the glory of the vision. But in these things, let each one believe what he will, it does not matter to me. For I did not deny that souls suffer other punishments in purgatory than those I mentioned above. But I wanted to show that even if those punishments are remitted, they would not fly out unless they were perfectly healed in grace. However, it may happen that some do not wish to be redeemed out of excessive love for God. It becomes plausible from this that Paul and Moses could wish to be anathema and separated from God for eternity. If they were so prompt to do this in life, it does not seem to be denied that the same could be done by the departed, of which you can see an example in the sermons of Tauler about a certain virgin who did so.

Conclusion 30. No one is sure of the truth of his contrition, much less of obtaining plenary remission.

I say this as their opinion, who maintain that contrition is necessary for the remission of punishments, and do not see how greatly they make everything uncertain. And the conclusion is clear enough: for everyone asserts the first part, but the second necessarily follows. However, in my judgment, the remission of punishments can be certain, namely canonical punishments, even if the person was not worthy or contrite. For contrition, let alone the certainty of contrition, is not required for the remission of punishments, because the remission holds, even if granted to the feigned, since it is in the mere power of the Pope. But as was also said above, if they want other punishments than crimes to be remitted, namely, of all mortal sins, they make indulgences of no worth by overly magnifying them, so that there are no indulgences at all. For even indulgences are not indulgences if they are uncertain. They are uncertain, however, if they rely on the absolution of conscience, not on the power of the keys, especially if they depend on contrition for all mortal sins, not just manifest crimes, since no one is certain that he is without mortal sin. However, one can be certain that he is without crime, that is, without sin that could be accused before the Church, as mentioned above. Therefore, I deny that conclusion to be true, speaking according to my sense. However, I proposed it so that they might see the absurdity of their boasting by which they extend indulgences.

Conclusion 31. As rare as a true penitent is, so rare is one who truly redeems indulgences, that is, exceedingly rare.

Again, I speak according to their opinion, so that they may see the flimsiness of their licentious preaching, indeed the contradiction. For while they claim that indulgences benefit so many and yet confess that few walk the narrow path, they do not yet blush or consider what they are saying. But it is not surprising. For they have not undertaken the office of teaching contrition and the narrow path. So I give my opinion, that even if few are contrite, many, indeed all, in the whole Church can be free from canonical punishments by the removal of the canons, just as they truly are now.

Conclusion 32. They will be damned eternally with their teachers, who through letters of indulgences believe themselves secure in their salvation.

I assert and prove this.

Thus says Jeremiah 17[:5]: “Cursed is the man who trusts in man and makes flesh his strength.” For there is no confidence for us in salvation, except in Jesus Christ alone, nor is there any other name given under heaven by which we must be saved (Acts 15[:11; Acts 4:12]). Therefore, let confidence in dead letters, in the name of indulgences, in the name of suffrages perish. Secondly, as I have said, letters and indulgences contribute nothing to salvation, but only remove penalties, and not even all of them, nor beyond Canonical penalties. And here I wish that the earth and its fullness would groan and weep with me over the seduction of the Christian people, who everywhere understand indulgences not otherwise than as salvific and useful for the fruit of the spirit. And it is no wonder, since the manifest truth of the matter is not expressed to them. Most unfortunate Christians, who can neither trust in their merits nor in their good conscience for their salvation. They are taught to trust in written and sealed paper. Why should I not speak thus? What, I ask, is more conferred there? No contrition, no faith, no grace, but they only remove penalties? Who has written about the Canons, or has placed such great strength of faith or other graces there, but they returned, and the redeemed placed all confidence in those things. For they either heard (as they said) or (as I believe for the sake of honor) understood that the preachers of indulgences taught this. I do not criticize, as it is not allowed for me, those who have not heard the indulgence preachers. Let them excuse themselves more purely than snow; for my part, let it be. Certainly, the people must be rebuked for their ears being so unclean, that when salutary things are being spoken to them, they hear nothing but pestilential things, namely, while they are told ‘Above all, brothers, believe and trust in Christ and do penance, take up your cross, follow Christ, mortify your members, learn not to fear penalties and death. Above all, have mutual love among yourselves, serve each other even neglecting indulgences, first help the poor and needy,’ these, I say, and similar things so pious and religious and holy are being told to them, the foolish multitude, overturned by a new miracle, hears quite different things, namely these: ‘O you foolish and dull-hearted people, almost like beasts, who do not perceive such a great outpouring of graces! Behold, heaven is now open everywhere! If you do not enter now, when will you ever enter? Behold, you can redeem so many souls! O hard-hearted and negligent ones! With twelve pennies you can extract a part and are so ungrateful that you do not help your parent in such penalties? I am certainly excused at the final judgment, with your more accusations against you, for you have exercised such negligence. You say to yourself, if you obtain even just one grace.’ Then by word, even if the wind bears more worn-out graces, while they flood them with black blessings, the trembling crowd stands and fears that the sky will fall and the earth will gape, far worse than the infernal penalties they hear threatening them, so that it may be true, that where they curse, God blesses their curses, and where they bless, God curses. For by what way can it be done, he says, that they speak such foreign things from those that are heard, who can understand? Wherefore these masks of words? But I do not believe, however, all that the people claim to have heard everywhere, otherwise I would think that heretical, impious, blasphemous things were preached to them. I do not believe it to be true that one of them forbade the performance of funerals and the invitation of priests, but rather that they imposed it in the chest, for those who wished to perform funerals and masses for the departed. The people also fabricate these things. I do not believe that the story filled with lies was told by anyone, namely, that in a certain place I don’t know how many thousands (if I remember correctly, three or five) of souls were redeemed by these indulgences, among whom only three were damned, because they had detracted from the indulgences. No one said this, but such a people heard or later pretended to have heard it when the passion of Christ was being narrated. I do not believe it is true that everywhere, either to travelers or hosts or other servants, for ten or four, five, or six they have freed souls. I do not believe that in the pulpits, after filling them with an impetuous roar, they implore (for such a people imagines the voice to be head and tail, limbo and belly to almost the entire sermon): then that Apostolic preachers not only teach the matter with words but also with example, they descend to the chest in the eyes of all, provoking and inciting the simple and foolish people to utterly suck out their marrow, imposing it with a splendid gesture and sonorous clinking, then they marvel if not all others rain down all the air, they smile at those imposing, they resent those omitting. I do not say that these are markets of souls and monopolies. I am indignant at the people, who interpret such pious studies, due to their ignorance, not as an appearance but as avarice leading to madness. Although perhaps the people seem worthy of pardon to me, who from these new spirits receive either a new mind or error, when they were more accustomed to hear things pertaining to charity and humility. But if I wished to enumerate the catalog of monstrous things heard, a new volume would be necessary. However, I believe in my judgment, that if indulgences were even commanded and salutary, yet because they have been reduced to such great use, so much abuse and scandal, that this alone would be a just enough cause for all to be removed, lest perhaps, if they are allowed to prevail longer, the preachers of them may go mad for the love of money. I truly believe, not everything is said by them that is spread everywhere, but they ought at least to rebuke the people in this and explain themselves more clearly according to what was ordered to them, to speak modestly about indulgences according to the Canons.

Conclusion 33. They must be greatly guarded against who say that those indulgences of the Pope are that inestimable gift of God, by which man is reconciled to God.

I should have called them pestilent heretics. For what is more impious and heretical than to say that the indulgences of the Pope are the grace of reconciliation with God? But to suppress my anger, I would rather believe they said or wrote such things not out of malice or will, but out of sheer ignorance and such a lack of learning and talent, although even in this there is rashness, that such unlearned ones should have taken up the work of educating souls of Christ rather than the work of oxherds. So let us hear this oxherd grunting his words. For thus in his booklet, after he distributed indulgences into four principal graces and many other lesser ones: The first principal grace, he says, is the plenary remission of all sins, by which indeed no greater grace can be said, because a sinner deprived of divine grace through that perfect remission and the grace of God is again obtained. Thus he says. I ask, what heretical opinion ever spoke so heretically? or from this place learn why it happens that, while they say they teach the holiest things, the people nonetheless hear such impious things. I wish here there were the zeal and eloquence of St. Jerome! I am ashamed of such rashness, that this blatherer was not afraid to publish that booklet in the face of four illustrious and surrounding universities, as if all their talents were completely turned into rotten mushrooms. I grieve that our heretics, the nearby Pighards, have at last found an opportunity to rightly accuse the Roman Church, if they have heard this being taught in it. But that this foolish author said these things perhaps not out of malice, but ignorance, can be seen from the fact that he says, ‘through that (that is, the first grace of plenary remission) one obtains perfect remission.’ What does it mean to say ‘through plenary remission one obtains perfect remission and through the grace of God one obtains the grace of God’? Does he not dream in fever or suffer from madness? But turn your mind to the sense of the heretics. He wants this first grace to be that of which nothing greater can be said and by which a man deprived of grace is obtained, which cannot be understood except as justifying grace of the spirit, nor is it clear that he understood it otherwise. Otherwise, it would not be that of which nothing greater can be said. Although if he even spoke otherwise about justifying grace, he would still speak impiously, since God alone is that of which nothing greater can be said. St. Augustine, however, not like him, but speaking of created gifts, says, there is nothing greater than charity. But this one confused the grace of God and the grace of the Pope into the chaos of one word, a worthy author of such either opinion or error.

It follows in the same book: ‘Through which also the penalties in purgatory due to the offense of divine majesty are fully remitted and the penalties of said purgatory are completely erased.’ We have heard a Delphic oracle, so that he who knows nothing at all does not doubt at all: he pronounces confidently about the power of the keys in purgatory. But enough about these things above.

It follows there: ‘And although nothing sufficient can be returned to merit such great grace because the gift of God and grace cannot be estimated &c.’ Do you see how again he calls that which the Pope remits the inestimable gift and grace of God, a man most worthy to teach churches, that is, the brothels of heretics. After adorning that grace for the market and trade with careful study, yet immediately he clothes his Mercury in the habit of Jupiter, so that no one may understand that he sought profit, except for those who understand no more than he himself does. He permits it to be given freely to the poor too, indeed so if first they have tried to scrape together money from somewhere from good (as he says) supporters, so that the mendicant brothers without the permission of their superiors procure money, because for this pseudonym remission or a fictitious penalty is much better than salutary obedience. But when no way has been opened to scrape together money to redeem that grace (that is, to buy it again), Not because they sell it, but because no resemblance of things compels them to misuse the terms), then again he says: ‘For the kingdom of heaven should not be more open to the rich than to the poor.’ Again wishing heaven to be open through indulgences. But I withhold my pen, lest it rage against them as they deserve. It is enough to have pointed out to the faithful the pestilence of their speeches so remarkably (as was fitting) wrapped in ignorance and rudeness, so that it would be worthy to cover the vessel with a lid.

Conclusion 34. For those venial graces only concern the punishments of sacramental satisfaction established by man.

This is abundantly clear from the fifth and the twenty-fifth above.

Conclusion 35. They do not preach Christian doctrine who teach that for those redeeming souls or confessional letters, contrition is not necessary.

I ask, why do they give this delay to men to their peril? And what is the benefit of preaching such things to them, except that money is sought and not the salvation of souls, even if these things were true? Now since they are both impious and false, they are much more to be rejected. Certainly, I allowed above that penalties can be remitted even to those who are not contrite, which they deny. Here again, what they affirm, I think should be denied. And concerning confessional letters, indeed, my judgment is the same as about penalties, namely that in both cases contrition is not required neither for the redemption of them nor for the use of them, which they similarly deny, likewise in the remission of penalties. Since part of the confessional is the remission of the penalty. But I completely dissent in redeeming souls and ask them to prove their words. I, indeed, think that in redeeming souls something far different is involved than in the remission of penalties, Since in the remission of penalties a man receives a good, but in redeeming souls he does a good. But the impious can receive a good, but in no way can he do good, nor can his work be pleasing to God, who is not pleasing himself, as in Genesis 4[:4] “The Lord looked with favor on Abel and his offering.” Then it is against scripture that one should first have mercy on another’s soul rather than his own and first remove the speck from his brother’s eye before the beam from his own, and altogether that a servant of the devil should redeem the daughter of God, and this in the presence of God himself. It is ridiculous that an enemy should intercede for a king’s friend. What, I ask, is this madness? That, to magnify the remission of the vilest penalty and useless for salvation, they diminish sins, whose penance alone was to be magnified. If this is not heretical, offensive, scandalous, and offensive to pious ears, what, then, is it that can be called by these portentous names? Or do the inquisitors of heretical depravity persecute and harass Catholics and Catholic opinions with these titles so that they alone may flood heresies with impunity and at their pleasure?

They say, however, that the redemption does not rely on the work of the redeemer but on the merit of the one being redeemed. I respond: Who said this? Where is it proven? Why then is the one being redeemed not properly liberated without the work of the redeemer by the merit of the one being redeemed? But then the desired money would not grow for the sake of the salvation of souls. Why then do we not call on Turks and Jews to also impose their money with us, not for our greed but for the redemption of souls? Nor does it seem to be an obstacle that they are not baptized, since here there is no work required except the money of the giver, not the soul of the perishing. For that giving is based only on the soul to be redeemed. I believe that if even a donkey imposed gold, it would also redeem: but if any disposition is required, necessarily also grace, since a Christian sinner displeases God more than any infidel, nor does the braying of a donkey disgrace him as much as the impiety of a Christian.

Secondly, I said that confessional letters indeed can be given to sinners as can the remission of penalties, but I did not say that they should be encouraged, nor indeed allowed to redeem such, as they impiously and cruelly teach. Which I prove:

First. All the doctrine of Christ is an exhortation to repentance and aims that men quickly turn away from the devil, as Ecclesiasticus [5:8] says: “Do not delay to turn to the Lord,” and the Lord himself: “Watch, because you do not know the day nor the hour,” [Matthew 24:42] and Paul: “Let us hurry to enter into that rest,” [Hebrews 4:11] and [2] Peter [3:11]: “Since all these things are to be dissolved, what sort of people ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, hastening the coming of the day of God,” &c. But these things they taught because they were concerned, not about how to gather money, but to save souls. But these people, as if secure, grant them miserable delay and, as much as in them lies, leave them in the danger of eternal death, so that I do not know whether they can be excused from the murders of souls. For here the salvation of the giver is not sought, but the gift of the perishing, when, if they were good shepherds of souls and true Christians, they would do everything possible to lead the sinner to the fear of God, to the horror of sin, and would not cease weeping, praying, admonishing, rebuking until they had won the soul of their brother. But if he persisted in giving money while remaining wicked, they would reject it in his face and with the Apostle would say: “I seek not yours, but you,” [2 Corinthians 12:14] and again: “Your money perish with you,” [Acts 8:20] and shun his sight. Thus, thus they would act rightly.

But let this be far from our Mercury: ‘Who we rather act if sinners come, relying on suitable mediators (that is, gains) even against the will of Christ with all the Apostles, let them be as one of us, being able to do nothing less than what we can, even redeeming souls, they themselves perishing without interruption, even while we laugh and securely rejoice in their gift. This is the love for the people of Christ and our brothers. Thus, we care for their souls, so that they may understand that in their sins we have the last, that is, no, compassion.’

Conclusion 36. Every Christian truly penitent has plenary remission of penalty and guilt due to him even without indulgence letters.

Otherwise, those who do not have such letters would be in danger, which is false since they are neither commanded nor advised but freely given. Nor do those who neglect them sin, nor are they therefore in danger of salvation. This is evident because such people are already in the way of God’s commandments. And by chance, if such remission is not given to him, it is nevertheless due to him, as the Pope says. But here the acute intellect of some intervenes, saying that these things would be true if the Canons were only penalties imposed by the Pope, but now they declare penalties inflicted by God. Thus, it is fitting for those who have once proposed to persecute the truth with perpetual hatred to speak.

First, they pronounce as if from an oracle that God requires a satisfactory penalty for sins, namely other than the evangelical cross (that is, fasts, labors, vigils), other than corrective punishment: for they do not understand these, because they cannot deny that these cannot be remitted except by God.

Secondly, they add a greater monstrosity to this, namely, that the Canons declare the penalty imposed. Therefore, the Pope only has to declare, but never impose or relax. Otherwise, against the word of Christ, they will teach us thus ‘Whatever I bind, you shall loose.’

It is impossible to be a Christian without possessing Christ. If one has Christ, they also have everything that belongs to Christ. The Blessed Apostle says in Romans 13[:14]: “Put on the Lord Jesus Christ.” And in Romans 8[:32]: “How will He not also with Him graciously give us all things?” And in 1 Corinthians 3[:21]: “All things are yours, whether Cephas or Paul, or life or death.” And in 1 Corinthians 12[:27]: “You are not your own, but members of the body of Christ.” In other places, the Apostle describes how we are all one body and one bread in Christ, each being a member of the other. [1 Cor 10:17] In the Song of Songs [2:16], it says: “My beloved is mine, and I am his.” By faith in Christ, a Christian is united in spirit and one with Christ. “The two shall become one flesh,” [Genesis 3:24] which is a great mystery in Christ and the Church. [Ephesians 5:31–32] Therefore, since the spirit of Christ is in Christians, making them brothers, co-heirs, and fellow citizens with Christ, how can there not be a participation in all the blessings of Christ? For Christ Himself possesses all things through the same Spirit. Thus, through the unfathomable riches of God’s mercy, a Christian can boast and confidently claim in Christ that all things—righteousness, virtue, patience, humility, and all the merits of Christ—are also theirs through the unity of the Spirit by faith in Him. Likewise, all their sins are no longer their own but Christ’s, through the same unity, where they are all absorbed. This is the confidence of Christians and the joy of our conscience: through faith, our sins are not ours but Christ’s, in whom God has placed the sins of all of us, [Isaiah 53:12] and He took away our sins—He, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world. [John 1:29] Conversely, all the righteousness of Christ becomes ours. He lays His hand upon us, and we are well; He stretches out His mantle and covers us. Blessed be the Savior forever, amen.

However, since this most delightful and joyful participation and exchange occurs only through faith, and since faith can neither be given nor taken by a human being, it is clear enough to me that this participation is not granted by the power of the keys or by the benefit of letters of indulgence, but rather it is granted by God alone, before and without them, just as forgiveness is given before forgiveness, and absolution before absolution, so too is participation before participation.

What, then, does the Pope contribute with his participation? I answer: As was said above in conclusion VI about forgiveness, the Pope participates declaratively. For how they could say otherwise, I confess, I do not understand. I will express my sense in the following conclusion.

Conclusion 38. Nevertheless, the forgiveness and participation granted by the Pope are by no means to be despised, because (as I said) they are declarations of divine forgiveness.

Not that such a declaration, which is made in the public letters of indulgences, is necessary (for that which is made in private confession suffices), but it is not to be despised because through it the declaration made privately is also made known and approved by the Church. Thus, I think it should be understood: Whoever has something better, let him say it. For I do not see what else that public participation does. However, although I do not deny this conclusion, which I think is accepted by all, as I said above in conclusion VI, I do not like this way of speaking, that the Pope does nothing other than declare or approve divine forgiveness or participation. For this first makes the keys of the Church too cheap, indeed, it somewhat makes the word of Christ void, where He said: “Whatever you bind, etc.” [Matthew 16:19] For a mere declaration is too little. Secondly, everything will be uncertain for the person to whom the declaration is made, although the remission and reconciliation of that person are made certain to others or to the Church outwardly.

Therefore, just as I expressed my opinion above regarding the remission of guilt, so I will think about the participation in blessings until I am better educated, namely, that just as a sinner, after sinning, hardly trusts in the mercy of God, since the weight of sin pushes them towards despair, and they think more easily of God’s wrath than His mercy, just as before sinning, they think more easily of God’s mercy than His wrath. For man perversely acts in all things, fearing where there is no need to fear but to hope, namely, after sinning, presuming where there is no need to presume but to fear, namely, before sinning. An example of this is abundantly shown in the resurrection of Christ, where many arguments were needed to revive Him in the hearts of the disciples. Finally, the first announcement was made to women and was compared to their delirium, so too the first confidence appears weak to a sinner, to whom it seems that it is not or hardly to be believed. Therefore, it is much more difficult to trust that one is a participant in the blessings of Christ, that is, of inexpressible blessings, to be a partaker of the divine nature, as St. Peter says. [2 Peter 1:4] The greatness of the blessings also causes distrust, namely, not only that such great evils are forgiven but that such great blessings are bestowed, that one is a child of God, heir of the kingdom, brother of Christ, companion of angels, lord of the world. I beseech you, how can one who is dragged down to hell by the bite, indeed, by the burden of their sin, believe these things are true? Here, therefore, the judgment of the keys is necessary, so that one does not trust in themselves, but rather trusts in the key, that is, the priest. And I do not care if even the key-bearer is perhaps unlearned or frivolous. For it is not because of the priest or his power, but because of his word, who said and does not lie: “Whatever you bind, etc.” [Matthew 16:19] In those who believe in this word, the key cannot err; it errs only in those who do not believe this absolution to be valid. For imagine (by an impossibility or contingency), if someone is not or does not think themselves sufficiently contrite, and yet trusts entirely in the one absolving that they are absolved (I think thus by my confidence), this very faith makes them truly absolved because they believe in Him who said: “Whatever you bind, etc.” [Matthew 16:19] The faith of Christ always justifies, no differently than if an inept, frivolous, or unskilled priest baptizes. Add to this, even if you do not think yourself sufficiently contrite (for you cannot and should not trust yourself), nevertheless, if you believe in Him who said: “Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved,” [Matthew 16:16] I tell you, this faith in His word makes you truly baptized, whatever your contrition may be. Therefore, faith is needed everywhere. You have as much as you believe. And thus I understand what our teachers say, that the sacraments are efficacious signs of grace, not because it is done (as Blessed Augustine says) but because it is believed, as above. Thus here, absolution is efficacious, not because it is done, by whomever it is done, whether it errs or not, but because it is believed. Nor can the reservation of cases impede this faith unless it is manifest and despised. Therefore, I say: When a man is in sin, his conscience is so vexed and agitated that he believes himself rather to be a participant in all evils. And such a man is certainly close to justification and has the beginning of grace. Therefore, he must cling to the comfort of the keys, so that by the judgment of the priest, he may be calmed, obtain peace, and gain confidence in the participation of all the blessings of Christ and the Church. But if someone does not believe or doubts that this participation is made to them by the office of the priest, they are not misled by the key, but by their own unbelief, and they bring great harm to their soul and do great injury and supreme irreverence to God and His word. Therefore, it is much better not to approach absolution if you do not believe you will be absolved than to approach without faith: for you approach deceitfully and bring judgment upon yourself, not only as in baptism or the sacrament of bread. Therefore, contrition is not as necessary as faith. For faith in absolution is incomparably more fitting than the fervor of contrition.

And with this faith omitted, most of us are laboring only to inform contritions, teaching people to trust that sins are forgiven when they feel they are perfectly contrite, that is, never to trust, but rather to labor toward despair, since, according to the prophet, it is not in our contrition but in His word that we must hope: for He did not say, “Remember my contrition, O Lord, in which you gave me hope,” but: “Remember your word, in which you gave me hope.” [Psalm 119:49] And again: “In your word (not in our work) I have hoped.” [Psalm 119:81] And again: “My soul has hoped in His word, etc.” [Psalm 130:5] And as Psalm 50 says in Hebrew: “Against you alone have I sinned, therefore you will justify me by your word.” [Psalm 51:6] Therefore, neither the sacrament nor the priest, but faith in the word of Christ through the priest and his office, justifies safely. What is it to you if the Lord speaks through a donkey or a donkeyess, as long as you hear His word, in which you hope and believe?

Thus, understand what our Scholastic doctors say, that the sacraments of the Church are given to us for our exercise, that is, as inestimable gifts in which we have the occasion of believing and being justified. For the word of the Lord was precious in the time of Saul, [1 Samuel 3:1] but now even through the most trivial, wicked, and unlearned men, His word sounds to you. Pay attention to the word and forget the mask of the person: whether it errs or not, you do not err if you believe. If I err and am foolish here, may He who is wise recall me.

The consequence of these things will be that those three truths of John Gerson, which have long been transferred into all books and ears, must be understood wisely, namely, that a man should not trust that he is in a state of salvation because he can say that he regrets his sins, but much more should he consider if he so desires the sacrament of absolution that he believes that if he has received it, he is absolved. For this is to receive the sacrament in vow, that is, in the faith of the word either present or desired to be heard. Therefore, beware lest at any time you trust in your contrition in any way, but in the barest word of your most excellent and faithful Savior Jesus Christ: your heart will deceive you, He will not deceive you whether received or desired. If these things are so (may the Lord God grant that I am not a man without spirit, like the prophet Micah [2:11], and speak rather lies), it is to be feared that many souls are lost by those most unlearned brayers of works and contrition. First, because they do not teach faith in the word, but only contrition, and this weakly enough. Secondly, because they are very quick to bestow absolutions and such participation, as if it were common for everyone to have such faith, nor do they inquire whom or why they absolve.

Therefore, it is not so necessary to say to the one being absolved, ‘Do you grieve?’ as it is to say, ‘Do you believe that I can absolve you?’ as Christ said to the blind men: ‘Do you believe that I can do this for you?’ [Matthew 9:28] For everything is possible for the one who believes. For this faith is certainly proven most in those who, agitated by the trembling of conscience, feel themselves rather to doubt: but as for those who do not feel such misery, I do not know whether those comforting keys are for them, since they do not deserve to be comforted unless they mourn, nor to be encouraged in the faith of forgiveness unless they tremble with doubt about retention.

And finally, as I bring this to a close, I believe that this opinion of mine does not diminish the power of the keys, as is charged against me, but rather reduces them from a false honor and tyrannical reverence to a proper and amiable reverence. It is not surprising that the keys fall into contempt if they are offered to be received with false honors, that is, with terrors only. When the very beneficial advantage of them is recognized, it would be a stone or wood who would not kiss and embrace them with tears. Why, then, do we magnify the Pontiff for them and imagine a terrible man? The keys do not belong to him; they belong to me instead. They are given to me, for my salvation, for my consolation, for my peace and tranquility. The Pontiff is my servant and minister in the keys; he himself does not need them as a Pontiff, but I do. But flatterers infect everything for the Pontiffs; they boast of their power in them, not our consolation, and by the same means they terrify us, by which we should rather be consoled. Everything is so perverted today, and we still do not consider it an unfortunate time, in which there is so much abuse of the best things, turned into the worst for us. Therefore, I do not fully hold this conclusion as it stands, but I deny it for the most part.

Conclusion 39. It is very difficult for even the most learned theologians to simultaneously extol the abundance of indulgences and the truth of contrition before the people.

The reason for this is the following conclusion.

Conclusion 40. The truth of contrition seeks and loves penalties, but the abundance of indulgences causes hatred of them, at least occasionally.

Show me a true penitent, and you will see him seeking revenge on himself for his offense against the divine, so ardently that he forces you to have mercy on him, indeed so that it is necessary to resist him lest he destroy himself, as we often read and have seen happen. Blessed Jerome writes that his Paula was such, and he himself speaks of himself. Nothing is enough for these people in terms of punishment; they call upon heaven and earth and God Himself against themselves, just as David did when he said: “Turn, I pray you, your sword against me and against the house of my father.” [2 Samuel 24:17] Therefore, I think I was right to say that canonical penances were imposed only on those who were either unwilling to do better, being lazy, or certainly to test the truth of their contrition. It is clear, then, how difficult it is, at least for the learned, to walk a middle path between hatred and love of penalties, so as to teach the hatred of them while still most persuading the love of them. But for the unlearned, since nothing is difficult, nothing prevents this from being easy. The Gospel indeed teaches not to flee or relax penalties but to seek and love them because it teaches the spirit of liberty and fear of God even to the contempt of all penalties. But it is much more lucrative and advantageous for the coffers of the sellers that the people fear penalties and drink in the spirit of the world and fear in the letter and servitude while hearing that canonical penalties are such a terrible thing that they are only to be avoided with such great effort, such great expense, such pomp, and such ceremonies, just as the Gospel is not taught to be loved with as much effort.

Objection:

‘What then do you say about those who make pilgrimages to Rome, Jerusalem, St. James, Aachen, Trier, and many other regions and places for the sake of indulgences, also in the dedications of churches?’

Response:

These pilgrimages are undertaken for many reasons, rarely for just ones.

The first and most common is curiosity, namely, the desire to see and hear things foreign and unknown, a levity that comes from the weariness and laziness of neglecting the worship of God in one’s own church. Otherwise, one would find incomparably better indulgences at home than in all the places mentioned together, and similarly would have Christ and the saints present if he were not so foolish as to prefer wood and stones to the poor and his neighbors, to whom he could serve in charity, or even provide for his own family.

The second is tolerable, namely, the cause of indulgences. Since indulgences are free and not commanded, and therefore meritless, those who travel precisely for indulgences merit nothing. They are justly deceived who neglect Christ and their neighbor at home, so that they spend ten times more abroad without fruit and merit. Therefore, the one who stays at home and thinks: “Charity covers a multitude of sins,” [1 Peter 4:8] and “What remains, give as alms, and behold, all things are clean for you,” [Luke 11:41] acts much better, indeed only this one acts rightly, than if he brought all indulgences from Jerusalem and Rome. But it does not please him so to think rightly, therefore we are delivered over to our desires.

The third is the cause of affliction and labor for sin, which I believe rarely happens, at least alone. For one could afflict and labor at home if he sought only labor: if he does it, however, it is not bad, indeed it is good.

The fourth is honest, namely, if it is done with singular devotion for the honor of the saints and the glory of God and for one’s own improvement, as St. Lucy visited St. Agatha, and some holy fathers visited Rome: which they did not do out of curiosity, as the outcome proved.

Therefore, I approve of the practice that the vows of such pilgrimages are commuted into other works, and would that they were commuted freely!

Conclusion 41. Apostolic indulgences must be preached cautiously, lest the people falsely understand them to be preferred over other good works of charity.

I would say to the people: “Behold, brothers, you must know that there are three kinds of good works that can be done with expenditures of money. First and foremost, if someone gives to the poor or lends to a needy neighbor and helps in any way those in any kind of distress. This work must be done so that even the construction of churches should be interrupted, and offerings to the vessels and ornaments of churches should be omitted. After this has been done and there is no one left in need, then the second is to help our churches and hospitals and public works in our lands. After this has been done, then finally, if you please, you can give for the redemption of indulgences in the third place, because in the first there is a command of Christ, in the last there is no command.”

If you say, ‘By this preaching, little money will be collected through indulgences,’ I reply: I believe so. But what is surprising about that, since the Pontiffs seek not money through indulgences, but the salvation of souls, as is evident from those they give in the consecration of churches and altars. Therefore, they do not want to impede better things through their indulgences, but rather to promote charity.

I say freely that whoever teaches the people otherwise and perverts this order is not a teacher but a seducer of the people unless the people, because of their sins, deserve sometimes not to hear the truth rightly preached.

Conclusion 42. Christians must be taught that it is not the Pope’s intention that the redemption of indulgences should in any way be compared to works of mercy.

I understand the Pope as I said above, as he appears publicly, that is, as he speaks to us through the Canons. For it is not the Canons that preach that the dignity of indulgences is to be compared to works of mercy.

The conclusion is clear: because the command of God infinitely surpasses in dignity, as it is permitted by man and in no way commanded, while in the former there is merit, in the latter there is none.

Here it is objected: ‘But indulgences are redeemed by a pious work, such as contributing to the construction or the redemption of captives: therefore, they are meritorious.’

I reply: I am not speaking of the work, but of the indulgences: for that work could have been done without indulgences, nor is it necessarily bound to indulgences. Indulgences, however, granted without the work, confer nothing but only take away. The work, however, done without indulgences confers, because there we receive our own, here we give. And therefore, there it serves the flesh, here it serves the spirit, and briefly, there it satisfies nature, here it satisfies grace: hence indulgences taken separately are incomparable to a work of mercy. Likewise, the work without indulgences is purer than with indulgences, and indulgences are a certain defect of the work because it receives its reward, indeed more than its reward. Therefore, they would act more holily if they contributed simply and not for indulgences. Not that indulgences are bad and harmful, but that the perverse abuse harms, when they would not do such a work unless there were indulgences, and thus the end of such a work becomes indulgence, indeed the person himself, who seeks his own, when he should do the work for God and freely and receive indulgences not otherwise than freely, not because they were given for a contribution, so that thus he does not buy indulgences, nor do they sell them: for everywhere there must be a free donation or there will be manifest Simony and most shameful selling. But who tells these things to the people? when it is said: ‘Impose for free, and I grant for free’?

Likewise, it is to be feared that through this perverse order great idolatry is nourished in the Church. For if the people are taught to contribute for the sake of avoiding penalties (which I hope does not happen, although many may perhaps understand it so), then it is clear that they do not contribute for God, and the fear of penalties or penalty will be their idol, to which they thus sacrifice. If this were to happen, some evil would be done in the Church, such as happened among the Romans of old, when they served Fever and other trivial and harmful deities, lest they be harmed. Therefore, we must be vigilant for the people, and such doubtful and dangerous matters should scarcely be entrusted even to the most learned."

Conclusion 43. Christians must be taught that giving to the poor or lending to the needy is better than purchasing indulgences.

I state this clearly for the simple-minded, as it has been sufficiently demonstrated in the preceding arguments. This conclusion, along with the two preceding and the following ones, is held not only by me but by all and the entire Church, except that the common people never hear this; perhaps it is feared that they will too quickly understand such an obvious and solid truth. For both St. Bonaventure and all the others, when discussing this matter and opposing themselves with the question, “Should other good works then be omitted?” unanimously respond, “By no means, because other good works are better for obtaining the essential reward.” Therefore, the conclusion is clear since those who assert that indulgences are the treasure of Christ’s and the Church’s merits say this.

Conclusion 44. Because charity grows through acts of love, and a person becomes better, but through indulgences, they do not become better, only freer from punishment.

This is evident. For only the remission of punishments is given there, and indulgences are valued by all as only removing punishments. But the removal of punishment does not make one good or better in charity.

Conclusion 45. Christians must be taught that one who sees the needy and neglects them to buy indulgences, does not gain the indulgences of the Pope but incurs the indignation of God.

For he perverts the established order and acts against what John says: “If anyone sees his brother in need and shuts up his compassion from him, how does the love of God abide in him?” [1 John 3:17] Our Sophists interpret this need as extreme, namely, that charity should never or rarely have a place to operate, although they themselves, if in need, would want to be helped not in extreme need but at the first sign of it, while they only wish to help others when their spirits are already uplifted. Truly the best theologians and Christians are those who do not do to others what they would not want done to themselves.

Conclusion 46. Christians must be taught that the purchase of indulgences is optional, not commanded.

I have already said enough above, that indulgences are among those things that are permitted, not those that are expedient, just as in the old law a certificate of divorce, [Deuteronomy 24:1] a sacrifice of jealousy, [Numbers 5:15] and in the new law lawsuits and judgments for the weak, even “for your hardness of heart,” [Matthew 19:8] as Christ says. Whoever engages in these is tolerated rather than commended, as the Gloss says on the subject of penance and restitution: and many others would do better to make satisfaction themselves rather than redeem indulgences, which only criminals need to redeem.

Conclusion 47. Christians must be taught that unless they have an abundance of superfluities, they are obligated to retain what is necessary for their household and not to spend it on indulgences.

For the Apostle says: “If anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.” [1 Timothy 5:8] But there are many who do not have bread or clothing conveniently, yet are induced by the noise and clamor of indulgence preachers to defraud themselves and increase their poverty, in order to increase the abundance of others.

Conclusion 48. Christians must be taught that the Pope, as he is more in need, so more desires devout prayers for himself in giving indulgences than ready money.

Our Roman Curial lords would laugh at this conclusion. Yet it is certain that above all, the Pope should desire prayers from his subjects, as even St. Paul often desired from his. And this is a much more just cause for giving indulgences than if a thousand basilicas were built, because the Supreme Pontiff, surrounded more than supported by so many monsters of demons and impious men, cannot err except to the greatest harm of the whole Church, especially if he willingly listens to the pestilent voice of his sirens saying, “The apex of such great height is not presumed to err,” or that “All positive laws are in the shrine of his heart.” It is not presumed indeed to err, but whether that presumption is good is questionable. And all his laws are indeed in the shrine of his heart, but whether his heart is good is also questionable, for that must be cured by prayer. On this matter, Blessed Bernard most beautifully writes to Pope Eugene in “On Consideration.”

Conclusion 49. Christians must be taught that the Pope’s indulgences are useful if they do not place their trust in them, but they are most harmful if they lose the fear of God through them.

Consider the danger: indulgences are preached to the people directly against the truth of the cross and the fear of God because they allow freedom from punishment and security for forgiven sins. And it seems evident that indulgences so boastfully preached are not from God, since the people rush to accept, observe, and respect them more than the holy Gospel of God, as is evident by the fact: because what comes from God the world despises; another comes in his own name, and this they accept. [John 5:43] And the cause of this error is those masters of such fables, who preach them more diligently and pompously than the Gospel, and even preach to all what belongs to few. For, as has been sufficiently shown above, indulgences are relaxations, licenses, permissions, and indulgences, and true indulgences (if we take the strict meaning of the word) are in fact the gentle permissions of delicate, cold, hard Christians, that is, Gibeonites and water carriers and slaves rather than Israelite princes and sons. [Joshua 9:21-27]

I prove the conclusion:

If the works of charity of those who fervently act are such that no one can trust in them or be secure (since even the most holy Job [9:28] fears all his works, and: Blessed is the man who fears the Lord [Psalm 112:1], and again: Blessed is the man who is always fearful [Proverbs 28:14]), how much more should indulgences, incomparably inferior to such works, be received with more fear than the least amount of trust, that is, none at all! The saint fears lest he does less than he ought to or suffers less than he should, and where will the sinner be, who is forgiven so that he does less than he can? And as I understand our babblers and corrupters of minds, they make a business for us of indulgences, a business walking in darkness [Psalm 91:6] and an operation of error [2 Thessalonians 2:11], while through them they persuade men to trust in all things, which nevertheless belong to few, and to those (as I said) who are cold and weak. Consider whether the Holy Spirit made it so that by their own testimony they call the business of St. Peter the business of the Holy Spirit, as if they themselves confess to be merchants and have Simonian markets.

But what I said, “they are useful,” I understand “not for all, but rather for the old man and sleeping workers,” because it is better for them that punishments be remitted than that they endure them unwillingly, yet this will allowed to them to avoid greater evil should not be securely enjoyed, nor trusted in, but all the more should they grieve and fear that they are such, who need to be left in lesser evil to avoid greater, when they see even those fearing who advance most fervently in good. Therefore I said they are most harmful if they rejoice in such a license without fear.

Conclusion 50. Christians must be taught that if the Pope knew the exactions of the indulgence preachers, he would prefer that the Basilica of St. Peter be reduced to ashes than to be built from the skin, flesh, and bones of his sheep.

For our most robust hunters, after they have imposed a state of money on every order of Christian life, finally even teach wives to beg, even against their husband’s will, and mendicant brothers, even against the will of their superiors, to scrape together from wherever, so that there is no one who has even a penny left without contributing here. Finally, it has come to the point that they even urge people to sell their tunics or borrow from wherever, which is also said to have happened. But I understand that since indulgences are the most worthless of all the Church’s goods and should be given only to the most worthless of the Church, and are neither meritorious nor useful, but most often harmful if they are not feared, such doctrine is worthy of a curse and contrary to the commandments of God. For a wife should be under the authority of her husband and do nothing against his will, even if it were meritorious, much less beg for indulgences that are perhaps not even necessary for her, and religious should keep their obedience, even if they could be crowned elsewhere with martyrdom, and the Pope never intended otherwise, but his false interpreters do. Let someone else vomit their stomach; I restrain myself. I say one thing: at least understand, reader, whether they are not trying to make the people believe through their pestilential preaching that there is salvation in indulgences and the true grace of God. Otherwise, how do they so anxiously commend them that they make meritorious works and the commandments of God void for them? Yet they are still so non-heretical that they boast of being persecutors of heretics.

This, indeed, is what the Pope intended, that people entrusted to his care should be skinned alive, even down to their very bones, for stones and wood, or that they should be slain and destroyed by these thieves and robbers (as Christ says [John 10:1]) with their pestilential doctrines? It would be better to have that Caesar who said: A good shepherd shears his sheep, not flays them. But these do not just flay, they devour them body and soul: truly their throat is an open grave [Psalm 5:10], with their tongues, etc.

Conclusion 51. Christians must be taught that the Pope, as he should and would, if necessary, even sell the Basilica of St. Peter to give to those from whom some preachers of indulgences extract money.

Thus Blessed Ambrose melted down the chalices for the redemption of captives, and Blessed Paulinus of Nola gave himself as a captive for his people, and this is the very purpose for which the Church has gold, as is stated in the decrees taken from the same Ambrose. But now, good God, how many are there who carry wood, indeed leaves, to the forest and their drops to the sea, that is, their pennies to that purse, of which, to use Jerome’s words, the religion of the whole world is the profit!

Conclusion 52. Trust in salvation through letters of indulgence is vain, even if the Commissioner, or even the Pope himself, pledged his soul for them.

They dare to proclaim this without any shame, in order to remove the fear of God from men, and to lead them to the indignation of God through indulgences, contrary to the saying of the Wise Man: Do not be without fear concerning sin forgiven, [Sirach 5:5] and again: Who can understand his errors? [Psalm 19:13] But they say, “We do not remove the fear of God.” If security can coexist with the fear of God through indulgences, truly you do not remove it, but the people, having received the letters with such a solemn oath commended to them, if they fear that the letters are not sufficient before God, how will that glorious promise of security be true? But if they trust that they are sufficient, how will they fear? May every word that persuades security and trust in or through anything other than the pure mercy of God, which is Christ, be eternally cursed: all the saints not only fear but also despair, saying: Do not enter into judgment with your servant, O Lord, [Psalm 143:2] and you, through letters, introduce them securely into His judgment. Hence, I do not believe that tale, which some have invented in such unbridled depths of lies, to be entirely devoid of truth, namely, that someone who died with letters of indulgence came to hell and sought liberty through them, but then a demon came who, reading them, consumed the wax and paper in his hand due to the heat of the fire, and dragged him down into the depths.

Conclusion 53. They are enemies of Christ and the Pope who, for the sake of preaching indulgences, completely forbid the preaching of the Word of God in other churches.

For the office and mind of the Pope is that above all, always and everywhere, he wants the Word of God to be preached, as he knows it to be commanded by Christ. How, then, is he to be believed to contradict Christ and himself? But our people dare this as they do everything.

Conclusion 54. The Word of God is insulted when in the same sermon equal or more time is spent on indulgences than on it.

This is evident from the dignity of the Word of God, indeed from its necessity, since the word of indulgences is neither necessary nor very useful.

Conclusion 55. The mind of the Pope is necessarily that if indulgences (which are the least important) are celebrated with one bell, one procession, and one ceremony, the Gospel (which is the most important) should be preached with a hundred bells, a hundred processions, and a hundred ceremonies.

For nothing in the church is to be handled with greater care than the Holy Gospel, as the church has nothing more precious or health-giving. Hence, this is the one work that he enjoined upon his disciples so repeatedly. And Paul says that he was not sent to baptize, but to preach the Gospel. [1 Corinthians 1:17] Finally, Christ commands that the sacrament of the Eucharist should not be celebrated except in His remembrance, and Paul says in 1 Corinthians 11[:26]: Whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death. For it is better to omit the sacrament than not to preach the Gospel, and the church has established that the Mass should not be celebrated without the reading of the Gospel: hence the Gospel weighs more with God than the Mass, because without the Gospel, man does not live in the spirit, but he lives without the Mass. For in every word that proceeds from the mouth of God shall man live, [Matthew 4:4] as the Lord himself teaches at length in John 6. Moreover, the Mass refreshes those who are already in the body of Christ, while the Gospel, the sword of the Spirit, devours the flesh, divides Behemoth, takes away the vessels of the strong man, and increases the body of the church. The Mass benefits no one except the already living, but the Gospel benefits everyone: hence in the primitive church, the possessed and catechumens were permitted to be present until after the Gospel and then were sent out by those who were of the body of the Mass, and even now the excommunicated are allowed to be present until after the Gospel at Masses. Just as John preceded Christ, so the Gospel precedes the Mass. The Gospel humbles and prostrates; the Mass gives the grace of humility. They would do better, therefore, if they forbade the Mass.

But what a beautiful spectacle for demons do you think it is, when the sellers of indulgences, who themselves are most in need of indulgences (such as the Simoniacs and those most involved in the Canons), give them to those who have no need of indulgences at all?

Conclusion 56. The treasures of the Church, from which the Pope grants indulgences, are neither sufficiently named nor known among the people of Christ.

This is the second death, which I have earned. Therefore, after having long asserted many things so evident that they needed no protest, I must now sometimes dispute again, and thus protest again with the final protest in this dispute. I dispute here, therefore, and seek the truth; witness reader, witness hearer, witness even the inquisitor of heretical depravity himself.

Conclusion 57. It is evident that they are not temporal treasures, since they are not so easily spent, but are only gathered by many preachers.

This is evident from experience.

Conclusion 58. Neither the merits of Christ nor those of the saints, for these always work grace in the inner man and the cross, death, and hell in the outer man, without the Pope.

The matter of this conclusion has deeply and profoundly taken root in almost all the doctors: therefore, it will need to be more broadly and firmly proven by me, and I will do so with confidence.

First, on the merits of the Saints.

For they say that the saints in this life performed many works beyond what was due, namely works of supererogation, which have not yet been rewarded but have been left in the treasury of the Church, by which, through indulgences, some worthy compensation is made, etc. And thus they would have the saints satisfy for us. Against this, I argue.

First. Therefore, indulgences are not indulgences, which I prove, because they are not gratuitous remissions, but applications of another’s satisfaction, and in every way as it was argued above about the treasury of the militant Church, namely, that then nothing is accomplished by the power of the Keys, except a certain transfer of works, but nothing is loosed, which is against the word of Christ: Whatever you loose. [Matthew 16:19] Likewise, that then the same is done through the keys as is done in fact, because if the works of the saints in the Church are in this way, certainly by the Holy Spirit, they are not allowed to lie idle, but they actually help those they can.

Second. There are no works of the saints left unrewarded, because according to everyone, God rewards beyond what is fitting, and Paul: The sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that is to come, etc. [Romans 8:18]

Third. No saint in this life has sufficiently fulfilled the commandments of God, therefore they have done nothing at all in excess. They have left nothing for indulgences to distribute. I believe the conclusion is sufficiently clear, but I prove the major premise so that it is not to be doubted, but rather believed as such, that its contrary is heretical. First, by that of Christ: When you have done all that is written, say, ‘We are unworthy servants’. [Luke 17:10] But an unworthy servant is understood not to have done more, unless perhaps we follow the dreams of some most foolish men, who say Christ wished to say this not out of humility but out of truth, making Christ a liar, lest they themselves not be truthful. Second, by that in Matthew 25[:9], where the wise virgins did not want to share any of their oil, fearing it might also be lacking for them. Third, Paul in 1 Corinthians 3[:14], Everyone will receive his own reward according to his own labor, not according to another’s. Fourth, Galatians 6[:4], Each will give an account of himself, and again: that each may receive according to what he has done in the body. [2 Corinthians 5:10] Fifth, every saint is indebted to love God as much as he can, indeed beyond what he can, but none has done or could do this. Sixth, the saints, through their most perfect work of all, namely death, martyrdom, passion, do not do more than they ought, indeed they do what they ought, even barely doing it; therefore much less did they do more than they ought in other works. Seventh, since I produce so many arguments, but they on their part not one, but a simple narration, speaking without scriptures, doctors, or reasons, we can indeed must completely depart from their opinion. But let these be mine.

Now I will prove the same by the authority of the holy fathers. And first that familiar saying of St. Augustine: All saints are compelled to pray ‘Forgive us our debts’, even when they have done well, because Christ excluded no one when he taught us to pray. But those who confess debts certainly do not abound. Second, by Psalm 31 [32:2]: Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord does not count against him. And below: For this will every saint pray to you. Which St. Jerome in his dialogue against Pelagius excellently discusses, saying: How is he holy, if he prays for his impiety? Again: If he is impious, he is not holy, etc. Thus, the saints by prayer and confession of their impiety merit that sin is not counted against them. Third, St. Augustine in book i. retractations: All commandments are fulfilled when what is not fulfilled is forgiven. For he discusses there the question, whether the saints have perfectly fulfilled the commandments, and denies it, saying that it is more due to God’s forgiveness than man’s fulfillment. Fourth, the same in Confessions ix.: Woe to the life of men, however laudable, if it is judged without mercy being considered. Behold, even the saints need mercy throughout their lives. To which Job [9:15]: Even if I had any righteousness, I would plead with my judge. How then is there anything superfluous for others, who do not suffice for themselves? Fifth, St. Augustine in book i. against Julian introduces ten ancient ecclesiastical fathers, such as Hilary, Cyprian, Gregory Nazianzen, John Chrysostom, Ambrose, Irenaeus, Olympius, Rethicius, Innocent, all of whom, by their authority, prove that no saint in this life is without sin, according to 1 John 1[:8]: If we say that we have no sin, etc. And in On Nature and Grace the same.

From these and many other things, which would take too long to narrate here, I conclude that the merits of the saints are not superfluous for themselves, which could assist us who are idle, and to be bold at last, I declare that what I have said I do not doubt, but I am ready to receive fire and death for them and will assert that everyone who thinks otherwise is heretical.

Yet, even admitting what is impossible, that the merits of the saints truly overflow, I do not know if it would be worthy enough for the Church to expend such precious merits so cheaply, namely, for the remission of penalties, since the remission of penalties is the most trivial gift of the Church and is given to the most trivial, as has been often said. The penalties of martyrs and saints should rather be an example of enduring penalties. Thus we pray at their feasts: ‘May we imitate the power of their passion’. Also, the church mother does not seem to act piously when she relaxes, but when she punishes and restrains, as is evident in excommunications and censures, which penalties she does not remit, but rather inflicts, most of all when she is most concerned for her children. If, however, she relaxes, she does so almost out of despair, fearing worse things might happen. Therefore, since the remission of penalties is such a trivial gift and the power of the keys alone is sufficient there, it would certainly seem no small irreverence to be done to such illustrious labors of the saints if they were bestowed on those snoring. Much better St. Augustine in his sermon on the Martyrs: The feasts of the martyrs (are not remissions but) exhortations of the martyrs, so that we may not be ashamed to imitate what we delight in celebrating.

Thus, this part is proven, that the merits of the saints cannot be a treasury for us, since they are a scarcity even for the saints themselves, unless one thinks that they are a treasure for us, not because they overflow, but because of the communion of the saints, that each labors for the other, as a member for a member. But they did this in life, and if they did it now, it would be through intercession rather than the power of the keys.

But here from afar, I hear the sharp argument of some. ‘It is true,’ they say, ‘The saints were not without sin in this life, but venial, nevertheless they could have done more than they were required.’ It is difficult indeed to deal with such utterly dull minds in this matter. Yet briefly, I say, that it is a venial sin because they do less than they ought, not however that which they imagine, that only a smile, a light word, or a thought is venial sin. Indeed, this is a venial sin, but a great venial sin. Even a good work done in the best way is a venial sin, as above from St. Augustine: The commandments are fulfilled when what is not fulfilled is forgiven, which happens in every good work: for there, forgiveness must always be sought according to the Lord’s prayer. But these require another disputation, which I will address elsewhere. Thus, St. Bonaventure, when he asserted that a man could be without venial sin, indeed failed as a holy man.

On the second, namely the merit of Christ.

That this is not the treasury of indulgences, I dispute. That it is, however, the treasury of the Church, a heretic denies. For Christ is the price of the world and the redeemer, and therefore most truly and alone the unique treasure of the Church. But that it is the treasury of indulgences, I deny until I am taught, and the reason for denying is:

First, because it cannot be proven by any scriptures (as I have often said) nor can it be shown by reason. Nor do those who hold this prove it, but simply narrate it, as is well known. But I said before, that to assert something in the Church, for which no reason or authority can be given, is to expose the Church to the ridicule of enemies and heretics, since according to the Apostle [1] Peter [3:15], we are bound to give a reason for the faith and hope that is in us, and Paul, that the bishop may be able to refute those who contradict by sound doctrine. [Titus 1:9] But here there is so little authority that, even if the Roman Church today were to determine the affirmative part, the same danger would remain, namely because we cannot give any other reason, except that it pleased the Pope and the Roman Church. But what will this reason do if we are pressed by those who do not follow the Roman Church, such as heretics and Picards? They will not seek the will of the Pope and the Roman Church, but either authority or probable reason, and certainly, this is my sole aim in this whole matter.

Second, all the arguments brought here are more valid than those brought about the treasury of the militant Church and the merits of the saints, namely: First, that indulgences are not indulgences, but transfers of the works of others to others and true and legitimate satisfaction because we do what we do through another. But through indulgences (as the Canon says in book v. on penance and reconciliation: chapter With that) penance is weakened, not transferred, but weakened. Second, that then the keys of the Church do nothing and are truly vilified because they do not loose but transfer what is bound by another. But it is impious to say that the keys do not loose: If, however, they loose, they remove everything. Third, that the merits of Christ in fact operate the same without the keys: for they will not be idle. Fourth, that then there is a significant irreverence to the merits of Christ if they are spent only on the relaxation of penalties since he was the example of all martyrs through them. Thus, it would be contrary to the nature of the merits of Christ that they serve the lazy, which stimulate even the fervent. For as it has already been said, the remission of penalties is the most trivial.

Third, let them answer me to this contradiction: Blessed Thomas and Bonaventure and their followers constantly and unanimously say that good works are better than indulgences, as has been said above. Let this be true. Also, through indulgences, the merits of Christ are applied and expended. Let this also be true, for all have constantly asserted this. Also, the merits of Christ are incomparably better than our good works, indeed the only good ones. Let this also be true.

Here I conclude and infer: wretched is he who does not leave his good works and seeks only the works of Christ, that is indulgences, when it is the last cesspool of all blasphemies to prefer his good works to the works of Christ: therefore, either the works of Christ are not the treasury of indulgences, or the miserable man who does not omit all precepts, even divine ones, but only redeems indulgences, that is the merits of Christ. But St. Thomas and Bonaventure say that indulgences are not commanded and are inferior to good works: therefore, they are not the works of Christ, and yet they are the works of Christ both at once.

But perhaps, as they are clever, they will answer with Aristotelian distinctions, ‘It is true, the merits of Christ, taken simply, are better than our works, but thus they are not indulgences or through indulgences are not applied. They are taken, however, as they are satisfactory only for penalties and in this way, they are applied.’ I respond: prove what you say. What if I refuse to believe you, narrating only? I am commanded to test the spirits, whether they are of God. [1 John 4:1] Second, where now is that which was said before, that they are dispensed through indulgences because they were not rewarded, but because they had done some things that were not required? Are such merits so cheap that they receive no other reward than to be the satisfactions of others who are lazy? Then I argue thus: works of supererogation are the most noble and perfect of all. Do you admit this? Yes. And such are not rewarded to martyrs or saints, but granted to the lazy and snoring? And thus the saints are rewarded according to their works and lesser merits because they leave the more perfect for others? Who, I pray, is so insane? Therefore, St. Catherine received nothing for her martyrdom and virginity, but left these to the Church and suffices for her the reward of prayer, vigils, and other good works? But if you say that they were rewarded both for these and left them at the same time, where is that which was said, that there are some things that are not rewarded? Do you see what it is to speak without authority and to divine through darkness?

But if it is impious to say that works of supererogation or more than the saints were required to do are so vile and unrewarded, how much more impious is it to vilify the works of Christ, which are all superabundant, in this way! Therefore, to so magnify indulgences and yet again diminish them with our works, this is to blaspheme Christ and his saints in their merits, unless it is done erroneously and not willingly.

Fourth, I resume the argument that the gloss on penance and reconciliation chapter What, adduces, namely: If indulgences are the remission of all penalties, a man should no longer fast or do good. Nor is it solved by saying that the remission is uncertain, but rather the keys of the Church are blasphemed, although in this opinion almost all the Scholastic doctors support him. But that which man does not know whether he is worthy of love is understood of the future event, [Ecclesiastes 9:1] because he who now believes does not know whether he will persevere in faith. Hence in Ecclesiastes 9[:2] it is immediately added: A man does not know whether he is worthy of love or hatred, but all things are kept uncertain for the future, for it was previously said: The righteous and their works are in the hand of God, etc. But if the remission of guilt makes it uncertain, much more also the penalty, since with the guilt remaining, the penalty also must necessarily remain, as the gloss there says, that the remission is understood when through contrition (indeed through the faith of the keys) the sin is completely blotted out. What then are indulgences? An uncertain gift? Far be it, far be it, that such an impious illusion is done by the Church of Christ, indeed by the keys. For then truly (as some say) indulgences would be certain deceits of the faithful. To this error, they come when we seek to be justified by our works and our righteousness rather than by faith. Therefore, we teach only about contritions when we teach best, nothing about the faith of the keys, which was most of all to be taught. But above, it has been discussed more fully. Therefore, either indulgences are not the treasury of the merits of the saints, or it follows by choice, that having obtained them, one should cease from doing good works for sins.

Second, that this solution is impious against Christ, because if through indulgences the merits of Christ are bestowed upon me, and I still have uncertainty whether my sins are forgiven, therefore I still must work for their remission. Then it follows that I doubt whether the merits of Christ applied and given to me are sufficient for the remission of sins. What could be more execrable than this doubt? But if I do not doubt, but believe they are sufficient, I have acted most impiously if I consider my works better than indulgences, that is, the works of Christ bestowed upon me. For if I could obtain even a single work, indeed the thousandth part of one smallest work of Christ, I am sure of eternal redemption. Let us therefore cease from working our own works for sins and seek only to redeem indulgences, because in them we obtain not one work, but all the merits of Christ, and not of him alone, but of all the saints. Since the merits of Christ cannot be compared in any proportion of goodness to ours, either they are not the treasury of indulgences, or indulgences will be preferred to all the works of all the commandments of God, or there will be the utmost irreverence and blasphemy against the merits of Christ. Then, see also what it is, that to this treasury, as if the merits of Christ alone were not sufficient, they add the merits of the saints, likewise the merits of the militant Church. Do you say, ‘Then is the matter equal? Does the Pope and the whole Church err in thinking this way? Will you alone think rightly and be the first?’

First, I respond: I am not alone, but truth is with me and many others, namely those who doubted and still doubt what indulgences can do. Nor do they sin in that doubt, since they are only the remissions of penalties, which whether one believes or not, whether one obtains them or not, nevertheless he will be saved.

Second: And the Pope is with me, because although he grants indulgences, he nowhere says that they are from the treasury of the merits of Christ and the Church, indeed declaring himself, he says in book v. on penance and reconciliation: chapter With that, that they are enervations of penance, but enervation is not the bestowal of the merits of Christ, but only the removal of penalties.

Third: And the whole Church is with me, for the Church certainly thinks with the Pope and as the Pope thinks. But it has already been said what the Pope thinks.

Fourth: And if St. Thomas, Blessed Bonaventure, Alexander of Hales with their disciples Antoninus, Peter of Palude, Augustine of Ancona, besides the Canonists, who all follow them, nevertheless it is right to prefer truth to them first, then also the authority of the Pope and the Church. Nor is it surprising that such great men erred in this. For in how many things, I ask, do the Scholastics acknowledge that Blessed Thomas even erred? Indeed, what is greater, for more than three hundred years so many universities, so many sharpest minds, so much persistent study of minds have labored on one Aristotle, and yet they not only do not understand Aristotle, but even spread error and feigned understanding throughout almost the whole Church, although even if they did understand him, they would not have achieved anything of distinguished wisdom, especially in those books of Aristotle, which they commonly use, in which by his own testimony with Aulus Gellius book xx. chapter iv. and Gregory Nazianzen in the sermon against the Arians, he is found to be nothing but a wordsmith and word-battler. I may seem bold, impudent, rash here, and would that I had enough age and leisure left to give an account of this rashness of mine and make my words credible, perhaps I would make it so that I would not seem to think in vain in this way. I would not reconcile Aristotle with Plato and others, which John Picus of Mirandola began, but I would paint Aristotle in his true colors, as he deserves to be painted, who is professedly an artificer of words (as Gregory Nazianzen says) and a deceiver of minds. If for so long a time in so many minds God permitted so much cloud and darkness to dominate, why do we still placate ourselves so securely with these things and do not rather (as befits Christians) suspect all our own things, that Christ alone may be our light, righteousness, truth, wisdom, all our good?

Therefore, those holy men, seeing that Aristotle was held in such veneration by the unlearned and those ignorant of Christ, themselves, as they were humble in mind, followed in pious simplicity and fell into error, giving occasion to others for so many whirlwinds of opinions, questions, errors, as we see in the Scholastic doctors. And we were worthy to leave Christ, so that he too might leave us, and even through his chosen ones, give occasion for error and infinite labor, as he says in Ezekiel 14[:9]: When the prophet has erred and spoken a word, I the Lord have deceived that prophet, and there [Ezekiel 14:4]: If he comes to the prophet asking me through him, I the Lord will answer him according to the multitude of his impurities. Therefore, with fear and judgment, all things are to be read and accepted, even those handed down by great and holy men, according to the Apostle: Test all things, hold fast to what is good, [1 Thessalonians 5:21] and that of [1] John [4:1]: Test the spirits, whether they are of God. Those who have omitted these counsels and trusted in man, as those who say ‘I prefer to err with so many than to think rightly with you,’ are worthy to be despised and left by counsel. For he who despises the counsel of the spirit, why should he not be deservedly despised by the spirit of counsel? So it has happened in indulgences. When the holy men saw that they were so widely extolled by the common people (as the common people always make the judgment of Paris and Midas) and did not want to believe them so cheap, they began to imagine at least a respectable and precious foundation for them, since no other occurred nor was there anywhere.

Let us therefore return to the matter and seek the merit of Christ, and prove that it is not the treasury of indulgences. Now the reason

Fifth, No one is given the grace of contrition without at the same time being given the merits of Christ. Therefore, before indulgences, he has the treasure of the merits of Christ, and if he did not have it, indulgences would not profit him according to their opinion (for they think sublimely about the remission of penalties). For by contrition, a man returns to grace, like the prodigal son [Luke 15:11] with Christ his father, who says: All that I have is yours, and Isaiah 9[:6]: A child is born to us and a son is given to us. Romans 8[:32]: How will he not also with him graciously give us all things?

Sixth, Otherwise, those who are worse would be happier in the Church. For it has been said that indulgences benefit only the sinful, and to them the treasure of the merits of Christ will be given. But to children, virgins, and the innocent it will not be given, to whom it is most due, indeed who alone have it. But this argument does little for those who believe that all penalties are removed and that indulgences cannot be conferred on sinners without contrition, which I do not believe.

The last, which the conclusion itself carries with it as proof, namely that the merits of Christ and his saints without the Pope work their own double work, namely proper and alien. Proper, that is grace, righteousness, truth, patience, meekness in the spirit of the elect man, because the righteousness of Christ and his merit justifies and forgives sins, as John [1:29] says: Behold the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world, and Isaiah 43[:24]: You have burdened me with your sins and wearied me with your iniquities, I, I am he who blots out your iniquities and I will not remember your sins. But he blots out by the merit of his passion, and in this way I would concede that the merits of Christ are a certain treasury not of the Church, but of God the Father, who through effective suffrage with God obtains remission of guilt for us. So it says in Job [42:8] by figure: I will accept his face, and the Apostle in Hebrews 12[:24]: The blood of Christ speaks better than Abel, for the blood of Abel demands vengeance and wrath, the blood of Christ cries out for mercy and intercedes for us. Alien (for Isaiah so calls it in chapter 28[:21]), that is the cross, labor, various penalties, finally death and hell in the flesh, that the body of sin may be destroyed and our members mortified on earth and sinners turned into hell. For whoever is baptized in Christ and renewed is prepared for penalties, crosses, deaths, to be considered as a sheep for slaughter and mortified all day long [Psalm 44:22], as the psalm says: But I am ready for scourges, I am set up, and my pain is always before me. [Psalm 38:17] Thus, we must be conformed to the image of the Son of God, so that whoever does not take up his cross and follow him is not worthy of him, even if he had obtained full indulgences.

Wherefore now see, whether at the time Scholastic Theology, that is illusory (for so it sounds in Greek), began, Theology of the cross was abolished, and all things are plainly perverse. The theologian of the cross (that is, speaking of the crucified and hidden God) teaches penalties, crosses, death to be the most precious treasure of all and the most sacred relics, which the Lord of this theology himself consecrated and blessed not only by the touch of his most holy flesh but also by the embrace of his super-holy and divine will, and left them here truly to be kissed, sought, embraced. Indeed, blessed and blessed is he who is found worthy by God to whom these treasures of relics of Christ are given, indeed who understands them to be given to him. For to whom are they not offered? As St. James [1:2]: Count it all joy, my brothers, when you meet various trials. For this grace and glory, to receive these treasures, is not for all, but for the elect sons of God. Many make pilgrimages to Rome and other holy places to see the tunic of Christ, the bones of martyrs, the places and footprints of the saints: which we do not condemn indeed, but we groan at this, that the true relics, namely the passions and crosses, which sanctified the bones and relics of the martyrs and made them worthy of such great veneration, we are so ignorant of that we not only do not accept those offered at home but repel and persecute them with all our might from place to place, when we ought to pray with utmost thirst and constant tears to God that such precious relics of Christ the most sacred of all be given to us as the gift of the chosen sons of God. Thus, psalm 15 [16:1] is said to have the title in Hebrew Michtam, which you may understand as a golden ensign or little gift, when only the passion of Christ is sung there, and psalm 79 [80:1], Testament of Asaph, which the learned prefer to understand as a delightful jewel or little gift of Asaph, and yet there the hymn of the cross resounds.

Indeed, such relics are so holy and such precious treasures that while other relics can be kept on earth or as most honorably as possible in gold, silver, gems, silk, these cannot be kept except in heavenly, living, rational, immortal, pure, holy containers, that is, the hearts of the faithful, immeasurably more precious than all gold and gems. But now faith in the people is so lacking that they worship such relics with this religion, that even some of the highest Pontiffs have been authors and leaders not only of rejecting them but also of persecuting them, so that they wanted to devour the Turks, and then also to excommunicate the Christians into worse than hell’s damnation, rather than remit a penny of their tax, let alone endure an injury to their name or body, who nonetheless at the same time opened the floodgates of heaven and inundated the treasures of indulgences and the merits of Christ, so that through this deluge the Christian world is nearly destroyed unless my faith deceives me. But the theologian of glory (that is, who knows not only the crucified and hidden God with the Apostle [1 Corinthians 2:2] but also the glorious one with the gentiles, sees and speaks of his invisible things from the creation of the world, being understood by the things that are made) learns from Aristotle that the object of the will is the good and the good is lovable, but the evil is hateful, therefore God is the highest good and supremely lovable. And from this the theologian of the cross disagrees, defining the treasure of Christ to be the relaxation and loosing of penalties as things most evil and hateful, against the theologian of the cross, who defines the treasure of Christ to be the imposition and binding of penalties as things most good and lovable, and yet still the former receives money for his treasure, the latter’s treasure is not even deemed worthy of acceptance though offered freely but is rather persecuted at last.

But who will be the judge of these things, so that we may know whom to listen to? Behold, says Isaiah 66[:4]: I will choose their delusions, and 1 Corinthians 1[:27]: God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong, etc. If this judgment is so pleasing that it is true, it remains for us to confess, if we wish to speak the truth, that the treasures of indulgences are the greatest of all damages if understood in the way they are proclaimed, namely to be the remission of all penalties, not only canonical, since there is no greater damage than to take away the image of the Son of God from men and strip them of the inestimable treasures, of which St. Agnes boasted with joyful and blessed pride, calling them flourishing, shining gems, and ornaments, precious jewels, etc.

Conclusion 59. The treasury of the Church, St. Lawrence said, are the poor of the Church, but he spoke in the usage of the word in his time.

It is clear enough to those who have seen the legend of St. Lawrence. Moreover, the word is not used now as it was, to call the poor the treasury of the Church, but we call the patrimony of Christ and St. Peter what some straw, without grain, Constantine gave to the Church. Therefore, in Psalm 2[:8], where God says to Christ: “Ask of me, and I will give you the nations as your inheritance and the ends of the earth as your possession,” this should be understood as towns and fields from the East to the West. Otherwise, in our time, if anyone speaks differently about the Church’s affairs and spiritual matters, they will be considered barbaric by us, even though St. Lawrence did call the Church’s wealth riches, but not only those.

Conclusion 60. Without rashness, we say that the keys of the Church (given by Christ’s merit) are this treasury.

If this merit is called the treasury of indulgences, that is, the power of the keys, the meaning is clear. For no one doubts that whatever is given to the Church has been given by the merit of Christ.

Conclusion 61. It is clear that the Pope’s power alone is sufficient for the remission of punishments and cases.

This is proven by the Pope’s own style, as he never mentions the merits of Christ in binding or loosing, but only speaks of the plenitude of power from certain knowledge and his own will.

Secondly, this is proven by the common opinion of all those who affirm that indulgences are granted by virtue of the word where Christ says: “Whatever you bind, etc.” [Matthew 16:19] They believe that this word would have no force unless it allowed the power of granting. Therefore, they also understand that only the power suffices, but they do not prove the treasury with any authority, but they bring this authority as sufficient, which, however, sounds like mere power, not the application of merits.

Thirdly, otherwise, in other bindings and loosings, the distribution of merits should be understood, for example, when a priest excommunicates, absolves, ordains, degrades, establishes, abolishes, commands, prohibits, dispenses, or interprets. In all these matters, the word “Whatever” [Matthew 16:19] applies. Therefore, if in these cases, the distribution of merits is not necessary but only the naked power of the keys suffices, how much more in the remission of canonical punishments! For such remission is nothing other than the absolution from punishments, indeed, if the distribution of the merits of Christ occurs anywhere, it should most of all happen in the absolution of the excommunicated: for there, the sinner is reconciled to the Church and again declared a participant in the goods of Christ and the Church. Therefore, there is no reason why the word “Whatever you bind” [Matthew 16:19] should include the treasury of Christ in indulgences and not in all other loosing, since the authority, words, and meaning are the same in those cases.

Fourthly, if to loose with the key in granting indulgences means the opening and pouring out of the Church’s treasury, then by opposition, to bind would mean the collection and inclusion of that same treasury. For they are contrary powers and works of opposites. But nowhere and never is there a use of collecting or including this treasury, and yet, if there is loosing and pouring out, there must also be inclusion, since both have been given to the Church, and not given in vain. Therefore, just as to bind is understood without collecting the treasury as making debtors, without positively taking anything from it, so to loose must be understood as making free, without the positive expenditure of the treasury.

Conclusion 62. The true treasury of the Church is the most holy Gospel of the glory and grace of God.

The Gospel of God is quite an unknown thing in much of the Church: therefore, it should be discussed a little more broadly. For Christ left nothing in the world except the Gospel alone. Hence, he gave nothing to his called servants except pounds, talents, money, denarii, to show by these very words of treasure that the true treasury is the Gospel itself. And Paul [2 Corinthians 12:14] says he treasures for his children, and Christ [Matthew 13:44] speaks of a treasure hidden in a field. And that it is hidden makes it equally neglected.

But the Gospel, according to the Apostle in Romans 1[:1–3], is the message about the Son of God incarnate, given to us for salvation and peace without our merits. It is the word of salvation, the word of grace, the word of comfort, the word of joy, the voice of the bridegroom and the bride, the good word, the word of peace. As Isaiah 40[:9; 52:7] says: “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news, who proclaim peace, who bring good tidings.” But the Law is the word of destruction, the word of wrath, the word of sorrow, the word of pain, the voice of the judge and the guilty, the word of restlessness, the word of a curse. For according to the Apostle, the Law is the power of sin [1 Corinthians 15:56] and the Law produces wrath [Romans 4:15], it is the law of death [Romans 7:5–13]: for from the Law we have nothing but a bad conscience, a restless heart, a fearful breast before the face of our sins, which the Law shows but does not remove, nor can we remove them. Thus, when we are captured, saddened, and utterly desperate, the light of the Gospel comes and says: “Do not fear, [Isaiah 35:4] comfort, comfort my people, [Isaiah 40:1] comfort the faint-hearted, [1 Thessalonians 5:14] behold your God, behold the Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world, [John 1:29] behold the one who alone fulfills the Law for you, who was made by God for you wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption, [1 Corinthians 1:30] for all who believe in him.” When the sinful conscience hears this sweetest message, it revives and exults in full jubilation, and with full confidence, it no longer fears death nor any kind of punishments, nor hell: therefore, those who still fear punishments have not yet heard Christ nor the voice of the Gospel, but rather the voice of Moses.

From this Gospel, the true glory of God is born, as we are taught that the Law is fulfilled and to be fulfilled not by our works, but by the grace of a merciful God in Christ, not by doing, but by believing, not by offering anything to God, but by receiving and participating in everything from Christ, from whose fullness we all participate and receive, of which we will speak more elsewhere.

Conclusion 63. This [Gospel] is rightly the most odious because it makes the first the last.

For the Gospel destroys what is, confounds the strong, confounds the wise, and reduces them to nothing, to weakness, to foolishness, because it teaches humility and the cross. Thus Psalm 9[:6] says: “You have rebuked the nations and the wicked perished, you have blotted out their name.” But this rule of the cross is hated by all who love earthly things and their own, saying: “This is a hard saying.” [John 6:60] Therefore, it is not surprising if the message of Christ is most hateful to those who love to be something, wisdom, power, flesh from themselves, and seem to themselves to be the first.

Conclusion 64. But the treasury of indulgences is rightly the most pleasing because it makes the last the first.

Because it teaches to fear punishments, indeed it makes one free from punishment, which belongs only to the righteous. For no one needs indulgences except a slave to punishments, that is, one who does not trample them, proudly dominating them in contempt, but is oppressed by them and flees from them, like a child from the shadows of night and darkness, and yet they are permitted to be free, even though the righteous are also subject to various punishments.

Conclusion 65. Therefore, the Gospel treasuries are the nets with which they once fished for men of wealth.

For the Apostle says: “I seek not yours, but you,” [2 Corinthians 12:14] and Christ: “I will make you fishers of men.” [Matthew 4:19] For the sweet word draws the will, indeed it makes the will of man inclined toward Christ. Hence St. Peter, depicted as a fisherman in the city, says:

I guide the Church as a ship, the world’s climates Are the sea to me, the Scriptures are the nets, man is the fish.

Conclusion 66. But the treasury of indulgences is the net with which they now fish for the wealth of men.

I think this is clear from what has been said, for through the remission of punishments, a man is not made better nor drawn closer to God (this is done only by the word of Christ), as they are the words of a man giving permission and relaxation more than capturing and binding. But if they capture anything, certainly it is nothing but money, they do not capture souls. Not that I condemn the business of collecting money, indeed, in my judgment, it seems that God’s providence takes care of this business, so that, since it is the vilest among the gifts and offices of the Church, not worthy to be crowned in the future life, it is at least rewarded with a small amount of money in this life, so that nothing remains unrewarded, although in the past, relaxations were granted for free.

Conclusion 67. Indulgences, which the preachers vociferate as the greatest graces, are truly understood as such only in promoting gain.

For bold ignorance dares to call the greatest what is the least, and the judgment and ability to understand correctly is left to the people, so that the erring believe that God’s grace is given here. For they do not explain, lest they be forced to contradict themselves or be found liars, for they have called something small great.

Conclusion 68. They are indeed the least compared to the grace of God and the piety of the cross.

Indeed, compared to the grace of God, they are nothing and null, for they rather work against the grace of God, yet they are tolerated for the sake of the lazy and the sluggish, as is evident from what has been said.

Conclusion 69. Bishops and parish priests are bound to admit with all reverence the Apostolic Commissioners of indulgences.

For papal authority must be ceded to with reverence in all things. For he who resists authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist God acquire damnation for themselves. [Romans 13:2] And the Lord himself: “He who rejects you, rejects me.” [Luke 10:16] Therefore, although in small matters, no less than in great ones, authority must be ceded. Hence it also follows that if the Pope were to issue unjust sentences, they are still to be feared. And as Emperor Charles says, “Whatever he imposes, no matter how grievous, must be borne,” as we also see the Church doing today, which is certainly oppressed with infinite burdens and yet bears them piously and humbly in quiet. However, this must be understood so that no one comes into an erroneous conscience, as if unjust sentences are to be feared because they are to be approved as just by those who must fear them. For the Pope himself decrees that some are bound by the Church who, however, are not bound before God, and compels them to bear the binding, and such a binding does not harm them, for it is merely a punishment and should be feared, but it should not cause a scruple of conscience, just as we should fear God in all other violence, even profane, and not proudly resist by contempt. Thus, burdens are to be borne, not because they are rightly imposed and to be approved, but as scourges inflicted by God and to be humbly endured. Therefore, unjust sentences and burdens are to be feared not because of the word “Whatever you bind,” [Matthew 16:19] but because of the general precept: “Agree with your adversary on the way,” [Matthew 5:25] and the word: “Whoever strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also,” [Matthew 5:39] etc., and Romans 12[:19]: “Do not avenge yourselves,” etc. For if this were counsel (as many theologians seem to err), then it would be permissible with the same liberty to resist the Pope in his unjust burdens and sentences as to resist the Turk or other adversaries, but none are to be resisted at all, although their work is not to be approved, nor is it an error in conscience. But this matter, very necessary, requires another time and work.

Conclusion 70. But they are more bound to keep their eyes open, to listen with all ears, lest those under the commission of the Pope preach their own dreams.

The rule of the jurists is most proven, that the Pope acts in all concessions so as not to prejudice another unless he does so with express mention and plenitude of power, as the custom and style of the Curia also teach. Therefore, it is most certain that when granting indulgences, he wishes them to be nothing more than indulgences and to have no more value than they naturally have, but allows them to have as much value as they have, content that he has given them: for he nowhere declares their value. This is the Pope’s commission. But our preachers go beyond this and not only boast from the pulpits that they are the Pope’s, whom others rightly think to be fools, but they also conjoin the office of both the Pope and the Church to the name, and establish and pronounce to us with confidence, as if from heaven, what they are, indeed far beyond what they are and ever can be, as can be proved even from their latest book. Bishops are therefore bound to prohibit these dreams, lest they allow wolves to enter the sheepfolds of Christ, as is expressly commanded in the Fifth Book of the Decretals and Rescripts, Chapter “Cum ex eo,” and Clement V in the same Chapter “Abusionibus,” so that they permit nothing to be proposed to the people except what is contained in their letters.

Conclusion 71. Against the truth of Apostolic indulgences, whoever speaks, let him be anathema and accursed.

For even if the granting of indulgences is a small matter compared to the grace of God and the great good of those who preach them, yet whoever contradicts acts arrogantly against authority: therefore, he will rightly be cursed, since ecclesiastical obedience is the more admirable the more it yields and humbles itself even in the vilest matters. But what the truth of indulgences is, has been sufficiently disputed so far and still awaits the determination of the Church, except that it is certain that they are merely relaxations of temporal punishments, whatever they may be. The remission of guilt, however, is the greatest of all, together with the holy Gospel, which they do not care for or certainly do not know.

Conclusion 72. But whoever cares about the licentiousness and wantonness of the preacher of indulgences, let him be blessed.

For today, the widow of Christ, the holy Church, is in such a state that all things are permitted to all, especially to scholastic theologians, among whom there can be found those who condemn even true opinions for no reason other than that they did not originate from their source, yet they are allowed to assert that God causes sin, God is the cause of evil, guilt, and many other things. If a poet or orator (as they call them), or someone learned in Greek, Latin, or Hebrew, were to say such things, they would be the worst of heretics. But that is a greater harm. It is as if it were a crime if a Christian were to arm the Turks or hinder those going to Rome, or violate apostolic letters, for which there has never been given the faculty to remit, even if the fullest plenitude were granted, but the Apostolic See reserves it to itself: so holy was the Church acting at that time, that, keeping the commandments of God first, even such small things it wished to restrain with such rigor. For it was not yet that Lerna and Tartarus of simonies, lusts, pomp, slaughters, and other abominations in the Church.

But if those things were thus rigidly restrained, with what rigor do we think those should be restrained who do not offer anything to the Turks, but to demons, not whatever, but our own weapons, that is, the word of God, while contaminating it with their dreams and (as Isaiah is wont to say) flowing into an idol by their spirit, so that it is not an instrument by which the soul is drawn but is seduced into false opinions? But this vice is so permitted everywhere that it is the most vicious of all, who do not consider it a virtue and the merit of merits, no matter by whom it was done. Thus Blessed Jerome laments that Scripture is open to all, not for learning but for laceration. Then, if those who hinder those going to Rome sin so much, what of those who hinder those going to heaven not only by pestilential doctrines but also by the most corrupt morals? And those who do not violate apostolic but divine letters, where will they go? They have taken away the key of knowledge, they do not enter themselves, and they hinder those who are entering. [Luke 11:52] Are these portents perhaps greater and worse than those read and reserved on Maundy Thursday? But they should be read only in heaven and never be remitted.

Blessed are those who strive to purge the holy Scriptures and bring them to light from the darkness of opinions and human reasons, by which we have almost become Pelagians in sense and Donatists in work. But these matters will be discussed elsewhere.

Conclusion 73. As the Pope justly fulminates against those who by any art machinate fraud in the business of indulgences.

I say again, as before (whatever may be the personal intention of the Supreme Pontiff), the power of the keys must be humbly ceded to and favored, nor should one rashly resist it: for it is the power of God, which, whether used rightly or abused, must be feared as any other work from God, and even more so.

Conclusion 74. Much more does he intend to fulminate against those who by the pretext of indulgences machinate fraud against holy charity and truth.

For however much authority is to be honored, we should not be so cowardly as not to reprove or resist its abuse. Thus all the saints have endured and honored the power of the world, which the Apostle [Romans 13:1ff] also calls the power of God, even in the midst of punishments and tortures which that power inflicted, but they nevertheless constantly detested its abuse. And they did not endure because they used the power rightly in persecuting, but they left the conscience of the evil deed to them and through death carried with them the testimony and confession of their innocence, as Blessed [1] Peter [4:15] says: “Let no one suffer as a thief,” etc. So, if the Church or the Pope has deprived someone of the communion of the faithful without cause, it must be endured and the power not condemned. But one should not be so afraid as to approve it as if it were rightly done, but rather to die in excommunication. For one is not excommunicated except by an erring key, the error of which, if one approves by seeking absolution, one errs even worse: honor the key and bear it, do not approve the error.

Therefore, those who preach indulgences in such a way that they wish them to appear as the grace of God are to be fulminated against: for this is against the truth and charity, which alone is such grace. And it would have been much better if there were no indulgences at all anywhere than for such opinions to be sown among the people, because without indulgences we can be Christians, but with such opinions, we can only be heretics. However, it is certain that the Supreme Pontiff either believes or should wish that there is first mutual charity and mercy among the people and that other precepts of God flourish in them, and so he grants indulgences. Now, however, he is deceived because charity, mercy, and faith are almost extinguished, much less have they cooled among us. For if he knew this, he would leave indulgences aside and first seek to restore mutual charity among the people. Thus I testify to the Lord Jesus, that the people for the most part (others think, entirely) are ignorant that works of charity are better than indulgences, they believe rather that it is better to redeem indulgences than to do charity, and this heretical and pestilent opinion has no corrector or faithful teacher, but rather through these pompous trumpets, it has the most instant authors.

Conclusion 75. To think that Papal indulgences are so great that they can absolve a man even if he had violated the mother of God is insanity.

I am compelled to call insane those who think such things, and forgiveness must be sought from the Blessed Virgin for being forced to say and think such things, nor has a way been open by which we could avoid this necessity. I do not know by what devil it has been done that the people spread this rumor everywhere, whether it was truly said in this way or thus understood by the people. Indeed, even though it was constantly asserted by many and by men of great name, that it was preached in many places, I was more surprised than I believed, but I thought the reports were false. Therefore, I did not wish to accuse any preacher in this conclusion, but to warn the people who began to think such things, which perhaps no one had said: for whether they said it or not, it does not matter to me until I am more certain. However, that opinion, from wherever it originated, was detestable and damnable. However, it is not surprising that something like this was understood by the people when they hear that great and horrendous sins are considered somewhat light because of the greatness of the graces.

The true and evangelical preaching is to magnify sins as much as possible so that man may come to fear and legitimate repentance. Finally, what does it profit to thunder with so many helpers for the remission of the vilest punishments to exalt indulgences and to hardly murmur for the most healthful wisdom of the cross? Indeed, how does it not harm the simple people, who usually estimate a word by how much it was preached with gesture and pomp? But the Gospel is brought forth with no pomp, indulgences with all pomp, so that the people believe the Gospel is nothing and indulgences are everything.

However, it is surprising that they dare to shout that homicides, robberies, lust of all kinds, blasphemies against the Virgin Mary and God are easy to be remitted by these indulgences. Why do they not also shout that those lighter sins are remitted, which are reserved in the Bull of the Last Supper? “The Pope does not remit.” See, therefore, perhaps those are not remitted either or at least not so easily remitted, which are much graver than those.

Conclusion 76. We say, on the contrary, that Papal indulgences cannot remove even the least venial sins concerning guilt.

I would not have made this opinion unless I wanted to make the opinion of the previous conclusion detestable. But it is clear that no guilt is remitted except by God alone. Therefore, even the great ones are not remitted by the faculties, but are declared to be remitted, and their punishment is remitted: I say this according to their opinion, but mine has been made sufficiently clear above. But here I would have lingered on venial sin, which today is so vile, as if it were almost nothing, and I fear greatly for the perdition of many, who securely snore in sins when they do not see that they are committing crimes. I confess this, until I read the Scholastic doctors, I never understood what and how much venial sin was: whether they understand it, I do not know. I briefly say this: Whoever does not always fear and act as if he were full of mortal sins, will hardly ever be saved, for the Scripture says: “Do not enter into judgment with your servant, Lord.” [Psalm 143:2] For not only venial sins, which are now commonly called, but also good works cannot endure God’s judgment, but need forgiving mercy, for it does not say, “Do not enter into judgment with your enemy,” but “with your servant and child, who serves you.” This fear, therefore, would teach one to sigh for God’s mercy and to trust in it: where that is lacking, we begin to trust in our conscience more than in God’s mercy when we are not aware of having done anything criminal, and those will fall into terrible judgment.

Conclusion 77. To say that not even if St. Peter were Pope now could greater graces be given is blasphemy against St. Peter and the Pope.

Conclusion 78. We say, on the contrary, that even this Pope and any Pope have greater ones, namely the Gospel, virtues, the graces of healing, etc., as in 1 Corinthians 12.

For in the power and obedience of the Pope are all those who have these in the Church, whom he can send wherever he wishes, even if he himself does not personally have them, so that I may not say that the Bull of the Last Supper has not yet been remitted with its cases. The grace of the Supreme Pontiff would be even greater if he gave all these faculties freely to all Christians who need them, then if he restored the freedom of the Christian people by abolishing the burdensome Canons and expelling the tyrannies of offices and simony. But these are perhaps not in his power: the enemy has prevailed, and the prince of the provinces has become subject to tribute. The right hand of the Lord will work this virtue if we are worthy to obtain it.

Conclusion 79. To say that the cross erected insignificantly with the papal arms is equivalent to the cross of Christ is blasphemy.

With what face do these men have, who does not see? What do they not dare, who dare such things? Are these souls of Christ, redeemed by his blood, to be believed? The cross of Christ gives life to the whole world by killing sin, that armed cross grants that some punishments are remitted. And so are eternal and temporal punishment equal? But why pursue all the portents that follow from such a statement, which heaven itself could not bear to be uttered?

Conclusion 80. Bishops, parish priests, and theologians will be accountable for allowing such sermons to be preached to the people.

But the power of the Church is feared, and errors and offenses made today are avenged on the Roman See with a double sword: but is that a reason to be silent? Do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul [Matthew 10:28]: whoever confesses me before men, I will confess before my Father. [Matthew 10:32] But I marvel greatly, who first discovered that gloss that the two swords signify one spiritual (not as the Apostle calls it, namely the sword of the Spirit [Ephesians 6:17], the word of God), the other material, so that the Pope is armed with both powers, not as a lovable father, but as a formidable tyrant, when we see nothing in him but power on all sides.

And this is the most faithful gloss on the decrees of the fathers, in which arms are so strictly prohibited to the clergy. See here, whether God, angered, seeing that we love to understand iron instead of the sword of the Spirit and the Gospel, has justly made it so that he gave us the sword we wanted and took away the one we did not want. So that nowhere in the world has there been a more cruel slaughter of wars than among Christians, again, sacred Scripture is scarcely neglected more than among Christians. Behold the sword you wanted! O gloss worthy of Tartarus! Yet we are still so stony that we do not understand God’s wrath. Why, I ask, does that most lovable mind not interpret the two keys with equal subtlety, so that one is the dispenser of worldly riches, the other of heavenly riches? And indeed, the sentence about the latter is clear enough, for according to the preachers of indulgences, it constantly opens heaven and overflows with the riches of Christ. But the other could not be understood in this way, knowing the most voracious whirlpool of riches in the Church. For it is not expedient for the Church and the patrimony of Christ to dispense the riches of the world with as much liberality as it pours out the riches of heaven. Therefore, the other key is the key of knowledge: if to this is added “The other sword is the sword of knowledge,” it would be called Apostolic. “In all these things, the wrath of the Lord has not yet turned away, his hand is still outstretched,” [Isaiah 9:21] for it is a matter of great inconvenience to meditate on the sacred writings, by which we are instructed (according to the Apostle [2 Corinthians 10:5]) to destroy fortresses and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God. We prefer the compendium of that labor, not to destroy heresies or errors, but to burn heretics and the erring, guided indeed by a better counsel of Cato than Scipio in the destruction of Carthage, indeed against the will of the Spirit, who writes that the Jebusites and Canaanites were left in the promised land so that the children of Israel might learn to wage war and become accustomed to waging war. But if Blessed Jerome does not deceive me, I think it is prefigured about the wars of heretics, or at least the Apostle should be trusted where he says: “There must be heresies.” [1 Corinthians 11:19] But we say, “By no means, but heretics must be burned, and so the root with the fruits, indeed the tares with the wheat, must be uprooted.” What do we say here, except that we say to the Lord with tears: You are just, O Lord, and your judgment is right? [Psalm 119:137] For what else do we deserve? And I mention these things also lest the Pighards, our heretic neighbors, an unfortunate people, who rejoice in the Roman stench, like the Pharisee over the publican, do not have compassion, lest, I say, they believe that we do not know our own vices and stains and that they would pride themselves immensely over our misery, if we were seen to be silent and approving of these things. We know, alas, our condition and we grieve, but unlike the heretics, we do not flee and pass by the half-dead as if we were afraid of being polluted by the sins of others. They are so frenzied in their fear that they are not ashamed to boast that they flee so as not to be polluted. Such is their charity. We, on the other hand, the more miserably the Church labors, the more faithfully we assist and run with tears, prayers, admonitions, and entreaties. For charity commands us to bear one another’s burdens, [Galatians 6:2] not as the charity of the heretics does, which only seeks the advantage of the other, so that it may be carried rather than endure anything unpleasant from the sins of others. If Christ and his saints had wanted to do this, who would have been saved?

Conclusion 81. This licentious preaching of indulgences makes it difficult for even learned men to redeem reverence for the Pope from slanders or at least from the subtle questions of the laity.

Even if my friends have long called me a heretic, impious, blasphemous, for not holding the Church of Christ and the holy Scriptures with a Catholic sense, I, relying on my conscience, believe that they are mistaken, and that I love the Church of Christ and its beauty. But he who judges me is the Lord, even if I am conscious of nothing against myself. [1 Corinthians 4:4] And therefore I was compelled to state all these positions because I saw others infected with false opinions, others laughing in taverns and openly holding the holy priesthood of the Church in contempt, on account of the excessive license of preaching indulgences. The laity had no greater occasion to be stirred up to hatred of the priests, who for many years have been offended by our avarice and most wicked morals, than that they honor the priesthood (alas, only out of fear of punishment).

Conclusion 82. Why does the Pope not empty purgatory for the most holy charity and the utmost necessity of souls, as the most just cause of all, if he redeems infinite souls for the most disastrous money for the construction of the Basilica as the lightest cause?

This question is not raised by the Pope, but by the questors, because, as I said above, nowhere is there any decree of the Supreme Pontiff on this matter: therefore, let them who raised it answer it. I will respond to all these questions with one word, as far as possible for the honor of the Pontiffs, namely, that no one informs them of the truth of the matter, and it often happens that they grant wrongly to those who tell them wrong.

Conclusion 83. Why do the funeral rites and anniversaries of the dead remain and not return or allow the benefits instituted for them to be received, since it is now an injury to pray for those redeemed?

I know many, like me, have been troubled by this question, and many evasion efforts have been made in vain by us: we even said that if the souls had flown away, then the offices instituted for them would now turn to the praise of God, as happens when children and infants die. Another says this differently, but no one has sufficiently satisfied. Finally, I began to dispute and deny that their words were true, so that I might thus elicit from the doctors what should be answered here.

Conclusion 84. What is that new piety of God and the Pope, that they allow a pious soul and a friend of God to be redeemed by an impious and hostile person for money, and yet they do not redeem it out of gratuitous charity for its own necessity?

Conclusion 85. Why are the penitential Canons, long dead and abrogated in reality and not in use, still redeemed by money through the concession of indulgences as if they were most lively?

Conclusion 86. Why does the Pope, whose wealth today is richer than the wealthiest Crassuses, not build just one Basilica of St. Peter from his own money rather than that of the poor faithful?

To this and similar questions, I say: it is not for us to judge the will of the Pope, but only to bear it, even if it should be most unjust, as I said above. But it is still necessary to admonish both the Pope and the preachers of indulgences not to give the people such a manifest occasion to speak, just as the priest Eli once did, [1 Samuel 2:17] so that people would detract from the Lord’s sacrifice on account of his sons. However, if the Pope’s intention was ever to build the Church of St. Peter with so much money, and not rather those who abuse his facility for their own profit, it is not necessary to commit to writing what they gossip everywhere about that structure: may the Lord grant that I am lying, it cannot be that this exaction will prosper for long.

Conclusion 87. What does the Pope remit or participate in for those who by perfect contrition have the right to plenary remission and participation?

This question arises because many, even jurists, say they do not know what remission of guilt by the keys is, about which I have given my opinion above.

Conclusion 88. What greater good would accrue to the Church if the Pope, as he does once, granted these remissions and participations a hundred times a day to each of the faithful?

This is wonderfully strange. Some imagine a common treasury that is increased by indulgences, and therefore, if a man obtains plenary remission seven times a day, as can be done in the city, so many more goods consequently follow. These are contrary to themselves in that indulgences are expenses of the treasury according to them, therefore not collections. Others, according to the division of the continuous into infinity, think that sins are remitted: just as wood is divided into always divisible parts, so sins are always remittable further, although they always become smaller. I confess that I do not know what to say.

Conclusion 89. Since the Pope seeks the salvation of souls through indulgences more than money, why does he suspend letters and indulgences already granted, since they are equally effective?

This question burns and displeases most of all, and I confess, with great appearance: for that suspension is the only reason why indulgences are despised. Therefore, I cannot deny that everything the Pope does must be borne, but I grieve that I cannot prove them to be the best, although, if one were to speak of the Pope’s mind without the intermediate mercenary workers, I would say that the best should be presumed about it, briefly and with confidence. The Church needs reformation, which is not the office of one Pope nor of many Cardinals, as both the most recent Council has proved, but of the whole world, indeed of God alone. The time of this reformation is known only to him who created time. In the meantime, we cannot deny such manifest vices. The keys are in abuse and servitude to avarice and ambition, and the whirlpool has taken its force: it is not ours to delay it. Our iniquities answer us, and each one’s word is a burden to him.

Conclusion 90. To restrain these most scrupulous arguments of the laity by power alone without answering them with reason, is to expose the Church and the Pope to the ridicule of enemies and to make unfortunate Christians.

For thus from evil comes worse, when they are restrained by terror, how much more rightly would we be taught to understand this wrath of God and to pray for the Church and to endure such things in the hope of future reformation, than to provoke worse when we want to force such manifest vices to appear as virtues, if indeed we did not deserve to be vexed, God would not permit men alone to dominate in the Church, but would give us pastors according to his heart, who would give us a measure of wheat in due time. Now, however, even if there are good pastors, they cannot come to their office: such is the wrath of the Lord’s fury.

Conclusion 91. If indulgences were preached according to the spirit and mind of the Pope, all these things would be easily solved, indeed, they would not exist.

How? Namely, if they were preached as they are, only remissions of punishments, not meritorious and to be held below good works, no one would ever have been moved to doubt anything about them: now, because of their excessive magnification, they raise insoluble questions to their own vilification. For the mind of the Pope cannot be other than that indulgences are indulgences.

Conclusion 92. Therefore, let all those prophets who say to the people of Christ “peace, peace,” and there is no peace, [Jeremiah 6:14] be dismissed.

Conclusion 93. Let all those prophets who say to the people of Christ “cross, cross,” and there is no cross, do well.

Conclusion 94. Christians are to be exhorted to follow their head Christ through punishments, deaths, and hells.

Conclusion 95. And thus, more through many tribulations than through the security of peace, let them be confident in entering heaven.

Enough has been said above about the cross and punishments, a rare sermon today.

To the candid and learned reader.

Do not think these things were published for you, learned and candid reader, (although what use is this admonition?) as if I fear these things will seem Ciceronian to you: you have what to read elsewhere according to your genius: it was fitting for me to treat our things, that is, rough and barbaric, with those like me. Thus it was decided in heaven, nor would I have dared to name the Supreme Pontiff in these my bulls unless I had seen my friends confide in his terror as much as possible, moreover, since it is the peculiar duty of the Supreme Pontiff to act as a debtor to the wise and the unwise, to the Greeks and the barbarians. FAREWELL.

IN THE YEAR OF OUR LORD. 1518.

Saturday, September 7, 2024

Resolutions on Indulgences, by Martin Luther

Letter to Staupitz