Produced by Michael McDermott, from scans obtained at the

Internet Archive











WORKS OF MARTIN LUTHER



WITH INTRODUCTIONS AND NOTES



VOLUME II



PHILADELPHIA

A. J. HOLMAN Company

1916



Copyright, 1915, by

A. J. HOLMAN Company



WORKS OF MARTIN LUTHER



CONTENTS



    A TREATISE CONCERNING THE BLESSED SACRAMENT

          AND CONCERNING THE BROTHERHOODS (1519).

        Introduction (J. J. Schindel)

        Translation (J. J. Schindel)

    A TREATISE CONCERNING THE BAN (1520).

        Introduction (J. J. Schindel)

        Translation (J. J. Schindel)

    AN OPEN LETTER TO THE CHRISTIAN NOBILITY (1520).

        Introduction (C. M. Jacobs)

        Translation (C. M. Jacobs)

    THE BABYLONIAN CAPTIVITY OF THE CHURCH (1520).

        Introduction (A. T. W. Steinhaeuser)

        Translation (A. T. W. Steinhaeuser)

    A TREATISE ON CHRISTIAN LIBERTY (1520).

        Introduction (W. A. Lambert)

        Translation (W. A. Lambert)

    A BRIEF EXPLANATION OF THE TEN COMMANDMENTS,

          THE CREED, AND THE LORD'S PRAYER (1520).

        Introduction (C. M. Jacobs)

        Translation (C. M. Jacobs)

    THE EIGHT WITTENBERG SERMONS (1522).

        Introduction (A. Steimle)

        Translation (A. Steimle)

    THAT DOCTRINES OF MEN ARE TO BE REJECTED (1522).

        Introduction (W. A. Lambert)

        Translation (W. A. Lambert)







A TREATISE CONCERNING THE BLESSED SACRAMENT OF THE HOLY AND TRUE BODY

OF CHRIST AND CONCERNING THE BROTHERHOODS



1519







INTRODUCTION





This treatise belongs to a series of four which appeared in the latter

half of the year 1519, the others treating of the Ban, Penance, and

Baptism. The latter two with our treatise form a trilogy which Luther

dedicates to the Duchess Margaret of Braunschweig and Luneburg.



He undertakes the work, as he says, "because there are so many

troubled and distressed ones--and I myself have had the

experience--who do not know what the holy sacraments, full of all

grace, are, nor how to use them, but, alas! presume upon quieting

their consciences with their works, instead of seeking peace in God's

grace through the holy sacrament; so completely are the holy

sacraments obscured and withdrawn from us by the teaching of men."[1]



In a letter to Spalatin[2] of December 18, 1519, he says that no one

need expect treatises from him on the other sacraments, since he

cannot acknowledge them as such.



A copy from the press of John Grunenberg of Wittenberg reached Duke

George of Saxony by December 24, 1519, who on December 27th already

entered his protest against it with the Elector Frederick and the

Bishops of Meissen and Merseburg[3]. Duke George took exception

particularly to Luther's advocacy of the two kinds in the

Communion[4]. This statement of Luther, however, was but incidental to

his broad and rich treatment of the subject of the treatise.



It was Luther's first extended statement of his view of the Lord's

Supper. As such it is very significant, not only because of what he

says, but also because of what he does not say. There is no reference

at all to that which was then distinctive of the Church's doctrine,

the sacrifice of the mass. Luther has already abandoned this position,

but is either too loyal a church-man to attack it or has not as yet

found an evangelical interpretation of the idea of sacrifice in the

mass, such as he gives us in the later treatise on the New

Testament[5]. However, already in this treatise he gives us the

antidote for the false doctrine of sacrifice in the emphasis laid upon

faith, on which all depends[6]. The object of this faith, however, is

not yet stated to be the promise of the forgiveness of sins contained

in the Words of Institution, which are a new and eternal testament[7].



The treatise shows the influence of the German mystics[8] on Luther's

thought, but much more of the Scriptures which furnish him with

argument and illustration for his mystical conceptions. Christ's

natural body is made of less importance than the spiritual body[9],

the communion of saints; just as in the later treatise on the New

Testament the stress is placed on the Words of Institution with their

promise of the forgiveness of sins. Luther does not try to explain

philosophically what is inexplicable, but is content to accept on

faith the act of the presence of Christ in the sacrament, "how and

where,--we leave to Him."[10]



Of interest is the emphasis on the spiritual body, the communion of

saints. Luther knows that although excommunication is exclusion from

external communion, it is not necessarily exclusion from real

spiritual communion with Christ and His saints[11]. No wonder, then,

that he can later treat the papal bull with so much indifference; it

cannot exclude him from the communion of saints.



The treatise consists of three main divisions: sections 1 to 3

treating of the outward sign of the sacrament; sections 4 to 16, of

the inner significance; sections 17 to 22, of faith. Added to this is

the appendix on the subject of the brotherhoods or sodalities,

associations of laymen or charitable and devotional purposes. Of these

there were many at this time, Wittenberg alone being reported as

having twenty-one. Luther objects not only to their immoral conduct,

but also to the spiritual pride which they engendered. He finds in the

communion of saints the fundamental brotherhood instituted in the holy

sacrament, the common brotherhood of all saints.



The modern world needs to have these truths driven home anew, and,

barring a few scholastic phrases here and there, cannot find them

better expressed than in the remarkably elevated and devotional

language of Luther in this treatise.



The text of the treatise is found in the following editions: Weimar

Ed., vol. ii, 742; Erlangen Ed., vol. xxvii, 28; Walch Ed., Vol. xix,

522; St. Louis Ed., xix, 426; Clemen, vol. i, 196; Berlin Ed., vol.

iii, 259.



Literature besides that mentioned:



Tschackert, _Enstehung der lutherischen und reformierten

Kirchenlehre_, 1910, pp. 174-176.



K. Thieme, _Entwicklung und Bedeutung der Sakramentslehre Luthers_,

Neueu Kirchl. Zeitschrift, XII (1901), Nos. 10 and 11.



F. Graebke, _Die Konstruktion der Abendmahlslehre Luthers in ihre

Entwicklung dargestellt_, Leipzig 1908.



        J. J. SCHINDEL.



Allentown, PA.





FOOTNOTES



[1] See Clemen, 1, p. 175.



[2] Enders, II, no. 254. Smith, _Luther's Correspondence_, I, no.

206.



[3] Gess, _Akten und Briefe zur Kirchenpolitik Herzog Georgs von

Sachsen_, Leipzig, 1905.



[4] See below, p. 9.



[5] In this edition, Vol. I, pp. 294-336. See especially pp. 312 ff.



[6] See below, pp. 19, 25.



[7] _Treatise on the New Testament_, Vol. I, pp. 297 ff.



[8] See Kostlin, _Luther's Theologie_, I, 292 f.; also Hering, _Die

Mystik Luthers_, Leipzig, 1879, pp. 171-174.



[9] See below, p. 23.



[10] See below, p.20.



[11] See _Treatise concerning the Ban_, below, p. 37.







A TREATISE CONCERNING THE BLESSED SACRAMENT OF THE HOLY AND TRUE BODY

OF CHRIST AND CONCERNING THE BROTHERHOODS



1519







1. Like the sacrament of holy baptism[1] the holy sacrament of the

altar, or of the holy and true body of Christ, has three parts which

it is necessary or us to know. The first is the sacrament, or sign,

the second is the significance of this sacrament, the third is the

faith required by both of these; the three parts which must be found

in every sacrament. The sacrament must be external and visible, and

have some material form; the significance must be internal and

spiritual, within the spirit of man; faith must apply and use both

these.



[Sidenote: The First Part of the Sacrament: the Sign]



2. The sacrament, or outward sign, is in the form of bread and wine,

just as baptism has as its sign water; although the sign is not simply

the form of bread and wine, but the use of the bread and wine in

eating and drinking, just as the water of baptism is used by immersion

or by pouring. For the sacrament, or sign, must be received, or must

at least be desired, if it is to work a blessing. Although at present

the two kinds are not given the people daily, as of old,--nor is this

necessary,--yet the priesthood partakes of it daily in the sight of

the people, and it is enough that the people desire it daily and

receive one kind at the proper time, as the Christian Church ordains

and offers[2].



3. I deem it well, however, that the Church in a general council

should again decree[3] that all persons, as well as the priests, be

given both kinds. Not that one kind were insufficient, since indeed

the simple desire of faith suffices, as St. Augustine says: "Why

preparest thou stomach and teeth? Only believe and thou hast already

partaken of the sacrament";[4] but because it would be meet and right

that the form, or sign, of the sacrament be given not in part only,

but in its entirety, just as I have said of baptism[5] that it were

more fitting to immerse than to pour the water, for the sake of the

completeness and perfection of the sign. For this sacrament signifies

the complete union and the undivided fellowship of the saints, as we

shall see, and this is poorly and unfittingly indicated by only one

part of the sacrament. Nor is there as great a danger in the use of

the cup as is supposed, since the people seldom go to this sacrament,

and Christ was well aware of all future dangers[6], and yet saw it to

institute both kinds or the use of all His Christians.



[Sidenote: The Second Part of the Sacrament: the Significance]



4. The significance or purpose of this sacrament is the fellowship of

all saints, whence it derives its common name _synaxis_ or _communio_,

that is, fellowship; and _communicare_ means to take part in this

fellowship, or as we say, to go to the sacrament, because Christ and

all saints are one spiritual body, just as the inhabitants of a city

are one community and body, each citizen being a member of the other

and a member of the entire city. All the saints, therefore, are

members of Christ and of the Church, which is a spiritual and eternal

city of God, and whoever is taken into this city is said to be

received into the community of saints, and to be incorporated into

Christ's spiritual body and made a member of Him. On the other hand,

_excommunicare_ means to put out of the community and to sever a

member from this body, and that is called in our language "putting one

under the ban"; yet there is a difference, as I shall show in the

following treatise, concerning the ban[4].



To receive the bread and wine of this sacrament, then, is nothing else

than to receive a sure sign of this fellowship and incorporation with

Christ and all saints. As though a citizen were given a sign, a

document, or some other token as a proof that he is a citizen of the

city, a member of the community. Even so St. Paul says: "We are all

one bread and one body, for we are all partakers of one bread and of

one cup." [1 Cor. 10:17]



5. This fellowship is of such a nature that all the spiritual

possessions of Christ and His saints[8] are imparted and communicated

to him who receives this sacrament; again, all his sufferings and sins

are communicated to them, and thus love engenders love and unites all.

To carry out our homely figure: it is like a city where every citizen

shares with all the others the name, honor, freedom, trade, customs,

usages, help, support, protection and the like, of that city, and on

the other hand shares all the danger of fire and flood, enemies and

death, losses, imposts and the like. For he who would have part in the

common profits must also share in the losses, and ever recompense love

with love. Here we see that whoever wrongs a citizen wrongs the entire

city and all the citizens; whoever benefits one deserves favor and

thanks from all the others. So, too, in our natural body, as St. Paul

says in i Corinthians xii, where this sacrament is given a spiritual

explanation: the members have a care one or another; whether one

member suffer, all the members suffer with it; whether one member be

honored, all the members rejoice with it. [1 Cor. 12:25 f.] It is

apparent then that if any one's foot hurts him, nay, even the smallest

toe, the eye at once looks toward it, the fingers grasp it, the face

frowns, the whole body bends to it, and all are concerned with this

small member; on the other hand, if it is cared for, all the other

members rejoice. This figure must be well weighed if one wishes to

understand this sacrament; for the Scriptures employ it or the sake of

the unlearned.



6. In this sacrament, therefore, God Himself gives through the priest

a sure sign to man, to show that, in like manner, he shall be united

with Christ and His saints and have all things in common with them;

that Christ's sufferings and life shall be his own, together with the

lives and sufferings of all the saints, so that whoever does him an

injury does injury to Christ and all the saints, as He says by the

prophet, "He that toucheth you toucheth the apple of My eye" [Zech.

2:8]; on the other hand, whoever does him a kindness does it to Christ

and all His saints, as He says, "What ye have done unto one of the

least of My brethren, that ye have done unto Me." [Matt. 25:40] Again,

he must be willing to share all the burdens and misfortunes of Christ

and His saints, their sorrow and joy. These two sides of the

fellowship we shall consider more fully.



7. Now, adversity assails us in more than one form. There is, in the

first place, the sin remaining in our flesh after baptism, the

inclination to anger, hatred, pride and unchastity, and so forth,

which assails us as long as we live. Against this we not only need the

help of the congregation and of Christ, in order that they may fight

with us against it, but it is also necessary that Christ and His

saints intercede or us before God, that sin may not be accounted to us

according to God's strict judgment. Therefore, in order to give us

strength and courage against these sins, God gives us this sacrament,

as though He said: "Behold, many kinds of sin assail thee; take this

sign by which I give thee My pledge that sin assails not only thee but

My Son Christ, and all His saints in heaven and on earth. Therefore,

be bold and confident; thou fightest not alone; great help and support

are round about thee." King David, also, says of this bread: "The

bread strengtheneth man's heart" [Ps. 104:15]; and the Scriptures in

other places characterize this sacrament as a strengthening. So in

Acts ix it is written of St. Paul that he was baptised and when he had

received meat, he was strengthened. [Acts 9:19] In the second place,

the evil spirit assails us unceasingly with many sins and afflictions.

In the third place, the world is full of wickedness and entices and

persecutes us and is altogether bad. Finally, our own guilty

conscience assails us with our past sins, with the fear of death, and

with the pains of hell. All of these afflictions make us weary and

weaken us, unless we seek and find strength in this fellowship.



8. If any one be in despair, if he be distressed by his sinful

conscience or terrified by death, or have any other burden on his

heart, and desire to be rid of them all, let him go joyfully to the

sacrament of the altar and lay down his grief in the midst of the

congregation and seek help from the entire company of the spiritual

body; just as when a citizen whose property has suffered injury or

misfortune at the hands of his enemies makes complaint to his town

council and fellow citizens and asks them for help. Therefore, the

immeasurable grace and mercy of God are given us in this sacrament,

that we may there lay down all misery and tribulation and put it on

the congregation, and especially on Christ, and may joyfully

strengthen and comfort ourselves and say: "Though I am a sinner and

have fallen, though this or that misfortune has befallen me, I will go

to the sacrament to receive a sign from God that I have on my side

Christ's righteousness, He and sufferings, with all holy angels and

all the blessed in heaven, and all pious men on earth. If I die, I am

not alone in death; if I suffer, they suffer with me. I have shared

all my misfortune with Christ and the saints, since I have a sure sign

of their love toward me." Lo, this is the benefit to be derived from

this sacrament, this is the use we should make of it; then the heart

cannot but rejoice and be comforted.



9. When you have partaken of this sacrament, therefore, or desire to

partake of it, you must in turn also share the misfortunes of the

congregation, as was said[9]. But what are these? Christ in heaven and

the angels together with all the saints have no misfortunes of their

own, save when injury is done to the truth and to God's Word; yea, as

we said, every bane and blessing of all the saints on earth affects

them. There your heart must go out in love and devotion and learn that

this sacrament is a sacrament of love, and that love and service are

given you and you again must render love and service to Christ and His

needy ones. You must feel with sorrow all the dishonor done to Christ

in His holy Word, all the misery of Christendom, all the unjust

suffering of the innocent, with which the world is everywhere filled

to overflowing: you must fight, work, pray, and, if you cannot do

more, have heartfelt sympathy. That is bearing in your turn the

misfortune and adversity of Christ and His saints. Here the saying of

Paul applies. "Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of

Christ." [Gal. 6:2] Lo, thus you uphold them all, thus they all again

in turn uphold you, and all things are in common, both good and evil.

Then all things become easy, and the evil spirit cannot prevail

against such a community. When Christ instituted the sacrament He

said: "This is My body which is given for you, this is My blood which

is shed for you; as oft as ye do this, remember Me." [Luke 22:19 f.]

As though He said: "I am the Head, I will first give Myself for you,

will make your suffering and misfortune Mine own and bear it for you,

that you in your turn may do the same or Me and for one another, have

all things in common in Me and with Me, and let this sacrament be unto

you a sure token of this all, that you may not forget Me, but daily

call to mind and admonish one another by what I have done or you and

still am doing, that you may be strengthened thereby, and also bear

with one another."



10. This is also a reason, indeed the chief reason, why this sacrament

is received many times, while baptism is administered but once.

Baptism is the beginning and entrance to a new life, in the course of

which boundless adversities assail us through sins and suffering, our

own and those of others. The devil, the world and our own flesh and

conscience, as was said[10] never cease to pursue us and oppress us.

Therefore we need the strength, support and help of Christ and of His

saints, which are pledged us in this sacrament as by a sure token, by

which we are made one with them and are incorporated with them, and

all our suffering is laid down in the midst of the congregation.

Therefore, this holy sacrament is of little or no benefit to those who

have no misfortune or anxiety or do not feel their adversity. For it

is given only to those who need strength and comfort, who have timid

hearts and terrified consciences, and who are assailed by sin, or have

even fallen into sin. What could it do or untroubled and falsely

secure spirits, which neither need nor desire it? For the Mother of

God[11] says, "He filleth only the hungry, and comforteth them that

are distressed." [Luke 1:53]



11. That the disciples, therefore, might by all means be worthy and

well prepared for this sacrament He first made them sorrowful, held

before them His departure and death, by which they were exceeding

troubled. And then He greatly terrified them when He said that one of

them should betray Him. [Matt. 25:21 ff.] When they were thus full of

sorrow and anxiety and were concerned about the sorrow and sin of

betrayal, then they were worthy, and He gave them His holy Body to

strengthen them. By which He teaches us that this sacrament is

strength and comfort for those whom sin and evil trouble and distress;

as St. Augustine also says[12], "This food demands only hungry souls

and is shunned by none so greatly as by a sated soul which does not

need it." Just as the Jews were required to eat the Passover with

bitter herbs, standing and in haste, which also signifies that this

sacrament demands souls that are desirous, needy and sorrowful. Now if

one will make the afflictions of Christ and of all Christians his own,

will defend the truth, oppose unrighteousness, help bear the need of

the innocent and the sufferings of all Christians, he will find

affliction and adversity enough, besides that which his evil nature,

the world, the devil and sin daily inflict upon him. And it is God's

will and purpose to set so many hounds upon us and drive us, and

everywhere provide us bitter herbs, that we may long for this strength

and take delight in the holy sacrament, and thus be worthy of it, that

is, desire it.



12. It is His will, then, that we partake of it frequently, in order

that we may remember Him and exercise ourselves in this fellowship

according to His example. For if His example were no longer kept

before us, the fellowship also would soon be forgotten. So we at

present see to our sorrow that many masses are held and yet the

Christian fellowship which should be preached, practiced and kept

before us by Christ's example has quite perished; so that we hardly

know what purpose this sacrament serves, or how it should be used,

nay, with our masses we frequently destroy this fellowship and pervert

everything. This is the fault of the preachers who do not preach the

Gospel nor the sacraments, but their humanly devised fables concerning

the many works[13] to be done and the ways to live aright.



But in times past this sacrament was so properly used, and the people

were taught to understand this fellowship so well, that they even

gathered material food and goods[14] in the church and there

distributed them among those who were in need, as St. Paul writes [1

Cor. 11:21]. Of this we have a relic in the word "collect,"[15] which

still remains in the mass, and means a general collection, just as a

common fund is gathered to be given to the poor. That was the time

when so many became martyrs and saints. There were fewer masses, but

much strength and blessing resulted from the masses; Christians cared

for one another, assisted one another, sympathized with one another,

bore one another's burden and affliction. This has all disappeared,

and there remain only the many masses and the many who receive this

sacrament without in the least understanding or practicing what it

signifies.



13. There are those, indeed, who would share the benefits but not the

cost, that is, who gladly hear in this sacrament that the help,

fellowship and assistance of all the saints are promised and given to

them, but who, because they fear the world, are unwilling in their

turn to contribute to this fellowship, to help the poor, to endure

sins, to care for the sick, to suffer with the suffering, to intercede

for others, to defend the truth, to seek the reformation of the Church

and of all Christians at the risk of life, property and honor. They

are unwilling to suffer disfavor, harm, shame or death, although it is

God's will that they be driven, for the sake of the truth and their

neighbors, to desire the great grace and strength of this sacrament.

They are self-seeking persons, whom this sacrament does not benefit.

Just as we could not endure a citizen who wanted to be helped,

protected and made free by the community, and yet in his turn would do

nothing for it nor serve it. No, we on our part must make others' evil

our own, if we desire Christ and His saints to make our evil their

own; then will the fellowship be complete and justice be done to the

sacrament. For the sacrament has no blessing and significance unless

love grows daily and so changes a man that he is made one with all

others.



14. To symbolize this fellowship, God has appointed such signs of the

sacrament as in every way serve this purpose and by their very form

incite and move us to this fellowship. Just as the bread is made out

of many grains which have been ground and mixed together, and out of

the many bodies of grain there comes the one body of the bread, in

which each grain loses its form and body and acquires the common body

of the bread, and as the drops of wine losing their own form become

the body of one wine: so should it be with us, and is, indeed, if we

use this sacrament aright. Christ with all saints, by His love, takes

upon Himself our form, fights with us against sin, death and all evil

[Phil. 2:7]; this enkindles in us such love that we take His form,

rely upon His righteousness, life and blessedness, and through the

interchange of His blessings and our misfortunes are one loaf, one

bread, one body, one drink, and have all things in common. This is a

great sacrament,[Eph. 5:32][16] says Paul, that Christ and the Church

are one flesh and bone [Eph. 5:31]. Again, through this same love are

to be changed and to make the infirmities of all other Christians our

own, take upon ourselves their form and their necessity and make

theirs all the good that is within our power, that they may enjoy it

[Judg. 9:2]. That is a real fellowship, and that is the true

significance of this sacrament. In this way we are changed into one

another and are brought into fellowship with one another by love,

without which there can be no such change.



15. He appointed this twofold form, bread and wine, rather than any

other, as a further indication of the union and fellowship in this

sacrament. For there is no more intimate, deep and inseparable union

than the union of the food with him who partakes of it, since the food

enters into and is assimilated with his very nature and becomes one

with his being. Other unions, effected by means of nails, glue, cords

and the like, do not make one indivisible substance of the objects

joined together. In the sacrament we become united with Christ, and

are made one body with all the saints, so that He concerns Himself for

us, acts in our behalf, as though He were what we are--what concerns

us concerns Him as much as us, and even more than us; and, on the

other hand, that we also concern ourselves or Him, as though we were

what He is, as indeed we shall finally be, when we are conformed to

His likeness, as St. John says, "We know that when He shall appear we

shall be like Him" [1 John 3:2]; so complete is the fellowship of

Christ and all the saints with us. Our sins assail Him, His

righteousness protects us; for the union makes all things common,

until at last He completely destroys sin in us and makes us like unto

Himself, at the last day. In like manner, by the same love we are to

be united with our neighbors, we in them and they in us.



16. In addition to this, He did not appoint this twofold form by

itself, but gave His true natural flesh, in the bread, and His natural

and true blood, in the wine, that He might give us a really perfect

sacrament or sign. For just as the bread is changed[17] into His true

natural body and the wine into His true natural blood, so truly are we

also drawn and changed into the spiritual body, that is, into the

fellowship of Christ and all saints, and put by this sacrament in

possession of all the virtues and mercies of Christ and His saints; as

was said above[18] of a citizen who is taken and incorporated into the

city and the protection and freedom of the entire community.

Therefore He instituted not simply the one form, but the two separate

forms, His flesh under the bread, His blood under the wine, to

indicate that not only His life and good works, which are represented

by His flesh and which He accomplished in His flesh, but also His

passion and martyrdom, which are represented by His blood and in which

He shed His blood, are all our own, and by being drawn into this

fellowship we may use and enjoy them.



17. All this makes it clear that this holy sacrament is naught else

than a divine sign, in which Christ and all saints are pledged,

granted and imparted, with all their works, sufferings, merits,

mercies and possessions, or the comfort and strengthening of all who

are in anxiety and sorrow, and are persecuted by the devil, sin, the

world, the flesh and every evil; and that to receive the sacrament is

nothing else than to desire all this and firmly to believe that it

shall be done.



[Sidenote: The Third part of the Sacrament: Faith]



There follows the third part of the sacrament, that is faith, on which

all depends. For it is not enough to know what the sacrament is and

signifies. It is not enough that you know it is a fellowship and a

gracious exchange or blending of our sin and suffering with the

righteousness of Christ and His saints; you must also desire it and

firmly believe that you have received it. Here the devil and our own

nature wage their fiercest fight, that faith may by no means stand

firm. There are those who practice their arts and subtleties to such

an extent that they ask where the bread remains when it is changed

into Christ's flesh, and the wine when it is changed into His blood;

also in what manner the whole Christ, His flesh and His blood, can be

comprehended in so small a portion of bread and wine. What does it

matter? It is enough to know that it is a divine sign, in which

Christ's flesh and blood are truly present--how and where, we leave to

Him.[19]



18. See to it that you exercise and strengthen your faith, so that

when you are sorrowful or your sins afflict you and you go to the

sacrament or hear mass, you do so with a hearty desire for this

sacrament and for what it means, and doubt not that you have what the

sacrament signifies, that is, that you are certain Christ and all His

saints come to you bringing all their virtues, sufferings and mercies,

to live, work, suffer and die with you, and be wholly yours, to have

all things in common with you. If you will exercise and strengthen this

faith, you will experience what a rich and joyous wedding-supper and

festival your God has prepared upon the altar or you. Then you will

understand what the great feast of King Ahasuerus signifies [Esth.

1:5], you will see what that wedding is for which God has slain His

oxen and fatlings, as it is written in the Gospel [Matt. 22:2 ff.],

and your heart will grow right free and confident, strong and

courageous, against all enemies. For who will fear any calamity if he

is sure that Christ and all His saints are with Him and share all

things, evil or good, in common with him? So we read that the

disciples of Christ broke this bread and ate with great gladness of

heart. Since, then, this work is so great that our insignificant

souls dare not desire it, to say nothing of hoping for or expecting it,

it is necessary and profitable to go often to the sacrament, or at

least in the daily mass to exercise and strengthen this faith, on

which all depends and or the sake of which it was instituted. For if

you doubt[20] you do God the greatest dishonor and regard Him as

unfaithful and a liar. If you cannot believe, pray for faith, as was

said above in the other treatise[21].



19. See to it also that you make yourself a fellow of every man and by

no means exclude any one in hatred or anger; for this sacrament of

fellowship, love and unity cannot tolerate discord and dissension. You

must let the infirmities and needs of others burden your heart, as

though they were your own, and offer them your strength, as though it

were their own, as Christ does for you in the sacrament. That is what

we mean by being changed into one another through love, out of many

particles becoming one bread and drink, giving up one's own form and

taking one that belongs to all.[22]



For this reason slanderers and those who wickedly judge and despise

others cannot but receive death in the sacrament, as St. Paul writes

[1 Cor. 11:29]. For they do not unto their neighbor what they seek

from Christ and what the sacrament indicates; they wish them no good,

have no sympathy with them, do not receive them as they desire to be

received by Christ, and then all into such blindness that they do not

know what else to do in this sacrament except to fear and honor Christ

in the sacrament with their prayers and devotion. When they have done

this they think they have done their whole duty, although Christ has

given His body for this purpose, that the significance of the

sacrament, that is, fellowship and mutual love, may be put into

practice, and His own natural body be less regarded than His spiritual

body,[23] which is the fellowship of His saints. What concerns Him

most, especially in this sacrament, is that faith in the fellowship

with Him and with His saints may be rightly exercised and become

strong in us, and that we, in accordance with it, may rightly exercise

our fellowship with one another. This purpose of Christ they do not

perceive and, in their devoutness, they daily say and hear mass, and

remain every day the same; nay, become worse daily, and mark it not.



Therefore take heed; it is more needful that you discern the spiritual

than that you discern the natural body of Christ, and faith in the

spiritual is more needful than faith in the natural. For the natural

without the spiritual profiteth us nothing in this sacrament; a

change[24] must occur and manifest itself through love.



20. There are many who, regardless of this change of love and faith,

rely upon the fact that the mass or the sacrament is, as they say,

_opus gratum opere operato_, that is, a work which of itself pleases

God, even though they who perform it do not please Him. From this they

conclude that, however unworthily masses are said, it is none the less

a good thing to have many masses, since the harm comes to those who

say or use them unworthily. I grant every one his opinion, but such

fables please me not. For, if you desire to speak thus, there is no

creature nor work that does not of itself please God, as is written,

"God saw all His works and they pleased Him." [Gen. 1:31] What good

can result therefrom, if one misuse bread, wine, gold, and every good

creature, though of themselves they are pleasing to God? Nay,

condemnation is the result. So too, here: the more precious the

sacrament, the greater the harm which comes upon the whole

congregation from its misuse. For it was not instituted or its own

sake, that it might please God, but for our sake, that we might use it

rightly, exercise our faith by it, and by it become pleasing to God.

If it is merely an _opus operatum_[25], it works only harm; it must

become an _opus operantis_[26]. Just as bread and wine work only harm

if they are not used, no matter how much they please God of

themselves; so it is not enough that the sacrament be prepared (that

is, _opus operatum_), it must also be used in faith (that is, _opus

operantis_). And we must take heed lest with such dangerous glosses

our minds be turned away from the sacrament's power and virtue, and

faith perish entirely through such false security in the outwardly

completed sacrament. All this results because they give heed in this

sacrament to Christ's natural body more than to the fellowship, the

spiritual body. Christ on the cross was also a completed work[27],

which was well-pleasing to God; but the Jews unto this day have found

it a stumbling block, for the reason that they did not make of it a

work that must be used in faith[28]. See to it, then, that the

sacrament be or you an _opus operantis_, that is, a work that is made

use of, and that it be well-pleasing to God, not because of what it is

in itself, but because of your faith and your right use of it. The

Word of God is also of itself pleasing to God, but it is harmful to me

when it does not please God also within me. In short, such expressions

as _opus operatum_ and _opus operantis_ are nothing but useless words

of men, more of a hindrance than a help. And who could tell all the

abominable abuses and misbeliefs which daily multiply about this

blessed sacrament, although some of them are so spiritual and holy

that they might almost lead an angel astray? Briefly, whoever would

understand the abuses need only keep before him the aforesaid use and

faith of this sacrament; namely, that there must be a sorrowing,

hungry soul, desiring heartily the love, help, and support of the

entire communion of Christ and of all saints, doubting not that in

faith it obtains them, and then, on the other hand, making itself one

with everyone. Whoever does not thus direct and order the hearing or

reading of masses and the reception of the sacrament, errs and does

not use this sacrament to his salvation. For this reason also the

world is overwhelmed with pestilences, wars and other horrible

plagues[29], since with our many masses we only call upon us the more

disfavor.



21. We see now how necessary this sacrament is for those who must face

death, or other dangers of body and soul, since they are not let alone

in them, but are strengthened in the communion of Christ and all

saints. Therefore also Christ instituted it and gave it to His

disciples in their extreme need and danger. Since we are all daily

surrounded by all kinds of danger, and must at last die, we should

humbly and heartily and with all our powers thank the God of all mercy

for giving us a gracious sign, by which, if we hold fast thereto by

faith. He leads and draws us through death and every danger to

Himself, to Christ, and to all saints.



Therefore it is also profitable and necessary that the love and

fellowship of Christ and all saints be hidden, invisible and

spiritual, and that only a bodily, visible and outward sign of it be

given us. For were this love, fellowship and help known to all, like

the temporal fellowship of men, we should not be strengthened nor

trained thereby to put our trust in the invisible and eternal things,

or to desire them, but should much rather be trained to put our trust

only in the temporal, visible things and to become so accustomed to

them as to be unwilling to let them go and to follow God onward; we

should thus be prevented from ever coming to Him, if we followed God

only so far as visible and tangible things led us. For everything of

time and sense must fall away, and we must learn to do without them,

if we are to come to God.



Therefore the mass and this sacrament are a sign by which we train and

accustom ourselves to let go all visible love, help, and comfort, and

to trust in Christ and in the invisible love, help, and comfort of His

saints. For death takes away everything visible, and separates us from

men and temporal things; hence, to meet death, we must have the help

of the invisible and eternal things; and these are indicated to us in

the sacrament and sign, to which we cling by faith, until we attain to

them also by sight. Thus the sacrament is or us a ford, a bridge, a

door, a ship, and a litter, in which and by which we pass from this

world into eternal life. Therefore all depends on faith. He who does

not believe is like one who must cross the sea, but is so timid that

he does not trust the ship; and so he must remain and never be saved,

because he does not embark and cross over. This is due to our

dependence on the senses and to our untried faith which shrinks from

the passage across the Jordan of death--the devil also cruelly helps

toward this.



22. This was indicated of old in Joshua iii [Josh. 3:7 ff.]. After the

children of Israel had gone dry-shod through the Red Sea, a type of

baptism, they went through Jordan in like manner; but the priests

stood with the ark in Jordan, and the water below them lowed by, while

that above them stood upon a heap, a type of this sacrament. The

priests carry and uphold the ark in Jordan when in the hour of our

death or peril they preach and administer to us this sacrament,

Christ, and the fellowship of all saints. I we believe, the waters

below us depart, that is, the temporal, visible things harm us not,

but flee from us. And those above us stand up high, as though they

would overwhelm us; these are the horrors and apparitions of the other

world, which at the hour of death terrify us. If, however, we pay no

heed to them, and pass on with a firm faith, we shall enter into

eternal life dry-shod and unharmed.



We have, therefore, two principal sacraments in the church, baptism

and the bread. Baptism leads us into a new life on earth; the bread

guides us through death into eternal life. And the two are typified by

the Red Sea and the Jordan, and by the two lands, one beyond and one

on this side the Jordan. Therefore our Lord said at the Last Supper:

"I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day

when I drink it new with you in My Father's kingdom." [Matt. 26:29] So

entirely is this sacrament intended and ordained to strengthen us

against death, and to give us entrance into eternal life.



Finally, the blessing of this sacrament is fellowship and love, by

which we are strengthened against death and all evil. This fellowship

is twofold: on the one hand we partake of Christ and all saints, on

the other hand we permit all Christians to be partakers of us, in

whatever way they and we are able; so that by this sacrament all

self-seeking love is uprooted and gives place to love which seeks the

common good of all, and through this mutual love there is one bread,

one drink, one body, one community,--that is the true union of

Christian brethren. Now let us see how the pretentious brotherhoods,

of which there are now so many, measure up to this and resemble it.



CONCERNING THE BROTHERHOODS.[30]



1. First, let us consider the evil practices of the brotherhoods. One

of these is their gluttony and drunkenness,--one or more masses are

held[31], afterward the entire day and night, and other days besides,

are given over to the devil, and they do only what displeases God.

Such mad reveling has been introduced by the evil spirit, and is

called a brotherhood, whereas it is rather a debauch and altogether a

heathenish, nay, swinish mode of life. There would far better be no

brotherhoods in the world than that such an abomination should be

permitted. Temporal lords and cities should unite with the clergy in

abolishing it. For God, the saints, and all Christians are greatly

dishonored thereby, and the divine services and feast-days made a

sport for the devil. Saints' days should be kept and hallowed with

good works; and the brotherhood should also be a special treasury of

good works; instead it has become a treasury of beer money. What have

the names of Our Lady, of St. Anne, St. Sebastian[32], or other saints

to do with your brotherhoods, in which you have nothing but gluttony,

drunkenness, squandering of money, howling, yelling, chattering,

dancing and wasting of time? If a sow were made the patron saint of

such a brotherhood she would not consent. Why then do they afflict the

dear saints so sorely by taking their names in vain in such shameful

practices and sins, and by dishonoring and blaspheming the

brotherhoods named after them with such evil practices? Woe unto them

who do and permit this!



2. If men desire to maintain a brotherhood, they should gather

provisions, and feed and serve a tableful or two of poor people, for

the sake of God; the day previous they should fast, and on the

feast-day remain sober, and pass the time in prayer and other good

works. Then God and His saints would be truly honored; this would lead

to better conditions, and a good example would be given others. Or

they should gather the money which they intended to squander or drink

and form a common treasury, each trade[33] by itself, so that needy

fellow-workmen might be assisted, or be lent money, or a young couple

of that trade might be fitted out respectably from the common

treasury: these would be true works of brotherhood, which would make

God and His saints look with pleasure upon the brotherhoods, of which

they would then gladly be the patrons. But where they are unwilling to

do this, and follow after the old mummery, I admonish that it be not

done on the saints' day's, nor in the name of the saints or of the

brotherhood. Let them take some other weekday and leave off the names

of the saints and of their brotherhoods, lest the saints at some time

mark it with disapproval. Although there is no day which is not

dishonored by such doings, at least the festivals and the names of the

saints should be spared. For such brotherhoods call themselves

brotherhoods of the saints while they do the work of the devil.



3. Another evil feature of the brotherhoods is of a spiritual nature;

it is a false opinion of themselves, in that they think their

brotherhood is to be a benefit to no one but to themselves,--to those

who are members and are on the roll or contribute. This damnably

wicked opinion is an even worse evil than the first, and is one of the

reasons why God has brought it about that the brotherhoods are

becoming such a mockery and blasphemy of God through gluttony,

drunkenness and the like. For there they learn to seek their own good,

to love themselves, to be faithful only to one another, to despise

others, to think themselves better than others and presume to stand

higher before God than others. And thus perishes the communion of

saints, the Christian love, and the true brotherhood, established in

the holy sacrament. Thus a selfish love grows in them; that is, by

these many external work-brotherhoods they oppose and destroy the one,

inner, spiritual, essential, common brotherhood of all saints.



When God sees this perverted state of affairs, He perverts it still

more, as is written in Psalm xviii[34], "With the perverse thou wilt

be perverted" [Ps. 18:26]; and He brings it to pass that they make

themselves and their brotherhoods a mockery and a disgrace, and He

casts them out from the common brotherhood of saints, which they

oppose and do not make common cause with, into their brotherhood of

gluttony, drunkenness and unchastity, so that they, who have neither

sought nor thought of anything more than their own, may find their

own; and then He blinds them that they do not recognize it as an

abomination and disgrace, but adorn their unseemliness with the names

of saints, as though they were doing right; beyond this He lets some

fall into so deep an abyss that they openly boast and say whoever is

in their brotherhood cannot be condemned, as though baptism and the

sacrament, instituted by God Himself, were of less worth and were less

certain than that which they have thought out with their darkened

minds. Therefore their God will dishonor and blind those who, with

their mad conduct and the swinish practices of their brotherhoods,

mock and blaspheme His easts, His name, and His saints, to the injury

of the common Christian brotherhood, which flowed from the wounds of

Christ.



4. Therefore, for the right understanding and use of the brotherhoods,

one must learn to distinguish rightly between brotherhoods. The first

is the divine, the heavenly, the noblest, which surpasses all others,

as gold surpasses copper or lead--the fellowship of all saints, of

which we spoke above[35]. In this we are all brothers and sisters, so

closely united that a closer relationship cannot be conceived, for

here we have one baptism, one Christ, one sacrament, one food, one

Gospel, one faith, one Spirit, one spiritual body, and each is a

member of the other; no other brotherhood is so close. For natural

brothers are, to be sure, brothers of one flesh and blood, of one

heritage and home, but they must separate and join themselves to

others' blood and heritage[36]. Organized brotherhoods have one roll,

one mass, one kind of good works, one festival day, one treasury, and,

as things are now, their common beer, common feast and common debauch,

but none of these binds men so closely together as to produce one

spirit, for that is done by Christ's brotherhood alone.



Since, then, the greater, broader and more embracing Christ's

brotherhood is, the better it is, therefore all other brotherhoods

should be so conducted as to keep this first and noblest brotherhood

constantly before their eyes, to regard it alone as great, and with

all their works to seek nothing for themselves, but do them for God's

sake, to entreat God that He keep and prosper this Christian

fellowship and brotherhood from day to day. Hence, when a brotherhood

is formed, they should let it be seen that its members outstrip other

persons in order to do Christianity some special service with their

prayers, fastings, alms and good works, and not in order to seek

selfish profit or reward, nor to exclude others, but to serve as the

free servants of the whole community of Christians.



If men had such a correct conception, God would restore good order, so

that the brotherhoods might not be brought to shame by debauchery.

Then God's blessing would follow, so that a general fund might be

gathered, with which other men also might be given material aid; then

the spiritual and bodily works of the brotherhoods would be done in

their proper order. Whoever will not follow this method in his

brotherhood I advise to flee from it and let the brotherhood alone; it

will do him harm in body and soul.



But if you say, If the brotherhood is not to give me some special

advantage, of what use is it to me? I answer: If you are seeking some

special advantage, how can the brotherhood or sisterhood help you?

Serve the community and other men by it, as is the nature of love, and

you will have your reward for this love without any effort and desire

on your part. But if you deem the service and reward of love too

small, it is evidence that yours is a perverted brotherhood. Love

serves freely and for nothing, therefore God also gives again to it

every blessing freely and or nothing. Since, then, everything must be

done in love, if it is to please God at all, the brotherhood must also

be a brotherhood in love. It is the nature, however, of that which is

done in love not to seek its own, nor its own profit, but that of

others, and, above all, that of the community.



5. To return once more to the sacrament; since the Christian

fellowship also is at present in a bad way, as never before, and daily

grows worse, especially among the rulers, and all places are full of

sin and shame, you should not consider how many masses are said, or

how often the sacrament is celebrated, or this will make things worse

rather than better,--but how much you and others increase in that

which the sacrament signifies and in the faith it demands,--for

therein alone lies improvement; and the more you find yourself being

incorporated into Christ and into the fellowship of His saints, the

better it is with you,--that is, if you find that you are becoming

strong in the confidence of Christ and of His dear saints, and are

certain that they love you and stand by you in all the trials of life

and in death, and that you in turn take to heart the shortcomings and

lapses of all Christians and of the whole Church, that your love goes

out to everyone, and that you desire to help everyone, to hate no one,

to suffer with all and pray or them: then will the work of the

sacrament proceed aright, then you will often weep, lament and mourn

or the wretched condition of Christendom to-day. If, however, you find

no such confidence in Christ and His saints, and the needs of the

Church and of every fellowman do not trouble or move you, then beware

of all other good works, if in doing them you think you are godly and

will be saved. Be assured they are only hypocrisy, sham and deceit, or

they are without love and fellowship, and without these nothing is

good. For the sum of it all is, _Plenitudo legis est dilectio_, "Love

is the fulfilling of the law." [Rom. 13:10] Amen.





FOOTNOTES





[1] See _Treatise on Baptism_, Vol. I, pp. 56 ff.



[2] Note the advance in _The Babylonian Captivity_, below, pp. 178

ff.



[3] Cf. _Babylonian Captivity_, below, p. 186.



[4] Cf. _Sermo_, 112, cap. 5 (Migne, xxxviii, 615).



[5] See Vol. I, p. 56.



[6] E. g., the danger of spilling the wine.



[7] See p. 37.



[8] Used here and above in the New Testament sense of true Christians,

living or dead, cf. 1 Cor. 1:2.



[9] See p. 11.



[10] See above, pp. 12, 13, and Vol. I, pp. 59 ff.



[11] The virgin Mary.



[12] Cf. _Enarratio in Ps. XXI_ (Migne, xxxvi, 178).



[13] Penitential works.



[14] Cf. Acts 2:46.



[15] See Vol. I, p. 310.



[16] In the Vulgate the Greek word "mystery" is translated by

_sacramentum_. See below, p. 258.



[17] Luther still adheres to the doctrine of transubstantiation. But

see below, pp. 187 ff.



[18] See p. 11.



[19] Cf. below, p. 192.



[20] See Luther's explanation of the First Commandment in the

Catechisms. Also the answer to the last question in Part V, Small

Catechism.



[21] _Treatise on Penance_ (_Weimer Ed._, II, 721), where Luther

exhorts the troubled conscience to pray with the father of the lunatic

boy, "Lord, I believe, help Thou mine unbelief," and with the

Apostles, "Lord, increase our faith."



[22] Cf. above, p. 17.



[23] The Church.



[24] A transubstantiation in the communicant.



[25] A work that is done without reference to the doer of it.



[26] A work considered with reference to the doer of it.



[27] An _opus operatum_.



[28] An _opus operantis_.



[29] Cf. 1 Cor. 11:30.



[30] Sodalities; see Introduction, p. 8, and below, pp. 137 f.



[31] On festival days of the order and on saints' days.



[32] The Carmelites are supposed to have been the first to organize

sodalities, having organized in the fourteenth century the Sodality of

Our Lady of Carmel. St. Anne was the mother of the Holy Virgin. Her

sodalities were, as Kolde says, epidemic in 1520. Luther's appeal to

St. Anne in the thunderstorm is well known (Comp. Kostlin-Kawerau, I,

55). There was a sodality of St. Anne, besides one of St. Augustine

and one of St. Catherine, in the monastery at Erfurt in Luther's day.

St. Sebastian was a martyr of the fourteenth century. His day is

January 20. Comp. Arts. _Anna_, _Sebastian_ and _Bruderschaten_ in

_Prot. Realencyk_., I, SS2; II, 534 l.



[33] A trades' guild brotherhood.



[34] Douay Version, based on Vulgate, from which Luther quotes.



[35] See above, p. 10.



[36] I. e., in marriage.







A TREATISE CONCERNING THE BAN



1520







INTRODUCTION





The ban, or excommunication, is the correlative of communion. Our

conception of excommunication depends then, of course, upon our view

of what constitutes communion. Luther gives us his view of communion

in the preceding _Treatise concerning the Blessed Sacrament_. From the

premise there laid down it follows that excommunication, or the ban,

excludes only from external membership in the Church, but cannot

really separate a man from the Church if he is in personal fellowship

with his Lord[1]. Sin and unbelief cause this separation from Him, and

the real ban, therefore, is put into effect not by the Church, but by

the man himself when he sins against God. The ban of the Church cannot

even deprive one of the Sacrament, but only of the outward use of it,

for it can still be partaken of spiritually. This whole position, of

course, is fatal to the Roman Catholic conception of the Church, and

we do not wonder that it was vigorously opposed by the hierarchy.



Of like significance is Luther's advocacy of the separation of the

temporal and spiritual powers, practically of Church and State,--the

position which he develops later in the _Open Letter to the Nobility_.

But in this treatise, again, Luther shows himself to be anything but

the immoral monster his vilifiers have tried to make of him. He is

again the man of conscience--will his critics say, "of oversensitive

conscience"? Thank God that there were some sensitive consciences in

an almost conscienceless age! Luther fears sin more than the ban, and

sin has for him more than an ecclesiastical meaning. Sin is not

primarily an act against the Church, but an offence against God. This

the ban is to teach; it is to be the symbol of God's wrath against sin

and it is to be used by the Church only remedially and in love. When

so used it becomes the chastening rod of the dear Mother Church,

provided it be accepted and borne in this spirit.



Why, then, did not Luther bear his own ban in this way? The

justification for his subsequent conduct is to be found in two brief

but important conditional clauses in this treatise. "God," he says,

"cannot and will not permit authority to be wantonly and impudently

resisted, _when it does not force us to do what is against God or His

commandments_."[2] Again he says, "When unjustly put under the ban we

should be very careful not to do, omit, say or withhold that on

account of which we are under the ban, _unless we cannot do so without

sin and without injury to our neighbor_."[3] God and his neighbor were

for Luther the actors which made it necessary for him to speak and

act, when for selfish reasons he would often rather have remained

passive.



The inception of our treatise is to be found in a sermon preached in

Wittenberg in the spring of 1518. Luther's pastoral concern for his

people made it necessary for him to speak on this subject in order to

quiet the consciences both embittered and distressed by the wanton and

unjust use of the power of excommunication. Added to this must have

been his own personal interest in the ban certain to fall on him. In a

letter to Link[4], dated July 10, 1518, he speaks of having preached a

sermon on the power of the ban which produced general consternation

and fear that the ire enkindled by the XCV Theses would start afresh.

He had desired a public disputation on the subject, but the Bishop of

Brandenburg persuaded him to defer the matter. Under date of September

1st, Luther writes Staupitz[5] that because his sermon had been

misrepresented and spread by unfriendly spies it became necessary for

him to publish it. It appeared in August after Luther's summons to

Rome, under the title _De Virtute Excommunicationis_. Our treatise is

an elaboration in popular form of this Latin treatise of 1515.



The Grunberg text given in Clemen, Vol. I, which we have followed in

most cases, is dated 1520, and must have appeared in its original

edition at the end of 1519 or the beginning of 1520.



The text of the treatise is found in the following editions: Weimar

Ed., vol. vi, 63; Erlangen Ed., vol. xxvii, 51; Walch Ed., vol. xix,

1089; St. Louis Ed., vol. .xix, 884; Clemen, vol. i, 213; Berlin Ed.,

vol. iii, 291.



        J. J. SCHINDEL.



Allentown, PA.





FOOTNOTES





[1] See below, p. 37.



[2] See below, p. 50.



[3] See below, p. 51.



[4] See Enders, I, No. 84. Smith. _Luther's Correspondence_, I, No.

69.



[5] See Enders, I, No. 90. Smith, _Luther's Correspondence_, I, No.

77.







A TREATISE CONCERNING THE BAN



1520







JESUS



1. We have seen[1] that the sacrament of the holy body of Christ is a

sign of the communion of all saints, therefore it becomes necessary to

know also what the ban is which is employed in the Church by the power

of the spiritual estate. For its chief and peculiar function and power

is to deprive guilty Christians of the holy sacrament and forbid it to

them. Therefore the one cannot be understood apart from the other,

because the one is the opposite of the other; for the Latin word

_communio_ means fellowship, and thus do the learned designate the

Holy Sacrament. Its opposite is the word _excommunicatio_, which means

exclusion from this fellowship, and so the learned term the ban.



2. There is a twofold fellowship, corresponding to the two things in

the sacrament, the sign and the thing signified, as was said in the

treatise[2]. The first is an inner, spiritual and invisible fellowship

of the heart, by which one is incorporated by true faith, hope and

love in the fellowship of Christ and of all the saints, signified and

bestowed in the sacrament; and this is the effect and virtue of the

sacrament. This fellowship can neither be given nor taken away by any

one, be he bishop, pope, or angel or any creature. God alone through

His Holy Spirit must pour it into the heart of the one who believes in

the sacrament, as was said in the treatise[3]. This fellowship no ban

can touch or affect, but only the unbelief or sin of the person

himself; by these he can excommunicate himself, and thus separate

himself from the grace, the and salvation of the fellowship. This St.

Paul proves in Romans viii: "Who shall separate us from the God? Can

anguish or need, or hunger or poverty, or danger or persecution, or

shedding of blood? Nay, I am convinced that neither death nor life,

neither angels nor principalities nor angelic hosts, neither things

present nor things to come, naught that is mighty on the earth,

neither height nor depth nor any other creature can separate us from

the love of God which is ours in Christ Jesus our Lord." [Rom. 8:35,

38] And St. Peter says: "And who is he that will harm you, if ye be

followers of that which is good?" [1 Peter 3:13]



3. The second kind of fellowship is an outward, bodily and visible

fellowship, by which one is admitted to the Holy Sacrament and

receives and partakes of it together with others. From this fellowship

or communion bishop and pope can exclude one, and forbid it to him on

account of his sin, and that is called putting him under the ban. This

ban was much in vogue of old, and is now known as the lesser ban. For

the ban goes beyond this and forbids even burial, selling, trading,

all association and fellowship with men, finally, as they say, even

fire and water[4], and this is known as the greater ban.



Not satisfied with this, there are some who go still farther and use

the temporal powers against those under the ban, to coerce them with

sword, fire, and war[5]. These, however, are new inventions, rather

than the real meaning of Scripture. To wield the temporal sword

belongs to the emperor, to kings, to princes, and to the rulers of

this world, and by no means to the spiritual estate[6], whose sword is

not to be of iron, but the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word and

commandment of God, as St. Paul says. [Eph. 6:17]



4. This external ban, both the lesser and the greater, was instituted

by Christ when He said in Matthew xviii: "If thy brother shall

trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him

alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. If he will

not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth

of two or three witnesses every word or transaction may be

established. If he will not hear them, then tell it unto the whole

congregation, the Church. If he neglect to hear the Church, let him be

unto thee a heathen man and a publican." [Matt. 18:15 ff.]



Likewise St. Paul says in I Corinthians v: "If any man among you be a

fornicator, or covetous, or an idolator, or a railer, or a drunkard,

or an extortioner, with such an one keep not company, neither eat with

him." [1. Cor. 5:11] Again he says in II Thessalonians iii: "If any

man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man and have no

company with him, that he may be ashamed." [2 Thess. 3:14] Again, John

says in his second Epistle: "If any one come unto you, and bring not

this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God

speed, and he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil

deeds." [2 John 10]



From all these sayings we learn how the ban is to be used. First, we

should seek neither vengeance nor our own profit, as is at present the

disgraceful practice everywhere, but only the correction of our

neighbor. Second, the penalty should stop short of his death or

destruction; or St. Paul limits the purpose of the ban to the

correction of our neighbor, that he be put to shame when no one

associates with him, and he adds in 11 Thessalonians iii: "Count him

not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother." [2 Thess. 3:15] But

now the ruthless tyrants deal with men as though they would cast them

down to hell, and do not in any wise seek their correction.



5. It may often happen that a person under the ban is deprived of the

holy sacrament, and also of burial, and is nevertheless inwardly[7]

secure and blessed in the fellowship of Christ and of all saints,

signified in the sacrament. On the other hand, there are many who are

not under the outward ban and who freely partake of the sacrament, but

are nevertheless inwardly quite estranged and excommunicated from the

fellowship of Christ; even though they be buried under the high altar

in a golden pall with much pomp and singing and tolling of bells.

Therefore, no one is to be judged, even if he be under the ban,

especially if he has not been put under the ban for heresy or sin, but

for the purpose of correction. For to put men under the ban for the

sake of money or other temporal considerations is a new invention, of

which the apostles and Christ knew nothing.



6. To put under the ban is not, as some think, to deliver a soul to

Satan and deprive it of the intercession and of all the good works[8]

of the Church. For where the true faith and love of God remain in the

heart, there remains a real participation in all the possessions and

intercessions of the Church, together with all the benefits of the

sacrament, since the ban is and can be nothing else than exclusion

from the external sacrament or from association with men. If I were

cast into prison I would, of course, be deprived of the outward

companionship of my friends, and yet not be deprived of their favor

and friendship; so he that is put under the ban must relinquish the

sacrament and association with men, but is not on that account cut off

from their love, intercession and good works.



7. It is true that the ban, when it is rightly and deservedly applied,

is a sign, an admonition and a chastisement, whereby the one under the

ban should recognize that he himself has delivered his soul unto Satan

by his transgression and sin, and has deprived himself of the

fellowship of all the saints and of Christ. For by the penalty of the

ban our mother, the holy Church, would show her dear son the awful

consequences of sin and thereby bring him back from the devil to God.

When an earthly mother rebukes and chastises her erring son, she does

not give him over to the hangman or to the wolves, nor make a knave of

him, but she restrains him and shows him by her chastisement that he

is in danger of the hangman, and thus keeps him at home in his

father's house. In the same way, when the spiritual power puts any one

under the ban, it should be in this spirit: "Behold, thou has done

this or that, whereby thou hast delivered thy soul unto the devil,

deserved God's wrath, and deprived thyself of all Christian

fellowship; thou art fallen under the inward spiritual ban in the

sight of God and art unwilling to cease or to return. So then, I put

thee also outwardly under the ban in the sight of men, and to thy

shame I deprive thee of the sacrament and of fellowship with men,

until thou come to thyself and bring back thy soul."



8. Let every bishop, provost or official[9], who uses the ban for any

other purpose, take heed lest he put himself under the everlasting ban

from which neither God nor any creature shall deliver him. There are

none to whom the ban is more harmful and dangerous than those who

apply it, even though it be laid quite justly and only on account of

wrongdoing, for the reason that they seldom if ever have this object

in view. Besides they go about it without fear and do not consider how

perchance they themselves may be more worthy of a hundred bans in the

sight of God, as the Gospel records of the servant who owed his Lord

ten thousand pounds and yet would not have patience with his fellow

servant who owed him a hundred pence. What will become of these

miserable taskmasters, who for the sake of money have brought things

to such a pass with their bans, often violently and unjustly imposed,

that Turks and heathen have an easier life than Christians? It is very

evident that many of them are under the ban in the sight of God, and

are deprived of the blessing of the sacrament and of inward, spiritual

fellowship, although they do nothing day and night but cite others to

appear, harass them and put them under the ban, and deprive of the

external sacrament those who are a thousandfold better inwardly and in

the sight of God and are living in the spiritual fellowship of the

sacrament. O miserable business! O terrible existence maintained by

this abominable trade! I am not sure whether such publicans and

officials were wolves before becoming officials or whether they are on

the way to becoming wolves; their work is certainly wolves' work.



9. From this there follows the truth that the ban of itself ruins,

condemns or harms no one, but seeks and finds the ruined and condemned

soul for the purpose of bringing it back. For all chastisement is for

the correction of sin; the ban is simply a chastisement and motherly

correction; therefore it makes no one worse or more sinful, but is

ordained solely to restore the inward spiritual fellowship when justly

laid, or to deepen it when unjustly imposed. This is proved by St.

Paul when he says in II Corinthians xiii: This I write to you

according to the power which the Lord hath given me, to edification

and not to destruction," [2 Cor. 13:10] And thus, when he rebukes him

who had taken his step-mother to wife, he says in I Corinthians v: "I

together with you deliver him unto the devil for the destruction of the

flesh, that the spirit may be saved at the last day." [1 Cor. 5:5]

Thus also in the passage quoted above he said: "We should not count

him who is under the ban as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother,

in order that he may be put to shame and not be lost." [2 Thess. 3:15]

Nay, even Christ Himself, as man, had not the power to cut off and

deliver a single soul to the devil, as He says in John vi: "Him that

cometh to Me I will in no wise cast out, and this is the will of My

Father Who sent Me, that I should not destroy or lose what He giveth

Me." [John 6:37, 39] Again He says: "The Son of Man is not come to

destroy, but to save men's souls." [Luke 9:56] If Christ Himself and

all the apostles had no other power than to help souls, and have let

behind them no other power in the Church, how dare the blind tyrants

presume and boast in their presumption that they have power to curse,

to condemn and to destroy, which power is even denied them by their

own canon law; for in the Liber Sextus[10], which treats of the

sentence of excommunication, we read: "Since the ban is a medicine and

not a poison, only a discipline, not a destructive uprooting, in so

far as the one subjected to it does not despise it: therefore let

every spiritual judge give diligence to prove himself one who seeks by

the ban naught but to correct and to cure."



10. From the above passage it is evident that the ban, when it is not

despised, is wholesome and harmless, and not fatal to the soul, as

certain timid and dejected consciences, frightened by the outrageous

abuses of some, imagine; although in apostolic times it was able to

deliver the body to the devil and to death[11], as indeed it might

still be, if the judges would wield the ban, not in the abuse of

power, but in humble faith and love, for the correction of their

neighbor. It follows further that the ban brings greater danger and

terror to those who apply it and are not careful to seek only the

correction and salvation of those under the ban, according to the

words of the above passage[12]. For the ban can be nothing else than a

kind, motherly scourge applied to the body and temporal possessions,

by which no one is cast into hell, but rather drawn out of it, and

freed from condemnation unto salvation. Therefore we should not only

endure it without impatience, but receive it with all joy and

reverence. But for the tyrants, who seek therein nothing else than

power, awe and gain for themselves, the ban must be a terrible injury,

because they pervert it and its purpose, turn the medicine into a

poison, and seek only to become a terror to a frightened people; of

correction they never think. For this they will have to give an awful

reckoning--woe unto them!



11. They have devised a saying, to wit: "Our ban must be feared, right

or wrong." With this saying they insolently comfort themselves, swell

their chests and puff themselves up like adders, and almost dare to

defy heaven and to threaten the whole world; with this bugaboo they

have made a deep and mighty impression, imagining that there is more

in these words than there really is. Therefore we would explain them

more fully and prick this bladder, which with its three peas makes

such a rightful noise.



Now, it is true, the ban must be feared and not be despised, whether

it be just or unjust. But why apply this only to the ban, which is a

motherly chastening, and not to all the other and greater penalties

and tribulations as well? For what great thing have you done or the

ban by saying it must be feared? Must we not also fear when we are

sick, poor, slandered, despised, or deprived of goods, income or

justice, nay, when the Turk and other enemies attack or afflict us?

For all these and other adversities, whether deserved or undeserved,

we should fear, suffer and endure, and in all things conduct ourselves

as though we but received our deserts, as the Lord teaches: "O him

that taketh away thy goods ask them not again." [Luke 6:30] Why are

you not also afraid, dear tyrant, when you suffer injustice, when your

income is refused, your property stolen, your rights denied, and why

do you not think that you should endure these things in fear, whether

they be right or wrong? Do you think that others are commanded to

endure your power in ear, whether right or wrong, and that you are

free from this commandment and need not endure violence or wrong in

fear? You will learn that you also are human and under the same law

with which you threaten others, puffing yourself up in your folly.



12. What perversity! The spiritual powers come along with their ban

and say it should be eared and endured, whether right or wrong. But if

they are subjected to violence and injustice they will not endure it

to the extent of a single heller, but without any fear at all, cast up

the accounts in their favor and demand what is theirs. Thus they

withdraw themselves from God's commandment, in keeping which they,

most of all, should be an example to others. For if it is true that

pope, bishop and the whole spiritual estate may without fear resist

injustice, injury and contempt in their own interest, then it is also

true that the ban may be resisted and be repelled, as vigorously as

they seek their interest. There is no distinction in God's

commandment, it concerns every one alike. But may God forbid that! We

are to bear both the ban and whatever tribulation may befall us in

fear, as the Gospel teaches. Therefore, if any one wrong you or take

your income, and you do not endure it in fear, but would frighten him

with the ban[13], especially when you are seeking not his improvement,

but your own benefit or self-will, take heed, you are already worse

than he. For you intend to draw yourself out of fear and to draw him

in, which you have no right to do, and compel him to keep the Gospel

which you tear to pieces. How will you be able to stand before God?

Therefore when they say, "Our ban must be feared, right or wrong," we

reply: "Yes, that is true, but it is also true that your unjust ban

harms no one but yourselves, and harms you in body and soul. And the

just ban harms you more than it harms me. Therefore you should also

endure your injury in fear, be it right or wrong, and if you glory

over me because of the ban I will glory over you because of your

suffering. If a criminal took my coat and said: 'You should endure it

in fear and humility,' I would say, 'I will; not for the sake of your

theft, which harms me not, but for the sake of Christ's commandment

[Matt. 5:40].' Just so I fear your ban, not for the ban's sake (it

does not harm me, but rather yourself), but for the sake of Christ's

commandment."



13. Though it is true that the ban must be feared, whether it be right

or wrong, yet those who lay the ban are always in greater danger than

those on whom it is laid. He who is banned is in no danger but that of

despising the ban and not bearing it, whether it be right or wrong.

But he who bans is in danger, in the first place, of not enduring

injustice in fear; in the second place, of avenging himself through

the ban without any fear; in the third place, of not seeking, with

singleness of purpose, his sinful neighbor's correction by means of

the ban. This is evident because he despises his own sin and that of

others, and only attacks the man who injures him, all of which is

contrary to the Gospel. Hence it comes that by means of their dreadful

perverseness those who use the ban nowadays pick up the spoon and

tread in the dish[14]; they put others under the external ban and put

themselves under condemnation inwardly; in addition, they become so

blinded that they boast how greatly their external ban is to be

feared, and inwardly they condemn themselves, and rejoice boldly and

without fear like fools and madmen. For this reason I am sure that the

Holy Spirit did not invent the saying, Our ban must be feared, right

or wrong. It does not become a Christian, not to say one in the

spiritual estate[15], to wrong another, much less to lord it over him

and boast that this injustice must be feared. It behooves me to say,

Thy injustice makes me tremble; it behooves thee much more to take

heed and be in fear lest thou do me wrong and threaten me besides,

saying that I must endure it in fear; or thy injustice can harm me

only in time, but thee it harms to all eternity. So evil and

lamentable are these present times, in which such furious tyrants

shamelessly and openly boast of their sin and everlasting hurt (which

would be horrible even in Turks and heathen), in order that they may

be defiant now and mock at the misfortunes of those who suffer, whom

they do not seek to correct, but only to inspire with fear and false

terror.



In a word, the higher estate is always, with all its works, in greater

danger than the lower estate, and where the lower estate must needs be

in fear once, there the higher estate needs be in fear ten times over.

On this account those who exercise the ban have no reason to lord it

over those who are under the ban or to deal arrogantly with them, but

all the more reason to weep or themselves. For God's judgment will not

be pronounced on the lowly, but on the mighty, as Wisdom the wise man

says [Wisdom 6:8 f.].



14. It were indeed better if Christians were taught to love the ban

rather than to fear it[16], as we are taught by Christ to love

chastisement, pain and even death, and not to fear them. But these

prattlers speak only of fear in the ban, though they teach that all

other chastisements and misfortunes are to be borne cheerfully.

Whereby they betray their blind and cursed purpose, which is to rule

by force over the people of Christ, and as it were to take the free

Christian Church captive in fear. Therefore let us learn what is our

chief duty with respect to the ban, namely, not to despise it or bear

it impatiently, and this for two reasons. First, because the authority

of the ban was given by Christ to the holy mother, the Christian

Church, that is, to the community of all Christians. Therefore, in

this matter we should honor and submit to our dear mother Church and

to Christ. For what Christ and the Church do should have our approval,

our love and our filial fear. Secondly, because the effect and purpose

of the ban is beneficial and salutary and never injurious, if one

endures it and does not despise it. To use a homely illustration: When

a mother punishes her beloved son, whether he has deserved it or not,

she certainly does not do it with evil intent, but it is a maternal,

harmless and salutary punishment, if the son bears it patiently. Only

when he becomes impatient, and is not influenced by it to leave the

wrong or to do the good for the sake of which he is punished, but

turns against his mother and despises her, does the punishment begin

to do him harm; or then he offends against God, Who has commanded:

"Thou shalt honor thy father and mother" [Ex. 20:12]; and out of a

light, harmless, yea even beneficial chastisement he makes a terrible

wrong and sin, to his everlasting pain and punishment.



15. Thus it happens in our day that certain officials[17] and their

associates are murdered, beaten and bound, or are in constant fear of

death. Doubtless this would not occur at all, or at least much less

frequently, if the people did not hold the wrong opinion that the ban

is more harmful than profitable. For this reason they venture

everything, and commit such crimes as it were in despair. Although

this is terrible, yet by God's dispensation the tyrants get what they

deserve, because they conceal the real benefit of the ban from the

people, and misuse it, making no effort toward correction, but aiming

simply to increase their own power. For although every one ought to

endure the ban, they too ought not to despise a poor human being, be

he guilty or innocent, as Christ says: "Take heed that ye despise not

one of these little ones that believe on Me, for I say unto you that

their angels do always behold the face of My Father which is in

heaven." [Matt. 18:10] Why should they wonder if, in the providence of

God, at times their heads are broken and their commands despised,

because of the unjust tyrannical ban, since without ceasing they act

so insolently against God's commandment? True, there is great wrong on

both sides. Yet if the people were taught that the power of the ban is

wholesome and necessary and that it is not ordained nor used to their

hurt, but to their benefit, the officials would be in less danger, and

find greater and readier obedience, nay, greater love, good will and

honor among all the people.



16. Therefore the people should be taught in some such way as this: My

dear people, let not those who have and use the power of the ban drive

you to despair, whether they be pious or evil, whether they do you

justice or injustice. The power of the ban cannot harm you, but must

always be beneficial to the soul, if only you bear and endure it

aright; their abuse of the ban does not hinder its virtue. Or if you

cannot endure it, then try to escape from it with meekness, not with

revenge and retaliation by word or deed. And in all things look not to

them, but to the dear mother Church. What difference does it make to

you whether she lays her rods of chastisement upon you through pious

or through wicked rulers? It is and remains, nevertheless, your

dearest mother's most salutary rod. From the beginning of the world it

has been so, and will ever remain, that spiritual and temporal power

is more often given to the Pilates, Herods, Annases and Caiaphases

than to the pious Peters, Pauls and the like, and as in all other

estates so in that of government there are always more of the wicked

than of the pious. It is not to be supposed or hoped that we shall

ever have an entirely pious government, nay, it must come as a pure

git of grace or by special prayer and merit, if good government or a

right use of power is to be had at all. For God punishes wicked

subjects by wicked rulers, as He says: "I will give children to be

their prelates and their rulers shall be childish men, I will take

from them every mighty man, the wise, the prudent and the man of war,"

[Isa. 3:4] etc. Since, then, incapable or evil rulers are God's

chastisement, and there are so many among us who deserve such

chastisement, we must not be surprised if the government wrongs us and

abuses its power toward us, nay, we must wonder and thank God when it

does not wrong us and do us injustice.



17. Wherefore, since the world is at present overburdened, as it has

abundantly deserved to be because of its heinous sins, with young,

imprudent and inexperienced rulers, especially in the spiritual

estate, so that this age of ours is extraordinarily perilous, we must

act very prudently and by all means see to it that we hold the

government and all authority in the highest honor, even as Christ

honors the authority of Pilate, Herod, Annas, Caiaphas, and of the

temporal rulers of His time we must not permit such grievous abuses

and the childish rule of the prelates to move us to despise all

authority, so that despite those unworthy persons who bear rule we may

not at the same time despise their authority, but cheerfully bear what

it imposes, or reuse to bear it at least with humility and proper

respect. For God cannot and will not permit authority to be wantonly

and impudently resisted when it does not force us to do what is

against God or His commandments[18], though they themselves do as much

as they can against God, or injure us as much as they will. There are

some whom He Himself would judge and condemn, and such are those great

and powerful tyrants; so too, there are those whom He would help, and

such are the oppressed sufferers. Therefore we should yield to this

His will and leave the mighty to His sword and judgment, and allow Him

to help us, as St. Paul says: "O dearly beloved brethren, neither

avenge nor defend yourselves, but rather give place unto the wrath of

God, because it is written. Vengeance belongs to Me alone and I will

repay each one [Deut. 32:35]." [Rom. 12:19]



And yet we should humbly tell these prelates (especially should the

preachers rebuke them, yet only by showing them from the Word of God)

that they are acting against God and show them what He would have them

do, and in addition diligently and earnestly pray to God or them; even

as Jeremiah wrote to the children of Israel in Babylon that they

should zealously pray or the king of Babylon, or his son and for his

kingdom, although he had taken them captive, had troubled and slain

them and done them all manner of evil.



And we can easily do this if we remember that the ban and all

unrighteous authority cannot harm our souls, provided we submit to

them, and they must ever be of profit, unless they are despised. So

also are the authorities a thousandfold worse in the sight of God than

we, and are therefore to be pitied rather than wickedly to be

despised. For this reason we are also commanded in the law of Moses

that no one shall revile the rulers, be they good or evil, even though

they give great occasion. In short, we must have evil or childish

rulers,--if it is not the Turk, then it must needs be the Christians.

The world is far too wicked to be worthy of good and pious lords, it

must have princes who go to war, levy taxes and shed blood, and it

must have spiritual tyrants who impoverish and burden it with bulls

and letters[19] and laws. This and other chastisements are rather what

it has deserved, and to resist them is nothing else than to resist

God's chastisement. As humbly as I conduct myself when God sends me a

sickness, so humbly should I conduct myself toward the evil

government, which the same God also sends me.



18. When we are justly and deservedly put under the ban our chief

concern should be to correct the sins of commission and omission which

caused the ban, since the ban always is imposed on account of sin

(which is far worse than the ban itself), and yet here as elsewhere

things are perverted, so that we only consider how much the rod hurts

and not why we are punished. Where can you find men to-day who are as

much in fear of sinning and provoking God as they are in fear of the

ban? Thus it happens that we are more in fear of the wholesome

chastisement than of the heinous sins. We must let men think and act

thus, because the natural man does not see the spiritual harm in sin

as he feels the smarts of chastisement; although the fear of the ban

has also been exaggerated by the tyrannous methods and threatenings of

the spiritual judges who drive the people to fear punishment more than

sin.



When, however, we are unjustly put under the ban, we should be very

careful that we in no way do, omit, say or withhold that on account of

which we are under the ban (unless we cannot do so without sin and

without injury to our neighbor)[20], but rather should we endure the

ban in humility, die happily under it, if it cannot be otherwise, and

not be terrified, even though we do not receive the sacrament and are

buried in unconsecrated ground. The reason is this: Truth and

righteousness belong to the inner, spiritual fellowship[21] and may

not be abandoned under penalty of falling under God's eternal ban.

Therefore they dare not be surrendered for the sake of the external

fellowship, which is immeasurably inferior, nor because of the ban. To

receive the sacrament and to be buried in consecrated ground are of

too little consequence that or their sake truth and righteousness be

neglected. And that no one may think this strange I will go further

and say that even he who dies under a just ban is not damned, unless

indeed he did not repent of his sin or despised the ban. For sorrow

and repentance make all things right, even though his body be exhumed

or his ashes cast into the water[22].



19. The unjust ban then is much more to be desired than either the

just ban or the external fellowship. It is a very precious merit in

the sight of God, and blessed is he who dies under an unjust ban. God

will grant him an eternal crown for the truth's sake, on account of

which he is under the ban. Then let him sing in the words of Psalm

cix, "They have cursed me, but Thou hast blessed me." [Ps. 109:28]

Only let us beware of despising the authorities, and humbly declare

our innocence; if this does not avail, then we are free and without

guilt in the sight of God. For if we are in duty bound by the

commandment of Christ to agree with our adversary [Matt. 5:25]; how

much more should we agree with the authority of the Christian Church,

be it exercised justly or unjustly, by worthy or unworthy rulers.



An obedient child, though it does not deserve the punishment it

receives from its mother, suffers no harm from the unjust

chastisement, nay, by its very patience it becomes much dearer and

more pleasing to the mother; how much more do we become lovable in

God's sight, if at the hands of evil rulers we endure the unmerited

punishment of the Church, as our spiritual mother. For the Church

remains our mother because Christ remains Christ, and she is not

changed into a step-mother simply because of our evil rulers.

Nevertheless, the prelates and bishops and their officials should be

temperate and not hastily use the ban, for many bans means nothing

else than many laws and commandments, and prescribing many laws is to

set many snares for poor souls. And so by numerous ill-advised bans

nothing more results than great offence and an occasion or sin, by

which the wrath of God is provoked, although the ban was ordained to

reconcile Him. And although we are truly bound to obey them, still

more are they bound to direct, change and regulate their decree and

authority according to our ability and need and for our correction and

salvation; for we have shown from St. Paul[23] that power is given not

for destruction but for edification [2 Cor. 13:10].



20. The ban should be applied not only to heretics and schismatics,

but to all who are guilty of open sin, as we have shown above from St.

Paul, who commands that the railer, extortioner, fornicator and

drunkard be put under the ban [1 Cor. 5:11]. But in our day such

sinners are let in peace, especially if they are bigwigs; and to the

disgrace of this noble form of authority, the ban is used only for the

collection of debts of money, often so insignificant that the costs

amount to more than the original debt. In order to gloss this over

they have hit upon a new device, saying they put under the ban not

because of debt but because of disobedience, because the summons was

not respected; were it not for debt, however, they would forget the

disobedience, as we see when many other sins, even their own, escape

the ban. A poor man must often be disobedient if he is cited to go so

many miles, lose time and money and neglect his trade. It is utter

tyranny to summon a man to come such a distance across country to

court.



And I commend the temporal princes[24] who will not permit the ban and

the abuses connected with it in their lands and among their people.

What are princes and counsellors for if they do not concern themselves

with and judge such temporal matters as debts, each in their city and

province and among their subjects? The spiritual powers should be

concerned with the Word of God, with sin, and with the devil, in order

to bring souls to God, and should relinquish temporal cases to the

temporal judges, as Paul writes[25][1 Cor. 6:1]. Indeed, as things are

now, it is almost necessary to use the ban in order to drive the

people into the Church and not out of it.



21. Whether one be justly or unjustly under the ban, no one may

exclude him from the Church until the Gospel has been read or the

sermon preached[26]. For from the hearing of the Gospel and the sermon

no one shall or can exclude or be excluded. The hearing of the Word of

God should remain free to every one[27]. Nay, those who are under a

just ban ought most of all to hear it, that they may perchance be

moved by it to acknowledge their sin and to reform. We read that it

was the ancient practice of the Church to dismiss those under the ban

after the sermon, and if a whole congregation were under the ban the

sermon must be allowed to proceed just as though there were no ban. In

addition, even though he who is under the ban may not remain for the

mass after the sermon, nor come to the sacrament[28], nevertheless he

should not neglect it, but spiritually come to the sacrament, that is,

he should heartily desire it and believe that he can spiritually

receive it, as was said in the treatise on the sacrament[29].





FOOTNOTES





[1] In the preceding treatise on the _Blessed Sacrament_.



[2] See above, p. 10.



[3] See above, p. 18.



[4] I. e., the necessaries of life.



[5] E. g., the crusades against heretics, and the inquisition of the

thirteenth century. Luther's statement that to burn heretics is

contrary to the will of the Holy Spirit was condemned in the Bull

_Exsurge Domine_, of July 15, 1520.



[6] Cf. p. 53.



[7] Cf. p. 10.



[8] See Vol. I, pp. 53, 163 ff.



[9] The officials were officers of the bishops' courts; see also

below, p. 103.



[10] In Vito, lib. V, tit. xi, c. I,_Cum medicinalis_.



[11] According to Luther's interpretation of 1 Cor. 5:5. Cf. also Acts

5:5.



[12] The passage quoted from the canon law.



[13] For instances see the _Gravamina of the German Nation_ (1521),

Wrede, _Deutsche Reichstagsakten_, II, 685.



[14] Thiele, _Luthers Sprichwortersammlung_, No. 276.



[15] I. e., a cleric.



[16] This statement also was condemned in the papal bull.



[17] The "officials" were the administrators of this discipline, see

above, p. 41.



[18] A very important limitation for Luther's position.



[19] See Open Letter to the Nobility, below, p. 98.



[20] Again an important limitation.



[21] See above, p. 41.



[22] The ashes of Hus were cast into the Rhine (1415), and the body of

Wycliff was exhumed and cremated and the ashes cast into the water

(1427).



[23] See above, p. 42.



[24] In 1518 both George and Frederick of Saxony took the position

that spiritual jurisdiction should be limited to spiritual matters.

Gess, _Akten und Briefe zur Kirchen politik Georgs_ 1, 44.



[25] Luther puts a peculiar construction upon this passage.



[26] The ancient service was divided into the service of the Word

(_missa catechumenorum_) and the celebration of the sacrament (_missa

fidelium_); before the second, those under the ban as well as the

catechumens were required to withdraw.



[27] The "great ban" excluded from all services.



[28] According to Roman Catholic usage there is a distinction between

hearing mass and receiving the sacrament.



[29] Compare Treatise Concerning the Blessed Sacrament, above, p. 25.







AN OPEN LETTER TO THE CHRISTIAN NOBILITY OF THE GERMAN NATION

CONCERNING THE REFORM OF THE CHRISTIAN ESTATE



1520







INTRODUCTION





The _Open Letter to the Christian Nobility of the German Nation_ is

closely related to the tract on _The Papacy at Rome: A Reply to the

Celebrated Romanist at Leipzig_[1]. In a letter to Spalatin[2] dated

before June 8, 1520, Luther says: "I shall assail that ass of an

Alveld in such wise as not to forget the Roman pontiff, and neither of

them will be pleased." In the same letter he writes, "I am minded to

issue a broadside to Charles and the nobility of Germany against the

tyranny and baseness of the Roman curia." The attack upon Alveld is

the tract on _The Papacy at Rome_; the _scheda publica_ grew into the

_Open Letter_. At the time when the letter to Spalatin was written,

the work on _The Papacy at Rome_ must have been already in press, for

it appeared in print on the 26th of the month[3], and the composition

of the Open Letter had evidently not yet begun. On the 23d Luther sent

the manuscript of the _Open Letter_ to Amsdorf[4], with the request

that he read it and suggest changes. The two weeks immediately

preceding the publication of the work _On the Papacy_ must, therefore,

have been the time when the Open Letter was composed.



In the conclusion to the earlier work Luther had said: "Moreover, I

should be truly glad if kings, princes, and all the nobles would take

hold, and turn the knaves from Rome out of the country, and keep the

appointments to bishoprics and benefices out of their hands. How has

Roman avarice come to usurp all the foundations, bishoprics and

benefices of our fathers? Who has ever read or heard of such monstrous

robbery? Do we not also have the people who need them, while out of

our poverty we must enrich the ass-drivers and stable-boys, nay, the

harlots and knaves at Rome, who look upon us as nothing else but

arrant fools, and make us the objects of their vile mockery? Oh, the

pity, that kings and princes have so little reverence for Christ, and

His honor concerns them so little that they allow such heinous

abominations to gain the upper hand, and look on, while at Rome they

think of nothing but to continue in their madness and to increase the

abounding misery, until no hope is let on earth except in the temporal

authorities. Of this I will say more anon, if this Romanist comes

again; let this suffice for a beginning. May God help us at length to

open our eyes. Amen."



This passage may fairly be regarded as the germ of the _Open Letter_.

The ideas of the latter work are suggested with sufficient clearness

to show that its materials are already at hand, and its plan already

in the author's mind. The threat to write it is scarcely veiled. That

Luther did not wait for that particular Romanist to "come again" may

have been due to the intervention of another Romanist, none other than

his old opponent, Sylvester Prierias. Before the 7th of June[5] Luther

had received a copy of Prierias' _Epitome of a Reply to Martin

Luther_[6], which is the boldest and baldest possible assertion of the

very theory of papal power which Luther had sought to demolish in his

tract on the Papacy. In the preface to his reprint of the Epitome,

Luther bids farewell to Rome: "Farewell, unhappy, hopeless,

blasphemous Rome! The wrath of God hath come upon thee, as thou hast

deserved! We have cared for Babylon, and she is not healed; let us,

then, leave her, that she may be the habitation of dragons, spectres

and witches, and true to her name of Babel, an everlasting confusion,

a new pantheon of wickedness."[7]



These words were written while the _Open Letter_ was in course of

composition. The _Open Letter_ is, therefore, Luther's first

publication after the time when he recognized that the breach between

him and the papal church was complete, and likely to be permanent.

Meanwhile, the opposing party had come to the same conclusion. The

verdict of the pope upon Luther had been long delayed, but on the 15th

of June, midway between the letter to Spalatin, above mentioned, and

the completion of the _Open Letter_, Leo X signed the bull of

excommunication, though it was not published in Germany until later.

Thus the _Open Letter_ shows us the mind of Luther in the weeks when

the permanent separation between him and Rome took place.



It was also the time when he had the highest hopes from the promised

support of the German knights[8], who formed the patriotic party in

Germany and are included in the "nobility" to whom the Open Letter is

addressed[9].



The first edition of 4000 copies came off the press of Melchior

Lotther in Wittenberg before the 18th of August[10]. It is

surmised[11] that the earlier portion[12] of the work was not

contained in the original manuscript, but was added while it was in

the printer's hands; perhaps it was added at the suggestion of

Amsdorf. Less than a week later a second edition was in course of

preparation[13]. This "enlarged and revised edition"[14] contained

three passages not included in the first[15]. They are indicated in

the notes to the present edition.



He who would know the true Luther must read more than one of his

writings; he must not by any chance omit to read the _Open Letter to

the Christian Nobility of the German Nation_. In his other works we

learn to know him as the man of God, or the prophet, or the

theologian; in this treatise we meet Luther the German. His heart is

full of grief for the affliction of his people, and grief turns to

wrath as he observes that this affliction is put upon them by the

tyranny and greed of the pope and the cardinals and the "Roman

vermin." The situation is desperate; appeals and protests have been

all in vain; and so, as a last resort, he turns to the temporal

authorities,--to Charles V, newly elected, but as yet uncrowned; to

the territorial lords, great and small, who have a voice in the

imperial diet and powers of jurisdiction in their own

domains,--reciting the abuses of "Roman tyranny," and pleading with

them to intervene in behalf of the souls that are going to destruction

"through the devilish rule of Rome." It is a cry out of the heart of

Germany, a nation whose bent is all religious, but which, from that

very circumstance, is all the more open to the insults and wrongs and

deceptions of the Roman curia.



Yet it is no formless and incoherent cry, but an orderly recital of

the ills of Germany. There are times when we feel in reading it that

the writer is laying violent hands on his own wrath in the effort to

be calm. For all its scathing quality, it is a sane arraignment of

those who "under the holy name of Christ and St. Peter" are

responsible for the nation's woes, and the remedies that are proposed

are, many of them, practicable as well as reasonable.



The materials of the work are drawn from many sources,--from hearsay,

from personal observation, from such histories as Luther had at his

command, from the proceedings of councils and of diets; there are

passages which would seem to bear more than an accidental resemblance

to similar passages in Hutten's _Vadiscus_. All was grist that came to

Luther's mill. But the spirit of the work is Luther's own.



For the general historian, who is concerned more with the practical

than with the theoretical or theological aspects of the Reformation,

the _Open Letter_ is undoubtedly Luther's greatest work. Its rank

outspokenness about the true condition of Germany, the number and

variety of the subjects that it treats, the multiplicity of the

sources from which the subject-matter is drawn, and the point of view

from which the whole is discussed make it a work of absorbing interest

and priceless historical value. It shows, as does no other single work

of the Reformation time, the things that were in men's minds and the

variety of motives which led them to espouse the cause of the

Protestant party. Doctrine, ethics, history, politics, economics, all

have their place in the treatise. It is not only "a blast on the

war-trumpet,"[16] but a connecting link between the thought of the

Middle Ages and that of modern times, prophetic of the new age, but

showing how closely the new is bound up with the old.



The text of the _Open Letter_ is found in _Weimar Ed_., VI, 404-469;

_Erl. Ed._, XXI, 277-360; _Walch Ed._, X, 296-399; _St. Louis Ed._, X,

266-351; _Berlin Ed._, I, 203-290; _Clemen_ I, 363-425. The text of

the Berlin Ed._ is modernized and annotated by E. Schneider. The

editions of _K. Benrath_ (Halle, 1883) and E. Lemme (_Die 3 grossen

Reformationsschriften L's vom J. 1520_; Gotha, 1884) contain a

modernized text and extensive notes. A previous English translation in

_Wace_ and _Buchheim_, _Luther's Primary Works_ (London and

Philadelphia, 1896). The present translation is based on the text of

Clemen.



For full discussion of the contents of the work, especially its

sources, see _Weimar Ed._, VI, 381-391; _Schafer, Luther als

Kirchenhistoriker_, Gutersloh, 1897; Kohler, _L's Schrift an den Adel

. . . im Spiegel der Kulturgeschichte_, Halle, 1895, and _Luther und

die Kirchengeschichte_, Erlangen, 1900. Extensive comment in all the

biographies, especially Kostlin-Kawerau I, 315 ff.



        CHARLES M. JACOBS.



Lutheran Theological Seminary,



    Mount Airy, Philadelphia.





FOOTNOTES





[1] In this edition, I, 337 ff.



[2] Enders, II, 414; Smith, _L.'s Correspondence_, I, No. 266.



[3] Enders, II, 424.



[4] See below, p. 62.



[5] See letter of June 7th to John Hess, Enders, II, 411; Smith, I,

No. 265.



[6] Published at Rome 1519; printed with Luther's preface and notes,

Weimar Ed., VI, 328ff.; Erl. Ed., op. var. arg., II, 79 ff.



[7] _Weimar Ed._, VI, 329.



[8] See Enders, II, 415, 443; Smith, Nos. 269, 279, and documents in

_St. Louis Ed._, XV, 1630 ff.



[9] See Kostlin-Kawerau, _Martin Luther_, I, 308 ff., and _Weimar

Ed._, VI, 381 ff.



[10] See Luther's letters to Lang and Staupitz, who wished to have the

publication withheld (Enders, II, 461, 463).



[11] _Clemen_, I. 362.



[12] Below, pp. 65-99.



[13] See _Weimar Ed._, VI, 397.



[14] See title _B_, _ibid_., 398.



[15] Printed as an appendix in _Clemen_, I, 421-425.



[16] So it was called by Johann Lang (Enders, II, 461).







AN OPEN LETTER TO THE CHRISTIAN NOBILITY OF THE GERMAN NATION

CONCERNING THE REFORM OF THE CHRISTIAN ESTATE



1520







To the



Esteemed and Reverend Master



NICHOLAS VON AMSDORF,



Licentiate of Holy Scripture and Canon at Wittenberg, my special and

kind friend;



Doctor Martin Luther.



The grace and peace of God be with thee, esteemed and reverend dear

sir and friend.



The time to keep silence has passed and the time to speak is come, as

saith Ecclesiastes [Eccl. 3:7]. I have followed out our intention[1]

and brought together some matters touching the reform of the Christian

Estate, to be laid before the Christian Nobility of the German Nation,

in the hope that God may deign to help His Church through the efforts

of the laity, since the clergy, to whom this task more properly

belongs, have grown quite indifferent. I am sending the whole thing to

your Reverence, that you may pass judgment on it and, if necessary,

improve it.



I know full well that I shall not escape the charge of presumption in

that I, a despised monk, venture to address such high and great

Estates on matters of such moment, and to give advice to people of

such high intelligence. I shall offer no apologies, no matter who may

chide me. Perchance I owe my God and the world another piece of folly,

and I have now made up my mind honestly to pay that debt, if I can do

so, and for once to become court-jester; if I fail, I still have one

advantage,--no one need buy me a cap or cut me my comb[2]. It is a

question which one will put the bells on the other[3]. I must fulfil

the proverb, "Whatever the world does, a monk must be in it, even if

he has to be painted in."[4] More than once a fool has spoken wisely,

and wise men often have been arrant fools, as Paul says, "If any one

will be wise, let him become a fool." [1 Cor. 3:18] Moreover since I

am not only a fool, but also a sworn doctor of Holy Scripture, I am

glad for the chance to fulfil my doctor's oath in this fool's way.



I pray you, make my excuses to the moderately intelligent, for I know

not how to earn the grace and favor of the immoderately intelligent,

though I have often sought to do so with great pains. Henceforth I

neither desire nor regard their favor. God help us to seek not our own

glory, but His alone! Amen.



Wittenberg, in the house of the Augustinians, on the Eve of St. John

the Baptist (June 23d), in the year fifteen hundred and twenty.



To



His Most Illustrious and Mighty Imperial Majesty,



and to



the Christian Nobility of the German Nation,



Doctor Martin Luther.



Grace and power from God, Most Illustrious Majesty, and most gracious

and dear Lords.



It is not out of sheer frowardness or rashness that I, a single, poor

man, have undertaken to address your worships. The distress and

oppression which weigh down all the Estates of Christendom, especially

of Germany, and which move not me alone, but everyone to cry out time

and again, and to pray for help[5], have forced me even now to cry

aloud that God may inspire some one with His Spirit to lend this

suffering nation a helping hand. Ofttimes the councils[6] have made

some pretence at reformation, but their attempts have been cleverly

hindered by the guile of certain men and things have gone from bad to

worse. I now intend, by the help of God, to throw some light upon the

wiles and wickedness of these men, to the end that when they are

known, they may not henceforth be so hurtful and so great a hindrance.

God has given us a noble youth to be our head and thereby has awakened

great hopes of good in many hearts[7]; wherefore it is meet that we

should do our part and profitably use this time of grace.



In this whole matter the first and most important thing is that we

take earnest heed not to enter on it trusting in great might or in

human reason, even though all power in the world were ours; for God

cannot and will not suffer a good work to be begun with trust in our

own power or reason. Such works He crushes ruthlessly to earth, as it

is written in the xxxiii. Psalm, "There is no king saved by the

multitude of an host: a mighty man is not delivered by much strength."

[Ps. 33:16] On this account, I fear, it came to pass of old that the

good Emperors Frederick I[8] and II[9], and many other German emperors

were shamefully oppressed and trodden under foot by the popes,

although all the world feared them. It may be that they relied on

their own might more than on God, and therefore they had to all. In

our own times, too, what was it that raised the bloodthirsty Julius

II[10] to such heights? Nothing else, I fear, except that France, the

Germans and Venice relied upon themselves. The children of Benjamin

slew 42,000 Israelites[11] because the latter relied on their own

strength.



That it may not so fare with us and our noble young Emperor Charles,

we must be sure that in this matter we are dealing not with men, but

with the princes of hell, who can fill the world with war and

bloodshed, but whom war and bloodshed do not overcome. We must go at

this work despairing of physical force and humbly trusting God; we

must seek God's help with earnest prayer, and fix our minds on nothing

else than the misery and distress of suffering Christendom, without

regard to the deserts of evil men. Otherwise we may start the game

with great prospect of success, but when we get well into it the evil

spirits will stir up such confusion that the whole world will swim in

blood, and yet nothing will come of it. Let us act wisely, therefore,

and in the fear of God. The more force we use, the greater our

disaster if we do not act humbly and in God's fear. The popes and the

Romans have hitherto been, able, by the devil's help, to set kings at

odds with one another, and they may well be able to do it again, if we

proceed by our own might and cunning, without God's help.



I. THE THREE WALLS OF THE ROMANISTS



[Sidenote: The Three Walls Described]



The Romanists[12], with great adroitness, have built three walls about

them, behind which they have hitherto defended themselves in such wise

that no one has been able to reform them; and this has been the cause

of terrible corruption throughout all Christendom.



_First_, when pressed by the temporal power, they have made decrees

and said that the temporal power has no jurisdiction over them, but,

on the other hand, that the spiritual is above the temporal power.

_Second_, when the attempt is made to reprove them out of the

Scriptures, they raise the objection that the interpretation of the

Scriptures belongs to no one except the pope. Third, if threatened

with a council, they answer with the fable that no one can call a

council but the pope.



In this wise they have slyly stolen from us our three rods[13], that

they may go unpunished, and have ensconced themselves within the safe

stronghold of these three walls, that they may practise all the

knavery and wickedness which we now see. Even when they have been

compelled to hold a council they have weakened its power in advance by

previously binding the princes with an oath to let them remain as they

are. Moreover, they have given the pope full authority over all the

decisions of the council, so that it is all one whether there are many

councils or no councils,--except that they deceive us with

puppet-shows and sham-battles. So terribly do they fear for their skin

in a really free council! And they have intimidated kings and princes

by making them believe it would be an offence against God not to obey

them in all these knavish, crafty deceptions[14]. Now God help us, and

give us one of the trumpets with which the walls of Jericho were

overthrown [Josh. 6:20], that we may blow down these walls of straw

and paper, and may set free the Christian rods or the punishment of

sin, bringing to light the craft and deceit of the devil, to the end

that through punishment we may reform ourselves, and once more attain

God's favor.



Against the first wall we will direct our first attack.



[Sidenote: The First Wall--the Spiritual Estate above the Temporal]



It is pure invention that pope, bishops, priests and monks are to be

called the "spiritual estate"; princes, lords, artisans, and farmers

the temporal estate. That is indeed a fine bit of lying and hypocrisy.

Yet no one should be frightened by it; and for this reason--viz., that

all Christians are truly of the "spiritual estate," and there is among

them no difference at all but that of office, as Paul says in I

Corinthians xii. We are all one body, yet every member has its own

work, whereby it serves every other, all because we have one baptism,

one Gospel, one faith, and are all alike Christians [1 Cor. 12:12

ff.]; for baptism, Gospel and faith alone make us "spiritual" and a

Christian people.



[Sidenote: The Priesthood of Believers]



But that a pope or a bishop anoints, confers tonsures, ordains,

consecrates, or prescribes dress unlike that of the laity,--this may

make hypocrites and graven images[15], but it never makes a Christian

or "spiritual" man. Through baptism all of us are consecrated to the

priesthood, as St. Peter says in I Peter ii, "Ye are a royal

priesthood, a priestly kingdom," [1 Pet. 2:9] and the book of

Revelation says, "Thou hast made us by Thy blood to be priests and

kings." [Rev. 5:10] For if we had no higher consecration than pope or

bishop gives, the consecration by pope or bishop would never make a

priest, nor might anyone either say mass or preach a sermon or give

absolution. Therefore when the bishop consecrates it is the same thing

as if he, in the place and stead of the whole congregation, all of

whom have like power, were to take one out of their number and charge

him to use this power for the others; just as though ten brothers, all

king's sons and equal heirs, were to choose one of themselves to rule

the inheritance or them all,--they would all be kings and equal in

power, though one of them would be charged with the duty of ruling.



To make it still clearer. If a little group of pious Christian laymen

were taken captive and set down in a wilderness, and had among them no

priest consecrated by a bishop, and if there in the wilderness they

were to agree in choosing one of themselves, married or unmarried, and

were to charge him with the office of baptising, saying mass,

absolving and preaching, such a man would be as truly a priest as

though all bishops and popes had consecrated him. That is why in cases

of necessity any one can baptise and give absolution[16], which would

be impossible unless we were all priests. This great grace and power

of baptism and of the Christian Estate they have well-nigh destroyed

and caused us to forget through the canon law[17]. It was in the

manner aforesaid that Christians in olden days chose from their number

bishops and priests, who were afterwards confirmed by other bishops,

without all the show which now obtains. It was thus that Sts.

Augustine[18], Ambrose[19] and Cyprian[20] became bishops.



[Sidenote: The Temporal Rulers, Priests]



[Sidenote: The Priest an Office-holder]



Since, then, the temporal authorities are baptised with same baptism

and have the same faith and Gospel as we, we must grant that they are

priests and bishops, and count their office one which has a proper and

a useful place in the Christian community. For whoever comes out of

the water of baptism[21] can boast that he is already consecrated

priest, bishop and pope, though it is not seemly that every one should

exercise the office. Nay, just because we are all in like manner

priests, no one must put himself forward and undertake, without our

consent and election, to do what is in the power of all of us. For

what is common to all, no one dare take upon himself without the will

and the command of the community; and should it happen that one chosen

for such an office were deposed for malfeasance, he would then be just

what he was before he held office. Therefore a priest in Christendom

is nothing else than an office-holder. While he is in office, he has

precedence; holder when deposed, he is a peasant or a townsman like

the rest. Beyond all doubt, then, a priest is no longer a priest when

he is deposed. But now they have invented _characteres

indelebiles_[22], and prate that a deposed priest is nevertheless

something different from a mere layman. They even dream that a priest

can never become a layman, or be anything else than a priest. All this

is mere talk and man-made law.



From all this it follows that there is really no difference between

laymen and priests, princes and bishops, "spirituals" and "temporals,"

as they call them, except that of office and work, but not of

"estate"; or they are all of the same estate[23],--true priests,

bishops and popes,--though they are not all engaged in the same work,

just as all priests and monks have not the same work. This is the

teaching of St. Paul in Romans xii [Rom. 12:4 ff.] and I Corinthians

xii [1 Cor. 12:12 ff.], and of St. Peter in I Peter ii [1 Pet. 2:9],

as I have said above, viz., that we are all one body of Christ, the

Head, all members one of another. Christ has not two different bodies,

one "temporal," the other "spiritual." He is one Head, and He has one

body.



Therefore, just as those who are now called "spiritual"--priests,

bishops or popes--are neither different from other Christians nor

superior to them, except that they are charged with the administration

of the Word of God and the sacraments, which is their work and office,

so it is with the temporal authorities,--they bear sword and rod with

which to punish the evil and to protect the good [Rom. 13:4]. A

cobbler, a smith, a farmer, each has the work and office of his trade,

and yet they are all alike consecrated priests and bishops, and every

one by means of his own work or office must benefit and serve every

other, that in this way many kinds of work may be done for the bodily

and spiritual welfare of the community, even as all the members of the

body serve one another.



See, now, how Christian is the decree which says that the temporal

power is not above the "spiritual estate" and may not punish it[24].

That is as much as to say that the hand shall lend no aid when the eye

is suffering. Is it not unnatural, not to say unchristian, that one

member should not help another and prevent its destruction? Verily,

the more honorable the member, the more should the others help. I say

then, since the temporal power is ordained of God to punish evil-doers

and to protect them that do well [Rom. 13], it should therefore be

left free to perform its office without hindrance through the whole

body of Christendom without respect of persons, whether it affect

pope, bishops, priests, monks, nuns or anybody else. For if the mere

act that the temporal power has a smaller place among the Christian

offices than has the office of preachers or confessors, or of the

clergy, then the tailors, cobblers, masons, carpenters, pot-boys,

tapsters, farmers, and all the secular tradesmen, should also be

prevented from providing pope, bishops, priests and monks with shoes,

clothing, houses, meat and drink, and from paying them tribute. But if

these laymen are allowed to do their work unhindered, what do the

Roman scribes mean by their laws, with which they withdraw themselves

from the jurisdiction of the temporal Christian power, only so that

they may be free to do evil and to fulfil what St. Peter has said:

"There shall be false teachers among you, and through covetousness

shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you." [2 Pet. 2:1

ff.]



On this account the Christian temporal power should exercise its

office without let or hindrance, regardless whether it be pope, bishop

or priest whom it affects; whoever is guilty, let him suffer. All that

the canon law has said to the contrary is sheer invention of Roman

presumption. For thus saith St. Paul to all Christians: "Let every

soul (I take that to mean the pope's soul also) be subject unto the

higher powers; for they bear not the sword in vain, but are the

ministers of God for the punishment of evil-doers, and for the praise

of them that do well." [Rom. 13:1, 4] St. Peter also says: "Submit

yourselves unto every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake, for so is

the will of God." [1 Pet. 2:13, 15] He has also prophesied that such

men shall come as will despise the temporal authorities [1 Pet. 2:10];

and this has come to pass through the canon law.



So then, I think this first paper-wall is overthrown, since the

temporal power has become a member of the body of Christendom, and is

of the "spiritual estate," though its work is of a temporal nature.

Therefore its work should extend freely and without hindrance to all

the members of the whole body; it should punish and use force whenever

guilt deserves or necessity demands, without regard to pope, bishops

and priests,--let them hurl threats and bans as much as they will.



This is why guilty priests, if they are surrendered to the temporal

law[25], are first deprived of their priestly dignities, which would

not be right unless the temporal sword had previously had authority

over them by divine right. Again, it is intolerable that in the canon

law so much importance is attached to the freedom, life and property

of the clergy, as though the laity were not also as spiritual and as

good Christians as they, or did not belong to the Church. Why are your

life and limb, your property and honor so free, and mine not? We are

all alike Christians, and have baptism, faith, Spirit and all things

alike. If a priest is killed, the land is laid under

interdict,[26]--why not when a peasant is killed? Whence comes this

great distinction between those who are equally Christians? Only from

human laws and inventions!



Moreover, it can be no good spirit who has invented such exceptions

and granted to sin such license and impunity. For if we are bound to

strive against the works and words of the evil spirit, and to drive

him out in whatever way we can, as Christ commands and His Apostles,

ought we, then, to suffer it in silence when the pope or his

satellites are bent on devilish words and works? Ought we for the sake

of men to allow the suppression of divine commandments and truths

which we have sworn in baptism to support with life and limb? Of a

truth we should then have to answer for all the souls that would

thereby be abandoned and led astray.



It must therefore have been the very prince of devils who said what is

written in the canon law: "If the pope were so scandalously bad as to

lead souls in crowds to the devil, yet he could not be deposed."[27]

On this accursed and devilish foundation they build at Rome, and think

that we should let all the world go to the devil, rather than resist

their knavery. If the act that one man is set over others were

sufficient reason why he should escape punishment, then no Christian

could punish another, since Christ commands that every man shall

esteem himself the lowliest and the least. [Matt. 18:4]



Where sin is, there is no escape from punishment; as St. Gregory[28]

also writes that we are indeed all equal, but guilt puts us in

subjection one to another. Now we see how they whom God and the

Apostles have made subject to the temporal sword deal with

Christendom, depriving it of its liberty by their own wickedness,

without warrant of Scripture. It is to be feared that this is a game

of Anti-christ[29] or a sign that he is close at hand.



[Sidenote: The Second Wall--The Pope the Interpreter of Scripture;

Papal Infallibility]



The second wall is still more flimsy and worthless. They wish to be

the only Masters of the Holy Scriptures[31] even though in all their

lives they learn nothing from them. They assume for themselves sole

authority, and with insolent juggling of words they would persuade us

that the pope, whether he be a bad man or a good man, cannot err in

matters of faith[32]; and yet they cannot prove a single letter of it.

Hence it comes that so many heretical and unchristian, nay, even

unnatural ordinances have a place in the canon law, of which, however,

there is no present need to speak. For since they think that the Holy

Spirit never leaves them, be they never so unlearned and wicked, they

make bold to decree whatever they will. And if it were true, where

would be the need or use of the Holy Scriptures? Let us burn them, and

be satisfied with the unlearned lords at Rome, who are possessed of

the Holy Spirit,--although He can possess only pious hearts! Unless I

had read it myself[33], I could not have believed that the devil would

make such clumsy pretensions at Rome, and find a following.



But not to fight them with mere words, we will quote the Scriptures.

St. Paul says in I Corinthians xiv: anyone something better is

revealed, though he be sitting and listening to another in God's Word,

then the first, who is speaking, shall hold his peace and give place."

[1 Cor. 14:30] What would be the use of this commandment, if we were

only to believe him who does the talking or who has the highest seat?

[John 6:45] Christ also says in John vi, that all Christians shall be

taught of God. Thus it may well happen that the pope and his followers

are wicked men, and no true Christians, not taught of God, not having

true understanding. On the other hand, an ordinary man may have true

understanding; why then should we not follow him? Has not the pope

erred many times? Who would help Christendom when the pope errs, if we

were not to believe another, who had the Scriptures on his side, more

than the pope?



Therefore it is a wickedly invented fable, and they cannot produce a

letter in defence of it, that the interpretation of Scripture or the

confirmation of its interpretation belongs to the pope alone. They

have themselves usurped this power; and although they allege that this

power was given to Peter when the keys were given to him, it is plain

enough that the keys were not given to Peter alone, but to the whole

community[34]. Moreover, the keys were not ordained for doctrine or

government, but only for the binding and loosing of sin [John 20:22

ff.], and whatever further power of the keys they arrogate to

themselves is mere invention. But Christ's word to Peter, "I have

prayed for thee that thy faith fail not," [Luke 22:32] cannot be

applied to the pope, since the majority of the popes have been without

faith, as they must themselves confess. Besides, it is not only for

Peter that Christ prayed, but also or all Apostles and Christians, as

he says in John xvii: "Father, I pray for those whom Thou hast given

Me, and not for these only, but for all who believe on Me through

their word." [John 17:9, 20] Is not this clear enough?



Only think of it yourself! They must confess that there are pious

Christians among us, who have the true faith, Spirit, understanding,

word and mind of Christ. Why, then, should we reject their word and

understanding and follow the pope, who has neither faith nor Spirit?

That would be to deny the whole faith and the Christian Church.

Moreover, it is not the pope alone who is always in the right, if the

article of the Creed is correct: "I believe one holy Christian

Church"; otherwise the prayer must run: "I believe in the pope at

Rome," and so reduce the Christian Church to one man,--which would be

nothing else than a devilish and hellish error.



Besides, if we are all priests, as was said above[35], and all have

one faith, one Gospel, one sacrament, why should we not also have the

power to test and judge what is correct or incorrect in matters of

faith? What becomes of the words of Paul in I Corinthians ii: "He that

is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man,"

[1 Cor. 2:15] and II Corinthians iv: "We have all the same Spirit of

faith"? [2 Cor. 4:13] Why, then, should not we perceive what squares

with faith and what does not, as well as does an unbelieving pope?



All these and many other texts should make us bold and free, and we

should not allow the Spirit of liberty, as Paul calls Him [2 Cor.

3:17], to be frightened off by the fabrications of the popes, but we

ought to go boldly forward to test all that they do or leave undone,

according to our interpretation of the Scriptures, which rests on

faith, and compel them to follow not their own interpretation, but the

one that is better. In the olden days Abraham had to listen to his

Sarah, although she was in more complete subjection to him than we are

to anyone on earth [Gen. 21:12]. Balaam's ass, also, was wiser than

the prophet himself [Num. 22:28]. If God then spoke by an ass against

a prophet, why should He not be able even now to speak by a righteous

man against the pope? In like manner St. Paul rebukes St. Peter as a

man in error [Gal. 2:11 ff.]. Therefore it behooves every Christian to

espouse the cause of the faith, to understand and defend it, and to

rebuke all errors.



[Sidenote: The Third Wall--Pope and Council]



The _third wall_ falls of itself when the first two are down. For when

the pope acts contrary to the Pope and Scriptures, it is our duty to

stand by the Scriptures, to reprove him, and to constrain him,

according to the word of Christ in Matthew xviii: "If thy brother sin

against thee, go and tell it him between thee and him alone; if he

hear thee not, then take with thee one or two more; if he hear them

not, tell it to the Church; if he hear not the Church, consider him a

heathen." [Matt. 18:15] Here every member is commanded to care for

every other. How much rather should we do this when the member that

does evil is a ruling member, and by his evil-doing is the cause of

much harm and offence to the rest! But if I am to accuse him before

the Church, I must bring the Church together.



They have no basis in Scripture or their contention that it belongs to

the pope alone to call a council or confirm its actions[36]; for this

is based merely upon their own laws, which are valid only in so far as

they are not injurious to Christendom or contrary to the laws of God.

When the pope deserves punishment, such laws go out of force, since it

is injurious to Christendom not to punish him by means of a council.



Thus we read in Acts xv. that it was not St. Peter who called the

Apostolic Council, but the Apostles and elders [Acts 15:6]. If, then,

that right had belonged to St. Peter alone, the council would not have

been a Christian council, but an heretical _conciliabulum_[37]. Even

the Council of Nicaea--the most famous of all--was neither called nor

confirmed by the Bishop of Rome, but by the Emperor Constantine[38],

and many other emperors after him did the like, yet these councils

were the most Christian of all[39]. But if the pope alone had the

right to call councils, then all these councils must have been

heretical. Moreover, if I consider the councils which the pope has

created, I find that they have done nothing of special importance.



Therefore, when necessity demands, and the pope is an offence to

Christendom, the first man who is able should, as a faithful member of

the whole body, do what he can to bring about a truly free

council[40]. No one can do this so well as the temporal authorities,

especially since now they also are fellow-Christians, fellow-priests,

"fellow-spirituals,"[41] fellow-lords over all things, and whenever it

is needful or profitable, they should give free course to the office

and work in which God has put them above every man. Would it not be an

unnatural thing, if a fire broke out in a city, and everybody were to

stand by and let it burn on and on and consume everything that could

burn, for the sole reason that nobody had the authority of the

burgomaster, or because, perhaps, the fire broke out in the

burgomaster's house? In such case is it not the duty of every citizen

to arouse and call the rest? How much more should this be done in the

spiritual city of Christ, if a fire of offence breaks out, whether in

the papal government, or anywhere else? In the same way, if the enemy

attacks a city, he who first rouses the others deserves honor and

thanks; why then should he not deserve honor who makes known the

presence of the enemy from hell, and awakens the Christians, and calls

them together?



But all their boasts of an authority which dare not be opposed amount

to nothing after all. No one in Christendom has authority to do

injury, or to forbid the resisting of injury. There is no authority in

the Church save for edification. Therefore, if the pope were to use

his authority to prevent the calling of a free council, and thus

became a hindrance to the edification of the Church, we should have

regard neither or him nor or his authority; and if he were to hurl his

bans and thunderbolts, we should despise his conduct as that of a

madman, and relying on God, hurl back the ban on him, and coerce him

as best we could. For this presumptuous authority of his is nothing;

he has no such authority, and he is quickly overthrown by a text of

Scripture; for Paul says to the Corinthians, "God has given us

authority not for the destruction, but for the edification of

Christendom." [2 Cor. 10:8] Who is ready to overleap this text? It is

only the power of the devil and of Antichrist which resists the things

that serve or the edification of Christendom; it is, therefore, in no

wise to be obeyed, but is to be opposed with life and goods and all

our strength.



Even though a miracle were to be done in the pope's behalf against the

temporal powers, or though someone were to be stricken with a

plague--which they boast has sometimes happened--it should be

considered only the work of the devil, because of the weakness of our

faith in God. Christ Himself prophesied in Matthew xxiv: "There shall

come in My Name false Christs and false prophets, and do signs and

wonders, so as to deceive even the elect," [Matt. 24:24] and Paul says

in II Thessalonians ii, that Antichrist shall, through the power of

Satan, be mighty in lying wonders [2 Thess. 2:9]. Let us, therefore,

hold fast to this: No Christian authority can do anything against

Christ; as St. Paul says, "We can do nothing against Christ, but for

Christ." [2 Cor. 13:8] Whatever does aught against Christ is the power

of Antichrist and of the devil, even though it were to rain and hail

wonders and plagues. Wonders and plagues prove nothing, especially in

these last evil times, for which all the Scriptures prophesy false

wonders [2 Thess. 2:9 f.]. Therefore we must cling with firm faith to

the words of God, and then the devil will cease from wonders.



Thus I hope that the false, lying terror with which the Romans have

this long time made our conscience timid and stupid, has been allayed.

They, like all of us, are subject to the temporal sword; they have no

power to interpret the Scriptures by mere authority, without learning;

they have no authority to prevent a council or, in sheer wantonness,

to pledge it, bind it, or take away its liberty; but if they do this,

they are in truth the communion of Antichrist and of the devil, and

have nothing at all of Christ except the name.



II. ABUSES TO BE DISCUSSED IN COUNCILS



We shall now look at the matters which should be discussed in the

councils, and with which popes, cardinals, bishops and all the

scholars ought properly to be occupied day and night if they loved

Christ and His Church. But if they neglect this duty, then let the

laity[42] and the temporal authorities see to it, regardless of bans

and thunders; for an unjust ban is better than ten just releases, and

an unjust release worse than ten just bans. Let us, therefore, awake,

dear Germans, and fear God rather than men [Acts 5:29], that we may

not share the fate of all the poor souls who are so lamentably lost

through the shameful and devilish rule of the Romans, in which the

devil daily takes a larger and larger place,--if, indeed, it were

possible that such a hellish rule could grow worse, a thing I can

neither conceive nor believe.



[Sidenote: Worldliness of the pope]



1. It is a horrible and frightful thing that the ruler of Christendom,

who boasts himself vicar of Christ and successor of St. Peter, lives

in such worldly splendor that in this regard no king nor emperor can

equal or approach him, and that he who claims the title of "most holy"

and "most spiritual" is more worldly than the world itself. He wears a

triple crown, when the greatest kings wear but a single crown[43]; if

that is like the poverty of Christ and of St. Peter, then it is a new

kind of likeness. When a word is said against it, they cry out

"Heresy!" but that is because they do not wish to hear how unchristian

and ungodly such a practice is. I think, however, that if the pope

were with tears to pray to God, he would have to lay aside these

crowns, for our God can suffer no pride; and his office is nothing

else than this,--daily to weep and pray or Christendom, and to set an

example of all humility.



However that may be, this splendor of his is an offence, and the pope

is bound on his soul's salvation to lay it aside, because St. Paul

says, "Abstain from all outward shows, which give offence," [1 Thess.

5:21] and in Rom. xii, "We should provide good, not only in the sight

of God, but also in the sight of all men." [Rom. 12:17] An ordinary

bishop's crown would be enough for the pope; he should be greater than

others in wisdom and holiness, and leave the crown of pride to

Antichrist, as did his predecessors several centuries ago. They say he

is a lord of the world; that is a lie; for Christ, Whose vicar and

officer he boasts himself to be, said before Pilate, "My kingdom is

not of this world," [John 17:36] and no vicar's rule can go beyond his

lord's. Moreover he is not the vicar of the glorified, but of the

crucified Christ, as Paul says, "I was willing to know nothing among

you save Christ, and Him only as the Crucified" [1 Cor. 2:2]; and in

Philippians ii, "So think of yourselves as ye see in Christ, Who

emptied Himself and took upon Him the appearance of a servant" [Phil.

2:5]; and again in I Corinthians i, "We preach Christ, the Crucified."

[1 Cor. 1:23] Now they make the pope a vicar of the glorified Christ

in heaven, and some of them have allowed the devil to rule them so

completely that they have maintained that the pope is above the angels

in heaven and has authority over them[44]. These are indeed the very

works of the very Antichrist.



[Sidenote: The Cardinals]



2. What is the use in Christendom of those people who are called the

cardinals? I shall tell you. Italy and Germany have many rich

monasteries, foundations, benefices, and livings. No better way has

been discovered to bring all these to Rome than by creating cardinals

and giving them the bishoprics, monasteries and prelacies, and so

overthrowing the worship of God. For this reason we now see Italy a

very wilderness--monasteries in ruins, bishoprics devoured, the

prelacies and the revenues of all the churches drawn to Rome, cities

decayed, land and people laid waste, because there is no more worship

or preaching. Why? The cardinals must have the income[45]. No Turk

could have so devastated Italy and suppressed the worship of God.



Now that Italy is sucked dry, they come into Germany[46], and begin

oh, so gently. But let us beware, for Germany will soon become like

Italy. Already we have some cardinals; what the Romans seek by that

the "drunken Germans" are not to understand until we have not a

bishopric, a monastery, a living, a benefice, a _heller_ or a

_pfennig_ left. Antichrist must take the treasures of the earth, as it

was prophesied [Dan. 11:39, 43]. So it goes on. They skim the cream of

the bishoprics, monasteries and benefices, and because they do not yet

venture to turn them all to shameful use, as they have done in Italy,

they only practise for the present the sacred trickery of coupling

together ten or twenty prelacies and taking a yearly portion from each

of them, so as to make a tidy sum after all. The priory of Wurzburg

yields a thousand _gulden_; that of Bamberg, something; Mainz, Trier

and the others, something more; and so from one to ten thousand gulden

might be got together, in order that a cardinal might live at Rome

like a rich king.



"After they are used to this, we will create thirty or forty cardinals

in a day[47], and give to one Mount St. Michael at Bamberg[48] and the

bishopric of Wurzburg to boot, hang on to these a few rich livings,

until churches and cities are waste, and after that we will say, 'We

are Christ's vicars and shepherds of Christ's sheep; the mad, drunken

Germans must put up with it.'"



I advise, however, that the number of the cardinals be reduced, or

that the pope be made to keep them at his own expense. Twelve of them

would be more than enough, and each of them might have an income of a

thousand gulden a year[49]. How comes it that we Germans must put up

with such robbery and such extortion of our property, at the hands of

the pope? If the Kingdom of France has prevented it[50], why do we

Germans let them make such fools and apes of us? It would all be more

bearable if in this way they only stole our property; but they lay

waste the churches and rob Christ's sheep of their pious shepherds,

and destroy the worship and the Word of God. Even if there were not a

single cardinal, the Church would not go under. As it is they do

nothing for the good of Christendom; they only wrangle about the

incomes of bishoprics and prelacies, and that any robber could do.



[Sidenote: The Curia]



3. If ninety-nine parts of the papal court[51] were done away and only

the hundredth part allowed to remain, it would still be large enough

to give decisions in matters of faith. Now, however, there is such a

swarm of vermin yonder in Rome, all boasting that they are "papal,"

that there was nothing like it in Babylon. There are more than three

thousand papal secretaries alone; who will count the other offices,

when they are so many that they scarcely can be counted? And they all

lie in wait for the prebends and benefices of Germany as wolves lie in

wait for the sheep. I believe that Germany now gives much more to the

pope at Rome than it gave in former times to the emperors. Indeed,

some estimate that every year more than three hundred thousand gulden

find their way from Germany to Rome, quite uselessly and fruitlessly;

we get nothing for it but scorn and contempt. And yet we wonder that

princes, nobles, cities, endowments, land and people are impoverished!

We should rather wonder that we still have anything to eat!



Since we here come to the heart of the matter, we will pause a little,

and let it be seen that the Germans are not quite such gross fools as

not to note or understand the sharp practices of the Romans. I do not

now complain that at Rome God's command and Christian law are

despised; for such is the state of Christendom, and particularly of

Rome, that we may not now complain of such high matters. Nor do I

complain that natural or temporal law and reason count for nothing.

The case is worse even than that. I complain that they do not keep

their own self-devised canon law, though it is, to be sure, mere

tyranny, avarice and temporal splendor, rather than law. Let us see!



[Sidenote: The Annates]



In former times German emperors and princes permitted the pope to

receive the _annates_ from all the benefices of the German nation, i.

e., the half of the first year's revenues from each benefice[52]. This

permission was given, however, in order that by means of these large

sums of money, the pope might accumulate a treasure for fighting

against the Turks and infidels in defence of Christendom, so that the

burden of the war might not rest too heavily upon the nobility, but

that the clergy also should contribute something toward it. This

single-hearted devotion of the German nation the popes have so used,

that they have received this money for more than a hundred years, have

now made of it a binding tax and tribute, and have not only

accumulated no treasure, but have used the money to endow many orders

and offices at Rome, and to provide these offices with salaries, as

though the annates were a fixed rent.



[Sidenote: Saracen-tax]



When they pretend that they are about to fight against the Turks, they

send out emissaries to gather money. Ofttimes they issue an indulgence

on this same pretext of fighting the Turks[53], for they think the mad

Germans are forever to remain utter and arrant fools, give them money

without end, and satisfy their unspeakable greed; though we clearly

see that not a _heller_ of the annates or of the indulgence-money or

of all the rest, is used against the Turks, but all of it goes into

the bottomless bag. They lie and deceive, make laws and make

agreements with us, and they do not intend to keep any of them. All

this must be counted the work of Christ and St. Peter!



Now, in this matter the German nation, bishops and princes, should

consider that they too are Christians, and should protect the people,

whom they are set to rule and guard in things temporal and spiritual,

against these ravening wolves who, in sheep's clothing, pretend to be

shepherds and rulers; and, since the annates are so shamefully abused

and the stipulated conditions are not fulfilled, they should not

permit their land and people to be so sadly robbed and ruined, against

all justice; but by a law of the emperor or of the whole nation, they

should either keep the annates at home or else abolish them again[54].

For since the Romans do not keep the terms of the agreement, they have

no right to the annates. Therefore the bishops and princes are bound

to punish or prevent such thievery and robbery, as the law requires.



In this they should aid the pope and support him, or he is perchance

too weak to prevent such an abuse all by himself; or if he were to

undertake to defend and maintain this practice, they ought resist him

and fight against him as against a wolf and a tyrant, for he has no

authority to do or to defend evil. Moreover, if it were ever desired

to accumulate such a treasure against the Turks, we ought in the

future to have sense enough to see that the German nation would be a

better custodian or it than the pope; for the German nation has people

enough or the fighting, if only the money is forthcoming. It is with

the annates as it has been with many another Roman pretence.



[Sidenote: Papal Months]



Again, the year has been so divided between the pope and the ruling

bishops and canons[55], that the pope has six months in the

year--every other month--in which to bestow the benefices which all

vacant in his months[56]. In this way almost all the benefices are

absorbed by Rome, especially the very best livings and dignities[57],

and when once they fall into the hands of Rome, they never come out of

them again, though a vacancy may never again occur in the pope's

month. Thus the canons are cheated. This is a genuine robbery, which

intends to let nothing escape. Therefore it is high time that the

"papal months" be altogether abolished, and that everything which they

have brought to Rome be taken back again. For the princes and nobles

should take measures that the stolen goods be returned, the thieves

punished, and those who have abused privilege be deprived of

privilege. If it is binding and valid when the pope on the day after

his election makes, in his chancery, rules and laws whereby our

foundations and livings are robbed,--a thing which he has no right to

do; then it should be still more valid if the Emperor Charles on the

day after his coronation[58] were to make rules and laws that not

another benefice or living in all Germany shall be allowed to come

into the hands of Rome by means of the "papal months," and that the

livings which have already fallen into its hands shall be released,

and redeemed from the Roman robbers; for he has this right by virtue

of his office and his sword.



But now the Roman See of Avarice and Robbery has not been able to

await the time when all the benefices, one after another, would, by

the "papal months," come into its power, but hastens, with insatiable

appetite, to get possession of them all as speedily as possible; and

so besides the annates and the "months" it has hit upon a device by

which benefices and livings all to Rome in three ways:



_First_, If any one who holds a free[59] living dies at Rome or on the

way to Rome, his living must forever belong to the Roman--I should

rather say the robbing--See[60]; and yet they will not be called

robbers, though they are guilty of such robbery as no one has ever

heard or read about.



_Second_, In case any one who belongs to the household of the pope or

of the cardinals[61] holds or takes over a benefice, or in case one

who already holds a benefice afterwards enters the "household" of the

pope or of a cardinal. But who can count the "household" of the pope

and of the cardinals, when the pope, if he only goes on a

pleasure-ride, takes with him three or our thousand mule-riders,

eclipsing all emperors and kings? Christ and St. Peter went on foot in

order that their vicars might have the more pomp and splendor. Now

avarice has cleverly thought out another scheme, and brings it to pass

that even here many have the name of "papal servant," just as though

they were in Rome; all in order that in every place the mere rascally

little word "papal servant" may bring all benefices to Rome and tie

them fast there forever. Are not these vexatious and devilish

inventions? Let us beware! Soon Mainz, Madgeburg and Halberstadt will

gently pass into the hands of Rome, and the cardinalate will be paid

for dearly enough[62]. "Afterwards we will make all the German bishops

cardinals so that there will be nothing let outside."



_Third_, When a contest has started at Rome over a benefice[63]. This

I hold to be almost the commonest and widest road or bringing livings

to Rome. For when there is no contest at home, unnumbered knaves will

be found at Rome to dig up contests out of the earth and assail

livings at their will. Thus many a good priest has to lose his living,

or settle the contest for a time by the payment of a sum of money[64].

Such a living rightly or wrongly contested must also belong forever to

the Roman See. It would be no wonder if God were to rain from heaven

fire and brimstone and to sink Rome in the abyss, as He did Sodom and

Gomorrah of old [Gen. 19:24]. Why should there be a pope in

Christendom, if his power is used or nothing else than such

archknavery, and if he protects and practices it? O noble princes and

lords, how long will ye leave your lands and people naked to these

ravening wolves!



[Sidenote: The Pallium]



Since even these practices were not enough, and Avarice grew impatient

at the long time it took to get hold of all the bishoprics, therefore

my Lord Avarice devised the fiction that the bishoprics should be

nominally abroad, but that their land and soil should be at Rome, and

no bishop can be confirmed unless with a great sum of money he buy the

_pallium_[65], and bind himself with terrible oaths to be the pope's

servant[66]. This is the reason that no bishop ventures to act against

the pope. That, too, is what the Romans were seeking when they imposed

the oath, and thus the very richest bishoprics have fallen into debt

and ruin. Mainz pays, as I hear, 20,000 gulden. These be your Romans!

To be sure they decreed of old in the canon law that the _pallium_

should be bestowed gratis, the number of papal servants diminished,

the contests lessened, the chapters[67] and bishops allowed their

liberty. But this did not bring in money, and so they turned over a

new leaf, and all authority was taken from the bishops and chapters;

they are made ciphers, and have no office nor authority nor work, but

everything is ruled by the archknaves at Rome; soon they will have in

hand even the office of sexton and bell-ringer in all the churches.

All contests are brought to Rome, and by authority of the pope

everyone does as he likes.



What happened this very year? The Bishop of Strassburg[68] wished to

govern his chapter properly and to institute reforms in worship, and

with this end in view made certain godly and Christian regulations.

But my dear Lord Pope and the Holy Roman See, at the instigation of

the priests, overthrew and altogether condemned this holy and

spiritual ordinance. This is called "feeding the sheep of Christ!"

[John 20:15-17] Thus priests are to be encouraged against their own

bishop, and their disobedience to divine law is to be protected!

Antichrist himself, I hope, will not dare to put God to such open

shame! There you have your pope after your own heart! Why did he do

this? Ah! if one church were reformed, it would be a dangerous

departure; Rome's turn too might come! Therefore it were better that

no priest should be let at peace with another, that kings and princes

should be set at odds, as has been the custom heretofore, and the

world filled with the blood of Christians, only so the concord of

Christians should not trouble the Holy Roman See with a reformation.



So far we have been getting an idea of how they deal with livings

which become vacant. But for tender-hearted Avarice the vacancies are

too few, and so he brings his foresight to bear upon the benefices

which are still occupied by their incumbents, so that they must be

unfilled, even though they are not unfilled[69]. And this he does in

many ways, as follows:



[Sidenote: Coadjutorships]



_First_, He lies in wait for fat prebends or bishoprics which are held

by an old or a sick man, or by one with an alleged disability. To such

an incumbent, without his desire or consent, the Holy See gives a

coadjutor, i. e., an "assistant," or the coadjutor's benefit, because

he is a "papal servant," or has paid for the position, or has earned

it by some other ignoble service to Rome. In this case the rights of

the chapter or the rights of him who has the bestowal of the

living[70] must be surrendered, and the whole thing all into the hands

of Rome.



[Sidenote: Commendations]



_Second_, There is a little word _commend_[71], by which the pope

entrusts the keeping of a rich, fat monastery or church to a cardinal

or to another of his people, just as though I were to give you a

hundred gulden to keep. This is not called the giving or bestowing of

the monastery nor even its destruction, or the abolition of the

worship of God, but only "giving it into keeping"; not that he to whom

it is entrusted is to care or it, or build it up, but he is to drive

out the incumbent, to receive the goods and revenues, and to install

some apostate, renegade monk[72], who accepts five or six gulden a

year and sits in the church all day selling pictures and images to the

pilgrims, so that henceforth neither prayers nor masses are said

there. If this were to be called destroying monasteries and abolishing

the worship of God, then the pope would have to be called a destroyer

of Christendom and an abolisher of God's worship, because this is his

constant practice. That would be a hard saying at Rome, and so we must

call it a commend or a "command to take charge" of the monastery. The

pope can every year make commends out of our or more of these

monasteries, a single one of which may have an income of more than six

thousand gulden. This is the way the Romans increase the worship of

God and preserve the monasteries. The Germans also are beginning to

find it out.



[Sidenote: Incorporation]



[Sidenote: Union]



_Third_, There are some benefices which they call

_incompatibilia_[73], and which, according to the ordinances of the

canon law, cannot be held by one man at the same time, as for

instance, two parishes, two bishoprics and the like. In these cases

the Holy Roman See of Avarice evades the canon law by making

"glosses,"[74] called _unio_ and _incorporatio_, i. e., by

"incorporating" many _incompatibilia_, so that each becomes a part of

every other and all of them together are looked upon as though they

were one living. They are then no longer "incompatible," and the holy

canon law is satisfied, in that it is no longer binding, except upon

those who do not buy these "glosses"[75] from the pope or his

_datarius_[76]. The _unio_, i. e., "uniting," is of the same nature.

The pope binds many such benefices together like a bundle of sticks,

and by virtue of this bond they are all regarded as one benefice. So

there is at Rome one courtesan[77] who holds, for himself alone, 22

parishes, 7 priories and 44 canonries besides,--all by the help of

that masterly "gloss," which holds that this is not illegal. What

cardinals and other prelates have, everyone may imagine or himself. In

this way the Germans are to have their purses eased and their itch

cured.



[Sidenote: Administration]



Another of the "glosses" is the _administratio_, i. e., a man may have

beside his bishopric, an abbacy or a dignity[78], and possess all the

property which goes with it, only he has no other title than that of

"administrator."[79] For at Rome it is sufficient that words are

changed and not the things they stand for; as though I were to teach

that a bawdy-house keeper should have the name of "burgomaster's

wife," and yet continue to ply her trade. This kind of Roman rule St.

Peter foretold when he said, in II Peter ii: "There shall come false

teachers, who in covetousness, with feigned words, shall make

merchandise of you, to get their gains." [2 Pet. 2:3]



[Sidenote: Regression]



Again, dear Roman Avarice has invented the custom of selling and

bestowing livings to such advantage that the seller or disposer

retains reversionary rights[80] upon them: to wit, if the incumbent

dies, the benefice freely reverts to him who previously sold, bestowed

or surrendered it. In this way they have made livings hereditary

property, so that henceforth no one can come into possession of them,

except the man to whom the seller is willing to dispose of them, or to

whom he bequeaths his rights at death. Besides, there are many who

transfer to others the mere title to a benefice from which those who

get the title derive not a _heller_ of income. It is now an old

custom, too, to give another man a benefice and to reserve a certain

part out of the annual revenue[81]. In olden times this was

simony[82]. Of these things there are so many more that they cannot

all be counted. They treat livings more shamefully than the heathen

beneath the cross treated the garments of Christ. [Matt. 27:35]



[Sidenote: Reservation in pectore]



Yet all that has hitherto been said is ancient history and an

every-day occurrence at Rome. Avarice has devised one thing more,

which may, I hope, be his last morsel, and choke him. The pope has a

noble little device called _pectoralis reservatio_, i. e., his "mental

reservation," and _proprius motus_, i. e., the "arbitrary will of his

authority."[83] It goes like this. When one man has gotten a benefice

at Rome, and the appointment has been regularly signed and sealed,

according to custom, and there comes another, who brings money, or has

laid the pope under obligation in some other way, of which we will not

speak, and desires of the pope the same benefice, then the pope takes

it from the first man and gives it to the second[84]. If it is said

that this is unjust, then the Most Holy Father must make some excuse,

that he may not be reproved or doing such open violence to the law,

and says that in his mind and heart he had reserved that benefice to

himself and his own plenary disposal, although he had never before in

his whole life either thought or heard of it. Thus he has now found a

little "gloss" by which he can, in his own person, lie and deceive,

and make a fool and an ape of anybody--all this he does brazenly and

openly, and yet he wishes to be the head of Christendom, though with

his open lies he lets the Evil Spirit rule him.



This arbitrary will and lying "reservation" of the pope creates in

Rome a state of affairs which is unspeakable. There is buying,

selling, bartering, trading, trafficking, lying, deceiving, robbing,

stealing, luxury, harlotry, knavery, and every sort of contempt of

God, and even the rule of Antichrist could not be more scandalous.

Venice, Antwerp, Cairo[85] are nothing compared to this fair which is

held at Rome and the business which is done there, except that in

those other places they still observe right and reason. At Rome

everything goes as the devil wills, and out of this ocean like virtue

flows into all the world. Is it a wonder that such people fear a

reformation and a free council, and prefer to set all kings and

princes at enmity rather than have them unite and bring about a

council? Who could bear to have such knavery exposed if it were his

own?



[Sidenote: The Dataria]



Finally, for all this noble commerce the pope has built a warehouse,

namely, the house of the datarius[86], in Rome. Thither all must come

who deal after this fashion in benefices and livings. From him they

must buy their "glosses"[87] and get the power to practice such

archknavery. In former times Rome was generous, and then justice had

either to be bought or else suppressed with money, but now she has

become exorbitant, and no one dare be a knave unless with a great sum

he has first bought the right. If that is not a brothel above all the

brothels one can imagine, then I do not know what brothel means.



If you have money in this house, then you can come by all the things I

have said; and not only these, but all sorts of usury[88] are here

made honest, Phil. 2:5 for a consideration, and the possession of all

property acquired by theft or robbery is legalised. Here vows are

dissolved; here monks are granted liberty to leave their orders; here

marriage is on sale to the clergy; here bastards can become

legitimate; here all dishonor and shame can come to honor; all

ill-repute and stigma of evil are here knighted and ennobled; here is

permitted the marriage which is within the forbidden degrees or has

some other defect[89].  Oh! what a taxing and a robbing rules there!

It looks as though all the laws of the Church were made for one

purpose only--to be nothing but so many money-snares, from which a man

must extricate himself[90] if he would be a Christian. Yea, here the

devil becomes a saint, and a god to boot. What heaven and earth

cannot, that this house can do!  They call them _compositiones_[91]!

"Compositions" indeed! rather "confusions"! Oh, what a modest tax is

the Rhine-toll[92], compared with the tribute taken by this holy

house!



Let no one accuse me of exaggeration! It is all so open that even at

Rome they must confess the evil to be greater and more terrible than

any one can say. I have not yet stirred up the hell-broth of personal

vices, nor do I intend to do so. I speak of things which are common

talk, and yet I have not words to tell them all. The bishops, the

priests and, above all, the doctors in the universities, who draw

their salaries or this purpose, should have done their duty and with

common consent have written and cried out against these things; but

they have done the very opposite[93].



[Sidenote: The Fuggers]



There remains one last word, and I must say that too. Since boundless

Avarice has not been satisfied with all these treasures, which three

great kings might well think sufficient, he now begins to transfer

this trade and sell it to Fugger of Augsburg[94], so that the lending

and trading and buying of bishoprics and benefices, and the driving of

bargains in spiritual goods has now come to the right place, and

spiritual and temporal goods have become one business. And now I would

fain hear of a mind so lofty that it could imagine what this Roman

Avarice might yet be able to do and has not already done; unless

Fugger were to transfer or sell this combination of two lines of

business to somebody else. I believe we have reached the limit.



As for what they have stolen in all lands and still steal and extort,

by means of indulgences, bulls, letters of confession[95],

"butter-letters"[96] and other _confessionalia_[97],--all this I

consider mere patch-work, and like casting a single devil more into

hell[98]. Not that they bring in little, for a mighty king could well

support himself on their returns, but they are not to be compared with

the streams of treasure above mentioned. I shall also say nothing at

present of how this indulgence money has been applied. Another time I

shall inquire about that, for Campoflore[99] and Belvidere[100] and

certain other places probably know something about it.



Since, then, such devilish rule is not only open robbery and deceit,

and the tyranny of the gates of hell, but also ruins Christendom in

body and soul, it is our duty to use all diligence in protecting

Christendom against such misery and destruction. If we would fight the

Turks, let us make a beginning here, where they are at their worst. If

we justly hang thieves and behead robbers, why should we let Roman

Avarice go free? For he is the greatest thief and robber that has come

or can come into the world, and all in the holy Name of Christ and of

St. Peter! Who can longer endure it or keep silence? Almost everything

he owns has been gotten by theft and robbery; that is the truth, and

all history shows it. The pope never got by purchase such great

properties that from his _officia_[101] alone he can raise about a

million ducats, not to mention the mines of treasure named above and

the income of his lands. Nor did it come to him by inheritance from

Christ or from St. Peter; no one ever loaned it or gave it to him; it

has not become his by virtue of immemorial use and enjoyment. Tell me,

then, whence he can have it? Learn from this what they have in mind

when they send out legates to collect money or use against the Turks.



III. PROPOSALS FOR REFORM



Now, although I am too small a man to make propositions which might

effect a reform in this dreadful state of things, nevertheless I may

as well sing my fool's song to the end, and say, so far as I am able,

what could and should be done by the temporal authorities or by a

general council.



[Sidenote: Abolition of Annates]



1. Every prince, nobleman and city should boldly forbid their subjects

to pay the annates to Rome and should abolish them entirely[102]; for

the pope has broken the compact, and made the annates a robbery, to

the injury and shame of the whole German nation. He gives them to his

friends, sells them for large amounts of money, and uses them to endow

offices. He has thus lost his right to them, and deserves punishment.

It is therefore the duty of the temporal authorities to protect the

innocent and prevent injustice, as Paul teaches in Romans xiii [Rom.

13:4], and St. Peter in I Peter ii [1 Pet. 2:14], Rom. and even the

canon law in Case 16, Question 7, _de filiis_[103]. Thus it has come

about that men are saying to the pope and his followers, _Tu ora_,

"Thou shalt pray"; to the emperor and his followers, _Tu protege_,

"Thou shalt guard"; to the common man, _Tu labora_, "Thou shalt work."

Not, however, as though everyone were not to pray, guard and work; for

the man who is diligent in his calling is praying, guarding and

working in all that he does, but everyone should have his own especial

task.



[Sidenote: Prohibition of Roman Appointments]



2. Since the pope with his Roman practices--his commends[104],

adjutories[105], reservations[106], _gratiae expectativae_[107], papal

months[108], incorporations[109], unions[110], _pallia_[111], rules in

chancery[112], and such like knavery--usurps all the German

foundations without authority and right, and gives and sells them to

foreigners at Rome, who do nothing in German lands to earn them; and

since he thereby robs the ordinaries[113] of their rights, makes the

bishops mere ciphers and figure-heads, and acts against his own canon

law, against nature and against reason, until it has finally gone so

far that out of sheer avarice the livings and benefices are sold to

gross, ignorant asses and knaves at Rome, while pious and learned folk

have no profit of their wisdom and merit, so that the poor people of

the German nation have to go without good and learned prelates and

thus go to ruin:



Therefore, the Christian nobility should set itself against the pope

as against a common enemy and destroyer of Christendom, and should do

this for the salvation of the poor souls who must go to ruin through

his tyranny. They should ordain, order, and decree, that henceforth no

benefice shall be drawn into the hands of Rome, and that hereafter no

appointment shall be obtained there in any manner whatsoever, but that

the benefices shall be brought out and kept out from under this

tyrannical authority; and they should restore to the ordinaries the

right and office of ordering these benefices in the German nation as

best they may. And if a "courtesan" were to come from Rome, he should

receive a strict command either to keep his distance, or else to jump

into the Rhine or the nearest river, and take the Roman ban, with its

seals and letters, to a cold bath. They would then take note at Rome

that the Germans are not always mad and drunken, but that they have

really become Christians, and intend to permit no longer the mockery

and scorn of the holy name of Christ, under which all this knavery and

destruction of souls goes on, but have more regard to God and His

glory than to the authority of men.



[Sidenote: Restoration of Local Church Rights]



3. An imperial law should be issued, that no bishop's cloak[114] and

no confirmation of any dignity[115] whatsoever shall henceforth be

secured from Rome, but that the Church ordinance of the most holy and

most famous Council of Nicaea[116] shall be restored, in which it is

decreed that a bishop shall be confirmed by the two nearest bishops or

by the archbishop. If the pope will break the statutes of this and of

all other councils, what is the use of holding councils; or who has

given him the authority thus to despise and break the rules of

councils?



If he has this power then we should depose all bishops, archbishops

and primates[117] and make them mere parish-priests, so that the pope

alone may be over them, as he now is. He leaves to bishops,

archbishops and primates no regular authority or office, usurps

everything for himself, and lets them keep only the name and empty

title. It has gone so far that by his "exemptions"[118] the

monasteries, the abbots and the prelates are withdrawn from the

regular authority of the bishops, so that there is no longer any order

in Christendom. From this must follow what has followed--relaxation of

discipline and license to do evil everywhere--so that I verily fear

the pope can be called the "man of sin." [2 Thess. 2:3] There is in

Christendom no discipline, no rule, no order; and who is to blame

except the pope? This usurped authority of his he applies strictly to

all the prelates, and takes away their rods; and he is generous to all

subjects, giving them or selling them their liberty.



Nevertheless, for fear he may complain that he is robbed of his

authority, it should be decreed that when the primates or archbishops

are unable to settle a case, or when a controversy arises among

themselves, such a case must be laid before the pope, but not every

little matter[120]. Thus it was done in olden times, and thus the

famous Council of Nicaea decreed[121]. If a case can be settled

without the pope, then his Holiness should not be troubled with such

minor matters, but give himself to that prayer, meditation and care

for all Christendom, of which he boasts. This is what the Apostles

did. They said, "It is not meet that we should leave the Word of God

and serve tables, but we will keep to preaching and prayer and set

others over the work." [Acts 6:2] But now Rome stands or nothing else

than the despising of the Gospel and of prayer, and for the serving of

"tables," i. e., of temporal affairs, and the rule of the Apostles and

of the pope agree as Christ agrees with Lucifer, heaven with hell,

night with day; yet he is called "Vicar of Christ and Successor of the

Apostles."



[Sidenote: Exclusion of Temporal Matters from the Papal Court]



4. It should be decreed that no temporal matter shall be taken to

Rome[122], but that all such cases shall be left to the temporal

authorities, as the Romans themselves decree in that canon law of

theirs, which they do not keep. For it should be the duty of the pope,

as the man most learned in Papal the Scriptures and most Holy, not in

name only, but in truth, to administer affairs which concern the faith

and holy life of Christians, to hold the primates and archbishops to

these things, and to help them in dealing with and caring for these

matters. So St. Paul teaches in I Corinthians vi, and takes the

Corinthians severely to task or their concern with worldly things [1

Cor. 6:7]. For it works intolerable injury to all lands that such

cases are tried at Rome. It increases the costs, and moreover the

judges do not know the manners, laws and customs of the various

countries, so that they often do violence to the acts and base their

decisions on their own laws and opinions, and thus injustice is

inevitably done the contestants.



[Sidenote: and from the Bishops' Courts]



Moreover, the outrageous extortion practised by the _officiales_[123]

must be forbidden in all the dioceses, courts so that they may attend

to nothing else than matters of faith and good morals, and leave to

the temporal judges the things that concern money, property, life and

honor. The temporal authorities, therefore, should not permit

sentences of ban or exile when faith or right life is not concerned.

Spiritual authorities should have rule over spiritual goods, as reason

teaches; but spiritual goods are not money, nor anything pertaining to

the body, but they are faith and good works.



[Sidenote: A German Church Organization]



Nevertheless it might be granted that cases which concern benefices or

livings should be tried before bishops, archbishops and primates.

Therefore, in order to decide contests and contentions, it might be

possible for the Primate of Germany to maintain a general consistory,

with auditors and chancellors, which should have control over the

_signaturae gratiae_ and _signaturae justitiae_[124], that are now

controlled at Rome, and which should be the final court of appeal for

German cases. The officers of this consistory must not, however, be

paid, as at Rome, by chance presents and gifts, and thereby acquire

the habit of selling justice and injustice, which they now have to do

at Rome because the pope gives them no remuneration, but allows them

to fatten themselves on presents. For at Rome no one cares what is

right or not right, but only what is money or not money. This court

might, however, be paid out of the annates, or some other way might

easily be devised, by those who are more intelligent and who have more

experience in these matters than I. All I wish to do is to arouse and

set to thinking those who have the ability and the inclination to help

the German nation become once more free and Christian, after the

wretched, heathenish and unchristian rule of the pope.



[Sidenote: Abolition of Reservations]



5. No more reservations should be valid, and no more benefices should

be seized by Rome, even if the incumbent dies, or there is a contest,

or the incumbent is a "servant" of a cardinal or of the pope[125]; and

it should be strictly forbidden and prevented that any

"courtesan"[126] should institute a contest over any benefice, so as

to cite pious priests to Rome, harass them and drive them into

lawsuits. If, in consequence of this prohibition, there should come

from Rome a ban or an ecclesiastical censure, it should be

disregarded, just as though a thief were to lay a man under the ban

because he would not let him steal. Indeed they should be severely

punished because they so blasphemously misuse the ban and the name of

God to support their robbery, and with falsely devised threats would

drive us to endure and to praise such blasphemy of God's name and such

abuse of Christian authority, and thus to become, in the sight of God,

partakers in their rascality; it is our duty before God to resist it,

or St. Paul, in Romans i, reproves as guilty of death not only "those

who do such things," but also those who consent to such things and

allow them to be done [Rom. 1:32]. Most unbearable of all is the lying

_reservatio pectoralis_[127], whereby Christendom is so scandalously

and openly put to shame and scorn, because its head deals in open

lies, and out of love for the accursed money, shamelessly deceives and

fools everybody.



[Sidenote: Abolition of Reserved Cases]



6. The _casus reservati_[128], the "reserved cases," should also be

abolished, for not only are they the means of served extorting much

money from the people, but by means of them the ravening tyrants

ensnare and confuse many poor consciences, to the intolerable injury

of their faith in God. This is especially true of the ridiculous and

childish cases about which they make so much ado in the Bull _Coena

Domini_[129], and which are not worth calling daily sins, still less

cases so grave that the pope may not remit them by any indulgence; as

for example, hindering a pilgrim on his way to Rome, furnishing

weapons to the Turks, or tampering with papal letters. With such

gross, crazy, clumsy things do they make fools of us! Sodom and

Gomorrah, and all the sins which are committed and can be committed

against the commandments of God are not reserved cases; but sins

against what God has never commanded and what they have themselves

devised, these must be reserved cases, solely that no one be hindered

in bringing money to Rome, in order that, safe from the Turks, they

may live in luxury and keep the world under their tyranny with their

wanton, useless bulls and breves[130].



All priests ought rightly to know, or else there should be a public

ordinance to that effect, that no secret sin, of which a man has not

been publicly accused, is a reserved case, and that every priest has

the power to remit all sorts of sins, however they may be called, so

long as they are secret; moreover that no abbot, bishop or pope has

the power to reserve any such case to himself[131]. If they attempt

it, their reservation does not hold and is not valid, and they should

be reproved, as men who without authority interfere in God's judgment,

and without cause ensnare and burden poor, ignorant consciences. But

if great public sins are committed, especially sins against God's

commandments, then there is indeed a reason for reserved cases, but

even then there should not be too many of them, and they should not be

reserved arbitrarily and without cause; for Christ has set in His

Church not tyrants, but shepherds, as saith St. Peter [1 Pet. 5:3].



[Sidenote: Diminution of the Papal Household]



7. The Roman See should also do away with the _officia_[132], and

diminish the swarm of vermin at Rome, so that the pope's household can

be supported by the pope's own purse. The pope should not allow his

court to surpass in pomp and extravagance the courts of all kings,

seeing that such a condition not only has never been serviceable to

the cause of Christian faith, but the courtiers have been kept thereby

from study and prayer, until they are scarce able to speak about the

faith at all. This they proved quite plainly at the last Roman

Council[133], in which, amongst many other childish and frivolous

things, they decreed that the soul of man is immortal and that every

priest must say his prayers once a month on pain of losing his

benefice. How shall matters which concern faith and the Church be

decided by people so hardened and blinded by great avarice, wealth and

worldly splendor, that they have only now decreed that the soul is

immortal? It is no small shame to all Christians that at Rome they

deal so disgracefully with the faith. If they had less wealth and

pomp, they could pray and study better, and so become worthy and able

to deal with matters of faith, as was the case in olden times when

they were bishops, and did not presume to be kings over all kings.



[Sidenote: Bishops' Oaths]



8. The hard and terrible oaths should be abolished, which the bishops

are wrongfully compelled to render to the pope[134], and by which they

are bound like servants, as that worthless and unlearned chapter,

_Significasti_[135], arbitrarily and most stupidly decrees. It is not

enough that they burden us in body, soul and property with their many

mad laws, by which faith is weakened and Christendom ruined; but they

seize upon the person and office and work of the bishops, and now upon

the investiture[136] also, which was in olden times the right of the

German emperors, and in France and other kingdoms still belongs to the

kings. On this point they had great wars and disputes with the

emperors[137] until at last, with impudent authority, they took the

right and have kept it until now; just as though the Germans, above

all the Christians on earth, had to be the puppets of the pope and the

Roman See and do and suffer what no one else will do and suffer.

Since, then, this is sheer violence and robbery, hindering the regular

authority of the bishops and injuring poor souls, therefore the

emperor and his nobles are in duty bound to prevent and punish such

tyranny.



[Sidenote: Pope and Emperor]



9. The pope should have no authority over the emperor, except that he

anoints and crowns him at the altar, just as a bishop anoints and

crowns a king[138]; and we should not henceforth yield to that

devilish pride which compels the emperor to kiss the pope's feet or

sit at his feet, or, as they claim, hold his stirrup or the bridle of

his mule when he mounts for a ride; still less should he do homage and

swear faithful allegiance to the pope, as the popes have shamelessly

ventured to demand as if they possessed that right. The chapter

_Solite_[139], in which the papal authority is raised above the

imperial authority, is not worth a heller, nor are any of those who

rest upon it or fear it; for it does nothing else than force the holy

words of God out of their true meaning, and wrest them to human

dreams, as I have showed in a Latin treatise[140].



Such extravagant, over-presumptuous, and more than wicked doings of

the pope have been devised by the devil, in order that under their

cover he may in time bring in Antichrist, and raise the pope above

God, as many are already doing and have done. It is not proper for the

pope to exalt himself above the temporal authorities, save only in

spiritual offices such as preaching and absolving. In other things he

is to be subject, as Paul and Peter teach, in Romans xiii [Rom. 13:1],

and I Peter iii [1 Pet. 2:13 f.], and as I have said above.



He is not vicar of Christ in heaven, but of Christ as He walked on

earth [Phil. 2:7][142]. For Christ in heaven, in the form of a ruler,

needs no vicar, but He sits and sees, does, and knows all things, and

has all power. But He needs a vicar in the form of a servant, in which

He walked on earth, toiling, preaching, suffering and dying. Now they

turn it around, take from Christ the heavenly form of ruler and give

it to the pope, leaving the form of a servant to perish utterly. He

might almost be the "Counter-christ" whom the Scriptures call

Antichrist, for all his nature, work and doings are against Christ,

for the destruction of Christ's nature and work.



It is also ridiculous and childish that the pope, with such perverted

and deluded reasoning, boasts in his decretal _Pastoralis_[143], that

he is rightful heir to the Empire, in case of a vacancy. Who has given

him this right? Did Christ, when He said, "The princes of the Gentiles

are lords, but ye shall not be so" [Luke 22:25 f.]? Did St. Peter will

it to him? It vexes me that we must read and learn such shameless,

gross, crazy lies in the canon law, and must even hold them for

Christian doctrine, when they are devilish lies. Of the same sort is

also that unheard-of lie about the "Donation of Constantine."[144] It

must have been some special plague of God that so many people of

understanding have let themselves be talked into accepting such lies

as these, which are so manifest and clumsy that I should think any

drunken peasant could lie more adroitly and skilfully. How can a man

rule an empire and at the same time continue to preach, pray, study

and care for the poor? Yet these are the duties which properly and

peculiarly belong to the pope, and they were imposed by Christ in such

earnest that He even forbade His disciples to take with them cloak or

money [Matt. 10:10], since these duties can scarcely be performed by

one who has to rule even a single household. Yet the pope would rule

an empire and continue to be pope! This is a device of the knaves who

would like, under the pope's name, to be lords of the world, and by

means of the pope and the name of Christ, to restore the Roman Empire

to its former state.



[Sidenote: Temporal Power--the Kingdom of Naples]



10. The pope should restrain himself, take his fingers out of the pie,

and claim no title to the Kingdom of Naples the and Sicily[145]. He

has exactly as much right to that kingdom as I have, and yet he wishes

to be its overlord. It is plunder got by violence, like almost all his

other possessions. The emperor, therefore, should not grant him this

fief, and if it has been granted, he should no longer give his consent

to it, and should point him instead to the Bible and the prayer-books,

so that he may preach and pray, and leave to temporal lords the ruling

of lands and peoples, especially when no one has given them to him.



[Sidenote: The States of the Church]



The same opinion should hold as regards Bologna, Imola, Vicenza,

Ravenna and all the territories in the Mark of Ancona, in Romagna, and

in other Italian lands, which the pope has taken by force and

possesses without right[146]. Moreover, he has meddled in these things

against all the commands of Christ and of St. Paul. For thus saith St.

Paul, "No one entangleth himself with worldly affairs, whose business

it is to wait upon the divine knighthood."[147][2 Tim. 2:3] Now the

pope should be the head and front of this knighthood, yet he meddles

in worldly affairs more than any emperor or king. Why then he must be

helped out of them and allowed to attend to his knighthood. Christ

also, Whose vicar he boasts himself to be, was never willing to have

aught to do with temporal rule; indeed, to one who asked of him a

decision respecting his brother. He said, "Who made Me a judge over

you?" [Luke 12:14] But the pope rushes in unbidden, and boldly takes

hold of everything as though he were a god, until he no longer knows

what Christ is, Whose vicar he pretends to be.



[Sidenote: Papal Homage]



11. The kissing of the pope's feet[148] should take place no more. It

is an unchristian, nay, an antichristian thing for a poor sinful man

to let his feet be kissed by one who is a hundred times better than

himself. If it is done in honor of his authority, why does not the

pope do the same to others in honor of their holiness? Compare the

two--Christ and the pope! Christ washed His disciples' feet and dried

them [John 13:1 ff.], and the disciples never washed His feet; the

pope, as though he were higher than Christ, turns things around and,

as a great favor, allows people to kiss his feet, though he ought

properly to use all his power to prevent it, if anyone wished to do

it; like Paul and Barnabas, who would not let the people of Lystra pay

them divine honor, but said, "We are men like you." [Acts 14:11-16]

But our sycophants have gone so far as to make for us an idol, and now

no one ears God so much as he fears the pope, no one pays Him such

ceremonious honor. That they can endure! What they cannot endure is

that a hair's-breadth should be taken away from the proud estate of

the pope. Now if they were Christians, and held God's honor above

their own, the pope would never be happy while he knew that God's

honor was despised and his own exalted, and he would let no man pay

him honor until he saw that God's honor was again exalted and was

greater than his own.



[149][It is another piece of the same scandalous pride, that the pope

is not satisfied to ride or to be driven in a vehicle, but although he

is strong and in good health, he has himself borne by men, with

unheard-of splendor, like an idol. How, pray, does such satanic pride

agree with the example of Christ, Who went on foot, as did all His

disciples? Where has there ever been a worldly monarch who went about

in such worldly glory as he who wishes to be the head of all those who

are to despise and lee worldly glory, i. e., of Christians? Not that

this in itself should give us very much concern, but we should rightly

fear the wrath of God, if we flatter this kind of pride and do not

show our indignation. It is enough that the pope should rant and play

the fool in this wise; but that we should approve it and tolerate

it,--this is too much.



For what Christian heart can or ought to take pleasure in seeing that

when the pope wishes to receive the communion, he sits quiet, like a

gracious lord, and has the sacrament passed to him on a golden rod by

a bowing cardinal on bended knee? As though the holy sacrament were

not worthy that a pope, a poor stinking sinner, should rise to show

God honor, when all other Christians, who are much more holy than the

Most Holy Father, the pope, receive it with all reverence! Would it be

a wonder if God were to send a plague upon us all because we suffer

such dishonor to be done Him by our prelates, and approve it, and by

our silence or our flattery make ourselves partakers of such damnable

pride?



It is the same way when he carries the sacrament in procession. He

must be carried, but the sacrament is set before him, like a can of

wine on the table. In short, at Rome Christ counts for nothing, the

pope counts for everything; and yet they would compel us with threats

to approve, and praise and honor such antichristian sins, though this

is against God and against all Christian doctrine. Now God help a free

Council to teach the pope that he too is a man, and is not more than

God, as he presumes to be.]



[Sidenote: Abolition of Pilgrimages to Rome]



12. Pilgrimages to Rome[150] should either be abolished, or else no

one should be allowed to make such a pilgrimage out of curiosity or

because of a pious impulse, unless it is first recognized by his

parish-priest, his town authorities or his overlord, that he has good

and sufficient reason for it. I say this not because pilgrimages are

bad, but because they are at this time ill-advised. For men see at

Rome no good example, but only that which offends; and they have

themselves made the proverb, "The nearer Rome, the worse

Christians."[151] Men bring back with them contempt or God and His

commandments. It is said: "The first time one goes to Rome he seeks a

rascal, the second time he finds him, the third time he brings him

home with him."[152] Now, however, they have become so clever that

they make the three journeys at once, and they have verily brought

back from Rome such pretty things that it were better never to have

seen or known Rome.



Even if this reason did not exist, there is still another and a

better: to wit, that by these pilgrimages men are led away into a

false conceit and a misunderstanding of the divine commandments; or

they think that this going on pilgrimage is a precious, good work, and

this is not true. It is a very small good work, oftentimes an evil,

delusive work, for God has not commanded it. But He has commanded that

a man shall care for his wife and children, and look after such other

duties as belong to the married state, and besides this, to serve and

help his neighbor. Now it comes to pass that a man makes a pilgrimage

to Rome when no one has commanded him to do so, spends fifty or a

hundred gulden, more or less, and leaves his wife and child, or at

least his neighbor, at home to suffer want. Yet the foolish fellow

thinks to gloss over such disobedience and contempt of the divine

commandments with his self-willed pilgriming, when it is really only

curiosity or devilish delusion which leads him to it. The popes have

helped this along with their false, feigned, foolish, "golden

years,"[153] by which the people are excited, stirred up, torn away

from God's commandments, and drawn toward their own deluded

undertakings. Thus they have accomplished the very thing they should

have forbidden; but it has brought in money and strengthened false

authority, therefore it has had to continue, though it is against God

and the salvation of souls.



In order to destroy in simple Christians this false, seductive faith,

and to restore a true understanding of good works, all pilgrimages

should be given up; for there is in them nothing good--no commandment,

no obedience--but, on the contrary, numberless occasions for sin and

for the despising of God's commandments. Hence come the many beggars,

who by this pilgriming carry on endless knaveries and learn the habit

of begging when they are not in want. Hence, too, come vagabondage,

and many other ills which I shall not now recount.



If any one, now, wishes to go on pilgrimage or take a pilgrim's vow,

he should first show his reasons to his parish-priest or to his lord.

If it turns out that he wishes to do it for the sake of the good work,

the priest or lord should boldly tread the vow and good work under

foot, as though it were a lure of the devil, and show him how to apply

the money and labor necessary for the pilgrimage to the keeping of

God's commandments and to works a thousandfold better, viz., by

spending it on his own family or on his poor neighbors. But if he

wishes to make the pilgrimage out of curiosity, to see new lands and

cities, he may be allowed to do as he likes. If, however, he has made

the vow while ill, then such vows ought to be forbidden and canceled,

and the commandments of God exalted, and he ought to be shown that he

should henceforth be satisfied with the vow he made in baptism[154],

to keep the commandments of God. And yet, in order to quiet his

conscience, he may be allowed this once to perform his foolish vow. No

one wants to walk in the straight and common path of God's

commandments; everyone makes himself new roads and new vows, as though

he had fulfilled all the commandments of God.



[Sidenote: Reform of the Mendicant Orders]



13. Next we come to that great crowd who vow much and keep little. Be

not angry, dear lords! Truly, I mean it well. It is the truth, and

bitter-sweet, and it is this,--the building of mendicant-houses[155]

should no more be permitted. God help us, there are already far too

many of them! Would to God they were all done away, or at least given

over to two or three orders! Wandering about the land has never

brought any good, and never will bring any good. It is my advice,

therefore, to put together ten of these houses, or as many as may be

necessary, and out of them all to make one house, which will be well

provided and need no more begging. It is much more important to

consider what the common people need for their salvation, than what

St. Francis, St. Dominic, St. Augustine[156] or any other man has

decreed; especially since things have not turned out as they expected.



The mendicants should also be relieved of preaching and hearing

confession, except when they are called to this work by the express

desire of bishops, parishes, congregations or the temporal

authorities. Out of their preaching and shriving there has come

nothing but hatred and envy between priests and monks, and great

offence and hindrance to the common people. For this reason it should

properly and deservedly cease, because it can well be dispensed

with[157]. It looks suspiciously as though it were not for nothing

that the Holy Roman See has increased this army, so that the priests

and bishops, tired of its tyranny, might not some time become too

strong or it and begin a reformation which would not be to the liking

of his Holiness.



At the same time the manifold divisions and differences within one and

the same order should be abolished. These divisions have at times

arisen for small reason and maintained themselves for still smaller,

combatting one another with unspeakable hatred and envy[158].

Nevertheless the Christian faith, which can well exist without any of

these distinctions, is lost by both sides, and a good Christian life

is valued and sought after only in outward laws, works and forms; and

this results only in the devising of hypocrisy and the destruction of

souls, as everyone may see with his own eyes.



The pope must also be forbidden to found and confirm any more of these

orders; nay, he must be commanded to abolish some of them and reduce

their number, since the faith of Christ, which is alone the highest

good and which exists without any orders, is in no small danger,

because these many different works and forms easily mislead men into

living for them instead of giving heed to the faith. Unless there are

in the monasteries wise prelates, who preach and who concern

themselves with faith more than with the rules of the orders, the

order cannot but harm and delude simple souls who think only of works.



In our days, however, the prelates who have had faith and who founded

the orders have almost all passed away. Just as in olden days among

the children of Israel, when the fathers, who knew God's works and

wonders, had passed away, the children, from ignorance of God's works

and of faith, immediately became idolatrous and set up their own human

works; so now, alas! these orders have lost the understanding of God's

works and of faith, and only torture themselves pitifully, with labor

and sorrow, in their own rules, laws and customs, and withal never

come to a right understanding of a good spiritual life, as the Apostle

declared when he said, in II Timothy iii: "They have the appearance of

a spiritual life, yet there is nothing back of it; they are ever and

ever learning, but they never come to a knowledge of what a true

spiritual life is." [2 Tim. 3:5, 7] There should be no monastery

unless there were a spiritual prelate, learned in the Christian faith,

to rule it, for no other kind of prelate can rule without injury and

ruin, and the holier and better he appears to be in his outward works

and life, the more injury and ruin he causes.



To my way of thinking it would be a necessary measure, especially in

these perilous times of ours, that all foundations and monasteries

should be re-established as they were at the first, in the days of the

Apostles and for a long time afterwards, when they were all open to

every man, and every man might remain in them as long as he pleased.

For what were the foundations and monasteries except Christian schools

in which the Scriptures and Christian living were taught, and people

were trained to rule and to preach? So we read that St. Agnes[159]

went to school, and we still see the same practice in some of the

nunneries, like that at Quedlinburg[160] and others elsewhere. And in

truth all monasteries and convents ought to be so free that God is

served in them with free will and not with forced avarice. Afterward,

however, they hedged them about with vows and turned them into a

lifelong prison, so that these vows are thought to be of more account

than the vows of baptism. What sort of fruit this has borne, we see,

hear, read and learn more and more every day.



I suppose this advice of mine will be regarded as the height of

foolishness; but I am not concerned about that just now. I advise what

I think best; let him reject it who will! I see how the vows are kept,

especially the vow of chastity, which has become so universal through

these monasteries and yet is not commanded by Christ; on the contrary,

it is given to very few to keep it, as He himself says [Matt. 19:11

ff.], and St. Paul [1 Cor. 7:7, Col. 2:20]. I would have all men to be

helped, and not have Christian souls caught in human, self-devised

customs and laws.



[Sidenote: Marriage of the Clergy]



14. We also see how the priesthood has fallen, and how many a poor

priest is overburdened with wife and child, and his conscience

troubled, yet no one does anything to help him though he might easily

be helped. Though pope and bishops may let things go as they go, and

let them go to ruin if they will, I will save my conscience and open

my mouth freely, whether it vex pope, bishops or any one else.

Wherefore I say that according to the institution of Christ and the

Apostles every city should have a priest or bishop, as St. Paul

clearly says in Titus i [Tit. 1:6]; and this priest should not be

compelled to live without a wedded wife, but should be permitted to

have one, as St. Paul says in I Timothy iii, and Titus i, "A bishop

should be a man who is blameless, and the husband of but one wedded

wife, whose children are obedient and virtuous," etc. [1 Tim. 3:2,

Tit. 1:6] For with St. Paul a bishop and a priest are one and the same

thing, as witness also St. Jerome[161]. But of bishops as they now

are, the Scriptures know nothing; they have been appointed by the

ordinance of the Christian Church, that one of them may rule over many

priests.



So then we clearly learn from the Apostle that it should be the custom

for every town to choose out of the congregation[162] a learned and

pious citizen, entrust to him the office of the ministry, and support

him at the expense of the community, leaving him free choice to marry

or not. He should have with him several priests or deacons, who might

also be married or not, as they chose, to help him rule the people of

the community[163] by means of preaching and the sacraments, as is

still the practice in the Greek Church. At a later time[164], when

there were so many persecutions and controversies with heretics, there

were many holy fathers who of their own accord abstained from

matrimony, to the end that they might the better devote themselves to

study and be prepared at any time for death or for controversy. Then

the Roman See interfered, out of sheer wantonness, and made a

universal commandment forbidding priests to marry[165]. This was done

at the bidding of the devil, as St. Paul declares in I Timothy iv,

"There shall come teachers who bring doctrines of devils, and forbid

to marry." From this has arisen so much untold misery, occasion was

given for the withdrawal of the Greek Church[166], and division, sin,

shame and scandal were increased without end,--which is the result of

everything the devil does.



What, then, shall we do about it? My advice is that matrimony be again

made free[167], and that every one be let free choice to marry or not

to marry. In that case, however, there must be a very different

government and administration of Church property, the whole canon law

must go to pieces and not many benefices find their way to Rome[168].

I fear that greed has been a cause of this wretched unchaste chastity,

and as a result of greed every man has wished to become a priest and

everyone wants his son to study for the priesthood, not with the idea

of living in chastity, for that could be done outside the priesthood,

but of being supported in temporal things without care or labor,

contrary to the command of God in Genesis iii, "In the sweat of thy

face shat thou eat thy bread." [Gen. 3:19] They have construed this to

mean that their labor was to pray and say mass.



I am not referring here to popes, bishops, canons and monks. God has

not instituted these offices. They have taken burdens on themselves;

let them bear them. I would speak only of the ministry which God has

instituted[169] and which is to rule a congregation by means of

preaching and sacraments, whose incumbents are to live and be at home

among the people. Such ministers should be granted liberty by a

Christian council to marry, for the avoidance of temptation and sin.

For since God has not bound them, no one else ought to bind them or

can bind them, even though he were an angel from heaven [Gal. 1:8],

still less if he be only a pope; and everything that the canon law

decrees to the contrary is mere fable and idle talk.



Furthermore, I advise that henceforth neither at his consecration to

the priesthood nor at any other time shall any one under any

circumstances promise the bishop to live in celibacy, but shall

declare to the bishop that he has no authority to demand such a vow,

and that to demand it is the devil's own tyranny.



But if anyone is compelled to say or wishes to say, as do some, "so

far as human frailty permits,"[170] let everyone frankly interpret

these words negatively, to mean "I do not promise chastity."[171] For

human frailty does not permit a chaste life[172], but only angelic

power and celestial might[2 Pet. 2:11][173] Thus he should keep his

conscience free from all vows.



On the question whether those who are not yet married should marry or

remain unmarried, I do not care to give advice either way. I leave

that to common Christian order and to everyone's better judgment. But

as regards the wretched multitude who now sit in shame and heaviness

of conscience because their wives are called "priests' harlots" and

their children "priests' children" I will not withhold my faithful

counsel nor deprive them of the comfort which is their due. I say this

boldly by my jester's right[174]. You will find many a pious priest

against whom no one has anything to say except that he is weak and has

come to shame with a woman, though both parties may be minded with all

their heart to live always together in wedded love and troth, if only

they could do it with a clear conscience, even though they might have

to bear public shame. Two such persons are certainly married before

God. And I say that where they are thus minded, and so come to live

together, they should boldly save their consciences; let him take and

keep her as his wedded wife, and live honestly with her as her

husband, caring nothing whether the pope will have it so or not,

whether it be against canon law or human law. The salvation of your

soul is of more importance than tyrannical, arbitrary, wicked laws,

which are not necessary for salvation and are not commanded by God.

You should do like the children of Israel, who stole from the

Egyptians the hire they had earned [Ex. 12:35 f.], or like a servant

who steals from his wicked master the wages he has earned. In like

manner steal thou from the pope thy wife and child! Let the man who

has faith enough to venture this, boldly follow me; I shall not lead

him astray. Though I have not the authority of a pope, I have the

authority of a Christian to advise and help my neighbor against sins

and temptations; and that not without cause and reason.



_First_, Not every priest can do without a woman, not only on account

of the weakness of the flesh, but much more because of the necessities

of the household. If he, then, may have a woman, and the pope grants

him that, and yet may not have her in marriage,--what is that but

leaving a man and a woman alone and forbidding them to fall? It is as

though one were to put fire and straw together and command that it

shall neither smoke nor burn.



_Second_, The pope has as little power to command this, as he has to

forbid eating, drinking, the natural movement of the bowels or growing

fat. No one, therefore, is bound to keep it, but the pope is

responsible for all the sins which are committed against this

ordinance, for all the souls which are lost thereby, for all the

consciences which are thereby confused and tortured; and therefore he

has long deserved that some one should drive him out of the world, so

many wretched souls has he strangled with this devil's snare; though I

hope that there are many to whom God has been more gracious at their

last hour than the pope has been in their life. Nothing good has ever

come out of the papacy and its laws, nor ever will.



_Third_, Although the law of the pope is against it, nevertheless,

when the estate of matrimony has been entered against the pope's law,

then his law is at an end, and is no longer valid; for the commandment

of God, which decrees that no one shall put man and wife asunder

[Matt. 19:6], takes precedence of the law of the pope; and the

commandments of God must not be broken and neglected for the sake of

the pope's commandment, though many mad jurists, in the papal

interest, have devised "impediments"[175] and have prevented,

destroyed and confused the estate of matrimony, until by their means

God's commandment has been altogether destroyed. To make a long story

short, there are not in the whole "spiritual" law of the pope two

lines which could be instructive to a pious Christian, and there are,

alas! so many mistaken and dangerous laws that the best thing would be

to make a bonfire of it[176].



But if you say that this[177] would give offence, and the pope must

first grant dispensation, I reply that whatever offence is in it, is

the fault of the Roman See, which has established such laws without

right and against God; before God and the Scriptures it is no offence.

Moreover, if the pope can grant dispensations from his avaricious and

tyrannical laws for money's sake, then every Christian can grant

dispensations from them--for the sake of God and the salvation of

souls. For Christ has set us free from all human laws, especially when

they are opposed to God and the salvation of souls, as St. Paul

teaches in Galatians v [Gal. 5:1] and I Corinthians xi [1 Cor. 9:4

ff.; 10:23].



[Sidenote: Abolition of Reserved Cases in the Monasteries]



15. Nor must I forget the poor convents! The evil spirit, who by human

laws now confuses all estates in life, and has made them unbearable,

has taken possession of in certain abbots, abbesses and prelates also,

and causes them so to govern their brethren and sisters as to send

them the more speedily to hell, and make them lead a wretched life

even here; for such is the lot of all the devil's martyrs. That is to

say, they have reserved to themselves in confession, all, or at least

some, of the mortal sins which are secret, so that no brother, on his

obedience and on pain of the ban, can absolve another from these

sins[178]. Now we do not always find angels everywhere, but we find

also flesh and blood, which suffers all bannings and threatenings

rather than confess secret sins to the prelates and the appointed

confessors. Thus they go to the sacrament with such consciences that

they become "irregular"[179] and all sorts of other terrible things. O

blind shepherds! O mad prelates! O ravening wolves!



To this I say: If a sin is public or notorious, then it is proper that

the prelate alone should punish it, and of these sins only and no

others he may make exceptions, and reserve them to himself; over

secret sins he has no authority, even though they were the worst sins

that are or ever can be found, and if the prelate makes exceptions of

these sins, he is a tyrant, for he has no such right and is

interfering in the judgment of God.



And so I advise these children, brethren and sisters: If your

superiors are unwilling to grant you permission to confess your secret

sins to whomever you wish, then take them to whatever brother or

sister you will and confess them, receive absolution, and then go and

do whatever you wish and ought to do; only believe firmly that you are

absolved, and nothing more is needed. And do not allow yourself to be

troubled by ban, "irregularity," or any of the other things they

threaten; these things are valid only in the case of public or

notorious sins which one is unwilling to confess; they do not affect

you at all. Why do you try by your threatenings, O blind prelate, to

prevent secret sins? Let go what you cannot publicly prove, so that

God's judgment and grace may also have its work in your subjects! He

did not give them so entirely into your hands as to let them go

entirely out of His own! Nay, what you have under your rule is but the

smaller part. Let your statutes be statutes, but do not exalt them to

heaven, to the judgment-seat of God.



[Sidenote: Abolition of Mortuary Masses]



16. It were also necessary to abolish all anniversary, mortuary and

"soul" masses[180], or at least to diminish their number, since we

plainly see that they have become nothing but a mockery, by which God

is deeply angered, and that their only purpose is money-getting,

gorging and drunkenness. What kind of pleasure should God have in such

a miserable gabbling of wretched vigils and masses, which is neither

reading nor praying, and even when prayed[181], they are performed not

for God's sake and out of willing love, but for money's sake and

because they are a bounden duty. Now it is not possible that any work

not done out of willing love can please God or obtain anything from

Him. And so it is altogether Christian to abolish, or at least

diminish, everything which we see growing into an abuse, and which

angers rather than reconciles God. It would please me more--nay, it

would be more acceptable to God and far better--that a foundation,

church or monastery should put all its anniversary masses and vigils

together, and on one day, with hearty sincerity, devotion and faith,

hold a true vigil and mass for all its benefactors, rather than hold

them by the thousand every year, for each benefactor a special mass,

without this devotion and faith. O dear Christians! God cares not for

much praying, but for true praying! Nay, He condemns the many and long

prayers, and says in Matthew vi, they will only earn more punishment

thereby [Matt. 67:7; 23:14]. But avarice, which cannot trust God,

brings such things to pass, earing that otherwise it must die of

hunger!



[Sidenote: Abolition of the Interdict]



17. Certain of the penalties or punishments of the canon law should

also be abolished, especially the interdict[182], which is, beyond all

doubt, an invention of the evil Spirit. Is it not a devil's work to

try to atone for one sin with many greater sins? And yet, to put God's

Word and worship to silence, or to do away with them, is a greater sin

than strangling twenty popes at once, and far greater than killing a

priest or keeping back some Church property. This is another of the

tender virtues taught in the "spiritual law." For one of the reasons

why this law is called "spiritual" is because it comes from the

Spirit; not, however, from the Holy Spirit, but from the evil spirit.



The ban[183] is to be used in no case except where the Scriptures

prescribe its use, i. e., against those who do not hold the true

faith, or who live in open sin; it is not to be used for the sake of

temporal possessions. But now it is the other way around. Everyone

believes and lives as he pleases, most of all those who use the ban to

plunder and defame other people, and all the bans are now laid only on

account of temporal possessions, or which we have no one to thank but

the holy "spiritual lawlessness."[184] Of this I have previously said

more in the Discourse[185].



The other punishments and penalties,--suspension, irregularity,

aggravation, reaggravation, deposition, lightnings, thunderings,

cursings, damnings and the rest of these devices,--should be buried

ten fathoms deep in the earth, so that there should be neither name

nor memory of them left on earth. The evil spirit, who has been let

loose by the "spiritual law" has brought this terrible plague and

misery into the heavenly kingdom of the holy Church, and has

accomplished by it nothing else than the destruction and hindrance of

souls, so that the word of Christ may well be applied to them[186]:

"Woe unto you scribes! Ye have taken upon you the authority to teach,

and ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men. Ye go not in

yourselves, and ye suffer not them that are entering." [Matt. 23:13]



[Sidenote: Abolition of Saints'-Days]



18. All festivals[187] should be abolished, and Sunday alone retained.

If it were desired, however, to retain the festivals of Our Lady and

of the greater saints, they should be transferred to Sunday, or

observed only by a morning mass, after which all the rest of the day

should be a working-day. The reason is this: The feast-days are now

abused by drinking, gaming, idleness and all manner of sins, so that

on the holy days we anger God more than on other days, and have

altogether turned things around; the holy days are not holy and the

working days are holy, and not only is no service done to God and His

saints by the many holy days, but rather great dishonor. There are,

indeed, some mad prelates who think they are doing a good work if they

make a festival in honor of St. Ottilia or St. Barbara or some other

saint, according to the promptings of their blind devotion; but they

would be doing a far better work if they honored the saint by turning

a saint's-day into a working day.



Over and above the spiritual injury, the common man receives two

material injuries from this practice, i. e., he neglects his work and

he spends more than at other times; nay, he also weakens his body and

unfits it for work. We see this every day, yet no one thinks to make

it better. We ought not to consider whether or not the pope has

instituted the feasts, and whether we must have dispensation and

permission to omit them. If a thing is opposed to God, and harmful to

man in body and soul, any community[188], council[189] or government

has not only the right to abolish it and put a stop to it, without the

will or knowledge of pope or bishop, but they are bound on their

souls' salvation to prevent it, even against the will of pope and

bishop, though these ought to be themselves the first to forbid it.



Above all, we ought utterly to abolish the consecration days[190],

since they have become nothing else than taverns, airs and gaming

places[191], and serve only to the increase of God's dishonor and to

the damnation of souls. All the pretence about the custom having had a

good beginning and being a good work is of no avail. Did not God

Himself set aside His own law, which He had given from heaven, when it

was perverted and abused? And does He not still daily overturn what He

has appointed and destroy what He has made, because of such perversion

and abuse? As it is written of Him in Psalm xviii, "With the perverted

Thou wilt show Thyself perverse." [Ps. 18:27]



[Sidenote: Extension of Right of Dispensation]



19. The grades or degrees within which marriage is forbidden should be

changed, as, for instance, the sponsorships and the third and fourth

degrees; and if the pope can grant dispensation in these matters or

money and for the sake of his shameful traffic[192], then every parish

priest may give the same dispensations gratis and or the salvation of

souls. Yea, would to God that all the things which we must buy at Rome

to free ourselves from that money-snare, the canon law,--such things

as indulgences, letters of indulgence, "butter-letters,"[193]

"mass-letters,"[194] and all the rest of the _confessionalia_[195] and

knaveries for sale at Rome, with which the poor folk are deceived and

robbed of their money; would to God, I say, that any priest could,

without payment, do and omit all these things!  For if the pope has

the authority to sell his snares for money and his spiritual nets (I

should say laws)[196], surely any priest has much more authority to

rend his nets and for God's sake to tread them under foot. But if he

has not this right, neither has the pope the right to sell them at his

shameful fair[196].



This is the place to say too that the fasts should be matters of

liberty, and all sorts of food made free, as the Gospel makes them

[Matt. 15:11]. For at Rome they themselves laugh at the fasts, making

us foreigners eat the oil with which they would not grease their

shoes, and afterwards selling us liberty to eat butter and all sorts

of other things; yet the holy Apostle says that in all these things we

already have liberty through the Gospel [1 Cor. 10:25 ff.]. But they

have caught us with their canon law and stolen our rights from us, so

that we may have to buy them back with money. Thus they have made our

consciences so timid and shy that it is no longer easy to preach about

this liberty because the common people take such great offence,

thinking it a greater sin to eat butter than to lie, to swear, or even

to live unchastely. Nevertheless, what men have decreed, that is the

work of man; put it where you will[198], nothing good ever comes out

of it.



[Sidenote: Prohibition of Pilgrimages]



20. The forest chapels and rustic churches[199] must be utterly

destroyed,--those, namely, to which the recent pilgrimages have been

directed,--Wilsnack[200], Sternberg[201], Trier[202], the

Grimmenthal[203], and now Regensburg[204] and a goodly number of

others. Oh, what a terrible and heavy account will the bishops have to

render, who permit this devilish deceit and receive its profits![205]

They should be the first to forbid it, and yet they think it a divine

and holy thing, and do not see that it is the devil's doing, to

strengthen avarice, to create a false, feigned faith, to weaken the

parish churches, to multiply taverns and harlotry, to waste money and

labor, and to lead the poor folk by the nose. If they had only read

the Scriptures to as good purpose as they have read their damnable

canon law, they would know well how to deal with this matter.



That miracles are done at these places does not help things, for the

evil spirit can do miracles, as Christ has told us in Matthew xxiv

[Matt. 24:24]. If they took the matter seriously and forbade this sort

of thing, the miracles would quickly come to an end; on the other

hand, if the thing were of God their prohibition would not hinder it

[Acts 5:39]. And if there were no other evidence that it is not of

God, this would be enough,--that people run to these places in excited

crowds, as though they had lost their reason, like herds of cattle;

for this cannot possibly be of God. Moreover, God has commanded

nothing of all this; there is neither obedience nor merit in it; the

bishops, therefore, should boldly step in and keep the folk away. For

what is not commanded--and is concerned for self rather than for the

commands of God--that is surely the devil himself. Then, too, the

parish churches receive injury, because they are held in smaller

honor. In short, these things are signs of great unbelief among the

people; if they truly believed, they would have all that they need in

their own churches, for to them they are commanded to go.



[Sidenote: Canonisations to be Prohibited]



But what shall I say? Every one[206] plans only how he may establish

and maintain such a place of pilgrimage in his diocese and is not at

all concerned to have the people believe and live aright; the rulers

are like the people; one blind man leads another [Matt. 13:14]. Nay,

where pilgrimages are not successful, they begin to canonise

saints[207], not in honor of the saints--for they are sufficiently

honored without canonisation--but in order to draw crowds and bring in

money. Pope and bishop help along; it rains indulgences; there is

always money enough for that. But for what God has commanded no one

provides; no one runs after these things; there is no money or them.

Alas, that we should be so blind! We not only give the devil his own

way in his tricks, but we even strengthen him in his wantonness and

increase his pranks. I would that the dear saints were let in peace,

and the poor folk not led astray! What spirit has given the pope the

authority to canonise the saints? Who tells him whether they are

saints or not? Are there not already sins enough on earth, that we too

must tempt God, interfere in His judgment and set up the dear saints

as lures for money?



Therefore I advise that the saints be left to canonise themselves.

Yea, it is God alone who should canonise them. And let every man stay

in his own parish, where he finds more than in all the shrines of

pilgrimage, even though all the shrines were one. Here we find baptism,

the sacrament, preaching and our neighbor, and these are greater

things than all the saints in heaven, for it is by God's Word and

sacrament that they have all been made saints. So long as we despise

such great things God is just in the wrathful judgment by which He

appoints the devil to lead us hither and thither, to establish

pilgrimages, to found churches and chapels, to secure the canonisation

of saints, and to do other such fool's-works, by which we depart from

true faith into new, false misbelief. This is what he did in olden

times to the people of Israel, when he led them away from the temple

at Jerusalem to countless other places, though he did it in the name

of God and under the plausible guise of holiness, though all the

prophets preached against it and were persecuted or so doing. But now

no one preaches against it, perhaps or fear that pope, priests and

monks would persecute him also. In this way St. Antoninus of

Florence[208] and certain others must now be made saints and

canonised, that their holiness, which would otherwise have served only

for the glory of God and as a good example, may serve to bring in fame

and money.



Although the canonising of saints may have been good in olden times,

it is not good now; just as many other things were good in olden times

and are now scandalous and injurious, such as feast-days,

church-treasures and church-adornment. For it is evident that through

the canonising of saints neither God's glory nor the improvement of

Christians is sought, but only money and glory, in that one church

wants to be something more and have something more than others, and

would be sorry if another had the same thing and its advantage were

common property. So entirely, in these last, evil days, have spiritual

goods been misused and applied to the gaining of temporal goods, that

everything, even God Himself, has been forced into the service of

avarice. And even these special advantages lead only to dissensions,

divisions and pride, in that the churches, differing from one another,

hold each other in contempt, and exalt themselves one above another,

though all the gifts which God bestows are the common and equal

property of all churches and should only serve the cause of unity. The

pope, too, is glad or the present state of affairs; he would be sorry

if all Christians were equal and were at one.



[Sidenote: Prohibition of Special Privileges]



pThis is the place to speak of the church licenses, bulls and other

things which the pope sells at his laying-place in Rome. We should

either abolish them or disregard them, or at least make them the

common property of all churches. For if he sells or gives away

licenses and privileges, indulgences, graces, advantages,

faculties[209] to Wittenberg, to Halle, to Venice and, above, all to

his own Rome, why does he not give these things to all churches alike?

Is he not bound to do for all Christians, gratis and for God's sake,

everything that he can, and even to shed his blood for them? Tell me,

then, why he gives or sells to one church and not to another? Or must

the accursed money make, in the eyes of His Holiness, so great a

difference among Christians, who all have the same baptism, Word,

faith, Christ, God and all things? [Eph. 4:4 f.] Are we to be blind

while we have eyes to see, fools while we have our reason, that they

expect us to worship such greed, knavery and humbug? He is a

shepherd,--yes, so long as you have money, and no longer! And yet they

are not ashamed of their knavery, leading us hither and yon with their

bulls! Their one concern is the accursed money, and nothing else!



My advice is this: If such fool's-work cannot be abolished, then every

pious Christian man should open his eyes, and not be misled by the

hypocritical Roman bulls and seals, stay at home in his own church and

be content with his baptism, his Gospel, his faith, his Christ and

with God, Who is everywhere the same; and let the pope remain a blind

leader of the blind. Neither angel nor pope can give you as much as

God gives you in your parish-church. Nay, the pope leads you away from

the gifts of God, which you have without pay, to his gifts, which you

must buy; and he gives you lead[210] for gold, hide for meat, the

string for the purse, wax for honey, words for goods, the letter for

the spirit. You see this before your very eyes, but you are unwilling

to notice it. If you are to ride to heaven on his wax and parchment,

your chariot will soon go to pieces, and you will fall into hell, not

in God's name!



Let this be your fixed rule: What you must buy from the pope is

neither good nor of God; for what is from God, to wit, the Gospel and

the works of God, is not only given without money, but the whole world

is punished and damned because it has not been willing to receive it

as a free gift. We have deserved of God that we should be so deceived,

because we have despised His holy Word and the grace of baptism, as

St. Paul says: "God shall send a strong delusion upon all those who

have not received the truth to their salvation, to the end that they

may believe and follow after lies and knavery," [2 Thess. 2:11 f.]

which serves them right.



[Sidenote: Mendicancy to be Prohibited, and the Poor to be Cared for]



21. One of our greatest necessities is the abolition of all begging

throughout Christendom. Among Christians no one ought to go begging!

It would also be easy to make a law, if only we had the courage and

the serious intention, to the effect that every city should provide

for its own poor, and admit no foreign beggars by whatever name they

might be called, whether pilgrims or mendicant monks. Every city could

support its own poor, and if it were too small, the people in the

surrounding villages also should be exhorted to contribute, since in

any case they have to feed so many vagabonds and knaves in the guise

of mendicants. In this way, too, it could be known who were really

poor and who not.



There would have to be an overseer or warden who knew all the poor and

informed the city council or the priests what they needed; or some

other better arrangement might be made. In my judgment there is no

other business in which so much knavery and deceit are practised as in

begging, and yet it could all be easily abolished. Moreover, this free

and universal begging hurts the common people. I have considered that

each of the five or six mendicant orders[211] visits the same place

more than six or seven times every year; besides these there are the

common beggars, the "stationaries"[212] and the palmers[213], so that

it has been reckoned that every town is laid under tribute about sixty

times a year, not counting what is given to the government in taxes,

imposts and assessments, what is stolen by the Roman See with its

wares, and what is uselessly consumed. Thus it seems to me one of

God's greatest miracles that we can continue to support ourselves.



To be sure, some think that in this way[214] the poor would not be so

well provided for and that not so many great stone houses and

monasteries would be built. This I can well believe. Nor is it

necessary. He who wishes to be poor should not be rich; and if he

wishes to be rich, let him put his hand to the plow and seek his

riches in the earth! It is enough if the poor are decently cared for,

so that they do not die of hunger or of cold. It is not fitting that

one man should live in idleness on another's labor, or be rich and

live comfortably at the cost of another's discomfort, according to the

present perverted custom; for St. Paul says, "If a man will not work,

neither shall he eat." [2 Thess. 3:10] God has not decreed that any

man shall live from another's goods save only the priests, who rule

and preach, and these because of their spiritual labor, as Paul says

in I Corinthians ix [1 Cor. 9:14], and Christ also says to the

Apostles, "Every laborer is worthy of his hire." [Luke 10:7]



[Sidenote: Prohibition of Endowed Masses]



22. It is also to be feared that the many masses[215] which are

endowed in the foundations and monasteries are not only of little use,

but greatly arouse the wrath of God. It would therefore be profitable

not to endow any more, but rather Masses to abolish many that are

already endowed, since we see that they are regarded only as

sacrifices and good works[216], though they are really sacraments,

just like baptism and penance[217], which profit only those who

receive them, and no others. But now the custom has crept in, that

masses are said for the living and the dead, and all hopes are built

upon them; for this reason so many of them have been founded and the

present state of affairs has come about.



My proposal is perhaps too novel and daring, especially for those who

fear that through the discontinuance of these masses their trade and

livelihood may be destroyed, and so I must refrain from saying more

about it until we have come back to a correct understanding of what

the mass is and what it is good for. These many years, alas, it has

been made a trade practised for a temporal livelihood, so that I would

henceforth advise a man to become a shepherd or to seek some other

trade rather than become a priest or a monk, unless he first knows

well what it is to celebrate mass. I am not speaking, however, of the

old foundations and cathedrals, which were doubtless established in

order that the children of the nobility (since, according to the

customs of the German nation not all of them can become heirs or

rulers), might be provided for in these foundations, and there be free

to serve God, to study, to become scholars and to make scholars. But I

am speaking of the new foundations, which have been established only

for the saying of prayers and masses; for after their example, even

the old foundations have been burdened with like prayers and masses,

so that they are of little or no profit; though it is also of God's

grace that they too come at last, as they deserve, to the dregs, i.

e., to the wailing of organs and of choral singers, and to dead, cold

masses, by which the incomes of the worldly endowments are gotten and

spent.  Such things pope, bishops and doctors should examine and

proscribe; but now it is they who are most given to them. They let

everything pass, if only it brings in money; one blind man is always

leading another. This is the work of avarice and of the spiritual law.



Again, no one person should be allowed any longer to hold more than

one canonry or prebend. He must be content with a modest position,

that some one else may also have something. This would do away with

the excuses of those who say that they must hold more than one such

office to "maintain a proper station." A "proper station" might be so

broadly interpreted that a whole land would not be enough to maintain

it! Moreover avarice and veiled distrust of God assuredly go with it,

so that what is alleged to be the need of "a proper station" is often

nothing else than avarice and distrust.



[Sidenote: Sodalities and Indulgences]



23. Sodalities[218], indulgences, letters of indulgence,

"butter-letters,"[219] mass-letters[220], dispensations, and

everything else of the sort, are to be drowned and destroyed. There is

nothing good in them. If the pope has the power to grant you

dispensation to eat butter and to absent yourself from mass, then he

ought also be able to leave this power to the priests, from whom,

indeed, he has no right to take it. I speak especially of those

fraternities in which indulgences, masses and good works are portioned

out. Dear friend, in your baptism you entered into a fraternity with

Christ, all the angels, saints and Christians on earth. Hold to this

fraternity and live up to its demands, and you have fraternities

enough. The others--let them glitter as they will--are but as counters

compared with _guldens_. But if there were a fraternity which

contributed money to feed the poor or to help somebody in some other

way, such a one would be good, and would have its indulgence and its

merit in heaven. Now, however, they have become excuses or gluttony

and drunkenness[221].



Above all, we should drive out of German lands the papal legates with

their "faculties,"[222] which they sell us for large sums of money,

though that is sheer knavery. For example, in return for money they

legalize unjust gains, dissolve oaths, vows and agreements, break and

teach men to break the faith and fealty which they have pledged to one

another; and they say the pope has the authority to do this. It is the

evil Spirit who bids them say this. Thus they sell us a doctrine of

devils, and take money or teaching us sin and leading us to hell.



If there were no other evil wiles to prove the pope the true

Antichrist, yet this one thing were enough to prove it. Hearest thou

this, pope, not most holy, but most sinful? O that God from heaven

would soon destroy thy throne and sink it in the abyss of hell! Who

hath given thee authority to exalt thyself above thy God, to break and

to loose His commandments, and to teach Christians, especially the

German nation, praised in all history for its nobility, its constancy

and fidelity, to be inconstant, perjurers, traitors, profligates,

faithless? God hath commanded to keep oath and faith even with an

enemy, and thou undertakest to loose this His commandment, and

ordainest in thine heretical, antichristian decretals that thou hast

His power. Thus through thy throat and through thy pen the wicked

Satan doth lie as he hath never lied before. Thou dost force and wrest

the Scriptures to thy fancy. O Christ, my Lord, look down, let the day

of thy judgment break, and destroy the devil's nest at Rome! Here

sitteth the man of whom St. Paul hath said that he shall exalt himself

above Thee, sit in Thy Church and set himself up as God [2 Thess. 2:3

f.],--the man of sin and the son of perdition! What else is the papal

power than only the teaching and increasing of sin and evil, the

leading of souls to damnation under Thy name and guise?



In olden times the children of Israel had to keep the oath which they

had unwittingly been deceived into giving to their enemies, the

Gibeonites [Josh. 9:19 ff.], and King Zedekiah was miserably lost,

with all his people, because he broke this oath to the King of Babylon

[2 Kings 24:20; 25:4 ff.]. Even among us, a hundred years ago, that

fine king of Hungary and Poland, Wladislav[223], was slain by the

Turk, with so many noble people, because he allowed himself to be

deceived by the papal legate and cardinal, and broke the good and

advantageous treaty which he had sworn with the Turk. The pious

Emperor Sigismund had no good fortune after the Council of Constance,

when he allowed the knaves to break the safe-conduct which had been

given to John Hus and Jerome[224] and all the trouble between us and

the Bohemians was the consequence. Even in our own times, God help us!

how much Christian blood has been shed over the oath and alliance

which Pope Julius made between the Emperor Maximilian and King Louis

of France[225], and afterwards broke? How could I tell all the

troubles which the popes have stirred up by the devilish presumption

with which they annul oaths and vows which have been made between

great princes, making a jest of these things, and taking money for it.

I have hopes that the judgment day is at the door; nothing can

possibly be worse than the Roman See. He suppresses God's commandment,

he exalts his own commandment over it; if he is not Antichrist, then

let some one else tell who he can be! But more of this another time,

and better.



24. It is high time that we seriously and honestly consider the case

of the Bohemians[224], and come into union with them so that the

terrible slander, hatred and envy on both sides may cease. As befits

my folly, I shall be the first to submit an opinion on this subject,

with due deference to every one who may understand the case better

than I.



_First_, We must honestly confess the truth, stop justifying

ourselves, and grant the Bohemians that John Hus and Jerome of Prague

were burned at Constance in violation of the papal, Christian,

imperial safe-conduct and oath; whereby God's commandment was sinned

against and the Bohemians were given ample cause for bitterness; and

although they ought to have been perfect and to have patiently endured

this great injustice and disobedience of God on our part, nevertheless

they were not bound to approve of it and to acknowledge that it was

well done. Nay, even to-day they should give up life and limb rather

than confess that it is right to violate an imperial, papal, Christian

safe-conduct, and faithlessly to act contrary to it. So then, although

it is the impatience of the Bohemians which is at fault, yet the pope

and his followers are still more to blame for all the trouble, error

and loss of souls that have followed upon that council.



I have no desire to pass judgment at this time upon John Hus's

articles or to defend his errors, though I have not yet found any

errors in his writings, and I am quite prepared to believe that it was

neither fair judgment nor honest condemnation which was passed by

those who, in their faithless dealing, violated a Christian

safe-conduct and a commandment of God. Beyond doubt they were

possessed rather by the evil spirit than by the Holy Spirit. No one

will doubt that the Holy Spirit does not act contrary to the

commandment of God; and no one is so ignorant as not to know that the

violation of faith and of a safe-conduct is contrary to the

commandment of God, even though they had been promised to the devil

himself, still more when the promise was made to a mere heretic. It is

also quite evident that such a promise was made to John Hus and the

Bohemians and was not kept, but that he was burned in spite of it. I

do not wish, however, to make John Hus a saint or a martyr, as do some

of the Bohemians, though I confess that injustice was done him, and

that his books and doctrines were unjustly condemned; for the

judgments of God are secret and terrible, and no one save God alone

should undertake to reveal or utter them. All I wish to say is this:

though he were never so wicked a heretic, nevertheless he was burned

unjustly and against God's commandment, and the Bohemians should not

be forced to approve of such conduct, or else we shall never come into

unity. Not obstinacy but the open admission of truth must make us one.

It is useless to pretend, as was done at that time, that a

safe-conduct given to a heretic need not be kept[227]. That is as much

as to say that God's commandments are not to be kept to the end that

God's commandments may be kept. The devil made them mad and foolish,

so that they did not know what they were saying or doing. God has

commanded that a safe-conduct shall be kept. This commandment we

should keep though the world all. How much more, when it is only a

question of freeing a heretic! We should vanquish heretics with books,

not with burning; for so the ancient fathers did. If it were a science

to vanquish the heretics with fire, then the hang-men would be the

most learned doctors on earth; we should no longer need to study, but

he who overcame another by force might burn him at the stake.



_Second_, The emperor and the princes should send to the Bohemians

some pious and sensible bishops and scholars; but by no means a

cardinal or papal legate or inquisitor, for those people are utter

ignoramuses as regards things Christian; they seek not the welfare of

souls, but, like all the pope's hypocrites, only their own power,

profit and glory; indeed, they were the prime movers in this miserable

business at Constance. The men thus sent into Bohemia should inform

themselves about the faith of the Bohemians, and whether it be

possible to unite all their sects. Then the pope should, for their

souls' sake, lay aside his supremacy for the time being, and,

according to the decree of the most Christian Council of Nicaea[228],

allow the Bohemians to choose one of their number to be Archbishop of

Prague[229], and he should be confirmed by the bishop of Olmutz in

Moravia, or the bishop of Gran in Hungary, or the bishop of Gnesen in

Poland, or the bishop of Magdeburg in Germany[230]. It will be enough

if he is confirmed by one or two of these, as was the custom in the

time of St. Cyprian[231]. The pope has no right to oppose such an

arrangement, and if he does oppose it, he becomes a wolf and a tyrant;

no one should follow him and his ban should be met with a counter-ban.



If, however, it were desired, in honor of the See of St. Peter, to do

this with the pope's consent, I should be satisfied, provided it does

not cost the Bohemians a _heller_ and the pope does not bind them at

all nor make them subject to his tyrannies by oaths and obligations,

as he does all other bishops, in despite of God and of justice. If he

will not be satisfied with the honor of having his consent asked, then

let them not bother any more about him[232] and his rights, laws and

tyrannies; let the election suffice, and let the blood of all the

souls which are endangered cry out against him, for no one should

consent to injustice; it is enough to have offered tyranny an honor.

If it cannot be otherwise, then an election and approval by the common

people can even now be quite as valid as a confirmation by a tyrant;

but I hope this will not be necessary. Some of the Romans or the good

bishops and scholars will sometime mark and oppose papal tyranny.



I would also advise against compelling them to abolish both kinds in

the sacrament[233], since that is neither unchristian nor heretical,

but they should be allowed to retain their own practice, if they wish.

Yet the new bishop should be careful that no discord arise because of

such a practice, but should kindly instruct them that neither practice

is wrong[234]; just as it ought not to cause dissension that the

clergy differ from the laity in manner of life and in dress. In like

manner if they were unwilling to receive the Roman canon law, they

should not be forced to do so, but we should first make sure that they

live in accordance with faith and with the Scriptures. For Christian

faith and life can well exist without the intolerable laws of the

pope, nay, they cannot well exist unless there be fewer of these Roman

laws, or none at all. In baptism we have become free and have been

made subject to God's Word only; why should any man ensnare us in his

words? As St.  Paul says, "Ye have become free, be not servants of

men," [1 Cor.  7:23; Gal. 5:1] i. e. of those who rule with man-made

laws.



If I knew that the Picards[235] held no other error touching the

sacrament of the altar except that they believe that the bread and

wine are present in their true nature, but that the body and blood of

Christ are truly present under them, then I would not condemn them,

but would let them enter the obedience of the bishop of Prague. For it

is not an article of faith that bread and wine are not essentially and

naturally in the sacrament, but this is an opinion of St. Thomas[236]

and the pope. On the other hand, it is an article of faith that in the

natural bread and wine the true natural body and blood of Christ are

present[237]. And so we should tolerate the opinions of both sides

until they come to an agreement, because there is no danger in

believing that bread is there or is not there. For we have to endure

many practices and ordinances so long as they are not harmful to

faith. On the other hand, if they had a different faith[238], I would

rather have them outside the Church; yet I would teach them the truth.



Whatever other errors and schisms might be discovered in Bohemia

should be tolerated until the archbishop had been restored and had

gradually brought all the people together again in one common

doctrine. They will assuredly never be united by force, nor by

defiance, nor by haste; it will take time and forbearance. Had not

even Christ to tarry with His disciples a long while and bear with

their unbelief, until they believed His resurrection? If they but had

again a regular bishop and church order, without Roman tyranny, I

could hope that things would soon be better.



The restoration of the temporal goods which formerly belonged to the

Church should not be too strictly demanded, but since we are

Christians and each is bound to help the rest, it is in our power, for

the sake of unity, to give them these things and let them keep them in

the sight of God and men. For Christ says, "Where two are at one with

each other on earth, there am I in the midst of them." [Matt. 18:19

f.] Would to God that on both sides we were working toward this unity,

offering our hands to one another in brotherly humility, and not

standing stubbornly on our powers or rights! Love is greater and more

necessary than the papacy at Rome, or there can be papacy without love

and love without papacy.



With this counsel I shall have done what I could. If the pope or his

followers hinder it, they shall render an account for seeking their

own things rather than the things of their neighbor, contrary to the

love of God [Phil. 2:4]. The pope ought to give up his papacy and all

his possessions and honors, if he could by that means save one soul;

but now he would let the world go to destruction rather than yield a

hair's-breadth of his presumptuous authority. And yet he would be the

"most holy"! Here my responsibility ends.



[Sidenote: The Universities]



[Sidenote: Aristotle]



25. The universities also need a good, thorough reformation--I must

say it no matter whom it vexes--for everything which the papacy has

instituted and ordered is directed only towards the increasing of sin

and error. What else are the universities, if their present condition

remains unchanged, than as the book of Maccabees says, _Gymnasia

Epheborum et Graecae gloriae_[239][2 Macc. 4:9, 12], in which loose

living prevails, the Holy Scriptures and the Christian faith are

little taught, and the blind, heathen Aristotle master Aristotle[240]

rules alone, even more than Christ. In this regard my advice would be

that Aristotle's _Physics_, _Metaphysics_, _On the Soul_, _Ethics_,

which have hitherto been thought his best books, should be altogether

discarded, together with all the rest of his books which boast of

treating the things of nature, although nothing can be learned from

them either of the things of nature or the things of the Spirit.

Moreover no one has so far understood his meaning, and many souls have

been burdened with profitless labor and study, at the cost of much

precious time. I venture to say that any potter has more knowledge of

nature than is written in these books. It grieves me to the heart that

this damned, conceited, rascally heathen has with his false words

deluded and made fools of so many of the best Christians. God has sent

him as a plague upon us for our sins.



Why, this wretched man, in his best book, _On the Soul_, teaches that

the soul dies with the body, although many have tried with vain words

to save his reputation. As though we had not the Holy Scriptures, in

which we are abundantly instructed about all things, and of them

Aristotle had not the faintest inkling! And yet this dead heathen has

conquered and obstructed and almost suppressed the books of the living

God, so that when I think of this miserable business I can believe

nothing else than that the evil spirit has introduced the study of

Aristotle. Again, his book on _Ethics_ is the worst of all books. It

flatly opposes divine grace and all Christian virtues, and yet it is

considered one of his best works. Away with such books! Keep them away

from all Christians! Let no one accuse me of exaggeration, or of

condemning what I do not understand! My dear friend, I know well

whereof I speak. I know my Aristotle as well as you or the likes of

you. I have lectured on him[241] and heard lectures on him, and I

understand him better than do St. Thomas or Scotus[242]. This I can

say without pride, and if necessary I can prove it. I care not that so

many great minds have wearied themselves over him for so many hundred

years. Such objections do not disturb me as once they did; for it is

plain as day that other errors have remained or even more centuries in

the world and in the universities.



I should be glad to see Aristotle's books on _Logic_, _Rhetoric_ and

_Poetics_ retained or used in an abridged form; as text-books for the

profitable training of young people in speaking and preaching. But the

commentaries and notes should be abolished, and as Cicero's _Rhetoric_

is read without commentaries and notes, so Aristotle's _Logic_ should

be read as it is, without such a mass of comments. But now neither

speaking nor preaching is learned from it, and it has become nothing

but a disputing and a weariness to the flesh. Besides this there are

the languages--Latin, Greek and Hebrew--the mathematical disciplines

and history. But all this I give over to the specialists, and, indeed,

the reform would come of itself, if we were only seriously bent upon

it. In truth, much depends upon it; for it is here[243] that the

Christian youth and the best of our people, with whom the future of

Christendom lies, are to be educated and trained. Therefore I consider

that there is no work more worthy of pope or emperor than a thorough

reformation of the universities, and there is nothing worse or more

worthy of the devil than unreformed universities.



[Sidenote: The Canon Law]



The medical men I leave to reform their own faculties; the jurists and

theologians I take as my share, and I say, in the first place, that it

were well if the canon law, from the first letter to the last, and

especially the decretals, were utterly blotted out. The Bible contains

more than enough directions for all our living, and so the study of

the canon law only stands in the way of the study of the Holy

Scriptures; moreover, it smacks for the most part of mere avarice and

pride. Even though there were much in it that is good, it might as

well be destroyed, for the pope has taken the whole canon law captive

and imprisoned it in the "chamber of his heart,"[244] so that the

study of it is henceorth a waste of time and a farce. At present the

canon law is not what is in the books, but what is in the sweet will

of the pope and his flatterers. Your cause may be thoroughly

established in the canon law; still the pope has his _scrinium

pectoris_[245], and all law and the whole world must be guided by

that. Now it is ofttimes a knave, and even the devil himself, who

rules this _scrinium_, and they boast that it is ruled by the Holy

Spirit! Thus they deal with Christ's unfortunate people. They give

them many laws and themselves keep none of them, but others they

compel either to keep them or else to buy release.



Since, then, the pope and his followers have suspended the whole canon

law, and since they pay no heed to it, but regard their own wanton

will as a law exalting them above all the world, we should follow

their example and for our part also reject these books. Why should we

waste our time studying them? We could never discover the whole

arbitrary will of the pope, which has now become the canon law. The

canon law has arisen in the devil's name, let it all in the name of

God, and let there be no more _doctores decretorum_[246] in the world,

but only _doctores scrinii papalis_, that is, "hypocrites of the

pope"! It is said that there is no better temporal rule anywhere than

among the Turks, who have neither spiritual nor temporal law, but only

their Koran; and we must confess that there is no more shameful rule

than among us, with our spiritual and temporal law, so that there is

no estate which lives according to the light of nature, still less

according to Holy Scripture.



[Sidenote: Secular Law]



The temporal law,--God help us! what a wilderness it has become![247]

Though it is much better, wiser and more rational than the "spiritual

law" which has nothing good about it except the name, still there is

far too much of it. Surely the Holy Scriptures and good rulers would

be law enough; as St. Paul says in I Corinthians vi, "Is there no one

among you can judge his neighbor's cause, that ye must go to law

before heathen courts?" [1 Cor. 6:1] It seems just to me that

territorial laws and territorial customs should take precedence of the

general imperial laws, and the imperial laws be used only in case of

necessity. Would to God that as every land has its own peculiar

character, so it were ruled by its own brief laws, as the lands were

ruled before these imperial laws were invented, and many lands are

still ruled without them! These diffuse and far-etched laws are only a

burden to the people, and hinder causes more than they help them. I

hope, however, that others have given this matter more thought and

attention than I am able to do.



[Sidenote: Theology]



My friends the theologians have spared themselves pains and labor;

they leave the Bible in peace and read the Sentences. I should think

that the Sentences[248] ought to be the first study of young students

in theology and the Bible ought to be the study for the doctors. But

now it is turned around; the Bible comes first, and is put aside when

the bachelor's degree is reached, and the Sentences come last. They

are attached forever to the doctorate, and that with such a solemn

obligation that a man who is not a priest may indeed read the Bible,

but the Sentences a priest must read. A married man, I observe, could

be a Doctor of the Bible, but under no circumstances a Doctor of the

Sentences. What good fortune can we expect if we act so perversely and

in this way put the Bible, the holy Word of God, so far to the rear?

Moreover the pope commands, with many severe words, that his laws are

to be read and used in the schools and the courts, but little is said

of the Gospel. Thus it is the custom that in the schools and the

courts the Gospel lies idle in the dust under the bench[249], to the

end that the pope's harmful laws may rule alone.



If we are called by the title of teachers[250] of Holy Scripture, then

we ought to be compelled, in accordance with our name, to teach the

Holy Scriptures and nothing else, although even this title is too

proud and boastful and no one ought to be proclaimed and crowned

teacher of Holy Scripture. Yet it might be suffered, if the work

justified the name; but now, under the despotism of the Sentences, we

find among the theologians more of heathen and human opinion than of

the holy and certain doctrine of Scripture. What, then, are we to do?

I know of no other way than humbly to pray God to give us Doctors of

Theology, Pope, emperor and universities may make Doctors of Arts, of

Medicine, of Laws, of the Sentences; but be assured that no one will

make a Doctor of Holy Scripture, save only the Holy Ghost from heaven,

as Christ says in John vi, "They must all be taught of God Himself."

[John 6:45] Now the Holy Ghost does not concern Himself about red or

brown birettas[251] or other decorations, nor does He ask whether one

is old or young, layman or priest, monk or secular, virgin or married;

nay He spake of old by an ass, against the prophet who rode upon it

[Num. 22:28]. Would God that we were worthy to have such doctors given

us, whether they were layman or priests, married or virgin. True, they

now try to force the Holy Ghost into pope, bishops and doctors,

although there is no sign or indication whatever that He is in them.



[Sidenote: Theological Textbooks]



The number of theological books must also be lessened, and a selection

made of the best of them. For it is not many books or much reading

that makes men learned; but it is good things, however little of them,

often read, that make men learned in the Scriptures, and make them

godly, too. Indeed the writings of all the holy fathers should be read

only for a time, in order that through them we may be led to the Holy

Scriptures. As it is, however, we read them only to be absorbed in

them and never come to the Scriptures. We are like men who study the

sign-posts and never travel the road. The dear fathers wished, by

their writings, to lead us to the Scriptures, but we so use them as to

be led away from the Scriptures, though the Scriptures alone are our

vineyard in which we ought all to work and toil.



[Sidenote: Schools]



Above all, the foremost and most general subject of study, both in the

higher and the lower schools, should be the Holy Scriptures, and for

the young boys the Gospel. And would to God that every town had a

girls' school also, in which the girls were taught the Gospel for an

hour each day either in German or Latin. Indeed the schools,

monasteries and nunneries began long ago with that end in view, and it

was a praiseworthy and Christian purpose, as we learn from the story

of St. Agnes[252] and other of the saints. That was the time of holy

virgins and martyrs, and then it was well with Christendom; but now

they[253] have come to nothing but praying and singing. Ought not

every Christian at his ninth or tenth year to know the entire holy

Gospel from which he derives his name[254] and his life? A spinner or

a seamstress teaches her daughter the trade in her early years; but

now even the great, learned prelates and bishops themselves do not

know the Gospel.



O how unjustly we deal with these poor young people who are committed

to us for direction and instruction! We must give a terrible accounting

or our neglect to set the Word of God before them. They are as

Jeremiah says in Lamentations ii: "Mine eyes are grown weary with

weeping, my bowels are terrified, my liver is poured out upon the

ground, because of the destruction of the daughter of my people, or

the youth and the children perish in all the streets of the whole

city; they said to their mothers, Where is bread and wine? and they

swooned as the wounded in the streets of the city and gave up the

ghost in their mothers' bosom." [Lam. 2:11 ff.] This pitiful evil we

do not see,--how even now the young folk in the midst of Christendom

languish and perish miserably for want of the Gospel, in which we

ought to be giving them constant instruction and training.



[Sidenote: Restriction of Number of Students]



Moreover, if the universities were diligent in the study of Holy

Scripture, we should not send everybody there, as we do when all we

ask is numbers, and everyone wishes to have a doctor's degree; but we

should send only the best qualified students, who have previously been

well trained in the lower schools. A prince or city council ought to

see to this, and permit only the well qualified to be sent. But where

the Holy Scriptures do not rule, there I advise no one to send his

son. Everyone not unceasingly busy with the Word of God must become

corrupt; that is why the people who are in the universities and who

are trained there are the kind of people they are. For this no one is

to blame but the pope, the bishops and the prelates, who are charged

with the training of the youth. For the universities ought to turn out

only men who are experts in the Holy Scriptures, who can become

bishops and priests, leaders in the fight against heretics, the devil

and all the world. But where do you find this true? I greatly fear that

the universities are wide gates of hell, if they do not diligently

teach the Holy Scriptures and impress them on the youth.



[Sidenote: The Pope and the Holy Roman Empire]



26.[255] I know full well that the Roman crowd will make pretensions

and great boasts about how the pope took the Holy Roman Empire from

the Greek Emperor[256] and bestowed it on the Germans, for which honor

and benevolence he is said to have justly deserved and obtained from

the Germans submission and thanks and all good things. For this reason

they will, perhaps, undertake to throw to the winds all attempts to

reform them, and will not allow us to think about anything but the

bestowal of the Roman Empire. For this cause they have heretofore

persecuted and oppressed many a worthy emperor so arbitrarily and

arrogantly that it is pity to tell of it, and with the same adroitness

they have made themselves overlords of all the temporal powers and

authorities, contrary to the Holy Gospel. Of this too I must therefore

speak.



There is no doubt that the true Roman Empire, which the writings of

the prophets foretold in Numbers xxiv [Num. 24:24] and in Daniel [Dan.

2:39 ff.], has long since been overthrown and brought to an end, as

Balaam clearly prophesied in Numbers xxiv, when he said: "The Romans

shall come and overthrow the Jews; and afterwards they also shall be

destroyed." That was brought to pass by the Goths[257], but especially

when the Turkish Empire arose almost a thousand years ago[258]; then

in time Asia and Africa fell away, and finally Venice arose, and there

remained to Rome nothing of its former power.



Now when the pope could not subdue to his arrogant will the Greeks and

the emperor at Constantinople, who was hereditary Roman Emperor, he

bethought himself of this device, viz., to rob him of his empire and

his title and turn it over to the Germans, who were at that time

warlike and of good repute, so as to bring the power of the Roman

Empire under his control and give it away as a fief. So too it turned

out. It was taken away from the emperor at Constantinople and its name

and title were given to us Germans. Thereby we became the servants of

the pope, and there is now a second Roman Empire, which the pope has

built upon the Germans; for the other, which was first, has long since

fallen, as I have said.



So then the Roman See has its will. It has taken possession of Rome,

driven out the German Emperor and bound him with oaths not to dwell at

Rome. He is to be Roman Emperor, and yet he is not to have possession

of Rome, and besides he is at all times to be dependent upon the

caprice of the pope and his followers, so that we have the name and

they have the land and cities. They have always abused our simplicity

to serve their own arrogance and tyranny, and they call us mad

Germans, who let ourselves be made apes and fools at their bidding.



Ah well! For God the Lord it is a small thing to toss empires and

principalities to and fro! He is so generous with them that once in a

while He gives a kingdom to a knave and takes it from a good man,

sometimes by the treachery of wicked, faithless men and sometimes by

heredity, as we read of the Kingdoms of Persia and Greece, and of

almost all kingdoms; and Daniel ii and iv says: "He Who ruleth over

all things dwelleth in heaven, and it is He alone Who changeth

kingdoms, tosseth them to and fro, and maketh them." [Dan. 2:21; 4:14]

Since, therefore, no one can think it a great thing to have a kingdom

given him, especially if he is a Christian, we Germans too cannot be

puffed up because a new Roman Empire is bestowed on us; for in His

eyes it is a trifling gift, which He often gives to the most unworthy,

as Daniel iv says: "All who dwell upon the earth are in His eyes as

nothing, and He has power in all the kingdoms of men, to give them to

whomsoever He will." [Dan. 4:35]



But although the pope unjustly and by violence robbed the true emperor

of his Roman Empire, or of its name, and gave it to us Germans, it is

certain, nevertheless, that in this matter God has used the pope's

wickedness to give such an empire to the German nation, and after the

all of the first Roman Empire, to set up another, which still exists.

And although we gave no occasion to this wickedness of the popes, and

did not understand their false aims and purposes, nevertheless,

through this papal trickery and roguery, we have already paid too

dearly for our empire, with incalculable bloodshed, with the

suppression of our liberty, with the risk and robbery of all our

goods, especially the goods of the churches and canonries, and with

the suffering of unspeakable deception and insult. We have the name of

the empire, but the pope has our wealth, honor, body, life, soul and

all that is ours. So we Germans are to be cheated in the trade[259].

What the popes sought was to be emperors, and since they could not

manage that, they at least succeeded in setting themselves over the

emperors.



Because then, the empire has been given us without our fault, by the

providence of God and the plotting of evil men, I would not advise

that we give it up, but rather that we rule it wisely and in the fear

of God, so long as it shall please Him. For, as has been said, it

matters not to Him where an empire comes from; it is His will that it

shall be ruled. Though the popes took it dishonestly from others,

nevertheless we did not get it dishonestly. It is given us by the will

of God through evil-minded men; and we have more regard for God's will

than for the treacherous purpose of the popes, who, in bestowing it,

wished to be emperors themselves, and more than emperors, and only to

fool and mock us with the name. The King of Babylon also seized his

empire by robbery and force; yet it was God's will that it should be

ruled by the holy princes, Daniel, Hananiah, Azariah and Mishael [Dan

3:30; 5:29]; much more then is it His will that this empire be ruled

by the Christian princes of Germany, regardless whether the pope stole

it, or got it by robbery, or made it anew. It is all God's ordering,

which came to pass before we knew of it.



Therefore the pope and his followers may not boast that they have done

a great favor to the German nation by the bestowal of this Roman

Empire. _First_, because they did not mean it for our good, but were

rather taking advantage of our simplicity in order to strengthen

themselves in their proud designs against the Roman Emperor at

Constantinople, from whom the pope godlessly and lawlessly took this

empire, a thing which he had no right to do. _Second_, because the

pope's intention was not to give us the empire, but to get it for

himself, that he might bring all our power, our freedom, wealth, body

and soul into subjection to himself and use us (if God had not

prevented) to subdue all the world. He clearly says so himself in his

decretals, and he has attempted it, by many evil wiles, with a number

of the German emperors. How beautifully we Germans have been taught

our German! When we thought to be lords, we became slaves of the most

deceitful tyrants; we have the name, title and insignia of the empire,

but the pope has its treasures, its authority, its law and its

liberty. So the pope gobbles the kernel, and we play with the empty

hulls.



Now may God, Who by the wiles of tyrants has tossed this empire into

our lap, and charged us with the ruling of it, help us to live up to

the name, title and insignia, to rescue our liberty, and to show the

Romans, for once, what it is that we, through them, have received from

God! They boast that they have bestowed on us an empire. So be it,

then! If it is true, then let the pope give us Rome and everything

else which he has got from the empire; let him free our land from his

intolerable taxing and robbing, and give us back our liberty,

authority, wealth, honor, body and soul; let the empire be what an

empire should be, and let his words and pretensions be fulfilled!



If he will not do that, then why all this shamming, these false and

lying words and juggler's tricks? Is he not satisfied with having so

rudely led this noble nation by the nose these many hundred years

without ceasing? It does not follow that the pope must be above an

emperor because he makes or crowns him. The prophet Samuel at God's

command anointed and crowned Kings Saul and David, and yet he was

their subject; and the prophet Nathan anointed King Solomon, but was

not set over him on that account [1 Sam. 16:1; 16:13]; Elisha too had

one of his servants anoint Jehu King of Israel [1 Kings 1:38 f.], and

yet they remained obedient and subject to him [2 Kings 9:1 ff.].

Except in the case of the pope, it has never happened in all the

world's history that he who consecrated or crowned the king was over

the king. He lets himself be crowned pope by three cardinals, who are

under him, and he is nevertheless their superior. Why then should he,

contrary to the example which he himself sets, and contrary to the

custom and teaching of all the world and of the Scriptures, exalt

himself above temporal authorities, or the empire, simply because he

crowns or consecrates the emperor? It is enough that he should be the

emperor's superior in divine things, to wit, in preaching, teaching

and administering the sacraments, in which things, indeed, any bishop

or priest is over every other man, as St. Ambrose in his See was over

the emperor Theodosius[260], and the prophet Nathan over David, and

Samuel over Saul. Therefore, let the German Emperor be really and

truly emperor, and let not his authority or his sword be put down by

this blind pretension of papal hypocrites, as though they were to be

excepted from his dominion and themselves direct the temporal sword in

all things.]



[Sidenote: Economic and Social Reforms]



27. Enough has now been said about the failings of the clergy, though

more of them can and will be found if these are properly considered.

We would say something too about the failings of the temporal estate.



[Sidenote: Luxury in Dress]



1. There is great need of a general law and decree of the German

nation against the extravagance and excess in dress, by which so many

nobles and rich men are impoverished[251]. God has given to us, as to

other lands, enough wool, hair, lax and every thing else which

properly serves or the seemly and honorable dress of every rank, so

that we do not need to spend and waste such enormous sums or silk and

velvet and golden ornaments and other foreign wares. I believe that

even if the pope had not robbed us Germans with his intolerable

exactions, we should still have our hands more than full with these

domestic robbers, the silk and velvet merchants[262]. In the matter of

clothes, as we see, everybody wants to be equal to everybody else, and

pride and envy are aroused and increased among us, as we deserve. All

this and much more misery would be avoided if our curiosity would only

let us be thankful, and be satisfied with the goods which God has

given us.



[Sidenote: The Spice Trade]



2. In like manner it is also necessary to restrict the

spice-traffic[263] which is another of the great ships in which money

is carried out of German lands. There grows among us, by God's grace,

more to eat and drink than in any other land, and just as choice and

good. Perhaps the proposals that I make may seem foolish and

impossible and give the impression that I want to suppress the

greatest of all trades, that of commerce; but I am doing what I can. I

reforms are not generally introduced, then let every one who is

willing reform himself. I do not see that many good customs have ever

come to a land through commerce, and in ancient times God made His

people of Israel dwell away from the sea on this account, and did not

let them engage much in commerce.



[Sidenote: The Traffic in Annuities]



3. But the greatest misfortune of the German nation is certainly the

traffic in annuities[264]. If that did not exist many a man would have

to leave unbought his silks, velvets, golden ties ornaments, spices

and ornaments of every sort. It has not existed much over a hundred

years, and has already brought almost all princes, cities, endowed

institutions, nobles and their heirs to poverty, misery and ruin; if

it shall continue or another hundred years Germany cannot possibly

have a _pfennig_ left and we shall certainly have to devour one

another.  The devil invented the practice, and the pope, by confirming

it[265], has injured the whole world. Therefore I ask and pray that

everyone open his eyes to see the ruin of himself, his children and

his heirs, which not only stands before the door, but already haunts

the house, and that emperor, princes, lords and cities do their part

that this trade be condemned as speedily as possible, and henceforth

prevented, regardless whether or not the pope, with all his law and

unlaw, is opposed to it, and whether or not benefices or church

foundations are based upon it. It is better that there should be in a

city one living based on an honest freehold or revenue, than a hundred

based on an annuity; indeed a living based on an annuity is worse and

more grievous than twenty based on freeholds. In truth this traffic in

rents must be a sign and symbol that the world, for its grievous sins,

has been sold to the devil, so that both temporal and spiritual

possessions must fail us, and yet we do not notice it at all.



Here, too, we must put a bit in the mouth of the Fuggers and similar

corporations[266]. How is it possible that in the lifetime of a single

man such great possessions, worthy of a king, can be piled up, and yet

everything be done legally and according to God's will? I am not a

mathematician, but I do not understand how a man with a hundred gulden

can make a profit of twenty gulden in one year, nay, how with one

gulden he can make another[267]; and that, too, by another way than

agriculture or cattle-raising, in which increase of wealth depends not

on human wits, but on God's blessing. I commend this to the men of

affairs. I am a theologian, and find nothing to blame in it except its

evil and offending appearance, of which St. Paul says, "Avoid every

appearance or show of evil." [1 Thess. 5:22] This I know well, that it

would be much more pleasing to God if we increased agriculture and

diminished commerce, and that they do much better who, according to

the Scriptures, till the soil and seek their living from it, as was

said to us and to all men in Adam, "Accursed be the earth when thou

laborest therein, it shall bear thee thistles and thorns, and in the

sweat of thy face shalt thou eat thy bread." [Gen. 3:17 ff.] There is

still much land lying untilled.



[Sidenote: Excesses in Eating and Drinking]



4. Next comes the abuse of eating and drinking[268] which gives us

Germans a bad reputation in foreign lands, as though it were our

special vice. Preaching cannot stop it; it has become too common, and

has got too firmly the upper hand. The waste of money which it causes

would be a small thing, were it not followed by other sins,--murder,

adultery, stealing, irreverence and all the vices. The temporal sword

can do something to prevent it; or else it will be as Christ says:

"The last day shall come like a secret snare, when they shall be

eating and drinking, marrying and wooing, building and planting,

buying and selling." [Luke 21:34 f.] It is so much like that now that

I verily believe the judgment day is at the door, though men are

thinking least of all about it.



[Sidenote: The Social Evil]



5. Finally, is it not a pitiful thing that we Christians should

maintain among us open and common houses of prostitution, though all

of us are baptised unto chastity? I know very well what some say to

this, to wit, that it is not the custom of any one people, that it is

hard to break up, that it is better that there should be such houses

than that married women, or maidens, or those of more honorable estate

should be outraged. But should not the temporal, Christian government

consider that in this heathen way the evil is not to be controlled? I

the people of Israel could exist without such an abomination, why

could not Christian people do as much? Nay, how do many cities, towns

and villages exist without such houses? Why should not great cities

also exist without them?



In this, and in the other matters above mentioned, I have tried to

point out how many good works the temporal government could do, and

what should be the duty of every government, to the end that every one

may learn what an awful responsibility it is to rule, and to have high

station. What good would it do that an overlord were in his own life

as holy as St. Peter, if he have not the purpose diligently to help

his subjects in these matters? His very authority will condemn him!

For it is the duty of the authorities to seek the highest good of

their subjects. But if the authorities were to consider how the young

people might be brought together in marriage, the hope of entering the

married state would greatly help every one to endure and to resist

temptation.



[Sidenote: Celibacy and Its Abuses]



But now every man is drawn to the priesthood or the monastic life, and

among them, I fear, there is not one in a hundred who has any other

reason than that he seeks a living, and doubts that he will ever be

able to support himself in the estate of matrimony. Therefore they

live wildly enough beforehand, and wish, as they say, to "wear out

their lust," but rather wear it in[269], as experience shows. I find

the proverb true, "Despair makes most of the monks and priests"[270];

and so things are as we see them.



My faithful counsel is that, in order to avoid many sins which have

become very common, neither boy nor maid should take the vow of

chastity, or of the "spiritual life," before the age of thirty

years[271]. It is, as St. Paul says, a peculiar gift [1 Cor. 7].

Therefore let him whom God does not constrain, put off becoming a

cleric and taking the vows. Nay, I will go farther and say, If you

trust God so little that you are not willing to support yourself as a

married man, and wish to become a cleric only because of this

distrust, then for the sake of your own soul, I beg of you not to

become a cleric, but rather a farmer, or whatever else you please. For

if to obtain your temporal support you must have one measure of trust

in God, you must have ten measures of trust to continue in the life of

a cleric. If you do not trust God to support you in the world, how

will you trust him to support you in the Church? Alas, unbelief and

distrust spoil everything and lead us into all misery, as we see in

every estate of life!



Much could be said of this miserable condition. The young people have

no one to care for them. They all do as they please, and the

government is of as much use to them as if it did not exist; and yet

this should be the chief concern of pope, bishops, lords and councils.

They wish to rule far and wide, and yet to help no one. O, what a rare

bird will a lord and ruler be in heaven just on this account, even

though he build a hundred churches or God and raise up all the dead!



[Sidenote: Conclusion]



[Let this suffice for this time! Of what the temporal powers and the

nobility ought to do, I think I have said enough in the little book.

_On Good Works_[272]. There is room for improvement in their lives and

in their rule, and yet the abuses of the temporal power are not to be

compared with those of the spiritual power, as I have there

shown.][273]



I think too that I have pitched my song in a high key, have made many

propositions which will be thought impossible and have attacked many

things too sharply. But what am I to do? I am in duty bound to speak.

If I were able, these are the things I should wish to do. I prefer the

wrath of the world to the wrath of God; they can do no more than take

my life[274]. Many times heretofore I have made overtures of peace to

my opponents; but as I now see, God has through them compelled me to

open my mouth wider and wider and give them enough to say, bark, shout

and write, since they have nothing else to do. Ah well, I know another

little song about Rome and about them if I their ears itch for it I

will sing them that song too, and pitch the notes to the top of the

scale. Understandest thou, dear Rome, what I mean?



I have many times offered my writings for investigation and judgment,

but it has been of no use. To be sure, I know that if my cause is

just, it must be condemned on earth, and approved only by Christ in

heaven; or all the Scriptures show that the cause of Christians and of

Christendom must be judged by God alone. Such a cause has never yet

been approved by men on earth, but the opposition has always been too

great and strong. It is my greatest care and fear that my cause may

remain uncondemned, by which I should know or certain that it was not

yet pleasing to God.



Therefore let them boldly go to work,--pope, bishop, priest, monk and

scholar! They are the right people to persecute the truth, as they

have ever done.



God give us all a Christian mind, and especially to the Christian

nobility of the German nation a right spiritual courage to do the best

that can be done for the poor Church. Amen.



Wittenberg, 1520.





FOOTNOTES





[1] _Unserm furnchmen nach_. See Introduction, p. 57.



[2] An ironical comparison of the monks' cowl and tonsure with the

headgear of the jester.



[3] i. e., Which one turns out to be the real fool.



[4] The proverb ran, _Monachus semper praesens_, "a monk is always

there." See Wander, _Deutsches Sprichworterlexicon_, under Monch, No.

130.



[5] Evidently a reference to the _Gravamina of the German Nation_; see

Gebhardt, _Die Grav. der Deutschen Nation_, Breslau, 1895.



[6] Councils of the Church, especially those of Constance (1414-18),

and of Basel (1431-39).



[7] Charles V. was elected Emperor in 1519, when but twenty years of

age. Hutten expresses his "hopes of good" from Charles in _Vadiscus_

(Bocking, IV, 156).



[8] Frederick Barbarossa (1152-1100).



[9] Frederick II (1212-1250), grandson of Barbarossa and last of the

great Hohenstaufen Emperors. He died under excommunication.



[10] Pope Julius II (1503-1513). Notorious among the popes for his

unscrupulous pursuit of political power, he was continually involved

in war with one and another of the European powers over the possession

of territories in Italy.



[11] Luther's recollection of the figures was faulty.



[12] The term "Romanist" is applied by Luther to the champions of the

extreme form of papal supremacy. C. Vol. I, p. 343 f.



[13] i. e., The three rods for the punishment of an evil pope.



[14] _Spuknisse_, literally "ghosts." The gist of the sentence is,

"the Romanists have frightened the world with ghost-stories."



[15] _Olegotze_--"an image anointed with holy oil to make it sacred";

in modern German, "a blockhead."



[16] Lay-baptism in view of imminent death is a practice as old as the

Christian Church. The right of the laity to administer baptism in such

cases was expressly recognized by the Council of Elvira, in the year

306, and the decree of that Council became a part of the law of the

Church. The right of the laity to give absolution in such cases rests

on the principle that in the absence of the appointed official of the

Church any Christian can do for any other Christian the things that

are absolutely necessary or salvation, for "necessity knows no law."

Cf. Vol. I, p. 30, note 2.



[17] The canon law, called by Luther throughout this treatise and

elsewhere, the "spiritual law," is a general name for the decrees of

councils ("canons" in the strict sense) and decisions of the popes

("decretals," "constitutions," etc.), promulgated by authority of the

popes, and collected in the so-called _Corpus juris canonici_. It

comprised the whole body of Church law, and embodied in legal forms

the mediaeval theory of papal absolutism, which accounts for the

bitterness with which Luther speaks of it, especially in this

treatise. The Corpus includes the following collections of canons and

decretals: The _Decretum of Gratian_ (1142), the _Liber Extra_ (1234),

the _Liber Sextus_ (1298), the _Constitutiones Clementinae_ (1318 or

1317), and the two books of _Extravagantes_ ,--the _Extravagantes of

John XXII_, and the _Extravagantes communes_. The last pope whose

decrees are included is Sixtus IV (died 1484). See _Catholic

Encyclop._,IV, pp. 391 ff.



[18] Augustine, the master-theologian of the Ancient Church, bishop of

Hippo in Africa from 395-430.



[19] Ambrose, bishop of Milan from 374-397, had not yet been baptised

at the time of his election to the episcopate, which was forced upon

him by the unanimous voice of the people of the city.



[20] Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, 247-258, is said to have consented

to accept the office only when the congregation surrounded his house

and besought him to yield to their entreaties.



[21] _Was ausz der Tauff krochen ist_.



[22] The _character indelebilis_, or "indelible mark," received

authoritative statement in the bull _Exultate Deo_ (1439). Eugenius

IV, summing up the Decrees of the Council of Florence, says: "Among

these sacraments there are three--baptism, confirmation, and

orders--which indelibly impress upon the soul a character, i. e., a

certain spiritual mark which distinguishes them from the rest" (Mirbt,

_Quellen_, 2d ed., No. 150). The Council of Trent in its XXIII.

Session, July 15, 1563 (Mirbt, No. 312), defined the correct Roman

teaching as follows: "Since in the sacrament of orders, as in baptism

and confirmation, a character is impressed which cannot be destroyed

or taken away, the Holy Synod justly condemns the opinion of those who

assert that the priests of the New Testament have only temporary

power, and that those once rightly ordained can again be made laymen,

if they do not exercise the ministry of the Word of God."



[23] i. e., They are all Christians, among whom there can be no

essential difference.



[24] The sharp distinction which the Roman Church drew between clergy

and laity found practical application in the contention that the

clergy should be exempt from the jurisdiction of the civil courts,

This is the so-called _privilegium fori_, "benefit of clergy." It was

further claimed that the government of the clergy and the

administration of Church property must be entirely in the hands of the

Church authorities, and that no lay rulers might either make or

enforce laws which in any way affected the Church. See Lea, _Studies

in Church History_, 169-219 and _Prot. Realencyk._, VI, 594.



[25] It was the contention of the Church authorities that priests

charged with infraction of the laws of the state should first be tried

in the ecclesiastical courts. If found guilty, they were degraded from

the priesthood and handed over to the state authorities for

punishment.  Formula for degradation in the canon law, C. 2 in VI, _de

poen._ (V, 9). See _Prot. Realencyk._, VI, 589.



[26] The interdict is the prohibition of the administration of the

sacraments and of the other rites of the Church within the territory

upon which the interdict is laid (_Realencyk._, IX, 208 f.). Its use

was not uncommon in the Middle Ages, and during the time that the

power of the popes was at its height it proved an effective means of

bringing refractory rulers to terms. A famous instance is the

interdict laid upon the Kingdom of England by Innocent III in 1208.

Interdicts of more limited local extent were quite frequent. The use

of the interdict as punishment for trifling infractions of church law

was a subject of complaint at the diets of Worms (1521) and Nurnberg

(1524). See A. Wrede, _Deutsche Reichstagsakten unter Kaiser Karl V._,

II, pp. 685 f, III, 665.



[27] The statement of which Luther here complains is found in the

Decretum of Gratian, _Dist. XL, c. 6, Si papa_. In his _Epitome_ (see

Introduction, p. 58), Prierias had quoted this canon against Luther,

as follows: "_A Pontifex indubitatus_ (i. e., a pope who is not

accused of heresy or schism) cannot lawfully be deposed or judged

either by a council or by the whole world, even if he is so scandalous

as to lead people with him by crowds into the possession of hell."

Luther's comment is: "Be astonished, O heaven; shudder, O earth!

Behold, O Christians, what Rome is!" (_Weimar Ed._, VI, 336).



[28] Gregory the Great, pope 590-604. The passage is found in Migne,

LXXVI, 203; LXXVII, 34.



[29] Antichrist, the incarnation of all that is hostile to Christ and

His Kingdom. His appearance is prophesied in 2 Thess. 2:3-10 (the "man

of sin, sitting in the temple of God"); 1 John 2:18, 22; 4:3, and Rev.

13. In the early Church the Fathers sometimes thought the prophecies

fulfilled in the person of some especially pestilent heretic. Wyclif

applied the term to the pope,--"the pope would seem to be not the

vicar of Christ, but the vicar of Antichrist" (see Loos,

_Dogmengeschichte_, 4th ed., p. 649). On Dec. 11, 1518, Luther wrote

to Link: "You can see whether my suspicion is correct that at the

Roman court the true Antichrist rules of whom St. Paul speaks"; and

March 13, 1519, he wrote to Spalatin: "I am not sure but that the pope

is Antichrist or his apostle." It was the worldly pretensions of the

papacy which suggested the idea both to Wyclif and to Luther. By the

year 1520 Luther had come to the definite conclusion that the pope was

the "man of sin, sitting in the temple of God," and this opinion he

never surrendered.



[30] See above, p. 65.



[31] According to academic usage, the holder of a Master's degree was

authorised to expound the subject named in the degree.



[32] The doctrine of papal infallibility was never officially

sanctioned in the Middle Ages, but the claim of infallibility was

repeatedly made by the champions of the more extreme view of papal

power, e. g., Augustinus Triumphus (died 1328) in his _Summa de

potestate Papae_. In his attack upon the XCV Theses (_Dialogus de

potestate Papae_, Dec, 1517) Prierias had asserted, "The supreme

pontiff (i. e., the pope) cannot err when giving a decision as

pontiff, i. e., speaking officially (_ex officio_), and doing what in

him lies to learn the truth"; and again, "Whoever does not rest upon

the teaching of the Roman Church and the supreme pontiff as an

infallible rule of faith, from which even Holy Scripture draws its

vigor and authority, is a heretic" (_Erl. Ed., op. var. arg._, I,

348). In the _Epitome_ he had said: "Even though the pope as an

individual (_singularis persona_) can do wrong and hold a wrong faith,

nevertheless as pope he cannot give a wrong decision" (_Weimar Ed._,

VI, 337).



[33] Most recently in Prierias's _Epitome_. See preceding note.



[34] Luther had discussed the whole subject of the power of the keys

in a Latin treatise, _Resolutio super propositione xiii. de potestate

papae_, of 1519 (_Weimar Ed._, II, pp. 185 ff.), and in the German

treatise _The Papacy at Rome_ (Vol. I, pp. 337-394).



[35] Pp. 66 ff.



[36] Another contention of Prierias. In 1518 (Nov. 25th) Luther had

appealed his cause from the decision of the pope, which he foresaw

would be adverse, to the decision of a council to be held at some

future time. In the _Epitome_ Prierias discusses this appeal,

asserting, among other things, that "when there is one undisputed

pontiff, it belongs to him alone to call a council," and that "the

decrees of councils neither bind nor hold (_nullum ligant vel

astringunt_) unless they are confirmed by authority of the Roman

pontiff" (_Weimar Ed._, VI, 335).



[37] i. e., A mere gathering of people.



[38] The Council of Nicaea, the first of the great councils of the

Church, assembled in 325 for the settlement of the Arian controversy.

Luther's statement that it was called by the Emperor Constantine, and

that its decisions did not derive their validity from any papal

confirmation, is historically correct. On Luther's statements about

this council, see _Schaffer, _Luther als Kirchenhistoriker_, pp. 291

ff.; Kohler, Luther und die Kg., pp. 148 ff.



[39] Luther is here referring to the earlier so-called "ecumenical"

councils.



[40] i. e., A council which will not be subject to the pope. Cf.

_Erl. Ed._, xxvi, 112.



[41] i. e., They belong to the "spiritual estate"; see above, p. 69.



[42] _Der Haufe_, i. e. Christians considered _en masse_, without

regard to official position in the Church.



[43] The papal crown dates from the XI Century; the triple crown, or

tiara, from the beginning of the XIV. It was intended to signify that

very superiority of the pope to the rulers of this world, of which

Luther here complains. See _Realencyk._, X, 532, and literature there

cited.



[44] A statement made by Augustinus Triumphus. See above, p. 73, note

5; and below, p. 246.



[45] The Cardinal della Rovere, afterwards Pope Julius II, held at one

time the archbishopric of Avignon, the bishoprics of Bologna,

Lausanne, Coutances, Viviers, Mende, Ostia and Velletri, and the

abbacies of Nonantola and Grottaferrata. This is but one illustration

of the scandalous pluralism practised by the cardinals. Cf. Lea, in

_Cambridge Mod. Hist._, I, pp. 650 f.



[46] The complaint that the cardinals were provided with incomes by

appointment to German benefices goes back to the Council of Constance

(1415). C. Benrath, p. 87, note 17.



[47] The creation of new cardinals was a lucrative proceeding for the

popes. On July 31, 1517, Leo X created thirty-one cardinals, and is

said to have received from the new appointees about 300,000 ducats.

Needless to say, the cardinals expected to make up the fees out of the

income of their livings. See _Weimar Ed._, VI, 417, note I, and

Pastor, _Gesch. der Papste_ IV, I, 137. C. Hutten's _Vadiscus_

(Bocking IV, 188).



[48] The famous Benedictine monastery just outside the city of

Bamberg.



[49] The proposal made at Constance (see above, p. 82, note 2) was

more generous. It suggested a salary of three to four thousand gulden.



[50] As early as the XIV Century both England and France had enacted

laws prohibiting the very practices of which Luther here complains. It

should be noted, however, that these laws were enforced only

occasionally, and never very strictly.



[51] The papal court or curia consisted of all the officials of

various sorts who were employed in the transaction of papal business,

including those who were in immediate attendance upon the person of

the pope, the so-called "papal family." On the number of such

officials in the XVI Century, see Benrath, p. 88, note 18, where

reference is made to 949 offices, exclusive of those which had to do

with the administration of the city of Rome and of the States of the

Church, and not including the members of the pope's "family." The

_Gravamina_ of 1521 complain that the increase of these offices in

recent years has added greatly to the financial burdens of the German

Church (Wrede, _Deutsche Reichstagsakten unter Kaiser Karl V_, II,

675).



[52] On the annates, see Vol. I, p. 383, note 1. Early in their

history, which dates from the beginning of the XIV. Century, the

annates (_fructus medii temporis_) had become a fixed tax on all

Church offices which fell vacant, and the complaint of extortion in

their appraisement and collection was frequently raised. The Council

of Constance restricted the obligation to bishoprics and abbacies, and

such other benefices as had a yearly income of more than 24 gulden.

The Council of Basel (1430) resolved to abolish them entirely, but the

resolution of the Council was inoperative, and in the Concordat of

Vienna (1448) the German nation agreed to abide by the decision of

Constance. On the use of the term "annates" to include other payments

to the curia, especially the _servitia_, see Catholic Encyclopedia, I,

pp. 537 f.



Luther here alleges that the annates are not applied to their

ostensible purpose, viz., the Crusade. This charge is repeated in the

_Gravamina_ of the German Nation presented to the Diet of Worms

(1521), with the additional allegation that the amount demanded in the

way of annates has materially increased (A. Wrede, _Deutsche

Reichstagsakten unter Kaiser Karl V._, II, pp. 675 f.). Similar

complaints had been made at the Diet of Augsburg (1518), and were

repeated at the Diet of Nurnberg (Wrede, _op. cit._, III, 660).

Hutten calls the annates "a good at robbery" (_Ed._ Bocking, IV, 207).

In England the annates were abolished by Act of Parliament (April 10,

1532)



[53] On the crusading-indulgences, see Vol. I, p. 18.



[54] i. e., As was done by the Council of Basel. See above, p. 84,

note i.



[55] The canons are the clergy attached to a cathedral church who

constituted the "chapter" of that cathedral, and to whom the right to

elect the bishop normally belonged.



[56] This whole section deals with the abuse of the "right of

reservation," i. e., the alleged right of the pope to appoint directly

to vacant church positions. According to papal theory the right of

appointment belonged absolutely to the pope, who graciously yielded

the right to others under certain circumstances, reserving it to

himself in other cases. The practice of reserving the appointments

seems to date from the XII Century, and was originally an arbitrary

exercise of papal authority. The rules which came to govern the

reservation of appointments were regarded as limitations upon the

authority of the pope, The rule of the "papal months," as it obtained

in Germany in Luther's time, is found in the Concordat of Vienna of

1448 (Mirbt, _Quellen_, 2d ed., No. 261, pp. 167 f.). It provides that

livings, with the exception of the higher dignities in the cathedrals

and the chief posts in the monasteries, which all vacant in the months

of February, April, June, August, October and December, shall be

filled by the ordinary method--election, presentation, appointment by

the bishop, etc.--but that vacancies occurring in the other months

shall be filled by appointment of the pope.



[57] i. e., Church offices which carried with them certain rights of

jurisdiction and gave their possessors a certain honorary precedence

over other officials of the Church. See Meyer in _Realencyk._, IV,

658.



[58] Charles V, though elected emperor, was not crowned until October

22d.



[59] i. e., A living which has not hitherto been filled by papal

appointment.



[60] This rule, like that of the "papal months," is found in the

Concordat of Vienna. Luther's complaint is reiterated in the

_Gravamina_ of 1521. (Wrede, _Deutsche Reichstagsakten_, etc., II,

673.)



[61] _Des Papstes und der Cardinale Gesinde_, i. e., all those who

were counted members of the "family" or "household" (called

_Dienstverwandte_ in the Gravamina of 1521) of the pope or of any of

the cardinals. The term included those who were in immediate

attendance upon the pope or the cardinals, and all those to whom, by

virtue of any special connection with the curia, the name "papal

servant" could be made to apply. These are the "courtesans" to whom

Luther afterwards refers.



[62] In 1513 Albrecht of Brandenburg was made Archbishop of Magdeburg

and later in the same year Administrator of Halberstadt; in 1514 he

became Archbishop of Mainz as well. In 1518 he was made cardinal.



[63] This rule, like the others mentioned above, is contained in the

Concordat of Vienna.



[64] Cf. The _Gravamina_ of 1521, No. 20, _Von anfechtung der

cordissanen_ (see above, p. 88, note 3), where the name _cordissei_ is

applied to the practice of attacking titles to benefices. (Wrede, _op.

cit._, II, pp. 677 f.)



[65] The _pallium_ is a woolen shoulder-cape which is the emblem of

the archbishop's office, and which must be secured from Rome. The

bestowal of the _pallium_ by the pope is a very ancient custom.

Gregory I (590-604) mentions it as _prisca consuetudo_ (_Dist._, C.c.

3). The canon law prescribes (_Dist. C. c. I_) that the

archbishop-elect must secure the _pallium_ from Rome within three

months of his election; otherwise he is forbidden to discharge any of

the duties of his office. It is regarded as the necessary complement

of his election and consecration, conferring the "plenitude of the

pontifical office," and the name of archbishop. Luther's charge that

it had to be purchased "with a great sum of money" is substantiated by

similar complaints from the XII Century on, though the language of the

canon law makes it evident that Luther's other contention is also

correct, viz., that the _pallium_ was originally bestowed gratis. The

sum required from the different archbishops varied with the wealth of

their sees, and was a fixed sum in each case. The _Gravamina_ of 1521

complain that the price has been raised: "Although according to

ancient ordinance the bishoprics of Mainz, Cologne, Salzburg, etc.,

were bound to pay or the _pallium_ about 10,000 gulden and no more,

they can now scarcely get a _pallium_ from Rome for 20 or 24 thousand

gulden." (Wrede, _op. cit._, II, 675.)



[66] The oath of allegiance to the pope was required before the

pallium could be bestowed (_Dist. C, c._ I). The canon law describes

this oath as one "of allegiance, obedience and unity" (X, I, 6, c. 4).



[67] See above, p. 86, note 2.



[68] cf. Luther to Spalatin, June 25, 1520 (Enders, II, 424; Smith,

No. 271).



[69] i. e., The benefices are treated as though they were vacant.



[70] In the case of certain endowed benefices the right to nominate

the incumbent was vested in individuals, usually of the nobility, and

was hereditary in their family, This is the so-called _jus patronum_,

or "right of patronage." The complaint that this right is disregarded

is frequent in the _Gravamina_ of 1521.



[71] _Commendation_ was one of the practices by which the pope evaded

the provision of the canon law which prescribed that the same man

should not hold two livings with the cure of souls. The man who

received an office in _commendam_ was not required to fulfil the

duties attached to the position and when a living or an abbacy was

granted in this way during the incumbency of another, the recipient

received its entire income during a subsequent vacancy. The practice

was most common in the case of abbacies. At the Diet of Worms (1521),

Duke George of Saxony, an outspoken opponent of Luther, was as

emphatic in his protest against this practice as Luther himself

(Wrede, _op. cit._, II, 665); his protest was incorporated in the

_Gravamina_ (_ibid._, 672), and reappears in the Appendix (_ibid._,

708).



[72] A monk who deserted his monastery was known as an "apostate."



[73] i. e., Offices which cannot be united in the hands of one man.

See e. g., note 3, p. 91.



[74] A gloss is a note explanatory of a word or passage of doubtful

meaning. The glosses are the earliest form of commentary on the Bible.

The glosses of the canon law are the more or less authoritative

comments of the teachers, and date from the time when the study of the

canon law became a part of the theological curriculum. Their aim is

chiefly to show how the law applies to practical cases which may

arise. The so-called _glossa ordinaria_ had in Luther's time an

authority almost equal to that of the _corpus juris_ itself. Cf.

_Cath. Encyc._, VI, pp. 588 f.



[75] The thing which was bought was, of course, the dispensation, or

permission to avail oneself of the gloss.



[76] _Dataria_ is the name for that department of the curia which had

to deal with the granting of dispensations and the disposal of

benefices. _Datarius_ is the title of the official who presided over

this department.



[77] See above, p. 88, note 2. For a catalogue of papal appointments

bestowed upon two "courtesans," Johannes Zink und Johannes

Ingenwinkel, see Schulte, _Die Fugger in Rom_, I, pp. 282, 291 ff.

Between 1513 and 1521, Zink received 56 appointments, and Ingenwinkel

received, between 1496 and 1521, no fewer than 106.



[78] See above, p. 87, note 1.



[79] So Albrecht of Mainz bore the title of "administrator" of

Halberstadt.



[80] The name of this practice was "regression" (_regressus_).



[81] The complaint was made at Worms (1521) that it was impossible for

a German to secure a clear title to a benefice at Rome unless he

applied for it in the name of an Italian, to whom he was obliged to

pay a percentage of the income, a yearly pension, for a fixed sum of

money for the use of his name (Wrede, _op. cit._, II, 712).



[82] _Simony_--the sin of Simon Magus (Acts 8:18-20)--the sin

committed by the sale or the purchase of an office or position which

is normally conferred by a ritual act of the Church. In the ancient

and earlier mediaeval Church the use of money to secure preferment was

held to invalidate the title of the guilty party to the position thus

secured, and the acceptance of money for such a purpose was an offence

punishable by deposition and degradation. The "heresy of Simon" was

conceived to be the greatest of all heresies. The traffic in Church

offices, which became a flagrant abuse from the time of John XXII

(1316-1334), would have been regarded in earlier days as the most

atrocious simony.



[83] The _reservatio mentalis_ or _in pectore_ is the natural

consequence of the papal theory that the right of appointment to all

Church offices of every grade belongs to the pope (see above, p. 86,

note 3). According to the theory of the canonists (Lancelotti,

_Institutiones juris canonici. Lib. I, Tit._ XXVII) this right is

exercised either _per petitionem alterius_, i. e., by confirmation of

the election, appointment, etc., of others, or _proprio motu_, i. e.,

"on his own motion." In ordinary cases the exercise of the appointing

power was limited by rules, which though bitterly complained of (see

above, pp. 86 ff, and notes), were generally understood, but the

theory allowed any given case to be made an exception to the rules. Of

such a case it was said that it was "reserved in the heart of the

Pope," and the appointment was then made "on his own motion." Hutten

says of this _reservatio in pectore_ that "it is an easy, agile and

slippery thing, and bears no comparison to any other form of cheating"

(Ed. Booking, IV, 215).



[84] For a similar instance quoted at Worms (1521), see Wrede, _op.

cit._, II, 710.



[85] The three chief centers of foreign commerce in the XV and the

early XVI Century. The annual fairs (_Jahrmarkt_), held at stated

times in various cities, brought great numbers of merchants together

from widely distant points, and were the times when the greater part

of the wholesale business for the year was done.;



[86] Built by Innocent VIII (1454-1490).



[87] See above, p. 93, note 2.



[88] The Church law forbade the taking of interest on loans of money.



[89] During the Middle Ages all questions touching marriage and

divorce, including, therefore, the question of the legitimacy of

children, were governed by the laws of the Church, on the theory that

marriage was a sacrament.



[90] i. e., By buying dispensations.



[91] The sums paid or special dispensations were so called.



[92] The toll which the "robber-barons" of the Rhine levied upon

merchants passing through their domains.



[93] _Ja wend das blat umb szo indistu es_--The translators have

adopted the interpretation of O. Clemen, _L's. Werke_, I, 383.



[94] The Fuggers of Augsburg were the greatest of the German

capitalists in the XVI Century. They were international bankers, "the

Rothschilds of the XVI Century." Their control of large capital

enabled them to advance large sums of money to the territorial rulers,

who were in a chronic state of need. In return for these favors they

received monopolistic concessions by which their capital was further

increased. The spiritual, as well as the temporal lords, availed

themselves regularly of the services of this accommodating firm. They

were the pope's financial representatives in Germany. On their

connection with the indulgence against which Luther protested, see

Vol. I, p. 21; on their relations with the papacy, see Schulte, _Die

Fugger in Rom_, 2 Vols., Leipzig, 1904.



[95] Certificates entitling the holder to choose his own confessor and

authorizing the confessor to absolve him from certain classes of

"reserved" sins; referred to in the XCV Theses as _confessionalia_.

Cf.  Vol. I, p. 22.



[96] Certificates granting their possessor permission to eat milk,

eggs, butter and cheese on fast days.



[97] The word is used here in the broad sense, and means dispensations

of all sorts, including those just mentioned, relating to penance.



[98] Equivalent to "carrying coals to Newcastle."



[99] The _Campo di Fiore_, a Roman market-place, restored and adorned

at great expense by Eugenius IV (1431-1447), and his successors.



[100] A part of the Vatican palace notorious as the banqueting-hall of

Alexander VI (1402-1503), turned by Julius II (1503-1513) into a

museum for the housing of his wonderful and expensive collection of

ancient works of art. Luther is hinting that the indulgence money has

been spent on these objects rather than on the maintenance of the

Church. Cf. Clemen, I, 384, note 15.



[101] i. e., The offices and positions in Rome which were for sale.

See Benrath, p. 88, note 18; p. 95, note 36.



[102] See above, p. 84, note 1.



[103] The passage is chapter 31, _Filiis vel nepotibus_. It provides

that in case the income of endowments bequeathed to the Church is

misused, and appeals to the bishop and archbishop fail to correct the

misuse, the heirs of the testator may appeal to the royal courts.

Luther wishes this principle applied to the annates.



[104] See above, pp. 91 f.



[105] See above, p. 91.



[106] See above, p. 94.



[107] i. e.. Promises to bestow on certain persons livings not yet

vacant. Complaint of the evils arising out of the practice was

continually heard from the year 1416. For the complaints made at Worms

(1521), see Wrede, _op. cit._, II, 710.



[108] See above, pp. 86 f.



[109] See above, pp. 92 f.



[110] See above, p. 93.



[111] See above, p. 89.



[112] Rules for the transaction of papal business, including such

matters as appointments and the like. At Worms (1521) the Estates

complain that these rules are made to the advantage of the

"courtesans" and the disadvantage of the Germans. (Wrede, _op. cit._,

II, pp. 675 f.)



[113] The local Church authorities, here equivalent to "the bishops."

On use of term see _Realencyk._, XIV, 424.



[114] The sign of the episcopal office; as regards archbishops, the

_pallium_; see above, p. 8q, and note.



[115] See above, p. 87, note 1.



[116] The first of the ecumenical councils (A. D. 325). The decree to

which Luther here refers is canon IV of that Council. Cf. Kohler, _L.

und die Kg._, pp. 139 ff.



[117] The primate is the ranking archbishop of a country.



[118] "Exemption" was the practice by which monastic houses were

withdrawn from the jurisdiction of the bishops and made directly

subject to the pope. The practice seems to have originated in the X

Century with the famous monastery of Cluny (918), but it was almost

universal in the case of the houses of the mendicant orders. The

bishops made it a constant subject of complaint, and the Lateran

Council (Dec. 19, 1516) passed a decree abolishing all monastic

exemptions, though the decree does not seem to have been effective.

See _Creighton_, History of the Papacy, V, 266.



[119] i. e., Antichrist. See above, p. 73, note 2.



[120] The papal interference in the conduct of the local Church courts

was as flagrant as in the appointments, of which Luther has heretofore

spoken. At Worms (1521) it was complained that cases were cited to

Rome as a court of first instance, and the demand was made that a

regular course of appeals should be re-established. Wrede, _op. cit._,

II, 672, 718.



[121] The reference is Canon V of the Council of Sardica (A. D. 343),

incorporated in the canon law as a canon of Nicaea (_Pt. II, qu. 6, c.

5_). See Kohler, _L. und die Kg._, 151.



[122] i. e., Appealed to Rome for decision. This is the subject of the

first of the 102 _Gravamina_ of 1521 (Wrede, _op. cit._, II, 672).



[123] The judges in the bishops' courts. The complaint is that they

interfere with the administration of justice by citing into their

courts cases which properly belong in the lay courts, and enforce

their verdicts (usually fines) by means of ecclesiastical censures.

The charges against these courts are specified in the _Gravamina_ of

1521, Nos. 73-100 (Wrede, _op. cit._, II, 694-703).



[124] The _signatura gratiae_ and the _signatura justitiae_ were the

bureaus through which the pope regulated those matters of

administration which belonged to his own special prerogative.



[125] See above, pp. 88 f.



[126] See above, p. 88, note 3.



[127] See above, p. 94.



[128] i. e., The cases in which a priest was forbidden to give

absolution. The reference here is to cases in which only the pope

could absolve. Cf. _The XCV Theses_, Vol. I, p. 30.



[129] A papal bull published annually at Rome on Holy Thursday. It was

directed against heretics, but to the condemnation of the heretics and

their heresies was added a list of offences which could receive

absolution only from the pope, or by his authorisation. In 1522 Luther

translated this bull into German as a New Year present for the pope

(_Weimar Ed._, VIII, 691). On Luther's earlier utterances concerning

it, see Kohler, _L. u. die Kg._, pp. 59 2.



[130] The breve is a papal decree, of equal authority with the bull,

but differing from it in form, and usually dealing with matters of

smaller importance.



[131] Cf. Luther's earlier statement to the same effect in _A

Discussion of Confession_, Vol. I, pp. 96 f.



[132] See above, p. 99.



[133] The Fifth Lateran Council (1512-17).



[134] See above, p. 90, note 1.



[135] In the canon law, _Decretal. Greg. lib. i, tit. 6, cap. 4_. The

decretal forbids the bestowing of the pallium (see above, p. 89, note

3) on an archbishop elect, until he shall first have sworn allegiance

to the Holy See.



[136] The induction of Church officials into office. The term was used

particularly of the greater offices--those of bishop and abbot. These

offices carried with them the enjoyment of certain incomes, and the

possession of certain temporal powers. For this reason the right of

investiture was a bone of contention between popes and emperors during

the Middle Ages.



[137] Especially in the time of the Emperors Henry IV and V

(1056-1125).



[138] The German Empire was regarded during the Middle Ages as a

continuation of the Roman Empire. (See below, p. 153.) The right to

crown an emperor was held to be the prerogative of the pope; until the

pope bestowed the imperial crown, the emperor bore the title, "King of

the Romans."



[139] In the canon law, _Decretal. Greg. lib. i, tit. 33, cap. 6._



[140] In the treatise, _Resolutio Lutheriana super propositione XIII,

de potestate papae_ (1520). _Weimar Ed._, II, pp. 217 ff.; _Erl. Ed.,

op. var. arg._, Ill, pp. 293 ff.



[141] See p. 70.



[142] cf. _The Papacy at Rome_, Vol. I, pp. 357 f.



[143] A decree of Pope Clement V of 1313, incorporated subsequently in

the canon law, _Clement, lib. ii, tit. 11, cap. 2._



[144] A forged document of the VIII Century, professing to come from

the hand of the Emperor Constantine (306-337). The Donation conveyed

to the pope title to the city of Rome (the capital had been removed to

Constantinople), certain lands in Italy and "the islands of the sea."

It was used by the popes of the Middle Ages to support their claims to

worldly power, and its genuineness was not disputed. In 1440, however,

Laurentius Valla, an Italian humanist, published a work in which he

proved that the Donation was a forgery. This work was republished in

Germany by Ulrich von Hutten in 1517, and seems to have come to

Luther's attention in the early part of 1520, just before the

composition of the present treatise (C. Enders II, 332). Luther

subsequently (1537) issued an annotated translation of the text of the

Donation (_Erl. Ed._, XXV, pp. 176 ff.).



[145] The papal claim to temporal sovereignty over this little

kingdom, which comprised the island of Sicily and certain territories

in Southern Italy, goes back to the XI Century, and was steadily

asserted during the whole of the later Middle Ages. It was one of the

questions at issue in the conflict between the Emperor Frederick II

(1200-1260) and the popes, and played an important part in the history

of the stormy times which followed the all of the Hohenstaufen. The

popes claimed the right to award the kingdom to a ruler who would

swear allegiance to the Holy See. The right to the kingdom was at this

time contested between the royal houses of France and of Spain, of

which latter house the Emperor Charles V was the head.



[146] The popes claimed temporal sovereignty over a strip of territory

in Italy, beginning at Rome and stretching in a northeasterly

direction across the peninsula to a point on the Adriatic south of

Venice, including the cities and lands which Luther mentions. This

formed the so-called "States of the Church." The attempt to

consolidate the States and make the papal sovereignty effective

involved Popes Alexander VI (1492-1503) and Julius II (1503-1513) in

war and entangled them in political alliances with the European powers

and petty Italian states. It resulted at last in actual war between

Pope Clement VII and the Emperor Charles V (1526-1527). See Cambridge

_Modern History_, I, 104-143; 219-252, and literature cited pp.

706-713; 727 f.



[147] A free translation of the Vulgate, _Nemo militans Deo_.



[148] The kissing of the pope's feet was a part of the "adoration"

which he claimed as his right. See above, p. 108.



[149] The three paragraphs enclosed in brackets were added by Luther

to the 2d edition; see Introduction, p. 59.



[150] The holy places of Rome had long been favorite objects of

pilgrimage, and the practice had been zealously fostered by the popes

through the institution of the "golden" or "jubilee years." Cf. Vol.

I, p. 18, and below, p. 114.



[151] Cf. the Italian proverb, "God is everywhere except at Rome;

there He has a vicar."



[152] Cf. Hutten's saying in _Vadiscus_: "Three things there are which

those who go to Rome usually bring home with them, a bad conscience, a

ruined stomach and an empty purse." (Ed. Bocking, IV, p. 169.)



[153] The "golden" or "jubilee years" were the years when special

rewards were attached to worship at the shrines of Rome. The custom

was instituted by Boniface VIII in 1300, and it was the intention to

make every hundredth year a jubilee. In 1343 the interval between

jubilees was fixed at fifty, in 1389 at thirty-three, in 1473 at

twenty-five years. Cf. Vol. I, p. 18.



[154] Cf. the statements in the _Treatise on Baptism_ and the

_Discussion of Confession_, Vol. I, pp. 68 ff., 98.



[155] The houses, or monasteries, of the mendicant or "begging"

orders--the "friars." The members of these orders were sworn to

support themselves on the alms of the faithful.



[156] The three leading mendicant orders were the Franciscan (the

Minorites, or "little brothers"), founded by St. Francis of Assisi

(died 1226), the Dominican (the "preaching brothers"), founded by St.

Dominic (died 1221), and the Augustinian Hermits, to which Luther

himself belonged, and which claimed foundation by St. Augustine (died

430).



[157] The interference of the friars in the duties of the parish

clergy was a continual subject of complaint through this period.



[158] By the middle of the XV Century there were eight distinct sects

within the Franciscan order alone (See _Realencyk._, VI, pp. 212 ff.),

and Luther had himself taken part in a vigorous dispute between two

parties in the Augustinian order.



[159] St. Agnes the Martyr, put to death in the beginning of the IV

Century, one of the favorite saints of the Middle Ages. See Schafer,

_L. als Kirchenhistoriker_, p. 235.



[160] One of the most famous of the German convents, founded in 936.



[161] The celebrated Church Father (died 420). The passages referred

to are in _Migne_, XXII, 656, and XXVI, 562.



[162] Or "community" (_Gemeine_). Cf. _The Papacy at Rome_, Vol. I.

p. 345, note 4. See also _Dass eine christl. Gemeine Recht und Macht

habe_, etc. _Weimar Ed._ XI, pp. 408 ff.



[163] Or "congregation." See note 2.



[164] i. e.. At a time later than that of the Apostles.



[165] The first absolute prohibition of marriage to the clergy is

contained in a decree of Pope Siricius and dated 385. See H. C. Lea,

_History of Sacerdotal Celibacy_, 3d ed. (1907), I, pp. 59 ff.



[166] The priests of the Greek Church are required to marry, and the

controversy over celibacy was involved in the division between the

Greek and Roman Churches.



[167] Cf. Hutten's _Vadiscus_ (Bocking, IV, 199).



[168] i. e., Lie in Roman appointment.



[169] i. e., The ministry in the congregation. See above, p. 119.



[170] _Quantum ragilitas humana permittit_. A qualification of the

vow.



[171] i. e., Celibacy. _Non promitto castitatem_.



[172] _Fragilitas humana non permittit caste vivere_.



[173] _Angelica fortitudo at coelestis virtus_.



[174] The court-jester was allowed unusual freedom of speech. See

Prefatory Letter above, p. 62.



[175] The laws governing marriage were entirely the laws of the

Church. The canon law prohibited marriage of blood-relatives as far as

the seventh degree of consanguinity. In 1204 the prohibition was

restricted to the first our degrees; lawful marriage within these

degrees was possible only by dispensation, which was not all too

difficult to secure, especially by those who were willing to pay for

it (see above, p. 96). The relation of god-parents to god-children was

also held to establish a "spiritual consanguinity" which might serve

as a bar to lawful marriage. See Benrath, p. 103, note 74, and in the

Babylonian Captivity, below, p. 265.



[176] This Luther actually did. When he burned the papal bull of

excommunication (Dec. 10, 1520) a copy of the canon law was also given

to the flames.



[177] i. e., The marriage of the clergy.



[178] On this sort of reserved cases see Discussion of Confession,

Vol. I, pp. 96 ff.



[179] "Irregularity" is the condition of any member of a monastic

order who has violated the prescriptions of the order and been

deprived, in consequence, of the benefits enjoyed by those who live

under the _regula_, viz., the rule of the order.



[180] The three kinds of masses are really but one thing, viz., masses

for the dead, celebrated on certain fixed days in each year, in

consideration of the enjoyment of certain incomes, received either out

of bequeathed endowments or from the heirs of the supposed

beneficiaries.



[181] i. e., Even when the mass is decently said.



[182] See above, p. 72, note 1.



[183] See above, p. 104.



[184] _Das geistliche Unrecht_.



[185] The _Treatise concerning the Ban_, above, pp. 33 ff.



[186] i. e., To those who teach and enforce the canon law.



[187] Luther means the saint's-days and minor religious holidays. See

also the _Discourse on Good Works_, Vol. I, pp. 240 f.



[188] Or "congregation."



[189] i. e., City-council.



[190] _Kirchweihen_, i. e., the anniversary celebration of the

consecration of a church. These days had become  feast days for the

parish, and were observed in anything but a spiritual fashion.



[191] i. e., Occasions for drunkenness, gain and gambling.



[192] See above, pp. 96 f.



[193] See above, p. 98, note 2.



[194] Letters entitling their holder to the benefits of the masses

founded by the sodalities or confraternities. See Benrath, p. 103.



[195] See above, p. 98, and Vol. I, p. 22.



[196] The pun is untranslatable,--_Netz, Gesetz solt ich sagen_.



[197] What the pope sold was release from the "snares" and "nets,"

viz., dispensation.



[198] i. e., Even into the law of the church.



[199] _Die wilden Kapellen und Feldkirchen_, i. e., churches which are

built in the country, where there are no congregations.



[200] A little town in East Prussia, where was displayed a sacramental

wafer, said to have been miraculously preserved from a fire which

destroyed the church in 1383. It was alleged that at certain times

this wafer exuded drops of blood, reverenced as the blood of Christ,

and many miracles were said to have been performed by it. Wilsnack

early became a favorite resort for pilgrims. In 1412 the archbishop of

Prague, at the instigation of John Hus, forbade the Bohemians to go

there. Despite the protests of the Universities of Leipzig and Erfurt,

Pope Eugenius IV in 1446 granted special indulgences for this

pilgrimage, and the popularity of the shrine was undiminished until

the time of the Reformation. Cf. _Realencyk_, xxi, pp. 347 ff.



[201] In Mecklenburg, where another relic of "the Holy Blood" was

displayed after 1491. C. Benrath, pp. 104 f.



[202] The "Holy Coat of Trier" was believed by the credulous to be the

seamless coat of Christ, which the soldiers did not rend. It was first

exhibited in 1512, but was said to have been presented to the

cathedral church of Trier by the Empress Helena, mother of Constantine

the Great.



[203] Pilgrimage to the Grimmenthal in Meiningen began in 1499. An

image of the Virgin, declared to have been miraculously created, was

displayed there, and was alleged to work wonderful cures, especially

of syphilis.



[204] The "Fair Virgin (_die schone Maria_) of Regensburg" was an

image of the Virgin similar to that exhibited in the Grimmenthal. The

shrine was opened March 25, 1519, and within a month 50,000 pilgrims

are said to have worshipped there. (_Weimar Ed._, VI, 447, note 1).

For another explanation see Benrath, p. 105.



[205] The pilgrimages were a source of large revenue, derived from the

sale of medals which were worn as amulets, the fees for masses at the

shrines, and the free-will offerings of the pilgrims. A large part of

this revenue accrued to the bishop of the diocese, though the popes

never overlooked the profits which the sale of indulgences or worship

at these shrines could produce. In the _Gravamina_ of 1521 complaint

is made that the bishops demand at least 25 to 33 per cent, of the

offerings made at shrines of pilgrimage (Wrede, _op. cit._, II, 687).



[206] i. e., Every bishop.



[207] The possession of a saint gave a church a certain reputation and

distinction, which was sufficiently coveted to make local Church

authorities willing to pay roundly for the canonisation of a departed

bishop or other local dignitary. Cf. Hutten's _Vadiscus_ (Bocking, IV,

232).



[208] Archbishop of Florence (died 1450). He was canonised, May 31,

1523, by Pope Hadrian VI. When Luther wrote this the process of

canonisation had already begun.



[209] _Indulta_, i. e., grants of special privilege.



[210] "Lead," the leaden seal attached to the bull; "hide", the

parchment on which it is written; "the string," the ribbon or silken

cord from which the seals depend; "wax," the seal holding the cord to

the parchment.



[211] Franciscans, Dominicans, Augustinians, Carmelites and Servites.



[212] _Botschaten_, interpreted by _Benrath_ (p. 105), Clemen (I, 406,

note) and Weimar Ed. (VI, 406, note 1) as a reference to the

_stationarii_. They were wandering beggars who, for an alms, would

enroll the contributor in the list of beneficiaries of their patron

saint, an alleged insurance against disease, accident, etc. They were

classified according to the names of their patron saints, St. Anthony,

St. Hubert, St. Valentine, etc. Protests against their operations were

raised at the Diets of Worms (1521) and Nurnberg (1523). Included in

these protests are the _terminarii_, i.e., the collectors of alms sent

out by the mendicant orders. See Wrede, _op. cit._, II, 678, 688, III,

651, and Benrath, loc. cit.



[213] _Wallbruder_, the professional pilgrims who spent their lives in

wandering from one place of pilgrimage to another and subsisted on the

alms of the faithful.



[214] i. e., If the plan above proposed were adopted.



[215] See above, p. 129, note 1.



[216] See _Treatise on the New Testament_, Vol. I, pp. 308 ff.



[217] In the _Babylonian Captivity_ (below, pp. 291 f.) Luther

definitely excludes penance from the number of sacraments, but see

also p. 177.



[218] The sodalities ("fraternities," "confraternities"), still an

important institution in the Roman Church, flourished especially in

the XVI Century. They are associations for devotional purposes. The

members of the sodalities are obligated to the recitation of certain

prayers and the attendance upon certain masses at stipulated times. By

virtue of membership in the association each member is believed to

participate in the benefits accruing from these "good works" of all

the members. In the case of most of the sodalities membership entitled

the member to the enjoyment of certain indulgences. In 1520 Wittenberg

boasted of 20 such fraternities, Cologne of 80, Hamburg of more than

100 (Realencyk., Ill, 437). In 1519 Degenhard Peffinger, of

Wittenberg, was a member of 8 such fraternities in his home city, and

of 27 in other places. For Luther's view of the sodalities see above,

pp. 8, 26 ff. On the whole subject see Benrath, pp. 106 f.; Kolde in

_Realencyk._, III, pp. 434 ff.; Lea, _Hist. of Conf. and Indulg_, III,

pp. 470 ff.



[219] See above, p. 98, note 2.



[220] See above, p. 128, note 5.



[221] The excesses committed at the feasts of the religious societies

were often a public scandal. See Lea, _Hist, of Conf. and Indulg_,

III, pp. 437 ff.



[222] "Faculties" were extraordinary powers, usually for the granting

of indulgences and of absolution in "reserved cases" (see above, p.

105, note 3). They were bestowed by the pope and could be revoked by

him at any time. Sometimes they were given to local Church officials,

but were usually held by the legates or commissaries sent from Rome.

Complaints were made at the Diets of Worms (1520) and Nurnberg (1523)

that the papal commissaries and legates interfered with the ordinary

methods of ecclesiastical jurisdiction and appointment. See Weede,

_op. cit._, II, 673, III, 653.



[223] Wladislav I forced the Sultan to sue for peace in 1443. At the

instigation of the papal legate, Cardinal Caesarini, who represented

that the treaty had not been approved by the pope, and absolved the

king from the fulfilment of its conditions, he renewed the war in

1444. At the battle of Varna, Nov. 10th, 1444, the Hungarians were

decisively defeated, and Wladislav and Caesarini both killed. See

Creighton, _Hist. of the Papacy_, III, 67.



[224] John Hus and Jerome of Prague were convicted of heresy by the

Council of Constance and burned at the stake, the former July 6th,

1415, the latter May 30th, 1416. Hus had come to Constance under the

safe-conduct of the Emperor Sigismund. Luther is in error when he

assumes that Jerome had a similar safe-conduct. In September, 1415,

the Council passed a decree which asserted that "neither by natural,

divine or human law was any promise to be observed to the prejudice of

the catholic faith." On the whole matter of the safe-conduct and its

violation see Lea, _Hist. of the Inquisition in the M.A._, II, pp. 453

ff.



[225] The League of Cambray, negotiated in 1508 for war against

Venice. In 1510 Venice made terms with the pope and detached him from

the alliance, and the result was war between the pope and the King of

France. See Cambridge _Modern History_, I, pp. 130 ii., and literature

there cited.



[226] i. e. The Hussites. After the martyrdom of Hus his followers

maintained for a time a strong organisation in Bohemia, and resisted

with arms all attempts to force them into conformity with the Roman

Church. The Council of Basel succeeded (1434) in reconciling the more

moderate party among the Bohemians (the Calixtines) by allowing the

administration of the cup to the laity. The more extreme party,

however, refused to subscribe the _Compactata_ of Basel. Though they

soon ceased to be a actor in the political situation, they remained

outside the Church and perpetuated the teachings of Hus in sectarian

organisations. The most important of these, the so-called Bohemian

Brethren, had extended into Poland and Prussia before Luther's time.

See _Realencyk._, Ill, 465-467.



[227] See above, p. 140, note 1.



[228] See Kohler, _L. und die Kirchengesch._, 139, 151.



[229] The Archbishop of Prague was primate of the Church in Bohemia.



[230] The dioceses of these bishops were contiguous to that of the

Archbishop of Prague.



[231] Bishop of Carthage, 240-258 A. D.



[232] _Lass man ihn ein gut jar ha ben_, literally, "Bid him

good-day."



[233] One of the chief points of controversy between the Roman Church

and the Hussites. The Roman Church administered to the laity only the

bread, the Hussites used both elements. See below, pp. 178 f.



[234] Luther had not yet reached the conviction that the

administration of the cup to the laity was a necessity, but see the

argument in _the Babylonian Captivity_, below, pp. 178 ff.



[235] The Bohemian Brethren, who are here distinguished from the

Hussites, Cf. _Realencyk._, Ill, 452, 49.



[236] St. Thomas Aquinas, the great Dominican theologian of the XIII.

Century (1225-74), whose influence is still dominant in Roman

theology.



[237] The view of the sacramental presence adopted by William of

Occam. For Luther's own view at this time, see below, pp. 187 ff.



[238] i. e., If they did not believe in the real presence of the body

and blood of Christ in the Lord's Supper.



[239] Places for training youths in Greek glory.



[240] The philosophy of Aristotle dominated the mediaeval universities.

It not only provided the forms in which theological and religious

truth came to expression, but it was the basis of all scientific study

in every department. The man who did not know Aristotle was an

ignoramus.



[241] Or, "I have read him." Luther's _lesen_ allows of either

interpretation.



[242] Duns Scotus, died 1308. In the XV and XVI Centuries he was

regarded as the rival of Thomas Aquinas for first place among the

theological teachers of the Church.



[243] i. e., In the universities.



[244] See above, pp. 94 f.



[245] i. e., "The chamber of his heart." Boniface VIII (1294-1303) had

decreed, _Romanus pontiex jura omnia in scrinio pectoris sui censetur

habere_, "the Roman pontiff has all laws in the chamber of his heart."

This decree was received into the canon law (_c._ I, de const. In VIto

(I, 2)).



[246] _Doctores decretorum_, "Doctor of Decrees," an academic degree

occasionally given to professors of Canon Law; _doctor scrinii

papalis_, "Doctor of the Papal Heart."



[247] The introduction of Roman law into Germany, as the accepted law

of the empire, had begun in the XII Century. With the decay of the

feudal system and the increasing desire of the rulers to provide their

government with some effective legal system, its application became

more widespread, until by the end of the XV Century it was the

accepted system of the empire. The attempt to apply this ancient law

to conditions utterly different from those of the time when it was

formulated, and the continual conflict between the Roman law, the

feudal customs and the remnants of Germanic legal ideas, naturally

gave rise to a state of affairs which Luther could justly speak of as

"a wilderness."



[248] "Sentences" (_Sententiae, libri sententiarum_) was the title of

the text-books in theology. Theological instruction was largely by way

of comment on the most famous book of Sentences, that of Peter

Lombard.



[249] Cf. Vol. I, p. 7.



[250] i. e., Doctors.



[251] The head-dress of the doctors.



[252] See above, p. 118, note 2.



[253] i. e., The monasteries and nunneries.



[254] i. e.. The name of Christian.



[255] This section did not appear in the first edition; see

Introduction, p. 59.



[256] Charles the Great, King of the Franks, was crowned Roman Emperor

by Pope Leo III in the year 800 A. D. He was a German, but regarded

himself successor to the line of emperors who had ruled at Rome. The

fiction was fostered by the popes, and the German kings, after

receiving the papal coronation, were called Roman Emperors. From this

came the name of the German Empire of the Middle Ages, "the Holy Roman

Empire of the German Nation." The popes of the later Middle Ages

claimed that the bestowal of the imperial dignity lay in the power of

the pope, and Pope Clement V (1313) even claimed that in the event of

a vacancy the pope was the possessor of the imperial power (cf. above,

p. 109). On the whole subject see Bryce, _Holy Roman Empire_, 2d ed.

(1904), and literature there cited.



[257] The city of Rome was sacked by the Visigoths in 410.



[258] Luther is characteristically careless about his chronology. By

the "Turkish Empire" he means the Mohammedan power.



[259] _So sol man die Deutschen teuschen und mit teuschen teuschenn_,

i.e., made Germans (_Deutsche_) by cheating (_teuschen_) them.



[260] See _Cambridge Mediaeval History_, I (1911), pp. 244 f.



[261] Such a law as Luther here suggests was proposed to the Diet of

Worms (1521). Text in Wrede, _Reischstagsakten_, II, 335-341.



[262] Cf. Luther's _Sermon von Kaubandlung und Wucher_, of 1524.

(_Weim. Ed. XV_, pp. 293)



[263] Spices were one of the chief articles of foreign commerce in the

XVI Century. The discovery of the cape-route to India had given the

Portuguese a practical monopoly of this trade. A comparative statement

of the cost of spices for a period of years was reported to the Diet

of Nurnberg (1523). See Wrede, _op. cit._, III, 576.



[264] The _Zinskauf_ or _Rentenkauf_ was a means or evading the

prohibition of usury. The buyer purchased an annuity, but the purchase

price was not regarded as a loan, or it could not be recalled, and the

annual payments could not therefore be called interest.



[265] The practice was legalised by the Lateran Council, 1512.



[266] The XVI Century was the hey-day of the great trading-companies,

among which the Fuggers of Augsburg (see above, p. 97, note 5) easily

took first place. The effort of these companies was directed toward

securing monopolies in the staple articles of commerce, and their

ability to finance large enterprises made it possible for them to gain

practical control of the home markets. The sharp rise in the cost of

living which took place on the first half of the XVI Century was laid

at their door. The Diet of Cologne (1512) had passed a stringent law

against monopolies which had, however, failed to suppress them. The

Diet of Worms (1521) debated the subject (Wrede, _Reichstagsakten_ II,

pp. 355 iff.) "in somewhat heated language" (_ibid._, 842), but failed

to agree upon methods of suppression. The subject was discussed again

at the Diet of Nurnberg (1523) and various remedies were proposed

(ibid., Ill, 556-599).



[267] The profits of the trading-companies were enormous. The 9 per

cent, annually of the Welser (Ehrenberg, _Zeitalter der Fugger_, I,

195), pales into insignificance beside the 1634 per cent, by which the

fortune of the Fuggers grew in twenty-one years (Schulte, _Die Fugger

in Rom_, I, 3). In 1511 a certain Bartholomew Rem invested 900 gulden

in the Hochstetter company of Augsburg; by 1517 he claimed 33,000

gulden profit. The company was willing to settle at 26,000, and the

resulting litigation caused the figures to become public (Wrede, _op.

cit._, II, 842, note 4; III, pp. 574 ff.). On Luther's view of

capitalism see Eck, _Introduction to the Sermon von Kaushandlungund

Wucher_, in _Berl. Ed._, VII, 494-513.



[268] The Diets of Augsburg (1500) and Cologne (1512) had passed

edicts against drunkenness. A committee of the Diet of Worms (1521)

recommended that these earlier edicts be reaffirmed (Wrede, _op.

cit._, II, pp. 343 f.), but the Diet adjourned without acting on the

recommendation (ibid., 737)



[269] _Sie wollen ausbuben, so sich's vielmehr hineinbubt_.



[270] Cf. Muller, _Luther's theol. Quellen_, 1912, ch. I.



[271] In the _Confitendi Ratio_ Luther had set the age for men at

eighteen to twenty, or women at fifteen to sixteen years. See Vol. I,

p. 100.



[272] Translated in this edition, Vol. I, pp. 184 ff; see especially

pp. 266 ff.



[273] These sentences did not appear in the first edition.



[274] See _Letter to Staupitz_, Vol. I, p. 43.



[275] This "little song" is the _Prelude on the Babylonian Captivity

of the Church_. See below, pp. 170 ff.







A PRELUDE ON THE BABYLONIAN CAPTIVITY OF THE CHURCH



1520







INTRODUCTION





In the _Open Letter to the Christian Nobility_ Luther overthrew the

three walls behind which Rome sat entrenched in her spiritual-temporal

power; in the _Babylonian Captivity of the Church_ he enters and takes

her central stronghold and sanctuary--the sacramental system by which

she accompanied and controlled her members from the cradle to the

grave; only then could he set forth, in language of almost lyrical

rapture, the _Liberty of a Christian Man_.



The first of these three great reformatory treatises of the year 1520,

as they have been called, closed with the words: "I know another

little song about Rome, and if their ears itch to hear it I will sing

it for them, and pitch it in a high key. Dost thou take my meaning,

beloved Rome?" (See above, p. 164.) That some ears were itching to

hear his little song was brought home to Luther especially by two

writings, the one appearing in the summer of 1520, the other published

in the previous autumn, but not reaching Wittenberg until some months

later.



The former came from the pen of Augustin Alveld, that "celebrated

Romanist of Leipzig," against whom Luther had culminated in _The

Papacy at Rome_, promising further disclosures if Alveld "came again."

(See Vol. I, p. 393.) He came again, this time with a _Tractatus de

communione sub utraque specie_,--date of dedication, June 23, 1520.

"The Leipzig ass has set up a fresh braying against me, full of

blasphemies"; thus Luther describes it in a letter to Spalatin, July

22, 1520. (Enders, _Luther's Briewechsel_, II, no. 328.)



The other work was the anonymous tract of a "certain Italian friar of

Cremona," who has only recently been identified as Isidore Isolani, a

Dominican hailing from Milan, who taught theology in various Italian

cities, wrote a number of controversial works and died in 1528. (See

Fr. Lauchert, _Die italienischen literarischen Gegner Luthers_,

Freiburg, 1912.) The title of his tract is, _Revocatio Martini Lutheri

Augustiniani ad sanctam Sedem_; its date, Cremona, November 20, 1520,

according to Enders, which is a mistake for November 22,1519. Its

beginning and close, which have epistolary character, are printed in

Enders, II, no. 366, and one paragraph from each is translated in

Smith, _Luther's Correspondence_, I, no. 199.



These two treatises may be regarded as the immediate occasion for the

writing of the _Babylonian Captivity_, which is, however, in no sense

a direct reply to either of them. "I will not reply to Alveld," Luther

writes on August 5 to Spalatin, "but he will be the occasion of my

publishing something by which the vipers will be more irritated than

ever." (Enders, II, no. 335; Smith, I, no. 283.) Indeed, he had

promised some such work more than half a year before, in a letter to

Spalatin of December 18, 1519: "There is no reason why you or any one

else should expect from me a treatise on the other sacraments [besides

baptism, the Lord's supper, and penance] until I am taught by what

text I can prove that they are sacraments. I regard none of the others

as a sacrament, for there is no sacrament save where there is a direct

divine promise, exercising our faith. We can have no intercourse with

God except by the word of Him promising, and by the faith of man

receiving the promise. _At another time you shall hear more about

their fables of the seven sacraments._" (Enders, II, no. 254; Smith,

I, no. 206.)



Thus the _Prelude_ grows under his hand and assumes the form of an

elaborate examination of the whole sacramental system of the Church.

He makes short work of his two opponents, and after a few pages of

delicious irony, of which Erasmus was suspected in some quarters of

being the author, he turns his back on them and addresses himself to a

positive and constructive treatment of his larger theme, lenient

toward all non-essentials, but inexorable with respect to everything

truly essential, that is, scriptural. The _Captivity_ thus represents

the culmination of Luther's reformatory thinking on the theological

side, as the _Nobility_ does on the national, and the _Liberty_ on the

religious side. It sums up and carries forward all of his previous

writings on the sacraments, just as, nine years later, the

_Catechisms_ gathered up and moulded into classic form his writings on

catechetical subjects. Passage after passage, often whole pages, from

the _Resolutiones disp._, the _Treatise on Baptism_, the _Conitendi

Ratio_, the _Treatise on the New Testament_, the _Treatise on the

Blessed Sacrament_, are transferred bodily to this new and definitive

work, and find in it the goal toward which they had been consciously

or unconsciously tending. The reader is referred to a fine comparative

study in Kostlin's _Theology of Luther_ (English trans.), I, 388-409.

The title is a reminiscence from the _Resolutiones super prop, xiii._,

of 1519,--"absit ista plus quam babylonica captivitas!" The sense in

which the work is called a "prelude" is explained on page 176; the

theologian in Luther could not deny the musician, he goes into battle

singing and comes back with the stanza of a hymn upon his lips.



The _Captivity_ marks Luther's final and irreparable break with the

Church of Rome, and it is not without a peculiar significance that in

the same letter to Spalatin, of October 3d, in which he mentions the

arrival in Leipzig of Eck armed with the papal bull, he announces the

publication of his book on the _Babylonian Captivity of the Church_

for the following Saturday--October 6th. (Enders, II, no. 350; Smith,

I, no. 303.)



While the _Nobility_, addressed to the German nation as such, was

written in the language of the people, the _Captivity_, as becomes a

theological treatise, is composed in Latin, just as later the Liberty,

affecting the religious life of the individual, whether layman or

theologian, is sent out in both German and Latin.



A translation into German appeared in the following year--the work of

the Franciscan, Thomas Murner (on whom see Theod. v. Liebenau, _Der

Franziskaner Thomas Murner_, Freiburg, 1913). Luther calls the

Franciscan his "venomous foe" and accuses him of making the

translation in order to bring him into disrepute. This charge Luther

makes in his answer to Henry VIII's _Assertio septem sacramentorum

adversus Mart. Lutherum_ (1521), the royal theologian's reply to the

_Babylonian Captivity_, for which he won from the pope the proud title

of "Defender of the Faith."



The translation which follows is based on the Latin text as given in

Clemen's "student-edition"--_Luthers Werke in Auswahl_ (Bonn, 1912-3),

I, 426-512, which reproduces, though by no means slavishly, the text

of the _Weimar Edition_ (Vol. VI), which, together with the _Erlangen

Edition_ (_opera var. arg., V_), has been compared. The German _St.

Louis Edition_ (Vol. XIX) has been consulted, and especially the

admirable German rendering of Kawerau in the Berlin Edition (Vol. II)

as well as the careful literal translation of Lemme, _Die drei grossen

Reormationsschriten Luthers vom Jahre 1520_, 2. ed. (Gotha, 1884).

Like the last mentioned, Wace and Buchheim's English translation

(London, 1896) is incomplete, and besides is not always accurate; the

_Captivity_ is not contained in Cole's _Select Works_. The catalogue

of the British Museum notes no early English translation.

Kostlin-Kawerau's (1903) and Berger's (1895) lives should be

consulted; the former for the historical setting and full analysis,

the latter for a fine appreciation of this as of the other two

reformatory treatises of this year. For the theological development,

beside Kostlin's work mentioned above, and Tschackert, _Entstehung der

luth. und re. Kirchenlehre_ (1910), compare the exhaustive article

Sakramente, by Kattenbusch, in _Prot. Realencyklopadie_, 3. ed., XVII,

349-81. The treatise is here Englished in its entirety, including

those portions of the section on marriage which are frequently

omitted. The homeless paragraph on page 260, whose proper location is

not found even in the _Weimar Edition_ nor in Clemen, we have placed

in a foot-note, following the example of Kawerau.



            ALBERT T. W. STEINHAEUSER.



Allentown. PA.





THE BABYLONIAN CAPTIVITY OF THE CHURCH



1520





JESUS



Martin Luther, Augustinian,



to his friend,



Herman Tulich[1],



Greeting



Willy nilly, I am compelled to become every day more learned, with so

many and such able masters vying with one another to improve my mind.

Some two years ago I wrote a little book on indulgences[2], which I

now deeply regret having published; for at the time I was still sunk

in a mighty superstitious veneration for the Roman tyranny and held

that indulgences should not be altogether rejected, seeing they were

approved by the common consent of men. Nor was this to be wondered at,

for I was then engaged single-handed in my Sisyphean task. Since then,

however, through the kindness of Sylvester and the friars[3], who so

strenuously defended indulgences, I have come to see that they are

nothing but an imposture of the Roman sycophants by which they play

havoc with men's faith and fortunes. Would to God I might prevail upon

the book-sellers and upon all my readers to burn up the whole of my

writings on indulgences and to substitute for them this proposition:

INDULGENCES ARE A KNAVISH TRICK OF THE ROMAN SYCOPHANTS.



Next, Eck and Emser, with their fellows, undertook to instruct me

concerning the primacy of the pope. Here too, not to prove ungrateful

to such learned folk, I acknowledge how greatly I have profited by

their labors. For, while denying the divine authority of the papacy, I

had yet admitted its human authority[4]. But after hearing and reading

the subtle subtleties of these coxcombs with which they adroitly prop

their idol--for in these matters my mind is not altogether

unteachable--I now know of a certainty that the papacy is the kingdom

of Babylon[5] and the power of Nimrod the mighty hunter[6]. Once more,

therefore, that all may all out to my friends' advantage, I beg both

booksellers and readers to burn what I have published on that subject

and to hold to this proposition: THE PAPACY IS THE MIGHTY HUNTING OF

THE ROMAN BISHOP. This follows from the arguments of Eck, Emser and

the Leipzig lecturer[7] on the Holy Scriptures.



Now they are putting me to school again and teaching me about

communion in both kinds and other weighty subjects. And I must all to

with might and main, so as not to hear these my pedagogues without

profit. A certain Italian friar of Cremona[8] has written a

"Revocation of Martin Luther to the Holy See"--that is, a revocation

in which not I revoke anything (as the words declare) but he revokes

me. That is the kind of Latin the Italians are now beginning to

write[9]. Another friar, a German of Leipzig, that same lecturer, you

know, on the whole canon of the Scriptures, has written a book against

me concerning the sacrament in both kinds, and is planning, I

understand, still greater and more marvelous things. The Italian was

canny enough not to set down his name, fearing perhaps the fate of

Cajetan and Sylvester[10]. But the Leipzig man, as becomes a fierce

and valiant German, boasts on his ample title-page of his name, his

career, his saintliness, his scholarship, his office, glory, honor,

ay, almost of his very clogs[11]. Here I shall doubtless gain no

little information, since indeed his dedicatory epistle is addressed

to the Son of God Himself. On so familiar a footing are these saints

with Christ Who reigns in heaven! Moreover, methinks I hear three

magpies chattering in this book; the first in good Latin, the second

in better Greek, the third in purest Hebrew[12]. What think you, my

Herman, is there for me to do but to prick up my ears? The thing

emanates from Leipzig, from the Observance of the Holy Cross[13].



Fool that I was, I had hitherto thought it would be well if a general

council decided that the sacrament be administered to the laity in

both kinds[14]. The more than learned friar would set me right, and

declares that neither Christ nor the apostles commanded or commended

the administration of both kinds to the laity; it was, therefore, left

to the judgment of the Church what to do or not to do in this matter,

and the Church must be obeyed. These are his words.



You will perhaps ask, what madness has entered into the man, or

against whom he is writing, since I have not condemned the use of one

kind, but have left the decision about the use of both kinds to the

judgment of the Church--the very thing he attempts to assert and which

he turns against me. My answer is, that this sort of argument is

common to all those who write against Luther; they assert the very

things they assail, for they set up a man of straw whom they may

attack. Thus Sylvester and Eck and Emser, thus the theologians of

Cologne and Louvain[15]; and if this friar had not been of the same

kidney he would never have written against Luther.



Yet in one respect this man has been happier than his fellows. For in

undertaking to prove that the use of both kinds is neither commanded

nor commended, but left to the will of the Church, he brings forward

passages of Scripture to prove that by the command of Christ one kind

only was appointed for the laity. So that it is true, according to

this new interpreter of the Scriptures, that one kind was not

commanded, and at the same time was commanded, by Christ! This novel

sort of argument is, as you know, the particular forte of the Leipzig

dialecticians. Did not Emser in his earlier book[16] profess to write

of me in a friendly spirit, and then, after I had convicted him of

filthy envy and foul lying, did he not openly acknowledge in his later

book[17], written to refute my arguments, that he had written in both

a friendly and an unfriendly spirit? A sweet fellow, forsooth, as you

know.



But hearken to our distinguished distinguisher of "kinds," for whom

the will of the Church and a command of Christ, and a command of

Christ and no command of Christ, are all one and the same! How

ingeniously he proves that only one kind is to be given to the laity,

by the command of Christ, that is, by the will of the Church. He puts

it in capital letters, thus: THE INFALLIBLE FOUNDATION. Thereupon he

treats John vi with incredible wisdom, in which passage Christ speaks

of the bread from heaven and the bread of life, which is He Himself.

The learned fellow not only refers these words to the sacrament of the

altar, but because Christ says, "I am the living bread," [John 6:35,

41, 51] and not, "I am the living cup," he actually concludes that we

have in this passage the institution of the sacrament in only one kind

for the laity. But there follow the words,--"My flesh is meat indeed,

and my blood is drink indeed," [John 6:55] and, "Except ye eat the

flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood" [John 6:53]; and when it

dawned upon the good friar that these words speak undeniably or both

kinds and against one kind--presto! how happily and learnedly he slips

out of the quandary by asserting that in these words Christ means to

say only that whoever receives the one kind receives under it both

flesh and blood. This he puts or the "infallible foundation" of a

structure well worthy of the holy and heavenly Observance.



Now prithee, herefrom learn with me that Christ, in John vi, enjoins

the sacrament in one kind, yet in such wise that His commanding it

means leaving it to the will of the Church; and further, that Christ

is speaking in this chapter only of the laity and not of the priests.

For to the latter the living bread from heaven does not pertain, but

presumably the deadly bread from hell! And how is it with the deacons

and subdeacons, who are neither laymen nor priests?[18] According to

this brilliant writer, they ought to use neither the one kind nor both

kinds! You see, dear Tulich, this novel and observant method of

treating Scripture.



But learn this, too,--that Christ is speaking in John vi of the

sacrament of the altar; although He Himself teaches that His words

refer to faith in the Word made flesh, for He says, "This is the work

of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent." [John 6:29] But our

Leipzig professor of the Scriptures must be permitted to prove

anything he pleases from any Scripture passage whatsoever. For he is

an Anaxagorian, or rather an Aristotelian[19] theologian, for whom

nouns and verbs, interchanged, mean the same thing and any thing. So

aptly does he cite Scripture proof-texts throughout the whole of his

book, that if he set out to prove the presence of Christ in the

sacrament, he would not hesitate to commence thus: "Here beginneth the

book of the Revelation of St. John the Divine." All his quotations are

as apt as this one would be, and the wiseacre imagines he is adorning

his drivel with the multitude of his quotations. The rest I pass over,

lest you should smother in the filth of this vile cloaca.



In conclusion, he brings forward I Corinthians xi, where Paul says he

received from the Lord, and delivered to the Corinthians, the use of

both the bread and the cup [1 Cor. 11:23]. Here again our

distinguisher of kinds, treating the Scriptures with his usual

brilliance, teaches that Paul did not deliver, but permitted both

kinds. Do you ask where he gets his proof? Out of his own head, as he

did in the case of John vi. For it does not behoove this lecturer to

give a reason for his assertions; he belongs to the order of those who

teach and prove all things by their visions[20]. Accordingly we are

here taught that the Apostle, in this passage, addressed not the whole

Corinthian congregation, but the laity alone--but then he "permitted"

nothing at all to the clergy, and they are deprived of the sacrament

altogether!--and further, that, according to a new kind of grammar, "I

have received from the Lord" means "It is permitted by the Lord," and

"I have delivered it to you" means "I have permitted it to you." I

pray you, mark this well. For by this method, not only the Church, but

every passing knave will be at liberty, according to this magister, to

turn all the commands, institutions and ordinances of Christ and the

apostles into a mere "permission."



I perceive, therefore, that this man is driven by an angel of Satan,

and that he and his partners seek but to make a name or themselves

through me, as men who were worthy to cross swords with Luther. But

their hopes shall be dashed: I shall ignore them and not mention their

names from henceforth even for ever. This one reply shall suffice me

for all their books. If they be worthy of it, I pray Christ in His

mercy to bring them to a sound mind; if not, I pray that they may

never leave off writing such books, and that the enemies of the truth

may never deserve to read any other. It is a popular and true saying,



    This I know of a truth--whenever with filth I contended,

    Victor or vanquished, alike, came I defiled from the fray.



And, since I perceive that they have an abundance of leisure and of

writing-paper, I shall see to it that they may have ample opportunity

for writing. I shall run on before, and while they are celebrating a

glorious victory over one of my so-called heresies, I shall be

meanwhile devising a new one. For I too am desirous that these gallant

leaders in battle should win to themselves many titles and

decorations. Therefore, while they complain that I laud communion in

both kinds, and are happily engrossed in this most important and

worthy matter, I will go yet one step farther and undertake to show

that all those who deny communion in both kinds to the laity are

wicked men. And the more conveniently to do this, I will compose a

prelude on the captivity of the Roman Church. In due time I shall have

a great deal more to say, when the learned papists have disposed of

this book.



I take this course, lest any pious reader who may chance upon this

book, should be offended at my dealing with such filthy matters, and

should justly complain of finding in it nothing to cultivate and

instruct his mind or even to furnish good or learned thought. For you

know how impatient my friends are because I waste my time on the

sordid fictions of these men, which, they say, are amply refuted in

the reading; they look for greater things from me, which Satan seeks

in this way to hinder. I have at length resolved to follow their

counsel and to leave to those hornets the pleasant business of

wrangling and hurling invectives.



Of that friar of Cremona I will say nothing. He is an unlearned man

and a simpleton, who attempts with a few rhetorical passages to recall

me to the Holy See, from which I am not as yet aware of having

departed, nor has any one proved it to me. He is chiefly concerned in

those silly passages with showing that I ought to be moved by the vow

of my order and by the act that the empire has been transferred to us

Germans[21]. He seems thus to have set out to write, not my

"revocation," but rather the praises of the French people and the

Roman pontiff. Let him attest his loyalty in his little book; it is

the best he could do. He does not deserve to be harshly treated, for

methinks he was not prompted by malice; nor yet to be learnedly

refuted, for all his chatter is sheer ignorance and simplicity[22].



At the outset I must deny that there are seven sacraments, and hold

for the present[23] to but three--baptism, penance and the bread[24].

These three have been subjected to a miserable captivity by the Roman

curia, and the Church has been deprived of all her liberty. To be

sure, if I desired to use the term in its scriptural sense, I should

allow but a single sacrament[25], with three sacramental signs; but of

this I shall treat more fully at the proper time.



THE SACRAMENT OF THE BREAD



Let me tell you what progress I have made in my studies on the

administration of this sacrament. For when I published my treatise on

the Eucharist[26], I clung to the common usage, being in no wise

concerned with the question of the right or wrong of the papacy. But

now, challenged and attacked, nay, forcibly thrust into the arena, I

shall freely speak my mind, let all the papists laugh or weep

together.



[Sidenote: The First Captivity: the Withholding of the Cup from the

Laity]



In the first place, John vi is to be entirely excluded from this

discussion, since it does not refer in a single syllable to the

sacrament. For not only was the sacrament not yet instituted, but the

whole context plainly shows that Christ is speaking of faith in the

Word made flesh, as I have said above[27]. For He says, "My words are

spirit, and they are life," [John 6:63] which shows that He is

speaking of a spiritual eating, whereby whoever eats has life, whereas

the Jews understood Him to be speaking of bodily eating and therefore

disputed with Him. But no eating can give life save the eating which

is by faith, for that is the truly spiritual and living eating. As

Augustine also says: "Why make ready teeth and stomach? Believe, and

thou hast eaten."[28] For the sacramental eating does not give life,

since many eat unworthily. Therefore, He cannot be understood as

speaking of the sacrament in this passage.



These words have indeed been wrongly applied to the sacrament, as in

the decretal _Dudum_[29] and often elsewhere. But it is one thing to

misapply the Scriptures, it is quite another to understand them in

their proper meaning. But if Christ in this passage enjoined the

sacramental eating, then by saying, "Except ye eat my flesh and drink

my blood, ye have no life in you," [John 6:53] He would condemn all

infants, invalids and those absent or in any wise hindered from the

sacramental eating, however strong their faith might be. Thus

Augustine, in the second book of his _Contra Julianum_[30], proves

from Innocent that even infants eat the flesh and drink the blood of

Christ, without the sacrament; that is, they partake of them through

the faith of the Church. Let this then be accepted as proved,--John vi

does not belong here. For this reason I have elsewhere[31] written

that the Bohemians have no right to rely on this passage in support of

their use of the sacrament in both kinds.



Now there are two passages that do clearly bear upon this matter--the

Gospel narratives of the institution of the Lord's Supper, and Paul in

I Corinthians xi. These let us examine.



Matthew, Mark and Luke agree that Christ gave the whole sacrament to

all the disciples [Matt. 26, Mark 14, Luke 22], and it is certain that

Paul delivered both kinds [1 Cor. 11]. No one has ever had the

temerity to assert the contrary. Further, Matthew reports that Christ

said not of the bread, "Eat ye all of it," [Matt. 26:27] but of the

cup, "Drink ye all of it"; and Mark likewise says not, "They all ate

of it," but, "They all drank of it." [Mark 14:23] Both Matthew and

Mark attach the note of universality to the cup, not to the bread; as

though the Spirit saw this schism coming, by which some would be

forbidden to partake of the cup, which Christ desired should be common

to all. How furiously, think you, would they rave against us, if they

had found the word "all" attached to the bread instead of the cup!

They would not leave us a loophole to escape, they would cry out upon

us and set us down as heretics, they would damn us or schismatics. But

now, since it stands on our side and against them, they will not be

bound by any force of logic--these men of the most free will[32], who

change and change again even the things that be God's, and throw

everything into confusion.



But imagine me standing over against them and interrogating my lords

the papists. In the Lord's Supper, I say, the whole sacrament, or

communion in both kinds, is given only to the priests or else it is

given also to the laity. If it is given only to the priests, as they

would have it, then it is not right to give it to the laity in either

kind; for it must not be rashly given to any to whom Christ did not

give it when He instituted it. For if we permit one institution of

Christ to be changed, we make all of His laws invalid, and every one

will boldly claim that he is not bound by any law or institution of

His. For a single exception, especially in the Scriptures, invalidates

the whole. But if it is given also to the laity, then it inevitably

follows that it ought not to be withheld from them in either form.

And if any do withhold it from them when they desire it, they act

impiously and contrary to the work, example and institution of Christ.



I confess that I am conquered by this to me unanswerable argument, and

that I have neither read nor heard nor found anything to advance

against it. For here the word and example of Christ stand firm, when

He says, not by way of permission but of command, "Drink ye all of

it." [Matt.26:27] For if all are to drink, and the words cannot be

understood as addressed to the priests alone, then it is certainly an

impious act to withhold the cup from laymen who desire it, even though

an angel from heaven were to do it. For when they say that the

distribution of both kinds was left to the judgment of the Church,

they make this assertion without giving any reason or it and put it

forth without any authority; it is ignored just as readily as it is

proved, and does not hold against an opponent who confronts us[33]

with the word and work of Christ. Such an one must be refuted with a

word of Christ, but this we[34] do not possess.



But if one kind may be withheld from the laity, then with equal right

and reason a portion of baptism and penance might also be taken from

them by this same authority of the Church. Therefore, just as baptism

and absolution must be administered in their entirety, so the

sacrament of the bread must be given in its entirety to all laymen, if

they desire it. I am amazed to find them asserting that the priests

may never receive only the one kind, in the mass, on pain of

committing a mortal sin; and that for no other reason, as they

unanimously say, than that both kinds constitute the one complete

sacrament, which may not be divided. I pray them to tell me why it may

be divided in the case of the laity, and why to them alone the whole

sacrament may not be given. Do they not acknowledge, by their own

testimony, either that both kinds are to be given to the laity, or

that it is not a valid sacrament when only one kind is given to them?

How can the one kind be a complete sacrament or the laity and not a

complete sacrament for the priests? Why do they flaunt the authority

of the Church and the power of the pope in my face? These do not make

void the Word of God and the testimony of the truth.



But further, if the Church can withhold the wine from the laity, it

can also withhold the bread from them; it could, therefore, withhold

the entire sacrament of the altar from the laity and completely annul

Christ's institution so far as they are concerned. I ask, by what

authority? But if the Church cannot withhold the bread, or both kinds,

neither can it withhold the wine. This cannot possibly be gainsaid;

for the Church's power must be the same over either kind as over both

kinds, and if she has no power over both kinds, she has none over

either kind. I am curious to hear what the Roman sycophants will have

to say to this.



What carries most weight with me, however, and quite decides me is

this. Christ says: "This is my blood, which is shed for you and for

many for the remission of sins." [Matt. 26:28] Here we see very

plainly that the blood is given to all those for whose sins it was

shed. But who will dare to say it was not shed for the laity? Do you

not see whom He addresses when He gives the cup? Does He not give it

to all?  Does He not say that it is shed or all? "For you," He

says--well: we will let these be the priests--"and for many"--these

cannot be priests; and yet He says, "Drink ye all of it." [Matt.

26:27] I too could easily trifle here and with my words make a mockery

of Christ's words, as my dear trifler[34] does; but they who rely on

the Scriptures in opposing us, must be refuted by the Scriptures. This

is what has prevented me from condemning the Bohemians, who, be they

wicked men or good, certainly have the word and act of Christ on their

side, while we have neither, but only that hollow device of men--"the

Church has appointed it." It was not the Church that appointed these

things, but the tyrants of the churches, without the consent of the

Church, which is the people of God.



But where in all the world is the necessity, where the religious duty,

where the practical use, of denying both kinds, i. e., the visible

sign, to the laity, when every one concedes to them the grace[35] of

the sacrament without the sign? If they concede the grace, which is

the greater, why not the sign, which is the lesser? For in every

sacrament the sign as such is of far less importance than the thing

signified.  What then is to prevent them from conceding the lesser,

when they concede the greater? I can see but one reason; it has come

about by the permission of an angry God in order to give occasion for

a schism in the Church, to bring home to us how, having long ago lost

the grace of the sacrament, we contend for the sign, which is the

lesser, against that which is the most important and the chief thing;

just as some men for the sake of ceremonies contend against love. Nay,

this monstrous perversion seems to date from the time when we began

for the sake of the riches of this world to rage against Christian

love. Thus God would show us, by this terrible sign, how we esteem

signs more than the things they signify. How preposterous would it be

to admit that the faith of baptism is granted the candidate or

baptism, and yet to deny him the sign of this faith, namely, the

water!



Finally, Paul stands invincible and stops every mouth, when he says in

I Corinthians xi, "I have received from the Lord what I also delivered

unto you." [1 Cor. 11:23] He does not say, "I permitted unto you," as

that friar lyingly asserts[36]. Nor is it true that Paul delivered

both kinds on account of the contention in the Corinthian

congregation. For, first, the text shows that their contention was not

about both kinds, but about the contempt and envy among rich and poor,

as it is clearly stated: "One is hungry, and another is drunken, and

ye put to shame them that have not." [1 Cor. 11:21] Again, Paul is not

speaking of the time when he first delivered the sacrament to them,

for he says not, "I _receive_ of the Lord and _give_ unto you," but,

"I received and delivered"--namely, when he first began to preach

among them, a long while before this contention. This shows that he

delivered both kinds to them; and "delivered" means the same as

"commanded," for elsewhere he uses the word in this sense.

Consequently there is nothing in the friar's fuming about permission;

it is a hotch-potch without Scripture, reason or sense. His opponents

do not ask what he has dreamed, but what the Scriptures decree in this

matter; and out of the Scriptures he cannot adduce one jot or tittle

in support of his dreams, while they can bring forward mighty

thunderbolts in support of their faith.



Come hither then, ye popish flatterers, one and all! Fall to and

defend yourselves against the charge of godlessness, tyranny,

lese-majesty against the Gospel, and the crime of slandering your

brethren,--ye that decry as heretics those who will not be wise after

the vaporings of your own brains, in the face of such patent and

potent words of Scripture. If any are to be called heretics and

schismatics, it is not the Bohemians nor the Greeks, for they take

their stand upon the Gospel; but you Romans are the heretics and

godless schismatics, for you presume upon your own fictions and fly in

the face of the clear Scriptures of God. Parry that stroke, if you

can!



But what could be more ridiculous, and more worthy of this friar's

brain, than his saying that the Apostle wrote these words and gave

this permission, not to the Church universal, but to a particular

church, that is, the Corinthian? Where does he get his proof? Out of

his one storehouse, his own impious head. If the Church universal

receives, reads and follows this epistle in all points as written for

itself, why should it not do the same with this portion of it? If we

admit that any epistle, or any part of any epistle, of Paul does not

apply to the Church universal, then the whole authority of Paul falls

to the ground. Then the Corinthians will say that what he teaches

about faith in the epistle to the Romans does not apply to them. What

greater blasphemy and madness can be imagined than this! God forbid

that there should be one jot or tittle in all of Paul which the whole

Church universal is not bound to follow and keep! Not so did the

Fathers hold, down to these perilous times, in which Paul foretold

there should be blasphemers and blind and insensate men [2 Tim. 3:2],

of whom this friar is one, nay the chief.



However, suppose we grant the truth of this intolerable madness. If

Paul gave his permission to a particular church, then, even from your

own point of view, the Greeks and Bohemians are in the right, for they

are particular churches; hence it is sufficient that they do not act

contrary to Paul, who at least gave permission. Moreover, Paul could

not permit anything contrary to Christ's institution. Therefore I cast

in thy teeth, O Rome, and in the teeth of all thy sycophants, these

sayings of Christ and Paul, on behalf of the Greeks and the Bohemians.

Nor canst thou prove that thou hast received any authority to change

them, much less to accuse others of heresy or disregarding thy

arrogance; rather dost thou deserve to be charged with the crime of

godlessness and despotism.



Furthermore, Cyprian, who alone is strong enough to hold all the

Romanists at bay, bears witness, in the fifth book of his treatise _Of

the Fallen_, that it was a wide-spread custom in his church to

administer both kinds to the laity, and even to children[37], yea to

give the body of the Lord into their hands; of which he cites many

instances. He inveighs, or example, against certain members of the

congregation as follows: "The sacrilegious man is angered at the

priests because he does not forthwith receive the body of the Lord

with unclean hands, or drink the blood of the Lord with defiled lips."

He is speaking, as you see, of laymen, and irreverent laymen, who

desired to receive the body and the blood from the priests. Dost thou

find anything to snarl at here, thou wretched flatterer? Say that even

this holy martyr, a Church Father preeminent for his apostolic spirit,

was a heretic and used that permission in a particular church.



In the same place, Cyprian narrates an incident that came under his

own observation. He describes at length how a deacon was administering

the cup to a little girl, who drew away from him, whereupon he poured

the blood of the Lord into her mouth. We read the same of St. Donatus,

whose broken chalice this wretched flatterer so lightly disposes of.

"I read of a broken chalice," he says, "but I do not read that the

blood was given."[38] It is no wonder! He that finds what he pleases

in the Scriptures will also read what he pleases in the histories. But

will the authority of the Church be established, or will heretics be

refuted, in this way? Enough of this! I did not undertake this work to

reply to him who is not worth replying to, but to bring the truth of

the matter to light.



I conclude, then, that it is wicked and despotic to deny both kinds to

the laity, and that this is not in the power of any angel, much less

of any pope or council. Nor does the Council of Constance give me

pause, for if its authority carries weight, why does not that of the

Council of Basel also carry weight? For the latter council decided, on

the contrary, after much disputing, that the Bohemians might use both

kinds, as the extant records and documents of the council prove. And

to that council this ignorant flatterer refers in support of his

dream; in such wisdom does his whole treatise abound[39].



The first captivity of this sacrament, therefore, concerns its

substance or completeness, of which we have been deprived by the

despotism of Rome. Not that they sin against Christ, who use the one

kind, for Christ did not command the use of either kind, but let it to

every one's free will, when He said: "As oft as ye do this, do it in

remembrance of me." [1 Cor. 11:25] But they sin who forbid the giving

of both kinds to such as desire to exercise this free will. The fault

lies not with the laity, but with the priests. The sacrament does not

belong to the priests, but to all, and the priests are not lords but

ministers, in duty bound to administer both kinds to those who desire

them, and as oft as they desire them. If they wrest this right from

the laity and forcibly withhold it, they are tyrants; but the laity

are without fault, whether they lack one kind or both kinds; they must

meanwhile be sustained by their faith and by their desire for the

complete sacrament. Just as the priests, being ministers, are bound to

administer baptism and absolution to whoever seeks them, because he

has a right to them; but if they do not administer them, he that seeks

them has at least the full merit of his faith, while they will be

accused before Christ as wicked servants. In like manner the holy

Fathers of old who dwelt in the desert did not receive the sacrament

in any form for many years together[40].



Therefore I do not urge that both kinds be seized by force, as though

we were bound to this form by a rigorous command; but I instruct men's

consciences that they may endure the Roman tyranny, well knowing they

have been deprived of their rightful share in the sacrament because of

their own sin. This only do I desire,--that no one justify the tyranny

of Rome, as though it did well to forbid one of the two kinds to the

laity; we ought rather to abhor it, withhold our consent, and endure

it just as we should do if we were held captive by the Turk and not

permitted to use either kind. That is what I meant by saying[41] it

seemed well to me that this captivity should be ended by the decree of

a general council, our Christian liberty restored to us out of the

hands of the Roman tyrant, and every one let free to seek and receive

this sacrament, just as he is free to receive baptism and penance. But

now they compel us, by the same tyranny, to receive the one kind year

after year; so utterly lost is the liberty which Christ has given us.

This is but the due reward of our godless ingratitude.



[Sidenote: The Second Captivity: Transubstantiation]



The second captivity of this sacrament is less grievous so far as the

conscience is concerned, yet the very gravest danger threatens the man

who would attack it, to say nothing of condemning it. Here I shall be

called a Wyclifite[42] and a heretic a thousand times over. But what

of that? Since the Roman bishop has ceased to be a bishop and become a

tyrant, I fear none of his decrees, for I know that it is not in his

power, nor even in that of a general council, to make new articles of

faith.



Years ago, when I was delving into scholastic theology, the Cardinal

of Cambray[43] gave me food for thought, in his comments on the fourth

book of the Sentences[44], where he argues with great acumen that to

hold that real bread and real wine, and not their accidents only[45],

are present on the altar, is much more probable and requires fewer

unnecessary miracles--if only the Church had not decreed otherwise.

When I learned later what church it was that had decreed this--namely,

the Church of Thomas[46], i. e., of Aristotle--I waxed bolder, and

after floating in a sea of doubt, at last found rest for my conscience

in the above view--namely, that it is real bread and real wine, in

which Christ's real flesh and blood are present, not otherwise and not

less really than they assume to be the case under their accidents. I

reached this conclusion because I saw that the opinions of the

Thomists, though approved by pope and council, remain but opinions and

do not become articles of faith, even though an angel from heaven were

to decree otherwise [Gal. 1:8]. For what is asserted without Scripture

for an approved revelation, may be held as an opinion, but need not be

believed. But this opinion of Thomas hangs so completely in the air,

devoid of Scripture and reason, that he seems here to have forgotten

both his philosophy and his logic. For Aristotle treats so very

differently from St. Thomas of subject and accidents, that methinks

this great man is to be pitied, not only for drawing his opinions in

matters of faith from Aristotle, but for attempting to base them on

him without understanding his meaning--an unfortunate superstructure

upon an unfortunate foundation.



I therefore permit every man to hold either of these views, as he

chooses. My one concern at present is to remove all scruples of

conscience, so that no one may fear to become guilty of heresy if he

should believe in the presence of real bread and real wine on the

altar, and that every one may feel at liberty to ponder, hold and

believe either one view or the other, without endangering his

salvation. However, I shall now more fully set forth my own view.



In the first place, I do not intend to listen or attach the least

importance to those who will cry out that this teaching of mine is

Wyclifite, Hussite, heretical, and contrary to the decision of the

Church, for they are the very persons whom I have convicted of

manifold heresies in the matter of indulgences, the freedom of the

will and the grace of God, good works and sin, etc. If Wyclif was once

a heretic, they are heretics ten times over, and it is a pleasure to

be suspected and accused by such heretics and perverse sophists, whom

to please were the height of godlessness. Besides, the only way in

which they can prove their opinions and disprove those of others, is

by saying, "That is Wyclifite, Hussite, heretical!" They have this

feeble retort always on their tongue, and they have nothing else. If

you demand a Scripture passage, they say, "This is our opinion, and

the decision of the Church--that is, of ourselves!" Thus these men,

"reprobate concerning the faith" [2 Tim. 3:8] and untrustworthy, have

the effrontery to set their own fancies before us in the name of the

Church as articles of faith.



But there are good grounds for my view, and this above all,--no

violence is to be done to the words of God, whether by man or angel;

but they are to be retained in their simplest meaning wherever

possible, and to be understood in by their grammatical and literal

sense unless the context plainly forbids; lest we give our adversaries

occasion to make a mockery of all the Scriptures. Thus Origen was

repudiated, in olden times, because he despised the grammatical sense

and turned the trees, and all things else written concerning Paradise,

into allegories; for it might therefrom be concluded that God did not

create trees. Even so here, when the Evangelists plainly write that

Christ took bread and brake it [Matt. 26:26; Mark 14:22; Luke 22:19;

Acts 2:46; 1 Cor. 11:23], and the book of Acts and Paul, in their

turn, call it bread, we have to think of real bread, and real wine,

just as we do of a real cup; or even they do not maintain that the cup

is transubstantiated. But since it is not necessary to assume a

transubstantiation wrought by Divine power, it is to be regarded as a

figment of the human mind, or it rests neither on Scripture nor on

reason, as we shall see.



Therefore it is an absurd and unheard-of juggling with words, to

understand "bread" to mean "the form, or accidents of bread," and

"wine" to mean "the form, or accidents of wine." Why do they not also

understand all other things to mean their forms, or accidents? And

even if this might be done with all other things, it would yet not be

right thus to emasculate the words of God and arbitrarily to empty

them of their meaning.



Moreover, the Church had the true faith for more than twelve hundred

years, during which time the holy Fathers never once mentioned this

transubstantiation--forsooth, a monstrous word for a monstrous

idea!--until the pseudophilosophy of Aristotle became rampant in the

Church, these last three hundred years, during which many other things

have been wrongly defined; as for example, that the Divine essence

neither is begotten nor begets; that the soul is the substantial form

of the human body, and the like assertions, which are made without

reason or sense, as the Cardinal of Cambray himself admits.



Perhaps they will say that the danger of idolatry demands that bread

and wine be not really present. How ridiculous! The laymen have never

become familiar with their fine-spun philosophy of substance and

accidents, and could not grasp it if it were taught them. Besides,

there is the same danger in the case of the accidents which remain and

which they see, as in the case of the substance which they do not see.

For if they do not adore the accidents, but Christ hidden under them,

why should they adore the bread, which they do not see?



But why could not Christ include His body in the substance of the

bread just as well as in the accidents? The two substances of fire and

iron are so mingled in the heated iron that every part is both iron

and fire. Why could not much rather Christ's body be thus contained in

every part of the substance of the bread?



What will they say? We believe that in His birth Christ came forth out

of the unopened womb of His mother. Let them say here too that the

flesh of the Virgin was meanwhile annihilated, or as they would more

aptly say, transubstantiated, so that Christ, after being enfolded in

its accidents, finally came forth through the accidents! The same

thing will have to be said of the shut door and of the closed mouth of

the sepulchre, through which He went in and out without disturbing

them. Hence has risen that hotch-potch of a philosophy of constant

quantity distinct from the substance, until it has come to such a pass

that they themselves no longer know what are accidents and what is

substance. For who has ever proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that

heat, color, cold, light, weight or shape are mere accidents? Finally,

they have been driven to the fancy that a new substance is created by

God or their accidents on the altar--all on account of Aristotle, who

says, "It is the essence of an accident to be in something," and

endless other monstrosities, of all which they would be rid if they

simply permitted real bread to be present. And I rejoice greatly that

the simple faith of this sacrament is still to be found at least among

the common people; for as they do not understand, neither do they

dispute, whether accidents are present or substance[47] but believe

with a simple faith that Christ's body and blood are truly contained

in whatever is there, and leave to those who have nothing else to do

the business of disputing about that which contains them.



But perhaps they will say: From Aristotle we learn that in an

affirmative proposition subject and predicate must be identical, or,

to set down the beast's own words, in the sixth book of his

_Metaphysics_: "An affirmative proposition demands the agreement of

subject and predicate," which they interpret as above. Hence, when it

is said, "This is my body," the subject cannot be identical with the

bread, but must be identical with the body of Christ. What shall we

say when Aristotle and the doctrines of men are made to be the

arbiters of these lofty and divine matters? Why do we not put by such

curiosity, and cling simply to the word of Christ, willing to remain

in ignorance of what here takes place, and content with this, that the

real body of Christ is present by virtue of the words?[48] Or is it

necessary to comprehend the manner of the divine working in every

detail?



But what do they say to Aristotle's assigning a subject to whatever is

predicated of the attributes, although he holds that the substance is

the chief subject? Hence for him, "this white," "this large," etc.,

are subjects of which something is predicated. If that is correct, I

ask: If a transubstantiation must be assumed in order that Christ's

body be not predicated of the bread, why not also a transaccidentation

in order that it be not predicated of the accidents? For the same

danger remains if one understands the subject to be "this white" or

"this round"[49] is my body, and for the same reason that a

transubstantiation is assumed, a transaccidentation must also be

assumed, because of this identity of subject and predicate.



Let us not, however, dabble too much in philosophy. Does not Christ

appear to have admirably anticipated such curiosity by saying of the

wine, not, "_Hoc est sanguis meus_," but "_Hie est sanguis mens_"

[Matt. 26:28]? And yet more clearly, by bringing in the word "cup,"

when He said, "This cup is the new testament in my blood." [1 Cor.

11:25] Does it not seem as though He desired to keep us in a simple

faith, so that we might but believe His blood to be in the cup?  For

my part, if I cannot fathom how the bread is the body of Christ, I

will take my reason captive to the obedience of Christ [2 Cor. 10:5],

and clinging simply to His word, firmly believe not only that the body

of Christ is in the bread, but that the bread is the body of Christ.

For in this I am borne out by the words, "He took bread, and giving

thanks, He brake it and said, Take, eat; this [i. e., this bread which

He took and brake] is my body." [1 Cor. 11:23] And Paul says: "The

bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?"

[1 Cor. 10:16] He says not, in the bread, but the bread itself, is the

communion of the body of Christ. What matters it if philosophy cannot

fathom this? The Holy Spirit is greater than Aristotle. Does

philosophy fathom that transubstantiation of theirs, of which they

themselves admit that here all philosophy breaks down? But the

agreement of the pronoun "this" with "body," in Greek and Latin, is

owing to the fact that in these languages the two words are of the

same gender. But in the Hebrew language, which has no neuter gender,

"this" agrees with "bread," so that it would be proper to say, "_Hie

est corpus meum_." This is proved also by the use of language and by

common sense; the subject, forsooth, points to the bread, not to the

body, when He says, "_Hoc est corpus meum_," "_Das ist mein

Leib_,"--i. e., This bread is my body.



Therefore it is with the sacrament even as it is with Christ. In order

that the Godhead may dwell in Him, it is not necessary that the human

nature be transubstantiated and the Godhead be contained under its

accidents; but both natures are there in their entirety, and it is

truly said, "This man is God," and "This God is man." Even though

philosophy cannot grasp this, faith grasps it, and the authority of

God's Word is greater than the grasp of our intellect. Even so, in

order that the real body and the real blood of Christ may be present

in the sacrament, it is not necessary that the bread and wine be

transubstantiated and Christ be contained under their accidents; but

both remain there together, and it is truly said, "This bread is my

body, this wine is my blood," [Matt. 26:26] and _vice versa_. Thus I

will for the nonce understand it, or the honor of the holy words of

God, which I will not suffer any petty human arguments to override or

wrest to meanings foreign to them. At the same time, I permit other

men to follow the other opinion, which is laid down in the decree

_Firmiter_[50]; only let them not press us to accept their opinions as

articles of faith, as I said above.



[Sidenote: The Third Captivity: The Mass a Good Work and a Sacrifice]



The third captivity of this sacrament is that most wicked abuse of

all, in consequence of which there is to-day no more generally

accepted and firmly believed opinion in the Church than this,--that

the mass is a good work and a sacrifice. And this abuse has brought an

endless host of others in its train, so that the faith of this

sacrament has Sacrifice become utterly extinct and the holy sacrament

has been turned into a veritable air, tavern, and place of

merchandise. Hence participations[51], brotherhoods[52],

intercessions, merits, anniversaries, memorial days, and the like

wares are bought and sold, traded and bartered in the Church, and from

this priests and monks derive their whole living.



I am attacking a difficult matter, and one perhaps impossible to

abate, since it has become so firmly entrenched through century-long

custom and the common consent of men that it would be necessary to

abolish most of the books now in vogue, to alter well-nigh the whole

external form of the churches, and to introduce, or rather

re-introduce, a totally different kind of ceremonies. But my Christ

lives; and we must be careful to give more heed to the Word of God

than to all the thoughts of men and of angels. I will perform the

duties of my office, and uncover the acts in the case; I will give the

truth as I have received it, freely and without malice [Matt. 10:8].

For the rest let every man look to his own salvation; I will

faithfully do my part that none may cast on me the blame for his lack

of faith and knowledge of the truth, when we appear before the

judgment-seat of Christ.



[Sidenote: The Word of Christ, which is the Testament]



In the first place, in order to attain safely and fortunately to a

true and unbiased knowledge of this sacrament, we must above all else

be careful to put aside whatever has been added by the zeal and

devotion of men to the original, simple institution of this

sacrament,--such things as vestments, ornaments, chants, prayers,

organs, candles, and the whole pageantry of outward things[53]; we

must turn our eyes and hearts simply to the institution of Christ and

to this alone, and set naught before us but the very word of Christ by

which He instituted this sacrament, made it perfect, and committed it

to us. For in that word, and in that word alone, reside the power, the

nature, and the whole substance of the mass. All else is the work of

man, added to the word of Christ; and the mass can be held and remain

a mass just as well without it. Now the words of Christ, in which He

instituted this sacrament, are these:



"And whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and

brake: and gave to His disciples, and said: Take ye and eat. This is

my body, which shall be given for you. And taking the chalice. He gave

thanks, and gave to them, saying: Drink ye all of this. This is the

chalice, the new testament in my blood, which shall be shed for you

and for many unto remission of sins. This do for the commemoration of

me." [Matt. 26:26; 1 Cor. 11:24 f.; Luke 22:20]



These words the Apostle also delivers and more fully expounds in i

Cor. xi [1 Cor. 11:23 ff.]. On them we must lean and build as on a

firm foundation, if we would not be carried about with every wind of

doctrine, even as we have hitherto been carried about by the wicked

doctrines of men, who turn aside the truth [Titus 1:14]. For in these

words nothing is omitted that pertains to the completeness, the use

and the blessing of this sacrament; and nothing is included that is

superfluous and not necessary for us to know. Whoever sets them aside

and meditates or teaches concerning the mass, will teach monstrous and

wicked doctrines, as they have done who made of the sacrament an _opus

operatum_[56] and a sacrifice.



Therefore let this stand at the outset as our infallibly certain

proposition,--the mass, or sacrament of the altar, is Christ's

testament which He left behind Him at His death, to be distributed

among His believers. For that is the meaning of His word,--"This is

the chalice, the new testament in my blood." [Luke 22:20] Let this

truth stand, I say, as the immovable foundation on which we shall base

all that we have to say, or we are going to overthrow, as you will

see, all the godless opinions of men imported into this most precious

sacrament. Christ, Who is the Truth, saith truly that this is the new

testament in His blood, which is shed for us. Not without reason do I

dwell on this sentence; the matter is of no small moment, and must be

most deeply impressed upon us.



Let us enquire, therefore, what a testament is, and we shall learn at

the same time what the mass is, what its use and blessing, and what

its abuse. A testament, as every one knows, is a promise made by one

about to die, in which he designates his bequest and appoints his

heirs. Therefore a testament involves, first, the death of the

testator, and secondly, the promise of the bequest and the naming of

the heir. Thus St. Paul discusses at length the nature of a testament

in Romans iv, Galatians iii and iv, and Hebrews ix. The same thing is

also clearly seen in these words of Christ. Christ testifies

concerning His death when He says: "This is my body, which shall be

given; this is my blood, which shall be shed." [Luke 22:19 f.] He

designates the bequest when He says: "Unto remission of sins." And He

appoints the heirs when He says: "For you, and for many"--i. e., for

such as accept and believe the promise of the testator; or here it is

faith that makes men heirs, as we shall see.



You see, therefore, that what we call the mass is the promise of

remission of sins made to us by God; and such a promise as has been

confirmed by the death of the Son of God. For the one difference

between a promise and a testament is that a testament is a promise

which implies the death of him who makes it. A testator is a man

making a promise who is about to die; whilst he that makes a promise

is, if I may so put it, a testator who is not about to die. This

testament of Christ was forshadowed in all the promises of God from

the beginning of the world; nay, whatever value those olden promises

possessed was altogether derived from this new promise that was to

come in Christ. Hence the words "covenant" and "testament of the Lord"

occur so frequently in the Scriptures, which words signified that God

would one day die. For where there is a testament, the death of the

testator must needs follow (Hebrews ix). Now God made a testament:

therefore it was necessary that He should die [Heb. 9:16]. But God

could not die unless He became man. Thus both the incarnation and the

death of Christ are briefly comprehended in this one word "testament."



From the above it will at once be seen what is the right and what the

wrong use of the mass, what is the worthy and what the unworthy

preparation for it. If the mass is a promise, as has been said, it is

to be approached, not with any work or strength or merit, but with

faith alone. For where there is the word of God Who makes the promise,

there must be the faith of man who takes it. It is plain, therefore,

that the first step in our salvation is faith, which clings to the

word of the promise made by God, Who without any effort on our part,

in free and unmerited mercy makes a beginning and offers us the word

of His promise. For He sent His Word, and by it healed them [Ps.

107:20]. He did not accept our work and thus heal us. God's Word is

the beginning of all; on it follows faith, and on faith charity; then

charity works every good work, for it worketh no ill, nay, it is the

fulfilling of the law [Rom. 13:10]. In no other way can man come to

God and deal with Him than through faith; that is, not man, by any

work of his, but God, by His promise, is the author of salvation, so

that all things depend on the word of His power, and are upheld and

preserved by it [Heb. 1:3], with which word He begat us, that we

should be a kind of firstfruits of His creatures [Jas. 1:18].



Thus, in order to raise up Adam after the all, God gave him this

promise, addressing the serpent: "I will put enmities between thee and

the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and

thou shalt lie in wait for her heel." [Gen. 3:15] In this word of

promise Adam, with them that were his, was carried as it were in God's

bosom, and by faith in it he was preserved, patiently waiting for the

woman who should crush the serpent's head, as God had promised. And in

that faith and expectation he died, not knowing when or in what guise

she would come, yet never doubting that she would come. For such a

promise, being the truth of God, preserves, even in hell, those who

believe it and wait for it. After this came another promise, made to

Noah--to last until the time of Abraham--when a bow was set as a sign

in the clouds [Gen. 9:12], by faith in which Noah and his descendants

found a gracious God. After that He promised Abraham that all nations

should be blessed in his seed [Gen. 12:3]; and this is Abraham's

bosom, into which his posterity was carried [Luke 16:22]. Then to

Moses and the children of Israel, and especially to David, He gave the

plain promise of Christ [Deut. 18:18], thereby at last making clear

what was meant by the promise to them of old time [2 Sam. 7:6]. And so

it came finally to the most complete promise of the new testament, in

which with plain words life and salvation are freely promised, and

granted to such as believe the promise. And He distinguished this

testament by a particular mark from the old, calling it the "new

testament." [Luke 22:20] For the old testament, which He gave by

Moses, was a promise not of remission of sins or of eternal things,

but of temporal,--namely, the land of Canaan,--by which no man was

renewed in his spirit, to lay hold on the heavenly inheritance.

Therefore it was also necessary that dumb beasts should be slain, as

types of Christ, that by their blood the testament might be confirmed;

so that the testament was even as the blood, and the promise even as

the sacrifice. But here He says: "The new testament in my blood" [Luke

22:20]--not in another's, but in His own, and by this blood grace is

promised, through the Spirit, unto the remission of sins, that we may

obtain the inheritance.



The mass, according to its substance, is, therefore, nothing else than

the aforesaid words of Christ--"Take and eat" [1 Cor. 11:24]; as if He

said: "Behold, O sinful man and condemned, out of pure and unmerited

love wherewith I love thee, and by the will of the Father of all

mercies, I promise thee in these words, or ever thou canst desire or

deserve them, the forgiveness of all thy sins and life everlasting.

And, that thou mayest be most certainly assured of this my irrevocable

promise, I give my body and shed my blood, thus by my very death

confirming this promise, and leaving thee my body and blood as a sign

and memorial of this same promise. As oft, therefore, as thou

partakest of them, remember me, and praise, magnify, and give thanks

or my love and largess toward thee."



Herefrom you will see that nothing else is needed for a worthy holding

of mass than a faith that confidently relies on this promise, believes

Christ to be true in these words of His, and doubts not that these

infinite blessings have been bestowed upon it. Hard on this faith

there follows, of itself, a most sweet stirring of the heart, whereby

the spirit of man is enlarged and waxes at--that is love, given by the

Holy Spirit through faith in Christ--so that he is drawn unto Christ,

that gracious and good Testator, and made quite another and a new man.

Who would not shed tears of gladness, nay well-nigh faint for the joy

he hath toward Christ, if he believed with unshaken faith that this

inestimable promise of Christ belonged to him! How could one help

loving so great a Benefactor, who offers, promises and grants, all

unbidden, such great riches, and this eternal inheritance, to one

unworthy and deserving of somewhat far different?



Therefore, it is our one misfortune, that we have many masses in the

world, and yet none or but the fewest of us recognize, consider and

receive these promises and riches that are offered, although verily we

should do nothing else in the mass with greater zeal (yea, it demands

all our zeal) than set before our eyes, meditate, and ponder these

words, these promises of Christ, which truly are the mass itself, in

order to exercise, nourish, increase, and strengthen our faith by such

daily remembrance. For this is what He commands, saying, "This do in

remembrance of me." [1 Cor. 11:24]



This should be done by the preachers of the Gospel, in order that this

promise might be faithfully impressed upon the people and commended to

them, to the awakening of faith in the same. But how many are there

now who know that the mass is the promise of Christ? I will say

nothing of those godless preachers of fables, who teach human

traditions instead of this promise. And even if they teach these words

of Christ, they do not teach them as a promise or testament, and,

therefore, not to the awakening of faith.



O the pity of it! Under this captivity, they take every precaution

that no layman should hear these words of Christ, as if they were too

sacred to be delivered to the common people. So mad are we[57] priests

that we arrogantly claim that the so-called words of consecration may

be said by ourselves alone, as secret words, yet so that they do not

profit even us, or we too fail to regard them as promises or as a

testament, for the strengthening of faith. Instead of believing them,

we reverence them with I know not what superstitious and godless

fancies. This misery of ours, what is it but a device of Satan to

remove every trace of the mass out of the Church? although he is

meanwhile at work filing every nook and corner on earth with masses,

that is, abuses and mockeries of God's testament, and burdening the

world more and more heavily with grievous sins of idolatry, to its

deeper condemnation. For what worse idolatry can there be than to

abuse God's promises with perverse opinions and to neglect or

extinguish faith in them?



For God does not deal, nor has He ever dealt, with man otherwise than

through a word of promise, as I have said[58]; again, we cannot deal

with God otherwise than through faith in the word of His promise. He

does not desire works, nor has He need of them; we deal with men and

with ourselves on the basis of works. But He has need of this,--that

we deem Him true to His promises, wait patiently for Him, and thus

worship Him with faith, hope and love. Thus He obtains His glory among

us, since it is not of ourselves who run, but of Him who showeth mercy

[Ps. 115:1], promiseth and giveth, that we have and hold every

blessing [Rom. 9:16]. That is the true worship and service of God

which we must perform in the mass. But if the words of promise are not

proclaimed, what exercise of faith can there be? And without faith,

who can have hope or love? Without faith, hope and love, what service

can there be? There is no doubt, therefore, that in our day all

priests and monks, together with all their bishops and superiors, are

idolaters and in a most perilous state, by reason of this ignorance,

abuse and mockery of the mass, or sacrament, or testament of God.



For any one can easily see that these two--the promise and faith--must

go together. For without the promise there is nothing to believe,

while without faith the promise, remains without effect; for it is

established and fulfilled through faith. From this every one will

readily gather that the mass, which is nothing else than the promise,

is approached and observed only in this faith, without which whatever

prayers, preparations, works, signs of the cross, or genuflections are

brought to it, are incitements to impiety rather than exercises of

piety; for they who come thus prepared are wont to imagine themselves

on that account justly entitled to approach the altar, when in reality

they are less prepared than at any other time and in any other work,

by reason of the unbelief which they bring with them. How many priests

will you find every day offering the sacrifice of the mass, who accuse

themselves of a horrible crime if they--wretched men!--commit a

trifling, blunder, such as putting on the wrong robe or forgetting to

wash their hands or stumbling over their prayers; but that they

neither regard nor believe the mass itself, namely, the divine

promise--this causes them not the slightest qualms of conscience. O

worthless religion of this our age, the most godless and thankless of

all ages!



Hence the only worthy preparation and proper use of the mass is faith

in the mass, that is to say, in the divine promise. Whoever,

therefore, is minded to approach the altar and to receive the

sacrament, let him beware of appearing empty before the Lord God [Ex.

23:15; 34:20]. But he will appear empty unless he has faith in the

mass, or this new testament. What godless work that he could commit

would be a more grievous crime against the truth of God, than this

unbelief of his, by which, as much as in him lies, he convicts God of

being a liar and a maker of empty promises? The safest course,

therefore, will be to go to mass in the same spirit in which you would

go to hear any other promise of God; that is, not to be ready to

perform and bring many works, but to believe and receive all that is

there promised, or proclaimed by the priest as having been promised to

you. If you do not go in this spirit, beware of going at all; you will

surely go to your condemnation.



I was right then in saying[59] that the whole power of the mass

consists in the words of Christ, in which He testifies that the

remission of sins is bestowed on all those who believe that His body

is given and His blood shed for them. For this reason nothing is more

important for those who go to hear mass than diligently and in full

faith to ponder these words. Unless they do this, all else that they

do is in vain.



[Sidenote: The External Sign, which is the Sacrament]



But while the mass is the word of Christ, it is also true that God is

wont to add to well-nigh every promise of His a certain sign as a mark

or memorial of His promise, so that we may thereby the more faithfully

hold to His promise and be the more forcibly admonished by it. Thus,

to his promise to Noah that He would not again destroy the world by a

flood, He added His bow in the clouds, to show that He would be

mindful of His covenant [Gen. 9:13]. And after promising Abraham the

inheritance in his seed, He gave him the sign of circumcision as the

seal of his righteousness by faith. Thus, to Gideon He granted the

sign of the dry and the wet fleece, to confirm His promise of victory

over the Midianites [Judges 6:36 ff.]. And to Ahaz He offered a sign

through Isaiah concerning his victory over the kings of Syria and

Samaria, to strengthen his faith in the promise [Isa. 7:10 ff.]. And

many such signs of the promises of God do we find in the Scriptures.



Thus also to the mass, that crown of all His promises. He adds His

body and blood in the bread and wine, as a memorial sign of this great

promise; as He says, "This do in remembrance of me." [1 Cor. 11:24]

Even so in baptism He adds to the words of the promise, the sign of

immersion in water. We learn from this that in every promise of God

two things are presented to us--the word and the sign--so that we are

to understand the word to be the testament, but the sign to be the

sacrament. Thus, in the mass, the word of Christ is the testament, and

the bread and wine are the sacrament. And as there is greater power in

the word than in the sign, so there is greater power in the testament

than in the sacrament; for a man can have and use the word, or

testament, apart from the sign, or sacrament. "Believe," says

Augustine, "and thou hast eaten."[60] But what does one believe save

the word of promise? Therefore I can hold mass every day, yea, every

hour, for I can set the words of Christ before me, and with them

refresh and strengthen my faith, as often as I choose. That is a truly

spiritual eating and drinking.[61]



Here you may see what great things our theologians of the

Sentences[62] have produced. That which is the principal and chief

thing, namely, the testament and word of promise, is not treated by

one of them; thus they have obliterated faith and the whole power of

the mass. But the second part of the mass,--the sign, or

sacrament,[63]--this alone do they discuss, yet in such a manner that

here too they teach not faith but their preparations and _opera

operata_, participations and fruits[64], as though these were the

mass, until they have fallen to babbling of transubstantiation and

endless other metaphysical quibbles, and have destroyed the proper

understanding and use of both sacrament and testament, altogether

abolished faith, and caused Christ's people to forget their God, as

the prophet says, days without number [Jer. 2:32]. But do you let the

others tell over the manifold fruits of hearing mass, and turn hither

your mind, and say and believe with the prophet, that God here

prepares a table before you, against all those that afflict you, at

which your soul may eat and grow fat [Ps. 23:5]. But your faith is fed

only with the word of divine promise, for "not in bread alone doth man

live, but in every word that proceedeth from the mouth of God." [Deut.

8:3; Matt. 4:4] Hence, in the mass you must above all things pay

closest heed to the word of promise, as to your rich banquet, green

pasture, and sacred refreshment; you must esteem this word higher than

all else, trust in it above all things, and cling firmly to it even

through the midst of death and all sins. By thus doing you will attain

not merely to those tiny drops and crumbs of "fruits of the mass,"

which some have superstitiously imagined, but to the very fountainhead

of life, which is faith in the word, from which every blessing flows;

as it is said in John iv: "He that believeth in me, out of his belly

shall flow rivers of living water" [John 7:38]; and again: "He that

shall drink of the water that I will give him, it shall become in him

a fountain of living water, springing up into life everlasting." [John

4:14][65]



Now there are two things that commonly tempt us to lose the fruits of

the mass: first, the fact that we are sinners and unworthy of such

great things because of our exceeding vileness; and, secondly, the act

that, even if we were worthy, these things are so high that our

faint-hearted nature dare not aspire to them or ever hope to attain to

them. For to have God for our Father, to be His sons and heirs of all

His goods--these are the great blessings that come to us through the

forgiveness of sins and life everlasting. And who that regarded them

aright must not rather stand aghast before them than desire to possess

them? Against this twofold faintness of ours we must lay hold on the

word of Christ and fix our gaze on it much more firmly than on those

thoughts of our weakness. For "great are the works of the Lord [Ps.

111:2]; wrought out according to all His wills, who is able to do

exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think." [Eph. 3:20] If

they did not surpass our worthiness, our grasp and all our thoughts,

they would not be divine. Thus Christ also encourages us when He says:

"Fear not, little flock, for it hath pleased your Father to give you a

kingdom." [Luke 17:32] For it is just this overflowing goodness of the

incomprehensible God, lavished upon us through Christ, that moves us

to love Him again with our whole heart above all things, to be drawn

to Him with all confidence, to despise all things else, and be ready

to suffer all things for Him; wherefore this sacrament is well styled

"a fount of love."



Let us take an illustration of this from every day life[66]. If a

thousand _gulden_ were bequeathed by a rich lord to a beggar or an

unworthy and wicked servant, it is certain that he would boldly claim

and take them regardless of his unworthiness and the greatness of the

bequest. And if any one should seek to oppose him by casting in his

teeth his unworthiness and the large amount of the legacy, what do you

suppose he would say? He would say, forsooth: "What is that to you?

What I accept, I accept not on my merits or by any right that I may

personally have to it; I know that I am unworthy and receive more than

I have deserved, nay, I have deserved the very opposite. But I claim

it because it is so written in the will, and on the score of another's

goodness. If it was not an unworthy thing for him to bequeath so great

a sum to an unworthy person, why should I reuse to accept it because

of my unworthiness? Nay, the more unworthy I am, the more reason have

I to accept this other man's gracious gift." With such thoughts we

need to fortify the consciences of men against all qualms and

scruples, that they may lay hold on the promise of Christ with

unwavering faith, and take the greatest care to approach the

sacrament, not trusting in their confession, prayer and preparation,

but rather despairing of these and with a proud confidence in Christ

Who gives the promise.  For, as we have said again and again, the word

of promise must here reign supreme in a pure and unalloyed faith, and

such faith is the one and all-sufficient preparation.



[Sidenote: The Mass Converted into a Good Work]



Hence we see how angry God is with us, in that he has permitted

godless teachers to conceal the words of this testament from us, and

thereby, as much as in them lay, to extinguish faith. And the

inevitable result of this extinguishing of faith is even now plainly

to be seen--namely, the most godless superstition of works. For when

faith dies and the word of faith is silent, works and the traditions

of works immediately crowd into their place. By them we have been

carried away out of our own land, as in a Babylonian captivity, and

despoiled of all our precious possessions. This has been the fate of

the mass; it has been converted by the teaching of godless men into a

good work, which they themselves call an _opus operatum_[67] and by

which they presumptuously imagine themselves all-powerful with God.

Thereupon they proceeded to the very height of madness, and having

invented the lie that the mass works _ex opere operate_[68], they

asserted further that it is none the less profitable to others, even

if it be harmful to the wicked priest celebrating it. On such a

foundation of sand they base their applications, participations,

sodalities, anniversaries and numberless other money-making schemes.



These lures are so powerful, widespread and firmly entrenched that you

will scarcely be able to prevail against them unless you keep before

you with unremitting care the real meaning of the mass, and bear well

in mind what has been said above. We have seen that the mass is

nothing else than the divine promise or testament of Christ, sealed

with the sacrament of His body and blood. If that is true, you will

understand that it cannot possibly be a work, and that there is

nothing to do in it, nor can it be dealt with in any other way than by

faith alone. And faith is not a work, but the mistress and the life of

all works[69]. Where in all the world is there a man so foolish as to

regard a promise made to him, or a testament given to him, as a good

work which by his acceptance of it he renders to the testator? What

heir will imagine he is doing his departed father a kindness by

accepting the terms of the will and the inheritance bequeathed to him?

What godless audacity is it, therefore, when we who are to receive the

testament of God come as those who would perform a good work or Him!

This ignorance of the testament, this captivity of the sacrament--are

they not too sad for tears? When we ought to be grateful for benefits

received, we come in our pride to give that which we ought to take,

mocking with unheard-of perversity the mercy of the Giver by giving as

a work the thing we receive as a gift; so that the testator, instead

of being the dispenser of His own goods, becomes the recipient of

ours. Out upon such godless doings!



Who has ever been so mad as to regard baptism as a good work, or to

believe that by being baptised he was performing a work which he might

offer to God or himself and communicate to others? I, therefore, there

is no good work that can be communicated to others in this one

sacrament or testament, neither will there be any in the mass, since

it too is nothing else than a testament and sacrament. Hence it is a

manifest and wicked error to offer or apply masses for sins, or

satisfactions, for the dead, or for any necessity whatsoever of one's

own or of others. You will readily see the obvious truth of this if

you but hold firmly that the mass is a divine promise, which can

profit no one, be applied to no one, intercede or no one, and be

communicated to no one, save him alone who believes with a faith of

his own. Who can receive or apply, in behalf of another, the promise

of God, which demands the personal faith of every individual? Can I

give to another what God has promised, even if he does not believe?

Can I believe for another, or cause another to believe? But this is

what I must do if I am able to apply and communicate the mass to

others; for there are but two things in the mass--the promise of God,

and the faith of man which takes that which the promise offers. But if

it is true that I can do this, then I can also hear and believe the

Gospel for others, I can be baptised for another, I can be absolved

from sins for another, I can also partake of the sacrament of the

altar for another, and--to run the gamut of their sacraments also--I

can marry a wife for another, be ordained for another, receive

confirmation and extreme unction for another! In fine, why did not

Abraham believe for all the Jews? Why was faith in the promise made to

Abraham demanded of every individual Jew?



Therefore, let this irrefutable truth stand fast. Where there is a

divine promise every one must stand upon his own feet, every one's

personal faith is demanded, every one will give an account for himself

and will bear his own burden [Gal. 6:5], as it is said in the last

chapter of Mark: "He that believeth and is baptised, shall be saved;

but he that believeth not, shall be damned." [Mark 16:16] Even so

every one may derive a blessing from the mass for himself alone and

only by his own faith, and no one can commune for any other; just as

the priest cannot administer the sacrament to any one in another's

stead, but administers the same sacrament to each individual by

himself. For in consecrating and administering, the priests are our

ministers, through whom we do not offer a good work or commune (in the

active), but receive the promises and the sign and are communed (in

the passive). That has remained to this day the custom among the

laity, for they are not said to do good, but to receive it. But the

priests have departed into godless ways; out of the sacrament and

testament of God, the source of blessings to be received, they have

made a good work which they may communicate and offer to others.



But you will say: How is this? Will you not overturn the practice and

teaching of all the churches and monasteries, by virtue of which they

have flourished these many centuries? For the mass is the foundation

of their anniversaries, intercessions, applications, communications,

etc.--that is to say, of their at income. I answer: This is the very

thing that has constrained me to write of the captivity of the Church,

for in this manner the adorable testament of God has been subjected to

the bondage of a godless traffic, through the opinions and traditions

of wicked men, who, passing over the Word of God, have put forth the

thoughts of their own hearts and misled the whole world. What do I

care for the number and influence of those who are in this error? The

truth is mightier than they all. If you are able to gainsay Christ,

according to Whom the mass is a testament and sacrament, then I will

admit that they are in the right. Or if you can bring yourself to say

that that man is doing a good work, who receives the benefit of the

testament, or who uses this sacrament of promise in order to receive

it, then I will gladly condemn my teachings. But since you can do

neither, why do you hesitate to turn your back on the multitude who go

after evil, and to give God the glory and confess His truth? Which is,

indeed, that all priests today are perversely mistaken, who regard the

mass as a work whereby they may relieve their own necessities and

those of others, dead or alive. I am uttering unheard-of and startling

things; but if you will consider the meaning of the mass, you will

realize that I have spoken the truth. The fault lies with our utter

supineness, in which we have become blind to the wrath of God that is

raging against us.



[Sidenote: The Prayers Distinguished from the Mass]



I am ready, however, to admit that the prayers which we pour out

before God when we are gathered together to partake of the mass, are

good works or benefits, which we impart, apply and communicate to one

another, and which we offer for one another; as James teaches us to

pray for one another that we may be saved [Jas. 5:16], and as Paul, in

I Timothy ii, commands that supplications, prayers and intercessions

be made for all men, for kings, and for all that are in high station

[1 Tim. 2:1 f.]. These are not the mass, but works of the mass--if the

prayers of heart and lips may be called works--for they flow from the

faith that is kindled or increased in the sacrament. For the mass,

being the promise of God, is not fulfilled by praying, but only by

believing; but when we believe, we shall also pray and perform every

good work. But what priest of them all offers the sacrifice of the

mass in this sense and believes that he is offering up naught but the

prayers? They all imagine themselves to be offering up Christ Himself,

as all-sufficient sacrifice, to God the Father, and to be performing a

good work for all whom they have the intention to benefit. For they

put their trust in the work which the mass accomplishes, and they do

not ascribe this work to prayer. Thus, gradually, the error has grown,

until they have come to ascribe to the sacrament what belongs to the

prayers, and to offer to God what should be received as a benefit.



It is necessary, therefore, to make a sharp distinction between the

testament or sacrament itself and the prayers which are there offered;

and no less necessary to bear in mind that the prayers avail nothing,

either for him who offers them or for those for whom they are offered,

unless the sacrament be first received in faith, so that it is faith

that offers the prayers, for it alone is heard, as James teaches in

his first chapter [Jas. 1:6 f.]. So great is the difference between

prayer and the mass. The prayer may be extended to as many persons as

one desires; but the mass is received by none but the person who

believes for himself, and only in proportion to his faith. It cannot

be given either to God or to men; but God alone gives it, by the

ministration of the priest, to such men as receive it by faith alone,

without any works or merits. For no one would dare to make the mad

assertion that a ragged beggar does a good work when he comes to

receive a gift from a rich man. But the mass is, as has been said[70],

the gift and promise of God, offered to all men by the hand of the

priest. It is certain, therefore, that the mass is not a work which

may be communicated to others, but it is the object, as it is called,

of faith, for the strengthening and nourishing of the personal faith

of each individual.



[Sidenote: The Most Dangerous Error of All: the Mass a Sacrifice]



But there is yet another stumbling-block that must be removed, and

this is much greater and the most dangerous of all. It is the common

belief that the mass is a sacrifice, which is offered to God. Even the

words of the canon[71] tend in this direction, when they speak of

"these gifts," "these offerings," "this holy sacrifice," and farther

on, of "this oblation." Prayer also is made, in so many words, "that

the sacrifice may be accepted even as the sacrifice of Abel," etc.,

and hence Christ is termed the "Sacrifice of the altar." In addition

to this there are the sayings of the holy Fathers, the great number of

examples, and the constant usage and custom of all the world.



To all of this, firmly entrenched as it is, we must resolutely oppose

the words and example of Christ. For unless we hold fast to the truth,

that the mass is the promise or testament of Christ, as the words

clearly say, we shall lose the whole Gospel and all our comfort. Let

us permit nothing to prevail against these words, even though an angel

from heaven should teach otherwise [Gal. 1:8]. For there is nothing

said in them of a work or a sacrifice. Moreover, we have also the

example of Christ on our side. For at the Last Supper, when He

instituted this sacrament and established this testament, Christ did

not offer Himself to God the Father, nor did He perform a good work on

behalf of others, but He set this testament before each of them that

sat at table with Him and offered him the sign. Now, the more closely

our mass resembles that first mass of all, which Christ performed at

the Last Supper, the more Christian will it be. But Christ's mass was

most simple, without the pageantry of vestments, genuflections, chants

and other ceremonies. Indeed, if it were necessary to offer the mass

as a sacrifice, then Christ's institution of it was not complete.



Not that any one should revile the Church universal for embellishing

and amplifying the mass with many additional rites and ceremonies. But

this is what we contend for; no one should be deceived by the glamour

of the ceremonies and entangled in the multitude of pompous forms, and

thus lose the simplicity of the mass itself, and indeed practice a

sort of transubstantiation--losing sight of the simple substance of

the mass and clinging to the manifold accidents of outward pomp. For

whatever has been added to the word and example of Christ, is an

accident of the mass, and ought to be regarded just as we regard the

so-called monstrances and corporal cloths in which the host itself is

contained[72]. Therefore, as distributing a testament, or accepting a

promise, differs diametrically from offering a sacrifice, so it is a

contradiction in terms to call the mass a sacrifice; for the former is

something that we receive, while the latter is something that we

offer. The same thing cannot be received and offered at the same time,

nor can it be both given and taken by the same person; just as little

as our prayer can be the same as that which our prayer obtains, or the

act of praying the same as the act of receiving the answer to our

prayer.



What shall we say, then, of the canon of the mass[73] and the sayings

of the Fathers? First of all, if there were nothing at all to be said

against them, it would yet be the safer course to reject them all

rather than admit that the mass is a work or a sacrifice, lest we deny

the word of Christ and overthrow faith together with the mass.

Nevertheless, not to reject altogether the canons and the Fathers, we

shall say the following: The Apostle instructs us in I Corinthians xi

that it was customary for Christ's believers, when they came together

to mass, to bring with them meat and drink, which they called

"collections" and distributed among all who were in want [1 Cor. 11:20

ff.], after the example of the apostles in Acts iv [Acts 4:34 f.].

From this store was Acts taken the portion of bread and wine that was

consecrated for use in the sacrament[74]. And since all this store of

meat and drink was sanctified by the word and by prayer [1 Tim. 4:5],

being "lifted up" according to the Hebrew rite of which we read in

Moses [Lev. 8:27], the words and the rite of this lifting up, or for

offering, have come down to us, although the custom of collecting that

which was offered, or lifted up, has fallen long since into disuse.

Thus, in Isaiah xxxvii, Hezekiah commanded Isaiah to lift up his

prayer in the sight of God for the remnant [Isa. 37:4]. The Psalmist

sings: "Lift up your hands to the holy places" [Ps. 134:2]; and: "To

Thee will I lift up my hands." [Ps. 63:4] And in I Timothy ii we read:

"Lifting up pure hands in every place." [1 Tim. 2:8] For this reason

the words "sacrifice" and "oblation" must be taken to refer, not to

the sacrament and testament, but to these collections, whence also the

word "collect" has come down to us, as meaning the prayers said in the

mass.



The same thing is indicated when the priest elevates the bread and the

chalice immediately after the consecration, whereby he shows that he

is not offering anything to God, for he does not say a single word

here about a victim or an oblation. But this elevation is either a

survival of that Hebrew rite of lifting up what was received with

thanksgiving and returned to God, or else it is an admonition to us,

to provoke us to faith in this testament which the priest has set

forth and exhibited in the words of Christ, so that now he shows us

also the sign of the testament. Thus the oblation of the bread

properly accompanies the demonstrative this in the words, "This is my

body," by which sign the priest addresses us gathered about him; and

in like manner the oblation of the chalice accompanies the

demonstrative this in the words, "This chalice is the new testament,

etc." For it is faith that the priest ought to awaken in us by this

act of elevation. And would to God that, as he elevates the sign, or

sacrament, openly before our eyes, he might also sound in our ears the

words of the testament with a loud, clear voice, and in the language

of the people, whatever it may be, in order that faith may be the more

effectively awakened. For why may mass be said in Greek and Latin and

Hebrew, and not also in German or in any other language?[75]



[Sidenote: Fraternal Advice to the Priests]



Let the priests, therefore, who in these corrupt and perilous times

offer the sacrifice of the mass, take heed, first, that the words of

the greater and the lesser canon[76] together with the collects, which

smack too strongly of sacrifice, be not referred by them to the

sacrament, but to the bread and wine which they consecrate, or to the

prayers which they say. For the bread and wine are offered at the

first, in order that they may be blessed and thus sanctified by the

Word and by prayer; but after they have been blessed and consecrated,

they are no longer offered, but received as a gift from God. And let

the priest bear in mind that the Gospel is to be set above all canons

and collects devised by men; and the Gospel does not sanction the

calling of the mass a sacrifice, as has been shown.



Further, when a priest celebrates a public mass, he should determine

to do naught else through the mass than to commune himself and others;

yet he may at the same time offer prayers for himself and for others,

but he must beware lest he presume to offer the mass. But let him that

holds a private mass[77] determine to commune himself. The private

mass does not differ in the least from the ordinary communion which

any layman receives at the hand of the priest, and has no greater

effect, apart from the special prayers and the act that the priest

consecrates the elements for himself and administers them to himself.

So far as the blessing[78] of the mass and sacrament is concerned, we

are all of us on an equal footing, whether we be priests or laymen.



If a priest be requested by others to celebrate so-called votive

masses[79], let him beware of accepting a reward for the mass, or of

presuming to offer a votive sacrifice; he should be at pains to refer

all to the prayers which he offers for the dead or the living, saying

within himself, "I will go and partake of the sacrament for myself

alone, and while partaking I will say a prayer for this one and that."

Thus he will take his reward--to buy him food and clothing--not for

the mass, but for the prayers. And let him not be disturbed because

all the world holds and practices the contrary. You have the most sure

Gospel, and relying on this you may well despise the opinions of men.

But if you despise me and insist upon offering the mass and not the

prayers alone, know that I have faithfully warned you and will be

without blame on the day of judgment; you will have to bear your sin

alone. I have said what I was bound to say as brother to brother for

his soul's salvation; yours will be the gain if you observe it, yours

the loss if you neglect it. And if some should even condemn what I

have said, I reply in the words of Paul: "But evil men and seducers

shall grow worse and worse: erring and driving into error." [2 Tim.

3:13]



From the above every one will readily understand what there is in that

oft quoted saying of Gregory's[80]: "A mass celebrated by a wicked

priest is not to be considered of less effect than one celebrated by

any godly priest, and St. Peter's mass would not have been better than

Judas the traitor's, if they had offered the sacrifice of the mass."

Which saying has served many as a cloak to cover their godless doings,

and because of it they have invented the distinction between _opus

operati_ and _opus operantis_[81], so as to be free to lead wicked

lives themselves and yet to benefit other men. But Gregory speaks

truth; only they misunderstand and pervert his words. For it is true

beyond a question, that the testament or sacrament is given and

received through the ministration of wicked priests no less completely

than through the ministration of the most saintly. For who has any

doubt that the Gospel is preached by the ungodly? Now the mass is part

of the Gospel, nay, its sum and substance; for what is the whole

Gospel but the good tidings of the forgiveness of sins? But whatever

can be said of the forgiveness of sins and the mercy of God, is all

briefly comprehended in the word of this testament. Wherefore the

popular sermons ought to be naught else than expositions of the mass,

that is, a setting forth of the divine promise of this testament; that

would be to teach faith and truly to edify the Church. But in our day

the expounders of the mass play with the allegories of human rites and

play the fool with the people.



Therefore, just as a wicked priest may baptise, that is, apply the

word of promise and the sign of the water to a candidate for baptism,

so he may also set forth the promise of this sacrament and administer

it to those who partake, and even himself partake, like Judas the

traitor, at the Lord's Supper. It still remains always the same

sacrament and testament, which works in the believer its own work, in

the unbeliever a "strange work." [Isa. 28:21] But when it comes to

offering a sacrifice the case is quite different. For not the mass but

the prayers are offered to God, and therefore it is as plain as day

that the offerings of a wicked priest avail nothing, but, as Gregory

says again, when an unworthy intercessor is chosen, the heart of the

judge is moved to greater displeasure. We must, therefore, not

confound these two--the mass and the prayers, the sacrament and the

work, the testament and the sacrifice; for the one comes from God to

us, through the ministration of the priest, and demands our faith, the

other proceeds from our faith to God, through the priest, and demands

His answer. The former descends, the latter ascends. Therefore the

former does not necessarily require a worthy and godly minister, but

the latter does indeed require such an one, because God heareth not

sinners [John 9:31]. He knows how to send down blessings through

evildoers, but He does not accept the work of any evildoer, as He

showed in the case of Cain [Gen. 4:5], and as it is said in Proverbs

xv, "The victims of the wicked are abominable to the Lord" [Prov.

15:8]; and in Romans xiv, "All that is not of faith is sin." [Rom.

14:23]



[Sidenote: Worthy Communicants]



But in order to make an end of this first part, we must take up one

remaining point against which an opponent might arise. From all that

has been said we conclude that the mass was provided only for such as

have a sad, afflicted, disturbed, perplexed and erring conscience, and

that they alone commune worthily. For, since the word of divine

promise in this sacrament sets forth the remission of sins, that man

may fearlessly draw near, whoever he be, whose sins distress him,

either with remorse or past or with temptation to future wrongdoing.

For this testament of Christ is the one remedy against sins, past,

present and future, if you but cling to it with unwavering faith and

believe that what the words of the testament declare is freely granted

to you. But if you do not believe this, you will never, nowhere, and

by no works or efforts of your own, find peace of conscience. For

faith alone sets the conscience at peace, and unbelief alone keeps the

conscience troubled.



THE SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM



Blessed be God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Who according

to the riches of His mercy hath preserved in His Church this sacrament

at least, untouched and untainted by the ordinances of men, and hath

made it free unto all nations and every estate of mankind, nor

suffered it to be oppressed by the filthy and godless monsters of

greed and superstition. For He desired that by it little children,

incapable of greed and superstition, might be initiated and sanctified

in the simple faith of His Word; for whom even to-day baptism hath its

chief blessing. But if this sacrament were to be given to such as had

arrived at man's estate, methinks it could not possibly have retained

its power and its glory against the tyranny of greed and superstition

which has everywhere laid waste things divine. Doubtless the wisdom of

the flesh would here too have devised its preparations and

worthinesses, its reservations, restrictions, and I know not what

other snares for taking money, until water fetched as high a price as

parchment[82] does now.



But Satan, though he could not quench the power of baptism in little

children, nevertheless succeeded in quenching it in all adults, so

that there are scarce any who call to mind their baptism and still

fewer who glory in it; so many other ways have they discovered of

ridding themselves of their sins and of reaching heaven. The source of

these false opinions is that dangerous saying of St.

Jerome's[83]--either unhappily phrased or wrongly interpreted--in

which he terms penance "the second plank" after the shipwreck; as if

baptism were not penance. Accordingly, when men fall into sin, they

despair of "the first plank," which is the ship, as though it had gone

under, and fasten all their faith on the second plank, that is,

penance. This has produced those endless burdens of vows, religious

works, satisfactions, pilgrimages, indulgences, and sects[84], whence

has arisen that flood of books, questions, opinions and human

traditions, which the world cannot contain; so that this tyranny plays

worse havoc with the Church of God than any tyrant ever did with the

Jewish people or with any other nation under heaven.



It was the duty of the pontiffs to abate this evil, and with all

diligence to lead Christians to the true understanding of baptism, so

that they might know what manner of men they are and how it becomes

Christians to live. But instead of this, their work is now to lead the

people as far astray as possible from their baptism, to immerse all

men in the flood of their oppression, and to cause the people of

Christ, as the prophet says, to forget Him days without number [Jer.

2:32]. O unhappy, all who bear the name of priest to-day! They not

only do not know nor do what becometh priests, but they are ignorant

of what they ought to know and do. They fulfil the saying in Isaiah

lvi: "His watch-men are all blind, they are all ignorant: the

shepherds themselves knew no understanding; all have declined into

their own way, every one after his own gain." [Isa. 56:10]



[Sidenote: The First Part of Baptism: The Divine Promise]



Now, the first thing in baptism to be considered is the divine

promise, which says: "He that believeth and is baptised shall be

saved." This promise must be set far above all the glitter of works,

vows, religious orders, and whatever man has added thereto; for on it

all our salvation depends [Mark 16:16]. But we must so consider it as

to exercise our faith therein and in nowise doubt that we are saved

when we are baptised. For unless this faith be present or be conferred

in baptism, baptism will profit us nothing, nay, it becomes a

hindrance to us, not only in the moment of its reception, but all the

days of our life; for such unbelief accuses God's promise of being a

lie, and this is the blackest of all sins. If we set ourselves to this

exercise of faith, we shall at once perceive how difficult it is to

believe this promise of God. For our human weakness, conscious of its

sins, finds nothing more difficult to believe than that it is saved or

will be saved; and yet unless it does believe this, it cannot be

saved, because it does not believe the truth of God that promiseth

salvation.



This message should have been untiringly impressed upon the people and

this promise dinned without ceasing in their ears; their baptism

should have been called again and again to their mind, and faith

constantly awakened and nourished. For, just as the truth of this

divine promise, once pronounced over us, continues unto death, so our

faith in the same ought never to cease, but to be nourished and

strengthened until death, by the continual remembrance of this promise

made to us in baptism. Therefore, when we rise from sins, or repent,

we do but return to the power and the faith of baptism from whence we

fell, and find our way back to the promise then made to us, from which

we departed when we sinned. For the truth of the promise once made

remains steadfast, ever ready to receive us back with open arms when

we return. This, if I mistake not, is the real meaning of the obscure

saying, that baptism is the beginning and foundation of all the

sacraments, without which none of the others may be received.



It will, therefore, be no small gain or a penitent to lay hold before

all else on the memory of his baptism, confidently to call to mind the

promise of God, which he has forsaken, and to plead it with His Lord,

rejoicing that he is baptised and therefore is yet within the fortress

of salvation, and abhorring his wicked ingratitude in falling away

from its faith and truth. His soul will find wondrous comfort, and

will be encouraged to hope or mercy, when he considers that the divine

promise which God made to him and which cannot possibly lie, still

stands unbroken and unchanged, yea, unchangeable by any sins; as Paul

says in 1I Timothy ii, "If we believe not. He continueth faithful, He

cannot deny Himself." [2 Tim. 2:13] Ay, this truth of God will sustain

him, so that if all else should sink in ruins, this truth, if he

believe it, will not ail him. For in it he has a shield against all

assaults of the enemy, an answer to the sins that disturb his

conscience, an antidote for the dread of death and judgment, and a

comfort in every temptation,--namely, this one truth,--and he can say,

"God is faithful that promised [Heb. 10:23], Whose sign I have

received in my baptism. If God be for me, who is against me?" [Rom.

8:31]



The children of Israel, whenever they repented of their sins, turned

their thoughts first of all to the exodus from Egypt, and, remembering

this, returned to God Who had brought them out. This memory and this

refuge were many times impressed upon them by Moses, and afterward

repeated by David. How much rather ought we to call to mind our exodus

from Egypt, and, remembering, turn back again to Him Who led us forth

through the washing of regeneration [Titus 3:5], which we are bidden

remember for this very purpose. And this we can do most fittingly in

the sacrament of bread and wine. Indeed, in olden times these three

sacraments--penance, baptism and the bread--were all celebrated at the

same service, and one supplemented and assisted the other. We read

also of a certain holy virgin who in every time of temptation made

baptism her sole defence, saying simply, "I am a Christian"; and

straight-way the adversary led from her, or he knew the power of her

baptism and of her faith which clung to the truth of God's

promise[85].



Lo, how rich therefore is a Christian, or one who is baptised! Even if

he would, he cannot lose his salvation, however much he sin, unless he

will not believe. For no sin can condemn him save unbelief alone. All

other sins,--if faith in God's promise made in baptism return or

remain,--all other sins, I say, are immediately blotted out through

that same faith, or rather through the truth of God, because He cannot

deny Himself if you but confess Him and cling believing to Him that

promises. But as for contrition, confession of sins, and

satisfaction[86],--with all those carefully thought-out exercises of

men,--if you turn your attention to them and neglect this truth of

God, they will suddenly fail you and leave you more wretched than

before. For whatever is done without faith in the truth of God, is

vanity of vanities and vexation of spirit [Eccl. 1:2, 14].



Again, how perilous, nay, how false it is to suppose that penance is

the second plank after the shipwreck! How harmful an error it is to

believe that the power of baptism is broken, and the ship has

foundered, because we have sinned! Nay; that one, solid and unsinkable

ship remains, and is never broken up into floating timbers; it carries

all those who are brought to the harbor of salvation; it is the truth

of God giving us its promise in the sacraments. Many, indeed, rashly

leap overboard and perish in the waves; these are they who depart from

faith in the promise and plunge into sin. But the ship herself remains

intact and holds her steady course; and if one be able somehow to

return to the ship, it is not on any plank but in the good ship

herself that he is borne to life. Such an one is he who through faith

returns to the sure promise of God that abideth forever. Therefore

Peter, in his second epistle, rebukes them that sin, because they have

forgotten that they were purged from their old sins [2 Peter 1:9]; in

which words he doubtless chides their ingratitude or the baptism they

had received and their wicked unbelief.



What is the good, then, of making many books on baptism and yet not

teaching this faith in the promise? All the sacraments were instituted

for the purpose of nourishing faith, but these godless men so

completely pass over this faith that they even assert a man dare not

be certain of the forgiveness of sins, that is, of the grace of the

sacraments. With such wicked teachings they delude the world, and not

only take captive but altogether destroy the sacrament of baptism, in

which the chief glory of our conscience consists. Meanwhile they madly

rage against the miserable souls of men with their contritions,

anxious confessions, circumstances[87], satisfactions, works and

endless other absurdities. Read, therefore, with great caution the

Master of the Sentences[88] in his fourth book, or, better yet,

despise him together with all his commentators, who at their best

write only of the material and form[87] of the sacraments, that is,

they treat of the dead and death-dealing letter of the sacraments, but

pass over in utter silence the spirit, life and use, that is, the

truth of the divine promise and our faith.



Beware, therefore, lest the external pomp of works and the deceits of

human traditions mislead you, so that you may not wrong the divine

truth and your faith. If you would be saved, you must begin with the

faith of the sacraments, without any works whatever; but on faith the

works will follow: only do not think lightly of faith, which is a

work, and of all works the most excellent and the most difficult to

do. Through it alone you will be saved, even if you should be

compelled to do without any other works. For it is a work of God, not

of man, as Paul teaches [Eph. 2:8]. The other works He works through

us and with our help, but this one He works in us and without our

help.



From this we can clearly see the difference, in baptism, between man

the minister and God the Doer. For man baptises and does not baptise:

he baptises, for he performs the work, immersing the person to be

baptised; he does not baptise, for in that act he officiates not by

his own authority, but in the stead of God. Hence, we ought to receive

baptism at the hands of a man just as if Christ Himself, nay, God

Himself, were baptising us with His own hands. For it is not man's

baptism, but Christ's and God's baptism, which we receive by the hand

of a man; just as every other created thing that we make use of by the

hand of another, is God's alone. Therefore beware of dividing baptism

in such a way as to ascribe the outward part to man and the inward

part to God. Ascribe both to God alone, and look upon the person

administering it as the instrument in God's hands, by which the Lord

sitting in heaven thrusts you under the water with His own hands, and

speaking by the mouth of His minister promises you, on earth with a

human voice, the forgiveness of your sins.



This the words themselves indicate, when the priest says: "I baptise

thee in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

Amen"--and not: "I baptise thee in my own name." It is as though he

said: "What I do, I do not by my own authority, but in the name and

stead of God, so that you should regard it just as if our Lord Himself

had done it in a visible manner. The Doer and the minister are

different persons, but the work of both is the same work, or, rather,

it is the work of the Doer alone, through my ministry." For I hold

that "in the name of" refers to the person of the Doer, so that the

name of the Lord is not only to be uttered and invoked while the work

is being done, but the work itself is to be done not as one's own

work, but in the name and stead of another. In this sense Christ says,

"Many shall come in my name," [Matt. 24:5] and in Romans i it is said,

"By whom we have received grace and apostleship for obedience to the

faith, in all nations, for His name." [Rom. 1:5]



This view I heartily endorse; for there is much of comfort and a mighty

aid to faith in the knowledge that one has been baptised not by man,

but by the Triune God Himself through a man acting among us in His

name. This will dispose of that fruitless quarrel about the "form"[90]

of baptism, as these words are called. The Greeks say: "May the

servant of Christ be baptised," while the Latins say: "I baptise."

Others again, pedantic triflers, condemn the use of the words, "I

baptise thee in the name of Jesus Christ"[91]--although it is certain

that the Apostles used this formula in baptising, as we read in the

Acts of the Apostles--and would allow no other form to be valid than

this: "I baptise thee in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and

of the Holy Ghost." But their contention is in vain, for they bring no

proof, but merely assert their own dreams. Baptism truly saves in

whatever way it is administered, if only it be not administered in the

name of man but of God. Nay, I have no doubt that if one received

baptism in the name of the Lord, even though the wicked minister

should not give it in the name of the Lord, he would yet be truly

baptised in the name of the Lord. For the effect of baptism depends

not so much on the faith or use of him that confers it as on the faith

or use of him that receives it; of which we have an illustration in

the case of the play-actor who was baptised in jest[92]. Such anxious

disputings and questionings are aroused in us by those who ascribe

nothing to faith and everything to works and forms, whereas we owe

everything to faith alone and nothing to forms, and faith makes us

free in spirit from all those scruples and fancies.



[Sidenote: The Second Part of Baptism: The Sign, or Sacrament]



The second part of baptism is the sign, or sacrament, which is that

immersion into water whence also it derives its name; for the Greek

_baptizo_ means I immerse, and _baptisma_ means immersion. For, as has

been said[93], signs are added to the divine promises to represent

that which the words signify, for, as they now say, that which the

sacrament "effectively signifies." We shall see how much of truth

there is in this. The great majority have supposed that there is some

hidden spiritual power in the word or in the water, which works the

grace of God in the soul of the recipient. Others deny this and hold

that there is no power in the sacraments, but that grace is given by

God alone, Who according to His covenant aids the sacraments He has

instituted[94]. Yet all are agreed that the sacraments are effective

signs of grace, and they reach this conclusion by this one argument:

If the sacraments of the New Law merely "signified," it would not be

apparent in what respect they surpassed the sacraments of the Old Law.

Hence they have been driven to attribute such great power to the

sacraments of the New Law that in their opinion they benefit even such

men as are in mortal sins, and that they do not require faith or

grace; it is sufficient not to oppose a "bar," that is, an actual

intention to sin again.



But these views must be carefully avoided and shunned, because they

are godless and infidel, being contrary to faith and to the nature of

the sacraments. For it is an error to hold that the sacraments of the

New Law differ from those of the Old Law in the efficacy of their

"signifying." The "signifying" of both is equally efficacious. The

same God Who now saves me by baptism saved Abel by his sacrifice, Noah

by the bow, Abraham by circumcision, and all the others by their

respective signs. So far as the "signifying" is concerned, there is no

difference between a sacrament of the Old Law and one of the New;

provided that by the Old Law you mean that which God wrought among the

patriarchs and other fathers in the days of the law. But those signs

which were given to the patriarchs and fathers must be sharply

distinguished from the legal types which Moses instituted in his law,

such as the priestly rites concerning robes, vessels, meats,

dwellings, and the like. Between these and the sacraments of the New

Law there is a vast difference, but no less between them and those

signs that God from time to time gave to the fathers living judges

under the law, such as the sign of Gideon's fleece [Judges 6:36],

Manoah's sacrifice [Judges 13:19], or the sign which Isaiah offered to

Ahaz, in Isaiah vii [Isa. 7:10]; for to these signs God attached a

certain promise which required faith in Him.



This, then, is the difference between the legal types and the new and

old signs--the former have not attached to them any word of promise

requiring faith. Hence they are not signs of justification, for they

are not sacraments of the faith that alone justifies, but only

sacraments of works; their whole power and nature consisted in works,

not in faith, and he that observed them fulfilled them, even if he did

it without faith. But our signs, or sacraments, as well as those of

the fathers, have attached to them a word of promise, which requires

faith, and they cannot be fulfilled by any other work. Hence they are

signs or sacraments of justification, for they are the sacraments of

justifying faith and not of works. Their whole efficacy, therefore,

consists in faith itself, not in the doing of a work; for whoever

believes them fulfils them, even if he should not do a single work.

Whence has arisen the saying, "Not the sacrament but the faith of the

sacrament justifies." Thus circumcision did not justify Abraham and

his seed, and yet the Apostle calls it the seal of the righteousness

of faith [Rom. 4:11], because faith in the promise, to which

circumcision was added, justified him and fulfilled that which

circumcision signified. For faith was the spiritual circumcision of

the foreskin of the heart [Deut. 10:16; Jer. 4:4], which was

symbolised by the literal circumcision of the flesh. And in the same

manner it was obviously not Abel's sacrifice that justified him, but

it was his faith, by which he offered himself wholly to God and which

was symbolised by the outward sacrifice.



Even so it is not baptism that justifies or benefits anyone, but it is

faith in the word of promise, to which baptism is added. This faith

justifies, and fulfils that which baptism signifies. For faith is the

submersion of the old man and the emerging of the new. Therefore it

cannot be that the new sacraments differ from the old, for both have

the divine promise and the same spirit of faith; although they do

differ vastly from the olden types on account of the word of promise,

which is the one decisive point of difference. Even so, to-day, the

outward show of vestments, holy places, meats and of all the endless

ceremonies has doubtless a fine symbolical meaning, which is to be

spiritually fulfilled; and yet because there is no word of divine

promise attached to these things, they can in nowise be compared with

the signs of baptism and of the bread, nor do they in any way justify

or benefit one, since they are fulfilled in the very observance, apart

from faith. For while they are taking place or are being performed,

they are being fulfilled; as the Apostle says of them, in Colossians

ii, "Which are all to perish with the using, after the commandments

and doctrines of men." [Col. 2:22] The sacraments, on the contrary,

are not fulfilled when they are observed, but when they are believed.



It cannot be true, therefore, that there is in the sacraments a power

efficacious for justification, or that they are effective signs of

grace[95]. All such assertions tend to destroy faith, and arise from

ignorance of the divine promise. Unless you should call them effective

in the sense that they certainly and efficaciously impart grace, where

faith is unmistakably present. But it is not in this sense that

efficacy is now ascribed to them; as witness the act that they are

said to benefit all men, even the godless and unbelieving, provided

they do not oppose a "bar"--as if such unbelief were not in itself the

most obstinate and hostile of all bars to grace. So firmly bent are

they on turning the sacrament into a command, and faith into a work.

For if the sacrament confers grace on me because I receive it, then

indeed I obtain grace by virtue of my work and not of faith; I lay

hold not on the promise in the sacrament, but on the sign instituted

and commanded by God. Do you not see, then, how completely the

sacraments have been misunderstood by our sententious theologians?[96]

They have taken no account, in their discussions on the sacraments, of

either faith or the promise, but cling only to the sign and the use of

the sign, and draw us away from faith to the work, from the word to

the sign. Thus they have not only carried the sacraments captive (as I

have said)[97], but have completely destroyed them, as far as they

were able.



Therefore, let us open our eyes and learn to give more heed to the

word than to the sign[98], and to faith than to the work, for the use

of the sign, remembering that wherever there is a divine promise there

faith is required, and that these two are so necessary to each other

that neither can be efficacious apart from the other. For it is not

possible to believe unless there be a promise, and the promise is not

established unless it be believed. But where these two meet, they give

a real and most certain efficacy to the sacraments. Hence, to seek the

efficacy of the sacrament apart from the promise and apart from faith,

is to labor in vain and to ind damnation. Thus Christ says: "He that

believeth and is baptised, shall be saved; he that believe not shall

be damned." [Mark 16:16] He shows us in this word that faith is so

necessary a part of the sacrament that it can save even without the

sacrament; for which reason He did not see it to say: "He that

believeth not, _and is not baptised_. . ."



Baptism, then, signifies two things--death and resurrection; that is,

full and complete justification. The minister's immersing the child in

the water signifies death; his drawing it forth again signifies life.

Thus Paul expounds it in Romans vi, "We are buried together with

Christ by baptism into death; that as Christ is risen from the dead by

the glory of the Father, so we also may walk in newness of life."

[Rom. 6:4] This death and resurrection we call the new creation,

regeneration, and the spiritual birth. And this must not be understood

only in a figurative sense, of the death of sin and the life of grace,

as many understand it, but of actual death and resurrection. The

significance of baptism is not an imaginary significance, and sin does

not completely die, nor does grace completely rise, until the body of

sin that we carry about in this life is destroyed; as the Apostle

teaches in the same chapter [Rom. 6:6]. For as long as we are in the

flesh, the desires of the flesh stir and are stirred. Wherefore, as

soon as ever we begin to believe, we also begin to die to this world

and to live unto God in the life to come; so that faith is truly a

death and a resurrection, that is, it is that spiritual baptism in

which we go under and come forth.



Hence it is indeed correct to say that baptism is a washing from sins,

but that expression is too weak and mild to bring out the full

significance of baptism, which is rather a symbol of death and

resurrection. For this reason I would have the candidates for baptism

completely immersed in the water, as the word[99] says and as the

sacrament signifies. Not that I deem this necessary, but it were well

to give to so perfect and complete a things a perfect and complete

sign; thus it was also doubtless instituted by Christ. The sinner does

not so much need to be washed as he needs to die, in order to be

wholly renewed and made another creature, and to be conformed to the

death and resurrection of Christ, with Whom, through baptism, he dies

and rises again. Although you may properly say that Christ was washed

clean of mortality when He died and rose again, yet that is a weaker

way of putting it than if you said He was completely changed and

renewed. In the same way it is far more forceful to say that baptism

signifies our utter dying and rising to eternal life, than to say that

it signifies merely our being washed clean from sins.



Here, again, you see that the sacrament of baptism, even in respect to

its sign, is not the matter of a moment, but continues for all time.

Although its administration is soon over, yet the thing it

signifies[100] continues until we die, nay, until we rise at the last

day. For as long as we live we are continually doing that which our

baptism signifies,--we die and rise again. We die, that is, not only

spiritually and in our affections, by renouncing the sins and vanities

of this world, but we die in very truth, we begin to leave this bodily

life and to lay hold on the life to come; so that there is, as they

say, a real and even a bodily going out of this world to the Father.



We must, therefore, beware of those who have reduced the power of

baptism to such a vanishing point as to say that the grace of God is

indeed inpoured in baptism, but afterwards poured out again through

sin, and that thereupon one must reach heaven by another way; as if

baptism had then become entirely useless. Do not you hold to such a

view, but know that baptism signifies your dying and living again, and

therefore, whether it be by penance or by any other way, you can but

return to the power of your baptism, and do afresh that which you were

baptised to do and which your baptism signified. Never does baptism

lose its power, unless you despair and refuse to return to its

salvation. You may, indeed, or a season wander away from the sign, but

that does not make the sign of none effect. You have, thus, been

baptised once in the sacrament, but you must be constantly baptised

again through faith, you must constantly die, you must constantly live

again. Baptism swallowed up your whole body, and gave it forth again;

even so that which baptism signifies[101] should swallow up your whole

life in body and soul, and give it forth again at the last day, clad

in robes of glory and immortality. We are, therefore, never without

the sign of baptism nor yet without the thing it signifies; nay, we

must be baptised ever more and more completely, until we perfectly

fulfil the sign, at the last day.



Therefore, whatever we do in this life that avails for the mortifying

of the flesh and the giving life to the spirit, belongs to baptism;

and the sooner we depart this life the sooner do we fulfil our

baptism, and the greater our sufferings the more closely do we conform

to our baptism. Hence those were the Church's halcyon days, when the

martyrs were being killed every day and accounted as sheep for the

slaughter [Ps. 44:22; Rom. 8:36]; for then the power of baptism

reigned supreme in the Church, which power we have to-day lost sight

of amid the multitude of works and doctrines of men. For all our life

should be baptism, and the fulfilling of the sign, or sacrament, of

baptism; we have been set free from all else and wholly given over to

baptism alone, that is, to death and resurrection.



[Sidenote: The Glorious Liberty of the Baptised]



This glorious liberty of ours, and this understanding of baptism have

been carried captive in our day; and whom have we to thank for this

but the Roman pontiff with his despotism? More than all others, it was

his first duty, as chief shepherd, to preach and defend this liberty

and this knowledge, as Paul says in I Corinthians: "Let a man so

account of us as of the ministers of Christ, and the dispensers of the

mysteries, or sacraments[101], of God." [1 Cor. 4:1] Instead of this,

he seeks only to oppress us with his decrees and his laws, and to

enslave and ensnare us in the tyranny of his power. By what right, in

God's name, does the pope impose his laws upon us? to say nothing of

his wicked and damnable neglect to teach these mysteries. Who gave him

power to despoil us of this liberty, granted us in baptism? One thing

only (as I have said)[103] has been enjoined upon us all the days of

our life,--to be baptised; that is, to be put to death and to live

again, through faith in Christ; and this faith alone should have been

taught, especially by the chief shepherd. But now there is not a word

said about faith, and the Church is laid waste with endless laws

concerning works and ceremonies; the power and right understanding of

baptism are put by, and faith in Christ is prevented.



Therefore I say: Neither pope nor bishop nor any other man has the

right to impose a single syllable of law upon a Christian man without

his consent; and if he does, it is done in the spirit of tyranny.

Therefore the prayers, fasts, donations, and whatever else the pope

decrees and demands in all of his decretals, as numerous as they are

iniquitous, he demands and decrees without any right whatever; and he

sins against the liberty of the Church whenever he attempts any such

thing. Hence it has come to pass that the churchmen of our day are

indeed such vigorous defenders of the liberty of the Church, that is,

of wood and stone, of land and rents--for "churchly" is nowadays the

same as "spiritual"--yet with such fictions they not only take captive

but utterly destroy the true liberty of the Church, and deal with us

far worse than the Turk, in opposition to the word of the Apostle, "Be

not made the bondslaves of men." [1 Cor. 7:23] For, verily, to be

subjected to their statutes and tyrannical laws is to be made the

bondslaves of men.



This impious and desperate tyranny is fostered by the pope's

disciples, who here drag in and pervert that saying of Christ, "He

that heareth you heareth me." [Luke 10:16] With puffed cheeks they

blow up this saying to a great size in support of their traditions.

Though Christ spake it to the apostles when they went forth to preach

the Gospel, and though it applies solely to the Gospel, they pass over

the Gospel and apply it only to their fables. He says in John x: "My

sheep hear my voice, but the voice of a stranger they hear not" [John

10:27]; and to this end He left us the Gospel, that His voice might be

uttered by the pontiffs. But they utter their own voice, and

themselves desire to be heard. Moreover, the Apostle says that he was

not sent to baptise but to preach the Gospel [1 Cor. 1:17]. Therefore,

no one is bound to the traditions of the pope, nor does he need to

give ear to him unless he teaches the Gospel and Christ, and the pope

should teach nothing but faith without any restrictions. But since

Christ says, "He that heareth you heareth me," [Luke 10:16] and does

not say to Peter only, "He that heareth thee"; why does not the pope

also hear others? In fine, where there is true faith, there must also

be the word of faith. Why then does not an unbelieving pope now and

then hear a believing servant of his, who has the word of faith? It is

blindness, sheer blindness, that holds the popes in its power.



But others, more shameless still, arrogantly ascribe to the pope the

power to make laws, on the basis of Matthew xvi, "Whatsoever thou

shalt bind," [Matt. 16:19] etc., though Christ treats in this passage

of binding and loosing sins, not of taking the whole Church captive

and oppressing it with laws. So this tyranny treats everything with

its own lying words and violently wrests and perverts the words of

God. I admit indeed that Christians ought to bear this accursed

tyranny just as they would bear any other violence of this world,

according to Christ's word: "If one strike thee on thy right cheek,

turn to him also the other." [Matt. 5:39] But this is my

complaint,--that the godless pontiffs boastfully claim the right to do

this, that they pretend to be seeking the Church's welfare with this

Babylon of theirs, and that they foist this fiction upon all mankind.

For if they did these things, and we suffered their violence, well

knowing, both of us, that it was godlessness and tyranny, then we

might number it among the things that tend to the mortifying of this

life and the fulfilling of our baptism, and might with a good

conscience glory in the inflicted injury. But now they seek to deprive

us of this consciousness of our liberty, and would have us believe

that what they do is well done, and must not be censured or complained

of as wrongdoing. Being wolves, they masquerade as shepherds; being

anti-christs, they would be honored as Christ.



Solely in behalf of this freedom of conscience, I lift my voice and

confidently cry: No laws may by any right be laid upon Christians,

whether by men or angels, without their consent; for we are free from

all things. And if any laws are laid upon us, we must bear them in

such a way as to preserve the consciousness of our liberty, and know

and certainly affirm that the making of such laws is an injustice,

which we will bear and glory in, giving heed not to justify the tyrant

nor yet to rebel against his tyranny.  "For who is he," says Peter,

"that will harm you, if ye be followers of that which is good?" [1

Pet. 3:13] "All things work together or good to the elect." [Rom.

8:28]



Nevertheless, since but few know this glory of baptism and the

blessedness of Christian liberty, and cannot know them because of the

tyranny of the pope, I for one will clear my skirts and salve my

conscience by bringing this charge against the pope and all his

papists: Unless they will abolish their laws and traditions, and

restore to Christ's churches their liberty and have it taught among

them, they are guilty of all the souls that perish under this

miserable captivity, and the papacy is of a truth the kingdom of

Babylon, yea, of very Antichrist! For who is "the man of sin" and "the

son of perdition" [2 Thess. 2:3 f.] but he that with his doctrines and

his laws increases sins and the perdition of souls in the Church,

while he sitteth in the Church as if he were God? All this the papal

tyranny has fulfilled, and more than fulfilled, these many centuries;

it has extinguished faith, obscured the sacraments and oppressed the

Gospel; but its own laws, which are not only impious and sacrilegious,

but even barbarous and foolish, it has enjoined and multiplied world

without end.



Behold, then, our miserable captivity; how the city doth sit solitary

that was full of people! How the mistress of the Gentiles is become as

a widow: the princess of provinces made tributary! There is none to

comfort her, all her friends have despised her. [Lament. 1:1 f.] So

many orders, so many rites, so many sects, so many professions,

exertions and works, in which Christians are engaged, until they lose

sight of their baptism, and for this swarm of locusts, cankerworms and

caterpillars [Joel 1:4] not one of them is able to remember that he is

baptised or what blessings his baptism brought him. We should be even

as little children, newly baptised, who are engaged in no efforts and

no works, but are free in every way, secure and saved solely through

the glory of their baptism. For we are indeed little children,

continually baptised anew in Christ.



[Sidenote: Infant Baptism]



In contradiction of what has been said, some will perhaps point to the

baptism of infants, who do not grasp the promise of God and cannot

have the faith of baptism; so that either faith is not necessary or

else infant baptism is without effect. Here I say what all say:

Infants are aided by the faith of others, namely, those who bring them

to baptism[104]. For the Word of God is powerful, when it is uttered,

to change even a godless heart, which is no less deaf and helpless

than any infant. Even so the infant is changed, cleansed and renewed

by inpoured faith, through the prayer of the Church that presents it

for baptism and believes, to which prayer all things are possible

[Mark 9:23]. Nor should I doubt that even a godless adult might be

changed, in any of the sacraments, if the same Church prayed and

presented him; as we read in the Gospel of the man sick of the palsy,

who was healed through the faith of others [Matt. 9:1 ff.]. I should

be ready to admit that in this sense the sacraments of the New Law are

efficacious to confer grace, not only to those who do not, but even to

those who do most obstinately, oppose a bar[105]. What obstacle will

not the faith of the Church and the prayer of faith remove? Do we not

believe that Stephen by this powerful means converted Paul the

Apostle? But then the sacraments accomplish what they do not by their

own power, but by the power of faith, without which they accomplish

nothing at all, as has been said[106].



There remains the question, whether it is right to baptise an infant

not yet born, with only a hand or a foot presenting. Here I will

decide nothing hastily, and confess my ignorance. I am not sure

whether the reason given by some is sufficient,--that the soul resides

in its entirety in every part of the body; or it is not the soul but

the body that is externally baptised with water. Nor do I share the

view of others, that he who is not yet born cannot be born again, even

though it has considerable force. I leave these matters to the

teaching of the Spirit, and meanwhile permit every one to abound in

his own sense [Rom. 14:15 (Vulg.)].



[Sidenote: Vows and the Baptismal Vow]



One thing I will add--and would to God I might persuade all to do

it!--viz., completely to abolish or avoid all vows, be they vows to

enter religious orders, to make pilgrimages or to do any works

whatsoever, that we may remain in the liberty of our baptism, which is

the most religious and rich in works. It is impossible to say how

greatly that widespread delusion of vows lowers baptism and obscures

the knowledge of Christian liberty; to say nothing now of the

unspeakable and infinite peril of souls which that mania for making

vows and that ill-advised rashness daily increase. O most godless

pontiffs and unhappy pastors, who slumber on unheeding and indulge

your evil lusts, without pity or this "affliction of Joseph," [Amos

6:4-6] so dreadful and fraught with peril!



Vows should either be abolished by a general edict, particularly such

as are taken for life, and all men diligently recalled to the vows of

baptism, or else everyone should be warned not to take a vow rashly,

and no one encouraged to do so, nay, permission be given only with

difficulty and reluctance. For we have vowed enough in baptism, nay,

more than we can ever fulfil; if we give ourselves to the keeping of

this one vow, we shall have all we can do. But now we compass earth

and sea to make many proselytes [Matt. 23:15]; we fill the world with

priests, monks and nuns, and imprison them all in life-long vows. You

will find those who argue and decide that a work done in fulfilment of

a vow ranks higher than one done without a vow, and is to be rewarded

with I know not what great rewards in heaven. Blind and godless

Pharisees, who measure righteousness and holiness by the greatness,

number or other quality of the works! But God measures them by faith

alone, and with Him there is no difference between works except that

which is wrought by faith.



With such bombast these wicked men advertise their inventions and puff

up human works, to lure on the unthinking populace, who are almost

always led by the glitter of works to make shipwreck of their faith,

to forget their baptism and do despite to their Christian liberty. For

a vow is a kind of law or requirement; therefore, when vows are

multiplied, laws and works are necessarily multiplied, and when this

is done, faith is extinguished and the liberty of baptism taken

captive. Others, not content with these wicked allurements, add yet

this and say that entrance into a religious order is a new

baptism[107], as it were, which may afterward be repeated as often as

the purpose to live the religious life is renewed. Thus these

"votaries" have appropriated to themselves all righteousness,

salvation and glory, and let to those who are merely baptised nothing

to compare with them. Nay, the Roman pontiff, that fountain and source

of all superstitions, confirms, approves and adorns this mode of life

with high-sounding bulls and dispensations, while no one deems baptism

worthy of even a thought. And with such glittering pomp (as we have

said)[108] they drive the easily led people of Christ into certain

disaster, so that in their ingratitude toward baptism they presume to

achieve greater things by their works than others achieve by their

faith.



Therefore, God again shows Himself froward to the froward [Ps. 18:26],

and to repay the makers of vows for their ingratitude and pride,

causes them to break their vows or to keep them only with prodigious

labor; to remain sunk in them, never coming to the knowledge of the

grace of faith and baptism; to continue in their hypocrisy unto the

end--since their spirit is not approved of God--and at last to become

a laughing-stock to the whole world, ever ensuing righteousness and

never attaining unto righteousness; so that they fulfil the word of

Isaiah: "The land is full of idols." [Isa. 2:8]



I am indeed far from forbidding or discouraging any one who may desire

to take a vow privately and of his own free choice; for I would not

altogether despise and condemn vows. But I would most strongly advise

against setting up and sanctioning the making of vows as a public mode

of life. It is enough that every one should have the private right to

take a vow at his peril; but to commend the vowing of vows as a public

mode of life--this I hold to be most harmful to the Church and to

simple souls. And I hold this, first, because it runs directly counter

to the Christian life; for a vow is a certain ceremonial law and a

human tradition or presumption, and from these the Christian has been

set free through baptism. For a Christian is subject to no laws but

the law of God. Again, there is no instance in Scripture of such a

vow, especially of life-long chastity, obedience and poverty[109]. But

whatever is without warrant of Scripture is hazardous and should by no

means be commended to any one, much less established as a common and

public mode of life, although whoever will must be permitted to make

the venture at his own peril. For certain works are wrought by the

Spirit in a few men, but they must not be made an example or a mode of

life or all.



Moreover, I greatly fear that these modes of life of the religious

orders belong to those things which the Apostle foretold: "They shall

teach a life in hypocrisy, forbidding to marry, to abstain from meats,

which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving." [1 Tim. 4:2

f.] Let no one retort by pointing to Sts. Bernard, Francis, Dominic

and others, who founded or fostered monastic orders. Terrible and

marvelous is God in His counsels toward the sons of men. He could keep

Daniel, Ananias, Azarias and Misael holy at the court of the king of

Babylon [Dan 1:6 ff.], that is, in the midst of godlessness; why could

He not sanctify those men also in their perilous mode of living or

guide them by the special operation of His Spirit, yet without

desiring it to be an example to others? Besides, it is certain that

none of them was saved through his vows and his "religious" life; they

were saved through faith alone, by which all men are saved, and with

which that splendid slavery of vows is more than anything else in

conflict.



But every one may hold to his own view of this [Rom. 14:5]. I will

return to my argument. Speaking now in behalf of the Church's liberty

and the glory of baptism, I feel myself in duty bound publicly to set

forth the counsel I have learned under the Spirit's guidance. I

therefore counsel the magnates of the churches, first of all, to

abolish all those vows, or at least not to approve and extol them. If

they will not do this, then I counsel all men who would be assured of

their salvation, to abstain from all vows, above all from the great

and life-long vows; I give this counsel especially to all growing boys

and youths. This I do, first, because this manner of life has no

witness or warrant in the Scriptures, as I have said, but is puffed up

solely by the bulls (and they truly are "bulls")[110] of human popes.

And, secondly, because it greatly tends to hypocrisy, by reason of its

outward show and its unusual character, which engender conceit and a

contempt of the common Christian life. And if there were no other

reason for abolishing these vows, this one were reason enough, namely,

that through them, faith and baptism are slighted and works are

exalted, which cannot be done without harmful results. For in the

religious orders there is scarce one in many thousands, who is not

more concerned about works than about faith, and on the basis of this

madness they have even made distinctions among themselves, such as

"the more strict" and "the more lax," as they call them[111].



Therefore I advise no one to enter any religious order or the

priesthood--nay, I dissuade everyone--unless he be forearmed with this

knowledge and understand that the works of monks and priests, be they

never so holy and arduous, differ no whit in the sight of God from the

works of the rustic toiling in the field or the woman going about her

household tasks, but that all works are measured before Him by faith

alone; as Jeremiah says: "O Lord, thine eyes are upon faith" [Jer.

5:3]; and Ecclesiasticus: "In every work of thine regard thy soul in

faith: for this is the keeping of the commandments." [Eccles. 32:27]

Nay, he should know that the menial housework of a maidservant or

manservant is ofttimes more acceptable to God than all the fastings

and other works of a monk or a priest, because the latter lacks faith.

Since, therefore, vows seem to tend nowadays only to the glorification

of works and to pride, it is to be feared that there is nowhere less

of faith and of the Church than among the priests, monks and bishops,

and that these men are in truth heathen or hypocrites, who imagine

themselves to be the Church or the heart of the Church, and

"spiritual," and the Church's leaders, when they are everything else

but that. And it is to be feared that this is indeed "the people of

the captivity," [Ps. 64:1 (Vulg.)] among whom all things freely given

us in baptism are held captive, while "the people of the earth" are

left behind in poverty and in small numbers, and, as is the lot of

married folk, appear vile in their eyes[112].



[Sidenote: Papal Dispensations and their Inconsistency]



From what has been said we learn that the Roman pontiff is guilty of

two glaring errors. In the first place, he grants dispensations from

vows[113], and does it as though he alone of all Christians possessed

this authority; such is the temerity and audacity of wicked men. If it

be possible to grant a dispensation from a vow, then any brother may

grant one to his neighbor or even to himself. But if one's neighbor

cannot grant a dispensation, neither can the pope by any right. For

whence has he his authority? From the power of the keys? But the keys

belong to all, and avail only for sins (Matthew xviii) [Matt. 18:15

ff.][114]. Now they themselves claim that vows are "of divine right."

Why then does the pope deceive and destroy the poor souls of men by

granting dispensations in matters of divine right, in which no

dispensations can be granted? He babbles indeed, in the section "Of

vows and their redemption,"[115] of having the power to change vows,

just as in the law the firstborn of an ass was changed or a sheep

[Ex.13:13]--as if the firstborn of an ass, and the vow he commands to

be everywhere and always offered, were one and the same thing, or as

if when God decrees in His law that a sheep shall be changed or an

ass, the pope, a mere man, may straightway claim the same power, not

in his own law but in God's! It was not a pope, but an ass changed for

a pope[116], that made this decretal; so egregiously senseless and

godless is it.



The other error is this. The pope decrees, on the other hand, that

marriage is dissolved if one party enter a monastery even without the

consent of the other, provided the marriage be not yet consummated.

Gramercy, what devil puts such monstrous things into the pope's mind!

God commands men to keep faith and not break their word to one

another, and again, to do good with that which is their own; for He

hates "robbery in a holocaust," [Isa. 61:8] as he says by the mouth of

Isaiah. But one spouse is bound by the marriage contract to keep faith

with the other, and he is not his own. He cannot break his faith by

any right, and whatever he does with himself is robbery if it be

without the other's consent. Why does not one who is burdened with

debts follow this same rule and obtain admission to an order, so as to

be released from his debts and be free to break his word? O more than

blind! Which is greater; the faith commanded by God or a vow devised

and chosen by man? Thou art a shepherd of souls, O pope? And ye that

teach such things are doctors of sacred theology? Why then do ye teach

them? Because, forsooth, ye have decked out your vow as a better work

than marriage, and do not exalt faith, which alone exalts all things,

but ye exalt works, which are naught in the sight of God, or which are

all alike so far as any merit is concerned[117].



I have no doubt, therefore, that neither men nor angels can grant a

dispensation from vows, if they be proper vows. But I am not fully

clear in my own mind whether all the things that men nowadays vow come

under the head of vows. For instance, it is simply foolish and stupid

for parents to dedicate their children, before birth or in early

infancy, to "the religious life," or to perpetual chastity; nay, it is

certain that this can by no means be termed a vow. It seems a mockery

of God to vow things which it is not at all in one's power to keep. As

to the triple vow of the monastic orders, the longer I consider it,

the less I comprehend it, and I marvel whence the custom of exacting

this vow has arisen. Still less do I understand at what age vows may

be taken in order to be legal and valid. I am pleased to find them

unanimously agreed that vows taken before the age of puberty are not

valid. Nevertheless, they deceive many young children who are ignorant

both of their age and of what they are vowing; they do not observe the

age of puberty in receiving such children, who after making their

profession are held captive and devoured by a troubled conscience, as

though they had afterward given their consent. As if a vow which was

invalid could afterward become valid with the lapse of time.



It seems absurd to me that the terms of a legal vow should be

prescribed to others by those who cannot prescribe them for

themselves. Nor do I see why a vow taken at eighteen years of age

should be valid, and not one taken at ten or twelve years. It will not

do to say that at eighteen a man feels his carnal desires. How is it

when he scarcely feels them at twenty or thirty, or when he feels them

more keenly at thirty than at twenty? Why do they not also set a

certain age-limit or the vows of poverty and obedience? But at what

age will you say a man should feel his greed and pride? Even the most

spiritual hardly become aware of these emotions. Therefore, no vow

will ever become binding and valid until we have become spiritual, and

no longer have any need of vows. You see, these are uncertain and

perilous matters, and it would therefore be a wholesome counsel to

leave such lofty modes of living, unhampered by vows, to the Spirit

alone, as they were of old, and by no means to change them into a rule

binding or life. But let this suffice for the present concerning

baptism and its liberty; in due time[118] I may treat of the vows at

greater length. Of a truth they stand sorely in need of it.



THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE



We come in the third place to the sacrament of penance. On this

subject I have already given no little offence by my published

treatises and disputations[119], in which I have amply set forth my

views. These I must now briefly rehearse, in order to unmask the

tyranny that is rampant here no less than in the sacrament of the

bread. For because these two sacraments furnish opportunity for gain

and profit, the greed of the shepherds rages in them with incredible

zeal against the flock of Christ; although baptism, too, has sadly

declined among adults and become the servant of avarice, as we have

just seen in our discussion of vows.



[Sidenote: The Abuse of Penance]



This is the first and chief abuse of this sacrament: They have utterly

abolished the sacrament itself, so that there penance is not a vestige

of it left. For they have overthrown both the word of divine promise

and our faith, in which this as well as other sacraments consists.

They have applied to their tyranny the word of promise which Christ

spake in Matthew xvi, "Whatsoever thou shalt bind," etc. [Matt.

16:19], in Matthew xviii, "Whatsoever ye shall bind," [Matt. 18:18]

etc., and in John, the last chapter, "Whose soever sins ye remit, they

are remitted unto them," [John 20:23] etc. In these words the faith of

penitents is aroused, to the obtaining of remission of sins. But in

all their writing, teaching and preaching their sole concern has been,

not to teach Christians what is promised in these words or what they

ought to believe and what great comfort they might find in them, but

only to extend their own tyranny far and wide through force and

violence, until it has come to such a pass that some of them have

begun to command the very angels in heaven[120] and to boast in

incredible mad wickedness of having in these words obtained the right

to a heavenly and an earthly rule, and of possessing the power to bind

even in heaven. Thus they say nothing of the saving faith of the

people, but babble only of the despotic power of the pontiffs, whereas

Christ speaks not at all of power, but only of faith.



For Christ hath not ordained principalities or powers or lordships,

but ministries, in the Church; as we learn from the Apostle, who says:

"Let a man so account of us as of the ministers of Christ, and the

dispensers of the mysteries of God." [1 Cor. 4:1] Now when He said:

"He that believeth and is baptised shall be saved," [Mark 16:16] He

called forth the faith of those to be baptised, so that by this word

of promise a man might be certain of being saved if he believed and

was baptised. In that word there is no impartation of any power

whatever, but only the institution of the ministry of those who

baptise. Similarly, when He says here: "Whatsoever thou shalt bind,"

etc. [Matt. 16:19], He calls forth the faith of the penitent, so that

by this word of promise he may be certain of being truly absolved in

heaven, if he be absolved and believe. Here there is no mention at all

of power, but of the ministry of him that absolves. It is a wonder

these blind and overbearing men missed the opportunity of arrogating a

despotic power to themselves from the promise of baptism. But if they

do not do this in the case of baptism, why should they have presumed

to do it in the case of the promise of penance? For in both there is a

like ministry, a similar promise, and the same kind of sacrament. So

that, if baptism does not belong to Peter alone, it is undeniably a

wicked usurpation of power to claim the keys for the pope alone.

Again, when Christ says: "Take, eat; this is my body, which is given

or you. Take, drink; this is the chalice in my blood," etc. [1 Cor.

11:24 f.], He calls forth the faith of those who eat, so that through

these words their conscience may be strengthened by faith and they may

rest assured of receiving the forgiveness of sins, if they have eaten.

Here, too, He says nothing of power, but only of a ministry.



Thus the promise of baptism remains in some sort, at least to infants;

the promise of bread and the cup has been destroyed and made

subservient to greed, faith becoming a work and the testament a

sacrifice; while the promise of penance has fallen prey to the most

oppressive despotism of all and serves to establish a more than

temporal rule.



Not content with these things, this Babylon of ours has so completely

extinguished faith that it insolently denies its necessity in this

sacrament; nay, with the wickedness of Antichrist it calls it heresy

if any one should assert its necessity. What more could this tyranny

do that it has not done? [Isa. 5:4] Verily, by the rivers of Babylon

we sit and weep, when we remember thee, O Zion. We hang our harps upon

the willows in the midst thereof. [Ps. 137:1, 2] The Lord curse the

barren willows of those streams! Amen.



Now let us see what they have put in the place of the promise and the

faith which they have blotted out and overthrown. Three parts have

they made of penance,--contrition, confession, and satisfaction; yet

so as to destroy whatever of good there might be in any of them and to

establish here also their covetousness and tyranny.



[Sidenote: I. Contrition.]



In the first place, they teach that contrition precedes faith in the

promise; they hold it much too cheap[121], making it not a work of

faith, but a merit; nay, they do not mention it at all. So deep are

they sunk in works and in those instances of Scripture that show how

many obtained grace by reason of their contrition and humility of

heart; but they take no account of the faith which wrought such

contrition and sorrow of heart, as it is written of the men of Nineveh

in Jonah iii, "And the men of Nineveh believed in God: and they

proclaimed a fast," [Jonah 3:5] etc. Others, again, more bold and

wicked, have invented a so-called "attrition," which is converted into

contrition by virtue of the power of the keys, of which they know

nothing[122]. This attrition they grant to the wicked and unbelieving

and thus abolish contrition altogether. O the intolerable wrath of

God, that such things should be taught in the Church of Christ! Thus,

with both faith and its work destroyed, we go on secure in the

doctrines and opinions of men--yea, we go on to our destruction. A

contrite heart is a precious thing, but it is found only where there

is a lively faith in the promises and the threats of God. Such faith,

intent on the immutable truth of God, startles and terrifies the

conscience and thus renders it contrite, and afterwards, when it is

contrite, raises it up, consoles and preserves it; so that the truth

of God's threatening is the cause of contrition, and the truth of His

promise the cause of consolation, if it be believed. By such faith a

man merits the forgiveness of sins. Therefore faith should be taught

and aroused before all else; and when faith is obtained, contrition

and consolation will follow inevitably and of themselves.



Therefore, although there is something of truth in their teaching that

contrition is to be attained by what they call the recollection and

contemplation of sins, yet their teaching is perilous and perverse so

long as they do not teach first of all the beginning and cause of

contrition,--the immutable truth of God's threatening and promise, to

the awakening of faith,--so that men may learn to pay more heed to the

truth of God, whereby they are cast down and lifted up, than to the

multitude of their sins, which will rather irritate and increase the

sinful desires than lead to contrition, if they be regarded apart from

the truth of God. I will say nothing now of the intolerable burden

they have bound upon us with their demand that we should frame a

contrition for every sin. That is impossible; we can know only the

smaller part of our sins, and even our good works are found to be

sins, according to Psalm cxliii, "Enter not into judgment with thy

servant; for in thy sight shall no man living be justified." [Ps.

143:2] It is enough to lament the sins which at the present moment

distress our conscience, as well as those which we can readily call to

mind. Whoever is in this frame of mind is without doubt ready to

grieve and fear for all his sins, and will do so whenever they are

brought to his knowledge in the future.



Beware, then, of putting your trust in your own contrition and of

ascribing the forgiveness of sins to your own sorrow. God does not

have respect to you because of that, but because of the faith by which

you have believed His threatenings and promises, and which wrought

such sorrow within you. Thus we owe whatever of good there may be in

our penance, not to our scrupulous enumeration of sins, but to the

truth of God and to our faith. All other things are the works and

fruits of this, which follow of their own accord, and do not make a

man good, but are done by a man already made good through faith in the

truth of God. Even so, "a smoke goeth up in His wrath, because He is

angry and troubleth the mountains and kindleth them," [Ps. 18:8] as it

is said in Psalm xviii. First comes the terror of His threatening,

which burns up the wicked, then faith, accepting this, sends up the

cloud of contrition, etc.



[Sidenote: 2. Confession]



Contrition, however, is less exposed to tyranny and gain than wholly

given over to wickedness and pestilent teaching. But confession and

satisfaction have become the chief workshop of greed and violence. Let

us first take up confession. There is no doubt that confession is

necessary and commanded of God. Thus we read in Matthew iii: "They

were baptised of John in Jordan, confessing their sins." [Matt. 3:6]

And in I John i: "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to

forgive us our sins. If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a

liar, and his word is not in us." [1 John 1:9 f.] If the saints may

not deny their sin, how much more ought those who are guilty of open

and great sins[123] to make confession! But most effectively of all

does Matthew xviii prove the institution of confession, in which

passage Christ teaches that a sinning brother should be rebuked, haled

before the Church, accused and, if he will not hear, excommunicated.

But he hears when, heeding the rebuke, he acknowledges and confesses

his sin. [Matt. 18:15]



[Sidenote: Private Confession]



[Sidenote: "Reserved Cases"]



Of private confession, which is now observed, I am heartily in favor,

even though it cannot be proved from the Scriptures; it is useful and

necessary, nor would I have it abolished--nay, I rejoice that it

exists in the Church of Christ, for it is a cure without an equal for

distressed consciences. For when we have laid bare our conscience to

our brother and privately made known to him the evil that lurked

within, we receive from our brother's lips the word of comfort spoken

by God Himself; and, if we accept it in faith, we find peace in the

mercy of God speaking to us through our brother. This alone do I

abominate,--that this confession has been subjected to the despotism

and extortion of the pontiffs. They reserve[124] to themselves even

hidden sins, and command that they be made known to confessors named

by them, only to trouble the consciences of men. They merely play the

pontiff, while they utterly despise the true duties of pontiffs, which

are to preach the Gospel and to care for the poor. Yea, the godless

despots leave the great sins to the plain priests, and reserve to

themselves those sins only which are of less consequence, such as

those ridiculous and fictitious things in the bull _Coena

domini_[125]. Nay, to make the wickedness of their error the more

apparent, they not only do not reserve, but actually teach and

approve, the sins against the service of God, against faith and the

chief commandments; such as their running on pilgrimages, the perverse

worship of the saints, the lying saints' legends, the various forms of

trust in works and ceremonies, and the practicing of them, by all of

which faith in God is extinguished and idolatry encouraged, as we see

in our day. We have the same kind of priests to-day as Jereboam

ordained of old in Dan and Beersheba [1 Kings 12:26 ff.],--ministers

of the golden calves, men who are ignorant of the law of God, of faith

and of whatever pertains to the feeding of Christ's sheep, and who

inculcate in the people nothing but their own inventions with terror

and violence.



Although my advice is that we bear this outrage of reserved cases,

even as Christ bids us bear all the tyranny of men, and teaches us

that we must obey these extortioners; nevertheless I deny that they

have the right to make such reservations, nor do I believe they can

bring one jot or tittle of proof that they have it. But I am going to

prove the contrary. In the first place, Christ, speaking in Matthew

xviii of open sins, says that if our brother shall hear us when we

rebuke him, we have saved the soul of our brother, and that he is to

be brought before the Church only if he refuse to hear us; so that his

sin may be corrected among brethren. How much more will it be true of

hidden sins, that they are forgiven if one brother freely makes

confession to another? So that it is not necessary to tell it to the

Church, that is, as these babblers interpret it, the prelate or

priest. We have another proof of this in Christ's words in the same

chapter: "Whatsoever you shall bind on earth, shall be bound also in

heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose on earth, shall be loosed in

heaven." [Matt. 18:18] For this is said to each and every Christian.

Again, He says in the same place: "Again I say to you, that if two of

you shall consent upon earth, concerning anything whatsoever that they

shall ask, it shall be done to them by my Father who is in heaven."

[Matt 18:19] Now, the brother who lays his hidden sins before his

brother and craves pardon, certainly consents with his brother upon

earth in the truth, which is Christ. Of which Christ says yet more

clearly, confirming His preceding words: "Verily I say unto you, where

two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst

of them." [Matt. 18:20]



Hence, I have no doubt but that every one is absolved from his hidden

sins when he has made confession, either of his own accord or after

being rebuked, has sought pardon and amended his ways, privately

before any brother, however much the violence of the pontiffs may rage

against it; for Christ has given to every one of His believers the

power to absolve even open sins. Add yet this little point: If any

reservation of hidden sins were valid, so that one could not be saved

unless they were forgiven, then a man's salvation would be prevented

most of all by those aforementioned good works and idolatries, which

are nowadays taught by the popes. But if these most grievous sins do

not prevent one's salvation, how foolish it is to reserve those

lighter sins! Verily, it is the foolishness and blindness of the

pastors that produce these monstrous things in the Church. Therefore I

would admonish these princes of Babylon and bishops of Bethaven [Hosea

4:15; 10:5] to refrain from reserving any cases whatsoever. Let them,

moreover, permit all brothers and sisters freely to hear the

confession of hidden sins, so that the sinner may make his sins known

to whomever he will and seek pardon and comfort, that is, the word of

Christ, by the mouth of his neighbor. For with these presumptions of

theirs they only ensnare the consciences of the weak without

necessity, establish their wicked despotism, and fatten their avarice

on the sins and ruin of their brethren. Thus they stain their hands

with the blood of souls, sons are devoured by their parents, Ephraim

devours Juda, and Syria Israel with open mouth, as Isaiah saith [Isa

9:20].



[Sidenote: "Circumstances"]



To these evils they have added the "circumstances,"[126] and also the

mothers, daughters, sisters, brothers- and sisters-in-law, branches

and fruits of sins; since, forsooth, astute and idle men have worked

out a kind of family tree of relationships and affinities even among

sins--so prolific is wickedness coupled with ignorance. For this

conceit, whatever rogue be its author, has like many another become a

public law. Thus do the shepherds keep watch over the Church of

Christ; whatever new work or superstition those stupid devotees may

have dreamed of, they straightway drag to the light of day, deck out

with indulgences and safeguard with bulls; so far are they from

suppressing it and preserving to God's people the true faith and

liberty. For what has our liberty to do with the tyranny of Babylon?

My advice would be to ignore all circumstances utterly. With

Christians there is only one circumstance,--that a brother has sinned.

For there is no person to be compared with a Christian brother. And

the observance of places, times, days, persons, and all other

superstitious moonshine, only magnifies the things that are nothing,

to the injury of those which are everything; as if aught could be

greater or of more importance than the glory of Christian brotherhood!

Thus they bind us to places, days and persons, that the name of

brother may be lightly esteemed, and we may serve in bondage instead

of being free--we to whom all days, places, persons, and all external

things are one and the same.



[Sidenote: 3. Satisfaction]



How unworthily they have dealt with satisfaction, I have abundantly

shown in the controversies concerning indulgences[127]. They have

grossly abused it, to the ruin of Christians in body and soul. To

begin with, they taught it in such a manner that the people never

learned what satisfaction really is, namely, the renewal of a man's

life. Then, they so continually harp on it and emphasize its

necessity, that they leave no room for faith in Christ. With these

scruples they torture poor consciences to death, and one runs to Rome,

one to this place, another to that, this one to Chartreuse, that one

to some other place, one scourges himself with rods, another ruins his

body with fasts and vigils, and all cry with the same mad zeal, "Lo

here is Christ! lo there!" [Luke 17:20 f.] believing that the kingdom

of heaven, which is within us, will come with observation[128].



For these monstrous things we are indebted to thee, O Roman See, and

thy murderous laws and ceremonies, with which thou hast corrupted all

mankind, so that they think by works to make satisfaction or sin to

God, Who can be satisfied only by the faith of a contrite heart! This

faith thou not only keepest silent with this uproar of thine, but even

oppressest, only so thy insatiable horseleech have those to whom it

may say, "Bring, bring!" [Prov. 30:15] and may traffic in sins.



Some have gone even farther and have constructed those instruments for

driving souls to despair,--their decrees that the penitent must

rehearse all sins anew for which he neglected to make the imposed

satisfaction. Yea, what would not they venture to do, who were born

for the sole purpose of carrying all things into a tenfold captivity?

Moreover, how many are possessed with the notion that they are in a

saved state and are making satisfaction for their sins, if they but

mumble over, word for word, the prayers the priest has imposed, even

though they give never a thought meanwhile to amending their life!

They believe that their life is changed in the one moment of

contrition and confession, and it remains only to make satisfaction

for their past sins. How should they know better, when they are not

taught otherwise? No thought is given here to the mortifying of the

flesh, no value is attached to the example of Christ, Who absolved the

woman taken in adultery and said to her, "Go, and sin no more!" [John

8:11] thereby laying upon her the cross--the mortifying of her flesh.

This perverse error is greatly encouraged by our absolving sinners

before the satisfaction has been completed, so that they are more

concerned about completing the satisfaction which lies before them,

than they are about contrition, which they suppose to be past and over

when they have made confession. Absolution ought rather to follow on

the completion of satisfaction, as it did in the ancient Church, with

the result that, after completing the work, penitents gave themselves

with greater diligence to faith and the living of a new life.



But this must suffice in repetition of what I have more fully said on

indulgences, and in general this must suffice for the present

concerning the three sacraments, which have been treated, and yet not

treated, in so many harmful books, theological as well as juristic. It

remains to attempt some discussion of the other sacraments also, lest

I seem to have rejected them without cause.



CONFIRMATION



I wonder what could have possessed them to make a sacrament of

confirmation out of the laying on of hands, which Christ employed when

He blessed young children [Mark 10:16], and the apostles when they

imparted the Holy Spirit [Acts 8:17; Acts 19:6; Acts 6:6; Mark 16:18],

ordained elders and cured the sick, as the Apostle writes to Timothy,

"Lay hands suddenly on no man." [1 Tim. 5:22] Why have they not also

turned the sacrament of the bread into confirmation? For it is written

in Acts ix, "And when he had taken meat he was strengthened,"[129] and

in Psalm civ, "And that bread may cheer[130] man's heart." [Ps.

104:15] Confirmation would thus include three sacraments--the bread,

ordination, and confirmation itself. But if everything the apostles

did is a sacrament, why have they not rather made preaching a

sacrament?



I do not say this because I condemn the seven sacraments, but because

I deny that they can be proved from the Scriptures. Would to God we

had in the Church such a laying on of hands as there was in apostolic

times, whether we called it confirmation or healing! But there is

nothing left of it now but what we ourselves have invented to adorn

the office of the bishops, that they may have at least something to do

in the Church. For after they relinquished to their inferiors those

arduous sacraments together with the Word, as being too common for

themselves,--since, forsooth, whatever the divine Majesty has

instituted must needs be despised of men!--it was no more than right

that we should discover something easy and not too burdensome for such

delicate and great heroes to do, and should by no means entrust it to

the lower clergy as something common--for whatever human wisdom has

decreed must needs be held in honor among men! Therefore, as are the

priests, so let their ministry and duty be. For a bishop who does not

preach the Gospel or care for souls [1 Cor. 8:4], what is he but an

idol in the world, having but the name and appearance of a bishop?



But we seek, instead of this, sacraments that have been divinely

instituted, among which we see no reason for numbering confirmation.

For, in order that there be a sacrament, there is required above all

things a word of divine promise, whereby faith may be trained. But we

read nowhere that Christ ever gave a promise concerning confirmation,

although He laid hands on many and included the laying on of hands

among the signs in Mark xvi: "They shall lay their hands on the sick,

and they shall recover." [Mark 16:18] Yet no one referred this to a

sacrament, nor can this be done. Hence it is sufficient to regard

confirmation as a certain churchly rite or sacramental ceremony,

similar to other ceremonies, such as the blessing of holy water and

the like. For if every other creature is sanctified by the word and by

prayer [1 Tim. 4:4 f.], why should not much rather man be sanctified

by the same means? Still, these things cannot be called sacraments of

faith, because there is no divine promise connected with them, neither

do they save; but sacraments do save those who believe the divine

promise.



MARRIAGE



Not only is marriage regarded as a sacrament without the least warrant

of Scripture, but the very traditions which extol it as a sacrament

have turned it into a farce. Let me explain.



We said[131] that there is in every sacrament a word of divine

promise, to be believed by whoever receives the sign, and that the

sign alone cannot be a sacrament. Now we read nowhere that the man who

marries a wife receives any grace of God. Nay, there is not even a

divinely instituted sign in marriage, for nowhere do we read that

marriage was instituted by God to be a sign of anything. To be sure,

whatever takes place in a visible manner may be regarded as a type or

figure of something invisible; but types and figures are not

sacraments in the sense in which we use this term. Furthermore, since

marriage existed from the beginning of the world and is still found

among unbelievers, it cannot possibly be called a sacrament of the New

Law and the exclusive possession of the Church. The marriages of the

ancients were no less sacred than are ours, nor are those of

unbelievers less true marriages than those of believers, and yet they

are not regarded as sacraments. Besides, there are even among

believers married folk who are wicked and worse than any heathen; why

should marriage be called a sacrament in their case and not among the

heathen? Or are we going to prate so foolishly of baptism and the

Church as to hold that marriage is a sacrament only in the Church,

just as some make the mad claim that temporal power exists only in the

Church? That is childish and foolish talk, by which we expose our

ignorance and our arrogance to the ridicule of unbelievers.



But they will say: The Apostle writes in Ephesians v, "They shall be

two in one flesh. This is a great sacrament." [Eph. 5:31 f.] Surely

you are not going to contradict so plain a statement of the Apostle! I

reply: This argument, like the others, betrays great shallowness and a

negligent and thoughtless reading of Scripture. Nowhere in Holy

Scripture is this word sacrament employed in the meaning to which we

are accustomed; it has an entirely different meaning. For wherever it

occurs it signifies not the sign of a sacred thing, but a sacred,

secret, hidden thing. Thus Paul writes in i Corinthians iv, "Let a man

so account of us as the ministers of Christ, and dispensers of the

mysteries[132]--i. e., sacraments--of God." [1 Cor. 4:1] Where we have

the word _sacrament_ the Greek text reads _mystery_, which word our

version sometimes translates and sometimes retains in its Greek form.

Thus our verse reads in the Greek: "They shall be two in one flesh;

this is a great _mystery_." [Eph. 5:31] This explains how they came to

find a sacrament of the New Law here--a thing they would never have

done if they had read the word _mystery_, as it is in the Greek[133].

Thus Christ Himself is called a sacrament in I Timothy iii, "And

evidently great is the sacrament--i. e., mystery--of godliness, which

was manifested in the flesh, was justified in the spirit, appeared

unto angels, hath been preached unto the Gentiles, is believed by the

world, is taken up in glory."[1 Tim. 3:16][134] Why have they not

drawn out of this passage an eighth sacrament of the New Law, since

they have the clear authority of Paul? But if they restrained

themselves here, where they had a most excellent opportunity to

unearth a new sacrament, why are they so wanton in the former passage?

It was their ignorance, forsooth, of both words and things; they clung

to the mere sound of the words, nay, to their own fancies. For, having

once arbitrarily taken the word sacrament to mean a sign, they

straightway, without thought or scruple, made a sign of it every time

they came upon it in the Sacred Scriptures. Such new meanings of words

and such human customs they have also elsewhere dragged into Holy

Writ, and conformed it to their dreams, making anything out of any

passage whatsoever. Thus they continually chatter nonsense about the

terms: good and evil works, sin, grace, righteousness, virtue, and

wellnigh every one of the fundamental words and things. For they

employ them all after their own arbitrary judgment, learned from the

writings of men, to the detriment both of the truth of God and of our

salvation.



Therefore, _sacrament_, or _mystery_, in Paul's writings, is that

wisdom of the Spirit, hidden in a mystery [1 Cor. 2:7 ff.], as he says

in i Corinthians ii, which is Christ, Who is for this very reason not

known to the princes of this world, wherefore they also crucified Him,

and Who still is to them foolishness, an offense, a stone of stumbling

[1 Cor. 1:23; Rom. 9:33], and a sign which is spoken against [Luke

2:34]. The preachers he calls dispensers of these mysteries because

they preach Christ, the power and the wisdom of God [1 Cor. 1:23 f.;

4:1], yet so that one cannot receive this unless one believe.

Therefore, a sacrament is a mystery, or secret thing, which is set

forth in words and is received by the faith of the heart. Such a

sacrament is spoken of in the verse before us--"They shall be two in

one flesh. This is a great sacrament"[Eph 5:31]--which they understand

as spoken of marriage, whereas Paul wrote these words of Christ and

the Church, and clearly explained his meaning by adding, "But I speak

in Christ and in the Church." Ay, how well they agree with Paul! He

declares he is setting forth a great sacrament in Christ and the

Church, but they set it forth in a man and a woman! If such wantonness

be permitted in the Sacred Scriptures, it is small wonder if one find

there anything one please, even a hundred sacraments.



Christ and the Church are, therefore, a mystery, that is, a great and

secret thing, which it was possible and proper[135] to represent by

marriage as by a certain outward allegory, but that was no reason for

their calling marriage a sacrament. The heavens are a type of the

apostles, as Psalm xix declares; the sun is a type of Christ; the

waters, of the peoples [Ps. 19:1 ff.]; but that does not make those

things sacraments, for in every case there are lacking both the divine

institution and the divine promise, which constitute a sacrament.

Hence Paul, in Ephesians v, following his own mind[136], applies to

Christ these words in Genesis ii about marriage, or else, following

the general view,[136] he teaches that the spiritual marriage of

Christ is also contained therein, saying: "As Christ cherisheth the

Church: because we are members of his body, of his flesh and of his

bones. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and

shall cleave to his wife, and they shall be two in one flesh. This is

a great sacrament; I speak in Christ and in the Church." [Eph. 5:29

ff.] You see, he would have the whole passage apply to Christ, and is

at pains to admonish the reader to find the sacrament in Christ and

the Church, and not in marriage.[137]



Therefore we grant that marriage is a type of Christ and the Church,

and a sacrament, yet not divinely instituted, but invented by men in

the Church, carried away by their ignorance both of the word and of

the thing. Which ignorance, since it does not conflict with the faith,

is to be charitably borne with, just as many other practices of human

weakness and ignorance are borne with in the Church, so long as they

do not conflict with the faith and with the Word of God. But we are

now dealing with the certainty and purity of the faith and the

Scriptures; so that our faith be not exposed to ridicule, when after

affirming that a certain thing is contained in the Sacred Scriptures

and in the articles of our faith, we are refuted and shown that it is

not contained therein, and, being found ignorant of our own affairs,

become a stumbling-block to our opponents and to the weak; nay, that

we destroy not the authority of the Holy Scriptures. For those things

which have been delivered to us by God in the Sacred Scriptures must

be sharply distinguished from those that have been invented by men in

the Church, it matters not how eminent they be for saintliness and

scholarship.



[Sidenote: Hindrances to Marriage]



So far concerning marriage itself. But what shall we say of the wicked

laws of men by which this divinely ordained manner of life is ensnared

and tossed to and fro? Good God! it is dreadful to contemplate the

audacity of the Roman despots, who wantonly tear marriages asunder and

again force them together. Prithee, is mankind given over to the

wantonness of these men, for them to mock and in every way abuse and

make of them whatever they please, for filthy lucre's sake?



There is circulating far and wide and enjoying a great reputation, a

book whose contents have been poured together out of the cesspool of

all human traditions, and whose title is "The Angelic Sum,[138]"

though it ought rather to be "The More than Devilish Sum." Among

endless other monstrosities, which are supposed to instruct the

confessors, while they most mischievously confuse them, there are

enumerated in this book eighteen hindrances to marriage[139]. If you

will examine these with the just and unprejudiced eye of faith, you

will see that they belong to those things which the Apostle foretold:

"There shall be those that give heed to spirits of devils, speaking

lies in hypocrisy, forbidding to marry." [1 Tim. 4:1 ff.] What is

forbidding to marry if it is not this--to invent all those hindrances

and set those snares, in order to prevent men from marrying or, if

they be married, to annul their marriage? Who gave this power to men?

Granted that they were holy men and impelled by godly zeal, why should

another's holiness disturb my liberty? why should another's zeal take

me captive? Let whoever will, be a saint and a zealot, and to his

heart's content; only let him not bring harm upon another, and let him

not rob me of my liberty!



Yet I am glad that those shameful laws have at length attained to

their full measure of glory, which is this: the Romanists of our day

have through them become merchants. What is it they sell? The shame of

men and women--merchandise, forsooth, most worthy of such merchants,

grown altogether filthy and obscene through greed and godlessness. For

there is nowadays no hindrance that may not be legalised upon the

intercession of mammon, so that these laws of men seem to have sprung

into existence for the sole purpose of serving those grasping and

robbing Nimrods as snares for taking money and as nets for catching

souls, and in order that that "abomination" might stand "in the holy

place," [Matt. 24:15] the Church of God, and openly sell to men the

shame of either sex, or as the Scriptures say, "shame and nakedness,"

[Lev. 13:6 ff.] of which they had previously robbed them by means of

their laws. O worthy trade for our pontiffs to ply, instead of the

ministry of the Gospel, which in their greed and pride they despise,

being delivered up to a reprobate sense with utter shame and infamy.

[Rom. 1:28]



But what shall I say or do? If I enter into details, the treatise will

grow to inordinate length, for everything is in such dire confusion

one does not know where to begin, whither to go on, or where to leave

off. I know that no state is well governed by means of laws. If the

magistrate be wise, he will rule more prosperously by natural bent

than by laws. If he be not wise, he will but further the evil by means

of laws; for he will not know what use to make of the laws nor how to

adapt them to the individual case. More stress ought, therefore, to be

laid, in civil affairs, on putting good and wise men in office than on

making laws; for such men will themselves be the very best laws, and

will judge every variety of case with lively justice. And if there be

knowledge of the divine law combined with natural wisdom, then written

laws will be entirely superfluous and harmful. Above all, love needs

no laws whatever[140].



Nevertheless I will say and do what I can. I admonish and pray all

priests and brethren[141], when they encounter any hindrance from

which the pope can grant dispensation and which is not expressly

contained in the Scriptures, by all means to confirm[142] any marriage

that may have been contracted[143] in any way contrary to the

ecclesiastical or pontifical laws. But let them arm themselves with

the divine law, which says, "What God hath joined together, let no man

put asunder." [Matt. 19:6] For the joining together of a man and a

woman is of divine law and is binding, however it may conflict with

the laws of men; the laws of men must give way before it without

hesitation. For if a man leaves father and mother and cleaves to his

wife, how much more will he tread underfoot the silly and wicked laws

of men[144] in order to cleave to his wife! And if pope, bishop or

official[145] annul any marriage because it was contracted contrary to

the laws of men, he is antichrist, he does violence to nature, and is

guilty of lese-majesty toward God, because this word stands,--"What

God hath joined together, let no man put asunder." [Matt. 19:6]



Besides this, no man had the right to frame such laws, and Christ has

granted to Christians a liberty which is above all laws of men,

especially where a law of God conflicts with them. Thus it is said in

Mark ii, "The Son of man is lord also of the sabbath," [Mark 2:28]

and, "The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath." [Mark

2:27] Moreover, such laws were condemned beforehand by Paul, when he

foretold that there would be men forbidding to marry [1 Tim. 4:3].

Here, therefore, those cruel hindrances arising from affinity,

spiritual or legal relationship[146], and consanguinity must give way,

so far as the Scriptures permit, in which the second degree of

consanguinity alone is prohibited. Thus it is written in Leviticus

xviii, in which chapter there are twelve persons a man is prohibited

from marrying; namely, his mother, his mother-in-law, his full sister,

his half-sister by either parent, his granddaughter, his father's or

mother's sister, his daughter-in-law, his brother's wife, his wife's

sister, his stepdaughter, and his uncle's wife. [Lev. 18:6 ff.] Here

only the first degree of affinity and the second degree of

consanguinity are forbidden; yet not without exception, as will appear

on closer examination, for the brother's or sister's daughter, or the

niece, is not included in the prohibition, although she is in the

second degree. Therefore, if a marriage has been contracted outside of

these degrees, it should by no means be annulled on account of the

laws of men, since it is nowhere written in the Bible that any other

degrees were prohibited by God. Marriage itself, as of divine

institution, is incomparably superior to any laws; so that marriage

should not be annulled for the sake of the laws, rather should the

laws be broken for the sake of marriage.



That nonsense about conpaternities, conmaternities, confraternities,

consororities, and confilieties must therefore be altogether

abolished, when a marriage has been contracted. What was it but the

superstition of men that invented those spiritual relationships?[147]

If one may not marry the person one has baptised or stood sponsor for,

what right has any Christian to marry any other Christian? Is the

relationship that grows out of the external rite, or the sign, of the

sacrament more intimate that that which grows out of the blessing[148]

of the sacrament itself? Is not a Christian man brother to a Christian

woman, and is not she his sister? Is not a baptised man the spiritual

brother of a baptised woman? How foolish we are! If a man instruct his

wife in the Gospel and in faith in Christ and thus become truly her

father in Christ, would it not be right for her to remain his wife?

Would not Paul have had the right to marry a maiden out of the

Corinthian congregation, of whom he boasts that he has begotton them

all in Christ? [1 Cor. 4:15] Lo, thus has Christian liberty been

suppressed through the blindness of human superstition.



There is even less in the legal relationship[149], and yet they have

set it above the divine right of marriage. Nor would I recognise that

hindrance which they term "disparity of religion,"[150] and which

forbids one to marry any unbaptised person, even on condition that she

become converted to the faith. Who made this prohibition? God or man?

Who gave to men the power to prohibit such a marriage? The spirits,

forsooth, that speak lies in hypocrisy, as Paul says [1 Tim 4:1]. Of

them it must be said: "The wicked have told me fables; but not as thy

law." [Ps. 119:85] The heathen Patricius married the Christian Monica,

the mother of St. Augustine; why should not the same be permitted

nowadays?



The same stupid, nay, wicked cruelty is seen in "the hindrance of

crime,"[151]--as when a man has married a woman with whom he had lived

in adultery, or when he plotted to bring about the death of a woman's

husband in order to be able to wed the widow. I pray you, whence comes

this cruelty of man toward man, which even God never demanded? Do they

pretend not to know that Bathsheba, the wife of Uriah, was wed by

David, a most saintly man, after the double crime of adultery and

murder? If the divine law did this, what do these despotic men to

their fellowservants?



Another hindrance is that which they call "the hindrance of a

tie,"[152]--as when a man is bound by being betrothed to another

woman. Here they decide that, if he has had carnal knowledge of the

second, the betrothal with the first becomes null and void. This I do

not understand at all. I hold that he who has betrothed himself to one

woman belongs no longer to himself, and because of this act, by the

prohibition of the divine law, he belongs to the first, though he has

not known her, even if he has known the second. For it was not in his

power to give the latter what was no longer his own; he deceived her

and actually committed adultery. But they regard the matter

differently because they pay more heed to the carnal union than to the

divine command, according to which the man, having plighted his troth

to the first, is bound to keep it for ever. For whoever would give

anything must give of that which is his own. And God forbids a man to

overreach or circumvent his brother in any matter [1 Thess. 4:6]. This

prohibition must be kept, over and above all the traditions of all

men. Therefore, the man in the above case cannot with a good

conscience live in marriage with the second woman, and this hindrance

should be completely overthrown. For if a monastic vow make a man to

be no longer his own, why does not a promise of betrothal given and

received do the same?--since this[153] is one of the precepts and

fruits of the Spirit (Galatians v) [Gal. 5:22 f.; Eph. 5:9], while a

monastic vow is of human invention. And if a wife may claim her

husband despite the act that he has taken a monastic vow, why may not

a bride claim her betrothed, even though he has known another? But we

said above[154] that he who has plighted his troth to a maiden ought

not to take a monastic vow, but is in duty bound to keep faith with

her, which faith he cannot break for any tradition of men, because it

is commanded by God. Much more should the man here keep faith with his

first bride, since he could not plight his troth to a second save with

a lying heart, and therefore did not really plight it, but deceived

her, his neighbor, against God's command. Therefore, the "hindrance of

error"[155] enters in here, by which his marriage to the second woman

is rendered null and void.



The "hindrance of ordination"[156] also is a lying invention of men,

especially since they prate that even a contracted marriage is

annulled by it. Thus they constantly exalt their traditions above the

commands of God. I do not indeed sit in judgment on the present state

of the priestly order, but I observe that Paul charges a bishop to be

the husband of one wife [1 Tim. 3:2]; hence no marriage of deacon,

priest, bishop or any other order can be annulled,--although it is

true that Paul knew nothing of this species of priests, and of the

orders that we have to-day. Perish those cursed human traditions,

which have crept into the Church only to multiply perils, sins and

evils! There exists, therefore, between a priest and his wife a true

and indissoluble marriage, approved by the divine commandment. But

what if wicked men in sheer despotism prohibit or annul it? So be it!

Let it be wrong among men; it is nevertheless right before God, Whose

command must needs take precedence if it conflicts with the commands

of men.



An equally lying invention is that "hindrance of public decency,"[157]

by which contracted marriages are annulled. I am incensed at that

barefaced wickedness which is so ready to put asunder what God hath

joined together that one may well scent antichrist in it, for it

opposes all that Christ has done and taught. What earthly reason is

there for holding that no relative of a deceased husband, even to the

fourth degree, may marry the latter's widow? That is not a

judgment[158] of public decency, but ignorance[158] of public decency.

Why was not this judgment of public decency found among the people of

Israel, who were endowed with the best laws, the laws of God? On the

contrary, the next of kin was even compelled by the law of God to

marry the widow of his relative [Deut. 25:5]. Must the people of

Christian liberty be burdened with severer laws than the people of

legal bondage? But, to make an end of these figments, rather than

hindrances--thus far there seem to me to be no hindrances that may

justly annul a contracted marriage save these: impotence of the

husband, ignorance of a previously contracted marriage, and a vow of

chastity. Still, concerning the last, I am to this day so far from

certain that I do not know at what age such a vow is to be regarded as

binding; as I also said above in discussing the sacrament of

baptism[159]. Thus you may learn, from this one question of marriage,

how wretchedly and desperately all the activities of the Church have

been confused, hindered, ensnared, and subjected to danger through the

pestilent, ignorant and wicked traditions of men, so that there is no

hope of betterment unless we abolish at one stroke all the laws of all

men, restore the Gospel of liberty, and by it judge and rule all

things. Amen.



[Sidenote: Impotence]



We have to speak, then, of sexual impotence, that we may the more

readily advise the souls that are in peril.[160] But first I wish to

state that what I have said of hindrances is intended to apply after a

marriage has been contracted; no marriage should be annulled by any

such hindrance. But as to marriages which are to be contracted, I

would briefly repeat what I said above[161]. Under the stress of

youthful passion or of any other necessity for which the pope grants

dispensation, any brother may grant a dispensation to another or even

to himself, and following that counsel snatch his wife out of the

power of the tyrannical laws as best he can. For with what right am I

deprived of my liberty by another's superstition and ignorance? If the

pope grants a dispensation for money, why should not I, for my soul's

salvation, grant a dispensation to myself or to my brother? Does the

pope set up laws? Let him set them up or himself, and keep hands off

my liberty; else I will take it by stealth! Now let us discuss the

matter of impotence.



Take the following case. A woman, wed to an impotent man, is unable to

prove her husband's impotence before court, or perhaps she is

unwilling to do so with the mass of evidence and all the notoriety

which the law demands; yet she is desirous of having children or is

unable to remain continent. Now suppose I had counseled her to demand

a divorce from her husband in order to marry another, satisfied that

her own and her husband's conscience and their experience were ample

testimony of his impotence; but the husband refused his consent to

this. Then suppose I should further counsel her, with the consent of

the man (who is not really her husband, but merely a dweller under the

same roof with her), to give herself to another, say her husband's

brother, but to keep this marriage secret and to ascribe the children

to the so-called putative father. The question is: Is such a woman in

a saved state? I answer, Certainly. Because in this case the error and

ignorance of the man's impotence are a hindrance to the marriage; the

tyranny of the laws permits no divorce; the woman is free through the

divine law, and cannot be compelled to remain continent. Therefore the

man ought to yield her this right, and let another man have her as

wife whom he has only in outward appearance.



Moreover, if the man will not give his consent, or agree to this

division,--rather than allow the woman to burn or to commit adultery,

I should counsel her to contract a marriage with another and flee to

distant parts unknown. What other counsel could be given to one

constantly in danger from lust? Now I know that some are troubled by

the act that then the children of this secret marriage are not the

rightful heirs of their putative father. But if it was done with the

consent of the husband, then the children will be the rightful heirs.

If, however, it was done without his knowledge or against his will,

then let unbiased Christian reason, nay, let Christian charity, decide

which of the two has done the greater injury to the other. The wife

alienates the inheritance, but the husband has deceived his wife and

is completely defrauding her of her body and her life. Is not the sin

of the man who wastes his wife's body and life a greater sin than that

of the woman who merely alienates the temporal goods of her husband?

Let him, therefore, agree to a divorce, or else be satisfied with

strange heirs; for by his own fault he deceived the innocence of a

maiden and defrauded her of the proper use of her body, besides giving

her a wellnigh irresistible opportunity to commit adultery. Let both

be weighed in the same scales. Certainly, by every right, deceit

should all back on the deceiver, and whoever has done an injury must

make it good. What is the difference between such a husband and the

man who holds another's wife captive together with her husband? Is not

such a tyrant compelled to support wife and children and husband, or

else to set them free? Why should not the same hold here? Therefore I

maintain that the man should be compelled either to submit to a

divorce or to support the other man's child as his heir. Doubtless

this would be the judgment of charity. In that case, the impotent man,

who is not really the husband, should support the heirs of his wife in

the same spirit in which he would at great cost wait on his wife if

she fell sick or suffered some other ill; for it is by his fault and

not by his wife's that she suffers this ill. This have I set forth to

the best of my ability, for the strengthening of anxious consciences,

being desirous to bring my afflicted brethren in this captivity what

little comfort I can.[162]



[Sidenote: Divorce]



As to divorce, it is still a moot question whether it be allowable.

For my part I so greatly detest divorce that I should prefer bigamy to

it,[163] but whether it be allowable, I do not venture to decide.

Christ Himself, the Chief Pastor[164], says in Matthew v, "Whosoever

shall put away his wife, excepting for the cause of fornication,

maketh her commit adultery; and he that shall marry her that is put

away, committeth adultery." [Matt. 5:32] Christ, then, permits

divorce, but for the cause of fornication only. The pope must,

therefore, be in error whenever he grants a divorce for any other

cause, and no one should feel safe who has obtained a dispensation by

this temerity (not authority) of the pope. Yet it is a still greater

wonder to me, why they compel a man to remain unmarried after being

separated from his wife, and why they will not permit him to remarry.

For if Christ permits divorce for the cause of fornication and compels

no one to remain unmarried, and if Paul would rather have one marry

than burn [1 Cor. 7:9], then He certainly seems to permit a man to

marry another woman in the stead of the one who has been put away.

Would to God this matter were thoroughly threshed out and decided, so

that counsel might be given in the infinite perils of those who,

without any fault of their own, are nowadays compelled to remain

unmarried, that is, of those whose wives or husbands have run away and

deserted them, to come back perhaps after ten years, perhaps never.

This matter troubles and distresses me; I meet cases of it every day,

whether it happen by the special malice of Satan or because of our

neglect of the word of God.



I, indeed, who, alone against all, can decide nothing in this matter,

would yet greatly desire at least the passage in I Corinthians vii to

be applied here,--"But if the unbeliever depart, let him depart. For a

brother or sister is not under servitude in such cases." [1 Cor. 7:15]

Here the Apostle gives permission to put away the unbeliever who

departs and to set the believing spouse free to marry again. Why

should not the same hold true when a believer--that is, a believer in

name, but in truth as much an unbeliever as the one Paul speaks

of--deserts his wife, especially if he never intends to return? I

certainly can see no difference between the two. But I believe that if

in the Apostle's day an unbelieving deserter had returned and had

become a believer or had promised to live again with his believing

wife, he would not have been taken back, but he too would have been

given the right to marry again. Nevertheless, in these matters I

decide nothing, as I have said,"[165] although there is nothing I

would rather see decided, since nothing at present more grievously

perplexes me and many more with me. I would have nothing decided here

on the mere authority of the pope or the bishops; but if two learned

and pious men agreed in the name of Christ and published their opinion

in the spirit of Christ [Matt. 18:19 f.], I should prefer their

judgment even to such councils as are nowadays assembled, famous only

for numbers and authority, not for scholarship and saintliness.

Herewith I hang up my harp[166][Ps. 137:2], until another and a better

man shall take up this matter with me.



ORDINATION



Of this sacrament the Church of Christ knows nothing; it is an

invention of the church of the pope. Not only is there nowhere any

promise of grace attached to it, but there is not the least mention of

it in the whole New Testament. Now it is ridiculous to put forth as a

sacrament of God that which cannot be proved to have been instituted

by God. I do not hold that this rite, which has been observed for so

many centuries, should be condemned; but in sacred things I am opposed

to the invention of human fictions, nor is it right to give out as

divinely instituted what was not divinely instituted, lest we become a

laughing-stock to our opponents. We ought to see to it that every

article of faith of which we boast be certain, pure, and based on

clear passages of Scripture. But that we are utterly unable to do in

the case of the sacrament under consideration.



[Sidenote: The Church Cannot Institute Sacraments]



The Church has no power to make new divine promises, as some prate,

who hold that what is decreed by the Church is of no less authority

than what is decreed by God, since the Church is under the guidance of

the Holy Spirit. But the Church owes its life to the word of promise

through faith, and is nourished and preserved by this same word. That

is to say, the promises of God make the Church, not the Church the

promise of God. For the Word of God is incomparably superior to the

Church, and in this Word the Church, being a creature, has nothing to

decree, ordain or make, but only to be decreed, ordained and made. For

who begets his own parent? Who first brings forth his own maker? This

one thing indeed the Church can do--it can distinguish the Word of God

from the words of men; as Augustine confesses that he believed the

Gospel, moved thereto by the authority of the Church, which

proclaimed, this is the Gospel.[167] Not that the Church is,

therefore, above the Gospel; if that were true, she would also be

above God, in Whom we believe because she proclaims that He is God.

But, as Augustine elsewhere says,[168] the truth itself lays hold on

the soul and thus renders it able to judge most certainly of all

things; but the truth it cannot judge, but is forced to say with

unerring certainty that it is the truth. For example, our reason

declares with unerring certainty that three and seven are ten, and yet

it cannot give a reason why this is true, although it cannot deny that

it is true; it is taken captive by the truth and does not so much

judge the truth as it is judged by the truth. Thus it is also with the

mind of the Church [1 Cor. 2:16], when under the enlightenment of the

Spirit she judges and approves doctrines; she is unable to prove it,

and yet is most certain of having it. For as in philosophy no one

judges general conceptions, but all are judged by them, so it is in

the Church with the mind of the Spirit, that judgeth all things and is

judged by none, as the Apostle says [1 Cor. 2:15]. But of this another

time.[169]



[Sidenote: Ordination not a Sacrament]



Let this then stand fast,--the Church can give no promises of grace;

that is the work of God alone. Therefore she cannot institute a

sacrament. But even if she could, it yet would not follow that

ordination is a sacrament. For who knows which is the Church that has

the Spirit? since when such decisions are made there are usually only

a few bishops or scholars present; it is possible that these may not

be really of the Church, and that all may err, as councils have

repeatedly erred, particularly the Council of Constance[170], which

fell into the most wicked error of all. Only that which has the

approval of the Church universal, and not of the Roman church alone,

rests on a trustworthy foundation. I therefore admit that ordination

is a certain churchly rite, on a par with many others introduced by

the Church Fathers, such as the blessing of vases, houses, vestments,

water, salt, candles, herbs, wine, and the like. No one calls any of

these a sacrament, nor is there in them any promise. In the same

manner, to anoint a man's hands with oil, or to shave his head, and

the like, is not to administer a sacrament, since there is no promise

given to those things; he is simply prepared, like a vessel or an

instrument, for a certain work.



But you will reply: "What do you say to Dionysius,[171] who in his

_Ecclesiastical Hierarchy_ enumerates six sacraments, among which he

also includes orders?" I answer: I am well aware that this is the one

writer of antiquity who is cited in support of the seven sacraments,

although he omits marriage and thus has only six. We read simply

nothing about these "sacraments" in the other Fathers, nor do they

ever refer to them as sacraments; for the invention of sacraments is

of recent date. Indeed, to speak more boldly, the setting so great

store by this Dionysius, whoever he may have been, greatly displeases

me, for there is scarce a line of sound scholarship in him. Prithee,

by what authority and with what reasons does he establish his

hotch-potch about the angels, in his _Celestial Hierarchy_?--a book

over which many curious and superstitious spirits have cudgeled their

brains. If one were to read and judge fairly, is not all shaken out of

his sleeve and very like a dream? But in his _Mystic Theology_, which

certain most ignorant theologians greatly puff, he is downright

dangerous, being more of a Platonist than a Christian; so that, if I

had my way, no believing mind would give the least attention to these

books. So far from learning Christ in them, you will lose even what

you know of Him. I know whereof I speak. Let us rather hear Paul, that

we may learn Jesus Christ and Him crucified [1 Cor. 2:2]. He is the

way, the life and the truth; He is the ladder by which we come unto

the Father, as He saith: "No man cometh unto the Father but by me."

[John 14:6]



[Sidenote: Allegories]



And in the _Ecclesiastical Hierarchy_, what does this Dionysius do but

describe certain churchly rites and play round them with his

allegories without proving them? just as among us the author of the

book entitled _Rationale divinorum_.[172] Such allegorical studies are

the work of idle men. Think you I should find it difficult to play

with allegories round anything in creation? Did not Bonaventure[173]

by allegory draw the liberal arts into theology? And Gerson even

converted the smaller Donatus into a mystic theologian.[173] It would

not be a difficult task for me to compose a better hierarchy than that

of Dionysius, for he knew nothing of pope, cardinals and archbishops,

and put the bishop at the top. Nay, who has so weak a mind as not to

be able to launch into allegories? I would not have a theologian give

himself to allegorizing until he has perfected himself in the

grammatical and literal interpretation of the Scriptures; otherwise

his theology will bring him into danger, as Origen discovered.[175]



Therefore a thing does not need to be a sacrament simply because

Dionysius describes it. Otherwise, why not also make a sacrament of

the processions, which he describes in his book, and which continue to

this day? There will then be as many sacraments as there have been

rites and ceremonies multiplied in the Church. Standing on so unsteady

a foundation, they have nevertheless invented "characters"[176] which

they attribute to this sacrament of theirs and which are indelibly

impressed on those who are ordained. Whence do such ideas come? By

what authority, with what reasons, are they established? We do not

object to their being free to invent, say and give out whatever they

please; but we also insist on our liberty and demand that they shall

not arrogate to themselves the right to turn their ideas into articles

of faith, as they have hitherto presumed to do. It is enough that we

accommodate ourselves to their rites and ceremonies for the sake of

peace; but we reuse to be bound by such things as though they were

necessary to salvation, when they are not. Let them put by their

despotic demands, and we shall yield free obedience to their opinions,

and thus live at peace with them. It is a shameful and wicked slavery

for a Christian man, who is free, to be subject to any but heavenly

and divine traditions.



[Sidenote: The Alleged Scriptural Basis of Ordination]



We come now to their strongest argument. It is this: Christ said at

the Last Supper: "Do this in remembrance of me." [1 Cor. 11:24] Here,

they say, Christ ordained the apostles to the priesthood. From this

passage they also concluded, among other things, that both kinds are

to be administered to the priests alone.[177] In fine, they have drawn

out of this passage whatever they pleased, as men who might arrogate

to themselves the free will to prove anything whatever from any words

of Christ, no matter where found. But is that interpreting the words

of God? Pray, answer me! Christ gives us no promise here, but only

commands that this be done in remembrance of Him. Why do they not

conclude that He also ordained priests when He laid upon them the

office of the Word and of baptism, saying, "Go ye into all the world,

and preach the Gospel to every creature, baptising them in the name,"

[Mark 16:15; Matt. 28:19] etc.? For it is the proper duty of priests

to preach and to baptise. Or, since it is nowadays the chief and, as

they say, indispensable duty of priests to read the canonical

hours,[178] why have they not discovered the sacrament of ordination

in those passages in which Christ, in many places and particularly in

the garden, commanded them to pray that they might not enter into

temptation? [Matt. 26:41] But perhaps they will evade this argument by

saying that it is not commanded to _pray_; it is enough to _read_ the

canonical hours. Then it follows that this priestly work can be proved

nowhere in the Scriptures, and thus their praying priesthood is not of

God, as, indeed, it is not.



But which of the ancient Fathers claimed that in this passage priests

were ordained? Whence comes this novel interpretation? I will tell

you. They have sought by this device to set up a nursery of implacable

discord, whereby clerics and laymen should be separated from each

other farther than heaven from earth, to the incredible injury of the

grace of baptism and the confusion of our fellowship in the Gospel.

Here, indeed, are the roots of that detestable tyranny of the clergy

over the laity; trusting in the external anointing by which their

hands are consecrated, in the tonsure and in vestments, they not only

exalt themselves above lay Christians, who are only anointed with the

Holy Spirit, but regard them almost as dogs and unworthy to be

included with them in the Church. Hence they are bold to demand, to

exact, to threaten, to urge, to oppress, as much as they please. In

short, the sacrament of ordination has been and is a most approved

device for the establishing of all the horrible things that have been

wrought hitherto and will yet be wrought in the Church. Here Christian

brotherhood has perished, here shepherds have been turned into wolves,

servants into tyrants, churchmen into worse than worldlings.



[Sidenote: The Priesthood of All Christians]



If they were forced to grant that as many of us as have been baptised

are all priests without distinction, as indeed we are, and that to

them was committed the ministry only, yet with our consent, they would

presently learn that they have no right to rule over us except in so

far as we freely concede it. For thus it is written in i Peter ii, "Ye

are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, and a priestly kingdom."

[1 Peter 2:9] Therefore we are all priests, as many of us as are

Christians.[179] But the priests, as we call them, are ministers

chosen from among us, who do all that they do in our name. And the

priesthood is nothing but a ministry, as we learn from I Corinthians

iv, "Let a man so account of us as of the ministers of Christ, and the

dispensers of the mysteries of God." [1 Cor. 4:1]



It follows herefrom that whoever does not preach the Word, called by

the Church to this very thing, is no priest at all. And further, that

the sacrament of ordination can be nothing else than a certain rite of

choosing preachers in the Church. For thus is a priest defined in

Malachi ii, "The lips of the priest shall keep knowledge, and they

shall seek the law at his mouth: because he is the angel of the Lord

of hosts." [Mal. 2:7] You may be certain, then, that whoever is not an

angel of the Lord of hosts, or whoever is called to anything else than

such angelic service--if I may so term it--is never a priest; as Hosea

says, "Because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will reject thee, that

thou shalt not do the office of priesthood to me." [Hosea 4:6] They

are also called pastors because they are to pasture, that is, to

teach. Therefore, they who are ordained only to read the canonical

hours and to offer masses are indeed papist, but not Christian,

priests, because they not only do not preach, but are not called to

preach; nay, it comes to this, that such a priesthood is a different

estate altogether from the office of preaching. Thus they are

hour-priests and mass-priests, that is, a sort of living idol, having

the name of priest, while they are in reality such priests as Jeroboam

ordained, in Bethaven, of the off-scouring of the people, and not of

the tribe of Levi.[180][1 Kings 12:31]



Lo, whither hath the glory of the Church departed! The whole earth is

filled with priests, bishops, cardinals and clerics, and yet not one

of them preaches by virtue of his office, unless he be called to do so

by another and a different call besides his sacramental ordination.

Every one thinks he is doing full justice to his sacrament by mumbling

the vain repetitions of his prescribed prayers and by celebrating

masses; moreover, by never really praying those hours[181], or if he

does pray them, by praying them for himself, and by offering his

masses as a sacrifice--which is the height of perversity!--whereas the

mass consists in the use of the sacrament. It is clear, therefore,

that the ordination which, as a sacrament, makes clerics of this sort

of men, is in truth nothing but a mere fiction, devised by men who

understand nothing about the Church, the priesthood, the ministry of

the Word, or the sacraments. And as is the sacrament, so are the

priests it makes. To such errors and such blindness has come a still

worse captivity; in order to separate themselves still farther from

other Christians, whom they deem profane, they have unmanned

themselves, like the priests of Cybele, and taken upon them the burden

of a pretended celibacy.



It was not enough for this hypocrisy and error to forbid bigamy, viz.,

the having of two wives at the same time, as it was forbidden in the

law, and as is the accepted meaning of the term; but they have called

it bigamy if a man married two virgins, one after the other, or if he

married a widow. Nay, so holy is the holiness of this most holy

sacrament, that no married man can become a priest as long as his wife

lives. And--here we reach the very summit of holiness--even he is

prevented from entering the priesthood, who without his knowledge or

by an unfortunate chance married a fallen woman. But if one have

defiled a thousand harlots, or ravished countless matrons and virgins,

or even kept numerous Ganymedes, that would be no hindrance to his

becoming bishop or cardinal or pope. Moreover, the Apostle's word,

"the husband of one wife," [1 Tim. 3:2] must be interpreted to mean,

"the prelate of one church," and this has given rise to the

"incompatible benefices."[182] At the same time the pope, that

munificent dispenser, may join to one man three, twenty, one hundred

wives--I should say churches--if he be bribed with money or power--I

should say, moved by godly charity and constrained by the care of the

churches.



O pontiffs worthy of this holy sacrament of ordination! O princes, not

of the catholic churches, but of the synagogues, nay, the black dens,

of Satan! [Rev. 2:9] I would cry out with Isaiah: "Ye scornful men,

who rule over my people that is in Jerusalem" [Isa. 28:14]; and with

Amos: "Woe to you that are wealthy in Sion, and to you that have

confidence in the mountain of Samaria: ye great men, heads of the

people, that go in with state into the house of Israel." [Amos 6:1] O

the reproach that such monstrous priests bring upon the Church of God!

Where are there any bishops or priests who know the Gospel, not to

speak of preaching it? Why then do they boast of being priests? Why do

they desire to be regarded as holier and better and mightier than

other Christians, who are merely laymen? To read the hours--what

unlearned men, or, as the Apostle says, what men speaking with

tongues, cannot do that? [1 Cor. 14:23] But to _pray_ the hours--that

belongs to monks, hermits, and men in private life, all of them

laymen. The duty of the priest is to preach, and if he does not preach

he is as much a priest as a painted man is a man. Does ordaining such

babbling priests make one a bishop? Or blessing churches and bells? Or

confirming boys? Certainly not. Any deacon or layman could do as much.

The ministry of the Word makes the priest and the bishop.



[Sidenote: Ordination, the Rite of Choosing Preachers]



Therefore my advice is: Flee, all ye that would live in safety;

begone, young men, and do not enter upon this holy estate, unless you

are determined to preach the Gospel, and are able to believe that you

are not made one whit better than the laity through this sacrament of

ordination! For to read the hours is nothing, and to offer mass is to

receive the sacrament.[183] What then is there left to you that every

layman does not have? Tonsure and vestments? A sorry priest, forsooth,

who consists of tonsure and vestment! Or the oil poured on your

fingers? But every Christian is anointed and sanctified with the oil

of the Holy Spirit, both in body and soul, and in ancient times

touched the sacrament with his hands no less than the priests do

now.[184] But to-day our superstition counts it a great crime if the

laity touch either the bare chalice or the _corporale_;[185] not even

a nun who is a pure virgin would be permitted to wash the palls[186]

and sacred linens of the altar. O God! how the sacrosanct sanctity of

this sacrament of ordination has grown and grown. I anticipate that

ere long the laity will not be permitted to touch the altar except

when they offer their money. I can scarce contain myself when I

contemplate the wicked tyrannies of these desperate men, who with

their farcical and childish fancies mock and overthrow the liberty and

the glory of the Christian religion.



Let every one, therefore, who knows himself to be a Christian be

assured of this, and apply it to himself,--that we are all priests,

and there is no difference between us; that is to say, we have the

same power in respect to the Word and all the sacraments. However, no

one may make use of this power except by the consent of the community

or by the call of a superior. For what is the common property of all,

no individual may arrogate to himself, unless he be called. And

therefore this sacrament of ordination, if it have any meaning at all,

is nothing else than a certain rite whereby one is called to the

ministry of the Church. Furthermore, the priesthood is properly

nothing but the ministry of the Word, mark you, of the Word--not of

the law, but of the Gospel. And the diaconate is not the ministry of

reading the Gospel or the Epistle, as is the present practice, but the

ministry of distributing the Church's alms to the poor, so that the

priests may be relieved of the burden of temporal matters and may give

themselves more freely to prayer and the Word. For this was the

purpose of the institution of the diaconate, as we read in Acts vi.

[Acts 6:4] Whoever, therefore, does not know or preach the Gospel, is

not only not a priest or bishop, but he is a plague of the Church, who

under the false title of priest or bishop--in sheep's clothing,

forsooth--oppresses the Gospel and plays the wolf in the Church.

Therefore, unless those priests and bishops with whom the Church is

now filled work out their salvation in some other way, that is,

realise that they are not priests or bishops and bemoan the act that

they bear the name of an office whose duties they either do not know

or cannot fulfil, and thus with prayers and tears lament their

wretched hypocritical life--unless they do this, they are truly the

people of eternal perdition, and the words of Isaiah are fulfilled in

them: "Therefore is my people led away captive, because they had not

knowledge, and their nobles have perished with famine, and their

multitude were dried up with thirst. Therefore hath hell enlarged her

soul and opened her mouth without any bounds, and their strong ones,

and their people, and their high and generous ones shall go down into

it." [Isa. 5:13 f.] What a dreadful word for our age, in which

Christians are sucked down into so deep an abyss!



Since, therefore, what we call the priesthood is a ministry, so far as

we can learn from the Scriptures, I cannot understand why one who has

been made a priest cannot again become a layman; for the sole

difference between him and a layman is his ministry. But to depose a

man from the ministry is so far from impossible that it is even now

the usual penalty imposed upon guilty priests; they are either

suspended for a season or permanently deprived of their office. For

that lying "indelible character" has long since become a

laughing-stock. I admit that the pope imparts this character, but

Christ knows nothing of it; and a priest who is consecrated with it

becomes thereby the life-long servant and captive, not of Christ, but

of the pope; as it is in our day. Moreover, unless I am greatly

mistaken, if this sacrament and this life all, the papacy itself with

its characters will scarcely survive; our joyous liberty will be

restored to us; we shall realize that we are all equal by every right,

and having cast of the yoke of tyranny, shall know that he who is a

Christian has Christ, and that he who has Christ has all things that

are Christ's and is able to do all things [Phil. 4:13]. Of this I will

write more, and more tellingly, as soon as I perceive that the above

has displeased my friends the papists.[187]



THE SACRAMENT OF EXTREME UNCTION



[Sidenote: The Authority of James]



To the rite of anointing the sick our theologians have made two

additions which are worthy of them; first, the call it a sacrament,

and secondly, they make it the last sacrament. So that it is now the

sacrament of extreme unction, which may be administered only to such

as are at the point of death. Being such subtle dialecticians,

perchance they have done this in order to relate it to the first

unction of baptism and the two succeeding unctions of confirmation and

ordination. But here they are able to cast in my teeth, that in the

case of this sacrament there are, on the authority of James the

Apostle, both promise and sign, which, as I have all along maintained,

constitute a sacrament. For does not James say: "Is any man sick among

you? Let him bring in the priests of the church, and let them pray

over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the

prayer of faith shall raise him up: and if he be in sins, they shall

be forgiven him." [James 5:14 f.] There, say they, you have the

promise of the forgiveness of sins, and the sign of the oil.



But I reply: If ever there was a mad conceit, here is one indeed. I

will say nothing of the act that many assert with much probability

that this Epistle is not by James the Apostle,[188] nor worthy of an

apostolic spirit, although, whoever be its author, it has come to be

esteemed as authoritative. But even if the Apostle James did write it,

I yet should say, no Apostle has the right on his own authority to

institute a sacrament, that is, to give a divine promise with a sign

attached; for this belongs to Christ alone. Thus Paul says that he

received from the Lord the sacrament of the Eucharist, and that he was

not sent to baptise but to preach the Gospel [1 Cor. 11:23; 1 Cor.

1:17]. And we read nowhere in the Gospel of this sacrament of extreme

unction. But let us also waive that point. Let us examine the words of

the Apostle, or whoever was the author of the Epistle, and we shall at

once see how little heed these multipliers of sacraments have given to

them.



[Sidenote: The Unction Not Extreme]



In the first place, then, if they believe the Apostle's words to be

true and binding, by what right do they change and contradict them?

Why do they make an extreme and a particular kind of unction of that

which the Apostle wished to be general? For he did not desire it to be

an extreme unction or administered only to the dying; but he says

quite generally: "If any man be sick"--not, "If any man be dying." I

care not what learned discussions Dionysius has on this point in his

_Ecclesiastical Hierarchy_;[189] the Apostle's words are clear enough,

on which words he as well as they rely, without, however, following

them. It is evident, therefore, that they have arbitrarily and without

any authority made a sacrament and an extreme unction out of the

misunderstood words of the Apostle, to the detriment of all other sick

persons, whom they have deprived of the benefit of the unction which

the Apostle enjoined.



[Sidenote: The Unction Medicinal]



But what follows is still better. The Apostle's promise expressly

declares that the prayer of faith shall save the sick man, and the

Lord shall raise him up. The Apostle commands us to anoint the sick

man and to pray, in order that he may be healed and raised up; that

is, that he may not die, and that it may not be an extreme unction.

This is proved also by the prayers which are said, during the

anointing, or the recovery of the one who is sick. But they say, on

the contrary, that the unction must be administered to none but the

dying; that is, that they may not be healed and raised up. If it were

not so serious a matter, who could help laughing at this beautiful,

apt and sound exposition of the Apostle's words? Is not the folly of

the sophists here shown in its true colors? As here, so in many other

places, they affirm what the Scriptures deny, and deny what they

affirm. Why should we not give thanks to these excellent magisters of

ours?[190] I therefore spoke truth when I said they never conceived a

crazier notion than this.[191]



Furthermore, if this unction is a sacrament it must necessarily be, as

they say, an effective sign[192] of that which it signifies and

promises. Now it promises health and recovery to the sick, as the

words plainly say: "The prayer of faith shall save the sick man, and

the Lord shall raise him up." But who does not see that this promise

is seldom if ever fulfilled? Scarce one in a thousand is restored to

health, and when one is restored nobody believes that it came about

through the sacrament, but through the working of nature or the

medicine; or to the sacrament they ascribe the opposite power. What

shall we say then? Either the Apostle lies in making this promise or

else this unction is no sacrament. For the sacramental promise is

certain; but this promise deceives in the majority of cases.

Indeed--and here again we recognize the shrewdness and foresight of

these theologians--for this very reason they would have it to be

extreme unction, that the promise should not stand; in other words,

that the sacrament should be no sacrament. For if it is extreme

unction, it does not heal, but gives way to the disease; but if it

heals, it cannot be extreme unction. Thus, by the interpretation of

these magisters, James is shown to have contradicted himself, and to

have instituted a sacrament in order not to institute one; for they

must have an extreme unction just to make untrue what the Apostle

intends, namely, the healing of the sick. If that is not madness, pray

what is?



[Sidenote: Priests and Elders]



These people exemplify the word of the Apostle in i Timothy i,

"Desiring to be teachers of the law, understanding neither the things

they say, nor whereof they affirm." [1 Tim. 1:7] Thus they read and

follow all things without judgment. With the same thoughtlessness they

have also found auricular confession in our Apostle's words,--"Confess

your sins one to another." [James 5:16] But they do not observe the

command of the Apostle, that the priests of the church be called, and

prayer be made for the sick. Scarce a single priestling is sent

nowadays, although the Apostle would have many present, not because of

the unction but of the prayer. Wherefore he says: "The prayer of faith

shall save the sick man," etc. I have my doubts, however, whether he

would have us understand priests when he says presbyters, that is,

elders. For one who is an elder is not therefore a priest or minister;

so that the suspicion is justified that the Apostle desired the older

and graver men in the Church to visit the sick; these should perform a

work of mercy and pray in faith and thus heal him. Still it cannot be

denied that the ancient churches were ruled by elders, chosen for this

purpose, without these ordinations and consecrations, solely on

account of their age and their long experience.



Therefore, I take it, this unction is the same as that which the

Apostles practised, in Mark vi, "They anointed with oil many that were

sick, and healed them." [Mark 6:13] It was a ceremony of the early

Church, by which they wrought miracles on the sick, and which has long

since ceased; even as Christ, in the last chapter of Mark, gave them

that believe the power to take up serpents, to lay hands on the sick,

etc. [Mark 16:17] It is a wonder that they have not made sacraments

also of these things; for they have the same power and promise as the

words of James. Therefore, this extreme--that is, this

fictitious--unction is not a sacrament, but a counsel of James, which

whoever will may use, and it is derived from Mark vi, as I have shown.

I do not believe it was a counsel given to all sick persons, for the

Church's infirmity is her glory and death is gain [Rom. 5:3; Phil.

1:21]; but it was given only to such as might bear their sickness

impatiently and with little faith. These the Lord allowed to remain in

the Church, in order that miracles and the power of faith might be

manifest in them.



[Sidenote: Prayer the Chief Part of Unction]



For this very contingency James provided with care and foresight by

attaching the promise of healing and the forgiveness of sins not to

the unction, but to the prayer of faith. For he says: "And the prayer

of faith shall save the sick man, and the Lord shall raise him up: and

if he be in sins, they shall be forgiven him." A sacrament does not

demand prayer or faith on the part of the minister, since even a

wicked person may baptise and consecrate without prayer; a sacrament

depends solely on the promise and institution of God, and requires

faith on the part of him who receives it. But where is the prayer of

faith in our present use of extreme unction? Who prays over the sick

one in such faith as not to doubt that he will recover? Such a prayer

of faith James here describes, of which he said in the beginning of

his Epistle: "But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering." [James 1:6]

And Christ says of it: "Whatsoever you ask, believe that you shall

receive; and it shall be done unto you." [Mark 11:24]



[Sidenote: The Unction and Faith]



If such prayer were made, even to-day, over a sick man--that is,

prayer made in full faith by older, grave and saintly men--it is

beyond all doubt that we could heal as many sick as we would. For what

could not faith do? But we neglect this faith, which the authority of

the Apostle demands above all else. By presbyters--that is, men

preeminent by reason of their age and their faith--we understand the

common herd of priests. Moreover, we turn the daily or voluntary

unction into an extreme unction, and finally, we not only do not

effect the result promised by the Apostle, namely, the healing of the

sick, but we make it of none effect by striving after the very

opposite. And yet we boast that our sacrament, nay, our figment, is

established and proved by this saying of the Apostle, which is

diametrically opposed to it. What theologians we are! Now I do not

condemn this our sacrament of extreme unction, but I firmly deny that

it is what the Apostle James prescribes; for his unction agrees with

ours neither in form, use, power nor purpose. Nevertheless we shall

number it among those sacraments which we have instituted, such as the

blessing and sprinkling of salt and holy water[193]. For we cannot

deny that every creature is sanctified by the word and by prayer, as

the Apostle Paul teaches us [1 Tim. 4:4 f.]. We do not deny,

therefore, that forgiveness of sins and peace are granted through

extreme unction; not because it is a sacrament divinely instituted,

but because he who receives it believes that these blessings are

granted to him. For the faith of the recipient does not err, however

much the minister may err. For one who baptises or absolves in

jest[194], that is, does not absolve so far as the minister is

concerned, does yet truly absolve and baptise if the person he

baptises or absolves believe. How much more will one who administers

extreme unction confer peace, even though he does not really confer

peace, so far as his ministry is concerned, since there is no

sacrament there. The faith of the one anointed receives even that

which the minister either could not or did not intend to give; it is

sufficient for him to hear and believe the Word. For whatever we

believe we shall receive, that we do really receive, it matters not

what the minister may do or not do, or whether he dissemble or jest.

The Saying of Christ stands fast,--"All things are possible to him

that believeth," [Mark 9:23] and, "Be it unto thee even as thou hast

believed." [Matt. 8:13] But in treating the sacraments our sophists

say nothing at all of this faith, but only babble with all their might

of the virtues of the sacraments themselves--"ever learning, and never

attaining to the knowledge of the truth." [2 Tim. 3:7]



Still it was a good thing that this unction was made extreme unction,

or, thanks to that, it has been disturbed and subjected least of all

the sacraments by tyranny and greed. This one last mercy, forsooth,

has been let to the dying,--they may freely be anointed, even without

confession and communion. If it had remained a practice of daily

occurrence, especially if it had conferred health on the sick, even

without taking away sins, how many worlds would not the pontiffs have

under their control to-day? For through the one sacrament of penance

and through the power of the keys, as well as through the sacrament of

ordination, they have become such mighty emperors and princes. But now

it is a fortunate thing that they despise the prayer of faith, and

therefore do not heal any sick, and that they have made or themselves,

out of an ancient ceremony, a brand-new sacrament.



Let this suffice now for these four sacraments. I know how it will

displease those who believe that the number and use of the sacraments

are to be learned not from the sacred Scriptures, but from the Roman

See. As though the Roman See had given those sacraments and had not

rather got them from the lecture halls of the universities, to which

it is unquestionably indebted or whatever it has. The papal despotism

would not have attained its present position, had it not taken over so

many things from the universities. For there was scarce another of the

celebrated bishoprics that had so few learned pontiffs; only in

violence, intrigue, and superstition has it hitherto surpassed the

rest. For the men who occupied the Roman See a thousand years ago

differ so vastly from those who have since come into power, that one

is compelled to refuse the name of Roman pontiff either to the former

or to the latter.



[Sidenote: Other Possible Sacraments]



There are yet a few other things it might seem possible to regard as

sacraments; namely, all those to which a divine promise has been

given, such as prayer, the Word, and the cross. Christ promised, in

many places, that those who pray should be heard; especially in Luke

xi, where He invites us in many parables to pray [Luke 11:5 ff.]. Of

the Word He says: "Blessed are they that hear the word of God, and

keep it." [Luke 11:28] And who will tell how often He promises aid and

glory to such as are afflicted, suffer, and are cast down? Nay, who

will recount all the promises of God? The whole Scripture is concerned

with provoking us to faith; now driving us with precepts and threats,

now drawing us with promises and consolations. Indeed, whatever things

are written are either precepts or promises; the precepts humble the

proud with their demands, the promises exalt the humble with their

forgiveness.



[Sidenote: Baptism and Bread the Only Sufficient Sacraments]



Nevertheless, it has seemed best to restrict the name of sacrament to

such promises as have signs attached to them. The remainder, not being

bound to signs, are bare promises. Hence there are, strictly speaking,

but two sacraments in the Church of God--baptism and bread; for only

in these two do we find both the divinely instituted sign and the

promise of forgiveness of sins. The sacrament of penance, which I

added to these two[195] lacks the divinely instituted visible sign,

and is, as I have said[196], nothing but a return to baptism. Nor can

the scholastics say that their definition fits penance, for they too

ascribe to the sacrament a visible sign, which is to impress upon the

senses the form of that which it effects invisibly. But penance, or

absolution, has no such sign; wherefore they are constrained by their

own definition, either to admit that penance is not a sacrament, and

thus to reduce the number of sacraments, or else to bring forward

another definition.



Baptism, however, which we have applied to the whole of life, will

truly be a sufficient substitute for all the sacraments we might need

as long as we live. And the bread is truly the sacrament of the dying;

for in it we commemorate the passing of Christ out of this world, that

we may imitate Him. Thus we may apportion these two sacraments as

follows: baptism belongs to the beginning and the entire course of

life, the bread belongs to the end and to death. And the Christian

should use them both as long as he is in this poor body, until, fully

baptised and strengthened, he passes out of this world and is born

unto the new life of eternity, to eat with Christ in the Kingdom of

His Father, as He promised at the Last Supper,--"Amen I say to you, I

will not drink from henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until it is

fulfilled in the kingdom of God." [Matt. 26:29] Thus He seems clearly

to have instituted the sacrament of the bread with a view to our

entrance into the life to come. Then, when the meaning[197] of both

sacraments is fulfilled, baptism and bread will cease.



[Sidenote: Conclusion]



Herewith I conclude this prelude, and freely and gladly offer it to

all pious souls who desire to know the genuine sense of the Scriptures

and the proper use of the sacraments. For it is a gift of no mean

importance, to know the things that are given us, as it is said in I

Corinthians ii [1 Cor. 2:12], and what use we ought to make of them.

Endowed with this spiritual judgment, we shall not mistakenly rely on

that which does not belong here. These two things our theologians

never taught us, nay, methinks they took particular pains to conceal

them from us. If I have not taught them, I certainly did not conceal

them, and have given occasion to others to think out something better.

It has at least been my endeavor to set forth these two things.

Nevertheless, not all can do all things[198]. To the godless, on the

other hand, and those who in obstinate tyranny force on us their own

teachings instead of God's, I confidently and freely oppose these

pages, utterly indifferent to their senseless fury. Yet I wish even

them a sound mind, and do not despise their efforts, but only

distinguish them from such as are sound and truly Christian.



I hear a rumor of new bulls and papal maledictions sent out against

me, in which I am urged to recant or be declared a heretic[199]. If

that is true, I desire this book to be a portion of the recantation I

shall make; so that these tyrants may not complain of having had their

pains for nothing. The remainder I will publish ere long, and it will,

please Christ, be such as the Roman See has hitherto neither seen nor

heard. I shall give ample proof of my obedience[200]. In the name of

our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.



    Why doth that impious Herod fear

    When told that Christ the King is near?

    He takes not earthly realms away,

    Who gives the realms that ne'er decay.[201]





FOOTNOTES





[1] Born at Steinheim, near Paderborn, in Westphalia; a proofreader in

Melchior Lotter's printing-house at Leipzig, with whose oldest son he

went to Wittenberg in 1519; professor of poetry at the university;

rector of the same, 1525; one of Luther's staunchest supporters;

rector of the school at Lunenberg, 1532 until his death in 1540.

Compare Enders, _Luther's Briewechsel_, II, 490; Tschackert, _op.

cit._, 203, and literature in Clemen, I, 426.



[2] _Resolutiones disputatio num de indulgentiarum Virtute_, 1518;

others think he refers to the Sermon _von Ablass und Gnade_, of the

same year.



[3] Sylvester Prierias and the Dominicans. Comp. Kostlin-Kawerau,

Luther, I, 189 ff.



[4] _Resolutiones super prop, xiii._, 1519.



[5] Comp. The Papacy at Rome, Vol. I, p. 392.



[6] Comp. Fr. Lepp, _Schlagworter des Ref. zeitalters_ (Leipzig,

1908), p. 62.



[7] The Franciscan Augustin Alveld. See Introduction, and compare

Lemmens, _Pater Aug. v. Alveld_ (Freiburg, 1599).



[8] Isidore Isolani. See Introduction.



[9] Luther pokes fun at the use of _revocatio_ with an objective

genitive.



[10] See above, p. 58, and compare Preserved Smith, _Luther's

Correspondence_, Vol. I, letter no. 265.



[11] Cf. _The Papacy at Rome_, Vol. I, p. 337. The title-page of

Alveld's treatise contained twenty-six lines.



[12] A satiric reference to a section in Alveld's treatise, on the

name of Jesus, which he spells IHSVH and brings proofs for this form

from the three languages, mentioned. See Seckendor, _Hist. Luth._,

lib.  I, sect. 27, section  lxx, add. ii.



[13] Alveld calls himself, on his title-page, _Franciscanus regularis

observantiae Sanctae Crucis_. The Observantines were Franciscan monks

of the stricter rule, who separated from the Conventuals in the XV.

Century. See _Prot. Realencyklopadie^3, VI, 213 ff.



[14] In the _Treatise on the Blessed Sacrament_; see above, p. 9.



[15] The universities of Cologne and Louvain had ratified Eck's

"victory" over Luther at the Leipzig Disputation. See Kostlin-Kawerau,

I, 266, 298.



[16] _De disputatione Lipsicensi_, 1519.



[17] _A venatione Luteriana Aegocerotis assertio_, 1519.



[18] Some theologians--e. g., Cajetan and Durandus--doubted whether

the Sacrament of Order was received by deacons; the Council of Trent

decided against them.--_Cath. Encyclop._, IV, 650.



[19] For Luther's opinion of Aristotle see above, pp. 146 f.



[20] The Franciscans are meant. The allusion may be to the seraphic

vision of St. Francis.



[21] See above, pp. 153 ff.



[22] A less lenient view was taken by Boniface Amerbach, writing to

his brother Basil at Basle, October 20, 1520: "The good man (Luther)

was not a little injured by the libel of a poor impostor, who, by

pretending that Martin had recanted, brought back even those who had

entered upon the way of truth to their former errors." See Smith, _op.

cit._, I, no. 316.



[23] The present did not last very long; see below, p. 292.



[24] So called because of the withholding of the wine from the laity.



[25] Cf. 1 Tim. 3:16. See Kostlin, _Theology of Luther_ (E. Tr.), I,

403; and below, pp. 258 f.



[26] The _Treatise on the Blessed Sacrament_, 1519.



[27] See page 174.



[28] See above, p. 10, note 1.



[29] _Decretal. Greg., lib. Ill, tit. xli, cap. 17_.



[30] Migne, XLIV, 699 f.



[31] _Verklarung etlicher Artikel_, 1520. _Weimer Ed._, VI, 80 11 ff.



[32] An allusion to his opponents' doctrine of the complete freedom of

the will, which Luther denied. Compare his _De servo arbitrio_ (1525).

_Weimar Ed._, XVIII, 600 ff. He finds in their treatment of Scripture

and of logic a practical expression of this doctrine of theirs.



[33] Luther humbly identifies himself with the erring priesthood,



[34] Alveld.



[35] _The res sacramenti_. The sacrament consisted of these two

parts--(1) the _sacramentum_, or external sign, and (2) the _res

sacramenti_, or the thing signified, the sacramental grace. Another

distinction is that between (1) _materia_, or the external sign, and

(2) _forma_, or the words of institution or administration. See below,

p. 223.



[36] Cf. _Weimar Ed._, VI, 505, note 1.



[37] Cf. Vol. I, p. 325, and _Realencyklopadie_, X, 289, pp. 11 ff.



[38] Cf. _Weimar Ed._, VI, 506, note 2.



[39] Cf. W. Kohler, _Luther unci die Kirchengeschichte_ (Erlangen,

1900), chap. viii.



[40] On the spiritual reception of the sacrament see H. Hering, _Die

Mystik Luthers_ (1879), pp. 173 f. Cf. above, p. 40.



[41] See above, p. 172.



[42] John Wyclif (Died 1384), the keenest of the mediaeval critics of the

doctrine of transubstantiation.



[43] Pierre d'Ailly (Died 1425), who, with his master Occam, greatly

influenced Luther.



[44] The Sentences of Peter Lombard, the text-book of medieval

theology.



[45] In the dogma of transubstantiation (Fourth Lateran Council, 1215)

the Church taught that the substance of bread and wine was changed

into the substance of Christ's body and blood, while the accidents of

the former--i. e., their attributes, such as form, color, taste,

etc.--remained.



[46] Aquinas.



[47] Thus the _Erlangen Ed._; the _Weimar Ed._ reads: _an accidentia

ibi sint sine substantia_.



[48] See above, p. 20.



[49] i. e., the host, or wafer.



[50] _Decretal. Greg. lib. I, tit. i, cap. I, section 3_.



[51] See above, pp. 26 ff.



[52] See above, p. 137.



[54] Comp. Vol. I, pp. 295 ff.



[55] The Douay Version has here been followed.



[56] See Luther's own definition above, pp. 22 ff.



[57] See above, p. 181, note.



[58] See above, p. 198.



[59] See above, p. 195.



[60] See above, p. 10.



[61] See above, p. 187, note 1.



[62] See above, p. 188.



[63] See above, p. 182, note 2.



[64] On "fruits of the mass" compare Seeberg, _Dogmengesch._., III, p.

472.



[65] Comp. Vol. I, p. 307.



[66] Comp. Vol. I, pp. 302 f.



[67] See above, pp. 22 f.



[68] See p. 23.



[69] See Vol. I, pp. 187 ff.



[70] See above, p. 196.



[71] That portion of the mass included between the Sanctus and the

Lord's Prayer.



[72] See Vol. I, p. 312, and _Prot. Realencyklop._, XIV, 679, 41 ff.



[73] See above, p. 211, note 2.



[74] See above, p. 16.



[75] See Vol. I, p. 306.



[76] The offertory prayers in the mass. _C. Prot. Realencyklopadie_,

XII, 720, 46 ff.



[77] The private mass does not require the presence of a congregation.

Besides the celebrant there need be present only a ministrant. There

is no music, the mass is only read. See _Realencyklopadie_, XII, 723.



[78] The _res sacramenti_. See above, p. 182.



[79] Masses celebrated by special request or in honor of certain

mysteries (e. g., of the Holy Trinity, of the Holy Spirit, or of

angels). _Realencyklopadie_, XII, 722.



[80] Pope Gregory I. See Realencyklopadie, XII, 681 f.



[81] See above, p. 196, note, and comp. Seeberg, _Dogmengesch._, Ill,

461 f.



[82] For letters of indulgence.



[83] _E p_. 130, 9 (Migne, XXII, 1115).



[84] Factions in the monastic orders.



[85] The reference may be to Blandina, who suffered martyrdom under

Marcus Aurelius.



[86] The three parts of penance; see below, p. 247.



[87] See Vol. I, p. 91.



[88] Peter Lombard, the fourth book of whose Sentences treats of the

sacraments; see above, p. 188.



[89] See p. 182, note 2.



[90] The scholastics distinguished between the "material" and the

"form" of a sacrament. In baptism, the material was the water; the

form, the words, "I baptise thee in the name of the Father, and of the

Son, and of the Holy Ghost."



[91] Alexander, of Hales, denied the validity of baptism "in the name

of Jesus," which Peter Lombard defended. Cf. _Realencyklopadie_, XIX,

412.



[92] Cf. _Weimar Ed._, I, 544, and _Erlangen Ed._, XLIV, 114 ff.



[93] See above, p. 203.



[94] A point at issue between Thomists and Franciscans. The former

held that the grace of the sacrament was contained in the sacramental

sign and directly imparted through it; thus Aquinas. The Franciscans

contended that the sign was merely a symbol, but that God, according

to a _pactio_, or agreement, imparted the grace of the sacrament when

the sign was being used; thus Bonaventura, and especially Duns Scotus.

See Seeberg, DC, III, 455 ff., and in _Realencyklopadie_, V, 73.



[95] The conclusion of the investigation begun on p. 226.



[96] See above, p. 204.



[97] See above, p. 223.



[98] See above, p. 226.



[99] _Baptisma_; see above, p. 226, and compare Vol. I, p. 56.



[100] _Res_. See above, p. 182, note 2.



[101] _Res baptismi_. See above, p. 231.



[102] Cf. below, pp, 258 ff.



[103] See above, p. 231.



[104] The position of Thomas Aquinas, going back to Augustine, and

ratified by Clement V at the Council of Vienna, 1311-12.



[105] See above, p. 227.



[106] See above, pp. 227 ff.



[107] For a full discussion of this "baptism," see Scheel, in the

_Berlin Edition_ of Luther's works, _Erganzungsband_ II, pp. 134-157.



[108] See above, p. 238.



[109] The threefold vow of the mendicant orders.



[110] _Bulla_ means both a papal bull and a bubble.



[111] Compare above, p. 172, note 4.



[112] An obscure allegorical reference to the Babylonian captivity of

the Jews. "The people of the captivity" (comp. Ps. 64:1 and 1 Kings

24:14, Vulgate) are the better portion of the people who were carried

captive, together with their possessions, to Babylon; "the people of

the earth," _am haarez_, the common people, were left behind and

became the nucleus of the hybrid Samaritan nation.



[113] See above, p. 123.



[114] See above, p. 75.



[115] See _Decretal. Greg., lib. Ill, tit. xxxiv, cap. 7_.



[116] Cf. Kohler, _Luther und die KG._, pp. 222 ff.



[117] Comp. below, p. 248.



[118] This time came during Luther's sojourn at the Wartburg, when he

wrote _De votis monasticis_, 1521. See Vol. IV.



[119] The XCV Theses, the _Resolutiones_, the _Sermon von Ablass und

Gnade_, the _Confitendi Ratio_; the first and last of these in Vol. I.



[120] Reference to a probably spurious bull of Clement VI. In his

_Grund u. Ursach aller Artikel D. Martin Luthers, so durch rom. Bulle

unrechtlich verdammt sind_ (1521), Luther writes: "Thus it happened in

the days of John Hus that the pope commanded the angels of heaven to

conduct to heaven the souls of the Roman pilgrims who died en route.

Against this dreadful blasphemy and more than devilish presumption Hus

raised his voice, and though he lost his life therefor, yet forced the

pope to pipe a different tune and in future to refrain from such

blasphemy."--Compare Kohler, _Luther u. die Kirchengeschichte_, p.

206. See also above, p. 81.



[121] _Longe viliorem_; the _Jena Ed._, followed by Lemme and Kawerau,

reads, _longe meliorem_.



[122] Comp. Vol. I, p. 20.



[123] Comp. Vol. I, p. 86.



[124] See above, pp. 105 f.



[125] See above, p. 105, note 4.



[126] See above, p. 223, note 1,



[127] See above, p. 245, note 2.



[128] A play on the word _observantia_, which means both observation

and observance. A scriptural fling at the _Observantines_. Comp.

above, p. 172, note 4.



[129] Luther quotes correctly, _confortatus_, but thinks

_confirmatus_.



[130] Vulgate: _confirmet_.



[131] Above, pp. 203 f.



[132] Vulgate: _sacramenta_.



[133] Erasmus edited the first published Greek New Testament in March,

1516 (Basle: John Froben), the Complutensian Polyglot being the first

printed edition (1514). Luther used Erasmus' work as soon as it came

out, as may be seen in his lectures on Romans, 1515-16 (cf. Picker,

_Luthers Vorlesung uber den Romerbrie_; also Preserved Smith,

_Luther's Correspondence_, etc., I, nos. 21 and 65). In an interesting

letter to Luther of Feb. 14, 1519, Froben announces the second edition

of Erasmus' New Testament, which Luther used in making his

translation. Cf. Smith, op. cit., 00.125.



[134] See above, p. 177.



[135] Namely, for Paul.



[136] The precise meaning is not clear. The Latin is: _vel proprio

spiritu vel general! sententia_.



[137] Here follows a passage that clearly breaks into the context and

belongs elsewhere. See Introduction, p. 169.



"I admit that the sacrament of penance existed also in the Old Law,

yea, from the beginning of the world. But the new promise of penance

and the gift of the keys are peculiar to the New Law. For as we now

have baptism instead of circumcision, so we have the keys instead of

the sacrifices and other signs of penance. We said above that the same

God at divers times gave divers promises and signs for the remission

of sins and the salvation of men, but that all nevertheless received

the same grace. Thus it is said in II Corinthians iv, 'Having the same

spirit of faith, we also believe, or which cause we speak also'; and

in i Corinthians x, 'Our fathers did all eat the same spiritual food,

and all drank the same spiritual drink; and they drank of the

spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ.' Thus also

in Hebrews xi, 'These all died, not receiving the promise; God

providing some better thing or us, that they should not be perfected

without us.' For Christ Himself is, yesterday and to-day and forever,

the Head of His Church, from the beginning even to the end of the

world. Therefore there are divers signs, but the faith of all is the

same. Indeed, without faith it is impossible to please God, by which

faith even Abel pleased Him (Hebrews xi)."



[138] The _Summa angelica_ of Angelus de Clavassio of Genoa (died

about 1495), published 1486, one of the favorite handbooks of

casuistry, in which all possible cases of conscience were treated in

alphabetical order. Cf. _Zeitschrit fur Kirchengesch._, XXVII, 296 ff.

The _Summa angelica_ was among the papal books burned by Luther,

together with the bull, December 10, 1520. Cf. Smith, _Luther's

Correspondence_, I, no. 355.



[139] For a full discussion of the hindrances see article Eherecht, by

Sehung, in _Prot. Realencyklopadie_, V.



[140] On this whole paragraph compare Vol. I, p. 294.



[141] It is to be borne in mind that all that follows is in the nature

of advice to confessors in dealing with difficult cases of conscience,

and is parallel to the closing paragraphs of the section on The

Sacrament of the Bread.



[142] Namely, by officiating at the marriage ceremony.



[143] Namely, by betrothal (_sponsalia de praesenti_).



[144] Lemme pertinently reminds the reader that by "laws of men"

Luther here understands the man-made laws of the Church of Rome.



[145] See above, p. 103, note 2.



[146] Relationship arising from sponsorship and legal adoption. Cf.

above, p. 128.



[147] _Cognatio spiritualis_.



[148] _The res sacramenti_. See above, p. 182.



[149] _Cognatio legalis_.



[150] _Disparilitas religionis_.



[151] _Impedimentum criminis_.



[152] _Impedimentum ligamiais_.



[153] The _fides data et accepta_, which Luther finds in the _fides_

(faith) of Gal. 5:22



[154] Page 243.



[155] _Impedimentum erroris_. With fine sarcasm Luther here plays of

one hindrance against another.



[156] _Impedimentum ordinis_.



[157] _Impedimentum publicae honestatis_.



[158] An untranslatable pun: _non iustitia sed inscitia_.



[159] Page 244.



[160] See p. 263, note 2.



[161] Page 242.



[162] The following points need to be borne in mind in order to a fair

evaluation of this much criticized section: (1) What is here given is

in the nature of advice to confessors, and the one guiding principle

is the relief of souls in peril. (2) It must not be forgotten that

Luther wrote the treatise in Latin, and not for the general public.

There is without doubt a certain betrayal in turning into the

vernacular a passage written in the language of the learned. Yet we

have done this, being unwilling to all under the charge of giving a

garbled version. (3) The hindrance Luther is here discussing was one

recognized and provided or by the Church of Rome, and the remedy

suggested by him was prescribed by the German _Volksrecht_ in many

localities. (4) Divorce was absolutely forbidden.  (5) Luther's error

grew out of an unhistorical interpretation of the Old Testament, and

consisted in his undervaluing the importance of the public law. "To

make the individual conscience the sole arbiter in matters belonging

to public law, leads to dangerous consequences." (See Kawarau, _Berlin

Ed._, II, 482 f., where references are given.)



[163] As he actually did in the case of Henry VIII and Philip of

Hesse.



[164] See above, p. 269, note 1.



[165] Page 271.



[166] An allusion to the act that what he is writing is a "Prelude."

See Introduction, p. 168.



[167] _Contra epistolam Manichaei_, 5, 6 (Migne, XLII, 176). Cf.

below, p. 451.



[168] _De trinitate_, 9, 6, 10 (Migne, VIII, 966).



[169] See below, pp. 451 ff.



[170] The council that condemned and burned John Hus (1414-1418).



[171] Dionysius Areopagita, the pseudonym (cf. Acts 17:54) of the

unknown author (about 500, in Syria?) of the neoplatonic writings, _Of

the Celestial_, and _Of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy_, etc.



[172] William Durandus the elder, died 1296.



[173] The Franciscan Bonaventura (Died 1274) in his _De reductione artium

ad theologiara_.



[174] Donatus (ab. 350 A.D.), a famous Latin grammarian, whose _Ars

minor_ was a favorite mediaeval text-book. The chancellor of the

University of Paris, John Gerson (Died  1429), published a _Donatus

moralisatus seu per allegoriam traductus_--a mystical grammar, in

which the noun was compared to man, the pronoun to man's sinful state,

the verb to the divine command to love, the _adverb_ to the fulfilment

of the divine law, etc.



[175] See above, p. 190.



[176] The so-called _character indelebilis_, the peculiar gift of

ordination, so that "once a priest, always a priest." See above, p.

68, note 5.



[177] See above, pp. 178 ff.



[178] The stated daily prayers, fixed by canon, of the clergy. The

seven hours are respectively: matins (including noctums and lauds),

prime, tierce, sext, nones, vespers, and compline.



[179] Comp. above, p. 69. The fullest development of Luther's doctrine

of the spiritual priesthood of believers is to be found in his

writings against Emser, especially _Auf das uberchristliche,

ubergeistliche und uberkunstliche Buch Bock Emsers Antwort_, 1521.



[180] On the last sentence see above, pp. 251 f.



[181] See p. 278, note 1.



[182] See above, p. 92.



[183] See above, p. 280.



[184] See above, p. 185.



[185] See above, p. 213.



[186] Covers for the chalice.



[187] This promise was fulfilled in the Liberty of a Christian Man.



[188] Thus Erasmus: _Fieri potest ut nomen commune cum apostolo

praebuerit occasionem ut haec epistola lacobo apostolo ascriberetur,

cum uerit alterius cuiusdam Iacobi._--Moffatt, _Introduction to the

Lit. of the N. T._, p. 472.



[189] See above, p. 275.



[190] Comp. above, p. 171.



[191] See above, p. 285.



[192] See above, p. 226.



[193] See above, p. 275.



[194] See above, p. 226.



[195] See above, p. 177.



[196] See above, pp. 220 f.



[197] The _res sacramenti_. See above, p. 182, note 2.



[198] Vergil's _Eclogues_, VIII, 63.



[199] See Introduction, p. 168.



[200] The remainder of Luther's "recantation" was the _De libertate_.

In the letter to the pope, which accompanied it, he gave ample proof

of his obedience.



[201] The eighth stanza of Coehus Sedulius' _Hymnus acrostichis totam

vitam Christi continens_ (beginning, _A solis ortus cardine_), of the

fifth century. Stanzas 8, 9, 11 and 13 were used as an Epiphany hymn,

which Luther translated on December 12, 1541,--"Was furchtst du, Feind

Herodes, sehr." The above translation is taken from _Hymns Ancient and

Modern_, No. 60.







A TREATISE ON CHRISTIAN LIBERTY WITH A LETTER TO POPE LEO X



1520







INTRODUCTION





The Letter to the Pope, like an earlier letter dated March 3, 1519,

was written at the suggestion of Carl von Miltitz. Sent to Germany to

bring Luther to Rome, this German diplomat knew German conditions and

to some extent sympathized with Luther's denunciation of Tetzel and

the sellers of indulgences. He preferred, therefore, to try to settle

the controversy and to leave Luther in Germany. Although the pope

insisted that Luther must come to Rome and recant, Miltitz arranged

for a hearing of the case before a German bishop. Evidently Miltitz

was far too optimistic in his representations both to Luther and to

the pope. The pope, in a writing dated March 29, 1519, spoke in

friendly terms to Luther, and urged him to come to Rome immediately

and to make his recantation there. Luther, in the letter dated March

3, 1519, writes in most humble language to the pope, but declares it

impossible for him to recant what he had written in the XCV Theses.

The pope's letter did not reach Luther; Luther's letter was not

forwarded to the pope.



Luther had promised to keep silent if his opponents would do the same,

and had devoted himself to the study of the Scriptures. John Eck,

however, had no such occupation to keep him from controversy, and

Luther was not averse to a debate. At the Leipzig disputation, June

27-July 15, 1519, Luther learned more of the logical implications of

his position. The plan of Miltitz had failed, but he would not be

discouraged.



When Miltitz went to Germany, it was under the pretence of a mission

"to deliver to his elector the papal golden rose, which the latter had

coveted in vain for two years."[1] Now he decided to go in person to

Augsburg, where it had been deposited with the Fuggers, and present it

to Frederick. This also gave an opportunity for a second meeting with

Luther at Liebwierde, October 9, 1519. Luther, although placing little

confidence in Miltitz, consented to argue his case before the

archbishop of Treves. The plan failed, partly because there was no

citation for Luther to appear, partly because the Elector would not

allow Luther to go without proper safe-conduct, and partly because

Miltitz had not tried to prevent Luther's opponents from challenging

him.



In spite of the evident lack of confidence on both sides, and in spite

of Luther's constant progress in opposition to the Roman Church,

Miltitz insisted that "the case is not as black as we priests make

it," even when a papal bull was issued against Luther on June 15,

1520. On August 28th Miltitz attended a meeting of the Augustinian

monks in Eisleben, and obtained their promise that Luther should be

requested to write a letter to the pope assuring him that he had never

attacked the pope's person. On September 11th Luther reported to

Spalatin what he had done, and said that, although neither he nor his

fellow-monks had any confidence in the plan, he would do Miltitz the

favor of writing such a letter. This promise seemed meaningless to him

after the bull against him had been published. The papal bull had been

obtained by Eck, whom Miltitz now considered to be substituted for

himself in dealing with Luther, in spite of the authority he had

received. That the bull was ignored in some places and despised in

others, pleased him and gave him new courage. There might, after all,

be some chance for him to make use of his diplomatic skill.



Again he invited Luther to meet him in Lichtenberg. They met in the

monastery of St. Anthony on October 12th, and Luther renewed his

promise to write to the pope, to send the letter within twelve days,

and to date it back to September 6th, that the appearance of

intimidation by the papal bull might be avoided. It was agreed that

Luther should send with the letter an historical account of his

difficulties with the Roman Church which would show that Eck was the

chief instigator, and that Luther had been forced to take the

positions he defended. In writing, however, the historical review

became a part of the letter, and a treatise of far different tone was

sent as a gift to the pope, and as an evidence of the kind of work

Luther would prefer to do if his opponents permitted him to

choose--the Treatise on Christian Liberty.



It is again a question whether the pope received this letter. It has

been an interesting speculation for more than one writer, what the

thoughts and feelings of Leo the Tenth might have been if he did

receive and read it. Schaff traces the progress of Luther in the three

letters he wrote to the pope: "In his first letter to the pope, 1518,

Luther had thrown himself at his feet as an obedient son of the vicar

of Christ; in his second letter, 1519, he still had addressed him as a

humble subject, yet refusing to recant his conscientious convictions;

in his third and last letter he addressed him as an equal, speaking to

him with great respect for his personal character even beyond his

deserts, but denouncing in the severest terms the Roman See, and

comparing him to a lamb among wolves, and to Daniel in the den of

lions."[2] If the pope ever read it, "it must have filled him with

mingled feelings of indignation and disgust."



We may go even farther. Luther thinks of St. Bernard's attitude toward

Pope Eugene, and Bernard was Eugene's superior in the Cistercian order

and had been looked up to as "father." Luther writes as a father

confessor to a friend in trouble, and might have quoted Bernard's

words: "I grieve with you. I should say, I grieve with you if, indeed,

you also grieve. Otherwise I should have rather said, I grieve for

you; because that is not grieving with another when there is none who

grieves. Therefore if you grieve, I grieve with you; if not, still I

grieve, and then most of all, knowing that the member which is without

feeling is the farther removed from health and that the sick man who

does not feel his sickness is in the greater danger."[3]



The pope was a humanist, not a spiritually minded priest; we may,

therefore, believe that Charles Beard is not far wrong in his estimate

of the possible effect of this letter upon him: "If Giovanni de

Medici, the head of a house which had long come to consider itself

princely, and the occupant of the Fisherman's chair, when it claimed

to be the highest of earthly thrones, read this bold apostrophe,

addressed to him by a 'peasant and a peasant's son,' he must have

thought him mad with conceit and vanity. He was incapable of being

touched by the moral nobleness of the appeal, and so audacious a

contempt of merely social distinctions the world has rarely seen."[4]



After the mighty thunder of the Address to the Christian Nobility and

the Babylonian Captivity of the Church, the Treatise on the Liberty of

a Christian Man is, indeed, like a still, small voice. Luther himself

says: "Unless I am deceived, it is the whole of Christian living in a

brief form." Perhaps we may trace here also the influence of St.

Bernard's _De Consideratione_, which was written as a devotional book

for the pope and was a manual of Christian living for the pope, as

this is a manual of Christian living or all Christians.



It has been rather difficult for the enemies of Luther to find much

fault with this book. The Catholic historians, Janssen and

Hergenrother, do not mention it. Grisar characteristically devotes a

little space to each of the three great writings of 1520, and

considers the book on Christian Liberty as the most mischievous of

them all. "It does, indeed, frequently bring its false thoughts in the

form of that mystical, heart-searching style which Luther learned from

older German models."[5] The French Catholic, Leon Cristiani, is far

more generous in his estimate: "A truly religious spirit breathes in

these pages. Provoking polemic is almost entirely avoided. Here one

finds again the inspiration of the great mystics of the Middle Ages.

Does not the 'Imitation' continually describe the powerlessness of man

when left to himself, the infinite mercy of God, the great benefit of

the redemption of Christ? Does it not preach the necessity of doing

all things through love, nothing of necessity? He is not a true

Christian who would venture to disapprove the passages in which Luther

speaks so eloquently of the goodness of God, of the gratitude which it

should inspire in us, of the spontaneity which should mark our

obedience, of the desire of imitating Christ which should inspire

us."[6]



Protestants consider this book "perhaps the most beautiful of Luther's

writings, the result of religious contemplation rather than of

theological labor."[7] "It takes rank with the best books of Luther,

and rises far above the angry controversies of his age, during which

he composed it, in the full possession of the positive truth and peace

of the religion of Christ."[8] The clear presentation of the thought

of the liberty of a Christian man occurs at the close of the

Tessaradecas.[9] In the Babylonian Captivity Luther had promised to

publish a treatise on the subject after he had seen the effect of that

treatise.[10] But the promise to send a treatise to the pope gave him

an earlier opportunity, so that barely a month and a half intervened

between the publication of the Captivity, October 6th, and that of the

Liberty, middle of November. The German, although a translation in

part and in part an abbreviation and rewriting of the Latin, appeared

first, before November 16th. The publisher, seeing his opportunity,

had, however, issued the Letter to the Pope in German separately

before November 4th,[11] so that a new dedicatory letter, addressed to

Hieronymus Mulphordt (Muhlpfort), of Zwickau, was prefixed to the

German edition.



Our translation is made from the Latin, although the German has been

compared wherever it is a real translation.



Two translations into English appeared in the sixteenth century: one

printed by John Byddell before 1544, the translation being, according

to Preserved Smith,[12] by John Tewkesbury; the other, prepared by

James Bell and printed by Ralph Newbery and H. Bynneman, in 1579.

Unfortunately, neither of these was accessible to the present

translators. Modern translations, into English by Wace and Buchheim,

and into German by Lemme, have been consulted.



    W. A. LAMBERT.



South Bethlehem, PA.





FOOTNOTES





[1] _Catholic Encyclopedia_, x, 318.



[2] _Church History_, vi, 224 f.



[3] _De consideratione_, i, I.



[4] _Martin Luther and the Reformation in Germany_, London, 1889, p.

370.



[5] _Luther_, I, 351.



[6] _Du Lutheranisme au Protestantisme_, 1911, p. 199.



[7] Kolde, _Luther_, 1, 274.



[8] Schaff, VI, 224.



[9] Vol. I, p. 170.



[10] See above, page 284.



[11] Enders, II, p. 496, gives as the date when the letter was

written, "after Oct. 13th"; Smith, _Life and Letters of Martin

Luther_, p. 91, dates it Oct. 20th.



[12] _Nation_, May 29, 1913.





LETTER TO POPE LEO X.





JESUS.



To Leo the Tenth, Pope at Rome: Martin Luther wishes thee salvation in

Christ Jesus our Lord. Amen.



[Sidenote: The Pope's Person]



In the midst of the monsters of this age with whom I am now for the

third year waging war, I am compelled at times to look up also to

thee, Leo, most blessed Father, and to think of thee; nay, since thou

art now and again regarded as the sole cause of my warfare, I cannot

but think of thee always. And although the causeless raging of thy

godless flatterers against me has compelled me to appeal from thy See

to a future council, despite those most empty decrees of thy

predecessors Pius and Julius, who with a foolish tyranny forbade such

an appeal, yet I have never so estranged my mind from thy Blessedness

as not with all my heart to wish thee and thy See every blessing, for

which I have, as much as lay in me, besought God with earnest prayers.

It is true, I have made bold almost to despise and to triumph over

those who have tried to righten me with the majesty of thy name and

authority. But there is one thing which I cannot despise, and that is

my excuse for writing once more to thy Blessedness. I understand that

I am accused of great rashness, and that this rashness is said to be

my great fault, in which, they say, I have not spared even thy person.



For my part, I will openly confess that I know I have only spoken good

and honorable things of thee whenever I have made mention of thy name.

And if I had done otherwise, I myself could by no means approve of it,

but would entirely approve the judgment others have formed of me, and

do nothing more gladly than recant such rashness and impiety on my

part. I have called thee a Daniel in Babylon,[1] and every one who

reads knows with what zeal I defended thy notable innocence against

thy dreamer, Sylvester.[2] Indeed, thy reputation and the fame of thy

blameless life, sung as they are throughout the world by the writings

of so many great men, are too well known and too high to be assailed

in any way by any one man, however great he may be. I am not so

foolish as to attack him whom every one praises: it has rather been,

and always will be, my endeavor not to attack even those whom public

report decries; for I take no pleasure in the crimes of any man, since

I am conscious enough of the great beam in my own eye [Matt. 7:3], nor

could I be he that should cast the first stone at the adulteress [John

8:7].



[Sidenote: Luther's Enemies]



I have indeed sharply inveighed against ungodly teachings in general,

and I have not been slow to bite my adversaries, not because of their

immorality, but because of their ungodliness. And of this I repent so

little that I have determined to persevere in that fervent zeal, and

to despise the judgment of men, following the example of Christ, Who

in His zeal called His adversaries a generation of vipers, blind,

hypocrites, children of the devil [Matt. 23:13, 17, 33]. And Paul

arraigned the sorcerer as a child of the devil full of all subtilty

and mischief [Acts 13:10], and brands others as dogs, deceivers and

adulterers [Phil. 3:2; 2 Cor. 11:13; 2 Cor. 2:17]. If you will allow

those delicate ears to judge, nothing would be more biting and more

unrestrained than Paul. Who is more biting than the prophets?

Nowadays, it is true, our ears are made so delicate by the mad crowds

of flatterers that as soon as we meet with a disapproving voice we cry

out that we are bitten, and when we cannot ward off the truth with any

other pretext we put it to light by ascribing it to a fierce temper,

impatience and shamelessness. What is the good of salt if it does not

bite? Or of the edge of the sword if it does not kill? Cursed be he

that doeth the work of the Lord deceitfully [Jer. 48:10].



Wherefore, most excellent Leo, I pray thee, after I have by this

letter vindicated myself, give me a hearing, and believe that I have

never thought evil of thy person, but that I am a man who would wish

thee all good things eternally, and that I have no quarrel with any

man concerning his morality, but only concerning the Word of truth. In

all things else I will yield to any man whatsoever: to give up or to

deny the Word I have neither the power nor the will. If any man thinks

otherwise of me, or has understood my words differently, he does not

think aright, nor has he understood what I have really said.



[Sidenote: The Roman Curia]



But thy See, which is called the Roman Curia, and of which neither

thou nor any man can deny that it is more corrupt than any Babylon or

Sodom ever was, and which is, as far as I can see, characterized by a

totally depraved, hopeless and notorious wickedness--that See I have

truly despised, and I have been incensed to think that in thy name and

under the guise of the Roman Church the people of Christ are mocked.

And so I have resisted and will resist that See, as long as the spirit

of faith shall live in me. Not that I shall strive after the

impossible or hope that by my lone efforts anything will be

accomplished in that most disordered Babylon, where the rage of so

many sycophants is turned against me; but I acknowledge myself a

debtor to my brethren, whom it is my duty to warn, that fewer of them

may be destroyed by the plagues of Rome, or at least that their

destruction may be less cruel.



For, as thou well knowest, these many years there has flowed forth

from Rome, like a flood covering the world, nothing but a laying waste

of men's bodies and souls and possessions, and the worst possible

examples of the worst possible things. For all this is clearer than

the day to all men, and the Roman Church, once the most holy of all,

become the most licentious den of thieves [Matt. 21:13], the most

shameless of all brothels, the kingdom of sin, death and hell; so that

even Antichrist himself, should he come, could think of nothing to add

to its wickedness.



[Sidenote: The Pope's Helplessness]



Meanwhile thou, Leo, sittest as a lamb in the midst of wolves [Matt.

10:16], like Daniel in the midst of the lions [Dan. 6:16], and, with

Ezekiel, thou dwellest among scorpions [Ezek. 2:6]. What canst thou do

single-handed, against these monsters? Join to thyself three or four

thoroughly learned and thoroughly good cardinals: what are even these

among so many? [John 6:9] You would all be poisoned before you could

undertake to make a single decree to help matters. There is no hope or

the Roman Curia: the wrath of God is come upon it to the end [1 Thess.

2:16]; it hates councils, it fears a reformation, it cannot reduce the

raging of its wickedness, and is meriting the praise bestowed upon its

mother, of whom it is written, "We have cured Babylon, but she is not

healed: let us forsake her."[3][Jer. 51:9] It was thy duty, indeed,

and that of thy cardinals, to remedy these evils, but that gout of

theirs mocks the healing hand, and neither chariot nor horse heeds the

guiding rein.[4] Moved by such sympathy for thee, I have always

grieved, most excellent Leo, that thou hast been made pope in these

times, for thou wert worthy of better days. The Roman Curia has not

deserved to have thee or men like thee, but rather Satan himself; and

in truth it is he more than thou who rules in that Babylon.



O would that thou mightest lay aside what thy most mischievous enemies

boast of as thy glory, and wert living on some small priestly income

of thine own, or on thy family inheritance! To glory in that glory

none are worthy save the Iscariots, the sons of perdition [John

17:12]. For what dost thou accomplish in the Curia, my dear Leo? Only

this: the more criminal and abominable a man is, the more successfully

will he use thy name and authority to destroy the wealth and the souls

of men, to increase crime, to suppress faith and truth and the whole

Church of God. O truly, most unhappy Leo, thou sittest on a most

dangerous throne; for I tell thee the truth, because I wish thee well.

If Bernard pitied his Pope Eugene[5] at a time when the Roman See,

although even then most corrupt, yet ruled with better prospects, why

should not we lament who have for three hundred years had so great an

increase of corruption and worthlessness? Is it not true that under

yon vast expanse of heaven there is nothing more corrupt, more

pestilential, more hateful than the Roman Curia? It surpasses the

godlessness of the Turks beyond all comparison, so that in truth,

whereas it was once a gate of heaven, it is now an open mouth of hell,

and such a mouth as, because of the wrath of God, cannot be shut;

there is only one thing that we can try to do, as I have said:

perchance we may be able to call back a few from that yawning chasm of

Rome and so save them.



Now thou seest, my Father Leo, how and why I have so violently

attacked that pestilential See: for so far have I been from raging

against thy person that I even hoped I might gain thy favor and save

thee, if I should make a strong and sharp assault upon that prison,

nay that hell of thine. For thou and thy salvation and the salvation

of many others with thee will be served by every thing that men of

ability can contribute to the confusion of this wicked Curia. They do

thy work, who bring evil upon it; they glorify Christ, who in every

way curse it. In short, they are Christians who are not Romans.



[Sidenote: Luther's Controversies]



[Sidenote: Eck]



To go yet farther, I never intended to inveigh against the Roman

Curia, or to raise any controversy concerning it. For when I saw that

all efforts to save it were hopeless, I despised it and gave it a bill

of divorcement [Deut. 24:1] and said to it, "He that is filthy, let

him be filthy still, and he that is unclean, let him be unclean

still." [Rev. 22:11] Then I gave myself to the quiet and peaceful

study of holy Scripture, that I might thus be of benefit to my

brethren about me. When I had made some progress in these studies,

Satan opened his eyes and filled his servant John Eck,[6] a notable

enemy of Christ, with an insatiable lust for glory, and thereby

stirred him up to drag me at unawares into a disputation, laying hold

on me by one little word about the primacy of the Roman Church which I

had incidentally let fall. Then that boasting braggart, frothing and

gnashing his teeth, declared that he would venture all for the glory

of God and the honor of the holy Apostolic See, and, puffed up with

the hope of misusing thy power, he looked forward with perfect

confidence to a victory over me. He sought not so much to establish

the primacy of Peter as his own leadership among the theologians of

our time; and to that end he thought it no small help if he should

triumph over Luther. When that debate ended unhappily for the sophist,

an incredible madness overcame the man: for he feels that he alone

must bear the blame of all that I have brought forth to the shame of

Rome.



[Sidenote: Cajetan]



But permit me, I pray thee, most excellent Leo, this once to plead my

cause and to make charges against thy real enemies. Thou knowest, I

believe, what dealings thy legate, Cardinal of St. Sixtus,[7] an

unwise and unfortunate, or rather, unfaithful man, had with me. When,

because of reverence for thy name, I had put myself and all my case in

his hand, he did not try to establish peace, although with a single

word he could easily have done so, since I at that time promised to

keep silent and to end the controversy, if my opponents were ordered

to do the same. But as he was a man who sought glory, and was not

content with that agreement, he began to justify my opponents, to give

them full freedom and to order me to recant, a thing not included in

his instructions. When the matter was in a fair way, his untimely

arbitrariness brought it into a far worse condition. Therefore, for

what followed later Luther is not to blame; all the blame is

Cajetan's, who did not suffer me to keep silent and to rest, as I then

most earnestly asked him to do. What more should I have done?



[Sidenote: Miltitz]



Next came Carl Miltitz,[8] also a nuncio of thy Blessedness, who after

great and varied efforts and constant going to and fro, although he

omitted nothing that might help to restore that status of the question

which Cajetan had rashly and haughtily disturbed, at last with the

help of the most illustrious prince, Frederick the Elector, barely

managed to arrange several private conferences with me. Again I

yielded to your name, I was prepared to keep silent, and even accepted

as arbiter either the archbishop of Treves or the bishop of Naumburg.

So matters were arranged. But while this plan was being followed with

good prospects of success, lo, that other and greater enemy of thine,

Eck, broke in with the Leipzig Disputation which he had undertaken

against Dr. Carlstadt. When a new question concerning the primacy of

the pope was raised, he suddenly turned his weapons against me and

quite overthrew that counsel of peace. Meanwhile Carl Miltitz waited:

a disputation was held, judges were selected; but here also no

decision was reached, and no wonder: through the lies, the tricks, the

wiles of Eck everything was stirred up, aggravated and confounded

worse than ever, so that whatever decision might have been reached, a

greater conflagration would have resulted. For he sought glory, not

the truth. Here also I let nothing undone that I ought to have

done.[9]



[Sidenote: Eck]



I admit that on this occasion no small amount of corrupt Roman

practices came to light, but whatever wrong was done was the fault of

Eck, who undertook a task beyond his strength, and, while he strove

madly for his own glory, revealed the shame of Rome to all the world.

He is thy enemy, my dear Leo, or rather the enemy of thy Curia. From

the example of this one man thou canst learn that there is no enemy

more injurious than a flatterer. For what did he accomplish with his

flattery but an evil which no king could have accomplished? To-day the

name of the Roman Curia is a stench throughout the world, and papal

authority languishes, ignorance that was once held in honor is evil

spoken of; and of all this we should have heard nothing if Eck had not

upset the counsel of peace planned by Carl and myself, as he himself

now clearly sees, and is angry, too late and to no purpose, that my

books were published. This he should have thought of when, like a

horse that whinnies on the picket-line, he was madly seeking only his

own glory, and sought only his own gain through thee at the greatest

peril to thee. The vainglorious man thought that I would stop and keep

silent at the terror of thy name; for I do not believe that he trusted

entirely to his talents and learning. Now, when he sees that I have

more courage than that and have not been silenced, he repents him too

late of his rashness and understands that there is One in heaven who

resists the proud and humbles the haughty [1 Pet. 5:5; Judith 6:15],

if indeed he does understand it at last.



[Sidenote: The Augustinians]



Since we gained nothing by this disputation except that we brought

greater confusion to the cause of Rome, Carl Miltitz made a third

attempt; he came to the fathers of the Augustinian Order assembled in

their chapter, and asked counsel in settling the controversy which had

now grown most confused and dangerous. Since, by the favor of God,

they had no hope of being able to proceed against me with violence,

some of the most famous of their number were sent to me, and asked me

at least to show honor to the person of thy Blessedness, and in a

humble letter to plead as my excuse thy innocence and mine; they said

that the affair was not yet in the most desperate state if of his

innate goodness Leo the Tenth would take a hand in it. As I have

always both offered and desired peace that I might devote myself to

quieter and more useful studies, and have stormed with so great fury

merely for the purpose of overwhelming by volume and violence of

words, no less than of intellect, those whom I knew to be very unequal

foes: I not only gladly ceased, but also with joy and thankfulness

considered it a most welcome kindness to me if our hope could be

fulfilled.



[Sidenote: Appeal to the Pope]



So I come, most blessed Father, and, prostrate before thee, I pray, if

it be possible do thou interpose and hold in check those flatterers,

who are the enemies of peace while they pretend to keep peace. But

that I will recant, most blessed Father, let no one imagine, unless he

prefer to involve the whole question in greater turmoil. Furthermore,

I will accept no rules for the interpretation of the Word of God,

since the Word of God, which teaches the liberty of all things else,

dare not be bound [2 Tim. 2:9]. Grant me these two points, and there

is nothing that I could not or would not most gladly do or endure. I

hate disputations; I will draw out no one; but then I do not wish

others to draw me out; if they do, as Christ is my Teacher, I will not

be speechless. For, when once this controversy has been cited before

thee and settled, thy Blessedness will be able with a small and easy

word to silence both parties and command them to keep the peace, and

that is what I have always wished to hear.



Do not listen, therefore, my dear Leo, to those sirens who make thee

out to be no mere man but a demigod, so that thou mayest command and

require what thou wilt. It will not be done in that fashion, and thou

wilt not succeed. Thou art a servant of servants,[10] and beyond all

other men in a most pitiable and most dangerous position. Be not

deceived by those who pretend that thou art lord of the world and

allow no one to be a Christian unless he accept thy authority; who

prate that thou hast power over heaven, hell and purgatory. These are

thy enemies and seek thy soul to destroy it [1 Kings 19:10]; as Isaiah

says, "O my people, they that call thee blessed, the same deceive

thee." [Isa. 3:12 (Vulgate)] They err who exalt thee above a council

and above the Church universal. They err who ascribe to thee alone the

right of interpreting Scripture; or under cover of thy name they seek

to establish all their own wickedness in the Church, and alas!

through them Satan has already made much headway under thy

predecessors. In short, believe none who exalt thee, believe those who

humble thee. For this is the judgment of God; "He hath put down the

mighty from their seat, and hath exalted the humble." [Luke 1:52] See,

how unlike His successors is Christ, although they all would be His

vicars. And I fear that most of them have indeed been too literally

His vicars. For a vicar is a vicar only when his lord is absent. And

if the pope rules while Christ is absent and does not dwell in his

heart, what else is he but a vicar of Christ? But what is such a

Church except a mass of people without Christ? And what is such a

vicar else than antichrist and an idol? How much more correctly did

the Apostles call themselves servants of the present Christ, and not

vicars of an absent Christ!



[Sidenote: Luther Follows St. Bernard's Example]



Perhaps I am impudent, in that I seem to instruct so great, so exalted

a personage, from whom we ought all to learn, and from whom, as those

plagues of thine boast, the thrones of judges receive their decisions.

But I am following the example of St. Bernard in his book _de

consideratione ad Eugenium_, a book every pope should have by heart.

For what I am doing I do not from an eagerness to teach, but as an

evidence of that pure and faithful solicitude which constrains us to

have regard for the things of our neighbors even when they are safe,

and does not permit us to consider their dignity or lack of dignity,

since it is intent only upon the danger they run for the advantage

they may gain. For when I know that thy Blessedness is driven and

tossed about at Rome, that is, that far out at sea thou art threatened

on all sides with endless dangers, and art laboring hard in that

miserable plight, so that thou dost need even the slightest help of

the least of thy brethren, I do not think it is absurd of me, if for

the time I forget thy high office and do what brotherly love demands.

I have no desire to flatter in so serious and dangerous a matter, but

if men do not understand that I am thy friend and thy most humble

subject, there is One that understandeth and judgeth. [John 8:50]



[Sidenote: Luther's Gift]



Finally, that I may not approach thee empty-handed, blessed Father, I

bring with me this little treatise published under thy name as an omen

of peace and of good hope. From this book thou mayest judge with what

studies I would prefer to be more profitably engaged, as I could be if

your godless flatterers would permit me, and had hitherto permitted

me. It is a small thing if thou regard its bulk, but, unless I am

deceived, it is the whole of Christian living in brief form, if thou

wilt grasp its meaning. I am a poor man, and have no other gift to

offer, and thou hast no need to be made rich by any other than a

spiritual gift. With this I commend myself to thy Fatherhood and

Blessedness. May the Lord Jesus preserve thee forever. Amen.



Wittenberg, September 6, 1520.[11]





A TREATISE ON CHRISTIAN LIBERTY





[Sidenote: Faith]



Many have thought Christian faith to be an easy thing, and not a few

have given it a place among the virtues. This they do because they

have had no experience of it, and have never tasted what great virtue

there is in faith. For it is impossible that any one should write well

of it or well understand what is correctly written of it, unless he

has at some time tasted the courage faith gives a man when trials

oppress him. But he who has had even a faint taste of it can never

write, speak, meditate or hear enough concerning it. For it is a

living fountain springing up into life everlasting, as Christ calls it

in John iv [John 4:14]. For my part, although I have no wealth of

faith to boast of and know how scant my store is, yet I hope that,

driven about by great and various temptations, I have attained to a

little faith, and that I can speak of it, if not more elegantly,

certainly more to the point, than those literalists and all too

subtile disputants have hitherto done, who have not even understood

what they have written.



[Sidenote: Liberty and Bondage]



That I may make the way easier or the unlearned--for only such do I

serve--I set down first these two propositions concerning the liberty

and the bondage of the spirit:



_A Christian man is a perfectly free lord of all, subject to none._



_A Christian man is a perfectly dutiful servant of all, subject to

all._



Although these two theses seem to contradict each other, yet, if they

should be found to fit together they would serve our purpose

beautifully. For they are both Paul's own, who says, in I Cor. ix,

"Whereas I was free, I made myself the servant of all," [1 Cor. 9:19]

and, Rom. xiii, "Owe no man anything, but to love one another." [Rom.

13:8] Now love by its very nature is ready to serve and to be subject

to him who is loved. So Christ, although Lord of all, was made of a

woman, made under the law [Gal. 4:4], and hence was at the same time

free and a servant, at the same time in the form of God and in the

form of a servant [Phil. 2:6 f.].



[Sidenote: Man's Nature]



Let us start, however, with something more remote from our subject,

but more obvious. Man[12] has a twofold nature, a spiritual and a

bodily. According to the spiritual nature, which men call the soul, he

is called a spiritual, or inner, or new man; according to the bodily

nature, which men call the flesh, he is called a carnal, or outward,

or old man, of whom the Apostle writes, in II Cor. iv, "Though our

outward man is corrupted, yet the inward man is renewed day by day."

[2 Cor. 4:16] Because of this diversity of nature the Scriptures

assert contradictory things of the same man, since these two men in

the same man contradict each other, since the flesh lusteth against

the spirit and the spirit against the flesh (Gal. v) [Gal. 5:17].



[Sidenote: The Inward Man]



_First_, let us contemplate the inward man, to see how a righteous,

free and truly Christian man, that is, a new, spiritual, inward man,

comes into being. It is evident that no external thing, whatsoever it

be, has any influence whatever in producing Christian righteousness or

liberty, nor in producing unrighteousness or bondage. A simple

argument will furnish the proof. What can it profit the soul if the

body are well, be free and active, eat, drink and do as it pleases?

For in these things even the most godless slaves of all the vices are

well. On the other hand, how will ill health or imprisonment or hunger

or thirst or any other external misfortune hurt the soul? With these

things even the most godly men are afflicted, and those who because of

a clear conscience are most free. None of these things touch either

the liberty or the bondage of the soul. The soul receives no benefit

if the body is adorned with the sacred robes of the priesthood, or

dwells in sacred places, or is occupied with sacred duties, or prays,

fasts, abstains from certain kinds of food or does any work whatsoever

that can be done by the body and in the body. The righteousness and

the freedom of the soul demand something far different, since the

things which have been mentioned could be done by any wicked man, and

such works produce nothing but hypocrites. On the other hand, it will

not hurt the soul if the body is clothed in secular dress, dwells in

unconsecrated places, eats and drinks as others do, does not pray

aloud, and neglects to do all the things mentioned above, which

hypocrites can do.



[Sidenote: The Word of God]



Further, to put aside all manner of works, even contemplation,

meditation, and all that the soul can do, avail nothing. One thing and

one only is necessary for Christian life, righteousness and liberty.

That one thing is the most holy Word of God, the Gospel of Christ, as

he says, John xi, "I am the resurrection and the life: he that

believeth in me, shall not die forever" [John 11:25]; and John viii,

"If the Son shall make you free, you shall be free indeed" [John

8:26]; and Matthew iv, "Not in bread alone doth man live; but in every

word that proceedeth from the mouth of God." [Matt. 4:4] Let us then

consider it certain and conclusively established that the soul can do

without all things except the Word of God, and that where this is not

there is no help for the soul in anything else whatever. But if it has

the Word it is rich and lacks nothing, since this Word is the Word of

life, of truth, of light, of peace, of righteousness, of salvation, of

joy, of liberty, of wisdom, of power, of grace, of glory and of every

blessing beyond our power to estimate. This is why the prophet in the

entire cxix Psalm, and in many other places of Scripture, with so many

sighs yearns after the Word of God and applies so many names to it

[Psalm 119]. On the other hand, there is no more terrible plague with

which the wrath of God can smite men than a famine of the hearing of

His Word, as He says in Amos, just as there is no greater mercy than

when He sends forth His Word [Amos 8:11 f.], as we read in Psalm cvii,

"He sent His word and healed them, and delivered them from their

destructions." [Psalm 107:20] Nor was Christ sent into the world for

any other ministry but that of the Word, and the whole spiritual

estate, apostles, bishops and all the priests, has been called and

instituted only or the ministry of the Word.



[Sidenote: The Gospel]



You ask, "What then is this Word of God, and how shall it be used,

since there are so many words of God?" I answer. The Apostle explains

that in Romans i. The Word is the Gospel of God concerning His Son,

Who was made flesh, suffered, rose from the dead, and was glorified

through the Spirit Who sanctifies. For to preach Christ means to feed

the soul, to make it righteous, to set it free and to save it, if it

believe the preaching. For faith alone is the saving and efficacious

use of the Word of God, Romans x, "If thou confess with thy mouth that

Jesus is Lord, and believe with thy heart that God hath raised Him up

from the dead, thou shalt be saved" [Rom. 10:9]; and again, "The end

of the law is Christ, unto righteousness to every one that believeth"

[Rom. 10:4]; and, Romans i, "The just shall live by his faith." [Rom.

1:17] The Word of God cannot be received and cherished by any works

whatever, but only by faith [Hab. 2:4]. Hence it is clear that, as the

soul needs only the Word for its life and righteousness, so it is

justified by faith alone and not by any works; for if it could be

justified by anything else, it would not need the Word, and therefore

it would not need faith. But this faith cannot at all exist in

connection with works, that is to say, if you at the same time claim

to be justified by works, whatever their character; for that would be

to halt between two sides, to worship Baal and to kiss the hand [1

Kings 18:21], which, as Job says, is a very great iniquity [Job 31:27

f.]. Therefore the moment you begin to believe, you learn that all

things in you are altogether blameworthy, sinful and damnable, as

Romans iii says, "For all have sinned and lack the glory of God" [Rom.

3:23]; and again, "There is none just, there is none that doeth good,

all have turned out of the way: they are become unprofitable

together." [Rom. 3:10 ff.] When you have learned this, you will know

that you need Christ, Who suffered and rose again or you, that,

believing in Him, you may through this faith become a new man, in that

all your sins are forgiven, and you are justified by the merits of

another, namely, of Christ alone.



[Sidenote: Justification by Faith]



Since, therefore, this faith can rule only in the inward man, as

Romans x says, "With the heart we believe unto righteousness"; and

since faith alone justifies, it is clear that the inward man cannot be

justified, made free and be saved by any outward work or dealing

whatsoever, and that works, whatever their character, have nothing to

do with this inward man. On the other hand, only ungodliness and

unbelief of heart, and no outward work, make him guilty and a damnable

servant of sin. Wherefore it ought to be the first concern of every

Christian to lay aside all trust in works, and more and more to

strengthen faith alone, and through faith to grow in the knowledge,

not of works, but of Christ Jesus, Who suffered and rose for him, as

Peter teaches, in the last chapter of his first Epistle [1 Pet. 5:10];

since no other work makes a Christian. Thus when the Jews asked

Christ, John vi [John 6:28 f.], what they should do that they might

work the works of God, He brushed aside the multitude of works in

which He saw that they abounded [John 6:27], and enjoined upon them a

single work, saying, "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him

Whom He hath sent. For Him hath God the Father sealed." [John 6:29]



Hence true faith in Christ is a treasure beyond comparison, which

brings with it all salvation and saves from every evil, as Christ says

in the last chapter of Mark, "He that believeth and is baptised, shall

be saved; but he that believeth not, shall be condemned." [Mark 16:16]

This treasure Isaiah beheld and foretold in chapter x, "The Lord shall

make an abridged and consuming word upon the land, and the consumption

abridged shall overflow with righteousness" [Isa. 10:22]; as if he

said, "Faith, which is a brief and perfect fulfilment of the law,

shall fill believers with so great righteousness that they shall need

nothing more for their righteousness." So also Paul says, Romans x,

"With the heart we believe unto righteousness." [Rom. 10:10]



[Sidenote: Faith and Works]



[Sidenote: Commands reveal Weakness]



Should you ask, how it comes that faith alone justifies without works

offers us such a treasury of great benefits, when so many works,

ceremonies and laws are prescribed in the Scriptures, I answer: First

of all, remember what has been said: faith alone, without works,

justifies, makes free and saves, as we shall later make still more

clear. Here we must point out that all the Scriptures of God are

divided into two parts--commands and promises. The commands indeed

teach things that are good, but the things taught reveal are not done

as soon as taught; for the commands show us what we ought to do, but

do not give us the power to do it; they are intended to teach a man to

know himself, that through them he may recognize his inability to do

good and may despair of his powers. That is why they are called and

are the Old Testament. For example: "Thou shalt not covet" [Ex. 20:17]

is a command which convicts us all of being sinners, since no one is

able to avoid coveting, however much he may struggle against it.

Therefore, in order not to covet, and to fulfil the command, a man is

compelled to despair of himself, and to seek elsewhere and from some

one else the help which he does not ind in himself, as is said in

Hosea, "Destruction is thy own, O Israel: thy help is only in Me."

[Hos. 13:9] And as we are with this one command, so we are with all;

or it is equally impossible or us to keep any one of them.



[Sidenote: Promises give Strength]



But when a man through the commands has learned to know his weakness,

and has become troubled as to how he may satisfy the law, since the

law must be fulfilled so that not a jot or tittle shall perish,

otherwise man will be condemned without hope; then, being truly

humbled and reduced to nothing in his own eyes, he finds in himself no

means of justification and salvation. Here the second part of the

Scriptures stands ready--the promises of God, which declare the glory

of God and say, "If you wish to fulfil the law, and not to covet, as

the law demands, come, believe in Christ, in Whom grace,

righteousness, peace, liberty and all things are promised you; if you

believe you shall have all, if you believe not you shall lack all."

For what is impossible for you in all the works of the law, many as

they are, but all useless, you will accomplish in a short and easy way

through faith. For God our Father has made all things depend on faith,

so that whoever has faith, shall have all, and whoever has it not,

shall have nothing. "For He has concluded all under unbelief, that He

might have mercy on all," Romans xi [Rom. 11:32]. Thus the promises of

God give what the commands of God ask, and fulfil what the law

prescribes, that all things may be of God alone, both the commands and

the fulfilling of the commands. He alone commands. He also alone

fulfils. Therefore the promises of God belong to the New Testament,

nay, they are the New Testament.



And since these promises of God are holy, true, righteous, free and

peaceful words, full of all goodness, it comes to pass that the soul

which clings to them with a firm faith, is so united with them, nay,

altogether taken up into them, that it not only shares in all their

power, but is saturated and made drunken with it. For if a touch of

Christ healed, how much more will this most tender touch in the

spirit, rather this absorbing of the Word, communicate to the soul all

things that are the Word's. This, then, is how through faith alone

without works the soul is justified by the Word of God, sanctified,

made true and peaceful and free, filled with every blessing and made

truly a child of God, as John i says, "To them gave He power to become

the sons of God, even to them that believe on His Name." [John 1:12]



[Sidenote: Faith Justifies]



From what has been said it is easily seen whence faith has such great

power, and why no good work nor all good works together can equal it:

no work can cling to the Word of God nor be in the soul; in the soul

faith alone and the Word have sway. As the Word is, so it makes the

soul, as heated iron glows like fire because of the union of fire with

it. It is clear then that a Christian man has in his faith all that he

needs, and needs no works to justify him. And if he has no need of

works, neither does he need the law; and if he has no need of the law,

surely he is free from the law, and it is true, "the law is not made

for a righteous man." [1 Tim. 1:9] And this is that Christian liberty,

even our faith, which does not indeed cause us to live in idleness or

in wickedness, but makes the law and works unnecessary for any man's

righteousness and salvation.



[Sidenote: Faith Fulfils the Commands]



This is the first power of faith. Let us now examine the second also.

For it is a further function of faith, that whom it trusts it also

honors with the most reverent and high regard, since it considers him

truthful and trustworthy. For there is no other honor equal to the

estimate of truthfulness and righteousness with which we honor him

whom we trust. Or could we ascribe to a man anything greater than

truthfulness, and righteousness, and perfect goodness? On the other

hand, there is no way in which we can show greater contempt for a man

than to regard him as false and wicked and to suspect him, as we do

when we do not trust him. So when the soul firmly trusts God's

promises, it regards Him as truthful and righteous, than which nothing

more excellent can be ascribed to God. This is the very highest

worship of God, that we ascribe to Him truthfulness, righteousness and

whatever else ought to be ascribed to one who is trusted. Then the

soul consents to all His will, then it hallows His name and suffers

itself to be dealt with according to God's good pleasure, because,

clinging to God's promises, it does not doubt that He, Who is true,

just and wise, will do, dispose and provide all things well. And is

not such a soul, by this faith, in all things most obedient to God?

What commandment is there that such obedience has not abundantly

fulfilled? What more complete fulfilment is there than obedience in

all things? But this obedience is not rendered by works, but by faith

alone. On the other hand, what greater rebellion against God, what

greater wickedness, what greater contempt of God is there than not

believing His promises? For what is this but to make God a liar or to

doubt that He is truthful?--that is, to ascribe truthfulness to one's

self, but to God lying and vanity? Does not a man who does this deny

God, and in his heart set up himself as his own idol? Then of what

avail are works done in such wickedness, even if they were the works

of angels and apostles? [Rom. 11:32] Rightly, therefore, has God

concluded all--not in anger or lust, but in unbelief; so that they who

imagine that they are fulfilling the law by doing the works of

chastity and mercy required by the law (the civil and human virtues),

might not be confident that they will be saved; they are included

under the sin of unbelief, and must either seek mercy or be justly

condemned.



But when God sees that we count Him to be true, and by the faith of

our heart pay Him the great honor which is due Him, He in turn does us

the great honor of counting us true and righteous for our faith's

sake.  For faith works truth and righteousness by giving to God what

belongs to Him; therefore, God in turn gives glory to our

righteousness. It is true and just that God is truthful and just, and

to count Him and confess Him, so is to be truthful and just. So in I

Sam. ii, He says, "Them that honor Me, I will honor, and they that

despise Me, shall be lightly esteemed." [1 Sam. 2:30] So Paul says in

Rom. iv, that Abraham's faith was counted unto him or righteousness,

because by it he most perfectly gave glory to God, and that or the

same reason our faith shall be counted unto us or righteousness if we

believe. [Rom. 4:3]



[Sidenote: Faith Unites with Christ]



The third incomparable benefit of faith is this, that it unites the

soul with Christ as a bride is united with her bridegroom. And by this

mystery, as the Apostle teaches, Christ and the soul become one flesh

[Eph. 5:31 f.]. And if they are one flesh and there is between them a

true marriage, nay, by far the most perfect of all marriages, since

human marriages are but frail types of this one true marriage, it

follows that all they have they have in common, the good as well as

the evil, so that the believing soul can boast of and glory in

whatever Christ has as if it were its own, and whatever the soul has

Christ claims as His own. Let us compare these and we shall see things

that cannot be estimated. Christ is full of grace, life and salvation;

the soul is full of sins, death and condemnation. Now let faith come

between them, and it shall come to pass that sins, death and hell are

Christ's, and grace, life and salvation are the soul's. For it

behooves Him, if He is a bridegroom, to take upon Himself the things

which are His bride's, and to bestow upon her the things that are His.

For if He gives her His body and His very self, how shall He not give

her all that is His? And if He takes the body of the bride, how shall

He not take all that is hers?



Lo! here we have a pleasant vision not only of communion, but of a

blessed strife and victory and salvation and redemption. For Christ is

God and man in one person, Who has neither sinned nor died, and is not

condemned, and Who cannot sin, die or be condemned; His righteousness,

life and salvation are unconquerable, eternal, omnipotent; and He by

the wedding-ring of faith shares in the sins, death and pains of hell

which are His bride's, nay, makes them His own, and acts as if they

were His own, and as if He Himself had sinned; He suffered, died and

descended into hell that He might overcome them all. Now since it was

such a one who did all this, and death and hell could not swallow Him

up, they were of necessity swallowed up of Him in a mighty duel. For

His righteousness is greater than the sins of all men, His life

stronger than death. His salvation more invincible than hell. Thus the

believing soul by the pledge of its faith is free in Christ, its

Bridegroom, from all sins, secure against death and against hell, and

is endowed with the eternal righteousness, life and salvation of

Christ, its Bridegroom. So He presents to Himself a glorious bride,

without spot or wrinkle [Eph. 5:27], cleansing her with the washing in

the Word of life, that is, by faith in the Word of life, of

righteousness, and of salvation. Thus He marries her to Himself in

faith, in loving kindness, and in mercies, in righteousness and in

judgment, as Hosea ii says. [Hos. 2:19 f.]



Who, then, can fully appreciate what this royal marriage means? Who

can understand the riches of the glory of this grace? Here this rich

and godly Bridegroom Christ marries this poor, wicked harlot, redeems

her from all her evil and adorns her with all His good. It is now

impossible that her sins should destroy her, since they are laid upon

Christ and swallowed up in Him, and she has that righteousness in

Christ her husband of which she may boast as of her own, and which she

can confidently set against all her sins in the face of death and

hell, and say, "If I have sinned, yet my Christ, in Whom I believe,

has not sinned, and all His is mine, and all mine is His"--as the

bride in the Song of Solomon says, "My beloved is mine, and I am his."

[Song of Sol. 2:16] This is what Paul means when he says, in I Cor.

xv, "Thanks be to God, Which giveth us the victory through our Lord

Jesus Christ,"[1 Co4. 15:57]--that is, the victory over sin and death,

as he there says, "the sting of death is sin, and the strength of sin

is the law." [1 Cor. 15:36]



[Sidenote: Faith the Fulfilment of the Law]



From this you see once more why so much is ascribed to faith, that it

alone may fulfil the law and justify without the Law works. You see

that the First Commandment, which says, "Thou shalt worship one God,"

is fulfilled by faith alone. For though you were nothing but good

works from the sole of your foot to the crown of your head, yet you

would not be righteous, nor worship God, nor fulfil the First

Commandment, since God cannot be worshiped unless you ascribe to Him

the glory of truthfulness and of all goodness, which is due Him. And

this cannot be done by works, but only by the faith of the heart. For

not by the doing of works, but by believing, do we glorify God and

acknowledge that He is truthful. Therefore, faith alone is the

righteousness of a Christian man and the fulfilling of all the

commandments. For he who fulfils the First, has no difficulty in

fulfilling all the rest. But works, being insensate things, cannot

glorify God, although they can, if faith be present, be done to the

glory of God. At present, however, we are not inquiring what works and

what sort of works are done, but who it is that does them, who

glorifies God and brings forth the works. This is faith which dwells

in the heart, and is the head and substance of all our righteousness.

Hence, it is a blind and dangerous doctrine which teaches that the

commandments must be fulfilled by works. The commandments must be

fulfilled before any works can be done, and the works proceed from the

fulfilment of the commandments [Rom. 13:10], as we shall hear.



[Sidenote: Old Testament Types]



But that we may look more deeply into that grace which our inward man

has in Christ, we must consider that in the Old Testament God

sanctified to Himself every first-born male, and the birth-right was

highly prized, having a two-fold honor, that of priesthood, and that

of kingship. For the first-born brother was priest and lord over all

the others, and was a type of Christ, the true and only First-born of

God the Father and of the Virgin Mary, and true King and Priest, not

after the fashion of the flesh and of the world. For His kingdom is

not of this world [John 18:36]. He reigns in heavenly and spiritual

things and consecrates them--such as righteousness, truth, wisdom,

peace, salvation, etc. Not as if all things on earth and in hell were

not also subject to Him--else how could He protect and save us from

them?--but His kingdom consists neither in them nor of them. Nor does

His priesthood consist in the outward splendor of robes and postures,

like that human priesthood of Aaron and of our present-day Church; but

it consists in spiritual things, through which He by an unseen service

intercedes for us in heaven before God, there offers Himself as a

sacrifice and does all things a priest should do, as Paul in the

Epistle to the Hebrews describes him under the type of Melchizedek

[Heb. 6 f.]. Nor does He only pray and intercede for us, but within

our soul He teaches us through the living teaching of His Spirit, thus

performing the two real unctions of a priest, of which the prayers and

the preaching of human priests are visible types.



Now, just as Christ by his birthright obtained these two prerogatives,

so He imparts them to and shares them with every one who believes on

Him according to the law of the aforesaid marriage, by which the wife

owns whatever belongs to the husband. Hence we are all priests and

kings in Christ, as many as believe on Christ, as I Pet. ii says, "Ye

are a chosen generation, a peculiar people, a royal priesthood and

priestly kingdom, that ye should show forth the virtues of Him Who

hath called you out of darkness into His marvelous light." [1 Pet.

2:9]



[Sidenote: The Kingship of the Christian]



This priesthood and kingship we explain as follows: First, as to the

kingship, every Christian is by faith so exalted above all things that

by a spiritual power he is lord of all things without exception, so

that nothing can do him any harm whatever, nay, all things are made

subject to him and compelled to serve him to his salvation. Thus Paul

says in Rom. viii, "All things work together for good to them who are

called." [Rom. 8:28] And, in I Cor. iii, "All things are yours,

whether life or death, or things present or things to come, and ye are

Christ's." [1 Cor. 3:22 f.] Not as if every Christian were set over

all things, to possess and control them by physical power,--a madness

with which some churchmen are afflicted,--for such power belongs to

kings, princes and men on earth. Our ordinary experience in life shows

us that we are subjected to all, suffer many things and even die; nay,

the more Christian a man is, the more evils, sufferings and deaths is

he made subject to, as we see in Christ the first-born Prince Himself,

and in all His brethren, the saints. The power of which we speak is

spiritual; it rules in the midst of enemies, and is mighty in the

midst of oppression, which means nothing else than that strength is

made perfect in weakness [2 Cor. 12:9], and that in all things I can

find profit unto salvation, so that the cross and death itself are

compelled to serve me and to work together with me for my salvation

[Rom. 8:28]. This is a splendid prerogative and hard to attain, and a

true omnipotent power, a spiritual dominion, in which there is nothing

so good and nothing so evil, but that it shall work together for good

to me, if only I believe. And yet, since faith alone suffices for

salvation, I have need of nothing, except that faith exercise the

power and dominion of its own liberty. Lo, this is the inestimable

power and liberty of Christians.



[Sidenote: The Priesthood of the Christian]



Not only are we the freest of kings, we are also priests forever,

which is far more excellent than being kings, because as priests we

are worthy to appear before God to pray for others and to teach one

another the things of God. For these are the functions of priests, and

cannot be granted to any unbeliever. Thus Christ has obtained for us,

if we believe on Him, that we are not only His brethren, co-heirs and

fellow-kings with Him, but also fellow-priests with Him, who may

boldly come into the presence of God in the spirit of faith and cry,

"Abba, Father!" [Heb. 10:19, 22] pray for one another and do all

things which we see done and prefigured in the outward and visible

works of priests. But he who does not believe is not served by

anything, nor does anything work for good to him, but he himself is a

servant of all, and all things become evils to him, because he

wickedly uses them to his own profit and not to the glory of God. And

so he is no priest, but a profane man, whose prayer becomes sin and

never comes into the presence of God, because God does not hear

sinners [John 9:31]. Who then can comprehend the lofty dignity of the

Christian? Through his kingly power he rules over all things, death,

life and sin, and through his priestly glory is all powerful with God,

because God does the things which he asks and desires, as it is

written, "He will fulfil the desire of them that fear Him; He also

will hear their cry, and will save them." [Phil. 4:13] To this glory a

man attains, surely not by any works of his, but by faith alone.



[Sidenote: Distinctions among Christians]



From this any one can clearly see how a Christian man is free from all

things and over all things, so that he needs no works to make him

righteous and to save him, since faith alone confers all these things

abundantly. But should he grow so foolish as to presume to become

righteous, free, saved and a Christian by means of some good work, he

would on the instant lose faith and all its benefits: a foolishness

aptly illustrated in the fable of the dog who runs along a stream with

a piece of meat in his mouth, and, deceived by the reflection of the

meat in the water, opens his mouth to snap at it, and so loses both

the meat and the reflection. You will ask, "If all who are in the

Church are priests, how do those whom we now call priests differ from

laymen?" I answer: "Injustice is done those words, 'priest,' 'cleric,'

'spiritual,' 'ecclesiastic,' when they are transferred from all other

Christians to those few who are now by a mischievous usage called

'ecclesiastics.' For Holy Scripture makes no distinction between them,

except that it gives the name 'ministers,' 'servants,' 'stewards,' to

those who are now proudly called popes, bishops, and lords and who

should by the ministry of the Word serve others and teach them the

faith of Christ and the liberty of believers. For although we are all

equally priests, yet we cannot all publicly minister and teach, nor

ought we if we could." Thus Paul writes in I Cor. iv, "Let a man so

account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the

mysteries of God." [I Cor. 4:1]



But that stewardship has now been developed into so great a pomp of

power and so terrible a tyranny, that no heathen empire or earthly

power can be compared with it, just as if laymen were not also

Christians. Through this perversion the knowledge of Christian grace,

faith, liberty and of Christ Himself has altogether perished, and its

place has been taken by an unbearable bondage of human words and laws,

until we have become, as the Lamentations of Jeremiah say, servants of

the vilest men on earth, who abuse our misfortune to serve only their

base and shameless will [Lam. 1:11].



[Sidenote: How Christ is to be Preached]



To return to our purpose, I believe it has now become clear that it is

not enough nor is it Christian, to preach the works, life and words of

Christ as historical acts, as if the knowledge of these would suffice

for the conduct of life, although this is the fashion of those who

must to-day be regarded as our best preachers; and far less is it

enough for Christian to say nothing at all about Christ and to teach

instead the laws of men and the decrees of the Fathers. And now there

are not a few who preach Christ and read about Him that they may move

men's affections to sympathy with Christ, to anger against the Jews

and such like childish and womanish nonsense. Rather ought Christ to

be preached to the end that faith in Him may be established, that He

may not only be Christ, but be Christ for thee and for me, and that

what is said of Him and what His Name denotes may be effectual in us.

And such faith is produced and preserved in us by preaching why Christ

came, what He brought and bestowed,[13] what benefit it is to us to

accept Him. This is done when that Christian liberty which He bestows

is rightly taught, and we are told in what way we who are Christians

are all kings and priests and so are lords of all, and may firmly

believe that whatever we have done is pleasing and acceptable in the

sight of God, as I have said.



[Sidenote: Effect of such Preaching]



What man is there whose heart, hearing these things, will not rejoice

to its very core, and in receiving such comfort grow tender so as to

love Christ, as he never could be made to love by any laws or works?

Who would have power to harm such a heart or to make it afraid? If the

knowledge of sin for the fear of death break in upon it is ready to

hope in the Lord; it does not grow afraid when it hears tidings of

evil, nor is it disturbed until it shall look down upon its enemies

[Psalm 112:7 f.]. For it believes that the righteousness of Christ is

its own, and that its sin is not its own, but Christ's; and that all

sin is swallowed up by the righteousness of Christ is, as has been

said above, a necessary consequence of faith in Christ. So the heart

learns to scoff at death and sin, and to say with the Apostle, "Where,

O death, is thy victory? where, O death, is thy sting? The sting of

death is sin, and the strength of sin is the law. But thanks be to

God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ." [1

Cor. 15:55 ff.] For death is swallowed up not only in the victory of

Christ, but also by our victory, because through faith His victory has

become ours, and in that faith we also are conquerors.



Let this suffice concerning the inward man, his liberty and its

source, the righteousness of faith,[14] which needs neither laws nor

good works, nay, is rather injured by them, if a man trusts that he is

justified by them.



[Sidenote: The Outward Man]



Now let us turn to the second part, to the outward man. Here we shall

answer all those who, misled by the word "faith" and by all that has

been said, now say: "If faith does all things and is alone sufficient

unto righteousness, why then are good works commanded? We will take

our ease and do no works, and be content with faith." I answer, Not

so, ye wicked men, not so. That would indeed be proper, if we were

wholly inward and perfectly spiritual men; but such we shall be only

at the last day, the day of the resurrection of the dead. As long as

we live in the flesh we only begin and make some progress in that

which shall be perfected in the future life. For this reason the

Apostle, in Romans viii, calls all that we attain in this he "the

first fruits" of the spirit [Rom. 8:23], because, forsooth, we shall

receive the greater portion, even the fulness of the spirit, in the

future. This is the place for that which was said above, that a

Christian man is the servant of all and made subject to all. For in so

far as he is free he does no works, but in so far as he is a servant

he does all manner of works. How this is possible, we shall see.



[Sidenote: Needs to do Works]



Although, as I have said, a man is abundantly justified by faith

inwardly, in his spirit, and so has all that he ought to have, except

in so far as this faith and riches must grow from day to day even unto

the future he: yet he remains in this mortal life on earth, and in

this life he must needs govern his own body and have dealings with

men.  Here the works begin; here a man cannot take his ease; here he

must, indeed, take care to discipline his body by fastings, watchings,

labors and other reasonable discipline, and to make it subject to the

spirit so that it will obey and conform to the inward man and to

faith, and not revolt against faith and hinder the inward man, as it

is the body's nature to do if it be not held in check. For the inward

man, who by faith is created in the likeness of God, is both joyful

and happy because of Christ in Whom so many benefits are conferred

upon him, and therefore it is his one occupation to serve God joyfully

and for naught, in love that is not constrained.



While he is doing this, lo, he meets a contrary will in his own flesh,

which strives to serve the world and to seek its own advantage. This

the spirit of faith cannot tolerate, and with joyful zeal it attempts

to put the body under and to hold it in check, as Paul says in Romans

vii, "I delight in the law of God after the inward man; but I see

another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and

bringing me into captivity to the law of sin" [Rom. 7:22 f.]; and, in

another place, "I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection:

lest by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be

a castaway," [1 Cor. 9:27] and in Galatians, "They that are Christ's

have crucified the flesh with its lusts." [Gal. 5:24]



[Sidenote: Works do not Justify]



In doing these works, however, we must not think that a man is

justified before God by them: for that erroneous opinion faith, which

alone is righteousness before God, cannot endure; but we must think

that these works reduce the body to subjection and purity it of its

evil lusts, and our whole purpose is to be directed only toward the

driving out of lusts. For since by faith the soul is cleansed and made

a lover of God, it desires that all things, and especially its own

body, shall be as pure as itself, so that all things may join with it

in loving and praising God. Hence a man cannot be idle, because the

need of his body drives him and he is compelled to do many good works

to reduce it to subjection. Nevertheless the works themselves do not

justify him before God, but he does the works out of spontaneous love

in obedience to God, and considers nothing except the approval of God,

Whom he would in all things most scrupulously obey.



In this way every one will easily be able to learn for himself the

limit and discretion, as they say, of his bodily castigations: for he

will fast, watch and labor as much as he finds sufficient to repress

the lasciviousness and lust of his body. But they who presume to be

justified by works do not regard the mortifying of the lusts, but only

the works themselves, and think that if only they have done as many

and as great works as are possible, they have done well, and have

become righteousness; at times they even addle their brains and

destroy, or at least render useless, their natural strength with their

works. This is the height of folly, and utter ignorance of Christian

life and faith, that a man should seek to be justified and saved by

works and without faith.



[Sidenote: An Analogy]



In order that what we have said may be more easily understood, we will

explain it by analogies. We should think of the works of a Christian

man who is justified and saved by faith because of the pure and free

mercy of God, just as we would think of the works which Adam and Eve

did in Paradise, and all their children would have done if they had

not sinned. We read in Genesis ii, "God put the man whom He had formed

into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it." [Gen. 2:15] Now

Adam was created by God righteous and upright and without sin, so that

he had no need of being justified and made upright through his

dressing and keeping the garden, but, that he might not be idle, the

Lord gave him a work to do--to cultivate and to protect the garden.

These would truly have been the freest of works, done only to please

God and not to obtain righteousness, which Adam already had in full

measure, and which would have been the birthright of us all.



Such also are the works of a believer. Through his faith he has been

restored to Paradise and created anew, has no need of works that he

may become or be righteous; but that he may not be idle and may

provide for and keep his body, he must do such works freely only to

please God; only, since we are not wholly re-created, and our faith

and love are not yet perfect, these are to be increased, not by

external works, however, but within themselves.



[Sidenote: A Second Analogy]



Again: A bishop, when he consecrates a Church, confirms children or

performs any other duty belonging to his office, is not made a bishop

by these works; nay, if he had not first been made a bishop, none of

these works would be valid, they would be foolish, childish and a mere

farce. So the Christian, who is consecrated by his faith, does good

works, but the works do not make him more holy or more Christian; for

that is the work of faith alone, and if a man were not first a

believer and a Christian, all his works would amount to nothing at all

and would be truly wicked and damnable sins.



These two sayings, therefore, are true: "Good works do not make a good

man, but a good man does good works; evil works do not make a wicked

man, but a wicked man does evil works"; so that it is always necessary

that the "substance" or person itself be good before there can be any

good works, and that good works follow and proceed from the good

person, as Christ also says, "A corrupt tree does not bring forth good

fruit, a good tree does not bring forth evil fruit." [Matt. 7:18] It

is clear that the fruits do not bear the tree, nor does the tree grow

on the fruits, but, on the contrary, the trees bear the fruits and the

fruits grow on the trees. As it is necessary, therefore, that the

trees must exist before their fruits, and the fruits do not make trees

either good or corrupt, but rather as the trees are so are the fruits

they bear; so the person of a man must needs first be good or wicked

before he does a good or a wicked work, and his works do not make him

good or wicked, but he himself makes his works either good or wicked.



[Sidenote: Illustrations]



Illustrations of the same truth can be seen in all trades, A good or a

bad house does not make a good or a bad builder, but a good or a bad

builder makes a bad or a good house. And in general, the work never

makes the workman like itself, but the workman makes the work like

himself. So it is also with the works of man: as the man is, whether

believer or unbeliever, so also is his work--good, if it was done in

faith; wicked, if it was done in unbelief. But the converse is not

true, that the work makes the man either a believer or an unbeliever.

For as works do not make a man a believer, so also they do not make

him righteous. But as faith makes a man a believer and righteous, so

faith also does good works. Since, then, works justify no one, and a

man must be righteous before he does a good work, it is very evident

that it is faith alone which, because of the pure mercy of God through

Christ and in His Word, worthily and sufficiently justifies and saves

the person, and a Christian man has no need of any work or of any law

in order to be saved, since through faith he is free from every law

and does all that he does out of pure liberty and freely, seeking

neither benefit nor salvation, since he already abounds in all things

and is saved through the grace of God because of his faith, and now

seeks only to please God.



[Sidenote: Works Neither Save nor Damn]



Furthermore, no good work helps an unbeliever, so as to justify or

save him. And, on the other hand, no evil work makes him wicked or

damns him, but the unbelief which makes the person and the tree evil,

does the evil and damnable works. Hence when a man is made good or

evil, this is effected not by the works, but by faith or unbelief, as

the Wise Man says, "This is the beginning of sin, that a man falls

away from God," [Sirach 10:14 f.] which happens when he does not

believe. And Paul, Hebrews xi, says, He that cometh to God must

believe." [Heb. 11:6] And Christ says the same: "Either make the tree

good and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt and his fruit

corrupt," [Matt. 12:33] as if He would say, "Let him who would have

good fruit begin by planting a good tree." So let him who would do

good works not begin with the doing of works, but with believing,

which makes the person good. For nothing makes a man good except

faith, nor evil except unbelief.



It is indeed true that in the sight of men a man is made good or evil

by his works, but this being made good or evil is no more than that he

who is good or evil is pointed out and known as such; as Christ says,

in Matthew vii, "By their fruits ye shall know them." [Matt. 7:20] But

all this remains on the surface, and very many have been deceived by

this outward appearance and have presumed to write and teach

concerning good works by which we may be justified, without even

mentioning faith; they go their way, always being deceived and

deceiving, advancing, indeed, but into a worse state, blind leaders of

the blind [2 Tim. 3:13], wearying themselves with many works, and yet

never attaining to true righteousness [Matt. 15:14]. Of such Paul

says, in II Timothy iii, "Having the form of godliness, but denying

its power, always learning and never attaining to the knowledge of the

truth." [2 Tim. 3:5, 7]



He, therefore, who does not wish to go astray with those blind men,

must look beyond works, and laws and doctrines about works; nay,

turning his eyes from works, he must look upon the person, and ask how

that is justified. For the person is justified and saved not by works

nor by laws, but by the Word of God, that is, by the promise of His

grace [Tit. 3:5], and by faith, that the glory may remain God's, Who

saved us not by works of righteousness which we have done, but

according to His mercy by the word of His grace, when we believed. [1

Cor. 1:21]



[Sidenote: The Doctrine of Good Works]



From this it is easy to know in how far good works are to be rejected

or not, and by what standard all the teachings of men concerning works

are to be interpreted. If works are sought after as a means to

righteousness, are burdened with this perverse leviathan[15] and are

done under the false impression that through them you are justified,

they are made necessary and freedom and faith are destroyed; and this

addition to them makes them to be no longer good, but truly damnable

works. For they are not free, and they blaspheme the grace of God,

since to justify and to save by faith belongs to the grace of God

alone. What the works have no power to do, they yet, by a godless

presumption, through this folly of ours, pretend to do, and thus

violently force themselves into the office and the glory of grace. We

do not, therefore, reject good works; on the contrary, we cherish and

teach them as much as possible. We do not condemn them for their own

sake, but because of this godless addition to them and the perverse

idea that righteousness is to be sought through them; for that makes

them appear good outwardly, when in truth they are not good; they

deceive men and lead men to deceive each other, like ravening wolves

in sheep's clothing [Matt. 7:15].



But this leviathan and perverse notion concerning works is insuperable

where sincere faith is wanting. Those work-saints cannot get rid of it

unless faith, its destroyer, come and rule in their hearts. Nature of

itself cannot drive it out, nor even recognize it, but rather regards

it as a mark of the most holy will. And if the influence of custom be

added and confirm this perverseness of nature, as wicked Magisters

have caused it to do, it becomes an incurable evil, and leads astray

and destroys countless men beyond all hope of restoration. Therefore,

although it is good to preach and write about penitence, confession

and satisfaction, if we stop with that and do not go on to teach about

faith, our teaching is unquestionably deceitful and devilish.



[Sidenote: What we are to Preach]



Christ, like His forerunner John, not only said, "Repent ye," [Matt.

3:2] but added the word of faith, saying, "The kingdom of heaven is at

hand." [Matt. 4:17] And we are not to preach only one of these words

of God, but both; we are to bring forth out of our treasure things new

and old [Matt. 13:52], the voice of the law as well as the word of

grace. We must bring forth the voice of the law that men may be made

to fear and to come to a knowledge of their sins, and so be converted

to repentance and a better life. But we must not stop with that. For

that would be only to wound and not to bind up, to smite and not to

heal, to kill and not to make alive, to lead down into hell and not to

bring back again, to humble and not to exalt. Therefore, we must also

preach the word of grace and the promise of forgiveness, by which

faith is taught and strengthened. Without this word of grace the works

of the law, contrition, penitence and all the rest are performed and

taught in vain.



There remain even to our day preachers of repentance and grace, but

they do not so explain God's law and promise that a man might learn

from them the source of repentance and grace. For repentance proceeds

from the law of God, but faith or grace from the promise of God, as

Romans x says, "Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of

Christ" [Rom. 10:17]; so that a man is consoled and exalted by faith

in the divine promise, after he has been humbled and led to a

knowledge of himself by the threats and the fear of the divine law. So

we read in Psalm xxx, "Weeping may endure for a night, but joy cometh

in the morning." [Ps. 30:6]



[Sidenote: Works of Love]



Let this suffice concerning works in general, and at the same time

concerning the works which a Christian does for his own body. Lastly,

we will also speak of the things which he does toward his neighbor. A

man does not live for himself alone in this mortal body, so as to work

for it alone, but he lives also for all men on earth, nay, rather,

lives only for others and not for himself. And to this end he brings

his body into subjection, that he may the more sincerely and freely

serve others, as Paul says in Romans xiv, "No one lives to himself,

and no man dies to himself. For he that liveth, liveth unto the Lord,

and he that dieth, dieth unto the Lord." [Rom. 14:7 f.] Therefore, it

is impossible that he should ever in this life be idle and without

works toward his neighbors, for of necessity he will speak, deal with

and converse with men, as Christ also, being made in the likeness of

men, was found in form as a man, and conversed with men, as Baruch iii

says [Bar. 3:38].



[Sidenote: Do not Save]



[Sidenote: Grow out of Faith]



But none of these things does a man need for his righteousness and

salvation. Therefore, in all his works he should be guided by this

thought and look to this one thing alone, that he may serve and

benefit others in all that he does, having regard to nothing except

the need and the advantage of his neighbor. Thus, the Apostle commands

us to work with our hands that we may give to him who is in need,

although he might have said that we should work to support ourselves;

he says, however, "that he may have to give to him that needeth."

[Eph. 4:28] And this is what makes it a Christian work to care for the

body, that through its health and comfort we may be able to work, to

acquire and to lay by funds with which to aid those who are in need,

that in this way the strong member may serve the weaker, and we may be

sons of God, each caring for and working for the other, bearing one

another's burdens, and so fulfilling the law of Christ [Gal. 6:2]. Lo,

this is a truly Christian life, here faith is truly out effectual

through love [Gal. 5:6]; that is, it issues in works of the freest

service cheerfully and lovingly done, with which a man willingly

serves another without hope of reward, and for himself is satisfied

with the fulness and wealth of his faith.



So Paul after teaching the Philippians how rich they were made through

faith in Christ, in which they obtained all things, proceeds

immediately to teach them further, saying, "If there be any

consolation in Christ, if any comfort of love, if any fellowship of

the Spirit, fulfil ye my joy, that ye be likeminded, having the same

love, being of one accord, thinking nothing through strife or

vainglory, but in lowliness each esteeming the other better than

themselves; looking not every man on his own things, but on the things

of others." [Phil. 2:1 ff.] Here we see clearly that the Apostle has

prescribed this rule for the life of Christians,--that we should

devote all our works to the welfare of others, since each has such

abundant riches in his faith, that all his other works and his whole

He are a surplus with which he can by voluntary benevolence serve and

do good to his neighbor.



[Sidenote: The Example of Christ]



As an example of such a life the Apostle cites Christ, saying, "Let

this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus, Who, being in the

form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: but made

Himself of no reputation, and took upon Him the form of a servant, and

was made in the likeness of men: and being found in fashion as a man,

He became obedient unto death." [Phil. 2:5 ff.] This salutary word of

the Apostle has been obscured for us by those who have not at all

understood the Apostle's words, "form of God," "form of a servant,"

"fashion," "likeness of men," and have applied them to the divine and

the human nature. Paul means this: Although Christ was filled with the

form of God and rich in all good things, so that He needed no work and

no suffering to make Him righteous and saved (for He had all this

always from the beginning), yet He was not puffed up by them, nor did

He lift Himself up above us and assume power over us, although He

could rightly have done so; but, on the contrary, He so lived,

labored, worked, suffered and died, that He might be like other men,

and in fashion and in actions be nothing else than a man, just as if

He had need of all these things and had nothing of the form of God.

But He did all this for our sake, that He might serve us, and that all

things He accomplished in this form of a servant might become ours.



So a Christian, like Christ, his Head, is filled and made rich by

faith, and should be content with this form of God which he has

obtained by faith; only, as I have said, he ought to increase this

faith until it be made perfect. For this faith is his life, his

righteousness and his salvation: it saves him and makes him

acceptable, and bestows upon him all things that are Christ's, as has

been said above, and as Paul asserts in Gal. ii, when he says, "And

the life which I now live in the flesh, I live by the faith of the Son

of God." [Gal. 2:20] Although the Christian is thus free from all

works, he ought in this liberty to empty himself, to take upon himself

the form of a servant, to be made in the likeness of men, to be found

in fashion as a man, and to serve, help and in every way deal with his

neighbor as he sees that God through Christ has dealt and still deals

with himself. And this he should do freely, having regard to nothing

except the divine approval. He ought to think: "Though I am an

unworthy and condemned man, my God has given me in Christ all the

riches of righteousness and salvation without any merit on my part,

out of pure, free mercy, so that henceforth I need nothing whatever

except faith which believes that this is true. Why should I not

therefore freely, joyfully, with all my heart, and with an eager will,

do all things which I know are pleasing and acceptable to such a

Father, Who has overwhelmed me with His inestimable riches? I will

therefore give myself as a Christ to my neighbor, just as Christ

offered Himself to me; I will do nothing in this life except what I

see is necessary, profitable and salutary to my neighbor, since

through faith I have an abundance of all good things in Christ."



[Sidenote: Faith and Love]



Lo, thus from faith flow forth love and joy in the Lord, and from love

a joyful, willing and free mind that serves one's neighbor willingly

and takes no account of gratitude or ingratitude, of praise or blame,

of gain or loss. For a man does not serve that he may put men under

obligations, he does not distinguish between friends and enemies, nor

does he anticipate their thankfulness or unthankfulness; but most

freely and most willingly he spends himself and all that he has,

whether he waste all on the thankless or whether he gain a reward. For

as his Father does, distributing all things to all men richly and

freely, causing His sun to rise upon the good and upon the evil [Matt.

5:45], so also the son does all things and suffers all things with

that freely bestowing joy which is his delight when through Christ he

sees it in God, the dispenser of such great benefits.



Therefore, if we recognize the great and precious things which are

given us, as Paul says [Rom. 5:5], there will be shed abroad in our

hearts by the Holy Ghost the love which makes us free, joyful,

almighty workers and conquerors over all tribulations, servants of our

neighbors and yet lords of all. But for those who do not recognize the

gifts bestowed upon them through Christ, Christ has been born in vain;

they go their way with their works, and shall never come to taste or

to feel those things. Just as our neighbor is in need and lacks that

in which we abound, so we also have been in need before God and have

lacked His mercy. Hence, as our heavenly Father has in Christ freely

come to our help, we also ought freely to help our neighbor through

our body and its works, and each should become as it were a Christ to

the other, that we may be Christs to one another and Christ may be the

same in all; that is, that we may be truly Christians.



[Sidenote: The Christian Serves Freely]



Who then can comprehend the riches and the glory of the Christian

life? It can do all things, and has all things, and lacks nothing; it

is lord over sin, death and hell, and yet at the same time it serves,

ministers to and benefits all men. But, alas, in our day this life is

unknown throughout the world; it is neither preached about nor sought

after; we are altogether ignorant of our own name and do not know why

we are Christians or bear the name of Christians. Surely we are so

named after Christ, not because He is absent from us, but because He

dwells in us, that is, because we believe on Him and are Christs one

to another and do to our neighbors as Christ does to us. But in our

day we are taught by the doctrine of men to seek naught but merits,

rewards and the things that are ours; of Christ we have made only a

taskmaster far more harsh than Moses.



[Sidenote: Examples: The Virgin]



Of such faith we have a pre-eminent example in the blessed Virgin. As

is written in Luke ii, she was purified according to the law of Moses,

after the custom of all women, although she was not bound by that law,

and needed not to be purified. But out of free and willing love she

submitted to the law, being made like other women, lest she should

offend or despise them. She was not justified by this work, but being

righteous she did it freely and willingly. So our works also should be

done, not that we may be justified by them; since, being justified

beforehand by faith, we ought to do all things freely and joyfully for

the sake of others.



[Sidenote: St. Paul]



St. Paul also circumcised his disciple Timothy, not because

circumcision was necessary for his righteousness, but that he might

not offend or despise the Jews who were weak in the faith and could

not yet grasp the liberty of faith. But on the other hand, when they

despised the liberty of faith and insisted that circumcision was

necessary for righteousness, he withstood them and did not allow Titus

to be circumcised, (Gal. ii) [Gal. 2:3]. For as he was unwilling to

offend for to despise any man's weak faith, and yielded to their will

for the time, so he was also unwilling that the liberty of faith

should be offended against or despised by stubborn work-righteous men.

He chose a middle way, sparing the weak or a time, but always

withstanding the stubborn, that he might convert all to the liberty of

faith. What we do should be done with the same zeal to sustain the

weak in faith, as Romans xiv teaches [Rom. 14:1 ff.]; but we should

firmly withstand the stubborn teachers of works. Of this we will say

more later.



Christ also, in Matthew xvii, when the tribute money was demanded of

His disciples, argued with St. Peter, Christ whether the sons of the

king were not free from the payment of tribute, and Peter affirmed

that they were. None the less Christ commanded Peter to go to the sea,

and said, "Lest we should offend them, go, and take up the fish that

first cometh up; and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find

a piece of money: that take, and give unto them for me and thee."

[Matt. 17:24 ff.] This incident its beautifully to our subject, since

Christ here calls Himself and those that are His, children and sons of

the King, who need nothing; and yet He freely submits and pays the

tribute. Just as necessary or helpful as this work was to Christ's

righteousness or salvation, just so much do all other works of His or

of His followers avail for righteousness; since they all follow after

righteousness and are free, and are done only to serve others and to

give them an example of good works.



Of the same nature are the precepts which Paul gives, in Romans xiii

[Rom. 13:1 ff.] and Titus iii [Tit. 3:1], that Christians should be

subject to the powers that be, and be ready to do every good work, not

that they shall in this way be justified, since they already are

righteous through faith, but that in the liberty of the Spirit they

shall by so doing serve others and the powers themselves, and obey

their will freely and out of love. Of this nature should be the works

of all colleges, monasteries and priests. Each one should do the works

of his profession and position, not that by them he may strive after

righteousness, but that through them he may keep under his body, be an

example to others, who also need to keep under their bodies, and

finally that by such works he may submit his will to that of others in

the freedom of love. But very great care must always be taken that no

man in a false confidence imagine that by such works he will be

justified, or acquire merit or be saved; for this is the work of faith

alone, as I have repeatedly said.



[Sidenote: Church Precepts]



Any one knowing this could easily and without danger find his way

among those numberless mandates and precepts of pope, bishops,

monasteries, churches, princes and magistrates, upon which some

ignorant pastors insist as if they were necessary to righteousness and

salvation, calling them "precepts of the Church," although they are

nothing of the kind. For a Christian, as a free man, will say, "I will

fast, pray, do this and that as men command, not because it is

necessary to my righteousness or salvation; but that I may show due

respect to the pope, the bishop, the community, some magistrate or my

neighbor, and give them an example, I will do and suffer all things,

just as Christ did and suffered far more for me, although He needed

nothing of it all or Himself, and was made under the law for my sake,

although He was not under the law." And although tyrants do violence

or injustice in making their demands, yet it will do no harm, so long

as they demand nothing contrary to God.



From what has been said, every one can pass a safe judgment on all

works and laws and make a trustworthy distinction between them, and

know who are the blind and ignorant pastors and who are the good and

true. For any work that is not done solely for the purpose of keeping

under the body or of serving one's neighbor, so long as he asks

nothing contrary to God, is not good nor Christian. And for this

reason I mightily fear that few or no colleges, monasteries, altars

and offices of the Church are really Christian in our day: no, nor the

special fasts and prayers on certain saints' days[16] either. I fear,

I say, that in all these we seek only our own profit, thinking that

through them our sins are purged away and that we ind salvation in

them. In this way Christian liberty perishes altogether. And this

comes from our ignorance of Christian faith and of liberty.



[Sidenote: Ignorance of Liberty]



This ignorance and suppression of liberty very many blind pastors take

pains to encourage: they stir up and urge on their people in these

practices by praising such works, puffing them up with their

indulgences, and never teaching faith. But I would counsel you, if you

wish to pray, fast or establish some foundation in the Church, take

heed not to do it in order to obtain some benefit, whether temporal or

eternal. For you would do injury to your faith, which alone offers you

all things, Your one care should be that faith may increase, whether

it be trained by works or by sufferings. Give your gifts freely and

for nothing, that others may profit by them and are well because of

you and your goodness. In this way you shall be truly good and

Christian. For of what benefit to you are the good works which you do

not need for the keeping under of your body? Your faith is sufficient

for you, through which God has given you all things.



See, according to this rule the good things we have from God should

flow from one to the other and be common to all, so that every one

should "put on" his neighbor, and so conduct himself toward him as if

he himself were in the other's place. From Christ they have flowed and

are flowing into us: He has so "put on" us and acted for us as if He

had been what we are. From us they flow on to those who have need of

them, so that I should lay before God my faith and my righteousness

that they may cover and intercede for the sins of my neighbor, which I

take upon myself and so labor and serve in them as if they were my

very own. For that is what Christ did for us. This is true love and

the genuine rule of a Christian life. The love is true and genuine

where there is true and genuine faith. Hence, the Apostle says of love

in I Cor. xiii, that it seeketh not its own. [1 Cor. 13:5]



[Sidenote: Conclusion]



We conclude, therefore, that a Christian man lives not in himself, but

in Christ and in his neighbor. Otherwise he is not a Christian. He

lives in Christ through faith, in his neighbor through love; by faith

he is caught up beyond himself into God, by love he sinks down beneath

himself into his neighbor; yet he always remains in God and in His

love, as Christ says in John i, "Verily, I say unto you, Hereafter ye

shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending

upon the Son of man." [John 1:51]



Enough now of liberty. As you see, it is a spiritual and true liberty,

and makes our hearts free from all sins, laws and mandates, as Paul

says, I Tim. i, "The law is not made for a righteous man." [1 Tim.

1:9] It is more excellent than all other liberty which is external, as

heaven is more excellent than earth. This liberty may Christ grant us

both to understand and to preserve. Amen.



[Sidenote: Liberty]



[Sidenote: Neither License]



[Sidenote: Nor Necessity]



Finally, something must be added for the sake of those for whom

nothing can be so well said that they will not spoil it by

misunderstanding it, though it is a question whether they will

understand even what shall here be said. There are very many who, when

they hear of this liberty of faith, immediately turn it into an

occasion for the flesh, and think that now all things are allowed

them. They want to show that they are free men and Christians only by

despising and finding fault with ceremonies, traditions and human

laws; as if they were Christians because on stated days they do not

fast or eat meat when others fast, or because they do not use the

accustomed prayers, and with upturned nose scoff at the precepts of

men, although they utterly disregard all else that pertains to the

Christian religion. The extreme opposite of these are those who rely

for their salvation solely on their reverent observance of ceremonies,

as if they would be saved because on certain days they fast or abstain

from meats, or pray certain prayers; these make a boast of the

precepts of the Church and of the Fathers, and care not a fig or the

things which are of the essence of our faith.  Plainly, both are in

error, because they neglect the weightier things which are necessary

to salvation, and quarrel so noisily about those trifling and

unnecessary matters.



How much better is the teaching of the Apostle Paul, who bids us take

a middle course, and condemns both sides when he says, "Let not him

that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth

not judge him that eateth." [Rom. 14:3] Here you see that they who

neglect and disparage ceremonies, not out of piety, but out of mere

contempt, are reproved, since the Apostle teaches us not to despise

them. Such men are puffed up by knowledge. On the other hand, he

teaches those who insist on the ceremonies not to judge the others, or

neither party acts toward the other according to the love that

edifies. Wherefore, we ought here to listen to the Scriptures, which

teach that we should not go aside to the right nor to the left [Deut.

28:14], but follow the statutes of the Lord which are right, rejoicing

the heart [Ps. 19:8]. For as a man is not righteous because he keeps

and clings to the works and forms of the ceremonies, so also will a

man not be counted righteous merely because he neglects and despises

them.



[Sidenote: freedom from False Opinions]



Our faith in Christ does not free us from works, but from false

opinions concerning works, that is, from the foolish presumption that

justification is acquired by works. For faith redeems, corrects and

preserves our consciences, so that we know that righteousness does not

consist in works, although works neither can nor ought to be wanting;

just as we cannot be without food and drink and all the works of this

mortal body, yet our righteousness is not in them, but in faith; and

yet those works of the body are not to be despised or neglected on

that account. In this world we are bound by the needs of our bodily

life, but we are not righteous because of them. "My kingdom is not of

this world," [John 18:36] says Christ, but He does not say, "My

kingdom is not here, that is, in this world." And Paul says, "Though

we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh," [2 Cor. 10:3]

and in Galatians ii, "The life which I now live in the flesh, I live

in the faith of the Son of God." [Gal. 2:20] Thus what we do, live,

and are in works and in ceremonies, we do because of the necessities

of this life and of the effort to rule our body; nevertheless we are

righteous not in these, but in the faith of the Son of God.



[Sidenote: Opponents]



[Sidenote: Ceremonialists]



[Sidenote: Ignorant Men]



Hence, the Christian must take a middle course and face those two

classes of men. He will meet first the unyielding, stubborn

ceremonialists, who like deaf adders [Ps. 58:4] are not willing to

hear the truth of liberty, but, having no faith, boast of, prescribe

and insist upon their ceremonies as means of justification. Such were

the Jews of old, who were unwilling to learn how to do good. These he

must resist, do the very opposite and offend them boldly, lest by

their impious views they drag many with them into error. In the

presence of such men it is good to eat meat, to break the fasts and

for the sake of the liberty of faith to do other things which they

regard the greatest of sins. Of them we must say, "Let them alone,

they are blind and leaders of the blind." [Matt. 15:14] For on this

principle Paul would not circumcise Titus when the Jews insisted that

he should [Gal. 2:3], and Christ excused the Apostles when they

plucked ears of corn on the sabbath [Matt. 12:1 ff.]; and there are

many similar instances. The other class of men whom a Christian will

meet, are the simple-minded, ignorant men, weak in the faith, as the

Apostle calls them, who cannot yet grasp the liberty of faith, even if

they were willing to do so. These he must take care not to offend; he

must yield to their weakness until they are more fully instructed.

For since these do and think as they do, not because they are

stubbornly wicked, but only because their faith is weak, the fasts and

other things which they think necessary must be observed to avoid

giving them offence. For so love demands, which would harm no one, but

would serve all men. It is not by their fault that they are weak, but

their pastors have taken them captive with the snares of their

traditions and have wickedly used these traditions as rods with which

to beat them. From these pastors they should have been delivered by

the teaching of faith and liberty. So the Apostle teaches us, Romans

xiv, "If my meat cause my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while

the world standeth" [Rom. 14:14]; and again, "I know that through

Christ nothing is unclean, except to him who esteemeth any thing to be

unclean; but it is evil or the man who eats and is offended."



Wherefore, although we should boldly resist those teachers of

traditions and sharply censure the laws of the popes by means of which

they plunder the people of God, yet we must spare the timid multitude

whom those impious tyrants hold captive by means of these laws, until

they be set free. Fight strenuously therefore against the wolves, but

for the sheep, and not also against the sheep. This you will do if you

inveigh against the laws and the law-givers, and at the same time

observe the laws with the weak, so that they will not be offended,

until they also recognize the tyranny and understand their liberty.

But if you wish to use your liberty, do so in secret, as Paul says,

Romans xiv, "Hast thou the faith? have it to thyself before God" [Rom.

14:22]; but take care not to use your liberty in the sight of the

weak. On the other hand, use your liberty constantly and consistently

in the sight of the tyrants and the stubborn, in despite of them, that

they also may learn that they are impious, that their laws are of no

avail for righteousness, and that they had no right to set them up.



[Sidenote: Ceremonies]



Now, since we cannot live our life without ceremonies and works, and

the froward and untrained youth need to be restrained and saved from

harm by such bonds; and since each one should keep his body under by

means of such works, there is need that the minister of Christ be

far-seeing and faithful; he ought so to govern and teach the people of

Christ in all these matters that their conscience and faith be not

offended, and that there spring not up in them a suspicion and a root

of bitterness, and many be defiled thereby [Heb. 12:15], as Paul

admonishes the Hebrews; that is, that they may not lose faith and

become defiled by the false estimate of the value of works, and think

that they must be justified by works. This happens easily and defiles

very many, unless faith is at the same time constantly taught; it is

impossible to avoid it when faith is not mentioned and only the

devisings of men are taught, as has been done until now through the

pestilent, impious, soul-destroying traditions of our popes and the

opinions of our theologians. By these snares numberless souls have

been dragged down to hell, so that you might see in this the work of

Antichrist.



[Sidenote: The Test of Faith]



[Sidenote: Temporary Helps]



In brief, as wealth is the test of poverty, business the test of

faithfulness, honors the test of humility, easts the test of

temperance, pleasures the test of chastity, so ceremonies are the test

of the righteousness of faith. "Can a man," says Solomon, "take fire

in his bosom, and his clothes not be burned?" [Prov. 6:27] Yet, as a

man must live in the midst of wealth, business, honors, pleasures and

easts, so also must he live in the midst of ceremonies, that is, in

the midst of dangers. Nay, as infant boys need beyond all else to be

cherished in the bosoms and by the hands of maidens to keep them from

perishing, and yet when they are grown up their salvation is

endangered if they associate with maidens, so the inexperienced and

froward youth need to be restrained and trained by the iron bars of

ceremonies, lest their unchecked ardor rush headlong into vice after

vice. Yet it would be death or them to be always held in bondage to

ceremonies, thinking that these justify them. They are rather to be

taught that they have been so imprisoned in ceremonies, not that they

should be made righteous or gain great merit by them, but that they

might thus be kept from doing evil, and might be more easily

instructed unto the righteousness of faith. Such instruction they

would not endure if the impulsiveness of their youth were not

restrained. Hence ceremonies are to be given the same place in the

life of a Christian as models and plans have among builders and

artisans. They are prepared not as permanent structures, but because

without them nothing could be built or made. When the structure is

completed they are laid aside. You see, they are not despised, rather,

they are greatly sought after; but what we despise is the false

estimate of them, since no one holds them to be the real and permanent

structure. If any man were so egregiously foolish as to care for

nothing all his life long except the most costly, careful and

persistent preparation of plans and models, and never to think of the

structure itself, and were satisfied with his work in producing such

plans and mere aids to work, and boasted of it, would not all men pity

his insanity, and estimate that with what he has wasted something

great might have been built? Thus we do not despise ceremonies and

works, nay, we set great store by them; but we despise the false

estimate placed upon works, in order that no one may think that they

are true righteousness, as those hypocrites believe who spend and lose

their whole lives in zeal for works, and never reach that for the sake

of which the works are to be done; as the Apostle says, "ever learning

and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth." [2 Tim. 3:7]

For they seem to wish to build, they make their preparations, and yet

they never build, Thus they remain caught in the form of godliness and

do not attain unto its power [2 Tim. 3:5]. Meanwhile they are pleased

with their efforts, and even dare to judge all others whom they do not

see shining with a like show of works. Yet with the gifts of God which

they have spent and abused in vain they might, if they had been filled

with faith, have accomplished great things to the salvation of

themselves and of others.



[Sidenote: Men Need to be Taught of God]



But since human nature and natural reason, as it is called, are by

nature superstitious and ready to imagine, when laws and works are

prescribed, that righteousness must be obtained through them; and

further, since they are trained and confirmed in this opinion by the

practice of all earthly lawgivers, it is impossible that they should

of themselves escape from the slavery of works and come to a knowledge

of the liberty of faith. Therefore there is need of the prayer that

the Lord may give us [John 6:45] and make us _theodidacti_, that is,

taught of God, and Himself, as He has promised, write His law in our

hearts; otherwise there is no hope for us. For if He Himself do not

teach our hearts this wisdom hidden in a mystery [1 Cor. 2:7], nature

can only condemn it and judge it to be heretical, because nature is

offended by it and regards it as foolishness. So we see that it

happened in olden times, in the case of the Apostles and prophets, and

so godless and blind popes and their flatterers do to me and to those

who are like me. May God at last be merciful to them and to us, and

cause His face to shine upon us [Ps. 67:1 f.], that we may know His

way upon earth. His salvation among all nations, God, Who is blessed

forever [2 Cor. 11:31]. Amen.





FOOTNOTES





[1] See below, page 304.



[2] Sylvester Prierias. See Vol. I, p. 338.



[3] Cf. Preface to Prierias' Epitome, _Weimar Ed._, VI, 329.



[4] Virgil, _Georgics_, I, 514.



[5] Pope Eugene III, 1145-1153, for whom Bernard of Clairvaux wrote a

devotional book, _De consideratione_, in which he rehearsed the duties

and the dangers of the pope. See Realencyklopadie II, 632; Kohler,

Luther u. die Kirchengeschichte, 311 f. Cf. Resolutiones disput. de

indulg. virtute, 1518, Clemen, 1, 113.



[6] John Maier, born in Eck an der Gunz, and generally known as John

Eck; an ambitious theologian, who first attacked his professor in

Freiburg, then Erasmus' Annotations to the New Testament, and next

wrote against Luther's XCV Theses (see Vol. I, 10, 176, etc.). He was

the opponent of Luther and Carlstadt at the Leipzig Disputation

(1519), to which Luther here refers.



[7] Jacopo de Vio, born in Gaeta, Italy, in 1469, died in 1534. The

name Cajetan he derived from his birthplace, the Latin name of which

is Cajeta. In the Dominican Order he was known as Thomas, so that his

writings are published under the title, _Thomae de Vio Cajetani

opera_. He was made cardinal-presbyter with the title of S. Sisto in

1517, and in the following year was sent as papal legate to the Diet

of Augsburg. Here he met and examined Luther, but accomplished nothing

because he insisted that Luther must recant. See Kolde in

Realencyklopadie 3, 632 ff.



[8] Carl von Miltitz was educated at Cologne, was prebendary at Mainz,

Trier and Meissen, and later went to Rome, where he acted as agent for

Frederick, Elector of Saxony, and Duke George the Bearded. "After the

endeavours of Cardinal Cajetan to silence Luther had failed, Miltitz

appeared to be the person most suited to bring the negotiations to a

successful ending." (_Catholic Encyclopedia_, X, 318, where, however,

the statement that Miltitz was educated at Mainz, Trier and Meissen is

evidently a slip.) It seems that Miltitz returned to Rome for a time,

but in 1522 again came to Germany, where he was drowned in the Main,

November 20, 1529. See Flathe, Art. _Miltitz, in Allgemeine Deutsche

Biographie_, 21, 759 f.



[9] The German reads: "Thus I always did what was required of me, and

neglected nothing which it was my duty to do."



[10] This was the usual title of the pope, with which the bull of

excommunication opened: _Leo Episcopus Servus Servorum Dei_.



[11] See above, pp. 298, 300, and compare the letters of Miltitz to

the elector Frederick in Smith, _Luther's Correspondence_, I, pp. 367

f.



[12] Here the German is more accurate: "Every Christian man."



[13] German: _Wie man sein brauchen und niessen soll_, "how we are to

benefit by and enjoy what He is for us."



[14] German: _der heubt gerechtigkteit._



[15] Possibly a reminiscence of the _Leviathan serpentem tortuosum_ in

Isa. 27:1. Cf. _Erl. Ed._, xxiv, 73; xxvii, 323 f; xviii, 91. Lemme

translates _Teuelswahn_.



[16] German: _die fasten und gepett etiichen heyligen so derlich

gethan_.







A BRIEF EXPLANATION (EINE KURZE FORM) OF THE TEN COMMANDMENTS, THE

CREED, AND THE LORD'S PRAYER



1520







INTRODUCTION





The work here presented bears the German title, _Eine kurze Form der

zehn Gebote, eine kurze Form des Glaubens, eine kurze Form des

Vaterunsers_. It is the most important of Luther's catechetical works

prior to the Catechisms of 1529, and deserves the name that has been

given it, "the first evangelical catechism."[1]



To be sure, the name "catechism" was not applied to the _Kurze Form_

at the time. In mediaeval usage "catechism" was the name for oral

instruction in the elements of Christian truth. This instruction had

been based from time immemorial upon the Creed and the Lord's Prayer.

The decalogue held a minor place and was overshadowed by the

commandments of the church. During the later Middle Ages the influence

of the sacrament of penance gave it a higher position. It gradually

became a subject of "catechetical" instruction, but only alongside of

the other standards for the classification of sins.[2] It was the work

of Luther so to expound the Ten Commandments as to give them a

permanent place of their own in Christian instruction, side by side

with the Creed and the Lord's Prayer.



The first manuals of instruction of this kind were prepared for the

use of the priests, to guide them in the questioning of penitents, but

with the discovery of the art of printing popular hand-books for the

use of the laity became more and more common, and with certain of

these manuals Luther was familiar.[3]



From the beginning of his ministry at Wittenberg, Luther had preached

from time to time upon the Ten Commandments and the Lord's Prayer. In

1518 his friend Agricola published a series of sermons on the Lord's

Prayer which Luther had preached in Lent, 1517.[4] In the same year

Luther published his own _Kurze Auslegung der zehn Gebote, ihrer

Erfullung und Uebertretung_.[5] The year 1519 saw the publication of

the _Kurze Form das Paternoster zu verstehen und zu beten_, and the

_Kurze und gute Auslegung des Vaterunsers vor sich und hinter sich_.[7]

The _Treatise on Good Works_[8], which is essentially an exposition of

the decalogue, was written in the early months of 1520. During the

same period the mind of Luther was frequently occupied with the abuses

of the confessional, as we learn from the _Confitendi Ratio_,[9] and

the _Kurze Unterweisung wie man beichten soil_.[10] All the material

for the first and third parts of the present work was, therefore, in

hand and had appeared in print before 1520.



In 1520 the Kurze Form came from the press.[11] It consists of three

separately composed expositions of the three chief subjects of

catechetical instruction in the Middle Ages. The expositions of the

Commandments and the Lord's Prayer are reproductions of the _Kurze

Auslegung der zehn Gebote_ and the _Kurze Form das Paternoster zu

verstehen und zu beten_. The treatment of the Apostles' Creed is new,

as is also the Introduction, in which Luther sets forth the relation

of the three parts to one another in the unity of the Christian life.



The work is not scientific and theological, but popular and religious.

Its purpose is primarily devotional, not pedagogical. The mediaeval

root out of which it grew is not to be denied. The catalogue of

transgressions and fulfilments attached to the explanation of the

decalogue shows that it is intended to be a manual for penitents, but

the spirit in which the Creed and the Lord's Prayer are explained is

not mediaeval, and the manner in which the explanations of the

decalogue are simplified and rid of the excrescences of the XV Century

hand-books shows the new evangelical conception of confession to which

Luther had attained. The division of the Creed into three articles

instead of the traditional twelve marks an epoch in the development of

catechetical instruction. The little book contains passages of rare

beauty, clouded at times, we fear, by the new language into which it

has here been put, and seldom has the _Wesen des Christentums_ been

more simply and tellingly set forth than in the treatment of the

Creed.



In 1522 Luther republished the _Kurze Form_ with a few slight changes

and a number of additions under the title _Betbuchlein_. The

_Betbuchlein_ ran through many editions, and grew in the end to a book

of rather large proportions, a complete manual of devotion.



In its original form and as the chief content of the _Betbuchlein_,

the _Kurze Form_ exercised a profound influence upon the manuals of

Christian doctrine that appeared in ever-increasing number after

1522.[12] Its influence extended to England, where Marshall's _Goodly

Primer_ (1534 and 35) offered to English readers a translation of the

_Betbuchlein_, in which, however, no acknowledgments were made to the

original author.[13]



The _Kurze Form_ is found in _Weimar Ed._, VII, 194 ff.; _Erl. Ed._,

XXII, 3 ff.; _Clemen Ed._, II, 38 ff.; _Walch Ed._, X, 182 ff.; _St.

Louis Ed._, X, 149 ff.



LITERATURE



F. Cohrs, _Die evang. Katechismusversuche vor L.'s Enchiridion_

(especially I, 1 ff. and IV, 229 ff.), Arts. _Katechismen L.'s and

Katechismusunterricht_ in _Realencyk._, X, 130 ff., and XXIII, 743

ff., and _Introd. to Betbuchlein_ in _Weimar Ed._, X; O. Albrecht,

_Vorbemerkungen zu den beiden Katechismen von 1529_, in _Weimar Ed._,

XXX', 426 ff. (Further literature cited by all the above.) See also

Gecken, _Bilderkatechismus d. XV Jh_. and von Zezschwitz, _System d.

Katechetik_ (especially II, i).



        CHARLES M. JACOBS.



LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY,



    Mount Airy, Philadelphia





FOOTNOTES





[1] Cohrs, _Evang. Katechismusversuche_, I, 4.



[2] _von Zezschwitz, Katechetik_, II, 176, 265 ff.



[3] _Weimar Ed._, X', 475.



[4] _Weimar Ed._, IX, 122 ff. The same series was republished by

Luther himself, ibid., IV, 74 ff.



[5] _Weimar Ed._, I, 248 ff.



[6] _Weimar Ed._, VI, 9 ff.



[7] _Weimar Ed._, VI, 20 ff.



[8] Vol. I, pp. 187 ff.



[9] Vol. I, pp. 81-101.



[10] _Weimar Ed._, II, 47 ff.



[11] On the exact date, see _Weimar Ed._, VII, 195; _Clemen_, II, 38.



[12] See Cohrs, IV, 326 ff.



[13] For this information I am indebted to the Rev. J. F. Bornhold, of

Mount Holly, N. J. The act was discovered almost simultaneously by

Pro. M. Reu, of Dubuque, Iowa.







A BRIEF EXPLANATION OF THE TEN COMMANDMENTS, THE CREED, AND THE LORD'S

PRAYER



1520







PREFACE





The ordinary Christian, who cannot read the Scriptures, is required to

learn and know the Ten Commandments, the Creed, and the Lord's Prayer;

and this has not come to pass without God's special ordering. For

these three contain fully and completely everything that is in the

Scriptures, everything that ever should be preached, and everything

that a Christian needs to know, all put so briefly and so plainly that

no one can make complaint or excuse, saying that what he needs or his

salvation is too long or too hard to remember.



Three things a man needs to know in order to be saved. _First_, he

must know what he ought to do and what he ought not to do. _Second_,

when he finds that by his own strength he can neither do the things he

ought, nor leave undone the things he ought not to do, he must know

where to seek and find and get the strength he needs. _Third_, he must

know how to seek and find and get this strength.



When a man is ill, he needs to know first what his illness is,--what

he can do and what he cannot do. Then he needs to know where to find

the remedy that will restore his health and help him to do and leave

undone the things he ought. Third, he must ask for this remedy, and

seek it, and get it or have it brought to him. In like manner, the

_Commandments_ teach a man to know his illness, so that he feels and

sees what he can do and what he cannot do, what he can and what he

cannot leave undone, and thus knows himself to be a sinner and a

wicked man. After that the _Creed_ shows him and teaches him where he

may find the remedy,--the grace which helps him to become a good man

and to keep the Commandments; it shows him God, and the mercy which He

has revealed and offered in Christ. In the third place, the _Lord's

Prayer_ teaches him how to ask or this grace, get it, and take it to

himself, to wit, by habitual, humble, comforting prayer; then grace is

given, and by the fulfillment of God's commandments he is saved.



These are the three chief things in all the Scriptures. Therefore we

begin at the beginning, with the Commandments, which are the first

thing, and learn to recognise our sin and wickedness, that is, our

spiritual illness, which prevents us from doing the things we ought to

do and leaving undone the things we ought not to do.



THE TEN COMMANDMENTS



[Sidenote: The First Table]



The _First Table of Moses_--the Table of the Right Hand--contains the

first three Commandments, In these man is taught his duty toward God,

what things he is in duty bound to do, and what to leave undone.



[Sidenote: The First Commandment]



The _First Commandment_ teaches how man shall treat God inwardly, in

the heart, that is, how he ought always to remember Him and think of

Him and esteem Him. To Him, as to a Father and good Friend, man is to

look at all times or all good things, in all trust and faith and love,

with fear; he is not to offend Him, but trust Him as a child its

father. For nature teaches us that there is one God, Who gives all

good and helps against all evil, as even the heathen show us by their

worshiping of idols. This commandment is,



_Thou shalt have no other gods._



[Sidenote: The Second Commandment]



The _Second Commandment_ teaches how man shall act toward God

outwardly, in words, before other men, or even inwardly before his own

self; that is, he shall honor God's Name. For no one can show God

either to himself or to others in His divine nature, but only in His

names. This commandment is,



_Thou shalt not take the Name of the Lord thy God in vain._



[Sidenote: The Third Commandment]



The _Third Commandment_ teaches how man shall act toward God outwardly

in deeds, that is, in the worship of God. It is,



_Thou shalt hallow the holy day._[1]



These three commandments, then, teach how man is to act toward God in

thoughts, words and deeds,--that is, in all his life.



[Sidenote: The Second Table]



The _Second Table of Moses_--the Table of the Left Hand--contains the

other seven Commandments. In these man is taught what he is in duty

bound to do and not to do to other men, that is, to his neighbor,



[Sidenote: The Fourth Commandment]



The _first_ of them teaches how one is to conduct oneself toward all

the authorities who are God's representatives. Therefore, it has its

place before the rest, and immediately after the first three, which

concern God Himself. Such authorities are father and mother, spiritual

and temporal lords, etc. It is,



_Honor thy father and thy mother._



The _second_ teaches how one is to conduct oneself toward one's

neighbor in matters that concern his person,--not to do him injury,

but to benefit and help him when he is in need. It is,



_Thou shalt not kill._



[Sidenote: The Sixth Commandment]



The _third_ teaches how one is to conduct oneself toward the best

possession one's neighbor has next to his person,--that is, toward his

wife, his child, his friend. He is to put no shame upon them, but to

preserve their honor, so far as he is able. It is,



_Thou shalt not commit adultery._



[Sidenote: The Seventh Commandment]



The _fourth_ teaches how one is to conduct oneself toward one's

neighbor's temporal possessions,--not to take them from him or hinder

him in their use, but to aid him in increasing them. It is,



_Thou shalt not steal._



[Sidenote: The Eighth Commandment]



The _fifth_ teaches how one is to conduct oneself toward one's

neighbor's worldly honor and good name,--not to impair them, but to

increase and guard and protect them. It is,



_Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor._



So, then, it is forbidden to harm one's neighbor in any of his

possessions, and it is commanded to advance his interests. If we

consider the natural law,[2] we find how just and right all these

commandments are; for there is no act here commanded, toward God or

one's neighbor, that each of us would not wish to have done toward

himself, if he were God, or in God's place or his neighbor's.



[Sidenote: The Ninth and Tenth Commandments]



The last two Commandments teach how wicked human nature is, and how

pure we should be from all the desires of the flesh and desires for

this world's goods; but that means struggle and labor as long as we

live here below. They are,



_Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house._



_Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his

maidservant, nor his cattle, nor anything that is thy neighbor's._



A BRIEF CONCLUSION TO THE TEN COMANDMENTS



Christ Himself says, "Whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you,

do ye even so to them; this is the whole law and all the prophets."

[Matt. 7:12] Now no one wishes to receive ingratitude for benefits

conferred or to let another take away his good name. No one wishes to

have pride shown toward him. No one wishes to endure disobedience,

wrath, a wife's impurity, robbery, lying, deceit, slander; but every

one wishes to find in his neighbor kindliness, thankfulness,

helpfulness, truth and fidelity. All this the Ten Commandments

require.



THE TRANSGRESSION OF THE COMMANDMENTS



_Against the First_



[Sidenote: the First Commandment]



He who in his tribulation seeks the help of sorcery, black art, or

witchcraft.



He who uses letters[3], signs, herbs, words[4], charms and the like.



He who uses divining-rods and incantations, and practices

crystal-gazing, cloak-riding, and milk-stealing[5].



He who orders his life and work by lucky days, the signs of the zodiac

and the advice of the fortune-tellers.



He who seeks by charms and incantations to protect himself, his

cattle, his house, his children and all his property against wolves,

iron, fire and water.



He who blames his misfortunes and tribulations on the devil or on

wicked men, and does not accept them with praise and love, as good and

evil which come from God alone, and who does not ascribe them to God

with thanksgiving and willing patience.



He who tempts God, and needlessly puts himself in danger of body or

soul.



He who glories in his piety, his wisdom, or other spiritual gifts.



He who honors God and the saints only for the sake of temporal gain,

and is forgetful of his soul's need.



He who does not trust in God at all times, and is not confident of

God's mercy in all he does.



He who doubts concerning the faith or the grace of God.



He who does not keep back others from unbelief and doubt, and does not

help them, so far as in him lies, to believe and trust in God's grace.



Here, too, belong all forms of unbelief, despair, and misbelief.



_Against the Second_



[Sidenote: The Second Commandment]



He who swears needlessly or habitually.



He who perjures himself, or breaks a vow.



He who vows or swears to do evil.



He who curses by God's name.



He who tells foolish tales of God, and frivolously perverts the words

of Scripture.



He who in his tribulation calls not upon God's name, nor blesses Him

in joy and sorrow, in good fortune and in ill.



He who by his piety, wisdom or the like seeks reputation and honor and

a name.



He who calls upon God's name falsely, as do the heretics and all

vainglorious saints.



He who does not praise God's name in all that befalls him.



He who does not resist those that dishonor the name of God, use it

falsely and work evil by it.



Here belong all the sins of vainglory and spiritual pride.



_Against the Third_



[Sidenote: The Third Commandment]



He who is given to gluttony, drunkenness, gambling, dancing, idleness

and unchastity.



He who is lazy, who sleeps when he ought to be at mass, stays away

from mass, goes walking and indulges in idle talk.



He who without special need works and transacts business on the Lord's

day.



He who prays not, meditates not upon Christ's sufferings, repents not

of his sins and asks no grace, and therefore keeps the day only in

outward fashion, by his dress, his food and his actions.



He who in all his works and sufferings is not satisfied that God shall

do with him as He will.



He who does not help others to do this and does not resist them when

they do otherwise.



Here belongs the sin of slothfulness and indifference to worship.



_Against the Fourth_



[Sidenote: The Fourth Commandment]



He who is ashamed of his parents because of their poverty, their

failings or their lowly position.



He who does not provide them with food and clothing in their need.



Much more, he who curses them, speaks evil of them, hates them and

disobeys them.



He who does not from the heart esteem them highly because of God's

commandment.



He who does not honor them, even though they do wrong and violence.



He who does not keep the commandments of the Christian Church with

respect to fast- and feast-days, etc.



He who dishonors, slanders and insults the priestly office.



He who dost not pay honor, allegiance and obedience to his lords and

those in authority, be they good or bad.



Among the transgressors of this commandment are all heretics,

schismatics, apostates, excommunicates, hardened sinners and the like.



He who does not help men to keep this commandment and resist those who

break it.



Here belong all forms of pride and disobedience.



_Against the Fifth_



[Sidenote: The Fifth Commandment]



He who is angry with his neighbor.



He who sayeth to his neighbor, _Raca_, which stands for all terms of

anger and hatred. [Matt. 5:22]



He who sayeth to his neighbor, _Fatue_, "thou fool," which stands for

every sort of vile language, cursing, slander, evil speaking, judging,

condemning, mockery, etc.



He who scolds about his neighbor's sins or failings, and does not

rather cover and excuse them.



He who forgives not his enemies nor prays for them, is not kindly

disposed toward them and does them no good.



This commandment includes also all the sins of anger and hatred, such

as murder, war, robbery, arson, quarreling, contention, envy of a

neighbor's good fortune and joy over his misfortune.



He who does not practice works of mercy even toward his enemies.



He who sets men at enmity with one another.



He who sows discord between man and man.



He who does not reconcile those who are at enmity.



He who does not hinder or prevent wrath and enmity when he is able.



_Against the Sixth_



[Sidenote: The Sixth Commandment]



He who seduces virgins, commits adultery and is guilty of incest and

like unchastity.



He who uses unnatural means to satisfy his desires--these are the

"mute sins."[6]



He who arouses or displays evil desires with obscene words, songs,

tales or pictures.



He who by looks, touch or thoughts arouses his own desires and defiles

himself.



He who does not avoid the causes of unchastity, such as gluttony,

drunkenness, idleness, laziness, oversleeping and intimate association

with men or women.



He who by extravagant dress or demeanor incites others to unchastity.



He who gives house, place, time or help to the commission of this sin.



He who does not by word and deed help others to preserve their

chastity.



_Against the Seventh_



[Sidenote: The Seventh Commandment]



He who practices thievery, robbery and usury.



He who uses false weights and measures, or sells bad wares for good.



He who receives bequests and incomes dishonestly. He who withholds

wages that have been earned, and repudiates a debt.



He who will not lend to a needy neighbor without taking interest.[7]



All who are avaricious and make haste to be rich, and do any of those

other things by which a neighbor's property is withheld or taken away.



He who does not protect another against loss.



He who does not warn another against loss.



He who places an obstacle in the way of his neighbor's profit and

begrudges his neighbor's gains.



Against the Eighth



[Sidenote: The Eight Commandment]



He who conceals or suppresses the truth in a court of law.



He who lies and deceives to another's hurt.



All hurtful flatterers, whisperers and double-dealers.



He who speaks evil of his neighbor's possessions, lie, words and works

and defames them.



He who gives place to slanderers, helps them on and does not resist

them.



He who does not use his tongue to defend his neighbor's good name.



He who does not rebuke the slanderer.



He who does not say all good of every man and keep silent about all

evil.



He who conceals or does not defend the truth.



_Against the Last Two_



[Sidenote: The Ninth and Tenth Commandments]



The last two commandments have no place in confession[8], but are set

as a goal to which we are to attain, and toward which, through

repentance and by the help and grace of God, we are daily to strive;

or wicked inclinations do not wholly die, until the flesh turns to

dust and is new created[9].



The "five senses"[10] are included in the Fifth and Sixth

Commandments; the "six works of mercy," in the Fifth and Seventh; of

the "seven deadly sins," pride is included in the First and Second,

unchastity in the Sixth, anger, and hatred in the Fifth, gluttony in

the Sixth, indolence in the Third, and indeed in all the commandments.

The "alien sins" are included in all the commandments, or it is

possible to sin against all the commandments by bidding, advising and

helping others to sin against them. The "crying sins" and the "mute

sins" are committed against the Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Commandments,

etc.



In all these works we see nothing else than self-love, which seeks its

own, takes from God what is His, from men what is theirs, and out of

all it is and all it has and all it can do gives nothing either to God

or men. St. Augustine well says, "The beginning of all sin is the love

of one's own self."[11]



From all this it follows that the commandments command nothing but

love and forbid nothing but love; nothing but love fulfils the

commandments and nothing but love breaks them. Wherefore, St. Paul

says that love is the fulfilling of all commandments; just as evil

love is the transgression of all commandments.



The Fulfilment of the Commandments



Of the First



[Sidenote: The First Commandment]



To fear and love God in true faith, and always, in all our works, to

trust Him firmly, and be wholly, completely, altogether resigned in

all things, whether they be evil or good.



Here belongs whatever is written in all the Scriptures concerning

faith, hope and love of God, all of which is briefly comprehended in

this commandment.



_Of the Second_



[Sidenote: The Second Commandment]



To praise, honor, bless and call upon God's Name, and to count our own

name and honor as altogether nothing, so that God alone may be

praised; for He alone is all things, and worketh all things.



Here belongs all that is taught in the Scripture about rendering

praise and honor and thanks to God, about God's name and about joy in

Him.



_Of the Third_



[Sidenote: The Third Commandment]



To prepare oneself for God and to seek His grace by praying, hearing

mass and the Gospel, and meditating on the sufferings of Christ, so

that one goes to the sacrament in a spiritual manner; for this

commandment requires a soul "poor in spirit," [Matt. 5:3.] which

offers its nothingness to God, that He may be its God and receive in

it the honor due His work and Name according to the first two

commandments.



Here belongs all that is commanded about worship, the hearing of

sermons, and good works by which the body is made subject to the

spirit, so that all our works may be God's and not our own.



_Of the Fourth_



[Sidenote: The Fourth Commandment]



Willing obedience, humility, submission to all authority because it is

God's good-pleasure, as the Apostle St. Peter says, without retort,

complaint or murmuring.



Here belongs all that is written of obedience, humility,

submissiveness and reverence.



_Of the Fifth_



[Sidenote: The Fifth Commandment]



Patience, meekness, kindness, peacefulness, mercy, and a heart in all

things sweet and kindly, without hatred, anger or bitterness toward

any man, even toward enemies. Here belong all the teachings about

patience, meekness, peace and concord.



_Of the Sixth_



Chastity, purity and modesty, in works, words, demeanor and thoughts;

moderation in eating, drinking and sleeping; and everything that

furthers chastity.



Here belong all the teachings about chastity, fasting, sobriety,

moderation, prayer, watching, laboring and everything by which

chastity is preserved.



_Of the Seventh_



[Sidenote: The Seventh Commandment]



Poverty of spirit, charity, willingness to lend and give of one's

possessions, and a life free from greed and avarice. Here belong all

the teachings about avarice, unrighteous wealth, usury, guile, deceit,

injury and hindrance of one's neighbor in temporal things.



_Of the Eighth_



[Sidenote: The Eight Commandment]



A peaceful, wholesome tongue, that injures no one and profits every

one, that reconciles those that are at enmity, apologizes for those

that are slandered and takes their part; in short, truthfulness and

simplicity in speech. Here belong all the teachings about talking and

keeping silent in matters which concern one's neighbor's honor and

rights, his cause and his salvation.



_Of the Last Two_



[Sidenote: The Ninth and Tenth Commandments]



That entire chastity and utter despising of temporal desire and

possessions, which are perfectly attained only in the life to come.



In all these works we see nothing else than the love of others--that

is, of God and of one's neighbor--which seeketh not its own, but what

is God's and its neighbor's [1 Cor. 13:5], and surrendereth itself

freely to every one to be his, to serve him and to do his will.



Thus you see that the Ten Commandments contain, in a very brief and

orderly manner, all the teaching that is needful for man's life; and

if a man desires to keep them, he has good works or every hour of his

life, and has no need to choose him other works, to run hither and

thither, and do what is not commanded[12].



All this is evident from the act that these commandments teach nothing

about what a man shall do or not do or himself, or what he shall ask

of others, but only what he shall do and not do for others--God and

man. From this we are to learn that their fulfilment consists in love

toward others, not toward ourselves; for in his own behalf man already

seeks and does and leaves undone too much. He needs not to be taught

this, but to be kept from it. Therefore he lives best who lives in no

wise for himself, and he who lives for himself, lives worst; for so

the Ten Commandments teach. From them we learn how few men lead good

lives; nay, as man, no one can lead a good life. Knowing this, we must

learn next whence we shall get the power to lead good lives and to

keep the Commandments[13].



THE CREED



[Sidenote: Division of the Creed]



The Creed is divided into three parts[14], according to the Creed

three Persons of the holy and divine Trinity who are therein

mentioned. The first part belongs to the Father, the second to the

Son, the third to the Holy Ghost; for the Trinity is the chief thing

in the Creed, on which everything else depends.



[Sidenote: Two Ways of Believing]



We should note that there are two ways of believing. One way is to

believe about God, as I do when I believe that what is said of God is

true; just as I do when I believe what is said about the Turk, the

devil or hell. This faith is knowledge or observation rather than

faith. The other way is to believe in God, as I do when I not only

believe that what is said about Him is true, but put my trust in Him,

surrender myself to Him and make bold to deal with Him, believing

without doubt that He will be to me and do to me just what is said of

Him. I could not thus believe in the Turk or in any man, however

highly his praises might be sung. For I can readily believe that a man

is good, but I do not venture on that account to build my faith on

him.



[Sidenote: True Faith]



This faith, which in He or death dares to believe that God is what He

is said to be, is the only faith that makes a man a Christian and

obtains from God whatever it will. This faith no false and evil heart

can have, for it is a living faith; and this faith is commanded in the

First Commandment, which says, "I am the Lord thy God, thou shalt have

no other gods." Wherefore the word _in_ is rightly used; and it is

diligently to be noted that we may not say, "I believe God the

Father," or "about the Father," but "_in_ God the Father, _in_ Jesus

Christ, _in_ the Holy Ghost." This faith we should render to no one

but to God. Therefore we confess the divinity of Jesus Christ and of

the Holy Ghost, when we believe in them even as we believe in the

Father; and just as our faith in all three Persons is one and the same

faith, so the three Persons are one and the same God.



The First Part of the Creed



[Sidenote: The First Article]



_I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth._



_This means--_



I renounce the evil spirit, all idolatry, all sorcery and misbelief.



I put my trust in no man on earth, nor in myself, my power, my

learning, my wealth, my piety, nor anything that I may have.



I put my trust in no creature in heaven or on earth.



I dare to put my trust only in the one absolute, invisible,

incomprehensible God, Who made heaven and earth, and Who alone is over

all creatures.



On the other hand, I am not afraid of any wickedness of the devil and

his company, or my God is above them all.



Even though I be forsaken or persecuted by all men, I still believe in

God.



I believe, even though I am poor, unwise, unlearned, despised or in

need of everything.



I believe, even though I am a sinner. For this faith of mine must and

shall soar above everything that is and everything that is not--above

sin and virtue and all else--so that it may remain simply and purely a

faith in God, as the First Commandment constrains me.



Nor do I ask of Him a sign, to tempt Him. [Luke 11:16]



I trust constantly in Him, however long He tarry, and do not prescribe

the goal, the time, the measure or the manner of His working, but in

bold, true faith I leave all to His divine will.



If He is almighty, what can I lack that He cannot give me and do for

me?



If He is Creator of heaven and earth and Lord of all things, who will

take anything from me, or harm me? [Rom. 8:28] Nay, how shall not all

things rather serve me and turn out to my good, if He to Whom all

things are obedient and subject wishes me well?



Because He is God, He can do the thing that is best for me, and knows

what that thing is.



Because He is Father, He wills to do what is best for me, and to do it

with all His heart.



Because I do not doubt, but put my trust in Him, I am assuredly His

child. His servant and His heir forever, and as I believe, so will it

be done unto me. [Matt. 8:13]



The Second Part



[Sidenote: The Second Article]



_And in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord, Who was conceived by the

Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate,

was crucified, dead, and buried; He descended into hell; the third day

He rose again from the dead; He ascended into heaven, and sitteth on

the right hand of God the Father Almighty; from thence He shall come

to judge the quick and the dead._



_This means--_



I believe not only that Jesus Christ is the true and only Son of God,

begotten from eternity in one eternal, divine nature and substance;

but also that all things are made subject to Him by His Father, and

that in His humanity He is made Lord of me and of all things which, in

His divinity, He, with the Father, has created.



I believe that no one can believe in the Father or come to the Father

by his own learning, works or reason, nor by anything that can be

named in heaven or on earth, save only in and through Jesus Christ,

His only Son--that is, through faith in His name and lordship. [John

14:6]



I firmly believe that for my sake He was conceived by the Holy Ghost,

without human or fleshly work, without bodily father or seed of man,

to the end that so He might purify my sinful, fleshly, unclean,

damnable conception, and the conception of all who believe in Him, and

make it spiritual through His own and His almighty Father's gracious

will.



I believe that for me He was born of the pure Virgin Mary, without

harm to her bodily and spiritual virginity, in order that, by the

mercy of His Father, He might make my sinful, damnable birth, and the

birth of all who believe in Him, blessed and harmless and pure.



I believe that He bore His cross and passion for my sin and the sin of

all believers, and thereby has consecrated all sufferings and every

cross, and made them not only harmless, but salutary and highly

meritorious.



I believe that He died and was buried to slay entirely and to bury my

sin and the sin of all who believe in Him, and that He has destroyed

bodily death and made it altogether harmless, nay profitable and

salutary.



I believe that He descended into hell to overthrow and take captive

the devil and all his power, guile and wickedness, for me and for all

who believe in Him, so that henceforth the devil cannot harm me; and

that He has redeemed me from the pains of hell, and made them harmless

and meritorious.



I believe that He rose on the third day from the dead, to give to me

and to all who believe in Him a new life; and that He has thereby

quickened us with Him, in grace and in the Spirit, that we may sin no

more, but serve Him alone in every grace and virtue.



I believe that He ascended into heaven and received from the Father

power and honor above all angels and all creatures, and thus sitteth

on the right hand of God--that is, He is King and Lord over all that

is God's, in heaven and hell and earth. Therefore, He can help me and

all believers in all our necessities against all our adversaries and

enemies.



I believe that He will come again from heaven at the last day, to

judge those who then are living and those who have died meanwhile, and

all men, all angels and devils must come before His judgment-seat and

see Him in the flesh; that He will come to redeem me and all who

believe in Him from bodily death and all infirmities, to punish our

enemies and adversaries eternally, and to redeem us eternally from

their power.



The Third Part



[Sidenote: The Third Article]



_I believe in the Holy Ghost, a Holy Christian Church, a communion of

saints, a forgiveness of sins, a resurrection of the body, and a life

everlasting. Amen._



_This means--_



I believe not only that the Holy Ghost is one true God, with the

Father and the Son, but that no one can come to the Father through

Christ and His life, sufferings and death, and all that has been said

of Him, nor attain any of His blessings, without the work of the Holy

Ghost, by which the Father and the Son teach, quicken, call, draw me

and all that are His, make us, in and through Christ, alive and holy

and spiritual, and thus bring us to the Father; for it is He by Whom

the Father, through Christ and in Christ, worketh all things and

giveth life to all.



I believe that there is on earth, through the whole wide world, no

more than one holy, common[15], Christian Church, which is nothing

else than the congregation[16], or assembly of the saints, i. e., the

pious, believing men on earth, which is gathered, preserved, and ruled

by the Holy Ghost, and daily increased by means of the sacraments and

the Word of God.



I believe that no one can be saved who is not found in this

congregation, holding with it to one faith, word, sacraments, hope and

love, and that no Jew, heretic, heathen or sinner can be saved along

with it, unless he become reconciled to it, united with it and

conformed to it in all things.



I believe that in this congregation, or Church[17], all things are

common, that everyone's possessions belong to the others and no one

has anything of his own; therefore, all the prayers and good works of

the whole congregation must help, assist and strengthen me and every

believer at all times, in life and death, and thus each bear the

other's burden, as St. Paul teaches. [Gal. 6:2]



I believe that in this congregation, and nowhere else, there is

forgiveness of sins; that outside of it, good works, however great

they be or many, are of no avail for the forgiveness of sins; but that

within it, no matter how much, how greatly or how often men may sin,

nothing can hinder forgiveness of sins, which abides wherever and as

long as this one congregation abides. To this congregation Christ

gives the keys, and says, in Matthew xviii, "Whatsoever ye shall bind

on earth shall be bound in heaven." [Matt. 18:18] In like manner He

says, in Matthew xvi, to the one man Peter, who stands as the

representative of the one and only Church [Matt. 16:19], "Whatsoever

thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."



I believe that there will be a resurrection of the dead, in which, by

the same Holy Ghost, all flesh will be raised again--that is, all men,

in flesh, or body, the good and the wicked; and, therefore, the

self-same flesh which has died, been buried, mouldered and been

destroyed in many ways shall return and become alive.



I believe that after the resurrection there will be an eternal life

for the saints and an eternal death or sinners; and I doubt not that

the Father, through His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, with and in the

Holy Ghost, will bring all this to pass--that is the meaning of

_Amen_, "It is assuredly and certainly true."



Hereupon follows



THE LORD'S PRAYER



[Sidenote: The Preface]



The Preface and Preparation for offering the Seven Petitions to God:

_Our Father Who art in heaven_.



_This means--_



O Almighty God, Who in Thy boundless mercy hast not only granted us

permission, but by Thine only beloved Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, hast

bidden and taught us through His merit and mediation to look to Thee

as Father and call Thee Father, though Thou mightest in all justice be

a stern Judge of us sinners, who have sinned so often and so

grievously against Thy divine and gracious will, and thus have angered

Thee: Put in our hearts, by this Thy mercy, a comfortable confidence

in Thy fatherly love, and make us feel and taste the sweetness of

childlike trust, so that we may joyfully name Thee Father, and know

Thee and love Thee, and call upon Thee in all our necessities. Have us

in Thy keeping, that we may remain Thy children, and not be guilty of

making Thee, dear Father, a terrible Judge, and ourselves Thine

enemies, and not Thy children.



It is Thy will that we not only call Thee Father, but that all of us

together call Thee our Father, and thus offer our prayers with one

accord or all: Grant us, therefore, brotherly love and unity, that we

may know and think of one another as true brethren and sisters, and

pray to Thee, our one common Father, or all men and for every man,

even as one child prays or another to its father.



Let no one among us seek his own things or forget before Thee the

things of others; but, all hatred, envy and dissension laid aside

[Phil. 2:4], may we love one another as good and true children of God,

and thus say with one accord not "my Father," but "_our_ Father."



Moreover, since Thou art not a father according to the flesh nor upon

earth, but art in heaven, a spiritual Father, Who diest not and art

not weak, but unlike an earthly father who cannot help himself,

whereby Thou showest us how immeasurably better a Father Thou art, and

teachest us to hold as nothing in comparison with Thee all earthly

fatherhood, fatherland, friends, goods, flesh and blood: Grant us,

therefore, O Father, that we may also be Thy heavenly children; teach

us to think only of our souls and of our heavenly inheritance, that

our temporal fatherland and earthly lot may not deceive and hold and

hinder us, and make us altogether children of this world, so that with

real and true cause we may say, "Of our _heavenly_ Father," and may be

truly Thy heavenly children.



The First Petition: _Hallowed be thy Name_. The



_This means--_



[Sidenote: The First Petition]



O Almighty God, dear heavenly Father, in this wretched vale of sorrows

Thy Holy Name is so much profaned, blasphemed and put to shame, given

to much which is not for Thine honor, abused in many things and made a

cloak for sin, so that even a shameful life may well be called a

shaming and dishonoring of Thy Holy Name:



Grant us, therefore, Thy divine grace, that we may be on our guard

against everything which doth not serve to the praise and honor of Thy

Holy Name. Help us, that all witchcraft and sorcery may be done away.

Help us, that all conjuring of the devil or of creatures by Thy Name

may cease. Help us, that all false beliefs and superstitions may be

rooted out. Help us, that all heresy and false doctrine which disguise

themselves with Thy Name may come to naught. Help us, that no false

pretence of truth and piety and holiness may deceive any man. Help us

that none may swear or lie or deceive by Thy Name.



Protect us against all false confidence pretending to rest upon Thy

Name. Protect us against all spiritual pride and the vainglory of

worldly honor or reputation. Help us in all our necessities and

weaknesses to call upon Thy Holy Name. Help us in anguish of

conscience and in the hour of death not to forget Thy Name. Help us

with all our goods and in all our words and works to praise and honor

Thee alone, and not thereby to make or seek to make a name for

ourselves, but only for Thee, Whose alone are all things. Preserve us

from the shameful vice of ingratitude.



Grant that by our good works and life all other men may be stirred up

to praise, not us, but Thee in us, and to honor Thy Name [Matt. 5:16].

Help us, that our evil works or weaknesses may give no one occasion to

stumble and dishonor Thy Name or to cease from praising Thee. Keep us,

that we may not desire any temporal or eternal blessing which is not

to the honor and praise of Thy Name, and if we pray for such things,

give Thou no ear to our folly. Help us so to live that we may be found

true children of God, that Thy Fathername may not be named upon us

falsely or in vain.



To this petition belong all the psalms and prayers in which we praise,

honor, thank and sing to God, and here belongs the whole Hallelujah.



The Second Petition: _Thy Kingdom come_.



[Sidenote: The Second Petition]



_This means--_



This wretched life is a kingdom of all sin and wickedness, under one

lord, the evil spirit, the source and head of all wickedness and sin;

but Thy kingdom is a kingdom of every grace and virtue under one Lord,

Jesus Christ Thy dear Son, the Head and Source of every grace and

virtue. Therefore help us, dear Father, and be gracious unto us.

Grant us above all things a true and constant faith in Christ, a

fearless hope in Thy mercy despite all the fearfulness of our sinful

conscience, and a thorough love to Thee and to all mankind. Keep us

from unbelief and despair and revengefulness.



Help us against lewdness and unchastity, and give us a love for

virginity and all purity. Help us out of dissension, war and discord,

and let the virtue of Thy kingdom come--peace, and unity, and quiet

rest. Grant that neither wrath nor any other bitterness may set up its

kingdom within us, but that there may rule within us, by Thy grace,

sweet simplicity and brotherly fidelity, and all kindliness, charity

and gentleness. Help us to have within us no undue sorrow or sadness,

but let joy and gladness in Thy grace and mercy come to us. And help

us, finally, that all sin may be turned away from us, so that we may

be filled with Thy grace, and all virtues and good works, and thus

become Thy kingdom, so that all our heart, mind and spirit, with all

our powers of body and soul, may obediently serve Thee, keep Thy

commandments and do Thy will, be ruled by Thee alone, and may not

follow after self or flesh or world or devil.



Grant that this Thy kingdom, now begun in us, may increase, and daily

grow in power; that indifference to God's service--that subtle

wickedness--may not overcome us and make us all away, but give us

rather the power and earnest purpose not only to make a beginning in

righteousness, but boldly to go on unto perfection; as saith the

prophet, "Lighten mine eyes, lest I sleep the sleep of death or grow

idle in the good life I have begun; and lest the enemy again prevail

against us." [Ps. 13:3 f.]



Help us that we may remain constant, and that Thy future kingdom may

finish and complete this Thy kingdom which is here begun. Help us out

of this sinful, perilous life; help us to long for the life to come,

and more and more to hate this life. Help us not to fear death, but

desire it. Take away from us the love of living here, and all

dependence on this present life, that thus Thy kingdom may in us be

made perfect and complete.



To this petition belong all the psalms, versicles and prayers in which

we pray to God or grace and virtue.



The Third Petition: _Thy Will be done on earth as it is in heaven_.



[Sidenote: The Third Petition]



_This means--_



Our will, compared with Thy will, is never good, but always evil; but

Thy will is always best, lovable above all things and most to be

desired. Therefore, be merciful to us, dear Father, and let nothing be

done according to our will. Grant us and teach us to have real and

perfect patience when our will is broken or hindered. Help us, if

anyone speaks or is silent, does or omits anything that is contrary to

our will, that we become not angry or wrathful, neither curse, nor

complain, nor cry out, nor judge, nor condemn, nor accuse. Help us

with all humility to give place to those who oppose or hinder our

will, and letting our own will go, to praise and bless them and do

good to them as those who, against our own will, fulfil Thy divine

will, which is altogether good.



Give us grace willingly to bear illness, poverty, shame, suffering and

adversity, and to know that these are Thy divine will, or the

crucifying of our will. Help us to bear even injustice gladly, and

keep us from avenging ourselves. Suffer us not to render evil or evil

or to resist force with force, but grant us grace to take pleasure in

this will of Thine, which lays these things upon us, and to give Thee

praise and thanks. Suffer us not to lay it to the charge of the devil

or of wicked men when anything befalls us contrary to our will, but

help us to ascribe it only to Thy divine will, which orders all such

things for the hindering of our will and the increasing of our

blessedness in Thy kingdom.



Help us to die willingly and joyfully, and to welcome death as a

manifestation of Thy will, so that impatience and despair may not make

us disobedient toward Thee. Help us that all our members--eyes,

tongue, heart, hands, feet--be not submissive to their own desires or

will, but be taken captive, imprisoned and broken in Thy will.

Preserve us from all evil, rebellious, obstinate, stubborn and

capricious self-will.



Grant us a true obedience, a submissiveness simple and complete in all

things, spiritual and worldly, temporal and eternal. Preserve us from

the cruel vice of aspersion, slander, back-biting, malicious judging,

condemning and accusing of other men. O keep far from us the great

unhappiness and grievous plague of tongues like these; but teach us,

when we see or hear in others things blameworthy and to us

displeasing, to hold our peace, to cover them over, to make complaint

of them to none but Thee, to give them over to Thy will, and thus

heartily to forgive our debtors and have sympathy with them.



Teach us to know that no one can do us any harm, except he first do

himself a thousandfold greater harm in Thine eyes, so that we may be

moved thereby to mercy rather than to anger, to pity rather than

revenge. Help us not to rejoice when it goes ill with those who have

not done our will or have hurt us or otherwise displeased us by their

way of life; help us also not to be disturbed when it goes well with

them.



    To this petition belong all the psalms, versicles and prayers in

    which we pray to be delivered from sin and from our enemies.



The Fourth Petition: _Give us this day our daily Bread_.



[Sidenote: The Fourth Petition]



_This means--_



The bread is our Lord Jesus Christ[19], Who feedeth and comforteth the

soul. Therefore, O heavenly Father, grant us grace, that Christ's life

and words, His works and sufferings be preached, made known and

preserved to us and to all the world. Help us that in all our life we

may have His words and works before us as a powerful example and

mirror of all virtue. Help us in sufferings and adversities to find

strength and comfort in and through His cross and passion. Help us in

firm faith to overcome our own death by His death, and thus boldly to

follow our beloved Leader into the other life.



Give Thy grace to all preachers, that they may preach Thy Word and

Christ, to profit and salvation, in all the world. Help all who hear

the preaching of Thy Word to learn Christ, and honestly to better

their lives thereby. Graciously drive out of the Holy Church all

strange preaching and teaching from which men do not learn Christ.

Have mercy upon all bishops, priests, clergy and all that are in

authority, that they may be enlightened by Thy grace to teach and

govern us aright by precept and example. Preserve all that are weak in

faith, that they may not stumble at the wicked example of their

rulers.



Preserve us from heretical and apostate teachers, that we may remain

one, partaking of one daily bread--the daily doctrine and word of

Christ. Graciously teach us to regard aright the sufferings of Christ,

receive them into our hearts, and form them in our lives, to our

salvation. Suffer us not at our last hour to be deprived of the true

and holy body of Christ[20]. Help all priests to use and administer

the holy sacrament worthily and savingly, to the edification of the

whole Church. Help us and all Christians to receive the Holy Sacrament

at its proper season, with Thy grace and to our salvation. And _summa

summarum_, "Give us our daily bread," that is, may Christ abide in us

and we in Him forever, and may we worthily bear His name, the name of

Christian.



    To this petition belong all prayers or psalms which are prayed for

    rulers, and especially those or protection against false teachers,

    those for the Jews, heretics and all that are in error, and also

    those or all distressed and comfortless sufferers.



The Fifth Petition: _And forgive us our Debts, as we forgive our

Debtors._



[Sidenote: The Fifth Petition]



_This means--_



To this petition a condition is attached, viz., that we first forgive

our debtors. When that has been done we may say afterward, "Forgive us

our debts." That we may do this, we have prayed in the Third Petition,

"Thy will be done." It is God's will that we patiently suffer all

things, and not render evil for evil, nor seek revenge; but render

good for evil, as doth our Father in heaven. Who maketh His sun to

rise upon the good and evil, and sendeth rain upon the thankful and

unthankful [Matt. 5:45]. Therefore, we pray: O Father, comfort our

conscience now and in our last hour, for it is now and will be

hereafter in grievous terror because of our sin and Thy judgment. Send

Thy peace into our hearts, that we may with joy await Thy judgment.

Enter not with us into the sharpness of Thy judgment, for then will no

man be found righteous [Ps. 143:2]. Teach us, dear Father, not to rely

on our own good works or merits, or to comfort ourselves therewith;

but boldly to cast ourselves upon Thy boundless mercy alone. In like

manner, suffer us not to despair because of our blameworthy, sinful

life, but to deem Thy mercy higher and broader and stronger than all

our life.



Help all men who in the hour of death or of temptation feel the

anguish of despair, and especially N. or N. Have mercy also upon all

poor souls in purgatory, especially N. and N. Forgive them and all of

us our sins, comfort them and receive them into grace. Render us Thy

good for our evil, as Thou hast commanded us to do to others. Silence

the evil spirit, that cruel slanderer, accuser and magnifier of our

sins now and at our last hour, and in all anguish of conscience, even

as we too refrain from slander, and from magnifying the sins of other

men. Judge us not according to the accusation of the devil and of our

miserable conscience, and hearken not to the voice of our enemies who

accuse us day and night before Thee, even as we too will not give ear

to those who accuse and slander other men. Remove from us the heavy

burden of sin and conscience, that with light and joyous hearts we may

live and die, do and suffer, trusting wholly in Thy mercy.



    To this petition belong all the psalms and prayers which invoke

    God's mercy upon sin.



The Sixth Petition: _And lead us not into Temptation_.



[Sidenote: The Sixth Petition]



_This means--_



We have three temptations or adversaries, the flesh, the world and the

devil. Therefore, we pray:



[Sidenote: The Flesh]



Dear Father, grant us grace that we may have control over the lust of

the flesh. Help us to resist its desire to eat, to drink, to sleep

overmuch, to be idle, to be slothful. Help us by fasting, by

moderation in food and dress and sleep and work, by watching and

labor, to bring the flesh into subjection and it it for good works.

Help us to fasten its evil, unchaste inclinations and all its desires

and incitements with Christ upon the cross, and to slay them, so that

we may not consent to any of its allurements, nor follow after them.

Help us when we see a beautiful person, or image or any other

creature, that it may not be a temptation, but an occasion or love of

chastity and for praising Thee in Thy creatures. When we hear sweet

sounds and feel things that please the senses, help us to seek therein

not lust, but Thy praise and honor.



[Sidenote: The World]



Preserve us from the great vice of avarice and the desire or the

riches of this world. Keep us, that we may not seek this world's honor

and power, nor consent to the desire for them. Preserve us, that the

world's deceit, pretences and false promises may not move us to walk

in its ways. Preserve us, that the wickedness and the adversities of

the world may not lead us to impatience, revenge, wrath or other

vices. Help us to renounce the world's lies and deceits, its promises

and unfaithfulness and all its good and evil (as we have already

promised in baptism to do), to abide firmly in this renunciation and

to grow therein from day to day.



[Sidenote: The Devil]



Preserve us from the suggestions of the devil, that we may not consent

to pride, become self-satisfied, and despise others for the sake of

riches, rank, power, knowledge, beauty or other good gifts of Thine.

Preserve us, that we all not into hatred or envy or any cause.

Preserve us, that we yield not to despair, that great temptation of

our faith, neither now nor at our last hour.



Have in Thy keeping, heavenly Father, all who strive and labor against

these great and manifold temptations. Strengthen those who are yet

standing; raise up all those who have fallen and are overcome; and to

all of us grant Thy grace, that in this miserable and uncertain life,

incessantly surrounded by so many enemies, we may fight with

constancy, and with a firm and knightly faith, and win the everlasting

crown.



The Seventh Petition: _Deliver us from evil._



[Sidenote: The Seventh Petition]



_This means--_



This petition is a prayer against all that is evil in pain and

punishment; as the holy Church prays in the litanies: Deliver us, O

Father, from Thine eternal wrath and from the pains of hell. Deliver

us from Thy strict judgment, in death and at the last day. Deliver us

from sudden death. Preserve us from water and fire, from lightning and

hail. Preserve us from famine and scarcity. Preserve us from war and

bloodshed. Preserve us from Thy great plagues, pestilence, the French

sickness, and other grievous diseases. Preserve us from all evils and

necessities of body, yet in such wise that in all these things Thy

Name may be honored, Thy Kingdom increased and Thy divine Will be

done. Amen.



AMEN



[Sidenote: The Amen]



The God help us, without doubting, to obtain all these petitions, and

suffer us not to doubt that Thou hast heard us and wilt hear us in

them all; that it is "Yea," not "Nay," and not "Perhaps." Therefore we

say with joy, "Amen--it is true and certain." Amen.





FOOTNOTES





[1] For this translation see Vol. I, p. 222, note 1.



[2] The law that we have outside of divine revelation. C.f. Rom. 2:15.



[3] The possessor of these letters (_Himmels-und Teuelsbriefe_) was

thought to be under the special protection of the spirits.



[4] Magical formulas.



[5] Practices popularly ascribed to the witches.



[6] See below, p. 364, note 1.



[7] Luther believed, with the mediaeval Church, that the lending of

money at interest was a sin. See above pp. 159 ff., and _Weimar Ed._,

XXV, 293 ff.



[8] i. e., In the confession made to the priest. See Vol. I, p. 285,

and Introduction, above, p. 351.



[9] C. Vol. I, pp. 58, 285.



[10] In the manuals for confession with which Luther was familiar sins

were divided into the various classes mentioned here. C. Vol. I, pp.

90 ff.; Gecken, _Der Bilderkatechismus des XV Jhs._, and especially v.

Zezschwitz, II, 197 ff.



[11] _Serm._, 96, 2; _Migne_, XXVIII, 585.



[12] Cf. Vol. I, p. 187.



[13] See above, p. 355.



[14] Luther has here departed from the customary Roman division of the

Creed into twelve articles.



[15] _Gemein._



[16] _Gemeine._



[17] _Christenheit_, cf. Vol. I, p. 338.



[18] _Kirche._



[19] In the catechisms of 1529 Luther abandons this interpretation of

the bread.



[20] i. e. The sacrament of the Lord's Supper.







THE EIGHT WITTENBERG SERMONS



1522







INTRODUCTION





After the bold utterance of unshaken conviction at the Diet of Worms

Luther disappeared from the scene of his activities. In the darkness

of night he was taken by the friendly "foe" to the secure hiding-place

where the imperial proscription could not affect him. Thus he entered

the Wartburg on May 4, 1521. But the "crowded canvas of the sixteenth

century," bereft of its central figure, threatened to become mere

portrayal of turbulence and confusion. In Wittenberg and other places

the new life of the soul had burst its ancient fetters and was about

to lose its spiritual value in a destructive lateral movement. The

inability of the hesitating elector and the helpless Melanchthon to

stem the tide, caused Luther, in utter disregard of personal safety,

to return to his beloved city on March 6, 1522, and on Sunday, March

9th, and the seven days following to preach the _Eight Sermons_

herewith given, guiding the turbulent waves of popular uprising into

the channels marked by faith and love.



During his absence others had heeded the clarion call to lead the

Church out of its "Babylonian Captivity," and had put into practice

the measures which would carry out the principles he had uttered. The

mass was abolished[1], monks left the monasteries, some priests took

wives, and communion under both kinds was instituted. With these

measures Luther was in sympathy, which is evident from his letters to

Melanchthon[2] and to Wenceslaus Link, Staupitz's successor as the

Augustinian vicar[3], and the treatises _De votis monasticis_ and _De

abroganda missa privata_[4]. But these treatises also show that Luther

was not fully informed of the disturbances accompanying the new

measures. In so critical a time the absence of a great leader was soon

manifest. Melanchthon, ardent in the beginning, could not hold back

the radical procedure of Carlstadt and Zwilling.



Carlstadt, moderate at first in his conduct, nevertheless had sown the

seeds, in his teaching, which resulted in the bountiful harvest of

disorder Without Luther's clearness of vision and aptness of speech,

he likewise failed to discern the pitfalls which Luther so carefully

avoided. "In my opinion, he who partakes only of the bread, sins."[5]

"In all things of divine appointment, the divine law must be taught

and observed, even if it cause offence."[6] "The Gregorian chant keeps

the spirit away from God. . . . Organs belong to theatrical

exhibitions and princes' palaces."[7] "That we have images in churches

is wrong and contrary to the first commandment. To have carved and

painted idols standing on the altar is even more harmful and

devilish."[8] For his Scripture proof in other places, too,

particularly concerning vows, Carlstadt drew largely from the Old

Testament. On Christmas Day, 1521, he preached a sermon in which he

opposed going to confession before receiving communion. Attired in his

street garb he then proceeded to celebrate an "evangelical" mass by

giving communion in both kinds to the people, placing the elements

directly into their hands. Many of the communicants had not previously

confessed, nor observed the prescribed rule of fasting. From a denial

of any distinction between clergy and laity, Carlstadt finally

progressed to a condemnation of all scholarship and learning as

unnecessary to an understanding of the Divine Word, since it is given

directly from above[9].



Without the theological acumen of Carlstadt, and with less restraint,

the Augustinian monk Gabriel Zwilling labored in season and out of

season for the new order of things. In December the Zwickau prophets,

Niclas Storch, Thomas Drechsel, weavers by trade, and Marcus Stubner,

a former university student, appeared in Wittenberg claiming direct

divine inspiration, and preached the overturn of present conditions.

Earlier in the month (December 3d) some students and citizens had

caused a disturbance in the parish church and driven off the priests

who were saying mass. Soon after a number of citizens crowded into the

council chamber and demanded of the three councillors who presided

over Wittenberg the abolition of the mass by law, the restitution of

the cup, and the release of those in custody for causing the tumult of

December 3d. On Christmas Eve both the parish and the castle churches

witnessed scenes of wild disorder. On January 11th the monks, led by

Zwilling, destroyed all the altars except one in the convent church,

and cast out the images. The city council, in the endeavor to restore

order, on January 24, 1522, in full accord with a commission of the

university, adopted a "Worthy Ordinance for the princely City of

Wittenberg,"[10] in which the popular demands were met and a date was

fixed on which the images should be removed from the parish

church--the only one of the four churches of Wittenberg subject to the

council's control. But the excited populace did not await the day.

Taking the matter into its own hands it invaded the church, tore

images and pictures from the walls and burned them up.



The council and the university turned to Luther. Immediately after his

three-day secret visit to Wittenberg in December, on which he had

sensed the unrest in Wittenberg and elsewhere, he issued his _Faithful

Exhortation for all Christians to shun Riot and Rebellion_[11], in

which he emphasizes the principles reiterated in the _Eight Sermons_,

the sufficiency of the Word and the duty of dealing gently with the

weak. But the time for writing had passed. "Satan had broken into his

sheepfold" and had caused such havoc that he could not meet it "by

writing."[12] In spite of the elector's instruction to remain--the

same whose ineffectual measures had failed to avert the storm--Luther

on March 1st bade farewell to the Wartburg. On his way to Wittenberg,

in Borna on March 5th, he wrote the famous letter to the elector[13]

in which he declared that he desired no protection from the elector.

"I come to Wittenberg under much higher protection." He arrived in

Wittenberg on Thursday, March 6th, and on the following Sunday, March

6th, the first Sunday in Lent, he again ascended the pulpit in the

parish church. In an interesting report of an eye and ear

witness--Johann Kessler--we are told that he first gave an explanation

of the Gospel for the day on the temptation of Christ (Matt. 4:1 ff.),

after which "he dropped the text and took up the present affair."[14]

This earlier portion of the sermon has not come down to us. It may be

that Luther likewise first preached on the Gospel for the day on the

following Sunday, and for that reason it is called "a brief summary"

(see Sermon No. 8) in the early printed editions, when, in reality, it

is longer than that of Saturday (No. 7).



The sermons, delivered in a _vox suavis et sonora_[15], produced

immediate results. In a letter by Schurf, dated March 15th, even

before the last of the sermons had been delivered, it is stated that

"Gabriel [Zwilling] has confessed that he was wrong." Carlstadt was

silenced, the city council made acknowledgment to Luther by

substantial gifts and Wittenberg bowed to law and order.



Luther did not publish these sermons himself. He elaborated the

principles here uttered in the treatise, published a few weeks later,

_The Reception of both Kinds in the Sacrament_[16]. A fragment,

covering the thoughts of sermons 1 to 4, and formerly described as a

pastoral letter to the Wittenberg congregation, is now held to be a

piece of written preparation by Luther for these sermons[17].



The notes of a hearer of these sermons furnished the basis for the

printed editions. The Wednesday sermon (No. 4--On the Images) was

published separately at Augsburg and other places; the eight sermons

were published in Augsburg and Mainz. Seven editions of the former and

six of the latter are known.



Johann Aurifaber, the publisher of Luther's Table-talk, also edited

and published these sermons at Eisleben in 1564. His free

amplification of the older text, in an attempt to modernize it, is not

an improvement. His considerable additions to Luther's Scripture

citations are from Luther's own translation of a later date. Yet for

two centuries this edition remained the standard. The _Walch Edition_

was the first again to pay attention to the original text, however

placing the Aurifaber text first. (_Walch Ed._, XX.) The _Erlangen

Edition_ (XXYHI) observes the same order. O. von Gerlach, _Luthers

Werke_, _Auswahl seiner Hauptschriten_ (Berlin, 1841), gives only the

older text (V); Buchwald, in the Berlin Edition (I), gives only the

Aurifaber text. The Weimar Edition (Xc) places the old text on the

upper half of the page, with the Aurifaber recension immediately

below. The translation which follows is based on the older text as

found in the _Weimar Edition_, with which the other editions have been

compared.



For further discussion, see, in addition to the literature mentioned,

the biographies of Luther and the Church Histories. Also



Barge's articles in the _Realencyklopadie_, X, 73 ff. and XXIII, 738

ff.; also Kolde's, IV, 639 ff. and XIII, 556 ff.



Barge, _Fruhprotestantisches Gemeindechristentum in Wittenberg und

Orlamiinde_, Leipzig, 1909.



Cristiani, _Du Lutheranisme au Protestantisme_, Paris, 1911.



Boehmer, _Luther im Lichte der neueren Forschung_, third ed., Leipzig,

1914.



Vedder, _The Reformation in Germany_. New York, 1914.



            A. STEIMLE.



Allentown, Pa.





FOOTNOTES





[1] The consequent closing of the churches except for preaching

services leads Muller (_Luther und Karlstadt_, p. 52) to see in this

the origin of the Protestant custom of closing churches on weekdays.



[2] August 1, 1521. Enders, _Luthers Briewechsel_, III, 208.



[3] December 20, 1521. Enders, III, 257.



[4] Date of both, November, 1521. Both in _Weimar Ed._, VIII, and in

_Erl. Ed., O; var. arg._, VI. The latter also in German (_Vom

Misbrauch der Messe_), _Erl. Ed._, XXVIII.



[5] 24 Theses (July, 1521). Barge, _Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt_,

I, 291. Repeated in _De celebratione missae_ (October), _ibid._, 487.



[6] _De scandalo et missa_ (Oct. or Nov.), _ibid._, 491.



[7] _De cantu gregoriano disputatio_ (1520), _ibid._, 492.



[8] _Von Abthuung der Bilder_ (January, 1522), _ibid._, 367.



[9] See Kostlin-Kawesau, _Martin Luther_, I, 485.



[10] Published by H. Lietzmann in _Kleine Texte_, no. 21; also in

Richter, _Kirchenordnungen_, II, 484.



[11] _Weimar Ed._, VIII, 670 ff. _Erl. Ed._, XXII, 43 ff.



[12] Luther's letter to the elector on March 7th. De Wette, II, 138;

_Weimar Ed._, Xc Introd., xlvii f.



[13] Enders, III, 484.



[14] Kessler, _Sabbata_, _St. Gallen_, 1902. Quoted at length in

_Weimar Ed._, Xc, Introduction, lii.



[15] Letter of Albert Burer, _Briewechsel des Beatus Rhenanus_, 303.

See also Introd., liii, in _Weimar Ed._, Xc.



[16] _Weimar Ed._, Xb; _Erl. Ed._, XXVIII.



[17] See Kawerau, _Luthers Ruckkehr von der Wartburg_, 67. Fragment in

full in _Weimar Ed._, Xc, Introduction, lv ff., where see also a

recently discovered short Latin fragment, which served a similar

purpose.





EIGHT SERMONS BY DR. MARTIN LUTHER





Preached at Wittenberg in Lent, 1522



Treating Briefly of the Mass, Images, Both Kinds In The Sacrament,

Eating of Meats, Private Confession, etc.





THE FIRST SERMON



INVOCAVIT SUNDAY





[Sidenote: The Chief Things]



The challenge of death comes to us all, and no one can die for

another. Every one must fight his own battle with death by himself,

alone. We can shout into one another's ears, but every one must be

prepared finally to meet death alone. I will not be with you then, nor

you with me. Therefore every one must know for himself the chief

things in Christianity, and be armed therewith. They are the same

which you, my beloved, have long ago heard from me.



In the first place, We must know that we are the children of wrath,

and all our works, intentions and thoughts are nothing at all. To

prove this point we must have a clear, strong text, and although there

are many such in the Bible I will not overwhelm you with them, but ask

you to note just this one, "We are all the children of wrath." [Eph.

2:3] And pray, do not boast in reply: I have builded an altar, given a

foundation for masses, etc.



Secondly, That God has sent us His only-begotten Son that we may

believe in Him, and whosoever will put his trust in Him, should be

free from sin and a child of God, as John declares in the first

chapter, "He gave them power to become the sons of God, even to them

that believe in his name." [John 1:12] Here we should all be

thoroughly at home in the Bible and be ready with many passages to

confront the devil. In respect to these two points nothing seems to be

lacking or amiss, but they have been rightly preached to you; I should

be very sorry if it were otherwise. Nay, I am well aware and I dare

say, that you are more learned herein than I, and that there are not

only one, two, three, or four, but perhaps ten or more, who have this

wisdom and enlightenment.



[Sidenote: Love]



Thirdly, There must also be love, and through love we must do unto one

another as God has done unto us through faith. For without love faith

is nothing, as St. Paul says, I Cor. ii, "If I could speak with the

tongues of angels, and of the highest things in faith, and have not

love, I am nothing." [1 Cor. 13:1] And here, dear friends, have you

not grievously failed? I see no signs of love among you, and I observe

that you have not been grateful to God for His rich gifts and

treasures.



Let us beware lest Wittenberg become Capernaum. I notice that you have

a great deal to say of the doctrine which is preached to you, of faith

and of love. This is not surprising; an ass can almost intone the

lessons, and why should you not be able to repeat the doctrines and

formulas? Dear friends, the kingdom of God,--and we are that

kingdom,--consists not in speech or in words, but in deeds, in works

and exercises. God does not want hearers and repeaters of words, but

doers and followers who exercise themselves in the faith that worketh

by love. For a faith without love is not enough--rather it is not

faith at all [1 Cor. 13:12], but a counterfeit of faith, just as a

face seen in a mirror is not a real face, but merely the reflection of

a face.



[Sidenote: Patience]



Fourthly, We likewise need patience. For whoever has faith, trusts in

God and shows love to his neighbor, practicing it day by day, must

needs suffer persecution. For the devil never sleeps, and continually

molests. But patience works and produces hope, which freely yields

itself to God and finds solace in Him [Rom. 5:4]. Thus faith, by much

affliction and persecution, ever increases, and is strengthened day by

day. And the heart which by God's grace has received such virtues must

ever be active and freely expend itself for the benefit and service of

the brethren, even as it has received from God.



[Sidenote: Forbearance]



And here, dear friends, one must not insist upon his rights, but must

see what may be useful and helpful to his brother, as St. Paul says,

_Omnia mihi licent, sed non omnia expediunt_, "All things are lawful

for me, but not all things are expedient." [1 Cor. 6:12] We are not

all equally strong in faith; some of you have a stronger faith than I.

Therefore we must not look upon ourselves, or our strength, or our

rank, but upon our neighbor, for God has said through Moses, "I have

borne and nourished thee, even as a mother her child." [Deut. 1:31]

How does a mother nourish her child? First, she feeds it with milk,

then gruel, then eggs and soft food. If she weaned it and at once gave

it the ordinary, coarse food, the child would never thrive. So we

should also deal with our brother, have patience with him for a time,

suffer his weakness and help him bear it; we should give him milk-food

[1 Peter 2:2], too, as was done with us, until he likewise grows

strong, and thus we do not travel heavenward alone, but bring the

brethren, who are not now on our side, with us. If all mothers were to

abandon their children, where would we have been? Dear brother, if you

have suckled long enough, do not at once cut off the breast, but let

thy brother be nourished also. I would not have gone so far as you

have done, if I had been here. What you did was good, but you have

gone too fast. For there are also brothers and sisters on the other

side who belong to us, and must still be won.



Let me illustrate. The sun has two properties, light and heat. No king

has power enough to bend or guide the light of the sun; it remains

straight in the place where it shines. But the heat may be turned and

guided, and yet is ever about the sun. Thus the faith must always

remain pure and immovable in the heart, never wavering; but love moves

and is guided, according as our neighbors may grasp it or follow us.

There are some who can run, others must walk, still others can hardly

creep. Therefore we must not look upon our own, but upon our brother's

powers, so that he who is weak in faith, and attempts to follow the

strong, may not be destroyed of the devil. Therefore, dear brethren,

obey me. I have never been a destroyer, and I was also the very first

whom God called to this work. Neither can I run away, but must remain

as long as it pleases God. I was the first, too, to whom God revealed

it, to preach His Word to you; moreover, I am sure that you have the

pure Word of God.



[Sidenote: Abolishing the Mass]



Let us, therefore, take up this matter with fear and humility, cast

ourselves at one another's feet, join hands with each other, and help

one another. I will do my part, which is no more than my duty, for I

love you even as I love my own soul. For here we battle not against

pope or bishop, but against the devil [Eph. 6:12], and do you imagine

he is asleep? He sleeps not, but sees the true light rising, and to

keep it from shining into his eyes he would make a flank attack--and

he will succeed, if we are not on our guard. I know him well[1], and I

hope, too, that with the help of God I am his master. But if we yield

him but an inch, we must soon look to it how we may be rid of him.

Therefore all those have erred who have consented and helped to

abolish the mass--in itself a good undertaking, but not accomplished

in an orderly way. You say it was right according to the Scriptures.

I agree, but what becomes of order? For it was done in wantonness,

with no regard to proper order and with offence to your neighbor. If,

beforehand, you had called upon God in earnest prayer, and had

obtained the aid of the authorities, one could be certain that it had

come from God. I, too, would have taken steps toward the same end if

it had been a good thing to do; and if the mass were not so evil a

thing, I would introduce it again. For I cannot defend your action, as

I have just said. To the papists and the blockheads I could defend it,

for I could say: How do you know whether it was done with good or bad

intention, since the work in itself was really a good work? But I can

find nothing to reply to the devil. For if on their deathbeds the

devil reminds those who began this affair of texts like these, "Every

plant, which My father hath not planted, shall be rooted up," [Matt.

15:13] or "I have not sent them, yet they ran," [Jer. 23:21] how will

they be able to withstand?[2] He will cast them into hell. But I have

a weapon to brandish in the devil's face, so that the wide world will

become too small for him: I know that in spite of my reluctance I was

regularly called by the Council to preach in this place. And I would

that you should have the same assurance as I. You could so easily have

consulted me about the matter.



[Sidenote: "Must" and "Free"]



I was not so far away that you could not reach me with a letter,

especially since I did not interfere with you in any way. Did you want

to begin something, and then leave me to shoulder the responsibility?

That is more than I can undertake, and I will not do it. Here one can

see that you have not the Spirit, in spite of your deep knowledge of

the Scriptures. Take note of these two things, "must" and "free." The

"must" is that which necessity requires, and which must ever be

unyielding; as, for instance, the faith, which I shall never permit

any one to take away from me, but which I must always keep in my heart

and freely confess before every one. But "free" is that in which I

have choice, and may use or not, yet in such wise that it profit my

brother and not me. Now do not make a "must" out of what is "free," as

you have done, so that you may not be called to account for those who

were led astray by your exercise of liberty without love. For if you

entice any one to eat meat on Friday, and he is troubled about it on

his deathbed, and thinks, Woe is me, for I have eaten meat and I am

lost! God will call you to account for that soul. I would like to

begin many things, in which but few would follow me; but what is the

use? I know that those who have begun this thing, when it comes to the

point, cannot maintain themselves, and will be the first to retreat.

How would it be, if I brought the people to the point of attack, and

though I had been the foremost to exhort others, I would then flee,

and not face death with courage? How the poor people would be

deceived!



Let us, therefore, feed others also with the milk which we received,

until they, too, become strong in the faith. For there are many who

are otherwise in accord with us and who would also gladly accept this

one thing, but they do not yet fully understand it--all such we drive

away. Therefore, let us show love to our neighbors, or our work will

not endure. We must have patience with them for a time, and not cast

out him who is weak in the faith; much more should we regulate our

doing and our not doing according to the demands of love, provided no

injury is done to our faith. If we do not earnestly pray to God, and

act circumspectly in this matter, the thing looks to me as if all the

misery which we have begun to cause the papists will all upon us.

Therefore I could no longer remain away, but was compelled to come and

say these things to you.



This is enough about the mass; tomorrow we shall treat of the images.





THE SECOND SERMON



MONDAY AFTER INVOCAVIT





[Sidenote: Necessity and Choice]



Dear Friends: You heard yesterday the characteristics of a Christian

man, how his whole life is faith and love. Faith is directed toward

God, love toward man and one's neighbor, and consists in such love and

service for him as we have received from God without our work and

merit. Thus there are two things: the one, which is the most needful,

and which must be done in one way and no other; the other, which is a

matter of choice and not of necessity, which may be kept or not,

without endangering faith or incurring hell. In both, love must deal

with our neighbor in the same manner as God has dealt with us; it must

walk the straight road, straying neither to the let nor to the right.

In the things which are "musts" and are matters of necessity, such as

believing in Christ, love nevertheless never uses force or undue

constraint. Thus the mass is an evil thing, and God is displeased with

it, because it is performed as a sacrifice and work of merit.

Therefore it must be abolished. Here there is no room for question,

just as little as if you should ask whether you should pray to God.

Here we are entirely agreed: the private mass must be abolished, as I

have said in my writings[3]. And I heartily wish it would be abolished

everywhere and only the evangelical mass for all the people be

retained. Yet Christian love should not employ harshness here nor

force the matter. It should be preached and taught with tongue and

pen, that to hold mass in such a manner is a sin, but no one should be

dragged away from it by force. The matter should be let to God; His

word should do the work alone, without our work. Why? Because it is

not in my power to fashion the hearts of men as the potter moulds the

clay, and to do with them as I please. I can get no farther than to

men's ears; their hearts I cannot reach. And since I cannot pour faith

into their hearts, I cannot, nor should I, force any one to have

faith. That is God's work alone, who causes faith to live in the

heart. Therefore we should give free course to the Word, and not add

our works to it. We have the _jus verbi_[4], but not the

_executio_[5]; we should preach the Word, but the consequences must be

let to God's own good pleasure.



[Sidenote: Compulsion and Persuasion]



Now if I should rush in and abolish the mass by force, there are many

who would be compelled to consent to it and yet not know their own

minds, but say: I do not know if it is right or wrong, I do not know

where I stand, I was compelled by force to submit to the majority. And

this forcing and commanding results in a mere mockery, an external

show, a fool's play, man-made ordinances, sham-saints and hypocrites.

For where the heart is not good, I care nothing at all for the work.

We must first win the hearts of the people. And that is done when I

teach only the Word of God, preach the Gospel and say: "Dear lords or

pastors, desist from holding the mass, it is not right, you are

sinning when you do it; I cannot refrain from telling you this." But I

would not make it an ordinance for them, nor urge a general law; he

who would follow me could do so, and he who refused would remain

without. In the latter case the Word would sink into the heart and

perform its work. Thus he would become convinced and acknowledge his

error, and all away from the mass; to-morrow another would do the

same, and thus God would accomplish more with His Word than if you and

I would forge into one all power and authority. For if you have won

the heart, you have won the whole man--and the mass must finally fall

of its own weight and come to an end. And if the hearts and minds of

all men are united in the purpose--abolish the mass; but if all are

not heart and soul for its abolishment--leave it in God's hands, I

beseech you, otherwise the result will not be good. Not, indeed, that

I would again set up the mass; I let it live in God's name. Faith must

not be chained and imprisoned, nor bound by an ordinance to any work.

This is the principle by which you must be governed. For I am sure you

will not be able to carry out your plans, and if you should carry them

out with such general laws, then I will recant all the things that I

have written and preached, and I will not support you, and therefore I

ask you plainly: What harm can the mass do to you? You have your

faith, pure and strong, toward God, and the mass cannot hurt you.



[Sidenote: Paul's Method]



Love, therefore, demands that you have compassion on the weak, as all

the apostles had. Once, when Paul came to Athens, a mighty city, he

found in the temple many altars, and he went from one to the other and

looked at them all [Acts 17:16 ff.], but did not touch any one of them

even with his foot. But he stood in the midst of the market-place and

said they were all idolatrous works, and begged the people to forsake

them; yet he did not destroy one of them by force. When the word took

hold of their hearts, they forsook their idols of their own accord,

and in consequence idolatry fell of itself. Now, if I had seen that

they held mass, I would have preached and admonished them concerning

it. Had they heeded my admonition, they would have been won; if not, I

would nevertheless not have torn them from it by the hair or employed

any force, but simply allowed the Word to act, while I prayed for

them. For the Word created heaven and earth and all things; the Word

must do this thing, and not we poor sinners.



[Sidenote: Luther's Method]



[Sidenote: Jerome and Augustine]



In conclusion: I will preach it, teach it, write it, but I will

constrain no man by force, for faith must come freely without

compulsion. Take myself as an example. I have opposed the indulgences

and all the papists, but never by force. I simply taught, preached,

wrote God's Word; otherwise I did nothing. And then while I slept, or

drank Wittenberg beer with my Philip[6] and with Amsdor[7], the Word

so greatly weakened the papacy, that never a prince or emperor

inflicted such damage upon it. I did nothing; the Word did it all. Had

I desired to foment trouble, I could have brought great bloodshed upon

Germany, Yea, I could have started such a little game at Worms that

even the emperor would not have been safe. But what would it have

been? A fool's play. I did nothing; I left it to the Word. What do you

suppose is Satan's thought, when an effort is made to do things by

violence? He sits back in hell and thinks: How fine a game these fools

will make for me! But it brings him distress when we only spread the

Word, and let it alone do the work. For it is almighty and takes

captive the hearts, and if the hearts are captured the evil work will

all of itself. Let me cite an instance. Aforetime there were sects,

too, Jewish and Gentile Christians, differing on the law of Moses in

respect to circumcision. The former would keep it, the latter not [1

Cor. 7:18 ff.]. Then came Paul and preached that it might be kept or

not, it mattered not one way or the other; they should make no "must"

of it, but leave it to the choice of the individual; to keep it or

not, was immaterial. Later came Jerome, who would have made a "must"

out of it, and wanted laws and ordinances to prohibit it. Then came

St. Augustine, who held to the opinion of St. Paul: it might be kept

or not, as one wished; St. Jerome had missed the meaning of St. Paul

by a hundred miles. The two doctors bumped heads rather hard over the

proposition. But when St. Augustine died, St. Jerome accomplished his

purpose. After that came the popes; they would add something of their

own, and they, too, made laws. Thus out of the making of one law grew

a thousand laws, until they have completely buried us under laws. And

so it will be here; one law will soon make two, two will increase to

three, and so forth.



Let this be enough at this time concerning the things that are

necessary, and let us beware lest we lead astray those of weak

conscience.





THE THIRD SERMON



TUESDAY AFTER INVOCAVIT





We have heard the things most necessary in Christian life, and what is

a necessary result, namely, the doing away with the private mass. For

the works which are necessary are those which God has either commanded

or forbidden, according to the appointment of the Majesty on high. But

no one shall be dragged to them by the hair, or kept from them by

force, for I can drive no man to heaven with a club. I said this

plainly enough, and I believe you understood what I said.



[Sidenote: Nonessentials]



[Sidenote: Marriage of Monks and Nuns]



We shall now consider the things that are not matters of necessity,

but are let to our free choice by God, and which we may keep or not;

for instance, whether one shall marry or not, or whether monks and

nuns shall leave the cloisters. These things are matters of choice and

must not be forbidden by any one, and if they are forbidden, the

forbidding is wrong, since it is contrary to God's appointment. In the

things that are free, such as being married or remaining single, you

should do on this wise: If you can restrain yourself without burdening

your conscience thereby, do so by all means, but there must be no

general law, and every one shall be perfectly free. Any priest, monk

or nun who cannot restrain the desires of the flesh, should marry, and

thus relieve the burden of conscience. But see to it that you be

well-armed and fortified, so that you can stand before God and the

world when you are assailed, and especially when the devil attacks you

in the hour of death. It is not enough to say: This man or that has

done the same, I followed the example of the crowd, according to the

preaching of the provost[8] or Dr. Carlstadt, or Gabriel[9], or

Michael[10]. Not so, but every one must stand on his own feet and be

prepared to give battle to the devil. You must rest upon a strong and

clear text of Scripture if you would stand the test. If you cannot do

that, you will never withstand,--the devil will pluck you like a

withered leaf.  Therefore the priests who have taken wives, and the

nuns who have taken husbands, in order to save their consciences must

stand squarely upon a clear text of Scripture, such as this one by St.

Paul--although there are many more: "In the latter times some shall

depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines

of devils (methinks Paul uses plain language here!) forbidding to

marry and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created."

This text the devil shall not overthrow nor devour, it shall rather

overthrow and devour him. Therefore any monk or nun who is too weak to

keep the vow of chastity, should conscientiously examine himself; if

heart and conscience are strong, so that he can defend himself with a

good conscience, let him marry. Would to God all monks and nuns could

hear this sermon and properly understood this matter and would all

forsake the cloisters and thus all the cloisters in the world cease to

exist--this is my earnest desire. But now they have no understanding

of the matter (for no one preaches it to them), and hearing that in

other places many are leaving the cloisters, who however are

well-prepared or such a step, they would follow their example, but

have not yet fortified their consciences and do not know that it is a

matter of liberty. This is bad, although it is better that the evil

should be outside than inside[11]. Therefore I say, what God has made

free shall remain free, and you must not obey if some one forbids it,

even as the pope has done, the Antichrist. He who can do so without

harm and or love of his neighbor, may wear a cowl or a tonsure, since

it will not injure his faith; wearing a cowl will not kill him.



[Sidenote: Monks' Vows]



Thus, dear friends, it is plain enough, and I believe you ought to

understand it and not make liberty a law, saying: This priest has

taken a wife, therefore all priests must take wives. Not at all. Or

this monk or that nun has left the cloister, therefore they must all

come out. Not at all. Or this man has broken the images and burnt

them, therefore all images must be burned--not at all, dear brother!

And again, this priest has no wife, therefore no priest dare marry.

Not at all! They who cannot retain their chastity should take wives,

and for others who can be chaste, it is good that they restrain

themselves, as those who live in the spirit and not in the flesh.

Neither should they be troubled about the vows they have made, such as

the monks' vows of obedience, chastity and poverty (though they are

rich enough withal). For we cannot vow anything that is contrary to

God's commands. God has made it a matter of liberty to marry or not to

marry, and thou fool undertakest to turn this liberty into a vow

against the ordinance of God? Therefore you must leave liberty alone

and not make a compulsion out of it; your vow is contrary to God's

liberty. Suppose I should vow to strike my father on the mouth, or to

steal some one's property, do you believe God would be pleased with

such a vow? And as little as I ought to keep a vow to strike my father

on the mouth, so little ought I to abstain from marriage because I am

bound by a vow of chastity, for in both cases God has ordered it

otherwise. God has ordained that I should be free to eat fish or

flesh, and there should be no commandment concerning them. Therefore

all the Carthusians[12] and all monks and nuns forsake the ordinance

and liberty which God has given when they believe that if they eat

meat they are defiled.



[Sidenote: The Images]



[Sidenote: Moses and Images]



But we must come to the images, and concerning them also it is true

that they are unnecessary, and we are free to have them or not,

although it would be much better if we did not have them. I am not

partial to them. A great controversy arose on the subject of images

between the Roman emperor and the pope; the emperor held that he had

the authority to banish the images, but the pope insisted that they

should remain, and both were wrong. Much blood was shed, but the pope

emerged as victor and the emperor lost[13]. What was it all about?

They wished to make a "must" out of that which is free, and that God

cannot tolerate. Do you wish to change the ordering of the Majesty on

high? Not so; you will not do any such thing. You read in the Law,

Exodus xx, "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any

likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth

beneath, or that is in the water under the earth." [Ex. 20:4] There

you take your stand; that is your ground. Now let us see! When our

adversaries shall say: The first commandment aims at this, that we

should worship one God alone and not any image, even as it is said

immediately following, "Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them nor

serve them," and declare that the worship of images is forbidden and

not the making of them, they disturb and unsettle our foundation for

us. And if you reply: The text says, "Thou shalt not make any images,"

they answer: It also says, "Thou shalt not worship them." In the face

of such uncertainty who would be so bold as to destroy the images? Not

I. But let us go farther. They say: Did not Noah, Abraham, Jacob build

altars? And who will deny that? We must admit it. Again, did not Moses

erect a brazen serpent [Num. 21:9], as we read in his fourth book? How

can you say Moses forbids the making of images when he himself makes

one? It seems to me, such a serpent is an image, too. How shall we

answer that? Again, do we not read that two birds were erected on the

mercy-seat, the very place where God willed that He should be

worshiped? [Ex. 37:7] Here we must admit, that we may make images and

have images but we must not worship them, and when they are worshiped,

they should be put away and destroyed, just as King Hezekiah brake in

pieces the serpent erected by Moses [2 Kings 18:4]. And who will be so

bold as to say, when called to account: They worship the images. They

will answer: Art thou the man who dares to accuse us of worshiping the

images? Do not believe that they will acknowledge it. To be sure it is

true, but we cannot make them admit it. Remember how they acted when I

condemned works without faith. They said: Do you believe that we have

no faith, or that our works are performed without faith? I can do

nothing more than put my lute back in its pocket; give them a hair's

breadth, and they take a hundred miles.



[Sidenote: St. Paul and the Twins]



Therefore it should have been preached that images were nothing and

that God is not served by their erection, and they would have fallen

of themselves. That is what I did; that is what Paul did in Athens,

when he went into their churches and saw all their idols[14]. He did

not strike at any of them, but stood in the market-place and said, "Ye

men of Athens, ye are all idolatrous." [Acts 17;22] He preached

against their idols, but he overthrew none by force. And you would

rush in, create an uproar, break down the altars and overthrow the

images? Do you really believe you can abolish the images on this wise?

Nay, you will only set them up more firmly. Even if you overthrew the

images in this place, do you think you have overthrown those in

Nurnberg and the rest of the world? Not at all, St. Paul, as we read

in the Book of Acts, sat in a ship on whose prow were painted or

carved the Twin Brothers[15]. He went on board and did not bother

about it at all, neither did he break them off. Why must Luke describe

the Twins at this place? Without doubt he wanted to show that outward

things could do no harm to faith, if only the heart does not cleave to

them nor put its trust in them. This is what we must preach and teach,

and let the Word alone do the work, as I said before. The Word must

first capture the hearts of men and enlighten them,--we cannot do it.

Therefore the apostles gloried in their service, _ministerium_, and

not in its effect, _executio_.



We will let this be enough or to-day, and pray God for His grace.





THE FOURTH SERMON WEDNESDAY AFTER INVOCAVIT





[Sidenote: The Abuse of Images]



Dear Friends: We have heard the things which are necessary, as for

instance, that the mass is regarded as a sacrifice[16]. Then we

considered the things which are left to our liberty, such as marriage,

the monastic life, the abolishing of images. We have treated these

four subjects, and have said that in all these matters love is the

captain.  On the subject of images, in particular, we saw that they

ought to be abolished if they are going to be worshiped, otherwise

not, although I wish they were abolished everywhere because they are

abused,--it is useless to deny it. For whoever places an image in a

church, imagines he has performed a service unto God and a good work,

which is downright idolatry. And this, the greatest, foremost and

highest reason or abolishing the images, you have neglected, and taken

up the very lowest. For I suppose there is scarcely any man who does

not understand that yonder crucifix is not my God, for my God is in

heaven, but that this is simply a sign. But the world is full of the

other abuse, for who would place an image of silver or of wood in a

church, if he did not think that in so doing he was doing God a

service?  Think you that Duke Frederick, the bishop of Halle, and the

others would have placed so many silver images in the churches, if

they thought it counted nothing before God? Nay, they would not do it.

But this is not sufficient reason to abolish, destroy and burn all the

images; and why? Because we must admit that there are still people who

have not the wrong opinion of them, but to whom they may be useful.

Although they are few, yet we cannot and should not condemn anything

which is still useful to the devotions of any man. But you should have

taught that images are nothing, God cares nothing for them, and that

He is not served, nor pleased when we make an image for Him, but that

we would do better to give a poor man a gold-piece than to give God a

golden image, or God has forbidden the latter, but not the former. If

they had heard this teaching, that images count or nothing, they would

have ceased of their own accord, and the images would have fallen

without any uproar or tumult, even as it was already coming to pass.



[Sidenote: The Devil's Game]



We must, therefore, be on our guard, for the devil is after us,

through his apostles, with all his craft and cunning. Now, although it

is true, and no one can deny that the images are evil because they are

abused, nevertheless we must not on that account reject them, nor

condemn anything because it is abused. That would result in utter

confusion. God has commanded us not to lift up our eyes unto the sun,

etc. [Deut. 4:19], that we may not worship them, for they are created

to serve all nations. But there are many people who worship the sun

and the stars. Shall we, therefore, essay to pull the sun and stars

from the skies? Nay, we will not do it. Again, wine and women bring

many a man to misery and make a fool of him. Shall we, therefore, kill

all the women and pour out all the wine? Again, gold and silver cause

much evil, shall we, therefore, condemn them? Nay, if we would drive

away our one worst enemy, who does us the most harm, we would have to

kill ourselves, for we have no greater enemy than our own heart, even

as Jeremiah says, "The heart of man is crooked," [Jer. 17:9] or, as I

take the meaning, "always twisting to one side or the other." And what

good would that do us?



He who would blacken the devil must have good charcoal, for he, too,

wears fine clothes and goes to the fair. But I can catch him by asking

him: Do you not place the images in the churches because you think it

a special service of God? and when he says Yes, as he must, you may

conclude that what was meant as a service of God he has turned into

idolatry by abusing the images; he eagerly sought what God has not

commanded and neglected God's positive command, to help the neighbor.

But I have not yet caught him; he escapes me by saying: I help the

poor, too; cannot I give to my neighbor and at the same time place

images in churches? That is not true,--for who would not rather give

his neighbor a gold-piece, than God a golden image! Nay, he would not

trouble himself about placing images in churches if he believed that

God was not served thereby. Therefore I freely admit, images are

neither here nor there, neither evil nor good, we may have them or

not, as we please. This trouble has been caused by you; the devil

would not have accomplished it with me, for I cannot deny that it is

possible to find some one to whom images are useful. And if I were

asked about it, I would confess that none of these things give offence

to me, and if just one man were found upon earth who used the images

aright, the devil would soon draw the conclusion against me: Why

condemnest thou that which is still useful in worship? This challenge

I could not answer; he would have successfully defied me. He would not

have got nearly so far if I had been here. He played a bold game, and

won, although it does no harm to the Word of God. You wanted to paint

the devil black, but forgot the charcoal and used chalk. If you would

fight the devil, you must be well versed in the Scriptures, and,

besides, use them at the right time.



[Sidenote: Of Meats]



Let us proceed and speak of the eating of meats. It is true that we

are free to eat any manner of food, meats, fish, eggs or butter. This

no one can deny. God has given us this liberty. That is true;

nevertheless we must know how to use our liberty, and treat the weak

brother differently from the stubborn. Observe, then, how you must use

this liberty.



First of all, If you cannot give up meat without harm to yourself, or

if you are sick, you may eat whatever you like, and if any one takes

offence, let him be offended. And if the whole world took offence, yet

you are not committing a sin, for God can excuse you in view of the

liberty He has so graciously bestowed upon you, and of the necessities

of your health, which would be endangered by your abstinence.



[Sidenote: Liberty and Law]



Secondly, If you should be pressed to eat fish instead of meat on

Friday, and to eat fish and abstain from eggs and butter during Lent,

etc., as the pope has done with his fools' laws, then you must in no

wise allow yourself to be drawn away from the liberty in which God has

placed you, but do just the contrary to spite him, and say: Because

you forbid me to eat meat, and presume to turn my liberty into law, I

will eat meat in spite of you. And thus you must do in all other

things which are matters of liberty. To give you an example: If the

pope, or any one else would force me to wear a cowl, just as he

prescribes it, I would take of the cowl just to spite him. But since

it is left to my own free choice, I wear it or take it off, according

to my pleasure.



[Sidenote: Peter and the Gentiles]



Thirdly, There are some who are still weak in faith, who ought to be

instructed, and who would gladly believe as we do. But their ignorance

prevents them, and if this were faithfully preached to them, as it was

to us, they would be one with us. Toward such well-meaning people we

must assume an entirely different attitude from that which we assume

toward the stubborn. We must bear patiently with them and not use our

liberty, since it brings no peril or harm to body or soul, nay, rather

is salutary, and we are doing our brothers and sisters a great service

besides. But if we use our liberty without need, and deliberately

cause offence to our neighbor, we drive away the very one who in time

would come to our faith. Thus St. Paul circumcised Timothy because

simple-minded Jews had taken offence [Acts 16:3]; he thought, What

harm can it do, since they are offended because of their ignorance?

But when, in Antioch, they would insist that he ought and must

circumcise Titus, Paul withstood them all and to spite them would not

have Titus circumcised [Gal. 2:3]. And he held his ground. He did the

same when St. Peter by the exercise of his liberty caused a wrong

conception in the minds of the unlearned [Gal. 2:11 ff.]. It was on

this wise: When Peter was with the Gentiles, he ate pork and sausage

with them, but when the Jews came in, he would not touch this food and

ate no more with them. Then the Gentiles who had become Christians,

thought: Alas! we, too, must be like the Jews, eat no pork and live

according to the law of Moses. But when Paul found that it would

injure the liberty of the Gospel, he reproved Peter publicly and read

him an apostolic lecture, saying: "If thou, being a Jew, livest after

the manner of the Gentiles, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live

as do the Jews?" [Gal. 2:14] Thus we, too, should order our lives and

use our liberty at the proper time, so that Christian liberty may

suffer no injury, and no offence be given to our weak brothers and

sisters who are still without the knowledge of this liberty.





THE FIFTH SERMON: A SERMON ON THE SACRAMENT THURSDAY AFTER INVOCAVIT





We have heard of the things that are necessary, such as the mass,

which is regarded as a sacrifice[17], and of the unnecessary things,

such as the leaving of monasteries by monks, the marriage of priests,

and the images. We have seen how we must treat these matters, that no

compulsion or law must be made of them, and that no one shall be

dragged from them by the hair, but that we must let the Word of God

alone do the work. Let us now consider how we must observe the blessed

sacrament.



[Sidenote: Foolish Law of the Pope]



You have heard how I preached against the foolish law the Pope of the

pope and opposed his precept[18], that no woman shall wash the

altar-linen on which the body of Christ has lain, even if it be a pure

nun, except it first be washed by a pure priest. Likewise, when any

one touches the body of Christ with the hand, the priests come running

and scrape his fingers, and much more of the same sort. But when a

priest is incontinent, the pope winks at it. If the woman bears a

child, he lets that pass, too. The altar-linen and the sacrament,

however, dare not be touched.



[Sidenote: Handling the Sacrament]



Against such fools' laws we have preached, and set forth that no sin

is involved in these foolish prescriptions of the pope, and that a

layman does not commit sin if he touch the cup or the body of Christ

with his hands. You should give thanks to God that you have come to

such clear knowledge, which many great men have lacked. But now you

have become just as foolish as the pope, with your notion that you

must handle the sacrament; you would prove that you are good

Christians by touching the sacrament with your hands. You have dealt

with the sacrament, our highest treasure, in such a way that it is a

wonder you were not struck down by thunder and lightning. The other

things God would have suffered you to do, but to make this a matter of

compulsion. He can in no wise tolerate. And if you do not recede from

this, neither the emperor nor any one else need drive me from you, I

will go without urging; yea, I dare say, none of my enemies, although

they have caused me much sorrow, have wounded me as you have wounded

me in this matter. If you would show that you are good Christians by

handling the sacrament, and boast of it before everybody, then indeed

Herod and Pilate are the chief and best Christians. Methinks they

handled the body of Christ when they had him nailed to the cross and

put to death.



[Sidenote: What does "Take" mean?]



Nay, my dear friends, the kingdom of God consists not in outward

things, which can be touched or perceived, but in faith [Luke 17:20].

But you may say: We live and should live in accordance with the

Scriptures, and God has instituted the sacrament in such a manner that

we should take it with our hands, for He said: "Take and eat, this is

my body." [Matt. 26:26] Answer: Though I am convinced beyond a doubt

that the disciples of the Lord took it with their hands, and though I

admit that you may do the same without committing sin, nevertheless I

can neither make it compulsory nor prove that it is the only way. And

my reason therefor is this: when the devil, in his seeking after us,

argues, Where have you read in the Scriptures that "take" means

"seizing with the hands"?--how shall I prove or defend it? Nay, how

will I answer him when he cites, from the Scriptures, the very

opposite, and proves that "take" does not mean to receive with the

hands only, but also to convey to ourselves in other ways? "See, my

good fellow," so he says, "how the word 'take' is used by three

Evangelists in describing the taking of gall and vinegar by the Lord

[Matt. 27:34, Mark 15:23, Luke 23:26]. You must admit that the Lord

did not touch or handle it with His hands, for His hands were nailed

to the cross." This verse is a strong argument against me. Again, he

cites the passage: _Et accepit omnes timor_,--"And fear took hold on

all," [Luke 7:16] where again we must admit that fear has no hands.

Thus I am driven into a corner and must concede, even against my will,

that "take" means not only to receive with the hands, but to convey to

myself in any other way in which it can be done. So you see, dear

friends, we must be on firm ground, if we are to withstand the devil's

attack. Although I must acknowledge that you committed no sin when you

touched the sacrament with your hands, nevertheless I must tell you

that it was not a good work, because it caused offence everywhere.

For the universal custom is, to receive the blessed sacrament directly

from the hands of the priest. Why will you not herein also serve those

who are weak in the faith and abstain from your liberty? It does not

help you if you do it, nor harm you if you do it not.



Therefore no new practices should be introduced, unless the Gospel has

first been thoroughly preached and understood, even as it has been

with you. On this account, dear friends, let us deal soberly and

wisely in the things that pertain to God, or God will not be mocked.

You may mock the saints, but with God it is vastly different.

Therefore, I pray you, give up this practice.



[Sidenote: Both Kinds in the Sacrament]



Let us now speak of the two kinds. Although I hold that it is

necessary that the sacrament should be received in both kinds,

according to the institution of the Lord, nevertheless it must not be

made compulsory nor a general law. We must occupy ourselves with the

Word, practice it and preach it. For the result we should look

entirely to the Word, and let every one have his liberty in this

matter. Where that is not done, the sacrament becomes an external

observance and a hypocrisy, which is just what the devil wants. But

when the Word is given free course and is not bound to any observance,

it takes hold of one to-day and falls into his heart, to-morrow it

touches another, and so on. Thus quietly and soberly it will do its

work, and no one will know how it all came about.



I was glad to know when some one wrote me, that some people in this

city had begun to receive the sacrament in both kinds. You should have

allowed it to remain thus and not have forced it into a law. But now

you go at it pell-mell, and headlong force every one to it. Dear

friends, you will not succeed in that way. And if you desire to be

regarded as better Christians than others, by this that you take the

sacrament into your hands and receive it in both kinds, you are really

poor Christians indeed! In this way even a sow could be a Christian,

for she has a big enough snout to receive the sacrament outwardly. We

must deal soberly with such high things. Dear friends, this dare be no

mockery, and if you would heed me, give it up. If you will not heed

me, no one need drive me away from you--I will leave you unbidden, and

I shall regret that I ever preached so much as one sermon in this

place.  The other things could be passed by, but this cannot be passed

by; you have gone so far that men say: "At Wittenberg there are very

good Christians, for they take the sacrament with the hands and handle

the cup, and then they go to their brandy and drink until they are

drunken." Thus are the weak and simple-minded men driven away, who

would come to us if as much instruction had been given to them as was

given to us.



But if there is any one so stupid that he must touch the sacrament

with his hands, let him have it brought home to his house and there

let him handle it to his heart's content. But in public let him

abstain, since that will not bring him harm and the offence will be

avoided which is caused to our brothers, sisters and neighbors, who

are now so angry with us that they are ready to kill us. I may say

that none of the enemies who have opposed me until now have brought so

much grief upon me as you.



This is enough for to-day; we shall continue on the morrow.





THE SIXTH SERMON FRIDAY AFTER INVOCAVIT





[Sidenote: The Reception of the Sacrament]



In our discussion of the chief things we have come to the reception of

the sacrament, which we have not yet finished. To-day we shall see how

we must conduct ourselves here, and also who is worthy to receive the

sacrament and who belongs there.



It is very necessary here that your hearts and consciences be well

instructed, so that you distinguish well between the outward reception

and the inner and spiritual reception. This is the bodily and outward

reception, when a man receives with his mouth the body of Christ and

His blood. Any man can receive the sacrament in this way, for such

reception may be without faith and love. But that reception does not

make a man a Christian, for if it did, even a mouse would be a

Christian, or it can likewise eat the bread and drink out of the cup.

It is such a simple thing to do. But the true, inner, spiritual

reception is a very different thing, for it consists in the right use

of the sacrament and of its fruits.



I would say in the first place that such reception is the true inner

one, and is a reception in faith. We Christians have no other outward

sign by which we may be distinguished from others than this sacrament

and baptism; but a mere outward reception, without faith, amounts to

nothing. There must be faith to make one well prepared or the

reception and acceptable before God, otherwise it is all sham and a

mere external show, which is not Christianity at all. Christianity is

a thing of faith, which is never bound to any external work.



[Sidenote: The One Requisite: Faith]



But faith (which we all must have, if we wish to go to the sacrament

worthily) is a firm trust, that Christ, the Son of God, stands in our

place and has taken all our sins upon Faith His shoulders, that He is

the eternal satisfaction for our sin and reconciles us with God the

Father. He who has this faith belongs to this sacrament, and neither

devil nor hell nor sin can harm him. Do you ask why? Because God is

his protector and defender. And when I have this faith, then I am

certain God is fighting for me; I can defy devil, death, hell and sin,

and all the harm with which they threaten me. This is the great,

inestimable treasure given us in Christ, which the words of man fail

to describe. Only faith can take hold of the heart, and not every one

has such faith. Therefore this sacrament must not be made a law, as

the most holy father, the pope, has done with his fools' commandment:

All Christians must go to the sacrament at the holy Eastertide, and he

who does not go shall not be buried in consecrated ground[19]. Is it

not a foolish law which the pope has set up? You ask why? Because we

are not all alike; we do not all have equal faith; the faith of one is

stronger than that of another. It is therefore impossible that the

sacrament can be made a law, and the greatest sins are committed at

Easter solely on account of this unchristian command, which would

drive everybody to the sacrament. And if all robbery, usury,

unchastity and all the other sins were cast upon one great heap, this

sin would overtop it--even at the time and place of seeming greatest

silliness. And why? Because the pope can look into no one's heart to

see whether he has faith or not.



[Sidenote: The Result: Assurance]



But if you believe that God is with you and stakes all His treasures

and His blood for you, as if He said: Fall in behind Me without fear

or delay, and then let come what may to attempt thy harm, let devil,

death, sin and hell and all creation try it, I shall go before thee,

for I will be thy captain and thy shield, trust Me and rely upon Me

completely--he who believes thus cannot be harmed by devil, hell, sin

or death; if God fights for him, what can you do to him?



[Sidenote: Who are Worthy]



He who has such faith is fit for the altar and receives the sacrament

as an assurance, or seal, or sign to assure him of God's promises and

grace. But such faith we do not all have; would to God one-tenth of

the Christians had it! See, such rich, immeasurable treasures, which

God in His grace showers upon us, cannot be the possession of every

one, but only of those who suffer either bodily or spiritual

adversity: the bodily through the persecution of man, and the

spiritual by despair of conscience; outwardly or inwardly, when the

devil causes your heart to be weak, timid and discouraged, so that you

know not how you stand with God, and when he reproaches you with your

sins. And in such terrified and trembling hearts alone God desires to

dwell, as the prophet Isaiah says [Isa. 66:2]. For he who has not felt

the battle within him, is not distressed by his sins nor has a daily

quarrel with them, and wishes no protector, defender and shield to

stand before him, is not yet ready for this food. This food demands a

hungering and longing man, for it delights to enter a hungering soul,

one that is in constant battle with its sins and eager to be rid of

them. He who is not thus prepared should abstain for a while from this

sacrament, for this food is not for a sated and full heart, and if it

comes to such, it is harmful. Therefore, if we think upon, and feel

within us, such distress of conscience and the fear of a timid heart,

we shall come with all humbleness and reverence, and not rush to it

pell-mell, with insolence and without fear and humility. We are not

always fit for it; to-day I have the grace, and am fit for it, but not

to-morrow, yea, it may be that or six months I have no desire nor

fitness or it.



Therefore are they the most worthy who are constantly vexed by death

and the devil, and they receive it most opportunely, to remind them

and strengthen them in the faith that no harm can come unto them, for

He is now with them, from Whom no one can take them away; let come

death or devil or sin, they cannot do them harm.



This is what Christ did, when He prepared to institute the blessed

sacrament. He brought anguish upon His disciples and trembling to

their hearts when He said that He would go away from them [Matt.

26:2], and again they were tormented when He said: One of you shall

betray me [Matt. 26:21]. Think you not that that cut them to the

heart? Truly, they received the word with all fear, and sat there as

though they were all traitors to God. And after He had made them all

tremble with fear and sorrow, then only did He institute the blessed

sacrament as a comfort, and consoled them again. For this bread is a

comfort for the sorrowing, a healing for the sick, a life for the

dying, a food for all the hungry, and a rich treasure for all the poor

and needy[20].



Let this be enough at this time concerning the proper use of this

sacrament. I commend you to God.





THE SEVENTH SERMON SATURDAY BEFORE REMINISCERE





Yesterday we heard of the use of the holy and blessed sacrament and

saw who are worthy to receive it, even those in whom is the fear of

death, who have timid and despairing consciences and who live in fear

of hell. All such come prepared to partake of this food for the

strengthening of their weak faith and the comforting of their

conscience. This is the true and right use of this sacrament, and

whoever does not find himself in this state, let him refrain from

coming until God also takes hold of him and draws him through His

Word.



[Sidenote: Fruit of the Sacrament: Love]



We shall now speak of the fruit of this sacrament, which is love; that

is, that we should treat our neighbor even as God has treated us. Now

we have received from God naught but love and favor, for Christ has

pledged and given us His righteousness and everything that He has, has

poured out upon us all His treasures, which no man can measure and no

angel can understand or fathom, for God is a glowing furnace of love,

reaching even from the earth to the heavens.



[Sidenote: The Lack of Love]



Love, I say, is a fruit of this sacrament. But I do not yet perceive

it among you here in Wittenberg, although there is much preaching of

love and you ought to practice it above all other things. This is the

principal thing, and alone is seemly in a Christian. But no one shows

eagerness for this, and you want to do all sorts of unnecessary

things, which are of no account. If you do not want to show yourselves

Christians by your love, then leave the other things undone, too, for

St. Paul says in I Corinthians, "If I speak with the tongues of men

and of angels, and have not love, I am as sounding brass or a tinkling

cymbal." [1 Cor. 13:1] This is a terrible saying of Paul. And further:

"And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries

of God, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I

could remove mountains, and have not love, I am nothing. And if I

bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and if I give my body to be

burned, but have not love, it profiteth me nothing." [1 Cor. 13:2, 3]

You have not got so far as that, although you have received great and

rich gifts from God, especially a knowledge of the Scriptures. It is

true, you have the pure Gospel and the true Word of God, but no one as

yet has given his goods to the poor, no one has yet been burned, and

even these things would profit nothing without love. You would take

all of God's goods in the sacrament, and yet not pour them forth again

in love. One will not lend the other a helping hand, no one thinks

first of another, but every one looks out or himself and his own gain,

seeks but his own and lets everything else go as it will,--if anybody

is helped, well and good. No one looks after the poor or seeks how to

help them. It is pitiful. You have heard many sermons about it and all

my books are full of it and have the one purpose, to urge you to faith

and love.



And if you will not love one another, God will send a great plague

upon you; let this be a warning to you, for God will not reveal His

Word and have it preached in vain. You are tempting God too far, my

friends. If some one in times past had preached the Word to our

forefathers, they would perchance have acted differently. Or if the

Word were preached to-day to many poor children in the cloisters, they

would receive it with much greater joy than you. You do not heed it at

all, and give yourselves to other things, which are unnecessary and

foolish.



I commend you to God.





THE EIGHTH SERMON



A SHORT SUMMARY[21] OF THE SERMON OF DR. M. LUTHER DELIVERED ON

REMINISCERE SUNDAY ON PRIVATE CONFESSION





[Sidenote: Confession before the Congregation]



Now we have heard all the things which ought to be considered here,

except confession. Of this we shall speak now. In the first place,

There is a confession which is founded on the Scriptures; namely, when

some one commits a sin publicly, or with other men's knowledge, and is

accused before the congregation. If he abandons his sin, they

intercede for him with God. But if he will not hear the congregation,

he is excluded from the church and cast out, so that no one will have

anything to do with him. And this confession is commanded by God in

Matthew xviii, "If thy brother trespass against thee (so that thou and

others are offended), go and tell him his fault between thee and him

alone." [Matt. 18:15] Of this confession there is no longer even a

trace to be found, and in this particular the Gospel is put aside in

this place. He who could reestablish it would perform a good work.

Here is where you ought to have taken pains and reestablished this

kind of confession, and let the other things go. For by this no one

would have been offended, and it would have been accomplished without

disturbance. It should be done in this way: When you see a usurer,

adulterer, thief or drunkard, you should go to him in secret and

admonish him to give up his sin. If he will not hear, you should take

two others with you and admonish him once more, in a brotherly way, to

give up his sin. But if he scorns that, you should tell the pastor

before the whole congregation, have your witnesses with you, and

accuse him before the pastor in the presence of the people, saying:

"Dear pastor, this man has done this and that, and would not receive

our brotherly admonition to give up his sin. Therefore I accuse him,

together with my witnesses who were present." And then, if he will not

give up and willingly acknowledge his guilt, the pastor should exclude

him and put him under the ban before the whole assembly, for the sake

of the congregation, until he comes to himself and is received back

again. This would be Christian. But I cannot undertake to carry it out

single-handed.



[Sidneote: Confession to God]



Secondly, A confession is necessary for us, when we go away in a corner

by ourselves, and confess to God Himself and pour out before Him all

our faults. And this confession is also commanded. From this comes the

familiar word of Scripture: "_Facite judicium et justitiam_." [Gen.

18:19] _Judicium acere est nos ipsos accusare et damnare; justitiam

autem acere est idere misericordiae Dei_[22]. As it is written,

"Blessed are they that keep judgment and do righteousness at all

times." [Ps. 106:3] The judgment is nothing else than a man's knowing

and judging and condemning himself, and this is true humility and

self-abasement. The righteousness is nothing else than a man's knowing

himself and praying to God or the mercy and help through which God

raises him up again. This is what David means when he says: "I have

sinned; I will confess my transgressions unto the Lord," [Ps. 32:5 f.]

and, "Thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin; for this all Thy saints

shall pray unto Thee."



[Sidenote: Confession to a Brother]



Thirdly, There is also a confession when one takes another aside, and

tells him what troubles him, so that he may hear from him a word of

comfort; and this confession is commanded by the pope. It is this

urging and forcing which I condemned when I wrote concerning

confession[23], and I refuse to go to confession just because the pope

wishes it and has commanded it. For I wish him to keep his hands of

the confession and not make of it a compulsion or command, which he

has not the power to do. Yet I will let no man take private confession

away from me, and I would not give it up for all the treasures in the

world, since I know what comfort and strength it has given me. No one

knows what it can do or him except one who has struggled much with the

devil. Yea, the devil would have slain me long ago, if the confession

had not sustained me. For there are many doubts which a man cannot

resolve by himself, and so he takes a brother aside and tells him his

trouble. What harm is there, if he humbles himself a little before his

neighbor, puts himself to shame, looks or a word of comfort from him,

and takes it to himself and believes it, as if he heard it from God

himself, as we read in Matthew xviii: "If two of you shall agree as

touching anything that they shall ask, it shall be done for them."

[Matt. 18:19]



[Sidenote: Many Absolutions]



And we must have many absolutions, so that we may strengthen our timid

consciences and despairing hearts against the devil and against God.

Therefore no man shall forbid the confession nor keep or drive any one

away from it. And if any one wrestles with his sins, is eager to be

rid of them and looks or some assurance from the Scriptures, let him

go and confess to another in secret, and receive what is said to him

there as if it came directly from God's own lips. Whoever has the

strong and firm faith that his sins are forgiven, may ignore this

confession and confess to God alone. But how many have such a strong

faith? Therefore, as I have said, I will not let this private

confession be taken from me. Yet I would force no one to it, but leave

the matter to every one's free will.



[Sidenote: Five Comforts for the Conscience]



For our God is not so miserly that He has left us with only one

comfort or strengthening for our conscience, or one absolution, but we

have many absolutions in the Gospel, and are showered richly with

them. For instance, we have this in the Gospel: "If ye forgive men

their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you." [Matt.

6:14] Another comfort we have in the Lord's Prayer: "Forgive us our

trespasses," [Matt. 6:12] etc. A third is our baptism, when I reason

thus: See, my Lord, I am baptized in Thy name so that I may be assured

of Thy grace and mercy. After that we have the private confession,

when I go and receive a sure absolution as if God Himself spake it, so

that I may be assured that my sins are forgiven. Finally I take to

myself the blessed sacrament, when I eat His body and drink His blood

as a sign that I am rid of my sins and God has freed me from all my

frailties; and in order to make me sure of this, He gives me His body

to eat and His blood to drink, so that I shall not and cannot despair:

I cannot doubt I have a gracious God. Thus we see that confession must

not be despised, but that it is a true comfort. And since we need many

absolutions and comforts, because we must fight against the devil,

death, hell and sin, we must not allow any of our weapons to be taken

away, but keep intact the whole armor and equipment which God has

given us or use against our enemies. For you do not yet know what work

it is to fight with the devil and to overcome him. I know it well; I

have eaten salt with him once or twice[24]. I know him well, and he

knows me well, too. I only you knew him, you would not in this manner

drive out confession.



I commend you to God. Amen.





FOOTNOTES





[1] Cp. his experiences at the Wartburg. See Kostlin-Kawerau, I, 439

ff.



[2] Carlstadt, without authority, preached, administered the sacrament

and brought about the upheaval in the _parish_ church--Luther's own.

He was archdeacon and preacher at the _castle_ church. See Muller,

_Luther und Karlstadt_, 69 and passim.



[3] In the _Open Letter to the Christian Nobility_ and the _Babylonian

Captivity_. See pp. 125 f., 136 f., and 215 f. of this volume.



[4] Right to speak.



[5] Power to do.



[6] Melanchthon.



[7] See above, p. 61.



[8] Justus Jonas, provost at the castle church.



[9] Gabriel Zwilling, an Augustinian, who, next to Carlstadt, was the

leader in forcing the reforms which Luther is here discussing. See

Introduction, p. 388.



[10] Was Luther led by the name of Gabriel to add a last touch by the

mention of the other archangel, in the thought of St. Paul, that even

an angel from heaven cannot change the Gospel, Gal. 1:8. See note in

_Weimar Ed._, Xc, 438. See also a similar outburst in a letter to

Johann Lang in 1516, six years previous, where Gabriel Biel's name

furnished the incitement. Enders, I, 54; Smith, I, 42.



[11] Namely, of the monasteries.



[12] A monastic order, founded 1084, noted or the strictness of its

rule.



[13] The Iconoclastic controversy in the Eastern church, which called

forth the Seventh Ecumenical Council at Nice in 787, whose decrees

were favorable to images in the churches. The controversy, which raged

for over a century, was finally settled in 843. Since the promulgation

of this decree the First Sunday in Lent has been celebrated annually

as the "Feast of Orthodoxy." See _Realencyk._, III, 222 ff.



[14] See above, p. 309.



[15] i. e., Castor and Pollux.



[16] Luther's great objection to the mass was its turning of the

Sacrament into a sacrifice. This view of the mass was for him an utter

perversion of the gospel, and, therefore, comes under the category of

essentials. See Vol. I, pp. 309 ff., and above, pp. 211 ff.



[17] See above, p. 407, note 1.



[18] Cf. above, p. 282.



[19] In the canon law, C. 12, X, _de poenitentiis_.



[20] On the last four paragraphs, cf. above, pp. 15 f.



[21] On this title, see Introduction, p. 389.



[22] "Let there be judgment and righteousness." To keep judgment is to

accuse and condemn ourselves; but to do righteousness is to trust in

the mercy of God.



[23] The treatise _Von der Beichte, ob die der Papst Macht habe zu

gebieten_, written during the sojourn on the Wartburg. See _Weimar

Ed._, VIII, 129; _Erl. Ed._, XXVII, 318.



[24] See above, p. 394.







THAT DOCTRINES OF MEN ARE TO BE REJECTED



TOGETHER WITH A REPLY TO TEXTS QUOTED IN DEFENCE OF THE DOCTRINES OF

MEN (VON MENSCHENLEHREN ZU MEIDEN)



1522







INTRODUCTION





"Silver and gold have I none: but such as I have give I thee."

Somewhat in the spirit of these words Luther had planned to dedicate a

small book to his host of the Wartburg, Hans von Berlepsch. For a time

Luther had thought that von Berlepsch himself was bearing the expense

of his entertainment in that retreat, and that he was being more

royally treated than he deserved. Not only the material comforts with

which he was surrounded appealed to him, however. Von Berlepsch was

interested in Luther and in Luther's work. He talked with him

seriously on religious questions, and expressed a desire to have more

information, particularly concerning the authority of the teachings of

the Roman Church which had no direct warrant in Scripture.



To this desire of von Berlepsch we can trace the origin of our

treatise, That the Doctrines of Men are to be Rejected. There is no

dedication to von Berlepsch, however, and no reference to the months

of companionship on the Wartburg. Luther returned from the Wartburg

early in March, 1522, and on the 28th of March sent the first part of

the treatise to Spalatin, with the request that it be forwarded to von

Berlepsch. The second part, the Reply to Texts Quoted in Defence of

the Doctrines of Men, was added in a second edition.



This was not the only writing forwarded to von Berlepsch in memory of

the pleasant days spent on the Wartburg. Perhaps of even greater

interest was the gift sent on September 25, 1522--one of the first

complete copies of the German New Testament.



Buchwald has called our treatise "a model of sound explanation of the

Scriptures for the purpose of refuting error." We must caution the

reader, however, not to think of Luther's occasional statements

concerning the authority of Scripture as final. Luther is still

largely upon medieval ground, accepting the premise of the Roman

Church, and refuting the practice of the popes, priests and monks from

the fundamental assumption of the authority of the Scriptures. The

succeeding years, the controversies with the leaders of the peasants

and with the heavenly prophets, led him to clearer views. Where in

this treatise he wrote, "The same things which are found in the Books

of Moses are found in the others. For the other books do no more than

show how in the course of history the word of Moses was kept or not

kept," he was thinking of the one Gospel which he found everywhere in

the Scriptures. But he distinguished carefully between the permanent

and the temporary in the Books of Moses and elsewhere, and speaks of

"that which God has decreed" in the Old Testament as having "come to

an end, and no longer binding the consciences of men" (p. 442). That

which is permanent is the Gospel, "for it is beyond question that all

the Scriptures point to Christ alone" (p. 432). Probably the clearest

statement of his views is found in a sermon preached in 1527: "The

Word was given in many ways from the beginning. We must not only ask

whether it is God's Word, whether God spoke it, but much more, to whom

He spoke it, whether it applies to you or to another." "The false

prophets rush in and say, 'Dear people, this is God's Word.' It is

true, and we cannot deny it; but we are not the people to whom He

speaks" (_Erl. Ed._, 33, 16.)



In reading the treatise, therefore, it will be well to consider when

it was written and for whom; and not to think of it as a final

statement of Luther's views on the authority of the Scriptures.



The treatise is found in the original German in Weimar Ed., X2; in

Erlangen, 28, 318-343; in Berlin, 2, 289-314.



                W. A. LAMBERT.



South Bethlehem, PA.





THAT WE ARE TO REJECT THE DOCTRINES OF MEN:



TOGETHER WITH A REPLY TO THE TEXTS QUOTED IN DEFENCE OF THE DOCTRINES

OF MEN





To all who read or hear this little book may God grant grace and

understanding. Amen.



I, Martin Luther, have published this brief book for the comfort and

saving of the poor consciences which are by the law of men held in

bondage in monasteries and convents; that they may be able to arm and

strengthen themselves with the Word of God, so as to be steadfast in

the pains of death and other trials. But those who are overbold and

unruly, who give no other evidence of being Christians except that

they can eat eggs, meat and milk, stay away from confession and break

the images, etc.,--these I warn that I do not wish my words to help

them. For I regard them as the filthy people who defiled the camp of

Israel [Deut. 23:12 f.], although such cleanliness was enjoined upon

the people that a man was required to go outside the camp to ease

himself and to cover up with earth that which came from him. We also

must endure these unclean lapwings in our nest [Deut. 14:18, Lev.

11:19], until God teach them manners. This Christian liberty I would

have preached only to poor, humble, captive consciences, so that poor

children, nuns and monks, who would like to escape from their bondage

may inform their consciences how they may do so with God's approval

and without danger, and use their freedom in an orderly and Christian

way. May God grant His blessing. Amen.



_That the doctrines of men are to be rejected: proof from the

Scriptures_.



I



Moses in Deuteronomy iv, 2 says, "Ye shall not add unto the word which

I command you, neither shall ye diminish aught from it," [Deut. 4:2]



But some one will say that Moses speaks only of his word; but to the

books of Moses there have also been added many books of the prophets

and the entire New Testament. I answer: True; but nothing new has been

added: the same things that are found in the books of Moses are found

in the others. For the other books do no more than show how in the

course of history the word of Moses was kept or not kept. It is indeed

stated in different words and the histories are different, but

thoughout there is one and the same teaching. And here we can

challenge them to point out anywhere in all the books added to the

books of Moses a single word that is not found earlier in the books of

Moses. For it is beyond question that all the Scriptures point to

Christ alone. Now Christ says, in John V, 46, "Moses wrote of me."

[John 5:46] Therefore everything that is in the other books is also in

the books of Moses, and these are the original documents.



II



Isaiah xxix, 13, which the Lord quotes in Matthew xv, 8: "This people

draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, but their heart is far from me.

But in vain do they worship me, teaching the doctrines and

commandments of men." [Isa. 29:13, Matt. 15:8]



Mark the word of Christ, Who calls it vain worship to serve God after

the doctrines of men. For Christ is not drunken or a fool; on His word

we must build in all things rather than on all angels and creatures

[Gal. 1:8].



III



The same Christ in the same chapter, Matthew xv, 11, says, "Not that

which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out

of the mouth, this defileth a man." [Matt. 15:11]



This saying must be well understood, for it is powerful and mightily

overthrows all teaching, custom and manner of life that distinguishes

between foods, and it sets all consciences free from all laws

concerning food and drink; so that it is allowable to eat milk,

butter, eggs, cheese and meat every day, whether it be Sunday or

Friday, Lent or Advent; and no one needs to pay butter-money or buy

butter-letters. For this word stands firm and does not deceive: "That

which goeth into the mouth doth not defile a man."



[Sidenote: Fast-days]



From this it follows, first, that it is a lie when they say that St.

Peter instituted the fast-days and that the commandment of the Church

has made it a mortal sin to eat eggs, butter, milk and meat on

fast-days. For neither St. Peter nor the Church institutes or teaches

anything contrary to Christ. And if they did, we must not obey them.

To do what they ask would indeed not be wicked; but it is wicked to

make a necessity and a commandment of that which is free, and to

pretend that something does defile and is sin of which Christ Himself

says that it is no sin and does not defile.



[Sidenote: Dispensation]



It follows, secondly, that it is sheer devil's knavery for the pope to

sell letters and grant permission to eat butter, meat, etc.; for

Christ in this word has already made it a matter of liberty and has

permitted it.



[Sidenote: Special Fast-days]



In the third place, it is an error and a lie to say that goldfasts[1],

banfasts[2], and the fasts on the eve of Apostles' days and saints'

days must be observed and that their non-observance is sin, because

the Church has so commanded. For against everything of the kind stands

this word of Christ: "That which goeth into the mouth doth not defile

the man." Fasting should be free and voluntary, both as to the day and

as to the food, forever.



[Sidenote: The Orders]



Fourthly, the orders of St. Benedict, and of St. Bernard, the

Carthusians, and all others which avoid the use of meat and other food

because they hold that this is necessary and commanded and that not to

do so would be sin, contradict Christ. For their law flatly

contradicts the word of Christ and says: That which goeth into the

mouth defileth. Then they must make Christ a liar when He says: "That

which goeth into the mouth defileth not the man." Thus you see that

this one saying of Christ mightily condemns all orders and spiritual

rules. For if that which goeth into the mouth does not defile, how

much less will that defile which is put on the body? whether it be

cowl, coat, shirt, hose, shoes, cloak, whether green, yellow, blue,

red, white, motley, or whatever one wish. And the same is true of

places, whether churches, cells or the rooms of a house.



It follows that he who regards it a sin for a monk to go without the

dress of his order, and would not leave it a matter of freedom, also

makes Christ a liar and makes that a sin which Christ freed from sin,

and says Yes! where Christ says No! What then are such monks but

people who say to Christ's very ace. Thou liest! there is sin in that

which thou sayest is not sin. It will not help them to quote St.

Bernard, St. Gregory, St. Francis and other saints. We must hear what

Christ says, Who alone has been made our Teacher by the Father, when

on Mount Tabor He said, Matthew xvii, 5, "This is my beloved Son, in

Whom I am well pleased; hear ye Him." [Matt. 17:5] He did not say.

Hear ye St. Bernard, St. Gregory, etc., but, Hear ye Him, Him, Him, my

beloved Son. Who knows how far the saints sinned or did right in this

matter? What they did, they did not of necessity nor by commandment.

Or if they did it as of necessity and by commandment, they erred, and

we must not forsake Christ to follow them.



All this is confirmed by Christ in the words which follow in Matthew

xv, 11, "That which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man. For

out of the mouth, coming forth from the heart, come evil thoughts,

adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies, etc.

These defile a man." [Matt. 15:11] Here we ask, If that alone is sin

and defiles a man, which proceeds from the heart, as Christ here so

strongly argues and decides, how then can butter, milk, eggs, cheese

defile, which proceed not from the mouth nor from the heart, but come

from the belies of cows and of hens? Who has ever seen meat, tonsures,

cowls, monasteries, hair-shirts coming out of men's mouths? Then it

must be the cows that sin in giving us milk and butter, and in bearing

calves.



Therefore, all the laws of monks and of men concerning food, clothing

and places and all things that are external, are not only blasphemy of

God and lying and deceiving, but the buffoonery of apes. It is true, a

man may have an inordinate desire to eat excessively and to dress

extravagantly; but that proceeds from the heart, and may refer to fish

as well as to meat, to gray homespun as well as to red velvet. In

short, Christ does not lie when He says, "That which goeth into the

mouth defileth not a man, but that which cometh out of the mouth, this

defileth a man."



But if it is true that neglect to do what men command neither defiles

nor is sin, then on the other hand, the keeping and doing of men's

commandments cannot make us clean nor give us merit; since only the

opposite of sin and of the unclean is clean and gives merit.

Therefore, all of the monastic life neither makes clean nor gives

merit. And that is what the Lord Christ means when He says, Matthew

XV, 9, "In vain do they worship me with the commandments of men."

[Matt. 15:9] Why 'in vain'? Because neglecting them is no sin and

keeping them is no merit, but both are free. They deceive themselves,

therefore, and make a merit of that which is no merit, and are afraid

of sinning where there is no sin, as Psalm xiv, 5, says, "There have

they trembled for fear, where there was no fear." [Ps. 14:5]



IV



St. Paul in I Timothy iv, 1-7 says: "Now the Spirit speaketh

expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith,

giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; speaking

lies in hypocrisy; having their consciences seared with a hot iron;

forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God

hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe

and know the truth. For every creature of God is good, and nothing to

be reused, if it be received with thanksgiving: for it is sanctified

by the word of God and prayer. If thou put the brethren in remembrance

of these things, thou shat be a good minister of Jesus Christ,

nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine, whereunto

thou hast attained.  But refuse profane and old wives' fables." [1

Tim. 4:1-7]



O how this thunders and storms against all the works, doctrines and

orders of men. First, if they boast that they have derived their

practice from the pope and from holy fathers, what will Christ's

judgment be? Will He not say, "Paul, My Apostle, is My chosen vessel,

as Luke writes. Acts ix, 15: why then have you not ascribed greater

authority to his word than to that of the pope and the fathers, of

whom you do not know whose vessels they are?" [Acts 9:15] How will

they stand before Him?



Next, we ask them whether butter, eggs, meat, milk and all the food

which they avoid on fast-days and in the orders, have not been created

by God, and are not God's good creatures? Then it is certain that they

are the men of whom Paul here says that they forbid the food which God

has created and has given to believers to use. And they also forbid

marriage, so that they cannot escape: this passage its them and is

spoken of them. Let us see what Paul thinks of them and how he

reproves them.



[Sidenote: Departed from the Faith]



I. They have departed from the faith; for they could not have

introduced such doctrines and works if they had not thought the

doctrines and works would make them pious and save them. But such an

opinion is of itself a sure sign that they have fallen away from the

faith, since it is the work of faith alone to do that which they

expect works to do, as has frequently been said.



[Sidenote: Give Heed to Seducing Spirits]



II. They give heed to seducing spirits. He does not say, "to seducing

men," but "to seducing spirits"; and these are they who pretend to be

spiritual and bear the name spiritual, and claim to be of the Spirit

and in the Spirit. But since they are without faith it is impossible

for them not to err in spiritual matters. Hence this is a fitting

succession: they depart from the faith and follow after error in the

spirit.



[Sidenote: Doctrines of Devils]



III. Their doctrines he calls "doctrines of devils." This also must

follow where faith and the true Spirit are wanting: the devil gives

them the seducing spirit and leads them on with beautifully varnished

doctrines and works, so that they think they are altogether spiritual.

But since the doctrine does not originate in the Scriptures, it can be

the doctrine of no one but the devil.



[Sidenote: Speakers of Lies]



IV. They are speakers of lies. For they at times quote even the

Scriptures and the sayings of the fathers and wrest them to support

their doctrines, as we see them do daily. But this is all false and a

lie, since the Scriptures are altogether against them.



[Sidenote: Hypocrisy]



V. It is sheer hypocrisy. This is true and needs no comment. For all

that they do is only appearance and show, concerned with external

matters of food and clothes.



[Sidenote: Seared Conscience]



VI. They have their conscience seared with a hot iron; that is, they

have an unnatural conscience. For where there is no sin nor matter of

conscience, they make sin and a matter of conscience, as was said

above. Just as a scar caused by searing is an unnatural mark on the

body.



[Sidenote: Forbid to Marry]



VII. They forbid to marry, by creating an estate in which there shall

be no marriage, as we see in the case of both priests and monks.

Wherefore, behold the judgment of God upon such doctrines and estates:

that they are doctrines of devils, seducing doctrines, false

doctrines, faithless doctrines, hypocritical doctrines. God help us!

Who would remain in them when God Himself passes such judgment? What

would it help you, if you had made a thousand vows and oaths on such

doctrines? Nay, the stricter the vow, the more reason to break it,

because it was made after the devil's doctrines and against God.



[Sidenote: The Tatianists]



But see how cleverly they worm themselves out and ward off this text

from themselves, saying that it does not apply to them, but to the

Tatianists[3], the heretics who condemned marriage altogether. Paul,

however, does not speak here of those who condemn marriage, but of

those who forbid it for the sake of appearing spiritual. Let us grant,

however, that Paul speaks against the Tatianists. Then, if the pope

does what the Tatianists did, why does it not apply to him as well? Be

they Tatianists or the pope, this text speaks of those who forbid

marriage. The words of Paul condemn the work, and make no distinction

about the person who does it. He who forbids marriage is the devil's

disciple and apostle, as the words clearly say. And since the pope

does this, he must be the devil's disciple, as must all his followers;

otherwise, St. Paul must be a liar.



[Sidenote: Forbid Food]



VIII. They forbid the food which God has created. Here, again, you see

that the doctrines of man are ascribed to the devil by God Himself

through the mouth of Paul. What greater and more terrible thing would

you wish to hear concerning the doctrines of men, than that they are a

falling away from the faith, seducing, false, devilish, hypocritical?

What will satisfy those whom this text does not satisfy? But if the

doctrine that forbids certain kinds of food is devilish and

unchristian, that which concerns clothes, tonsures, places and

everything external will be just as devilish and unchristian.



[Sidenote: The Manicheans]



But here again they worm themselves out, and say that St. Paul is

speaking of the Manicheans[4]. We are not asking about that. St. Paul

speaks of the forbidding of meats, and, be they Manicheans or

Tatianists, the pope and his followers forbid meats. Paul speaks of

the work which we see that the pope does. Therefore we cannot save him

from this text. If some other man arose today or tomorrow and forbade

meats, would it not apply to him, even if he were no Manichean? If

that way of interpreting Scripture were true, we might boldly do what

Paul here forbids, and say. It does not apply to us, but to the

ancient Manicheans. But that is not the way. Whether the pope with his

monks and priests be not a Manichean, I do not discuss; but I do say,

that in his teaching and works he contradicts the teaching of St. Paul

more than any Manichean.



[Sidenote: Unthankful]



IX. They are unthankful. For God has created meats, says St. Paul, to

be received with thanksgiving. And they refuse to receive them, that

they may have no occasion to be thankful for God's goodness. The

reason for which is, that they have no faith and do not know the

truth. For Paul says, I Tim. iv, 3, "To them which believe and to them

which know the truth, they are given to be used with thanksgiving." [1

Tim. 4:3] But if they are unbelieving and do not know the truth, as

St. Paul here says they are, they are beyond question heathen,

non-Christians, blind and foolish. And this, I suppose, they regard as

praise of the pope, priests and monks!



[Sidenote: Harmful Preachers]



X. Paul rebukes them as wicked, harmful preachers; for he says that

Timothy shall be a good preacher, nourished up in the words of faith

and of good doctrine, if he will put the brethren in remembrance of

these things. It follows that they who teach the contrary must be

wicked preachers and be nourished with words of unbelief and of wicked

doctrines.



[Sidenote: Old Wives' Fables]



XI. He calls such doctrines profane and old wives' fables. Is not that

foolish talk? He says that the great doctors busy themselves with

fables such as old wives chatter about behind the stove, and calls

them profane, unchristian and unholy idle talk, although the doctors

claim that they are the very essence of holiness!



Who has ever heard the doctrines of men so terribly decried in every

way? that they are apostate, unbelieving, unchristian, heathen,

seducing, devilish, false, hypocritical, searing the conscience,

unthankful, that they dishonor God and His creature and are harmful

ables and old wives' chatter. Let him who can, flee from beneath this

judgment of God.



V



St. Paul in Colossians ii, 16 and the following verses says: "Let no

man burden you in meat or in drink or in respect of certain days which

are holy days, or days of the new moon or sabbaths, which are a shadow

of things to come, but the body is in Christ. Let no one seduce you

who follows his own will in the humility and religion of angels, of

whom he has never seen even one, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind,

and does not hold fast the Head, from which all the body, by joints

and bands, is supplied with nourishment and is knit together, and so

groweth unto a stature given of God. If then you be dead with Christ

from the elements of this world, why do you burden yourselves with

ordinances as if you were alive? Ordinances which say. This thou shalt

not touch, this thou shalt not eat or drink, this thou shalt not put

on (which all perish in the using), according to the commandments and

doctrines of men, who have a show of wisdom because of their

self-chosen spirituality and humility, and because they do not spare

the body and do not supply its needs." [Col. 2:16 ff.] Is St. Paul

here also speaking of the Manicheans or Tatianists? Or can we find

excuse here for the papists? He speaks against those who take captive

the consciences of men with the doctrines of men and make matters of

conscience of food, drink, clothes, days and everything that is

external. And it cannot be denied that the pope, the chapters and

monasteries with their rules and statutes do this when they forbid the

eating of meat, eggs and butter, and the wearing of ordinary clothes

such as other people wear. And here stands St. Paul, and says:



[Sidenote: Burden the Conscience]



I. "Let no man burden your consciences, or judge or condemn you in

respect of food, drink, clothes or days." What does this mean if not

this: Be not priests nor monks, nor in any way keep the pope's laws;

and believe him not when he says that a certain thing is sin or a

matter of conscience. See, here God through Paul commands us to

despise the laws of the pope and of the monasteries, and to keep them

free, so that they do not take captive the conscience. That is as much

as to say, Do not become monks or priests, and let him who has become

monk or priest turn back, or else retain his position as a matter of

freedom without constraint of conscience.



And although Paul wrote this of the Jews, who did such things

according to the Law (for he says in Colossians ii, 17, that they have

the shadow and type of things to come, but that the body itself is in

Christ [Col. 2:17]), yet it holds much more against the decrees of the

pope and of the monks. For if that which God has decreed comes to an

end and shall no longer bind the consciences of men, how much more

shall men neither decree nor keep anything that would bind the

conscience? And farther on more will be said of the laws of mere men,

for



[Sidenote: By-paths]



II. He says, "Let no one seduce you or lead you toward paths the prize

in by-paths." What does this mean but to lead men to works and away

from faith, which alone is the one right road by which to gain the

prize of salvation, to strive toward heaven by other ways, and to

claim that this is the way to gain the prize? And this is what the

orders and the pope's doctrines do. And what are the ways they

propose? Listen:



[Sidenote: Humility]



III. He says, "In self-willed humility and the religion of angels."

What words could better it the orders? Is it not true that the pope

and all of them prattle much of their obedience, which is said to be

the noblest virtue, that is, the precious spiritual humility of the

papists? But who has commanded this humility? They themselves have

invented it and sought it out that they might seduce themselves. For

with it they have withdrawn themselves from the common humility and

obedience which God has commanded, namely, that every one shall humble

himself and be subject to his neighbor. But they are subject to no man

on earth, and have withdrawn themselves entirely; they have made an

obedience and a humility of their own after their statutes. Yet they

claim that their obedience is superhuman, perfect and, as it were,

angelic, although there are no more disobedient and less humble people

on earth than they are.



In the same way they also have their vows of chastity and poverty.

They do not work like other people but, like the angels in heaven,

they praise and worship God day and night; in short, their life is

heavenly, although nowhere on earth can you ind more horrible

unchastity, greater wealth, less devotional hearts, or more hardened

people than in the spiritual estate, as every one knows. Yet they

seduce all the world from the true way to the by-path with their

self-willed, beautiful, spiritual and angelic life. All this, it seems

to me, is not spoken of the Jews nor of the Manicheans, but of the

papists; the works prove it.



[Sidenote: Uncertainty]



IV. He says, "He walks in such religion and in that which he has never

seen." This is the very worst feature of the doctrines of men and the

life built upon them, that they are without foundation and without

warrant in the Scriptures, and that men cannot know whether what they

do is good or wicked. For all their life is an uncertain venture. If

you ask them whether they are certain that what they are and do is

pleasing to God, they say, they do not know, they must take the

chances: "the end will show us." And this is all they can say, for

they have no faith, and faith alone makes us certain that all that we

are is well-pleasing to God, not because of our merit, but because of

His mercy. Thus all their humility, obedience and all of their

religion is, at the very best, uncertain and in vain.



[Sidenote: Vainly Puffed Up]



V. "Vainly they puff themselves up," that is, they have no

reason to do so. For although their practices are uncertain,

unbelieving and altogether damnable, yet they make bold to puff

themselves up and to claim that they have the best and the only true

way, so that in comparison with theirs every other manner of living

stinks and is nothing at all. But this puffed-up carnal mind of theirs

they neither see nor feel, so great is their angelic humility and

obedience! O, the fruit of the doctrines of men!



[Sidenote: Against Christ]



VI. "They do not hold fast the Head," which is Christ. For the

doctrines of men and Christ cannot agree; one must destroy the other.

If the conscience finds comfort in Christ, the comfort derived from

works and doctrines must all; if it finds comfort in works, Christ

must fall. The heart cannot build upon a twofold foundation; one must

be forsaken. Now we see that all the comfort of the papists rests upon

their practices; for if it did not rest upon them, they would not

esteem them and would give them up, or else they would use them as

matters of freedom, how and when they pleased.



If there were no other misfortune connected with the doctrines of men,

this were of itself all too great--that for their sake Christ must be

forsaken, the Head must be lost, and the heart must build on such an

abomination. For this reason St. Peter calls the orders abominable and

damnable heresies, which deny Christ, when he says, in the Second

Epistle, ii, I, "There shall arise among you false teachers, who

privily shall bring in damnable heresies, and deny the Lord that

bought them." [2 Pet. 2:1]



[Sidenote: Why Burden the Conscience?]



VII. It is clear enough that he means our spiritual estate when he

says, "If ye be dead with Christ, why do ye burden your consciences

with ordinances, such as: This thou shalt not touch, this thou shalt

not eat, this thou shalt not wear, etc." Who can here deny that God

through St. Paul forbids us to teach and to hear all doctrines of men,

in so far as they constrain the conscience? Who then can with a good

conscience be a monk or a priest, or be subject to the pope? They must

confess that their consciences are taken captive with such laws. Thus

thou seest what a mighty saying this is against all doctrines of men.

It is dreadful to hear that they forsake Christ the Head, deny the

faith and so must needs become heathen, and yet think their holiness

upholds the world.



VI.



Paul, in Galatians I, 8., says: "But though we, or an angel from

heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have

preached unto you, let him be accursed[5]. As we said before, so say I

now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye

have received, let him be accursed." [Gal. 1:8 f.]



[Sidenote: God's Ban]



In these words you hear a judgment of God against the pope and all

doctrines of men, which says that they are under the ban. And this ban

is not like the pope's ban; it is eternal and separates a man from

God, from Christ, from all salvation and from everything that is good,

and makes him the companion of devils. O what a terrible judgment is

this! Look now, whether the pope, priests and monks do not proclaim

another and a different doctrine than that taught by Christ and His

Apostles. We said above that Christ teaches, "What goeth into the

mouth doth not defile a man." Contrary to this and beyond it the pope,

priests and monks say, "Thou liest, Christ, in so saying; for the

eating of meat defiles a Carthusian and condemns him; and the same is

true of the other orders." Is not this striking Christ on the mouth,

calling Him a liar and blaspheming Him, and teaching other doctrines

than He taught? Therefore it is a just judgment, that they in their

great holiness are condemned like blasphemers of God with an eternal

ban.



VII



Paul, in Titus i, 14, says: "Teach them not to give heed Titus to

Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn them from the

truth." [Titus 1:14]



[Sidenote: Christ, or Men?]



This is a strong command, that we are not at all to regard the

commandments of men. Is not this clear enough? And Paul gives his

reason: they turn men from the truth, he says. For as has been said

above, the heart cannot trust in Christ and at the same time in the

doctrines or the works of men. Therefore, as soon as a man turns to

the doctrines of men he turns away from the truth, and does not regard

it. On the other hand, he who finds his comfort in Christ cannot

regard the commandments and the works of men. Look now, whose ban you

should fear most! The pope and his followers cast you far beyond hell

if you do not heed their commandments, and Christ commands you not to

heed them on pain of His ban. Consider whom you wish to obey.



VIII



II Peter ii, 1-3: "There shall be false teachers among you, who

privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that

bought them, by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken

of, and through covetousness shall they with feigned words make

merchandise of you."



[Sidenote: The Orders Damnable Heresies]



So then, the orders and monastic houses are damnable heresies. Why?

Because they deny Christ, and blaspheme the way of faith. How? Christ

says, there is no sin and no righteousness in eating, drinking,

clothes, places and works of men; this they condemn, and teach and

live the opposite, namely, that sin and righteousness are in these

things. Hence Christ must be a liar, He must be denied and blasphemed

together with His teaching and faith. And they make use of feigned

words, and make much of their obedience, chastity and worship; but

only through covetousness, that they may make merchandise of us, until

they have brought all the wealth of the world into their possession,

on the ground that they are the people who by their worship would help

every man to heaven. For this reason they are and remain damnable and

blasphemous heresies.



IX



Christ says, in Matthew xxiv, 23 ff.: "Then if any man shall say unto

you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not. For there shall

arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall show great signs and

wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the

very elect. Behold, I have told you before, Wherefore if they shall

say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is

in the secret chambers; believe it not."



Tell me, how can a monk be saved? He binds his salvation to a place

and says, "Here I find Christ; if I did not remain here, I should be

lost." But Christ says, "No, I am not here." Who will reconcile these

two? Therefore, it is clear from this word of Christ that all

doctrines which bind the conscience to places are contrary to Christ.

And if He does not allow the conscience to be bound to places, neither

does He allow it to be bound to meats, clothes, postures or anything

that is external. There is no doubt then that this passage speaks of

the pope and his clergy, and that Christ Himself releases and sets

free all priests and monks, in that He condemns all orders and

monasteries and says, "Believe not, go not out," etc.



He says the same thing also in Luke xvii, 20 f.: "The kingdom of God

cometh not with observation, and men shall not say, Lo here! or, Lo

there! For, behold, the kingdom of God is within you." [Luke 17:20 f.]



Is not this also clear enough? The doctrines of men can command

nothing but external things; and since the kingdom of God is not

external, both teachers and disciples must needs miss the kingdom and

go astray. Nor will it help them to say that the holy fathers

instituted the orders. For Christ has already destroyed this argument,

since He says, that the very elect might be misled, that is, they will

err, but not remain in their error. How else would it be an exceeding

great error, if the elect were not misled? Let the teaching and the

practice of the saints be what it will, the words of Christ are

certain and clear. Him we must follow, and not the saints, whose

teaching and works are uncertain. What He says stands firm, "The

kingdom of God is among[6] you, and not at a distance, either here or

there."



X



Solomon, in Proverbs xxx, 5 f., says: "Every word of God is purified:

and is a shield unto all them that put their trust in it. Add thou not

unto His words, lest He reprove thee, and thou be found a liar."

[Prov. 30:5 f.]



With this I will end or the present; or there is much more in the

prophets, especially in Jeremiah, of which I have written in the

treatise on Confession. Here then Solomon concludes that he is a liar

who adds aught to the words of God; for the Word of God alone is to

teach us, as Christ says, Matthew xxiii, 8, "Be ye not called masters.

One Master is in you, even Christ." [Matt. 23:8] Amen.





A REPLY TO TEXTS QUOTED IN DEFENSE OF THE DOCTRINES OF MEN





The first is Luke x, 16, where Christ says, "He that heareth you,

heareth Me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth Me." [Luke 10:16] He

spoke similar words in Matthew x, 40 [Matt. 10:40], and in John xiii,

20 [John 13:20]. Here, they claim, Christ demands of us that we accept

their man-made laws.



[Sidenote: The Command of Christ]



I reply: That is not true. For immediately before speaking these

words, Christ says, "Go and say, the kingdom of God is at hand."

[Matt. 10:7, Luke 10:9] With these words Christ stops the mouths of

all the teachers of the doctrines of men, and commands the apostles

what they are to teach, and Himself puts the words in their mouth,

saying that they shall preach the kingdom of God. Now he who does not

preach the kingdom of God is not sent by Christ, and him these words

do not concern. Much rather do these words demand of us that we hear

not the doctrines of men. Now to preach of the kingdom of God is

nothing else than to preach the Gospel, in which the faith of Christ

is taught, by which alone God dwells and rules in us. But the

doctrines of men do not preach about faith, but about eating,

clothing, times, places, persons and about purely external things

which do not profit the soul.



[Sidenote: The Perversion of the Text]



Behold how honestly the pious shepherds and faithful teachers have

dealt with the poor common people. This text, "Who hears you, hears

me," they have in a masterly fashion torn out of its context and have

terrified us with it, until they have made us subject to themselves.

But what precedes, "Preach the kingdom of God," they have taken good

care not to mention, and have bravely leaped over it, that they might

by no means be compelled to preach nothing but the Gospel. The noble,

and most excellent teachers! We ought to thank them for it!



In Mark, the last chapter, we read that He sent out the disciples to

preach. Let us hear what command He gives them, and how He sets a

limit to their teaching and bridles their tongues, saying, "Go ye into

all the world, and preach the Gospel to every creature. He that

believeth, shall be saved," etc., Mark xvi, 15 [Mark 16:15]. He does

not say, Go and preach what you will, or what you think to be good;

but He puts His own word into their mouth, and bids them preach the

Gospel.



In Matthew, the last chapter, He says, "Go and make disciples of all

nations, baptise them in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of

the Holy Ghost; and teach them to observe all things which I have

commanded you." Here, again. He does not say, Teach them to observe

what you devise, but what I have commanded you. Therefore the pope and

his bishops and teachers must be wolves and the apostles of the devil;

it cannot be otherwise, for they teach not the commands of Christ, but

their own words. So also in Matthew xxv, 15, in the parable of the

three servants, the Lord points out that the householder bade the

servants trade not with their own property, but with his, and gave the

first five talents, the second two and the third one. [Matt. 25:15]



Our second text is Matthew xxiii, 2 f., where the Lord says, "The

scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. All therefore whatsoever

they bid you observe, that observe and do."



Here, here, they say, we have authority to teach what we think to be

right.



[Sidenote: Moses' Seat]



I answer: If that is what Christ means, then we are in a sorry plight.

Every pope might then create more new laws, until the world could no

longer contain all the laws. But they quote this text as they quote

the first. What do the words "sit in Moses' seat" mean? Let us ask,

what did Moses teach? And if he still sat in his seat today, what

would he teach? Beyond a doubt, nothing but what he taught of old,

namely, the commandments and the word of God. He never yet spoke the

doctrines of men, but what God commanded him to speak, as almost every

chapter of his shows. It follows, then, that he who teaches something

else than Moses teaches, does not sit in Moses' seat. For the Lord

calls it Moses' seat, because from it the doctrines of Moses should be

read and taught. The same meaning is contained in the words which

follow, in which the Lord says, "But do not ye after their works, for

they say, and do not; for they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be

borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not

move them with one of their fingers." [Matt. 23:3 f.]



See, here He reproves their works, because they add many laws to the

doctrines of Moses and lay them on the people, but themselves do not

touch them. And afterward He says, in verse 13, "Woe unto you, scribes

and Pharisees, hypocrites! which say, Whosoever shall swear by the

temple, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the

temple, he is a debtor! Ye fools and blind; for whether is greater?

the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold?" [Matt. 23:13, 16

f.] Is it not clear that Christ here condemns their doctrines of men?

He can, therefore, not have confirmed them by speaking of sitting in

Moses' seat; else He would have contradicted Himself. Therefore Moses'

seat must mean no more than the Law of Moses, and the sitting in it no

more than the preaching of the Law of Moses.



This is what Moses himself said of his seat and doctrine, Deuteronomy

iv, 2, "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you." [Deut.

4:2] And in Deuteronomy xii, 32, "What thing soever I command you,

observe to do it; thou shalt not add thereto nor diminish from it."

[Deut. 12:32] These doctrines they were required to teach in Moses'

seat; therefore Moses' seat cannot endure any doctrines of men.



[Sidenote: St. Augustine]



St. Augustine is quoted as having written in _the Book against the

Letter of the Manicheans_[7], "I would not believe the Gospel if I did

not believe the Church."



Here you see, they say, we are to believe the Church more than the

Gospel.



[Sidenote: Authority]



I answer: Even if Augustine had used those words, who gave him

authority, that we must believe what he says? What Scripture does he

quote to prove the statement? What if he erred here, as we know that

he frequently did, as did all the fathers? Should one single sentence

of Augustine be so mighty as to refute all the texts quoted above?

That is not what God wills; St. Augustine must yield to them.



Further, if that were St. Augustine's meaning, he would contradict

himself; for in very many places he exalts the Holy Scriptures above

the opinions of all teachers, above the decrees of all councils and

churches, and will have men judge of him and of the teachings of all

men according to the Scriptures. Why then do the faithful shepherds

pass by those sayings of St. Augustine, plain and clear as they are,

and light on this lonely one, which is so obscure and sounds so unlike

Augustine as we know him from all his writings? It can only be because

they want to bolster up their tyranny with idle, empty words.



[Sidenote: Words Perverted]



Furthermore, they are deceivers, in that they not only ascribe to St.

Augustine an opinion he did not hold, but they also falsify and

pervert his words. For St. Augustine's words really are, "I would not

have believed the Gospel if the authority of the whole Church had not

moved me." Augustine speaks of the whole Church, and says that

throughout the world it with one consent preaches the Gospel and not

the Letter of the Manicheans; and this unanimous authority of the

Church moves him to consider it the true Gospel. But our tyrants apply

this name of the Church to themselves, as if the laymen and the common

people were not also Christians. And what they teach they want men to

consider as the teaching of the Christian Church, although they are a

minority, and we, who are universal Christendom, should also be

consulted about what is to be taught in the name of universal

Christendom. See, so cleverly do they quote the words of St.

Augustine: what he says of the Church throughout all the world, they

would have us understand of the Roman See.



But how does it follow from this saying that the doctrines of men are

also to be observed? What doctrine of men has ever been devised that

has been accepted and preached by all of the universal Church

throughout the world? Not one; the Gospel alone is accepted by all

Christians everywhere.



[Sidenote: Their True Meaning]



But then we must not understand St. Augustine to say that he would not

believe the Gospel unless he were moved thereto by the authority of

the whole Church. For that were false and unchristian. Every man must

believe only because it is God's Word, and because he is convinced in

his heart that it is true, although an angel from heaven and all the

world preached the contrary. His meaning is rather, as he himself

says, that he finds the Gospel nowhere except in the Church, and that

this external proof can be given heretics that their doctrine is not

right, but that that is right which all the world has with one accord

accepted. For the eunuch in Acts viii, 37, believed on the Gospel as

preached by Philip, although he did not know whether many or few

believed on it [Acts 8:37]. So also Abraham believed the promise of

God all by himself, when no man knew of it, Romans iv, 18 [Rom. 4:18].

And Mary, Luke i, 38 [Luke 1:38], believed the message of Gabriel by

herself, and there was no one on earth who believed with her. In this

way Augustine also had to believe, and all the saints, and we too,

every one for himself alone.



For this reason St. Augustine's words cannot bear the interpretation

they put upon them; but they must be understood of the external proof

of faith, by which heretics are refuted and the weak strengthened in

faith, when they see that all the world preaches and regards as Gospel

that which they believe. And if this meaning cannot be found in St.

Augustine's words, it is better to reject the words; for they are

contrary to the Scriptures and to all experience if they have that

other meaning.



[Sidenote: The Apostles Also Men]



Finally, when they are refuted with Scripture so that they cannot

escape, they begin to blaspheme God and say, "But St. Matthew, Paul

and Peter also were men; therefore what they teach is also the

doctrine of men. And if their doctrine is to be observed, let the

pope's doctrine be observed as well!" Such blasphemy is now being

uttered even by some princes and bishops, who count themselves wise.

When you hear such utterly hardened and blinded blasphemers, turn away

from them or stop your ears; they are not worthy that one should talk

with them. If that argument were to hold, then Moses also was a man,

and all the prophets were men. Then let us go our way, and believe

nothing at all, but regard everything as the doctrine of men, and

follow our fancy.



[Sidenote: Answer]



But if you will talk with them, do so, and say, Well, let St. Paul or

Matthew be the doctrine of men; then we ask, Whence comes their

authority? How will they prove that they have authority to teach and

to be bishops? Or how shall we know where the Church is? If they say

that St. Matthew has so asserted in Matthew xvi, 19 [Matt. 16:19], or

St. Paul in some place or other, do you say, But that does not hold:

they are the doctrines of men, as you say; you must have God's Word to

confirm you. And then you will find that these hardened blasphemers

put themselves to shame and confusion with their own folly. They

cannot even distinguish between a man who speaks for himself and one

through whom God speaks. The words of the Apostles were commanded them

by God, and confirmed and proved by great miracles, such as were never

done for the doctrines of men. And if they are certain in themselves,

and will prove it to us, that God has commanded them to teach as they

do, we will believe them as we believe the Apostles. If it is

uncertain whether the words of the Apostles are of God, who will give

us certainty that their doctrines of men are of God? _O furor et

amentia his saeculis digna!_[8]



[Sidenote: Why Doctrines of Men are Condemned]



But we do not condemn the doctrines of men because they are the

doctrines of men, for we would gladly endure them, but because they

are contrary to the Gospel and to the Scriptures. The Scriptures set

the consciences of men free, and forbid that they be taken captive

with the doctrines of men. The doctrines of men take captive the

conscience. This conflict between the Scriptures and the doctrines of

men we cannot reconcile. Hence, because these two forms of doctrine

contradict one another, we allow even young children to judge here

whether we are to give up the Scriptures, in which the one Word of God

is taught from the beginning of the world, or the doctrines of men

which were newly devised yesterday and change daily? And we hope that

every one will agree in the decision that the doctrines of men must be

forsaken and the Scriptures retained. For they cannot be reconciled,

but are by nature opposed to one another, like fire and water, like

heaven and earth; As Isaiah Iv, 8 f. says: "As the heavens are exalted

above the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways." [Isa. 55:8 f.]

Now he who walks on the earth cannot at the same time walk in heaven,

and he who walks in heaven cannot walk on the earth.



Therefore we request the papists that they first reconcile their

doctrines with the Scriptures. If they accomplish that, we will

observe their doctrines. But that they will not do before the Holy

Spirit has become a liar. Therefore we say again. The doctrines of men

we censure not because they are spoken by men, but because they are

lies and blasphemies against the Scriptures. And the Scriptures,

although they also were written by men, are not of men nor from men,

but from God. Now since Scriptures and the doctrines of men are

contrary the one to the other, one must lie and the other be true. Let

us see to which of the two they themselves will ascribe the lie. Let

this suffice.





FOOTNOTES





[1] Goldfasts are the ember-fasts, on the three ember-days of each of

the four seasons of the year; possibly called "goldfasts" because on

these days rents were collected. See _Realencyklopadie_, 5: 780, 9.



[2] The fasts enjoined upon a people by a public edict or ban. The

term "ban" as here used does not denote the Church's excommunication,

but an authoritative proclamation.



[3] The Tatianists, followers of Tatian, who lived in Syria in the

middle of the second century. Tatian, apparently basing his view of

marriage upon 1 Cor. 7:5, ascribes the institution of marriage and the

whole Old Testament Law to the devil. Eusebius held that Tatian was

the founder of a sect known as the _Encratites_, or _Abstainers_.

Modern historians see in the _Encratites_ groups of ascetic Christians

found frequently in the early Church, somewhat similar to the later

monks and nuns, so that Harnack can write that Tatian "joined the

Encratites." _Dogmengeschichte_3, I, 227 n. See _Realencyklopadie_3,

19, 386-394 on Tatian; 5, 392 f. on the Encratites.



[4] The Manicheans, strictly speaking not a Christian sect, but a

rival religious community, which made inroads upon the Christian

Church. Founded by the Babylonian Mani, who was born in the third

century, they taught the inherent evil of all matter, and consequently

had many fasts, averaging seven days in each month, while the

"perfect" among them abstained from meat, wine and marriage. See

_Realencyklopadie_ 3, 12, 193-228; von Orelli, _Religionsgeschichte_,

279-291.



[5] The Greek _anathema_ Luther here translates _ein Bann_, "let him

be a ban." This explains the reference to the ban below.



[6] _Stehet untereuch_, whereas above Luther writes _ist inwendig in

euch_.



[7] _Contra Epistolam Manichaei_, vi, _Paris Ed._, 1839, 28: 185: _Ego

vero Evangelic non crederem, nisi me ecclesiae catholicae commoveret

anctoritas_. On the preceding page Augustine had written: "If the

claim of truth be shown to be so evident that it cannot be called into

question, it is to be preferred before all those things by which I am

held in the Catholic faith."



[8] O raging madness, worthy of our age!







INDEX







SCRIPTURE REFERENCES





INDEX





Abel

Abraham

Absolution

    power of

Abuses

Accident and substance

Adam

Adjutories

Administratio

Adversity

Agnes, St.

Agricola

Agriculture

Ahasuerus

Ahaz

d'Ailly

Albrecht of Brandenburg

Alexander of Hales

Alexander VI.

Alien sins

Allegories

Alveld

Ambrose

Amen, meaning of

Amerbach, Boniface

Amsdor

Angelic Sum

Angels

Angelus de Clavissio

Armas

Annates

Amie, St.

Anniversaries

Anniaities

Anthony, St.

Antichrist

Antonius of Florence

Antwerp

Apostles

Apostolic Council

Aquinas, Thomas

Archbishop

Aristotle

Articles of faith

Attrition

Augsburg, Diet of

Augustine, St.

Augustinian fathers

Augustinus Trimnphus

Auriaber

Avarice



Babylon

Babylonian captivity

Balaam

Balaam's ass

Bamberg

Ban

    power of

    greater and lesser

    purpose of

    penalty of

Ban, danger of

    harms no one

    a medicine

    to be respected

    to be loved

    unjust, to be desired

    or debt

    abuses of

    does not exclude from Gospel

Banfasts

Baptism

    grace of

    makes priests

    foundation of sacraments

    a ship

    God's work

    formula of

    by wicked minister

    efficacy of

    significance of

    vows of

    comfort of

Bar to grace

Barbara, St.

Barnabas

Basel, Council of

Beer-money

Begging

Belief and faith

Belvidere

Benedict, St.

Benefit of clergy

Berlepsch, Hans von

Bernard, St.

Bethaven

Biel, Gabriel

Bigamy

Birettas

Bishops

Bishops' paths

Blandina, St.

Blasphemy

Bohemians

Bonaventure

Boniace VIII.

Both kinds in the sacrament

Botschaten

Brandenburg

Bread, Sacrament of the Altar

    daily, is Christ

Breves

Brotherhood, Christian

Brotherhoods

    perversion of

    kinds of

    proper conduct of

Bull, Coena Domini

    papal

Burer, Albrecht

Butter-letters



Caesarini, Cardinal

Caiaphas

Cairo

Cajetan

Cambray, Cardinal of

Campolore

Canaan

Canon law

Canon of the mass

Canonical hours

Canonization

Canonry

Captivity of the Church

    v. Babylonian Captivity.

Cardinals

Carlstadt

Carmelites

Carthusian

Castor and Pollux

Casus reservati

Catechisms

Cathedrals

Celibacy

Ceremonialist

Ceremonies

Certainty of salvation

Chancery, rules in

Chapters

Character indelebilis

Charity

Charles the Great

Charles V.

Chartreuse

Chastity

Christ

    spiritual body of

    as king and priest

    sacrifice of the altar

    sacrament

    faith in

Christian nobility, duty of

Christian, the name

    what makes

    marks of a

Christianity

Church

    authority of

    cannot institute sacraments

    community of Christians

    our mother

    and state

Church laws

Cicero

Circumcision

Circumstances

Clement V.

Clement VI.

Clement VII.

Clergy

Coadjutorships

Cognatio legalis and spiritualis

Collect

Cologne

Commandments of God

Commandments, Ten

Commend

Commerce

Communio

Communion

    worthy

    in two kinds

    of saints

Complutensian polyglott

Compositions

Concordat of Vienna

Confession

Confessionalia

Confirmation

Congregations, power to elect priests,

Consanguinity, spiritual

Conscience

Constance, Council of

Constantine, Emperor

Contested benefices

Contrition

Corporal cloths

Corporations

Corpus juris canonici

Councils

Councils can err

Courtesans

Creed

Cremona

Crusades

Crying sins

Cyprian



Daniel

    the pope as

Datarius

David

Deacons

Death

    must serve the Christian

Decretals

Devil

Dignities

Dionysius, Areopagita

Disparihtas religionis

Dispensations

Divorce

Doctorate

Doctrines of men

Dominic, St.

Donation of Constantine

Donatus, St.

Dress, extravagance in

Dims Scotus

Durandus



Eck, John

Economic reforms

Edification of the Church

Elevation of the host

Elisha

Elvira, Council of

Emperor

Emser

England

Erasmus

Erurt

Estates of Christendom

Eternal life

Eugenius IV.

Evil spirit

Excesses in eating and drinking

Excommunication

Executio

Exemptions

Extortion

Extreme unction

Ezekiel



Fable quoted

Faculties

Faith

    not a work

    and promise

    and works

    alone justifies

    all things depend on

    fulfils commandments

    unites with Christ

    and love

Fasts

Fathers of the Church

Feast days

Feldkirchen

Fellowship, twofold

    spiritual

Five senses, sins of

Florence, Council of

Forgiveness of sins

Forma sacramenti

Foundations

France

Francis, St.

Franciscans

Fraternities

Frederick, Duke

Frederick, Elector

Frederick I.

Frederick II.

Free will

Fruits of the mass

Fugger of Augsburg



General Council

George of Saxony

German knights

    bishops and princes

    nation

    emperors

    empire

    mass

Germans

Germany

Gerson, John

Gibeonites

Gideon

Glosses

God, faith in

God's bosom

Golden rule

Golden years

Goldfasts

Gospel

Goths

Government, good, a gift of grace

Grammatical sense of Scripture

Gratiae expectivse

Greek Church

    emperor

Greeks

Grimmenthal



Hadrian VI.

Halberstadt

Halle

Hamburg

Henry IV. and V.

Henry VIII

Heresy

Heretics

Herod

Hess, John

Hezekiah

Himmelsbriee

Hindrance of crime

    error

Holy Ghost, faith in

Hubert, St.

Huss, John

Hussites

Hutten, Ulrich von

Hymns of praise



Iconoclastic controversy

Idolatry

Ignorance

Images

Immersion

Impediments

Impedimentum criminis

    erroris

    ligaminis

    ordinis

Impotence

Incarnation

Incompatibilia

Incorporation

Indulgences

Indulta

Infant baptism

Ingenwinkel, Joh.

Innocent I.

Innocent III.

Innocent VIII.

Inquisition

Intercessions

Interdict

Investiture

Irregular monks

Isaiah

Isolani, Isidore

Israel

Italy



Jahrmarkt

James, St., Epistle of

Jehu

Jereboam

Jeremiah

Jerome

    of Prague

John XXII.

Jonas, Justus

Jordan, crossing of

Joseph, affliction of

Jubilee years

Judas

Judgment day

Julius II.

Jus patronum

Jus verbi

Justification by faith



Kessler, John

Keys, power of

Kingdom of God

Kingship of the Christian

Kirchweihen

Koran



Laity

Lang, Johan

Lateran Council

Law, the

Law in the universities

Laws as snares for souls

    of men

        V. Doctrines of men.

Lay-baptism

Legal relationships

Leipzig

    Disputation

Leo III.

Leo X.

Letters of confession

Liberty

    not external

    and service

Licenses

Link, Wenceslaus

Livings

Lombard, Peter

Lord's Prayer

Lord's Supper

Lotther, Melchior

Louis, King of France

Louvain

Love

Luther

    pastoral concern

    the German

    as a fool

    knowledge of Aristotle

    not a mathematician

    as a musician

    compelled to speak

    his progress

    his duty

    recantation

    appeal to a council

    zeal

    separation from Rome

    appeal to the pope

    friend of the pope

    his faith

    as a reformer

    purpose of writing



Magdeburg

Magistrate

Mainz

Man, nature of

    inward

    outward

    of sin

Manichaeans

Manoah

Marcus Aurelius

Margaret of Braunschweig

Marriage

    of the clergy

    forbidden degrees

    a type

    a sacrament

    hindrances

Martyrs

Mass

    sacrifice of

    letters

    anniversary

    mortuary

    endowed

Maximilian, Emperor

Mecklenburg

Medicine in universities

Meissen

Melanchthon

Melchizedek

Memorial days

Mendicants orders

Merchants

Merseburg

Miltitz, Carl von

Ministerium

Ministry

Miracles

Missa catechumenorum and fidelium

Monasteries

Monastic life

Monstrance

Moses

Moses' seat

Mother of God

Muhlphort, Hieronymus

Murner, Thomas

Mute sins

Mystery

    and sacrament

Mystics



Name of God

Naples and Sicily, Kingdom of

Nathan

Natural law

    revelation

New Testament

Nicaea, Council of

Nimrod

Noah

Nobility, German

Nurnberg, Diet of



Oblations

Observance

Occam, William of

Officia of the pope

Officials

Old Testament

Opus operantis

Opus operatum

Order to be observed

Orders, monastic

Ordinaries

Ordination

Origen

Ottilia, St.

Our Lady



Pallium

Palmers

Papacy

Papal court

    secretaries

    months

    family

    servant

    letters

    homage

Parents, duty toward

Participations

Passover

Patience

Patron saints

Paul, St.

Penalties to be abolished

Penance

    second plank

Penitence

Persia

Peter, St.

Pfeffinger, D.

Philip of Hesse

Philosophy

Picards

Pilate

Pilgrimages

Pius, Pope

Pope

    power of

    can be deposed

    errors of

    tyranny

    an idol

    compared with Christ

    wealth of

    infallibility of

    worldliness of

    vicar of crucified Christ

    vicar of absent Christ

    duty of

    temporal power of

    letter to

Power not to be trusted

Prague

Prayer

Preachers

Preaching, true

Prebend

Precepts of the Church

Presbyters

Prierias, Sylvester

Priesthood of believers

    why men seek

    is ministry of the Word

Priests

Priests, officeholders

    duty of

Primate

Private confession

    mass

Privilegium fori

Promise of God

Proprius motus

Prostitution

Proverbs quoted

Purgatory



Quedunburg, convent



Real presence

Reason

Reformation

Reforms suggested

Regeneration

Regensburg

Regression

Remission of sins

Rentenkauf

Repentance

Res sacramenti

Reservatio pectoralis

Reservation, right of

Reserved cases

Rhine-toll

Rods, three

Roman curia

Roman Empire

Roman See

Romanists

Rome

Rulers, wicked



Sacrament of the Altar

    institution of

    reception of

    not a law

    not a sacrifice

    daily use of

    significance of

    preparation for

    benefit of

    a sign

    purpose of

    misuse of

    faith of

    right use of

    necessity of

Sacrament, types of

    and the pope

Sacraments

    parts of

    signs of

    two principal

    grace of

    fount of love

    not a good work

    efficacy of

    of Old and New Law

    significance of

    not effective signs of grace

    institution of

Sacramentum is mystery

Sacrifices

Safe conduct

Saints

Saints' days

Samuel

Sardica, Council of

Satisfactions

Saul

Schism

Schismatics

Schools, Christian

    for girls

Scrinium pectoris

Scriptures

    commands and promises

Sebastian, St.

Secret sin

Sects

Sedulius, Coelius

Sentences

Sententious theologians

Sermons

Signatura gratiae and justitiae

Signiicasti, Chapter

Simony

Sins

    demand punishment

    seven deadly

Siricius, Pope

Sixtus IV.

Slanderers

Social evil

Sodalities

Solite, Chapter

Solomon

Soul

    immortality of

Spalatin

Spice trade

Spiritual, what makes us

    duties

    relationship

    law

States of the Church

Stationaries

Staupitz

Stephen, St.

Sternberg

Strassburg

Students, restriction of

Substance and accident

Sycophants

Synaxis



Tatianists

Teachings of men, v. Doctrines of men.

Temporal estate

    power

Temptations

Ten Commandments

Testament

Testament, words of

Tetzel

Teufelsbriefe

Theodidacti

Theodosius

Theology in the universities

    text-books

Theses, XCV

Thomists

Timothy

Titus

Transaccidentation

Transubstantiation,

    of communicant

Trent, Council of

Trier

Triple crown

Truth

Tulich, Herman

Turks

    worst in Rome

Types

Tyranny, Roman



Unbelief

Unchastity

Unio

Unity of the Church

Universities

Usury



Valentine, St.

Valla, Laurentius

Varna, Battle of

Venice

Vergil

Vienna, Council, of

Virgin Mary

Visions

Votaries

Votive masses

Vows

    of celibacy

    ceremonial laws

    triple



Wallbruder

Walls, the three, of Rome

Wartburg

Wicked, success of

Will of God

Wilsnack

Witchcraft

Wittenberg

Wladislav

Word of God

Works

    measure of

    good, are sins

    do not justify

Works of love

    six, of mercy

World

Worms, Diet of

Worship, true

Wurzburg, 82

Wyclif



Zedekiah

Zink, Johaimes

Zinskau

Zwickau Prophets

Zwilling, Gabriel





SCRIPTURE REFERENCES





Genesis--

    1:31

    2:15

    3:15

    3:17

    3:19

    4:5

    9:12

    9:15

    12:3

    13:5

    17:10ff

    18:19

    19:24

    21:12

    49:3



Exodus--

    12:8, 11

    12:35ff

    13:2

    13:13

    20:4

    20:12

    20:17

    22:28

    23:15

    34:20

    37:7



Leviticus--

    8:27

    11:19

    18:6ff



Numbers--

    3:13

    21:9

    22:28

    24:24



Deuteronomy--

    1:31

    4:2

    4:19

    8:3

    10:16

    12:32

    14:18

    16:16.

    23:12f.

    24:1

    25:5

    28:14

    32:35



Joshua--

    3:7

    6:20

    9:19



Judges--

    6:36ff

    9:2

    13:19

    20:21



I. Samuel--

    2:30

    16:13



II. Samuel 7:16



I. Kings--

    1:38

    12:26

    12:31

    18:21

    19:20



II. Kings--

    9:1

    18:4

    24:20

    25:4



Esther 1:5



Job 31:27



Psalms--

    13:3f

    14:5

    18;8

    18:26

    19:1ff

    19:8

    23:5

    30:5

    32:5f

    33:16

    44:23

    58:4

    63:5

    64:1

    67:1f

    104:15

    106:3

    107:20

    109:28

    111:2

    112:7

    115:1

    119

    119:85

    134:2

    137:1

    143:2



Proverbs--

    6:27

    15:8

    30:5f

    30:15



Ecclesiastes--

    1:2

    3:7



Song of Solomon 2:16



Isaiah--

    2:8

    3:4

    3:10

    5:4

    3:13f

    7:10ff

    9:20

    10:22

    28:14

    28:21

    29:13

    37:4

    55:8

    56:10

    61:8

    66:2



Jeremiah--

    2:32

    4:4

    5:3

    17:9

    23:21

    29:7

    48:10

    51:9



Lamentations--

    1:1f

    1:11

    2:11ff



Ezekiel 2:6



Daniel--

    1:6

    2:21

    3:30

    4:14

    4:35

    5:29

    6:16

    11:39,43



Hosea--

    2:19

    4:6

    4:15

    10:5

    13:9



Joel 1:5



Amos--

6:1

6:4-6

8:11



Jonah 3:5



Habakkuk 2:4



Zechariah 2:8



Malachi 2:7



Matthew--

    3:2

    3:6

    4:1ff

    4:4

    4:17

    5:3

    5:16

    5:18

    5:22

    5:25

    5:29

    5:32

    5:40

    5:45

    6:7

    6:12

    6:14

    7:3

    7:12

    7:15

    7:18

    7:20

    8:13

    9:1

    10:7

    10:8

    10:10

    10:16

    10:40

    11:23

    12:1ff

    12:33

    13:14

    13:52

    15:4

    15:8

    15:9

    15:11

    15:13

    15:14

    16:19

    17:5

    17:24ff

    17:33

    18:4

    18:10

    18:15

    18:18

    18:19f

    18:20

    18:24, 28

    19:6 123, 263.

    19:6

    21:13

    22:2f 20

    23:3f

    23:8

    23:13

    23:14

    23:15

    23:16f

    24:5

    24:15

    24:23f

    24:24

    25:15

    25:40

    26

    26:2

    26:21ff

    26:26

    26:27

    26:28

    26:29

    26:41

    27:34

    27:35

    28:19



Mark--

    2:27

    6:13

    9:23

    10:16

    11:24

    14

    14:22

    14:23

    15:23

    16:15

    16:16

    16:17

    16:18



Luke--

    1:38

    1:52

    1:53

    2:22

    2:34

    6:30

    7:16

    9:48

    9:56

    10:7

    10:9

    10:16

    11:5ff

    11:16

    11:28

    12:14

    12:32

    16:22

    17:20f

    21:34

    22

    22:19f

    22:25

    22:32

    22:20

    23:26



John--

    1:12

    1:51

    4:14

    5:46

    6:9

    6:27

    6:35, 41, 51

    6:37,39

    6:45

    6:53, 55

    6:54

    6:63

    7:38

    8:7

    8:11

    8:26

    8:44

    8:50

    9:31

    10:27

    11:25

    13:1ff

    13:20

    14:6

    17:9, 20

    17:12

    17:36

    18:36

    20:15-17

    20:22ff

    20:23



Acts--

    2:46f

    3:6

    4:34f

    5:5

    5:9

    5:39

    6:4

    6:6

    8:18

    8:17

    8:37

    9:15

    9:19

    13:10

    14:11-16

    15:6

    16:3

    17:16ff

    17:22

    17:54

    18:6

    28:11



Romans--

    1:11

    1:5

    1:17

    1:28

    1:32

    3:10ff

    3:23

    4:3

    4

    4:11

    4:18

    5:3

    5:4

    5:5

    6:4,6

    7:22

    8:23

    8:28

    8:31

    8:35, 3

    8:36

    9:16

    9:33

    10:4

    10:9

    10:10

    10:17

    11:32

    12:4ff

    12:17

    12:19

    13

    13:1, 4

    13:4

    13:8

    13:10

    14:1ff

    14:3

    14:5

    14:7f

    14:14f

    14:22

    14:23



I. Corinthians--

    1:1

    1:2

    1:7

    1:21

    1:23

    2:2

    2:7

    2:12

    2:15

    3:18

    3:22

    4:1

    4:15

    4:20

    5:5

    5:11

    6:1ff

    6:7

    6:12

    7:5

    7:7

    7:9

    7:15

    7:18ff

    7:23

    8:4

    8:13

    9:4ff

    9:14

    9:19

    9:27

    10

    10:5

    10:16

    10:17

    10:23

    10:25ff

    11

    11:20

    11:21

    11:23

    11:24

    11:25

    11:29

    11:30

    12:12ff

    12:25f

    13:1

    13:2

    13:5

    13:12

    14:23

    14:30

    15:55ff



II. Corinthians--

    2:17

    3:17

    4

    4:13

    4:16

    10:3

    10:8

    11:13

    11:31

    12:9

    13:8

    13:10



Galatians--

    1:8

    2:3

    2:11

    2:14

    2:20

    3:4

    4:4

    5:1

    5:6

    5:17

    5:22

    5:24

    6:2

    6:5



Ephesians--

    2:3

    2:8

    3:20

    4:4

    4:14

    4:28

    5:9

    5:27

    5:29

    5:31

    6:12

    6:17



Philippians--

    1:21

    2:1

    2:4

    2:5

    2:6

    2:7

    3:2

    4:13



Colossians--

    2:16

    2:20

    2:22



I. Thessalonians--

    2:16

    4:6

    5:21

    5:22



II. Thessalonians--

    2:3

    2:3-10

    2:9

    2:11

    3:10

    3:14

    3:15



I. Timothy--

    1:7

    1:9

    2:1

    2:8

    3:2

    3:16

    4:1ff

    4:2f

    4:3

    4:4f

    4:5

    4:8

    5:22



II. Timothy--

    2:3

    2:9

    2:13

    3:2

    3:5-7

    3:7

    3:8

    3:13



Titus--

    1:6

    1:14

    3:1

    3:5



Hebrews--

    1:3

    6

    9:16

    10:19, 22

    10:23

    11

    11:6

    12:15



James--

    1:6

    1:18

    5:14

    5:16



I. Peter--

    2:11

    2:2

    2:9

    2:10

    2:13, 15

    2:14

    2:18

    3:13

    5:3

    5:5

    5:10



II. Peter--

    1:9

    2:1

    2:1-3

    2:3



I. John--

    1:9

    2:18, 22

    3:2

    4:3



II. John 10



Revelation--

    2:9

    5:10

    13

    22:11



OLD TESTAMENT APOCRYPHA



Judith 6:15



Wisdom 6:8



Ecclesiasticus--

    10:13

    32:27



Baruch--

    1:11

    3:38



II. Maccabees 4:8, 12