Chapter 5. Of the Supplementings Which They Add to Satisfactions, as Pardons and Purgatory

Out of this doctrine of satisfactions do flow indulgences or pardons. For they say that what our power lacks to make satisfaction is supplied by these pardons. And they run so far forth into madness, that they define them to be the distribution of the merits of Christ and of the martyrs, which the Pope deals abroad by his bulls. But although they have more need of Helleborus to purge their frenzied brain, than arguments to answer them, so that it is not much worthy the trouble to stand upon confuting such trifling errors, which are already shaken with many battering rams, and of themselves grow into decayed age, and bend toward falling: yet because a short confutation of them shall be profitable for some that be ignorant, I will not altogether omit it. As for this, that pardons have so long stood safe, and have so long been unpunished, having been used with so outragious and furious licentiousness: this may serve to teach us in how dark a night of errors, men in certain ages past have been drowned. They saw themselves to be openly and uncoloredly scorned of the Pope and his bull-bearers, gainful markets to be made of the salvation of their souls, the price of salvation to be valued at a few pence, and nothing set out to be freely given: that by this color they be wiped of offerings to be filthily spent upon brothels, bawds and banquetings: that the greatest blowers abroad of pardons are the greatest despisers of them: that this monster does daily more and more with greater licentiousness overrun the world, and grow into outrage, and that there is no end, new lead daily brought, and new money gotten. Yet with high reverence they received, they worshiped and bought pardons, and such as among the rest saw somewhat farther, yet thought them to be godly deceits, whereby men might be beguiled with some profit. At length, since the world suffered itself to be somewhat wiser, pardons grew cold, and by little and little became frozen, till they utterly vanished away.

But forasmuch as many that see the filthy gamings, the deceits, thefts and robberies, with which the pardoners have heretofore mocked and beguiled us, yet see not the very fountain of ungodliness from which they spring: it is good to show not only of what sort pardons be, but also what they be, when they are wiped from all spots. They call the treasure of the church, the merits of Christ and of the holy Apostles and Martyrs. The principal custody of this barn (as I have already touched) they pretend to be delivered to the bishop of Rome, that he should have the distribution of so great gifts, that he might both give them by himself, and also grant jurisdiction to others to give them. Hereupon proceed from the Pope sometimes plenary pardons, some pardons for certain years: from the Cardinals, pardons for a hundred days: from Bishops, pardons for forty days. But they be (as I may naturally describe them) the profaning of the blood of Christ, Satan's mockery, to lead away the Christian people from the grace of God, from the life that is in Christ, and to turn them from the true way of salvation. For how could the blood of Christ be more filthily profaned, than when it is denied to suffice to the remission of sins, to reconciliation and satisfaction, unless the lack thereof as being withered and wasted, should be otherwise supplied and profited? The law and all the Prophets (says Peter) bear witness of Christ, that by him forgiveness of sin is to be received (Acts 10:43): Pardons give remission of sins by Peter, Paul, and the Martyrs. The blood of Christ (says John) cleanses us from sin (1 John 1:7): Pardons do make the blood of Martyrs the washing away of sins. Christ (says Paul) who knew not sin, was made sin for us, that is, the satisfaction of sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him (2 Corinthians 5:21): Pardons do set the satisfaction of sins in the blood of Martyrs. Paul cried out and testified to the Corinthians, that only Christ was crucified and died for them (1 Corinthians 1:13): the pardons pronounce that Paul and others died for us. In another place he says that Christ purchased the church with his blood (Acts 20:28): the pardons appoint another price of purchase in the blood of Martyrs. The Apostle says, that Christ with one oblation made perfect forever them that were sanctified (Hebrews 10:14): the pardons cry out to the contrary and say, that sanctification is made perfect by the Martyrs, which otherwise were not sufficient. John says that all the saints washed their gowns in the blood of the Lamb (Revelation 7:14): the pardons teach men to wash their gowns in the blood of saints.

Leo, Bishop of Rome, writes notably well to the Palestinians against these sacrileges. Although (says he) the death of many saints has been precious in the sight of the Lord, yet the killing of no innocent has been the propitiation for the world. The righteous received, but gave not crowns: and out of the valor of the faithful are graven examples of patience, nor gifts of righteousness. For their deaths were every one singular to themselves, and none of them did by his end pay the debt of another, for as much as there is one Lord Christ, in whom all are crucified, all are dead, buried, and raised up again. Which sentence (as it was worthy to be remembered) he repeated in another place: There can nothing be required more plain to destroy this wicked doctrine. Yet Augustine speaks no less aptly to the same effect. Though (says he) we die brethren for brethren, yet the blood of no martyrs is shed for the forgiveness of sins. Which thing Christ has done for us, neither has he therein done that for us, that we should follow him, but has given us a thing to rejoice upon. Again in another place, As only the Son of God was made the Son of man, to make us with him the sons of God: so he alone for us has taken upon him punishment without evil deservings, that we by him might without good deservings obtain grace not due to us. Truly whereas all their doctrine is patched together of horrible sacrileges and blasphemies, yet this is a more monstrous blasphemy than all the others. Let them remember themselves, whether these be not their decrees: that the martyrs have by their death done more to God, and deserved more, than was needful for themselves: and that they had remaining so great a plenty of deservings, as did also overflow to others: and therefore, lest so great goodness should be superfluous, their blood is mingled with the blood of Christ, and of both these bloods is made the treasure of the church, for the remission and satisfaction of sins. And that so is the saying of Paul to be taken: I supply in my body those things that are lacking of the sufferings of Christ for his body, which is the church. What is this else but to leave Christ only his name, otherwise to make him but a common petty saint, that may scarcely among the multitude be known from the rest? He only, only should have been preached, he only set forth, he only named, he only been looked to, when the obtaining of forgiveness of sins, satisfaction, and sanctification are treated of. But let us hear their curtailed arguments. Lest the blood of the martyrs should be shed in vain, therefore let it be employed to the common benefit of the church. Is it so? Was it no profit to glorify God by their death? To subscribe to his truth with their blood? By despising this present life, to testify that they sought for a better life? By their steadfastness to strengthen the faith of the church, and overcome the stubbornness of the enemies? But this is the matter indeed: they acknowledge no profit of the martyrs' death, if Christ only be the propitiator, if he only died for our sins, if he only was offered up for our redemption. So (say they) Peter and Paul might nevertheless have obtained the crown of victory, if they had died in their beds. And whereas they have fought even to the shedding of their blood, it would not agree with the justice of God to leave the same barren and fruitless. As though God could not tell how to increase in his servants their glory, according to the measure of his gifts. But the church receives in common together profit enough, when it is by their triumphs encouraged to a zealous desire to fight.

But how maliciously do they wrest that place of Paul where he says, that he supplies in his body those things that were lacking of the sufferings of Christ? For he refers not that default or supplying to the work of redemption, satisfaction, and expiation: but to those afflictions with which all the members of Christ, that is to say, all the faithful must be exercised, so long as they shall be in this flesh. He says therefore, that this remains of the sufferings of Christ, that he daily suffers in his members the same that he once suffered in himself. Christ vouchsafes to do us so great honor, to reckon and account our afflictions his own. Whereas Paul added these words, For the church, he meant not for the redemption, for the reconciliation, for the satisfaction of the church, but for the edifying and profit of the church. As in another place he says, that he suffers all things for the elect's sake, that they may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus. And he wrote to the Corinthians, that he suffered all the troubles that he suffered, for their comfort and salvation. And immediately in the same place he expounds himself, when he says further, that he was made a minister of the church, not for redemption, but according to the dispensation that was committed to him, to preach the Gospel of Christ. If they yet require another expositor, let them hear Augustine. The sufferings of Christ (says he) are in Christ only as in the head: and both in Christ and the church, as in the whole body. Whereby Paul being one member says, I supply in my body that which is lacking in the sufferings of Christ. Therefore if you, whatever you be that hear this, are one of the members of Christ, whatever you suffer of them that are not the members of Christ, that same was lacking in the sufferings of Christ. But to what end the sufferings of the Apostles taken for the church of Christ do tend, he expounds in another place where he says: Christ is to me the gate to you: because you are the sheep of Christ bought with his blood: acknowledging your price, which is not given of me, but preached by me. Then he adds, As he has given his soul, so ought we to give our souls for our brothers, to edify peace, and to confirm faith. These are Augustine's words. But God forbid, that Paul should have thought that anything was lacking in the sufferings of Christ as concerning all fullness of righteousness, salvation and life: or that he meant to add anything to it, who so plainly and honorably preaches, that the abundance of grace was so largely poured out by Christ, that it far surpassed all the force of sin. By it only all the saints have been saved, and not by the merit of their own life or death, as Peter expressly testified: so that he should be slanderous against God and Christ, that would place the worthiness of any saint anywhere else than in the only mercy of God. But why do I tarry on this any longer, as upon a matter yet doubtful, since the very revealing of such monstrous errors is a sufficient confutation of them? Now (to pass over such abominations) who taught the Pope to enclose in lead and parchment the grace of Jesus Christ, which the Lord willed to be distributed by the word of the Gospel? Truly either the Gospel of God must be false, or their pardons false. For, that Christ is offered us in the Gospel, with all abundance of heavenly benefits, with all his merits, with all his righteousness, wisdom and grace, without any exception, Paul witnesses where he says, that the word of reconciliation was delivered to the ministers, whereby they might use this form of message, as it were Christ giving exhortation by them: we beseech you, be you so reconciled to God? He has made him that knew no sin, to be made sin for us, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. And the faithful know of what value is that common partaking of Christ, which (as the same Apostle witnesses) is offered us to be enjoyed in the Gospel. Contrariwise the pardons do bring out of the storehouse of the Pope, a certain pittance of grace, and fasten it to lead, parchment, indeed and to a certain place, and sever it from the word of God. If a man should ask from where this abuse took its beginning: it seems to have proceeded from this, that when in time past penitents were charged with more rigorous satisfactions than all could bear, they which felt themselves above measure oppressed with penance enjoined them, required of the church a release. The mitigation that was granted to such, was called an Indulgence or pardon. But when they turned satisfactions from the church to God, and said that they were recompenses whereby men may redeem themselves from the judgment of God, then they therewithall did also draw these indulgences or pardons to be propitiatory remedies, to deliver us from deserved punishments. As for these blasphemers that we have recited, they have forged them so shamelessly, that they can have no color at all.

Now let them no more trouble us with their purgation, because it is with this axe already broken, hewed down, and overthrown from the very foundations. For I do not agree with some men, that think best to dissemble in this point, and make no mention at all of Purgatory, whereupon (as they say) great contentions do arise, but small edification is gotten. Truly I myself would also think such trifles worthy to be negligently passed over, if they did not account them earnest matters. But forasmuch as purgatory is built of many blasphemies, and is daily upheld with new blasphemies, and raises up many and grievous offenses, truly it is not to be winked at. Perhaps this might after a sort have been dissembled for a time, that it was invented by curious and bold rashness without the word of God: that men believed of it by, I know not what revelations, feigned by the craft of Satan: that for the confirmation of it, certain places of Scripture were fondly wrested. Albeit the Lord gives not leave to man's presumptuousness so to break into the secret places of his judgments, and has severely forbidden men to inquire for truth at dead men, neglecting his word, and permits not his word to be so unreverently defiled. But let us grant, that all those things might for a while have been borne with, as things of no great importance. But when the cleansing of sins is sought elsewhere than in the blood of Christ, when satisfaction is given away to any other thing, then it is most perilous not to speak of it. Therefore we must cry out not only with vehement stretching of our voice, but also of our throat and sides: that Purgatory is the damnable device of Satan, that it makes void the Cross of Christ, that it lays an intolerable slander upon the mercy of God, that it weakens and overthrows our faith. For what else is Purgatory among them, but the satisfaction that the souls of men departed do pay after their death? So that overthrowing the opinion of satisfaction, Purgatory is immediately overthrown by the very roots. But if in our former discourse it is more than evident that the blood of Christ is the only satisfaction, propitiatory sacrifice and cleansing for the sins of the faithful: what remains but that Purgatory is a mere and horrible blasphemy against Christ? I pass over the robberies of God with which it is daily defended, the offenses that it breeds in religion, and other things innumerable, which we see to have come out of the same spring of ungodliness.

But it is good to wring out of their hands such places as they have falsely and wrongfully taken out of the Scripture. When (say they) the Lord affirms that the sin against the Holy Spirit should not be forgiven in this world, nor in the world to come, thereby he shows that there is a forgiveness of some sins in the world to come. But who does not see that the Lord there speaks of the fault of sin? Now if it be so, what is that to their Purgatory, forasmuch as by their opinion the pain is there suffered of those sins, of which they deny not the fault to be forgiven in this present life? But that they may no more cavil against us, they shall have yet a plainer solution. When the Lord meant to cut off all hope of pardon from so heinous wickedness, he thought it not enough to say that it should never be forgiven: but the more to amplify it, he used a division, wherein he comprehended both the judgment that every man's conscience feels in this life, and the last judgment that shall be openly pronounced at the resurrection: as though he should have said: Beware of malicious rebellion, as of most present damnation. For he that of set purpose shall endeavor to quench the light of the Holy Spirit, shall not obtain pardon, neither in this life, which is given to sinners for their conversion, nor in the last day when the lambs shall be severed by the angels of God from the goats, and the kingdom of heaven shall be cleansed from all offenses. Then they bring forth that parable out of Matthew: Agree with your adversary, lest he deliver you to the judge, and the judge to the sergeant, and the sergeant to the prison, from where you shall not get out, until you have paid the utmost farthing. If in this place the judge does signify God, and the adversary plaintiff the Devil, the sergeant the Angel, and the prison Purgatory, I will gladly yield to them. But if it is evident to all men, that Christ meant there to show into how many dangers and mischiefs they cast themselves, that had rather obstinately pursue the extremity of the law, than deal according to equity and good right, to the end to exhort his disciples the more earnestly to agreement with equity: where then I pray you shall Purgatory be found?

They fetch an argument out of the saying of Paul, where he affirms that the knees of things in heaven, earth and hell, shall bow to Christ. For they take it as confirmed, that hell cannot there be meant of those that are adjudged to eternal damnation. Therefore it remains that it must be the souls lying in pain in Purgatory. They did not reason very evil, if the Apostle did by kneeling mean the true godly worshipping. But since he teaches only, that there is a dominion given to Christ, by which all creatures are to be subdued, what proof is there to the contrary, but that we may by hell understand the devils, that shall be brought before the judgment of God, to acknowledge him their judge with fear and trembling? Like as Paul himself expounds the same prophecy in another place. All (says he) shall be brought before the judgment seat of Christ. For it is written: So truly as I live, every knee shall bow to me, etc. But we may not so expound that which is in the Revelation: I have heard all creatures, both these things that are in heaven, and those that are upon the earth, and these that are under the earth, and those that are in the sea, and all those that are in them, I have heard them all say to him that sits on the Throne and to the Lamb, Blessing and honor, and glory, and power, for ever and ever. That I do indeed easily grant, but what creatures do they think to be here rehearsed? For it is most certain, that there are contained creatures both without reason and without sense. By which is affirmed nothing else, but that all the parts of the world, from the highest top of the heavens to the very middle point of the earth, do in their manner declare the glory of their creator. As for that which they allege out of the history of the Maccabees, I will not vouchsafe to answer it, lest I should seem to reckon that work in the number of the holy books. But Augustine received it as Canonical. But first, of what sure credit did he receive it? The Jews (says he) esteem not the writing of the Maccabees as they do the law, the Prophets and the Psalms, of which the Lord himself has witnessed as of his witnesses, saying: It was necessary, that all things should be fulfilled that are written in the law, and the Psalms, and Prophets, concerning me. But it has been received by the Church not unprofitably, if it be soberly read or heard. And Jerome teaches without any doubting, that the authority thereof is of no force to proving of doctrines. And it evidently appears by that old book, which is entitled under the name of Cyprian, concerning the exposition of the Creed, that it had no place at all in the old Church. But why do I here strive without cause? As though the author himself does not sufficiently show, how much he is to be credited, when in the end he craves pardon, [reconstructed: lest] he have spoken anything not well. Truly he that confesses his writings to need pardon, says plainly that they are not the oracles of the Holy Spirit. Besides that, the godliness of Judas is praised for no other cause, but for that he had an assured hope of the last resurrection, when he sent an offering for the dead to Jerusalem. Neither does the writer of that history refer that which Judas did to be a price of redemption, but that they might be partakers of the eternal life with the other faithful, that had died for their country and religion. This doing was indeed not without superstition and preposterous zeal, but they are more than fools, that draw a sacrifice of the law so far as to us: for as much as we know that things do cease by the coming of Christ, that then were in use.

But they have an invincible bulwark in Paul, which can not so easily be battered. If any man (says he) build upon this foundation, gold, silver, precious stones, timber, hay, stubble, the Lord shall show every man's work what it is: because it shall be revealed in fire, and the fire shall try every man's work what it is. If any man's work does burn, it shall suffer loss, but he shall be safe, but as through the fire. What fire (say they) can that be, but the fire of Purgatory? by which the filthiness of sin is cleansed away, that we may enter pure into the kingdom of God? But the most part of the old writers thought it to be another fire, that is to say, Trouble or the cross, by which the Lord tries those that are his, that they should not rest in the filthiness of the flesh: and that is much more probable, than in feigning Purgatory. All be it I do neither agree with these men, because I think I have attained a certain and much plainer understanding of that place. But before that I utter it, I would have them answer me, whether the Apostles and all the saints must have gone through this fire of Purgatory? I know they will say, no. For it were too much inconvenient that they must have needed to be purged, whose merits they dream to overflow above measure to all the members of the church. But the Apostle affirms it. For he does not say that the work of some shall be proved, but the work of all. Neither is this my argument, but Augustine's, which so confutes that exposition. And (which is more absurdity) he does not say, that they shall pass through the fire for all works: but if they have faithfully built the church, they shall receive reward when their work is examined with fire. First we see that the Apostle used a metaphor, when he called the doctrines invented by man's brains, wood, hay, and stubble. And the metaphor has an apparent meaning: that as wood so soon as it is put in the fire, consumes and wastes, so can not those doctrines continue when they come to be examined. Now no man is ignorant that such trial comes of the Holy Ghost. Therefore to follow the true cause of his metaphor, and match the parts together with just relation, he called the trial of the Holy Ghost, fire. For even as the nearer that gold and silver are put to the fire, so much the surer proof they have of their goodness and fineness: so the Lord's truth, the more exactly it is weighed with spiritual examination, so much the greater confirmation of credit it receives. As hay, wood, and stubble put to the fire, are brought to sudden consuming, so the inventions of men not established by the word of God, can not bear the trial of the Holy Ghost, but they by and by fall away and perish. Finally, if forged doctrines be compared to wood, hay, and stubble, because like wood, hay, and stubble, they are burned with fire and destroyed: but they are not destroyed or driven away but by the spirit of the Lord: it follows that the Holy Ghost is the fire with which they shall be proved, whose proof Paul, according to the common use of the Scripture, calls The day of the Lord. For it is called the day of the Lord, whenever he does any way show his presence to men. But then his face principally shines, when his truth shines upon us. Now have we proved, that Paul means no other fire, but the trial of the Holy Ghost. But how are they saved by that fire, that suffer loss of their work? That shall not be hard to understand, if we consider of what kind of men he speaks. For he touches those builders of the church, that keeping the true foundation, do build disagreeing matter upon it, that is to say, they that not swerving from the [reconstructed: chief] and necessary articles of faith, do err in points that are smaller and less perilous, mingling their own devices with the word of God. Such I say, must suffer loss of their work, having their devices destroyed. But themselves are saved, but as by the fire: that is to say, not that their ignorance and error is allowable before the Lord, but because they are cleansed from it by the grace and power of the Holy Ghost. Therefore whoever have defiled the golden fineness of God's word with this dung of purgatory, they must needs suffer loss of their work.

But they will say, it has been an ancient usage of the church, Paul answered this objection when he comprehends his own time in that sentence, where he says, that all they must suffer loss of their work, that in the building of the church, do lay anything upon the foundation that agrees not with it. Therefore when the adversaries object against me, that it has been used above a thousand and three hundred years, to have prayers made for the dead: I ask them again, by what word of God, by what Revelation, by what example it was done. For here they do not only want testimonies of Scripture, but also all the examples of holy men that there are recorded, do show no such thing. Of the mourning and order of funerals there are sometimes found many and long tales: but of prayers you can not see one tittle. But of the greater weight that the matter is, the more it ought to have been expressly spoken. But the very old fathers themselves that prayed for the dead, did see that herein they wanted both commandment of God, and lawful example. Why then did they dare to do so? In this I say, they did suffer somewhat as men: and therefore I affirm that, that which they did, ought not to be drawn into example. For whereas the faithful ought to undertake the doing of nothing, but upon assured conscience, as Paul teaches: this assuredness is principally required in prayer. But it is likely that they were led by some reason to it: they sought some comfort to relieve their sorrow: and it seemed unnatural not to show before God some testimony of their love toward the dead. How man's wit is inclined to this affection, all men know by experience. Also the received custom was like a burning brand to set many men's minds on fire. We know that with all nations and in all ages there were funerals done for the dead, and their souls yearly purged. For though Satan beguiled foolish men with these deceits: yet he took occasion so to beguile by a true principle: that death is not a destruction, but a passage out of this life into another. And it is no doubt, but that even very superstition condemns the Gentiles before the judgment seat of God, for neglecting the care of the life to come, which they professed themselves to believe. Now Christians, because they would not be worse than heathen men, were ashamed to do nothing for the dead, as though they were utterly destroyed. Hereupon came that ill-advised diligence: because if they were slow in looking to the funerals, in banquetings and offerings, they thought that they had put themselves in danger of a great reproach. And that which first proceeded from a wrongful following of the heathens' example, was so multiplied by often new increases, that now it is the principal holiness of Papistry, to help the dead in distress. But the Scripture ministers another much better and more perfect comfort, when it testifies, that the dead are blessed that die in the Lord. And it adds a reason: because from that point on they rest from their labors. And we ought not so much tenderly to follow our own affection of love, to set up a wrongful manner of praying in the church. Truly he that has but mean wisdom, does soon perceive that all that is recorded hereof in the old writers, was done to bear with the common usage, and the ignorance of the people. They themselves also, I grant, were carried away into error: even as unadvisedly lightness of belief is wont to rob men's wits of judgment. But in the meantime the very reading of them does show, how doubtfully they commend prayers for the dead. Augustine in his book of confessions, reports that Monica his mother did earnestly desire, that she might be remembered in celebrating the mysteries at the altar. An old wife's request, which the son never examined by the rule of the Scripture, but according to his affection of nature, would have it allowed of others. As for the book that he made of care for the dead, it contains so many doubtings, that of right it ought with the coldness thereof to quench the heat of a foolish zeal: if any man desires to be a proctor for dead men, truly with cold likelihoods it will bring them out of care that were before careful. For this is one pillar of it, that this doing is not to be despised, because it is a custom grown in use, that the dead should be prayed for. But though I grant to the old writers of the church, that it is a charitable use to help the dead: yet we must still hold one rule which can not deceive: that it is not lawful for us in our prayers to use anything of our own, but our requests must be made subject to the word of God: because it is in his will to appoint what he will have to be asked. Now whereas the whole law and the Gospel do not so much as in one syllable give liberty to pray for the dead, it is a profane abuse of the invocation of God to attempt more than he commands us. But that our adversaries may not boast that they have the ancient church as companion of their error: I say there is great difference between them and it. They used a memorial of the dead, lest they should seem to have cast away all care of them: but they did therewith confess that they doubted of their state. As for purgatory, they affirmed nothing so firmly, that they held it for a thing uncertain. These men require to have that which they have dreamed of purgatory, to be held without question for an article of faith. They slenderly, and only to pass it lightly over, did in the communion of the holy supper commend their dead to God: these do continually call upon the care of the dead, and with importunate praising of it, do make it to be preferred above all dutiful works of charity. Yes, and it were not hard for us to bring forth some testimonies of the old writers, that do manifestly overthrow all those prayers for the dead, which then were used. As this of Augustine, when he teaches that all men look for the resurrection of the flesh and the eternal glory, and that every man then receives the rest that follows after death, if he be worthy when he dies. And therefore he testifies, that all the godly do immediately after death enjoy the blessed rest as well as the Prophets, Apostles, and martyrs. If their estate be such, what, I beseech you, shall our prayers avail them? I pass over the grosser superstitions, with which they have bewitched the minds of the simple: which yet are so innumerable and the most part so monstrous, that they can have no honest color to excuse them. Also I let pass those most filthy buyings and sellings that they have used, while the world was in such [reconstructed: gross] senseless ignorance. For both I should never make an end, and also the readers shall without any rehearsal of them, have here sufficient, whereupon they may establish their consciences.

Out of this doctrine of satisfactions flows the doctrine of indulgences or pardons. They say that whatever our own power lacks in making satisfaction is supplied by these pardons. They run so far into madness that they define indulgences as the distribution of the merits of Christ and the martyrs, which the Pope dispenses through his bulls. Though they need treatment for their frenzied minds more than they need arguments in response — and it is hardly worth the trouble to refute such trifling errors that have already been battered by many arguments and are on their own collapsing into decayed old age — yet a brief refutation will be useful to some who do not know them, so I will not pass over it entirely. As for the fact that indulgences have so long stood unchallenged and gone unpunished, being peddled with such outrageous and frenzied licentiousness: this may teach us in what a dark night of errors people in certain past ages were plunged. They saw themselves openly and shamelessly mocked by the Pope and his indulgence-sellers; they saw profitable markets being made of the salvation of their souls; they saw the price of salvation set at a few coins, with nothing given freely; they saw through this cover that their offerings were being filthily spent on brothels, pimps, and banquets; they saw that the loudest promoters of indulgences were their greatest despisers; they saw this monster daily spreading through the world with growing licentiousness and excess, with no end in sight — new lead seals arriving daily and new money being collected. Yet they received indulgences with reverence, they worshiped them and bought them. Those among them who saw a little more clearly still thought them to be pious frauds by which people might be tricked into some benefit. In the end, as the world allowed itself to become somewhat wiser, indulgences grew cold, and little by little became frozen, until they vanished away entirely.

But since many who see the filthy games, the deceits, thefts, and robberies by which the indulgence-sellers have mocked and cheated us still do not see the very fountain of ungodliness from which they spring, it is worth showing not only what kind of thing indulgences are, but what they actually are when all the disguises are stripped away. They call the treasure of the church the merits of Christ and of the holy apostles and martyrs. The chief custody of this storehouse — as I have already mentioned — they claim was entrusted to the bishop of Rome, so that he should have the distribution of such great gifts, dispensing them either himself or granting jurisdiction to others to distribute them. From this come from the Pope sometimes full pardons and sometimes pardons for certain years; from the Cardinals, pardons for a hundred days; from the bishops, pardons for forty days. But in plain description, they are the profaning of Christ's blood, a mockery of Satan, designed to lead the Christian people away from God's grace, away from the life that is in Christ, and to turn them from the true way of salvation. For how could Christ's blood be more shamefully profaned than when it is denied to be sufficient for the forgiveness of sins, for reconciliation and satisfaction — as if it were withered and wasted and must be supplemented from another source? 'The law and all the prophets,' says Peter, 'bear witness of Christ, that through Him forgiveness of sins is to be received' (Acts 10:43). Pardons grant remission of sins through Peter, Paul, and the martyrs. 'The blood of Christ cleanses us from sin,' says John (1 John 1:7). Pardons make the blood of martyrs the washing away of sins. 'Christ,' says Paul, 'who knew no sin was made sin for us — that is, the satisfaction for sin — so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God' (2 Corinthians 5:21). Pardons place the satisfaction for sins in the blood of martyrs. Paul cried out and testified to the Corinthians that only Christ was crucified and died for them (1 Corinthians 1:13). Pardons declare that Paul and others died for us. In another place Paul says that Christ purchased the church with His blood (Acts 20:28). Pardons assign another purchase price in the blood of martyrs. The apostle says that Christ by one offering perfected for all time those who are sanctified (Hebrews 10:14). Pardons cry out to the contrary — that sanctification is perfected by the martyrs, without whom it would be insufficient. John says that all the saints washed their robes in the blood of the Lamb (Revelation 7:14). Pardons teach people to wash their robes in the blood of saints.

Leo, bishop of Rome, writes admirably against these sacrileges in his letter to the Palestinians. 'Although,' he says, 'the death of many saints has been precious in the sight of the Lord, yet the killing of no innocent man has been a propitiation for the world. The righteous received crowns; they did not bestow them. The courage of the faithful produced examples of patience, not gifts of righteousness. For their deaths were each singular to themselves, and none of them by his own end paid another's debt — for there is one Lord Christ, in whom all are crucified, all are dead, buried, and raised again.' These words were so worth remembering that he repeated them in another place. Nothing could be stated more plainly to destroy this wicked doctrine. Augustine speaks no less aptly to the same effect: 'Though we brothers die for brothers, yet no martyr's blood is shed for the forgiveness of sins. That is what Christ did for us — and He did not do it in order that we should imitate Him in this, but that we should have cause to rejoice in it.' And again in another place: 'Just as only the Son of God was made the Son of man, in order to make us with Him sons of God — so He alone bore for us punishment without evil deserving, that through Him we might without any good deserving of our own receive a grace not owed to us.' Truly, although their entire doctrine is stitched together from horrible sacrileges and blasphemies, this one is more monstrous than all the rest. Let them recall whether these are not their own decrees: that the martyrs, through their deaths, did more for God and deserved more than was needed for themselves; that they had such a surplus of merit left over that it overflowed to benefit others; and therefore, lest such great goodness go to waste, their blood is mingled with Christ's blood, and from both is made the treasury of the church for the remission and satisfaction of sins. And that Paul's words are to be taken in this sense: 'I complete in my body what is lacking in Christ's sufferings for His body, which is the church.' What is this but to leave Christ only the name, while otherwise reducing Him to a common minor saint who can barely be distinguished from the rest? He alone, He alone, should have been preached, He alone set forth, He alone named, He alone looked to, when the obtaining of forgiveness, satisfaction, and sanctification are in view. But let us hear their truncated arguments: 'Lest the blood of the martyrs should be shed in vain, let it be applied to the common benefit of the church.' Is that so? Was it no profit to glorify God by their deaths? To confirm His truth with their blood? By despising this present life, to testify that they sought a better one? By their steadfastness to strengthen the faith of the church and overcome the obstinacy of her enemies? But this is really what they mean: they acknowledge no profit in the martyrs' deaths if Christ alone is the propitiation, if He alone died for our sins, if He alone was offered up for our redemption. So, they say, Peter and Paul could have obtained the crown of victory even if they had died in their beds. Since they fought even to the shedding of their blood, it would not suit God's justice to leave that sacrifice barren and fruitless. As if God did not know how to increase His servants' glory according to the measure of His gifts. But the church receives ample common benefit when it is encouraged by their triumphs to a zealous desire to fight the same battle.

But how maliciously they twist the passage of Paul where he says that he supplies in his body what is lacking in Christ's sufferings! Paul does not refer this lacking or supplying to the work of redemption, satisfaction, and atonement. He refers it to those afflictions with which all the members of Christ — that is, all the faithful — must be exercised as long as they remain in this flesh. He is saying that there remains of Christ's sufferings this: that He daily suffers in His members the same things He once suffered in Himself. Christ honors us so greatly as to count and reckon our afflictions as His own. When Paul added the words 'for the church,' he did not mean for the redemption, reconciliation, or satisfaction of the church, but for its edification and benefit. As in another place he says that he endures all things for the sake of the elect, so that they may obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus. And he wrote to the Corinthians that he suffered all his troubles for their comfort and salvation. And immediately in that same place he explains himself further, saying he was made a minister of the church — not for redemption, but according to the commission given to him to preach the Gospel of Christ. If they want another interpreter, let them hear Augustine: 'The sufferings of Christ are in Christ alone as the head, and in both Christ and the church as the whole body. Therefore Paul, being one member, says: I supply in my body what is lacking in the sufferings of Christ. So if you who hear this are a member of Christ, whatever you suffer at the hands of those who are not members of Christ — that was what was lacking in the sufferings of Christ.' But the purpose to which the apostles' sufferings on behalf of Christ's church tend, Augustine explains in another place: 'Christ is for me a door to you, because you are the sheep of Christ, purchased with His blood. Acknowledge your price — not paid by me, but proclaimed by me.' He then adds: 'As He gave His life, so we ought to give our lives for our brothers, to build up peace and strengthen faith.' Those are Augustine's words. But God forbid that Paul should have thought anything was lacking in Christ's sufferings with respect to the full measure of righteousness, salvation, and life — or that he intended to add anything to them. He who so plainly and honorably declares that the abundance of grace poured out by Christ far surpassed all the power of sin! By that grace alone all the saints have been saved — not by the merit of their own life or death, as Peter expressly testified. Anyone who would place the worthiness of any saint anywhere other than in God's mercy alone is slandering both God and Christ. But why do I linger on this as if it were still a doubtful matter, when the mere exposure of such monstrous errors is sufficient refutation of them? Now, to pass over such abominations — who taught the Pope to enclose the grace of Jesus Christ in lead and parchment, when the Lord willed it to be distributed through the word of the Gospel? Either the Gospel of God is false, or their pardons are false. For that Christ is offered to us in the Gospel — with all the fullness of heavenly benefits, all His merits, all His righteousness, wisdom, and grace, without any reservation — Paul testifies where he says that the word of reconciliation was given to ministers, so that they might use this form of message, as if Christ were appealing through them: 'We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God.' And the faithful know how great a treasure is this common fellowship with Christ, which — as the same apostle testifies — is offered to be enjoyed in the Gospel. Pardons, by contrast, draw out a small portion of grace from the Pope's storehouse and fasten it to lead, parchment, and a particular place — severing it from the Word of God. If someone asks where this abuse began, it seems to have arisen from the fact that when penitents in earlier times were burdened with satisfactions so severe that not all could bear them, those who felt crushed by their imposed penance asked the church for relief. The mitigation that was granted to such persons was called an indulgence or pardon. But when they shifted satisfactions from the church to God — saying they were payments by which people could buy themselves out of God's judgment — they also drew these indulgences along with them, making them propitiatory remedies to deliver people from deserved punishments. As for the blasphemers whose doctrine we have described, they forged their claims so shamelessly that they cannot maintain them with even a pretense of support.

Now let them trouble us no longer with their purgatory — it has already been cut down, hewn apart, and demolished to its foundations by this same axe. I do not agree with those who think it best to say nothing on this point at all, on the grounds that great controversy arises from purgatory while little edification results. I would also consider such trifles worth passing over with a light touch, if they did not treat them as weighty matters. But since purgatory is built out of many blasphemies, is daily propped up with new ones, and gives rise to many serious offenses — it cannot simply be ignored. Perhaps it could have been overlooked for a time that it was invented by bold and reckless presumption without the Word of God; that it was believed through some revelations forged by Satan's craft; and that certain Scripture passages were foolishly twisted to support it. The Lord does not permit human presumptuousness to break into the secret places of His judgments, and He has strictly forbidden people to inquire of the dead for truth while neglecting His Word, and He does not allow His Word to be so irreverently defiled. But let us grant that all those things might have been tolerated for a while as matters of no great consequence. When the cleansing of sins is sought anywhere other than in the blood of Christ, when satisfaction is assigned to anything else — then it is most dangerous to stay silent. We must therefore cry out, not only with vehement voice but with every ounce of our strength: that purgatory is a damnable invention of Satan; that it makes void the cross of Christ; that it lays an intolerable slander on God's mercy; and that it weakens and overthrows our faith. For what else is purgatory in their system, but the satisfaction that departed souls pay after death? Therefore, once the doctrine of satisfaction is overthrown, purgatory is immediately demolished at its very roots. But if our earlier discussion has made it abundantly clear that Christ's blood is the only satisfaction, propitiatory sacrifice, and cleansing for the sins of the faithful — what remains but that purgatory is a sheer and horrible blasphemy against Christ? I pass over the robberies of God by which it is daily defended, the offenses it breeds in religion, and the countless other evils we see flowing from the same spring of ungodliness.

It is useful to wrest out of their hands the Scripture passages they have falsely and wrongfully seized upon. They say: when the Lord declares that the sin against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven in this world or in the world to come, He implies that some sins are forgiven in the world to come. But who does not see that the Lord is there speaking about the guilt of sin? And if so, what does that have to do with their purgatory? For in their own view, purgatory is where the punishment is suffered for sins whose guilt they admit is forgiven in this present life. But so they cannot keep raising objections, here is an even plainer solution. When the Lord intended to cut off all hope of pardon from such heinous wickedness, He thought it insufficient merely to say it would never be forgiven. To emphasize it further, He used a division encompassing both the judgment that every person's conscience experiences in this life and the final judgment that will be openly pronounced at the resurrection — as if to say: 'Beware of malicious rebellion, as of the most immediate condemnation. For the person who deliberately sets out to extinguish the light of the Holy Spirit will obtain no pardon — neither in this life, which is given to sinners for their conversion, nor on the last day, when the angels of God will separate the sheep from the goats and the kingdom of heaven will be cleansed of all offenses.' Then they bring forward the parable from Matthew: 'Settle with your opponent quickly, lest he hand you to the judge, and the judge to the officer, and the officer throw you into prison, from which you will not get out until you have paid the last penny.' If in this passage the judge represents God, the opposing plaintiff represents the devil, the officer represents an angel, and the prison represents purgatory — I will gladly yield to them. But if it is obvious to everyone that Christ was showing how many dangers and troubles people bring on themselves by stubbornly insisting on the letter of the law rather than dealing in fairness and equity — in order to urge His disciples all the more earnestly toward fair settlement — then where in this passage is purgatory to be found?

They draw an argument from Paul's statement that at the name of Christ every knee will bow — in heaven, on earth, and under the earth. They take it as established that 'under the earth' cannot refer to those condemned to eternal damnation. Therefore, they conclude, it must refer to souls suffering pain in purgatory. This reasoning would not be entirely bad if Paul meant bowing the knee to signify true, heartfelt worship. But since Paul is only teaching that dominion has been given to Christ, by which all creatures are to be brought into submission, what prevents us from understanding 'under the earth' as referring to the devils — who will be brought before God's judgment to acknowledge Him as their judge with fear and trembling? Paul himself explains this same prophecy in another place: 'All will stand before the judgment seat of Christ. For it is written: As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to Me.' As for the passage in Revelation — 'I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and in the sea, all that is in them, saying to Him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb: Blessing and honor and glory and power, forever and ever' — I can easily grant that passage. But what creatures do they suppose are described here? It is entirely clear that the passage includes creatures without reason and without feeling. This affirms nothing other than that all parts of creation, from the highest summit of the heavens to the very center of the earth, declare in their own way the glory of their Creator. As for what they cite from the history of the Maccabees, I will not dignify it with a response, lest I appear to count that work among the holy books. But, they say, Augustine received it as canonical. Yet with what confidence did he receive it? He says: 'The Jews do not regard the book of Maccabees as they do the law, the prophets, and the psalms, of which the Lord Himself bore witness, saying: Everything written about Me in the law, the prophets, and the psalms must be fulfilled. But the church has received it profitably, if it is read or heard soberly.' And Jerome states plainly, without hesitation, that it carries no authority for establishing doctrine. And it is clear from the old work entitled under Cyprian's name concerning the exposition of the Creed that it held no place at all in the early church. But why do I press this point? As if the author himself does not show clearly enough how much credit he deserves — since at the end he asks pardon in case he has said anything that was not right. Truly, anyone who confesses his own writings may need pardon is plainly saying they are not the oracles of the Holy Spirit. Furthermore, the godliness of Judas Maccabeus is praised for no other reason than that he had a firm hope of the final resurrection when he sent an offering for the dead to Jerusalem. And the writer of that history does not present what Judas did as a price of redemption, but as a means by which those who died for their country and religion might share in eternal life with the other faithful. This act was indeed not without some superstition and misguided zeal. But those who extend a law-age sacrifice all the way to our day are more than foolish — for we know that all such practices were brought to an end by the coming of Christ.

But they claim to have an invincible stronghold in Paul that cannot be so easily battered down. 'If anyone builds on this foundation — gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw — each one's work will become manifest, for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed by fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. If anyone's work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.' 'What fire,' they ask, 'can that be, but the fire of purgatory, by which the filth of sin is cleansed away so that we may enter pure into the kingdom of God?' Most of the early writers understood this to mean a different kind of fire — that is, tribulation and the cross, by which the Lord tries His own so that they do not rest in the filthiness of the flesh. That interpretation is far more reasonable than inventing purgatory. Yet I do not agree with those writers either, because I believe I have arrived at a certain and much plainer understanding of this passage. But before I state it, I want them to answer: must the apostles and all the saints have passed through this fire of purgatory? I know they will say no — for it would be far too incongruous that those whose merits they imagine overflow in abundance to all the members of the church should themselves have needed purging. But the apostle says otherwise. He does not say that the work of some will be tested, but the work of all. This is not my own argument but Augustine's — who uses it in exactly this way to refute that interpretation. And there is a further absurdity: Paul does not say they will pass through the fire for all their works — but that if they have faithfully built the church, they will receive their reward when their work is tested by fire. We see first that the apostle is using a metaphor when he calls doctrines invented by human minds 'wood, hay, and straw.' The metaphor has a clear meaning: just as wood placed in fire quickly consumes and is destroyed, so such doctrines cannot survive when subjected to examination. Now it is clear to everyone that this kind of testing comes from the Holy Spirit. Therefore, to follow the natural meaning of his metaphor and match all the parts in proper relation, he calls the testing of the Holy Spirit 'fire.' Just as gold and silver placed in fire show themselves to be genuine and pure the more closely they are tested — so the Lord's truth receives all the greater confirmation of its credibility the more closely it is examined by spiritual scrutiny. Just as hay, wood, and straw placed in fire quickly burn up and are destroyed — so the inventions of people that are not grounded in God's Word cannot bear the testing of the Holy Spirit, but immediately collapse and perish. Finally, if invented doctrines are compared to wood, hay, and straw because like wood, hay, and straw they are burned and destroyed by fire — and they are not destroyed except by the Spirit of the Lord — then it follows that the Holy Spirit is the fire by which they will be tested. And this testing, Paul calls 'the Day of the Lord,' following the common usage of Scripture. For it is called the day of the Lord whenever He makes His presence known to people in any way. But His face shines most clearly when His truth shines upon us. So we have shown that Paul means no other fire than the testing of the Holy Spirit. But how are those saved by fire who suffer loss of their work? That is not hard to understand if we consider what kind of people he is speaking about. He is addressing those builders of the church who, keeping the true foundation, build upon it material that is inconsistent with it — that is, those who, without departing from the chief and necessary articles of faith, err in smaller and less dangerous points, mixing their own ideas with the Word of God. Such people, I say, will suffer loss of their work, having their inventions destroyed. But they themselves are saved, though only as through fire — meaning not that their ignorance and error is acceptable before the Lord, but that they are cleansed from it by the grace and power of the Holy Spirit. Therefore all who have defiled the pure gold of God's Word with the dung of purgatory will inevitably suffer loss of their work.

But they will say: it has been an ancient practice of the church. Paul answers this objection when he includes his own generation in that statement, saying that all who build anything on the foundation that does not agree with it will suffer loss of their work. Therefore when opponents object that it has been practiced for more than thirteen hundred years to pray for the dead, I ask them in return: by what Word of God, by what revelation, by what example was it done? For not only do they lack scriptural testimony — all the examples of holy men recorded in Scripture show nothing of the kind. There are at times lengthy accounts of mourning and funeral customs — but of prayers for the dead you cannot find a single trace. And the more weighty the matter is, the more clearly it should have been stated. Even the early fathers themselves who prayed for the dead recognized that they lacked both God's command and legitimate precedent for doing so. Why then did they dare to do it? In this, I say, they yielded to human weakness — and therefore what they did should not be held up as an example. For the faithful ought to undertake nothing except with a settled conscience, as Paul teaches, and this certainty is especially required in prayer. It is likely they were moved by some consideration: they sought some comfort to ease their grief, and it seemed unnatural not to show before God some token of love for the dead. How deeply human nature inclines toward such feelings, everyone knows from experience. Established custom also acted like a burning torch to kindle the minds of many. We know that among all peoples and in all ages ceremonies have been performed for the dead and their souls annually purged. Though Satan deceived foolish people with these practices, he took his opportunity from a true principle: that death is not destruction but a passage from this life to another. And there is no doubt that even such superstition condemns the Gentiles before God's judgment seat for neglecting the care of the life to come, which they professed to believe in. Now Christians, not wanting to appear inferior to the pagans, were ashamed to do nothing for the dead — as if the dead were simply gone. From this came that poorly considered eagerness: if they were slow in attending to funeral rites, in banquets and offerings, they feared bringing great shame upon themselves. What began as misguided imitation of the pagans grew through repeated additions until it became the chief devotion of the papacy — helping the dead in distress. But Scripture offers a much better and more perfect comfort when it testifies that those who die in the Lord are blessed. It adds the reason: from that point on they rest from their labors. We must not so tenderly follow our own affection of love that we establish a wrongful form of prayer in the church. Anyone with even modest wisdom can see that everything recorded on this subject in the early writers was written to accommodate common usage and the ignorance of the people. Those writers themselves, I grant, were also carried along by error — as uncritical credulity routinely robs men of sound judgment. But even reading them shows how hesitantly and doubtfully they commend prayers for the dead. Augustine in his Confessions reports that his mother Monica earnestly desired to be remembered in the celebration of the Eucharist at the altar. This was an old woman's wish, which her son never examined by the rule of Scripture but — driven by natural affection — wished to have honored by others. As for the book Augustine wrote on care for the dead, it contains so many uncertainties that its very tepidness ought by rights to quench the heat of foolish zeal. If anyone wants to serve as an advocate for the dead, its cold arguments will leave even previously anxious supporters without much cause for concern. One of its main arguments is that the custom of praying for the dead has grown into general use and should therefore not be despised. But though I grant to the early church fathers that it was a charitable practice to offer something on behalf of the dead — we must still hold to one rule that cannot deceive: it is not lawful for us to bring anything of our own into our prayers. Our requests must be subject to God's Word, for it is His will to appoint what He will have asked of Him. Since neither the entire law nor the Gospel gives even a syllable of permission to pray for the dead, it is a profane misuse of prayer to venture beyond what God has commanded. But lest our opponents boast that the ancient church shares their error, I say there is a great difference between them. The early church used a memorial of the dead so as not to appear to have cast away all concern for them — but even in doing so they confessed their uncertainty about the state of the dead. As for purgatory, they held it with such uncertainty that it was never a settled conviction. But these men demand that their invented doctrine of purgatory be held without question as an article of faith. The early church commended their dead to God lightly and briefly, only in passing, during communion. These men are continually occupied with care for the dead and with importunate praise of it, exalting it above all other works of charity. Indeed, it would not be difficult to bring forward testimonies from the early writers that plainly overthrow all those prayers for the dead that were then in use. For instance, Augustine, when teaching that all people await the resurrection of the body and eternal glory, says that each person enters into the rest that follows death — if he is worthy when he dies. He then testifies that all the godly immediately after death enjoy blessed rest, just as the prophets, apostles, and martyrs do. If their condition is such, I ask — what will our prayers profit them? I pass over the grosser superstitions by which they have bewitched the minds of simple people, which are so numerous and for the most part so monstrous that no honest excuse can be made for them. I also pass over the most shameful buying and selling they have practiced while the world was wrapped in such dense and senseless ignorance. For I could never reach the end of it, and readers will find in what has been said here more than sufficient ground on which to establish their consciences.