{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_34904/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_34904","id":"gutenberg_34904","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/34904","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Religion/Spirituality","Lutheran Church -- Early works to 1800","Theology -- History -- 16th century -- Early works to 1800"],"text":"</pre>\n\n\n\nProduced by Michael McDermott, from scans obtained at the\nInternet Archive\n\n\n\n\n\nWORKS OF MARTIN LUTHER\n\nWITH INTRODUCTIONS AND NOTES\n\nVOLUME II\n\nPHILADELPHIA\nA. J. HOLMAN Company\n1916\n\nCopyright, 1915, by\nA. J. HOLMAN Company\n\nWORKS OF MARTIN LUTHER\n\nCONTENTS\n\n    A TREATISE CONCERNING THE BLESSED SACRAMENT\n          AND CONCERNING THE BROTHERHOODS (1519).\n        Introduction (J. J. Schindel)\n        Translation (J. J. Schindel)\n    A TREATISE CONCERNING THE BAN (1520).\n        Introduction (J. J. Schindel)\n        Translation (J. J. Schindel)\n    AN OPEN LETTER TO THE CHRISTIAN NOBILITY (1520).\n        Introduction (C. M. Jacobs)\n        Translation (C. M. Jacobs)\n    THE BABYLONIAN CAPTIVITY OF THE CHURCH (1520).\n        Introduction (A. T. W. Steinhaeuser)\n        Translation (A. T. W. Steinhaeuser)\n    A TREATISE ON CHRISTIAN LIBERTY (1520).\n        Introduction (W. A. Lambert)\n        Translation (W. A. Lambert)\n    A BRIEF EXPLANATION OF THE TEN COMMANDMENTS,\n          THE CREED, AND THE LORD'S PRAYER (1520).\n        Introduction (C. M. Jacobs)\n        Translation (C. M. Jacobs)\n    THE EIGHT WITTENBERG SERMONS (1522).\n        Introduction (A. Steimle)\n        Translation (A. Steimle)\n    THAT DOCTRINES OF MEN ARE TO BE REJECTED (1522).\n        Introduction (W. A. Lambert)\n        Translation (W. A. Lambert)\n\n\n\nA TREATISE CONCERNING THE BLESSED SACRAMENT OF THE HOLY AND TRUE BODY\nOF CHRIST AND CONCERNING THE BROTHERHOODS\n\n1519\n\n\n\nINTRODUCTION\n\n\nThis treatise belongs to a series of four which appeared in the latter\nhalf of the year 1519, the others treating of the Ban, Penance, and\nBaptism. The latter two with our treatise form a trilogy which Luther\ndedicates to the Duchess Margaret of Braunschweig and Luneburg.\n\nHe undertakes the work, as he says, \"because there are so many\ntroubled and distressed ones--and I myself have had the\nexperience--who do not know what the holy sacraments, full of all\ngrace, are, nor how to use them, but, alas! presume upon quieting\ntheir consciences with their works, instead of seeking peace in God's\ngrace through the holy sacrament; so completely are the holy\nsacraments obscured and withdrawn from us by the teaching of men.\"[1]\n\nIn a letter to Spalatin[2] of December 18, 1519, he says that no one\nneed expect treatises from him on the other sacraments, since he\ncannot acknowledge them as such.\n\nA copy from the press of John Grunenberg of Wittenberg reached Duke\nGeorge of Saxony by December 24, 1519, who on December 27th already\nentered his protest against it with the Elector Frederick and the\nBishops of Meissen and Merseburg[3]. Duke George took exception\nparticularly to Luther's advocacy of the two kinds in the\nCommunion[4]. This statement of Luther, however, was but incidental to\nhis broad and rich treatment of the subject of the treatise.\n\nIt was Luther's first extended statement of his view of the Lord's\nSupper. As such it is very significant, not only because of what he\nsays, but also because of what he does not say. There is no reference\nat all to that which was then distinctive of the Church's doctrine,\nthe sacrifice of the mass. Luther has already abandoned this position,\nbut is either too loyal a church-man to attack it or has not as yet\nfound an evangelical interpretation of the idea of sacrifice in the\nmass, such as he gives us in the later treatise on the New\nTestament[5]. However, already in this treatise he gives us the\nantidote for the false doctrine of sacrifice in the emphasis laid upon\nfaith, on which all depends[6]. The object of this faith, however, is\nnot yet stated to be the promise of the forgiveness of sins contained\nin the Words of Institution, which are a new and eternal testament[7].\n\nThe treatise shows the influence of the German mystics[8] on Luther's\nthought, but much more of the Scriptures which furnish him with\nargument and illustration for his mystical conceptions. Christ's\nnatural body is made of less importance than the spiritual body[9],\nthe communion of saints; just as in the later treatise on the New\nTestament the stress is placed on the Words of Institution with their\npromise of the forgiveness of sins. Luther does not try to explain\nphilosophically what is inexplicable, but is content to accept on\nfaith the act of the presence of Christ in the sacrament, \"how and\nwhere,--we leave to Him.\"[10]\n\nOf interest is the emphasis on the spiritual body, the communion of\nsaints. Luther knows that although excommunication is exclusion from\nexternal communion, it is not necessarily exclusion from real\nspiritual communion with Christ and His saints[11]. No wonder, then,\nthat he can later treat the papal bull with so much indifference; it\ncannot exclude him from the communion of saints.\n\nThe treatise consists of three main divisions: sections 1 to 3\ntreating of the outward sign of the sacrament; sections 4 to 16, of\nthe inner significance; sections 17 to 22, of faith. Added to this is\nthe appendix on the subject of the brotherhoods or sodalities,\nassociations of laymen or charitable and devotional purposes. Of these\nthere were many at this time, Wittenberg alone being reported as\nhaving twenty-one. Luther objects not only to their immoral conduct,\nbut also to the spiritual pride which they engendered. He finds in the\ncommunion of saints the fundamental brotherhood instituted in the holy\nsacrament, the common brotherhood of all saints.\n\nThe modern world needs to have these truths driven home anew, and,\nbarring a few scholastic phrases here and there, cannot find them\nbetter expressed than in the remarkably elevated and devotional\nlanguage of Luther in this treatise.\n\nThe text of the treatise is found in the following editions: Weimar\nEd., vol. ii, 742; Erlangen Ed., vol. xxvii, 28; Walch Ed., Vol. xix,\n522; St. Louis Ed., xix, 426; Clemen, vol. i, 196; Berlin Ed., vol.\niii, 259.\n\nLiterature besides that mentioned:\n\nTschackert, _Enstehung der lutherischen und reformierten\nKirchenlehre_, 1910, pp. 174-176.\n\nK. Thieme, _Entwicklung und Bedeutung der Sakramentslehre Luthers_,\nNeueu Kirchl. Zeitschrift, XII (1901), Nos. 10 and 11.\n\nF. Graebke, _Die Konstruktion der Abendmahlslehre Luthers in ihre\nEntwicklung dargestellt_, Leipzig 1908.\n\n        J. J. SCHINDEL.\n\nAllentown, PA.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES\n\n[1] See Clemen, 1, p. 175.\n\n[2] Enders, II, no. 254. Smith, _Luther's Correspondence_, I, no.\n206.\n\n[3] Gess, _Akten und Briefe zur Kirchenpolitik Herzog Georgs von\nSachsen_, Leipzig, 1905.\n\n[4] See below, p. 9.\n\n[5] In this edition, Vol. I, pp. 294-336. See especially pp. 312 ff.\n\n[6] See below, pp. 19, 25.\n\n[7] _Treatise on the New Testament_, Vol. I, pp. 297 ff.\n\n[8] See Kostlin, _Luther's Theologie_, I, 292 f.; also Hering, _Die\nMystik Luthers_, Leipzig, 1879, pp. 171-174.\n\n[9] See below, p. 23.\n\n[10] See below, p.20.\n\n[11] See _Treatise concerning the Ban_, below, p. 37.\n\n\n\nA TREATISE CONCERNING THE BLESSED SACRAMENT OF THE HOLY AND TRUE BODY\nOF CHRIST AND CONCERNING THE BROTHERHOODS\n\n1519\n\n\n\n1. Like the sacrament of holy baptism[1] the holy sacrament of the\naltar, or of the holy and true body of Christ, has three parts which\nit is necessary or us to know. The first is the sacrament, or sign,\nthe second is the significance of this sacrament, the third is the\nfaith required by both of these; the three parts which must be found\nin every sacrament. The sacrament must be external and visible, and\nhave some material form; the significance must be internal and\nspiritual, within the spirit of man; faith must apply and use both\nthese.\n\n[Sidenote: The First Part of the Sacrament: the Sign]\n\n2. The sacrament, or outward sign, is in the form of bread and wine,\njust as baptism has as its sign water; although the sign is not simply\nthe form of bread and wine, but the use of the bread and wine in\neating and drinking, just as the water of baptism is used by immersion\nor by pouring. For the sacrament, or sign, must be received, or must\nat least be desired, if it is to work a blessing. Although at present\nthe two kinds are not given the people daily, as of old,--nor is this\nnecessary,--yet the priesthood partakes of it daily in the sight of\nthe people, and it is enough that the people desire it daily and\nreceive one kind at the proper time, as the Christian Church ordains\nand offers[2].\n\n3. I deem it well, however, that the Church in a general council\nshould again decree[3] that all persons, as well as the priests, be\ngiven both kinds. Not that one kind were insufficient, since indeed\nthe simple desire of faith suffices, as St. Augustine says: \"Why\npreparest thou stomach and teeth? Only believe and thou hast already\npartaken of the sacrament\";[4] but because it would be meet and right\nthat the form, or sign, of the sacrament be given not in part only,\nbut in its entirety, just as I have said of baptism[5] that it were\nmore fitting to immerse than to pour the water, for the sake of the\ncompleteness and perfection of the sign. For this sacrament signifies\nthe complete union and the undivided fellowship of the saints, as we\nshall see, and this is poorly and unfittingly indicated by only one\npart of the sacrament. Nor is there as great a danger in the use of\nthe cup as is supposed, since the people seldom go to this sacrament,\nand Christ was well aware of all future dangers[6], and yet saw it to\ninstitute both kinds or the use of all His Christians.\n\n[Sidenote: The Second Part of the Sacrament: the Significance]\n\n4. The significance or purpose of this sacrament is the fellowship of\nall saints, whence it derives its common name _synaxis_ or _communio_,\nthat is, fellowship; and _communicare_ means to take part in this\nfellowship, or as we say, to go to the sacrament, because Christ and\nall saints are one spiritual body, just as the inhabitants of a city\nare one community and body, each citizen being a member of the other\nand a member of the entire city. All the saints, therefore, are\nmembers of Christ and of the Church, which is a spiritual and eternal\ncity of God, and whoever is taken into this city is said to be\nreceived into the community of saints, and to be incorporated into\nChrist's spiritual body and made a member of Him. On the other hand,\n_excommunicare_ means to put out of the community and to sever a\nmember from this body, and that is called in our language \"putting one\nunder the ban\"; yet there is a difference, as I shall show in the\nfollowing treatise, concerning the ban[4].\n\nTo receive the bread and wine of this sacrament, then, is nothing else\nthan to receive a sure sign of this fellowship and incorporation with\nChrist and all saints. As though a citizen were given a sign, a\ndocument, or some other token as a proof that he is a citizen of the\ncity, a member of the community. Even so St. Paul says: \"We are all\none bread and one body, for we are all partakers of one bread and of\none cup.\" [1 Cor. 10:17]\n\n5. This fellowship is of such a nature that all the spiritual\npossessions of Christ and His saints[8] are imparted and communicated\nto him who receives this sacrament; again, all his sufferings and sins\nare communicated to them, and thus love engenders love and unites all.\nTo carry out our homely figure: it is like a city where every citizen\nshares with all the others the name, honor, freedom, trade, customs,\nusages, help, support, protection and the like, of that city, and on\nthe other hand shares all the danger of fire and flood, enemies and\ndeath, losses, imposts and the like. For he who would have part in the\ncommon profits must also share in the losses, and ever recompense love\nwith love. Here we see that whoever wrongs a citizen wrongs the entire\ncity and all the citizens; whoever benefits one deserves favor and\nthanks from all the others. So, too, in our natural body, as St. Paul\nsays in i Corinthians xii, where this sacrament is given a spiritual\nexplanation: the members have a care one or another; whether one\nmember suffer, all the members suffer with it; whether one member be\nhonored, all the members rejoice with it. [1 Cor. 12:25 f.] It is\napparent then that if any one's foot hurts him, nay, even the smallest\ntoe, the eye at once looks toward it, the fingers grasp it, the face\nfrowns, the whole body bends to it, and all are concerned with this\nsmall member; on the other hand, if it is cared for, all the other\nmembers rejoice. This figure must be well weighed if one wishes to\nunderstand this sacrament; for the Scriptures employ it or the sake of\nthe unlearned.\n\n6. In this sacrament, therefore, God Himself gives through the priest\na sure sign to man, to show that, in like manner, he shall be united\nwith Christ and His saints and have all things in common with them;\nthat Christ's sufferings and life shall be his own, together with the\nlives and sufferings of all the saints, so that whoever does him an\ninjury does injury to Christ and all the saints, as He says by the\nprophet, \"He that toucheth you toucheth the apple of My eye\" [Zech.\n2:8]; on the other hand, whoever does him a kindness does it to Christ\nand all His saints, as He says, \"What ye have done unto one of the\nleast of My brethren, that ye have done unto Me.\" [Matt. 25:40] Again,\nhe must be willing to share all the burdens and misfortunes of Christ\nand His saints, their sorrow and joy. These two sides of the\nfellowship we shall consider more fully.\n\n7. Now, adversity assails us in more than one form. There is, in the\nfirst place, the sin remaining in our flesh after baptism, the\ninclination to anger, hatred, pride and unchastity, and so forth,\nwhich assails us as long as we live. Against this we not only need the\nhelp of the congregation and of Christ, in order that they may fight\nwith us against it, but it is also necessary that Christ and His\nsaints intercede or us before God, that sin may not be accounted to us\naccording to God's strict judgment. Therefore, in order to give us\nstrength and courage against these sins, God gives us this sacrament,\nas though He said: \"Behold, many kinds of sin assail thee; take this\nsign by which I give thee My pledge that sin assails not only thee but\nMy Son Christ, and all His saints in heaven and on earth. Therefore,\nbe bold and confident; thou fightest not alone; great help and support\nare round about thee.\" King David, also, says of this bread: \"The\nbread strengtheneth man's heart\" [Ps. 104:15]; and the Scriptures in\nother places characterize this sacrament as a strengthening. So in\nActs ix it is written of St. Paul that he was baptised and when he had\nreceived meat, he was strengthened. [Acts 9:19] In the second place,\nthe evil spirit assails us unceasingly with many sins and afflictions.\nIn the third place, the world is full of wickedness and entices and\npersecutes us and is altogether bad. Finally, our own guilty\nconscience assails us with our past sins, with the fear of death, and\nwith the pains of hell. All of these afflictions make us weary and\nweaken us, unless we seek and find strength in this fellowship.\n\n8. If any one be in despair, if he be distressed by his sinful\nconscience or terrified by death, or have any other burden on his\nheart, and desire to be rid of them all, let him go joyfully to the\nsacrament of the altar and lay down his grief in the midst of the\ncongregation and seek help from the entire company of the spiritual\nbody; just as when a citizen whose property has suffered injury or\nmisfortune at the hands of his enemies makes complaint to his town\ncouncil and fellow citizens and asks them for help. Therefore, the\nimmeasurable grace and mercy of God are given us in this sacrament,\nthat we may there lay down all misery and tribulation and put it on\nthe congregation, and especially on Christ, and may joyfully\nstrengthen and comfort ourselves and say: \"Though I am a sinner and\nhave fallen, though this or that misfortune has befallen me, I will go\nto the sacrament to receive a sign from God that I have on my side\nChrist's righteousness, He and sufferings, with all holy angels and\nall the blessed in heaven, and all pious men on earth. If I die, I am\nnot alone in death; if I suffer, they suffer with me. I have shared\nall my misfortune with Christ and the saints, since I have a sure sign\nof their love toward me.\" Lo, this is the benefit to be derived from\nthis sacrament, this is the use we should make of it; then the heart\ncannot but rejoice and be comforted.\n\n9. When you have partaken of this sacrament, therefore, or desire to\npartake of it, you must in turn also share the misfortunes of the\ncongregation, as was said[9]. But what are these? Christ in heaven and\nthe angels together with all the saints have no misfortunes of their\nown, save when injury is done to the truth and to God's Word; yea, as\nwe said, every bane and blessing of all the saints on earth affects\nthem. There your heart must go out in love and devotion and learn that\nthis sacrament is a sacrament of love, and that love and service are\ngiven you and you again must render love and service to Christ and His\nneedy ones. You must feel with sorrow all the dishonor done to Christ\nin His holy Word, all the misery of Christendom, all the unjust\nsuffering of the innocent, with which the world is everywhere filled\nto overflowing: you must fight, work, pray, and, if you cannot do\nmore, have heartfelt sympathy. That is bearing in your turn the\nmisfortune and adversity of Christ and His saints. Here the saying of\nPaul applies. \"Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of\nChrist.\" [Gal. 6:2] Lo, thus you uphold them all, thus they all again\nin turn uphold you, and all things are in common, both good and evil.\nThen all things become easy, and the evil spirit cannot prevail\nagainst such a community. When Christ instituted the sacrament He\nsaid: \"This is My body which is given for you, this is My blood which\nis shed for you; as oft as ye do this, remember Me.\" [Luke 22:19 f.]\nAs though He said: \"I am the Head, I will first give Myself for you,\nwill make your suffering and misfortune Mine own and bear it for you,\nthat you in your turn may do the same or Me and for one another, have\nall things in common in Me and with Me, and let this sacrament be unto\nyou a sure token of this all, that you may not forget Me, but daily\ncall to mind and admonish one another by what I have done or you and\nstill am doing, that you may be strengthened thereby, and also bear\nwith one another.\"\n\n10. This is also a reason, indeed the chief reason, why this sacrament\nis received many times, while baptism is administered but once.\nBaptism is the beginning and entrance to a new life, in the course of\nwhich boundless adversities assail us through sins and suffering, our\nown and those of others. The devil, the world and our own flesh and\nconscience, as was said[10] never cease to pursue us and oppress us.\nTherefore we need the strength, support and help of Christ and of His\nsaints, which are pledged us in this sacrament as by a sure token, by\nwhich we are made one with them and are incorporated with them, and\nall our suffering is laid down in the midst of the congregation.\nTherefore, this holy sacrament is of little or no benefit to those who\nhave no misfortune or anxiety or do not feel their adversity. For it\nis given only to those who need strength and comfort, who have timid\nhearts and terrified consciences, and who are assailed by sin, or have\neven fallen into sin. What could it do or untroubled and falsely\nsecure spirits, which neither need nor desire it? For the Mother of\nGod[11] says, \"He filleth only the hungry, and comforteth them that\nare distressed.\" [Luke 1:53]\n\n11. That the disciples, therefore, might by all means be worthy and\nwell prepared for this sacrament He first made them sorrowful, held\nbefore them His departure and death, by which they were exceeding\ntroubled. And then He greatly terrified them when He said that one of\nthem should betray Him. [Matt. 25:21 ff.] When they were thus full of\nsorrow and anxiety and were concerned about the sorrow and sin of\nbetrayal, then they were worthy, and He gave them His holy Body to\nstrengthen them. By which He teaches us that this sacrament is\nstrength and comfort for those whom sin and evil trouble and distress;\nas St. Augustine also says[12], \"This food demands only hungry souls\nand is shunned by none so greatly as by a sated soul which does not\nneed it.\" Just as the Jews were required to eat the Passover with\nbitter herbs, standing and in haste, which also signifies that this\nsacrament demands souls that are desirous, needy and sorrowful. Now if\none will make the afflictions of Christ and of all Christians his own,\nwill defend the truth, oppose unrighteousness, help bear the need of\nthe innocent and the sufferings of all Christians, he will find\naffliction and adversity enough, besides that which his evil nature,\nthe world, the devil and sin daily inflict upon him. And it is God's\nwill and purpose to set so many hounds upon us and drive us, and\neverywhere provide us bitter herbs, that we may long for this strength\nand take delight in the holy sacrament, and thus be worthy of it, that\nis, desire it.\n\n12. It is His will, then, that we partake of it frequently, in order\nthat we may remember Him and exercise ourselves in this fellowship\naccording to His example. For if His example were no longer kept\nbefore us, the fellowship also would soon be forgotten. So we at\npresent see to our sorrow that many masses are held and yet the\nChristian fellowship which should be preached, practiced and kept\nbefore us by Christ's example has quite perished; so that we hardly\nknow what purpose this sacrament serves, or how it should be used,\nnay, with our masses we frequently destroy this fellowship and pervert\neverything. This is the fault of the preachers who do not preach the\nGospel nor the sacraments, but their humanly devised fables concerning\nthe many works[13] to be done and the ways to live aright.\n\nBut in times past this sacrament was so properly used, and the people\nwere taught to understand this fellowship so well, that they even\ngathered material food and goods[14] in the church and there\ndistributed them among those who were in need, as St. Paul writes [1\nCor. 11:21]. Of this we have a relic in the word \"collect,\"[15] which\nstill remains in the mass, and means a general collection, just as a\ncommon fund is gathered to be given to the poor. That was the time\nwhen so many became martyrs and saints. There were fewer masses, but\nmuch strength and blessing resulted from the masses; Christians cared\nfor one another, assisted one another, sympathized with one another,\nbore one another's burden and affliction. This has all disappeared,\nand there remain only the many masses and the many who receive this\nsacrament without in the least understanding or practicing what it\nsignifies.\n\n13. There are those, indeed, who would share the benefits but not the\ncost, that is, who gladly hear in this sacrament that the help,\nfellowship and assistance of all the saints are promised and given to\nthem, but who, because they fear the world, are unwilling in their\nturn to contribute to this fellowship, to help the poor, to endure\nsins, to care for the sick, to suffer with the suffering, to intercede\nfor others, to defend the truth, to seek the reformation of the Church\nand of all Christians at the risk of life, property and honor. They\nare unwilling to suffer disfavor, harm, shame or death, although it is\nGod's will that they be driven, for the sake of the truth and their\nneighbors, to desire the great grace and strength of this sacrament.\nThey are self-seeking persons, whom this sacrament does not benefit.\nJust as we could not endure a citizen who wanted to be helped,\nprotected and made free by the community, and yet in his turn would do\nnothing for it nor serve it. No, we on our part must make others' evil\nour own, if we desire Christ and His saints to make our evil their\nown; then will the fellowship be complete and justice be done to the\nsacrament. For the sacrament has no blessing and significance unless\nlove grows daily and so changes a man that he is made one with all\nothers.\n\n14. To symbolize this fellowship, God has appointed such signs of the\nsacrament as in every way serve this purpose and by their very form\nincite and move us to this fellowship. Just as the bread is made out\nof many grains which have been ground and mixed together, and out of\nthe many bodies of grain there comes the one body of the bread, in\nwhich each grain loses its form and body and acquires the common body\nof the bread, and as the drops of wine losing their own form become\nthe body of one wine: so should it be with us, and is, indeed, if we\nuse this sacrament aright. Christ with all saints, by His love, takes\nupon Himself our form, fights with us against sin, death and all evil\n[Phil. 2:7]; this enkindles in us such love that we take His form,\nrely upon His righteousness, life and blessedness, and through the\ninterchange of His blessings and our misfortunes are one loaf, one\nbread, one body, one drink, and have all things in common. This is a\ngreat sacrament,[Eph. 5:32][16] says Paul, that Christ and the Church\nare one flesh and bone [Eph. 5:31]. Again, through this same love are\nto be changed and to make the infirmities of all other Christians our\nown, take upon ourselves their form and their necessity and make\ntheirs all the good that is within our power, that they may enjoy it\n[Judg. 9:2]. That is a real fellowship, and that is the true\nsignificance of this sacrament. In this way we are changed into one\nanother and are brought into fellowship with one another by love,\nwithout which there can be no such change.\n\n15. He appointed this twofold form, bread and wine, rather than any\nother, as a further indication of the union and fellowship in this\nsacrament. For there is no more intimate, deep and inseparable union\nthan the union of the food with him who partakes of it, since the food\nenters into and is assimilated with his very nature and becomes one\nwith his being. Other unions, effected by means of nails, glue, cords\nand the like, do not make one indivisible substance of the objects\njoined together. In the sacrament we become united with Christ, and\nare made one body with all the saints, so that He concerns Himself for\nus, acts in our behalf, as though He were what we are--what concerns\nus concerns Him as much as us, and even more than us; and, on the\nother hand, that we also concern ourselves or Him, as though we were\nwhat He is, as indeed we shall finally be, when we are conformed to\nHis likeness, as St. John says, \"We know that when He shall appear we\nshall be like Him\" [1 John 3:2]; so complete is the fellowship of\nChrist and all the saints with us. Our sins assail Him, His\nrighteousness protects us; for the union makes all things common,\nuntil at last He completely destroys sin in us and makes us like unto\nHimself, at the last day. In like manner, by the same love we are to\nbe united with our neighbors, we in them and they in us.\n\n16. In addition to this, He did not appoint this twofold form by\nitself, but gave His true natural flesh, in the bread, and His natural\nand true blood, in the wine, that He might give us a really perfect\nsacrament or sign. For just as the bread is changed[17] into His true\nnatural body and the wine into His true natural blood, so truly are we\nalso drawn and changed into the spiritual body, that is, into the\nfellowship of Christ and all saints, and put by this sacrament in\npossession of all the virtues and mercies of Christ and His saints; as\nwas said above[18] of a citizen who is taken and incorporated into the\ncity and the protection and freedom of the entire community.\nTherefore He instituted not simply the one form, but the two separate\nforms, His flesh under the bread, His blood under the wine, to\nindicate that not only His life and good works, which are represented\nby His flesh and which He accomplished in His flesh, but also His\npassion and martyrdom, which are represented by His blood and in which\nHe shed His blood, are all our own, and by being drawn into this\nfellowship we may use and enjoy them.\n\n17. All this makes it clear that this holy sacrament is naught else\nthan a divine sign, in which Christ and all saints are pledged,\ngranted and imparted, with all their works, sufferings, merits,\nmercies and possessions, or the comfort and strengthening of all who\nare in anxiety and sorrow, and are persecuted by the devil, sin, the\nworld, the flesh and every evil; and that to receive the sacrament is\nnothing else than to desire all this and firmly to believe that it\nshall be done.\n\n[Sidenote: The Third part of the Sacrament: Faith]\n\nThere follows the third part of the sacrament, that is faith, on which\nall depends. For it is not enough to know what the sacrament is and\nsignifies. It is not enough that you know it is a fellowship and a\ngracious exchange or blending of our sin and suffering with the\nrighteousness of Christ and His saints; you must also desire it and\nfirmly believe that you have received it. Here the devil and our own\nnature wage their fiercest fight, that faith may by no means stand\nfirm. There are those who practice their arts and subtleties to such\nan extent that they ask where the bread remains when it is changed\ninto Christ's flesh, and the wine when it is changed into His blood;\nalso in what manner the whole Christ, His flesh and His blood, can be\ncomprehended in so small a portion of bread and wine. What does it\nmatter? It is enough to know that it is a divine sign, in which\nChrist's flesh and blood are truly present--how and where, we leave to\nHim.[19]\n\n18. See to it that you exercise and strengthen your faith, so that\nwhen you are sorrowful or your sins afflict you and you go to the\nsacrament or hear mass, you do so with a hearty desire for this\nsacrament and for what it means, and doubt not that you have what the\nsacrament signifies, that is, that you are certain Christ and all His\nsaints come to you bringing all their virtues, sufferings and mercies,\nto live, work, suffer and die with you, and be wholly yours, to have\nall things in common with you. If you will exercise and strengthen this\nfaith, you will experience what a rich and joyous wedding-supper and\nfestival your God has prepared upon the altar or you. Then you will\nunderstand what the great feast of King Ahasuerus signifies [Esth.\n1:5], you will see what that wedding is for which God has slain His\noxen and fatlings, as it is written in the Gospel [Matt. 22:2 ff.],\nand your heart will grow right free and confident, strong and\ncourageous, against all enemies. For who will fear any calamity if he\nis sure that Christ and all His saints are with Him and share all\nthings, evil or good, in common with him? So we read that the\ndisciples of Christ broke this bread and ate with great gladness of\nheart. Since, then, this work is so great that our insignificant\nsouls dare not desire it, to say nothing of hoping for or expecting it,\nit is necessary and profitable to go often to the sacrament, or at\nleast in the daily mass to exercise and strengthen this faith, on\nwhich all depends and or the sake of which it was instituted. For if\nyou doubt[20] you do God the greatest dishonor and regard Him as\nunfaithful and a liar. If you cannot believe, pray for faith, as was\nsaid above in the other treatise[21].\n\n19. See to it also that you make yourself a fellow of every man and by\nno means exclude any one in hatred or anger; for this sacrament of\nfellowship, love and unity cannot tolerate discord and dissension. You\nmust let the infirmities and needs of others burden your heart, as\nthough they were your own, and offer them your strength, as though it\nwere their own, as Christ does for you in the sacrament. That is what\nwe mean by being changed into one another through love, out of many\nparticles becoming one bread and drink, giving up one's own form and\ntaking one that belongs to all.[22]\n\nFor this reason slanderers and those who wickedly judge and despise\nothers cannot but receive death in the sacrament, as St. Paul writes\n[1 Cor. 11:29]. For they do not unto their neighbor what they seek\nfrom Christ and what the sacrament indicates; they wish them no good,\nhave no sympathy with them, do not receive them as they desire to be\nreceived by Christ, and then all into such blindness that they do not\nknow what else to do in this sacrament except to fear and honor Christ\nin the sacrament with their prayers and devotion. When they have done\nthis they think they have done their whole duty, although Christ has\ngiven His body for this purpose, that the significance of the\nsacrament, that is, fellowship and mutual love, may be put into\npractice, and His own natural body be less regarded than His spiritual\nbody,[23] which is the fellowship of His saints. What concerns Him\nmost, especially in this sacrament, is that faith in the fellowship\nwith Him and with His saints may be rightly exercised and become\nstrong in us, and that we, in accordance with it, may rightly exercise\nour fellowship with one another. This purpose of Christ they do not\nperceive and, in their devoutness, they daily say and hear mass, and\nremain every day the same; nay, become worse daily, and mark it not.\n\nTherefore take heed; it is more needful that you discern the spiritual\nthan that you discern the natural body of Christ, and faith in the\nspiritual is more needful than faith in the natural. For the natural\nwithout the spiritual profiteth us nothing in this sacrament; a\nchange[24] must occur and manifest itself through love.\n\n20. There are many who, regardless of this change of love and faith,\nrely upon the fact that the mass or the sacrament is, as they say,\n_opus gratum opere operato_, that is, a work which of itself pleases\nGod, even though they who perform it do not please Him. From this they\nconclude that, however unworthily masses are said, it is none the less\na good thing to have many masses, since the harm comes to those who\nsay or use them unworthily. I grant every one his opinion, but such\nfables please me not. For, if you desire to speak thus, there is no\ncreature nor work that does not of itself please God, as is written,\n\"God saw all His works and they pleased Him.\" [Gen. 1:31] What good\ncan result therefrom, if one misuse bread, wine, gold, and every good\ncreature, though of themselves they are pleasing to God? Nay,\ncondemnation is the result. So too, here: the more precious the\nsacrament, the greater the harm which comes upon the whole\ncongregation from its misuse. For it was not instituted or its own\nsake, that it might please God, but for our sake, that we might use it\nrightly, exercise our faith by it, and by it become pleasing to God.\nIf it is merely an _opus operatum_[25], it works only harm; it must\nbecome an _opus operantis_[26]. Just as bread and wine work only harm\nif they are not used, no matter how much they please God of\nthemselves; so it is not enough that the sacrament be prepared (that\nis, _opus operatum_), it must also be used in faith (that is, _opus\noperantis_). And we must take heed lest with such dangerous glosses\nour minds be turned away from the sacrament's power and virtue, and\nfaith perish entirely through such false security in the outwardly\ncompleted sacrament. All this results because they give heed in this\nsacrament to Christ's natural body more than to the fellowship, the\nspiritual body. Christ on the cross was also a completed work[27],\nwhich was well-pleasing to God; but the Jews unto this day have found\nit a stumbling block, for the reason that they did not make of it a\nwork that must be used in faith[28]. See to it, then, that the\nsacrament be or you an _opus operantis_, that is, a work that is made\nuse of, and that it be well-pleasing to God, not because of what it is\nin itself, but because of your faith and your right use of it. The\nWord of God is also of itself pleasing to God, but it is harmful to me\nwhen it does not please God also within me. In short, such expressions\nas _opus operatum_ and _opus operantis_ are nothing but useless words\nof men, more of a hindrance than a help. And who could tell all the\nabominable abuses and misbeliefs which daily multiply about this\nblessed sacrament, although some of them are so spiritual and holy\nthat they might almost lead an angel astray? Briefly, whoever would\nunderstand the abuses need only keep before him the aforesaid use and\nfaith of this sacrament; namely, that there must be a sorrowing,\nhungry soul, desiring heartily the love, help, and support of the\nentire communion of Christ and of all saints, doubting not that in\nfaith it obtains them, and then, on the other hand, making itself one\nwith everyone. Whoever does not thus direct and order the hearing or\nreading of masses and the reception of the sacrament, errs and does\nnot use this sacrament to his salvation. For this reason also the\nworld is overwhelmed with pestilences, wars and other horrible\nplagues[29], since with our many masses we only call upon us the more\ndisfavor.\n\n21. We see now how necessary this sacrament is for those who must face\ndeath, or other dangers of body and soul, since they are not let alone\nin them, but are strengthened in the communion of Christ and all\nsaints. Therefore also Christ instituted it and gave it to His\ndisciples in their extreme need and danger. Since we are all daily\nsurrounded by all kinds of danger, and must at last die, we should\nhumbly and heartily and with all our powers thank the God of all mercy\nfor giving us a gracious sign, by which, if we hold fast thereto by\nfaith. He leads and draws us through death and every danger to\nHimself, to Christ, and to all saints.\n\nTherefore it is also profitable and necessary that the love and\nfellowship of Christ and all saints be hidden, invisible and\nspiritual, and that only a bodily, visible and outward sign of it be\ngiven us. For were this love, fellowship and help known to all, like\nthe temporal fellowship of men, we should not be strengthened nor\ntrained thereby to put our trust in the invisible and eternal things,\nor to desire them, but should much rather be trained to put our trust\nonly in the temporal, visible things and to become so accustomed to\nthem as to be unwilling to let them go and to follow God onward; we\nshould thus be prevented from ever coming to Him, if we followed God\nonly so far as visible and tangible things led us. For everything of\ntime and sense must fall away, and we must learn to do without them,\nif we are to come to God.\n\nTherefore the mass and this sacrament are a sign by which we train and\naccustom ourselves to let go all visible love, help, and comfort, and\nto trust in Christ and in the invisible love, help, and comfort of His\nsaints. For death takes away everything visible, and separates us from\nmen and temporal things; hence, to meet death, we must have the help\nof the invisible and eternal things; and these are indicated to us in\nthe sacrament and sign, to which we cling by faith, until we attain to\nthem also by sight. Thus the sacrament is or us a ford, a bridge, a\ndoor, a ship, and a litter, in which and by which we pass from this\nworld into eternal life. Therefore all depends on faith. He who does\nnot believe is like one who must cross the sea, but is so timid that\nhe does not trust the ship; and so he must remain and never be saved,\nbecause he does not embark and cross over. This is due to our\ndependence on the senses and to our untried faith which shrinks from\nthe passage across the Jordan of death--the devil also cruelly helps\ntoward this.\n\n22. This was indicated of old in Joshua iii [Josh. 3:7 ff.]. After the\nchildren of Israel had gone dry-shod through the Red Sea, a type of\nbaptism, they went through Jordan in like manner; but the priests\nstood with the ark in Jordan, and the water below them lowed by, while\nthat above them stood upon a heap, a type of this sacrament. The\npriests carry and uphold the ark in Jordan when in the hour of our\ndeath or peril they preach and administer to us this sacrament,\nChrist, and the fellowship of all saints. I we believe, the waters\nbelow us depart, that is, the temporal, visible things harm us not,\nbut flee from us. And those above us stand up high, as though they\nwould overwhelm us; these are the horrors and apparitions of the other\nworld, which at the hour of death terrify us. If, however, we pay no\nheed to them, and pass on with a firm faith, we shall enter into\neternal life dry-shod and unharmed.\n\nWe have, therefore, two principal sacraments in the church, baptism\nand the bread. Baptism leads us into a new life on earth; the bread\nguides us through death into eternal life. And the two are typified by\nthe Red Sea and the Jordan, and by the two lands, one beyond and one\non this side the Jordan. Therefore our Lord said at the Last Supper:\n\"I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day\nwhen I drink it new with you in My Father's kingdom.\" [Matt. 26:29] So\nentirely is this sacrament intended and ordained to strengthen us\nagainst death, and to give us entrance into eternal life.\n\nFinally, the blessing of this sacrament is fellowship and love, by\nwhich we are strengthened against death and all evil. This fellowship\nis twofold: on the one hand we partake of Christ and all saints, on\nthe other hand we permit all Christians to be partakers of us, in\nwhatever way they and we are able; so that by this sacrament all\nself-seeking love is uprooted and gives place to love which seeks the\ncommon good of all, and through this mutual love there is one bread,\none drink, one body, one community,--that is the true union of\nChristian brethren. Now let us see how the pretentious brotherhoods,\nof which there are now so many, measure up to this and resemble it.\n\nCONCERNING THE BROTHERHOODS.[30]\n\n1. First, let us consider the evil practices of the brotherhoods. One\nof these is their gluttony and drunkenness,--one or more masses are\nheld[31], afterward the entire day and night, and other days besides,\nare given over to the devil, and they do only what displeases God.\nSuch mad reveling has been introduced by the evil spirit, and is\ncalled a brotherhood, whereas it is rather a debauch and altogether a\nheathenish, nay, swinish mode of life. There would far better be no\nbrotherhoods in the world than that such an abomination should be\npermitted. Temporal lords and cities should unite with the clergy in\nabolishing it. For God, the saints, and all Christians are greatly\ndishonored thereby, and the divine services and feast-days made a\nsport for the devil. Saints' days should be kept and hallowed with\ngood works; and the brotherhood should also be a special treasury of\ngood works; instead it has become a treasury of beer money. What have\nthe names of Our Lady, of St. Anne, St. Sebastian[32], or other saints\nto do with your brotherhoods, in which you have nothing but gluttony,\ndrunkenness, squandering of money, howling, yelling, chattering,\ndancing and wasting of time? If a sow were made the patron saint of\nsuch a brotherhood she would not consent. Why then do they afflict the\ndear saints so sorely by taking their names in vain in such shameful\npractices and sins, and by dishonoring and blaspheming the\nbrotherhoods named after them with such evil practices? Woe unto them\nwho do and permit this!\n\n2. If men desire to maintain a brotherhood, they should gather\nprovisions, and feed and serve a tableful or two of poor people, for\nthe sake of God; the day previous they should fast, and on the\nfeast-day remain sober, and pass the time in prayer and other good\nworks. Then God and His saints would be truly honored; this would lead\nto better conditions, and a good example would be given others. Or\nthey should gather the money which they intended to squander or drink\nand form a common treasury, each trade[33] by itself, so that needy\nfellow-workmen might be assisted, or be lent money, or a young couple\nof that trade might be fitted out respectably from the common\ntreasury: these would be true works of brotherhood, which would make\nGod and His saints look with pleasure upon the brotherhoods, of which\nthey would then gladly be the patrons. But where they are unwilling to\ndo this, and follow after the old mummery, I admonish that it be not\ndone on the saints' day's, nor in the name of the saints or of the\nbrotherhood. Let them take some other weekday and leave off the names\nof the saints and of their brotherhoods, lest the saints at some time\nmark it with disapproval. Although there is no day which is not\ndishonored by such doings, at least the festivals and the names of the\nsaints should be spared. For such brotherhoods call themselves\nbrotherhoods of the saints while they do the work of the devil.\n\n3. Another evil feature of the brotherhoods is of a spiritual nature;\nit is a false opinion of themselves, in that they think their\nbrotherhood is to be a benefit to no one but to themselves,--to those\nwho are members and are on the roll or contribute. This damnably\nwicked opinion is an even worse evil than the first, and is one of the\nreasons why God has brought it about that the brotherhoods are\nbecoming such a mockery and blasphemy of God through gluttony,\ndrunkenness and the like. For there they learn to seek their own good,\nto love themselves, to be faithful only to one another, to despise\nothers, to think themselves better than others and presume to stand\nhigher before God than others. And thus perishes the communion of\nsaints, the Christian love, and the true brotherhood, established in\nthe holy sacrament. Thus a selfish love grows in them; that is, by\nthese many external work-brotherhoods they oppose and destroy the one,\ninner, spiritual, essential, common brotherhood of all saints.\n\nWhen God sees this perverted state of affairs, He perverts it still\nmore, as is written in Psalm xviii[34], \"With the perverse thou wilt\nbe perverted\" [Ps. 18:26]; and He brings it to pass that they make\nthemselves and their brotherhoods a mockery and a disgrace, and He\ncasts them out from the common brotherhood of saints, which they\noppose and do not make common cause with, into their brotherhood of\ngluttony, drunkenness and unchastity, so that they, who have neither\nsought nor thought of anything more than their own, may find their\nown; and then He blinds them that they do not recognize it as an\nabomination and disgrace, but adorn their unseemliness with the names\nof saints, as though they were doing right; beyond this He lets some\nfall into so deep an abyss that they openly boast and say whoever is\nin their brotherhood cannot be condemned, as though baptism and the\nsacrament, instituted by God Himself, were of less worth and were less\ncertain than that which they have thought out with their darkened\nminds. Therefore their God will dishonor and blind those who, with\ntheir mad conduct and the swinish practices of their brotherhoods,\nmock and blaspheme His easts, His name, and His saints, to the injury\nof the common Christian brotherhood, which flowed from the wounds of\nChrist.\n\n4. Therefore, for the right understanding and use of the brotherhoods,\none must learn to distinguish rightly between brotherhoods. The first\nis the divine, the heavenly, the noblest, which surpasses all others,\nas gold surpasses copper or lead--the fellowship of all saints, of\nwhich we spoke above[35]. In this we are all brothers and sisters, so\nclosely united that a closer relationship cannot be conceived, for\nhere we have one baptism, one Christ, one sacrament, one food, one\nGospel, one faith, one Spirit, one spiritual body, and each is a\nmember of the other; no other brotherhood is so close. For natural\nbrothers are, to be sure, brothers of one flesh and blood, of one\nheritage and home, but they must separate and join themselves to\nothers' blood and heritage[36]. Organized brotherhoods have one roll,\none mass, one kind of good works, one festival day, one treasury, and,\nas things are now, their common beer, common feast and common debauch,\nbut none of these binds men so closely together as to produce one\nspirit, for that is done by Christ's brotherhood alone.\n\nSince, then, the greater, broader and more embracing Christ's\nbrotherhood is, the better it is, therefore all other brotherhoods\nshould be so conducted as to keep this first and noblest brotherhood\nconstantly before their eyes, to regard it alone as great, and with\nall their works to seek nothing for themselves, but do them for God's\nsake, to entreat God that He keep and prosper this Christian\nfellowship and brotherhood from day to day. Hence, when a brotherhood\nis formed, they should let it be seen that its members outstrip other\npersons in order to do Christianity some special service with their\nprayers, fastings, alms and good works, and not in order to seek\nselfish profit or reward, nor to exclude others, but to serve as the\nfree servants of the whole community of Christians.\n\nIf men had such a correct conception, God would restore good order, so\nthat the brotherhoods might not be brought to shame by debauchery.\nThen God's blessing would follow, so that a general fund might be\ngathered, with which other men also might be given material aid; then\nthe spiritual and bodily works of the brotherhoods would be done in\ntheir proper order. Whoever will not follow this method in his\nbrotherhood I advise to flee from it and let the brotherhood alone; it\nwill do him harm in body and soul.\n\nBut if you say, If the brotherhood is not to give me some special\nadvantage, of what use is it to me? I answer: If you are seeking some\nspecial advantage, how can the brotherhood or sisterhood help you?\nServe the community and other men by it, as is the nature of love, and\nyou will have your reward for this love without any effort and desire\non your part. But if you deem the service and reward of love too\nsmall, it is evidence that yours is a perverted brotherhood. Love\nserves freely and for nothing, therefore God also gives again to it\nevery blessing freely and or nothing. Since, then, everything must be\ndone in love, if it is to please God at all, the brotherhood must also\nbe a brotherhood in love. It is the nature, however, of that which is\ndone in love not to seek its own, nor its own profit, but that of\nothers, and, above all, that of the community.\n\n5. To return once more to the sacrament; since the Christian\nfellowship also is at present in a bad way, as never before, and daily\ngrows worse, especially among the rulers, and all places are full of\nsin and shame, you should not consider how many masses are said, or\nhow often the sacrament is celebrated, or this will make things worse\nrather than better,--but how much you and others increase in that\nwhich the sacrament signifies and in the faith it demands,--for\ntherein alone lies improvement; and the more you find yourself being\nincorporated into Christ and into the fellowship of His saints, the\nbetter it is with you,--that is, if you find that you are becoming\nstrong in the confidence of Christ and of His dear saints, and are\ncertain that they love you and stand by you in all the trials of life\nand in death, and that you in turn take to heart the shortcomings and\nlapses of all Christians and of the whole Church, that your love goes\nout to everyone, and that you desire to help everyone, to hate no one,\nto suffer with all and pray or them: then will the work of the\nsacrament proceed aright, then you will often weep, lament and mourn\nor the wretched condition of Christendom to-day. If, however, you find\nno such confidence in Christ and His saints, and the needs of the\nChurch and of every fellowman do not trouble or move you, then beware\nof all other good works, if in doing them you think you are godly and\nwill be saved. Be assured they are only hypocrisy, sham and deceit, or\nthey are without love and fellowship, and without these nothing is\ngood. For the sum of it all is, _Plenitudo legis est dilectio_, \"Love\nis the fulfilling of the law.\" [Rom. 13:10] Amen.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES\n\n\n[1] See _Treatise on Baptism_, Vol. I, pp. 56 ff.\n\n[2] Note the advance in _The Babylonian Captivity_, below, pp. 178\nff.\n\n[3] Cf. _Babylonian Captivity_, below, p. 186.\n\n[4] Cf. _Sermo_, 112, cap. 5 (Migne, xxxviii, 615).\n\n[5] See Vol. I, p. 56.\n\n[6] E. g., the danger of spilling the wine.\n\n[7] See p. 37.\n\n[8] Used here and above in the New Testament sense of true Christians,\nliving or dead, cf. 1 Cor. 1:2.\n\n[9] See p. 11.\n\n[10] See above, pp. 12, 13, and Vol. I, pp. 59 ff.\n\n[11] The virgin Mary.\n\n[12] Cf. _Enarratio in Ps. XXI_ (Migne, xxxvi, 178).\n\n[13] Penitential works.\n\n[14] Cf. Acts 2:46.\n\n[15] See Vol. I, p. 310.\n\n[16] In the Vulgate the Greek word \"mystery\" is translated by\n_sacramentum_. See below, p. 258.\n\n[17] Luther still adheres to the doctrine of transubstantiation. But\nsee below, pp. 187 ff.\n\n[18] See p. 11.\n\n[19] Cf. below, p. 192.\n\n[20] See Luther's explanation of the First Commandment in the\nCatechisms. Also the answer to the last question in Part V, Small\nCatechism.\n\n[21] _Treatise on Penance_ (_Weimer Ed._, II, 721), where Luther\nexhorts the troubled conscience to pray with the father of the lunatic\nboy, \"Lord, I believe, help Thou mine unbelief,\" and with the\nApostles, \"Lord, increase our faith.\"\n\n[22] Cf. above, p. 17.\n\n[23] The Church.\n\n[24] A transubstantiation in the communicant.\n\n[25] A work that is done without reference to the doer of it.\n\n[26] A work considered with reference to the doer of it.\n\n[27] An _opus operatum_.\n\n[28] An _opus operantis_.\n\n[29] Cf. 1 Cor. 11:30.\n\n[30] Sodalities; see Introduction, p. 8, and below, pp. 137 f.\n\n[31] On festival days of the order and on saints' days.\n\n[32] The Carmelites are supposed to have been the first to organize\nsodalities, having organized in the fourteenth century the Sodality of\nOur Lady of Carmel. St. Anne was the mother of the Holy Virgin. Her\nsodalities were, as Kolde says, epidemic in 1520. Luther's appeal to\nSt. Anne in the thunderstorm is well known (Comp. Kostlin-Kawerau, I,\n55). There was a sodality of St. Anne, besides one of St. Augustine\nand one of St. Catherine, in the monastery at Erfurt in Luther's day.\nSt. Sebastian was a martyr of the fourteenth century. His day is\nJanuary 20. Comp. Arts. _Anna_, _Sebastian_ and _Bruderschaten_ in\n_Prot. Realencyk_., I, SS2; II, 534 l.\n\n[33] A trades' guild brotherhood.\n\n[34] Douay Version, based on Vulgate, from which Luther quotes.\n\n[35] See above, p. 10.\n\n[36] I. e., in marriage.\n\n\n\nA TREATISE CONCERNING THE BAN\n\n1520\n\n\n\nINTRODUCTION\n\n\nThe ban, or excommunication, is the correlative of communion. Our\nconception of excommunication depends then, of course, upon our view\nof what constitutes communion. Luther gives us his view of communion\nin the preceding _Treatise concerning the Blessed Sacrament_. From the\npremise there laid down it follows that excommunication, or the ban,\nexcludes only from external membership in the Church, but cannot\nreally separate a man from the Church if he is in personal fellowship\nwith his Lord[1]. Sin and unbelief cause this separation from Him, and\nthe real ban, therefore, is put into effect not by the Church, but by\nthe man himself when he sins against God. The ban of the Church cannot\neven deprive one of the Sacrament, but only of the outward use of it,\nfor it can still be partaken of spiritually. This whole position, of\ncourse, is fatal to the Roman Catholic conception of the Church, and\nwe do not wonder that it was vigorously opposed by the hierarchy.\n\nOf like significance is Luther's advocacy of the separation of the\ntemporal and spiritual powers, practically of Church and State,--the\nposition which he develops later in the _Open Letter to the Nobility_.\nBut in this treatise, again, Luther shows himself to be anything but\nthe immoral monster his vilifiers have tried to make of him. He is\nagain the man of conscience--will his critics say, \"of oversensitive\nconscience\"? Thank God that there were some sensitive consciences in\nan almost conscienceless age! Luther fears sin more than the ban, and\nsin has for him more than an ecclesiastical meaning. Sin is not\nprimarily an act against the Church, but an offence against God. This\nthe ban is to teach; it is to be the symbol of God's wrath against sin\nand it is to be used by the Church only remedially and in love. When\nso used it becomes the chastening rod of the dear Mother Church,\nprovided it be accepted and borne in this spirit.\n\nWhy, then, did not Luther bear his own ban in this way? The\njustification for his subsequent conduct is to be found in two brief\nbut important conditional clauses in this treatise. \"God,\" he says,\n\"cannot and will not permit authority to be wantonly and impudently\nresisted, _when it does not force us to do what is against God or His\ncommandments_.\"[2] Again he says, \"When unjustly put under the ban we\nshould be very careful not to do, omit, say or withhold that on\naccount of which we are under the ban, _unless we cannot do so without\nsin and without injury to our neighbor_.\"[3] God and his neighbor were\nfor Luther the actors which made it necessary for him to speak and\nact, when for selfish reasons he would often rather have remained\npassive.\n\nThe inception of our treatise is to be found in a sermon preached in\nWittenberg in the spring of 1518. Luther's pastoral concern for his\npeople made it necessary for him to speak on this subject in order to\nquiet the consciences both embittered and distressed by the wanton and\nunjust use of the power of excommunication. Added to this must have\nbeen his own personal interest in the ban certain to fall on him. In a\nletter to Link[4], dated July 10, 1518, he speaks of having preached a\nsermon on the power of the ban which produced general consternation\nand fear that the ire enkindled by the XCV Theses would start afresh.\nHe had desired a public disputation on the subject, but the Bishop of\nBrandenburg persuaded him to defer the matter. Under date of September\n1st, Luther writes Staupitz[5] that because his sermon had been\nmisrepresented and spread by unfriendly spies it became necessary for\nhim to publish it. It appeared in August after Luther's summons to\nRome, under the title _De Virtute Excommunicationis_. Our treatise is\nan elaboration in popular form of this Latin treatise of 1515.\n\nThe Grunberg text given in Clemen, Vol. I, which we have followed in\nmost cases, is dated 1520, and must have appeared in its original\nedition at the end of 1519 or the beginning of 1520.\n\nThe text of the treatise is found in the following editions: Weimar\nEd., vol. vi, 63; Erlangen Ed., vol. xxvii, 51; Walch Ed., vol. xix,\n1089; St. Louis Ed., vol. .xix, 884; Clemen, vol. i, 213; Berlin Ed.,\nvol. iii, 291.\n\n        J. J. SCHINDEL.\n\nAllentown, PA.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES\n\n\n[1] See below, p. 37.\n\n[2] See below, p. 50.\n\n[3] See below, p. 51.\n\n[4] See Enders, I, No. 84. Smith. _Luther's Correspondence_, I, No.\n69.\n\n[5] See Enders, I, No. 90. Smith, _Luther's Correspondence_, I, No.\n77.\n\n\n\nA TREATISE CONCERNING THE BAN\n\n1520\n\n\n\nJESUS\n\n1. We have seen[1] that the sacrament of the holy body of Christ is a\nsign of the communion of all saints, therefore it becomes necessary to\nknow also what the ban is which is employed in the Church by the power\nof the spiritual estate. For its chief and peculiar function and power\nis to deprive guilty Christians of the holy sacrament and forbid it to\nthem. Therefore the one cannot be understood apart from the other,\nbecause the one is the opposite of the other; for the Latin word\n_communio_ means fellowship, and thus do the learned designate the\nHoly Sacrament. Its opposite is the word _excommunicatio_, which means\nexclusion from this fellowship, and so the learned term the ban.\n\n2. There is a twofold fellowship, corresponding to the two things in\nthe sacrament, the sign and the thing signified, as was said in the\ntreatise[2]. The first is an inner, spiritual and invisible fellowship\nof the heart, by which one is incorporated by true faith, hope and\nlove in the fellowship of Christ and of all the saints, signified and\nbestowed in the sacrament; and this is the effect and virtue of the\nsacrament. This fellowship can neither be given nor taken away by any\none, be he bishop, pope, or angel or any creature. God alone through\nHis Holy Spirit must pour it into the heart of the one who believes in\nthe sacrament, as was said in the treatise[3]. This fellowship no ban\ncan touch or affect, but only the unbelief or sin of the person\nhimself; by these he can excommunicate himself, and thus separate\nhimself from the grace, the and salvation of the fellowship. This St.\nPaul proves in Romans viii: \"Who shall separate us from the God? Can\nanguish or need, or hunger or poverty, or danger or persecution, or\nshedding of blood? Nay, I am convinced that neither death nor life,\nneither angels nor principalities nor angelic hosts, neither things\npresent nor things to come, naught that is mighty on the earth,\nneither height nor depth nor any other creature can separate us from\nthe love of God which is ours in Christ Jesus our Lord.\" [Rom. 8:35,\n38] And St. Peter says: \"And who is he that will harm you, if ye be\nfollowers of that which is good?\" [1 Peter 3:13]\n\n3. The second kind of fellowship is an outward, bodily and visible\nfellowship, by which one is admitted to the Holy Sacrament and\nreceives and partakes of it together with others. From this fellowship\nor communion bishop and pope can exclude one, and forbid it to him on\naccount of his sin, and that is called putting him under the ban. This\nban was much in vogue of old, and is now known as the lesser ban. For\nthe ban goes beyond this and forbids even burial, selling, trading,\nall association and fellowship with men, finally, as they say, even\nfire and water[4], and this is known as the greater ban.\n\nNot satisfied with this, there are some who go still farther and use\nthe temporal powers against those under the ban, to coerce them with\nsword, fire, and war[5]. These, however, are new inventions, rather\nthan the real meaning of Scripture. To wield the temporal sword\nbelongs to the emperor, to kings, to princes, and to the rulers of\nthis world, and by no means to the spiritual estate[6], whose sword is\nnot to be of iron, but the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word and\ncommandment of God, as St. Paul says. [Eph. 6:17]\n\n4. This external ban, both the lesser and the greater, was instituted\nby Christ when He said in Matthew xviii: \"If thy brother shall\ntrespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him\nalone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. If he will\nnot hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth\nof two or three witnesses every word or transaction may be\nestablished. If he will not hear them, then tell it unto the whole\ncongregation, the Church. If he neglect to hear the Church, let him be\nunto thee a heathen man and a publican.\" [Matt. 18:15 ff.]\n\nLikewise St. Paul says in I Corinthians v: \"If any man among you be a\nfornicator, or covetous, or an idolator, or a railer, or a drunkard,\nor an extortioner, with such an one keep not company, neither eat with\nhim.\" [1. Cor. 5:11] Again he says in II Thessalonians iii: \"If any\nman obey not our word by this epistle, note that man and have no\ncompany with him, that he may be ashamed.\" [2 Thess. 3:14] Again, John\nsays in his second Epistle: \"If any one come unto you, and bring not\nthis doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God\nspeed, and he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil\ndeeds.\" [2 John 10]\n\nFrom all these sayings we learn how the ban is to be used. First, we\nshould seek neither vengeance nor our own profit, as is at present the\ndisgraceful practice everywhere, but only the correction of our\nneighbor. Second, the penalty should stop short of his death or\ndestruction; or St. Paul limits the purpose of the ban to the\ncorrection of our neighbor, that he be put to shame when no one\nassociates with him, and he adds in 11 Thessalonians iii: \"Count him\nnot as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.\" [2 Thess. 3:15] But\nnow the ruthless tyrants deal with men as though they would cast them\ndown to hell, and do not in any wise seek their correction.\n\n5. It may often happen that a person under the ban is deprived of the\nholy sacrament, and also of burial, and is nevertheless inwardly[7]\nsecure and blessed in the fellowship of Christ and of all saints,\nsignified in the sacrament. On the other hand, there are many who are\nnot under the outward ban and who freely partake of the sacrament, but\nare nevertheless inwardly quite estranged and excommunicated from the\nfellowship of Christ; even though they be buried under the high altar\nin a golden pall with much pomp and singing and tolling of bells.\nTherefore, no one is to be judged, even if he be under the ban,\nespecially if he has not been put under the ban for heresy or sin, but\nfor the purpose of correction. For to put men under the ban for the\nsake of money or other temporal considerations is a new invention, of\nwhich the apostles and Christ knew nothing.\n\n6. To put under the ban is not, as some think, to deliver a soul to\nSatan and deprive it of the intercession and of all the good works[8]\nof the Church. For where the true faith and love of God remain in the\nheart, there remains a real participation in all the possessions and\nintercessions of the Church, together with all the benefits of the\nsacrament, since the ban is and can be nothing else than exclusion\nfrom the external sacrament or from association with men. If I were\ncast into prison I would, of course, be deprived of the outward\ncompanionship of my friends, and yet not be deprived of their favor\nand friendship; so he that is put under the ban must relinquish the\nsacrament and association with men, but is not on that account cut off\nfrom their love, intercession and good works.\n\n7. It is true that the ban, when it is rightly and deservedly applied,\nis a sign, an admonition and a chastisement, whereby the one under the\nban should recognize that he himself has delivered his soul unto Satan\nby his transgression and sin, and has deprived himself of the\nfellowship of all the saints and of Christ. For by the penalty of the\nban our mother, the holy Church, would show her dear son the awful\nconsequences of sin and thereby bring him back from the devil to God.\nWhen an earthly mother rebukes and chastises her erring son, she does\nnot give him over to the hangman or to the wolves, nor make a knave of\nhim, but she restrains him and shows him by her chastisement that he\nis in danger of the hangman, and thus keeps him at home in his\nfather's house. In the same way, when the spiritual power puts any one\nunder the ban, it should be in this spirit: \"Behold, thou has done\nthis or that, whereby thou hast delivered thy soul unto the devil,\ndeserved God's wrath, and deprived thyself of all Christian\nfellowship; thou art fallen under the inward spiritual ban in the\nsight of God and art unwilling to cease or to return. So then, I put\nthee also outwardly under the ban in the sight of men, and to thy\nshame I deprive thee of the sacrament and of fellowship with men,\nuntil thou come to thyself and bring back thy soul.\"\n\n8. Let every bishop, provost or official[9], who uses the ban for any\nother purpose, take heed lest he put himself under the everlasting ban\nfrom which neither God nor any creature shall deliver him. There are\nnone to whom the ban is more harmful and dangerous than those who\napply it, even though it be laid quite justly and only on account of\nwrongdoing, for the reason that they seldom if ever have this object\nin view. Besides they go about it without fear and do not consider how\nperchance they themselves may be more worthy of a hundred bans in the\nsight of God, as the Gospel records of the servant who owed his Lord\nten thousand pounds and yet would not have patience with his fellow\nservant who owed him a hundred pence. What will become of these\nmiserable taskmasters, who for the sake of money have brought things\nto such a pass with their bans, often violently and unjustly imposed,\nthat Turks and heathen have an easier life than Christians? It is very\nevident that many of them are under the ban in the sight of God, and\nare deprived of the blessing of the sacrament and of inward, spiritual\nfellowship, although they do nothing day and night but cite others to\nappear, harass them and put them under the ban, and deprive of the\nexternal sacrament those who are a thousandfold better inwardly and in\nthe sight of God and are living in the spiritual fellowship of the\nsacrament. O miserable business! O terrible existence maintained by\nthis abominable trade! I am not sure whether such publicans and\nofficials were wolves before becoming officials or whether they are on\nthe way to becoming wolves; their work is certainly wolves' work.\n\n9. From this there follows the truth that the ban of itself ruins,\ncondemns or harms no one, but seeks and finds the ruined and condemned\nsoul for the purpose of bringing it back. For all chastisement is for\nthe correction of sin; the ban is simply a chastisement and motherly\ncorrection; therefore it makes no one worse or more sinful, but is\nordained solely to restore the inward spiritual fellowship when justly\nlaid, or to deepen it when unjustly imposed. This is proved by St.\nPaul when he says in II Corinthians xiii: This I write to you\naccording to the power which the Lord hath given me, to edification\nand not to destruction,\" [2 Cor. 13:10] And thus, when he rebukes him\nwho had taken his step-mother to wife, he says in I Corinthians v: \"I\ntogether with you deliver him unto the devil for the destruction of the\nflesh, that the spirit may be saved at the last day.\" [1 Cor. 5:5]\nThus also in the passage quoted above he said: \"We should not count\nhim who is under the ban as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother,\nin order that he may be put to shame and not be lost.\" [2 Thess. 3:15]\nNay, even Christ Himself, as man, had not the power to cut off and\ndeliver a single soul to the devil, as He says in John vi: \"Him that\ncometh to Me I will in no wise cast out, and this is the will of My\nFather Who sent Me, that I should not destroy or lose what He giveth\nMe.\" [John 6:37, 39] Again He says: \"The Son of Man is not come to\ndestroy, but to save men's souls.\" [Luke 9:56] If Christ Himself and\nall the apostles had no other power than to help souls, and have let\nbehind them no other power in the Church, how dare the blind tyrants\npresume and boast in their presumption that they have power to curse,\nto condemn and to destroy, which power is even denied them by their\nown canon law; for in the Liber Sextus[10], which treats of the\nsentence of excommunication, we read: \"Since the ban is a medicine and\nnot a poison, only a discipline, not a destructive uprooting, in so\nfar as the one subjected to it does not despise it: therefore let\nevery spiritual judge give diligence to prove himself one who seeks by\nthe ban naught but to correct and to cure.\"\n\n10. From the above passage it is evident that the ban, when it is not\ndespised, is wholesome and harmless, and not fatal to the soul, as\ncertain timid and dejected consciences, frightened by the outrageous\nabuses of some, imagine; although in apostolic times it was able to\ndeliver the body to the devil and to death[11], as indeed it might\nstill be, if the judges would wield the ban, not in the abuse of\npower, but in humble faith and love, for the correction of their\nneighbor. It follows further that the ban brings greater danger and\nterror to those who apply it and are not careful to seek only the\ncorrection and salvation of those under the ban, according to the\nwords of the above passage[12]. For the ban can be nothing else than a\nkind, motherly scourge applied to the body and temporal possessions,\nby which no one is cast into hell, but rather drawn out of it, and\nfreed from condemnation unto salvation. Therefore we should not only\nendure it without impatience, but receive it with all joy and\nreverence. But for the tyrants, who seek therein nothing else than\npower, awe and gain for themselves, the ban must be a terrible injury,\nbecause they pervert it and its purpose, turn the medicine into a\npoison, and seek only to become a terror to a frightened people; of\ncorrection they never think. For this they will have to give an awful\nreckoning--woe unto them!\n\n11. They have devised a saying, to wit: \"Our ban must be feared, right\nor wrong.\" With this saying they insolently comfort themselves, swell\ntheir chests and puff themselves up like adders, and almost dare to\ndefy heaven and to threaten the whole world; with this bugaboo they\nhave made a deep and mighty impression, imagining that there is more\nin these words than there really is. Therefore we would explain them\nmore fully and prick this bladder, which with its three peas makes\nsuch a rightful noise.\n\nNow, it is true, the ban must be feared and not be despised, whether\nit be just or unjust. But why apply this only to the ban, which is a\nmotherly chastening, and not to all the other and greater penalties\nand tribulations as well? For what great thing have you done or the\nban by saying it must be feared? Must we not also fear when we are\nsick, poor, slandered, despised, or deprived of goods, income or\njustice, nay, when the Turk and other enemies attack or afflict us?\nFor all these and other adversities, whether deserved or undeserved,\nwe should fear, suffer and endure, and in all things conduct ourselves\nas though we but received our deserts, as the Lord teaches: \"O him\nthat taketh away thy goods ask them not again.\" [Luke 6:30] Why are\nyou not also afraid, dear tyrant, when you suffer injustice, when your\nincome is refused, your property stolen, your rights denied, and why\ndo you not think that you should endure these things in fear, whether\nthey be right or wrong? Do you think that others are commanded to\nendure your power in ear, whether right or wrong, and that you are\nfree from this commandment and need not endure violence or wrong in\nfear? You will learn that you also are human and under the same law\nwith which you threaten others, puffing yourself up in your folly.\n\n12. What perversity! The spiritual powers come along with their ban\nand say it should be eared and endured, whether right or wrong. But if\nthey are subjected to violence and injustice they will not endure it\nto the extent of a single heller, but without any fear at all, cast up\nthe accounts in their favor and demand what is theirs. Thus they\nwithdraw themselves from God's commandment, in keeping which they,\nmost of all, should be an example to others. For if it is true that\npope, bishop and the whole spiritual estate may without fear resist\ninjustice, injury and contempt in their own interest, then it is also\ntrue that the ban may be resisted and be repelled, as vigorously as\nthey seek their interest. There is no distinction in God's\ncommandment, it concerns every one alike. But may God forbid that! We\nare to bear both the ban and whatever tribulation may befall us in\nfear, as the Gospel teaches. Therefore, if any one wrong you or take\nyour income, and you do not endure it in fear, but would frighten him\nwith the ban[13], especially when you are seeking not his improvement,\nbut your own benefit or self-will, take heed, you are already worse\nthan he. For you intend to draw yourself out of fear and to draw him\nin, which you have no right to do, and compel him to keep the Gospel\nwhich you tear to pieces. How will you be able to stand before God?\nTherefore when they say, \"Our ban must be feared, right or wrong,\" we\nreply: \"Yes, that is true, but it is also true that your unjust ban\nharms no one but yourselves, and harms you in body and soul. And the\njust ban harms you more than it harms me. Therefore you should also\nendure your injury in fear, be it right or wrong, and if you glory\nover me because of the ban I will glory over you because of your\nsuffering. If a criminal took my coat and said: 'You should endure it\nin fear and humility,' I would say, 'I will; not for the sake of your\ntheft, which harms me not, but for the sake of Christ's commandment\n[Matt. 5:40].' Just so I fear your ban, not for the ban's sake (it\ndoes not harm me, but rather yourself), but for the sake of Christ's\ncommandment.\"\n\n13. Though it is true that the ban must be feared, whether it be right\nor wrong, yet those who lay the ban are always in greater danger than\nthose on whom it is laid. He who is banned is in no danger but that of\ndespising the ban and not bearing it, whether it be right or wrong.\nBut he who bans is in danger, in the first place, of not enduring\ninjustice in fear; in the second place, of avenging himself through\nthe ban without any fear; in the third place, of not seeking, with\nsingleness of purpose, his sinful neighbor's correction by means of\nthe ban. This is evident because he despises his own sin and that of\nothers, and only attacks the man who injures him, all of which is\ncontrary to the Gospel. Hence it comes that by means of their dreadful\nperverseness those who use the ban nowadays pick up the spoon and\ntread in the dish[14]; they put others under the external ban and put\nthemselves under condemnation inwardly; in addition, they become so\nblinded that they boast how greatly their external ban is to be\nfeared, and inwardly they condemn themselves, and rejoice boldly and\nwithout fear like fools and madmen. For this reason I am sure that the\nHoly Spirit did not invent the saying, Our ban must be feared, right\nor wrong. It does not become a Christian, not to say one in the\nspiritual estate[15], to wrong another, much less to lord it over him\nand boast that this injustice must be feared. It behooves me to say,\nThy injustice makes me tremble; it behooves thee much more to take\nheed and be in fear lest thou do me wrong and threaten me besides,\nsaying that I must endure it in fear; or thy injustice can harm me\nonly in time, but thee it harms to all eternity. So evil and\nlamentable are these present times, in which such furious tyrants\nshamelessly and openly boast of their sin and everlasting hurt (which\nwould be horrible even in Turks and heathen), in order that they may\nbe defiant now and mock at the misfortunes of those who suffer, whom\nthey do not seek to correct, but only to inspire with fear and false\nterror.\n\nIn a word, the higher estate is always, with all its works, in greater\ndanger than the lower estate, and where the lower estate must needs be\nin fear once, there the higher estate needs be in fear ten times over.\nOn this account those who exercise the ban have no reason to lord it\nover those who are under the ban or to deal arrogantly with them, but\nall the more reason to weep or themselves. For God's judgment will not\nbe pronounced on the lowly, but on the mighty, as Wisdom the wise man\nsays [Wisdom 6:8 f.].\n\n14. It were indeed better if Christians were taught to love the ban\nrather than to fear it[16], as we are taught by Christ to love\nchastisement, pain and even death, and not to fear them. But these\nprattlers speak only of fear in the ban, though they teach that all\nother chastisements and misfortunes are to be borne cheerfully.\nWhereby they betray their blind and cursed purpose, which is to rule\nby force over the people of Christ, and as it were to take the free\nChristian Church captive in fear. Therefore let us learn what is our\nchief duty with respect to the ban, namely, not to despise it or bear\nit impatiently, and this for two reasons. First, because the authority\nof the ban was given by Christ to the holy mother, the Christian\nChurch, that is, to the community of all Christians. Therefore, in\nthis matter we should honor and submit to our dear mother Church and\nto Christ. For what Christ and the Church do should have our approval,\nour love and our filial fear. Secondly, because the effect and purpose\nof the ban is beneficial and salutary and never injurious, if one\nendures it and does not despise it. To use a homely illustration: When\na mother punishes her beloved son, whether he has deserved it or not,\nshe certainly does not do it with evil intent, but it is a maternal,\nharmless and salutary punishment, if the son bears it patiently. Only\nwhen he becomes impatient, and is not influenced by it to leave the\nwrong or to do the good for the sake of which he is punished, but\nturns against his mother and despises her, does the punishment begin\nto do him harm; or then he offends against God, Who has commanded:\n\"Thou shalt honor thy father and mother\" [Ex. 20:12]; and out of a\nlight, harmless, yea even beneficial chastisement he makes a terrible\nwrong and sin, to his everlasting pain and punishment.\n\n15. Thus it happens in our day that certain officials[17] and their\nassociates are murdered, beaten and bound, or are in constant fear of\ndeath. Doubtless this would not occur at all, or at least much less\nfrequently, if the people did not hold the wrong opinion that the ban\nis more harmful than profitable. For this reason they venture\neverything, and commit such crimes as it were in despair. Although\nthis is terrible, yet by God's dispensation the tyrants get what they\ndeserve, because they conceal the real benefit of the ban from the\npeople, and misuse it, making no effort toward correction, but aiming\nsimply to increase their own power. For although every one ought to\nendure the ban, they too ought not to despise a poor human being, be\nhe guilty or innocent, as Christ says: \"Take heed that ye despise not\none of these little ones that believe on Me, for I say unto you that\ntheir angels do always behold the face of My Father which is in\nheaven.\" [Matt. 18:10] Why should they wonder if, in the providence of\nGod, at times their heads are broken and their commands despised,\nbecause of the unjust tyrannical ban, since without ceasing they act\nso insolently against God's commandment? True, there is great wrong on\nboth sides. Yet if the people were taught that the power of the ban is\nwholesome and necessary and that it is not ordained nor used to their\nhurt, but to their benefit, the officials would be in less danger, and\nfind greater and readier obedience, nay, greater love, good will and\nhonor among all the people.\n\n16. Therefore the people should be taught in some such way as this: My\ndear people, let not those who have and use the power of the ban drive\nyou to despair, whether they be pious or evil, whether they do you\njustice or injustice. The power of the ban cannot harm you, but must\nalways be beneficial to the soul, if only you bear and endure it\naright; their abuse of the ban does not hinder its virtue. Or if you\ncannot endure it, then try to escape from it with meekness, not with\nrevenge and retaliation by word or deed. And in all things look not to\nthem, but to the dear mother Church. What difference does it make to\nyou whether she lays her rods of chastisement upon you through pious\nor through wicked rulers? It is and remains, nevertheless, your\ndearest mother's most salutary rod. From the beginning of the world it\nhas been so, and will ever remain, that spiritual and temporal power\nis more often given to the Pilates, Herods, Annases and Caiaphases\nthan to the pious Peters, Pauls and the like, and as in all other\nestates so in that of government there are always more of the wicked\nthan of the pious. It is not to be supposed or hoped that we shall\never have an entirely pious government, nay, it must come as a pure\ngit of grace or by special prayer and merit, if good government or a\nright use of power is to be had at all. For God punishes wicked\nsubjects by wicked rulers, as He says: \"I will give children to be\ntheir prelates and their rulers shall be childish men, I will take\nfrom them every mighty man, the wise, the prudent and the man of war,\"\n[Isa. 3:4] etc. Since, then, incapable or evil rulers are God's\nchastisement, and there are so many among us who deserve such\nchastisement, we must not be surprised if the government wrongs us and\nabuses its power toward us, nay, we must wonder and thank God when it\ndoes not wrong us and do us injustice.\n\n17. Wherefore, since the world is at present overburdened, as it has\nabundantly deserved to be because of its heinous sins, with young,\nimprudent and inexperienced rulers, especially in the spiritual\nestate, so that this age of ours is extraordinarily perilous, we must\nact very prudently and by all means see to it that we hold the\ngovernment and all authority in the highest honor, even as Christ\nhonors the authority of Pilate, Herod, Annas, Caiaphas, and of the\ntemporal rulers of His time we must not permit such grievous abuses\nand the childish rule of the prelates to move us to despise all\nauthority, so that despite those unworthy persons who bear rule we may\nnot at the same time despise their authority, but cheerfully bear what\nit imposes, or reuse to bear it at least with humility and proper\nrespect. For God cannot and will not permit authority to be wantonly\nand impudently resisted when it does not force us to do what is\nagainst God or His commandments[18], though they themselves do as much\nas they can against God, or injure us as much as they will. There are\nsome whom He Himself would judge and condemn, and such are those great\nand powerful tyrants; so too, there are those whom He would help, and\nsuch are the oppressed sufferers. Therefore we should yield to this\nHis will and leave the mighty to His sword and judgment, and allow Him\nto help us, as St. Paul says: \"O dearly beloved brethren, neither\navenge nor defend yourselves, but rather give place unto the wrath of\nGod, because it is written. Vengeance belongs to Me alone and I will\nrepay each one [Deut. 32:35].\" [Rom. 12:19]\n\nAnd yet we should humbly tell these prelates (especially should the\npreachers rebuke them, yet only by showing them from the Word of God)\nthat they are acting against God and show them what He would have them\ndo, and in addition diligently and earnestly pray to God or them; even\nas Jeremiah wrote to the children of Israel in Babylon that they\nshould zealously pray or the king of Babylon, or his son and for his\nkingdom, although he had taken them captive, had troubled and slain\nthem and done them all manner of evil.\n\nAnd we can easily do this if we remember that the ban and all\nunrighteous authority cannot harm our souls, provided we submit to\nthem, and they must ever be of profit, unless they are despised. So\nalso are the authorities a thousandfold worse in the sight of God than\nwe, and are therefore to be pitied rather than wickedly to be\ndespised. For this reason we are also commanded in the law of Moses\nthat no one shall revile the rulers, be they good or evil, even though\nthey give great occasion. In short, we must have evil or childish\nrulers,--if it is not the Turk, then it must needs be the Christians.\nThe world is far too wicked to be worthy of good and pious lords, it\nmust have princes who go to war, levy taxes and shed blood, and it\nmust have spiritual tyrants who impoverish and burden it with bulls\nand letters[19] and laws. This and other chastisements are rather what\nit has deserved, and to resist them is nothing else than to resist\nGod's chastisement. As humbly as I conduct myself when God sends me a\nsickness, so humbly should I conduct myself toward the evil\ngovernment, which the same God also sends me.\n\n18. When we are justly and deservedly put under the ban our chief\nconcern should be to correct the sins of commission and omission which\ncaused the ban, since the ban always is imposed on account of sin\n(which is far worse than the ban itself), and yet here as elsewhere\nthings are perverted, so that we only consider how much the rod hurts\nand not why we are punished. Where can you find men to-day who are as\nmuch in fear of sinning and provoking God as they are in fear of the\nban? Thus it happens that we are more in fear of the wholesome\nchastisement than of the heinous sins. We must let men think and act\nthus, because the natural man does not see the spiritual harm in sin\nas he feels the smarts of chastisement; although the fear of the ban\nhas also been exaggerated by the tyrannous methods and threatenings of\nthe spiritual judges who drive the people to fear punishment more than\nsin.\n\nWhen, however, we are unjustly put under the ban, we should be very\ncareful that we in no way do, omit, say or withhold that on account of\nwhich we are under the ban (unless we cannot do so without sin and\nwithout injury to our neighbor)[20], but rather should we endure the\nban in humility, die happily under it, if it cannot be otherwise, and\nnot be terrified, even though we do not receive the sacrament and are\nburied in unconsecrated ground. The reason is this: Truth and\nrighteousness belong to the inner, spiritual fellowship[21] and may\nnot be abandoned under penalty of falling under God's eternal ban.\nTherefore they dare not be surrendered for the sake of the external\nfellowship, which is immeasurably inferior, nor because of the ban. To\nreceive the sacrament and to be buried in consecrated ground are of\ntoo little consequence that or their sake truth and righteousness be\nneglected. And that no one may think this strange I will go further\nand say that even he who dies under a just ban is not damned, unless\nindeed he did not repent of his sin or despised the ban. For sorrow\nand repentance make all things right, even though his body be exhumed\nor his ashes cast into the water[22].\n\n19. The unjust ban then is much more to be desired than either the\njust ban or the external fellowship. It is a very precious merit in\nthe sight of God, and blessed is he who dies under an unjust ban. God\nwill grant him an eternal crown for the truth's sake, on account of\nwhich he is under the ban. Then let him sing in the words of Psalm\ncix, \"They have cursed me, but Thou hast blessed me.\" [Ps. 109:28]\nOnly let us beware of despising the authorities, and humbly declare\nour innocence; if this does not avail, then we are free and without\nguilt in the sight of God. For if we are in duty bound by the\ncommandment of Christ to agree with our adversary [Matt. 5:25]; how\nmuch more should we agree with the authority of the Christian Church,\nbe it exercised justly or unjustly, by worthy or unworthy rulers.\n\nAn obedient child, though it does not deserve the punishment it\nreceives from its mother, suffers no harm from the unjust\nchastisement, nay, by its very patience it becomes much dearer and\nmore pleasing to the mother; how much more do we become lovable in\nGod's sight, if at the hands of evil rulers we endure the unmerited\npunishment of the Church, as our spiritual mother. For the Church\nremains our mother because Christ remains Christ, and she is not\nchanged into a step-mother simply because of our evil rulers.\nNevertheless, the prelates and bishops and their officials should be\ntemperate and not hastily use the ban, for many bans means nothing\nelse than many laws and commandments, and prescribing many laws is to\nset many snares for poor souls. And so by numerous ill-advised bans\nnothing more results than great offence and an occasion or sin, by\nwhich the wrath of God is provoked, although the ban was ordained to\nreconcile Him. And although we are truly bound to obey them, still\nmore are they bound to direct, change and regulate their decree and\nauthority according to our ability and need and for our correction and\nsalvation; for we have shown from St. Paul[23] that power is given not\nfor destruction but for edification [2 Cor. 13:10].\n\n20. The ban should be applied not only to heretics and schismatics,\nbut to all who are guilty of open sin, as we have shown above from St.\nPaul, who commands that the railer, extortioner, fornicator and\ndrunkard be put under the ban [1 Cor. 5:11]. But in our day such\nsinners are let in peace, especially if they are bigwigs; and to the\ndisgrace of this noble form of authority, the ban is used only for the\ncollection of debts of money, often so insignificant that the costs\namount to more than the original debt. In order to gloss this over\nthey have hit upon a new device, saying they put under the ban not\nbecause of debt but because of disobedience, because the summons was\nnot respected; were it not for debt, however, they would forget the\ndisobedience, as we see when many other sins, even their own, escape\nthe ban. A poor man must often be disobedient if he is cited to go so\nmany miles, lose time and money and neglect his trade. It is utter\ntyranny to summon a man to come such a distance across country to\ncourt.\n\nAnd I commend the temporal princes[24] who will not permit the ban and\nthe abuses connected with it in their lands and among their people.\nWhat are princes and counsellors for if they do not concern themselves\nwith and judge such temporal matters as debts, each in their city and\nprovince and among their subjects? The spiritual powers should be\nconcerned with the Word of God, with sin, and with the devil, in order\nto bring souls to God, and should relinquish temporal cases to the\ntemporal judges, as Paul writes[25][1 Cor. 6:1]. Indeed, as things are\nnow, it is almost necessary to use the ban in order to drive the\npeople into the Church and not out of it.\n\n21. Whether one be justly or unjustly under the ban, no one may\nexclude him from the Church until the Gospel has been read or the\nsermon preached[26]. For from the hearing of the Gospel and the sermon\nno one shall or can exclude or be excluded. The hearing of the Word of\nGod should remain free to every one[27]. Nay, those who are under a\njust ban ought most of all to hear it, that they may perchance be\nmoved by it to acknowledge their sin and to reform. We read that it\nwas the ancient practice of the Church to dismiss those under the ban\nafter the sermon, and if a whole congregation were under the ban the\nsermon must be allowed to proceed just as though there were no ban. In\naddition, even though he who is under the ban may not remain for the\nmass after the sermon, nor come to the sacrament[28], nevertheless he\nshould not neglect it, but spiritually come to the sacrament, that is,\nhe should heartily desire it and believe that he can spiritually\nreceive it, as was said in the treatise on the sacrament[29].\n\n\nFOOTNOTES\n\n\n[1] In the preceding treatise on the _Blessed Sacrament_.\n\n[2] See above, p. 10.\n\n[3] See above, p. 18.\n\n[4] I. e., the necessaries of life.\n\n[5] E. g., the crusades against heretics, and the inquisition of the\nthirteenth century. Luther's statement that to burn heretics is\ncontrary to the will of the Holy Spirit was condemned in the Bull\n_Exsurge Domine_, of July 15, 1520.\n\n[6] Cf. p. 53.\n\n[7] Cf. p. 10.\n\n[8] See Vol. I, pp. 53, 163 ff.\n\n[9] The officials were officers of the bishops' courts; see also\nbelow, p. 103.\n\n[10] In Vito, lib. V, tit. xi, c. I,_Cum medicinalis_.\n\n[11] According to Luther's interpretation of 1 Cor. 5:5. Cf. also Acts\n5:5.\n\n[12] The passage quoted from the canon law.\n\n[13] For instances see the _Gravamina of the German Nation_ (1521),\nWrede, _Deutsche Reichstagsakten_, II, 685.\n\n[14] Thiele, _Luthers Sprichwortersammlung_, No. 276.\n\n[15] I. e., a cleric.\n\n[16] This statement also was condemned in the papal bull.\n\n[17] The \"officials\" were the administrators of this discipline, see\nabove, p. 41.\n\n[18] A very important limitation for Luther's position.\n\n[19] See Open Letter to the Nobility, below, p. 98.\n\n[20] Again an important limitation.\n\n[21] See above, p. 41.\n\n[22] The ashes of Hus were cast into the Rhine (1415), and the body of\nWycliff was exhumed and cremated and the ashes cast into the water\n(1427).\n\n[23] See above, p. 42.\n\n[24] In 1518 both George and Frederick of Saxony took the position\nthat spiritual jurisdiction should be limited to spiritual matters.\nGess, _Akten und Briefe zur Kirchen politik Georgs_ 1, 44.\n\n[25] Luther puts a peculiar construction upon this passage.\n\n[26] The ancient service was divided into the service of the Word\n(_missa catechumenorum_) and the celebration of the sacrament (_missa\nfidelium_); before the second, those under the ban as well as the\ncatechumens were required to withdraw.\n\n[27] The \"great ban\" excluded from all services.\n\n[28] According to Roman Catholic usage there is a distinction between\nhearing mass and receiving the sacrament.\n\n[29] Compare Treatise Concerning the Blessed Sacrament, above, p. 25.\n\n\n\nAN OPEN LETTER TO THE CHRISTIAN NOBILITY OF THE GERMAN NATION\nCONCERNING THE REFORM OF THE CHRISTIAN ESTATE\n\n1520\n\n\n\nINTRODUCTION\n\n\nThe _Open Letter to the Christian Nobility of the German Nation_ is\nclosely related to the tract on _The Papacy at Rome: A Reply to the\nCelebrated Romanist at Leipzig_[1]. In a letter to Spalatin[2] dated\nbefore June 8, 1520, Luther says: \"I shall assail that ass of an\nAlveld in such wise as not to forget the Roman pontiff, and neither of\nthem will be pleased.\" In the same letter he writes, \"I am minded to\nissue a broadside to Charles and the nobility of Germany against the\ntyranny and baseness of the Roman curia.\" The attack upon Alveld is\nthe tract on _The Papacy at Rome_; the _scheda publica_ grew into the\n_Open Letter_. At the time when the letter to Spalatin was written,\nthe work on _The Papacy at Rome_ must have been already in press, for\nit appeared in print on the 26th of the month[3], and the composition\nof the Open Letter had evidently not yet begun. On the 23d Luther sent\nthe manuscript of the _Open Letter_ to Amsdorf[4], with the request\nthat he read it and suggest changes. The two weeks immediately\npreceding the publication of the work _On the Papacy_ must, therefore,\nhave been the time when the Open Letter was composed.\n\nIn the conclusion to the earlier work Luther had said: \"Moreover, I\nshould be truly glad if kings, princes, and all the nobles would take\nhold, and turn the knaves from Rome out of the country, and keep the\nappointments to bishoprics and benefices out of their hands. How has\nRoman avarice come to usurp all the foundations, bishoprics and\nbenefices of our fathers? Who has ever read or heard of such monstrous\nrobbery? Do we not also have the people who need them, while out of\nour poverty we must enrich the ass-drivers and stable-boys, nay, the\nharlots and knaves at Rome, who look upon us as nothing else but\narrant fools, and make us the objects of their vile mockery? Oh, the\npity, that kings and princes have so little reverence for Christ, and\nHis honor concerns them so little that they allow such heinous\nabominations to gain the upper hand, and look on, while at Rome they\nthink of nothing but to continue in their madness and to increase the\nabounding misery, until no hope is let on earth except in the temporal\nauthorities. Of this I will say more anon, if this Romanist comes\nagain; let this suffice for a beginning. May God help us at length to\nopen our eyes. Amen.\"\n\nThis passage may fairly be regarded as the germ of the _Open Letter_.\nThe ideas of the latter work are suggested with sufficient clearness\nto show that its materials are already at hand, and its plan already\nin the author's mind. The threat to write it is scarcely veiled. That\nLuther did not wait for that particular Romanist to \"come again\" may\nhave been due to the intervention of another Romanist, none other than\nhis old opponent, Sylvester Prierias. Before the 7th of June[5] Luther\nhad received a copy of Prierias' _Epitome of a Reply to Martin\nLuther_[6], which is the boldest and baldest possible assertion of the\nvery theory of papal power which Luther had sought to demolish in his\ntract on the Papacy. In the preface to his reprint of the Epitome,\nLuther bids farewell to Rome: \"Farewell, unhappy, hopeless,\nblasphemous Rome! The wrath of God hath come upon thee, as thou hast\ndeserved! We have cared for Babylon, and she is not healed; let us,\nthen, leave her, that she may be the habitation of dragons, spectres\nand witches, and true to her name of Babel, an everlasting confusion,\na new pantheon of wickedness.\"[7]\n\nThese words were written while the _Open Letter_ was in course of\ncomposition. The _Open Letter_ is, therefore, Luther's first\npublication after the time when he recognized that the breach between\nhim and the papal church was complete, and likely to be permanent.\nMeanwhile, the opposing party had come to the same conclusion. The\nverdict of the pope upon Luther had been long delayed, but on the 15th\nof June, midway between the letter to Spalatin, above mentioned, and\nthe completion of the _Open Letter_, Leo X signed the bull of\nexcommunication, though it was not published in Germany until later.\nThus the _Open Letter_ shows us the mind of Luther in the weeks when\nthe permanent separation between him and Rome took place.\n\nIt was also the time when he had the highest hopes from the promised\nsupport of the German knights[8], who formed the patriotic party in\nGermany and are included in the \"nobility\" to whom the Open Letter is\naddressed[9].\n\nThe first edition of 4000 copies came off the press of Melchior\nLotther in Wittenberg before the 18th of August[10]. It is\nsurmised[11] that the earlier portion[12] of the work was not\ncontained in the original manuscript, but was added while it was in\nthe printer's hands; perhaps it was added at the suggestion of\nAmsdorf. Less than a week later a second edition was in course of\npreparation[13]. This \"enlarged and revised edition\"[14] contained\nthree passages not included in the first[15]. They are indicated in\nthe notes to the present edition.\n\nHe who would know the true Luther must read more than one of his\nwritings; he must not by any chance omit to read the _Open Letter to\nthe Christian Nobility of the German Nation_. In his other works we\nlearn to know him as the man of God, or the prophet, or the\ntheologian; in this treatise we meet Luther the German. His heart is\nfull of grief for the affliction of his people, and grief turns to\nwrath as he observes that this affliction is put upon them by the\ntyranny and greed of the pope and the cardinals and the \"Roman\nvermin.\" The situation is desperate; appeals and protests have been\nall in vain; and so, as a last resort, he turns to the temporal\nauthorities,--to Charles V, newly elected, but as yet uncrowned; to\nthe territorial lords, great and small, who have a voice in the\nimperial diet and powers of jurisdiction in their own\ndomains,--reciting the abuses of \"Roman tyranny,\" and pleading with\nthem to intervene in behalf of the souls that are going to destruction\n\"through the devilish rule of Rome.\" It is a cry out of the heart of\nGermany, a nation whose bent is all religious, but which, from that\nvery circumstance, is all the more open to the insults and wrongs and\ndeceptions of the Roman curia.\n\nYet it is no formless and incoherent cry, but an orderly recital of\nthe ills of Germany. There are times when we feel in reading it that\nthe writer is laying violent hands on his own wrath in the effort to\nbe calm. For all its scathing quality, it is a sane arraignment of\nthose who \"under the holy name of Christ and St. Peter\" are\nresponsible for the nation's woes, and the remedies that are proposed\nare, many of them, practicable as well as reasonable.\n\nThe materials of the work are drawn from many sources,--from hearsay,\nfrom personal observation, from such histories as Luther had at his\ncommand, from the proceedings of councils and of diets; there are\npassages which would seem to bear more than an accidental resemblance\nto similar passages in Hutten's _Vadiscus_. All was grist that came to\nLuther's mill. But the spirit of the work is Luther's own.\n\nFor the general historian, who is concerned more with the practical\nthan with the theoretical or theological aspects of the Reformation,\nthe _Open Letter_ is undoubtedly Luther's greatest work. Its rank\noutspokenness about the true condition of Germany, the number and\nvariety of the subjects that it treats, the multiplicity of the\nsources from which the subject-matter is drawn, and the point of view\nfrom which the whole is discussed make it a work of absorbing interest\nand priceless historical value. It shows, as does no other single work\nof the Reformation time, the things that were in men's minds and the\nvariety of motives which led them to espouse the cause of the\nProtestant party. Doctrine, ethics, history, politics, economics, all\nhave their place in the treatise. It is not only \"a blast on the\nwar-trumpet,\"[16] but a connecting link between the thought of the\nMiddle Ages and that of modern times, prophetic of the new age, but\nshowing how closely the new is bound up with the old.\n\nThe text of the _Open Letter_ is found in _Weimar Ed_., VI, 404-469;\n_Erl. Ed._, XXI, 277-360; _Walch Ed._, X, 296-399; _St. Louis Ed._, X,\n266-351; _Berlin Ed._, I, 203-290; _Clemen_ I, 363-425. The text of\nthe Berlin Ed._ is modernized and annotated by E. Schneider. The\neditions of _K. Benrath_ (Halle, 1883) and E. Lemme (_Die 3 grossen\nReformationsschriften L's vom J. 1520_; Gotha, 1884) contain a\nmodernized text and extensive notes. A previous English translation in\n_Wace_ and _Buchheim_, _Luther's Primary Works_ (London and\nPhiladelphia, 1896). The present translation is based on the text of\nClemen.\n\nFor full discussion of the contents of the work, especially its\nsources, see _Weimar Ed._, VI, 381-391; _Schafer, Luther als\nKirchenhistoriker_, Gutersloh, 1897; Kohler, _L's Schrift an den Adel\n. . . im Spiegel der Kulturgeschichte_, Halle, 1895, and _Luther und\ndie Kirchengeschichte_, Erlangen, 1900. Extensive comment in all the\nbiographies, especially Kostlin-Kawerau I, 315 ff.\n\n        CHARLES M. JACOBS.\n\nLutheran Theological Seminary,\n\n    Mount Airy, Philadelphia.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES\n\n\n[1] In this edition, I, 337 ff.\n\n[2] Enders, II, 414; Smith, _L.'s Correspondence_, I, No. 266.\n\n[3] Enders, II, 424.\n\n[4] See below, p. 62.\n\n[5] See letter of June 7th to John Hess, Enders, II, 411; Smith, I,\nNo. 265.\n\n[6] Published at Rome 1519; printed with Luther's preface and notes,\nWeimar Ed., VI, 328ff.; Erl. Ed., op. var. arg., II, 79 ff.\n\n[7] _Weimar Ed._, VI, 329.\n\n[8] See Enders, II, 415, 443; Smith, Nos. 269, 279, and documents in\n_St. Louis Ed._, XV, 1630 ff.\n\n[9] See Kostlin-Kawerau, _Martin Luther_, I, 308 ff., and _Weimar\nEd._, VI, 381 ff.\n\n[10] See Luther's letters to Lang and Staupitz, who wished to have the\npublication withheld (Enders, II, 461, 463).\n\n[11] _Clemen_, I. 362.\n\n[12] Below, pp. 65-99.\n\n[13] See _Weimar Ed._, VI, 397.\n\n[14] See title _B_, _ibid_., 398.\n\n[15] Printed as an appendix in _Clemen_, I, 421-425.\n\n[16] So it was called by Johann Lang (Enders, II, 461).\n\n\n\nAN OPEN LETTER TO THE CHRISTIAN NOBILITY OF THE GERMAN NATION\nCONCERNING THE REFORM OF THE CHRISTIAN ESTATE\n\n1520\n\n\n\nTo the\n\nEsteemed and Reverend Master\n\nNICHOLAS VON AMSDORF,\n\nLicentiate of Holy Scripture and Canon at Wittenberg, my special and\nkind friend;\n\nDoctor Martin Luther.\n\nThe grace and peace of God be with thee, esteemed and reverend dear\nsir and friend.\n\nThe time to keep silence has passed and the time to speak is come, as\nsaith Ecclesiastes [Eccl. 3:7]. I have followed out our intention[1]\nand brought together some matters touching the reform of the Christian\nEstate, to be laid before the Christian Nobility of the German Nation,\nin the hope that God may deign to help His Church through the efforts\nof the laity, since the clergy, to whom this task more properly\nbelongs, have grown quite indifferent. I am sending the whole thing to\nyour Reverence, that you may pass judgment on it and, if necessary,\nimprove it.\n\nI know full well that I shall not escape the charge of presumption in\nthat I, a despised monk, venture to address such high and great\nEstates on matters of such moment, and to give advice to people of\nsuch high intelligence. I shall offer no apologies, no matter who may\nchide me. Perchance I owe my God and the world another piece of folly,\nand I have now made up my mind honestly to pay that debt, if I can do\nso, and for once to become court-jester; if I fail, I still have one\nadvantage,--no one need buy me a cap or cut me my comb[2]. It is a\nquestion which one will put the bells on the other[3]. I must fulfil\nthe proverb, \"Whatever the world does, a monk must be in it, even if\nhe has to be painted in.\"[4] More than once a fool has spoken wisely,\nand wise men often have been arrant fools, as Paul says, \"If any one\nwill be wise, let him become a fool.\" [1 Cor. 3:18] Moreover since I\nam not only a fool, but also a sworn doctor of Holy Scripture, I am\nglad for the chance to fulfil my doctor's oath in this fool's way.\n\nI pray you, make my excuses to the moderately intelligent, for I know\nnot how to earn the grace and favor of the immoderately intelligent,\nthough I have often sought to do so with great pains. Henceforth I\nneither desire nor regard their favor. God help us to seek not our own\nglory, but His alone! Amen.\n\nWittenberg, in the house of the Augustinians, on the Eve of St. John\nthe Baptist (June 23d), in the year fifteen hundred and twenty.\n\nTo\n\nHis Most Illustrious and Mighty Imperial Majesty,\n\nand to\n\nthe Christian Nobility of the German Nation,\n\nDoctor Martin Luther.\n\nGrace and power from God, Most Illustrious Majesty, and most gracious\nand dear Lords.\n\nIt is not out of sheer frowardness or rashness that I, a single, poor\nman, have undertaken to address your worships. The distress and\noppression which weigh down all the Estates of Christendom, especially\nof Germany, and which move not me alone, but everyone to cry out time\nand again, and to pray for help[5], have forced me even now to cry\naloud that God may inspire some one with His Spirit to lend this\nsuffering nation a helping hand. Ofttimes the councils[6] have made\nsome pretence at reformation, but their attempts have been cleverly\nhindered by the guile of certain men and things have gone from bad to\nworse. I now intend, by the help of God, to throw some light upon the\nwiles and wickedness of these men, to the end that when they are\nknown, they may not henceforth be so hurtful and so great a hindrance.\nGod has given us a noble youth to be our head and thereby has awakened\ngreat hopes of good in many hearts[7]; wherefore it is meet that we\nshould do our part and profitably use this time of grace.\n\nIn this whole matter the first and most important thing is that we\ntake earnest heed not to enter on it trusting in great might or in\nhuman reason, even though all power in the world were ours; for God\ncannot and will not suffer a good work to be begun with trust in our\nown power or reason. Such works He crushes ruthlessly to earth, as it\nis written in the xxxiii. Psalm, \"There is no king saved by the\nmultitude of an host: a mighty man is not delivered by much strength.\"\n[Ps. 33:16] On this account, I fear, it came to pass of old that the\ngood Emperors Frederick I[8] and II[9], and many other German emperors\nwere shamefully oppressed and trodden under foot by the popes,\nalthough all the world feared them. It may be that they relied on\ntheir own might more than on God, and therefore they had to all. In\nour own times, too, what was it that raised the bloodthirsty Julius\nII[10] to such heights? Nothing else, I fear, except that France, the\nGermans and Venice relied upon themselves. The children of Benjamin\nslew 42,000 Israelites[11] because the latter relied on their own\nstrength.\n\nThat it may not so fare with us and our noble young Emperor Charles,\nwe must be sure that in this matter we are dealing not with men, but\nwith the princes of hell, who can fill the world with war and\nbloodshed, but whom war and bloodshed do not overcome. We must go at\nthis work despairing of physical force and humbly trusting God; we\nmust seek God's help with earnest prayer, and fix our minds on nothing\nelse than the misery and distress of suffering Christendom, without\nregard to the deserts of evil men. Otherwise we may start the game\nwith great prospect of success, but when we get well into it the evil\nspirits will stir up such confusion that the whole world will swim in\nblood, and yet nothing will come of it. Let us act wisely, therefore,\nand in the fear of God. The more force we use, the greater our\ndisaster if we do not act humbly and in God's fear. The popes and the\nRomans have hitherto been, able, by the devil's help, to set kings at\nodds with one another, and they may well be able to do it again, if we\nproceed by our own might and cunning, without God's help.\n\nI. THE THREE WALLS OF THE ROMANISTS\n\n[Sidenote: The Three Walls Described]\n\nThe Romanists[12], with great adroitness, have built three walls about\nthem, behind which they have hitherto defended themselves in such wise\nthat no one has been able to reform them; and this has been the cause\nof terrible corruption throughout all Christendom.\n\n_First_, when pressed by the temporal power, they have made decrees\nand said that the temporal power has no jurisdiction over them, but,\non the other hand, that the spiritual is above the temporal power.\n_Second_, when the attempt is made to reprove them out of the\nScriptures, they raise the objection that the interpretation of the\nScriptures belongs to no one except the pope. Third, if threatened\nwith a council, they answer with the fable that no one can call a\ncouncil but the pope.\n\nIn this wise they have slyly stolen from us our three rods[13], that\nthey may go unpunished, and have ensconced themselves within the safe\nstronghold of these three walls, that they may practise all the\nknavery and wickedness which we now see. Even when they have been\ncompelled to hold a council they have weakened its power in advance by\npreviously binding the princes with an oath to let them remain as they\nare. Moreover, they have given the pope full authority over all the\ndecisions of the council, so that it is all one whether there are many\ncouncils or no councils,--except that they deceive us with\npuppet-shows and sham-battles. So terribly do they fear for their skin\nin a really free council! And they have intimidated kings and princes\nby making them believe it would be an offence against God not to obey\nthem in all these knavish, crafty deceptions[14]. Now God help us, and\ngive us one of the trumpets with which the walls of Jericho were\noverthrown [Josh. 6:20], that we may blow down these walls of straw\nand paper, and may set free the Christian rods or the punishment of\nsin, bringing to light the craft and deceit of the devil, to the end\nthat through punishment we may reform ourselves, and once more attain\nGod's favor.\n\nAgainst the first wall we will direct our first attack.\n\n[Sidenote: The First Wall--the Spiritual Estate above the Temporal]\n\nIt is pure invention that pope, bishops, priests and monks are to be\ncalled the \"spiritual estate\"; princes, lords, artisans, and farmers\nthe temporal estate. That is indeed a fine bit of lying and hypocrisy.\nYet no one should be frightened by it; and for this reason--viz., that\nall Christians are truly of the \"spiritual estate,\" and there is among\nthem no difference at all but that of office, as Paul says in I\nCorinthians xii. We are all one body, yet every member has its own\nwork, whereby it serves every other, all because we have one baptism,\none Gospel, one faith, and are all alike Christians [1 Cor. 12:12\nff.]; for baptism, Gospel and faith alone make us \"spiritual\" and a\nChristian people.\n\n[Sidenote: The Priesthood of Believers]\n\nBut that a pope or a bishop anoints, confers tonsures, ordains,\nconsecrates, or prescribes dress unlike that of the laity,--this may\nmake hypocrites and graven images[15], but it never makes a Christian\nor \"spiritual\" man. Through baptism all of us are consecrated to the\npriesthood, as St. Peter says in I Peter ii, \"Ye are a royal\npriesthood, a priestly kingdom,\" [1 Pet. 2:9] and the book of\nRevelation says, \"Thou hast made us by Thy blood to be priests and\nkings.\" [Rev. 5:10] For if we had no higher consecration than pope or\nbishop gives, the consecration by pope or bishop would never make a\npriest, nor might anyone either say mass or preach a sermon or give\nabsolution. Therefore when the bishop consecrates it is the same thing\nas if he, in the place and stead of the whole congregation, all of\nwhom have like power, were to take one out of their number and charge\nhim to use this power for the others; just as though ten brothers, all\nking's sons and equal heirs, were to choose one of themselves to rule\nthe inheritance or them all,--they would all be kings and equal in\npower, though one of them would be charged with the duty of ruling.\n\nTo make it still clearer. If a little group of pious Christian laymen\nwere taken captive and set down in a wilderness, and had among them no\npriest consecrated by a bishop, and if there in the wilderness they\nwere to agree in choosing one of themselves, married or unmarried, and\nwere to charge him with the office of baptising, saying mass,\nabsolving and preaching, such a man would be as truly a priest as\nthough all bishops and popes had consecrated him. That is why in cases\nof necessity any one can baptise and give absolution[16], which would\nbe impossible unless we were all priests. This great grace and power\nof baptism and of the Christian Estate they have well-nigh destroyed\nand caused us to forget through the canon law[17]. It was in the\nmanner aforesaid that Christians in olden days chose from their number\nbishops and priests, who were afterwards confirmed by other bishops,\nwithout all the show which now obtains. It was thus that Sts.\nAugustine[18], Ambrose[19] and Cyprian[20] became bishops.\n\n[Sidenote: The Temporal Rulers, Priests]\n\n[Sidenote: The Priest an Office-holder]\n\nSince, then, the temporal authorities are baptised with same baptism\nand have the same faith and Gospel as we, we must grant that they are\npriests and bishops, and count their office one which has a proper and\na useful place in the Christian community. For whoever comes out of\nthe water of baptism[21] can boast that he is already consecrated\npriest, bishop and pope, though it is not seemly that every one should\nexercise the office. Nay, just because we are all in like manner\npriests, no one must put himself forward and undertake, without our\nconsent and election, to do what is in the power of all of us. For\nwhat is common to all, no one dare take upon himself without the will\nand the command of the community; and should it happen that one chosen\nfor such an office were deposed for malfeasance, he would then be just\nwhat he was before he held office. Therefore a priest in Christendom\nis nothing else than an office-holder. While he is in office, he has\nprecedence; holder when deposed, he is a peasant or a townsman like\nthe rest. Beyond all doubt, then, a priest is no longer a priest when\nhe is deposed. But now they have invented _characteres\nindelebiles_[22], and prate that a deposed priest is nevertheless\nsomething different from a mere layman. They even dream that a priest\ncan never become a layman, or be anything else than a priest. All this\nis mere talk and man-made law.\n\nFrom all this it follows that there is really no difference between\nlaymen and priests, princes and bishops, \"spirituals\" and \"temporals,\"\nas they call them, except that of office and work, but not of\n\"estate\"; or they are all of the same estate[23],--true priests,\nbishops and popes,--though they are not all engaged in the same work,\njust as all priests and monks have not the same work. This is the\nteaching of St. Paul in Romans xii [Rom. 12:4 ff.] and I Corinthians\nxii [1 Cor. 12:12 ff.], and of St. Peter in I Peter ii [1 Pet. 2:9],\nas I have said above, viz., that we are all one body of Christ, the\nHead, all members one of another. Christ has not two different bodies,\none \"temporal,\" the other \"spiritual.\" He is one Head, and He has one\nbody.\n\nTherefore, just as those who are now called \"spiritual\"--priests,\nbishops or popes--are neither different from other Christians nor\nsuperior to them, except that they are charged with the administration\nof the Word of God and the sacraments, which is their work and office,\nso it is with the temporal authorities,--they bear sword and rod with\nwhich to punish the evil and to protect the good [Rom. 13:4]. A\ncobbler, a smith, a farmer, each has the work and office of his trade,\nand yet they are all alike consecrated priests and bishops, and every\none by means of his own work or office must benefit and serve every\nother, that in this way many kinds of work may be done for the bodily\nand spiritual welfare of the community, even as all the members of the\nbody serve one another.\n\nSee, now, how Christian is the decree which says that the temporal\npower is not above the \"spiritual estate\" and may not punish it[24].\nThat is as much as to say that the hand shall lend no aid when the eye\nis suffering. Is it not unnatural, not to say unchristian, that one\nmember should not help another and prevent its destruction? Verily,\nthe more honorable the member, the more should the others help. I say\nthen, since the temporal power is ordained of God to punish evil-doers\nand to protect them that do well [Rom. 13], it should therefore be\nleft free to perform its office without hindrance through the whole\nbody of Christendom without respect of persons, whether it affect\npope, bishops, priests, monks, nuns or anybody else. For if the mere\nact that the temporal power has a smaller place among the Christian\noffices than has the office of preachers or confessors, or of the\nclergy, then the tailors, cobblers, masons, carpenters, pot-boys,\ntapsters, farmers, and all the secular tradesmen, should also be\nprevented from providing pope, bishops, priests and monks with shoes,\nclothing, houses, meat and drink, and from paying them tribute. But if\nthese laymen are allowed to do their work unhindered, what do the\nRoman scribes mean by their laws, with which they withdraw themselves\nfrom the jurisdiction of the temporal Christian power, only so that\nthey may be free to do evil and to fulfil what St. Peter has said:\n\"There shall be false teachers among you, and through covetousness\nshall they with feigned words make merchandise of you.\" [2 Pet. 2:1\nff.]\n\nOn this account the Christian temporal power should exercise its\noffice without let or hindrance, regardless whether it be pope, bishop\nor priest whom it affects; whoever is guilty, let him suffer. All that\nthe canon law has said to the contrary is sheer invention of Roman\npresumption. For thus saith St. Paul to all Christians: \"Let every\nsoul (I take that to mean the pope's soul also) be subject unto the\nhigher powers; for they bear not the sword in vain, but are the\nministers of God for the punishment of evil-doers, and for the praise\nof them that do well.\" [Rom. 13:1, 4] St. Peter also says: \"Submit\nyourselves unto every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake, for so is\nthe will of God.\" [1 Pet. 2:13, 15] He has also prophesied that such\nmen shall come as will despise the temporal authorities [1 Pet. 2:10];\nand this has come to pass through the canon law.\n\nSo then, I think this first paper-wall is overthrown, since the\ntemporal power has become a member of the body of Christendom, and is\nof the \"spiritual estate,\" though its work is of a temporal nature.\nTherefore its work should extend freely and without hindrance to all\nthe members of the whole body; it should punish and use force whenever\nguilt deserves or necessity demands, without regard to pope, bishops\nand priests,--let them hurl threats and bans as much as they will.\n\nThis is why guilty priests, if they are surrendered to the temporal\nlaw[25], are first deprived of their priestly dignities, which would\nnot be right unless the temporal sword had previously had authority\nover them by divine right. Again, it is intolerable that in the canon\nlaw so much importance is attached to the freedom, life and property\nof the clergy, as though the laity were not also as spiritual and as\ngood Christians as they, or did not belong to the Church. Why are your\nlife and limb, your property and honor so free, and mine not? We are\nall alike Christians, and have baptism, faith, Spirit and all things\nalike. If a priest is killed, the land is laid under\ninterdict,[26]--why not when a peasant is killed? Whence comes this\ngreat distinction between those who are equally Christians? Only from\nhuman laws and inventions!\n\nMoreover, it can be no good spirit who has invented such exceptions\nand granted to sin such license and impunity. For if we are bound to\nstrive against the works and words of the evil spirit, and to drive\nhim out in whatever way we can, as Christ commands and His Apostles,\nought we, then, to suffer it in silence when the pope or his\nsatellites are bent on devilish words and works? Ought we for the sake\nof men to allow the suppression of divine commandments and truths\nwhich we have sworn in baptism to support with life and limb? Of a\ntruth we should then have to answer for all the souls that would\nthereby be abandoned and led astray.\n\nIt must therefore have been the very prince of devils who said what is\nwritten in the canon law: \"If the pope were so scandalously bad as to\nlead souls in crowds to the devil, yet he could not be deposed.\"[27]\nOn this accursed and devilish foundation they build at Rome, and think\nthat we should let all the world go to the devil, rather than resist\ntheir knavery. If the act that one man is set over others were\nsufficient reason why he should escape punishment, then no Christian\ncould punish another, since Christ commands that every man shall\nesteem himself the lowliest and the least. [Matt. 18:4]\n\nWhere sin is, there is no escape from punishment; as St. Gregory[28]\nalso writes that we are indeed all equal, but guilt puts us in\nsubjection one to another. Now we see how they whom God and the\nApostles have made subject to the temporal sword deal with\nChristendom, depriving it of its liberty by their own wickedness,\nwithout warrant of Scripture. It is to be feared that this is a game\nof Anti-christ[29] or a sign that he is close at hand.\n\n[Sidenote: The Second Wall--The Pope the Interpreter of Scripture;\nPapal Infallibility]\n\nThe second wall is still more flimsy and worthless. They wish to be\nthe only Masters of the Holy Scriptures[31] even though in all their\nlives they learn nothing from them. They assume for themselves sole\nauthority, and with insolent juggling of words they would persuade us\nthat the pope, whether he be a bad man or a good man, cannot err in\nmatters of faith[32]; and yet they cannot prove a single letter of it.\nHence it comes that so many heretical and unchristian, nay, even\nunnatural ordinances have a place in the canon law, of which, however,\nthere is no present need to speak. For since they think that the Holy\nSpirit never leaves them, be they never so unlearned and wicked, they\nmake bold to decree whatever they will. And if it were true, where\nwould be the need or use of the Holy Scriptures? Let us burn them, and\nbe satisfied with the unlearned lords at Rome, who are possessed of\nthe Holy Spirit,--although He can possess only pious hearts! Unless I\nhad read it myself[33], I could not have believed that the devil would\nmake such clumsy pretensions at Rome, and find a following.\n\nBut not to fight them with mere words, we will quote the Scriptures.\nSt. Paul says in I Corinthians xiv: anyone something better is\nrevealed, though he be sitting and listening to another in God's Word,\nthen the first, who is speaking, shall hold his peace and give place.\"\n[1 Cor. 14:30] What would be the use of this commandment, if we were\nonly to believe him who does the talking or who has the highest seat?\n[John 6:45] Christ also says in John vi, that all Christians shall be\ntaught of God. Thus it may well happen that the pope and his followers\nare wicked men, and no true Christians, not taught of God, not having\ntrue understanding. On the other hand, an ordinary man may have true\nunderstanding; why then should we not follow him? Has not the pope\nerred many times? Who would help Christendom when the pope errs, if we\nwere not to believe another, who had the Scriptures on his side, more\nthan the pope?\n\nTherefore it is a wickedly invented fable, and they cannot produce a\nletter in defence of it, that the interpretation of Scripture or the\nconfirmation of its interpretation belongs to the pope alone. They\nhave themselves usurped this power; and although they allege that this\npower was given to Peter when the keys were given to him, it is plain\nenough that the keys were not given to Peter alone, but to the whole\ncommunity[34]. Moreover, the keys were not ordained for doctrine or\ngovernment, but only for the binding and loosing of sin [John 20:22\nff.], and whatever further power of the keys they arrogate to\nthemselves is mere invention. But Christ's word to Peter, \"I have\nprayed for thee that thy faith fail not,\" [Luke 22:32] cannot be\napplied to the pope, since the majority of the popes have been without\nfaith, as they must themselves confess. Besides, it is not only for\nPeter that Christ prayed, but also or all Apostles and Christians, as\nhe says in John xvii: \"Father, I pray for those whom Thou hast given\nMe, and not for these only, but for all who believe on Me through\ntheir word.\" [John 17:9, 20] Is not this clear enough?\n\nOnly think of it yourself! They must confess that there are pious\nChristians among us, who have the true faith, Spirit, understanding,\nword and mind of Christ. Why, then, should we reject their word and\nunderstanding and follow the pope, who has neither faith nor Spirit?\nThat would be to deny the whole faith and the Christian Church.\nMoreover, it is not the pope alone who is always in the right, if the\narticle of the Creed is correct: \"I believe one holy Christian\nChurch\"; otherwise the prayer must run: \"I believe in the pope at\nRome,\" and so reduce the Christian Church to one man,--which would be\nnothing else than a devilish and hellish error.\n\nBesides, if we are all priests, as was said above[35], and all have\none faith, one Gospel, one sacrament, why should we not also have the\npower to test and judge what is correct or incorrect in matters of\nfaith? What becomes of the words of Paul in I Corinthians ii: \"He that\nis spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man,\"\n[1 Cor. 2:15] and II Corinthians iv: \"We have all the same Spirit of\nfaith\"? [2 Cor. 4:13] Why, then, should not we perceive what squares\nwith faith and what does not, as well as does an unbelieving pope?\n\nAll these and many other texts should make us bold and free, and we\nshould not allow the Spirit of liberty, as Paul calls Him [2 Cor.\n3:17], to be frightened off by the fabrications of the popes, but we\nought to go boldly forward to test all that they do or leave undone,\naccording to our interpretation of the Scriptures, which rests on\nfaith, and compel them to follow not their own interpretation, but the\none that is better. In the olden days Abraham had to listen to his\nSarah, although she was in more complete subjection to him than we are\nto anyone on earth [Gen. 21:12]. Balaam's ass, also, was wiser than\nthe prophet himself [Num. 22:28]. If God then spoke by an ass against\na prophet, why should He not be able even now to speak by a righteous\nman against the pope? In like manner St. Paul rebukes St. Peter as a\nman in error [Gal. 2:11 ff.]. Therefore it behooves every Christian to\nespouse the cause of the faith, to understand and defend it, and to\nrebuke all errors.\n\n[Sidenote: The Third Wall--Pope and Council]\n\nThe _third wall_ falls of itself when the first two are down. For when\nthe pope acts contrary to the Pope and Scriptures, it is our duty to\nstand by the Scriptures, to reprove him, and to constrain him,\naccording to the word of Christ in Matthew xviii: \"If thy brother sin\nagainst thee, go and tell it him between thee and him alone; if he\nhear thee not, then take with thee one or two more; if he hear them\nnot, tell it to the Church; if he hear not the Church, consider him a\nheathen.\" [Matt. 18:15] Here every member is commanded to care for\nevery other. How much rather should we do this when the member that\ndoes evil is a ruling member, and by his evil-doing is the cause of\nmuch harm and offence to the rest! But if I am to accuse him before\nthe Church, I must bring the Church together.\n\nThey have no basis in Scripture or their contention that it belongs to\nthe pope alone to call a council or confirm its actions[36]; for this\nis based merely upon their own laws, which are valid only in so far as\nthey are not injurious to Christendom or contrary to the laws of God.\nWhen the pope deserves punishment, such laws go out of force, since it\nis injurious to Christendom not to punish him by means of a council.\n\nThus we read in Acts xv. that it was not St. Peter who called the\nApostolic Council, but the Apostles and elders [Acts 15:6]. If, then,\nthat right had belonged to St. Peter alone, the council would not have\nbeen a Christian council, but an heretical _conciliabulum_[37]. Even\nthe Council of Nicaea--the most famous of all--was neither called nor\nconfirmed by the Bishop of Rome, but by the Emperor Constantine[38],\nand many other emperors after him did the like, yet these councils\nwere the most Christian of all[39]. But if the pope alone had the\nright to call councils, then all these councils must have been\nheretical. Moreover, if I consider the councils which the pope has\ncreated, I find that they have done nothing of special importance.\n\nTherefore, when necessity demands, and the pope is an offence to\nChristendom, the first man who is able should, as a faithful member of\nthe whole body, do what he can to bring about a truly free\ncouncil[40]. No one can do this so well as the temporal authorities,\nespecially since now they also are fellow-Christians, fellow-priests,\n\"fellow-spirituals,\"[41] fellow-lords over all things, and whenever it\nis needful or profitable, they should give free course to the office\nand work in which God has put them above every man. Would it not be an\nunnatural thing, if a fire broke out in a city, and everybody were to\nstand by and let it burn on and on and consume everything that could\nburn, for the sole reason that nobody had the authority of the\nburgomaster, or because, perhaps, the fire broke out in the\nburgomaster's house? In such case is it not the duty of every citizen\nto arouse and call the rest? How much more should this be done in the\nspiritual city of Christ, if a fire of offence breaks out, whether in\nthe papal government, or anywhere else? In the same way, if the enemy\nattacks a city, he who first rouses the others deserves honor and\nthanks; why then should he not deserve honor who makes known the\npresence of the enemy from hell, and awakens the Christians, and calls\nthem together?\n\nBut all their boasts of an authority which dare not be opposed amount\nto nothing after all. No one in Christendom has authority to do\ninjury, or to forbid the resisting of injury. There is no authority in\nthe Church save for edification. Therefore, if the pope were to use\nhis authority to prevent the calling of a free council, and thus\nbecame a hindrance to the edification of the Church, we should have\nregard neither or him nor or his authority; and if he were to hurl his\nbans and thunderbolts, we should despise his conduct as that of a\nmadman, and relying on God, hurl back the ban on him, and coerce him\nas best we could. For this presumptuous authority of his is nothing;\nhe has no such authority, and he is quickly overthrown by a text of\nScripture; for Paul says to the Corinthians, \"God has given us\nauthority not for the destruction, but for the edification of\nChristendom.\" [2 Cor. 10:8] Who is ready to overleap this text? It is\nonly the power of the devil and of Antichrist which resists the things\nthat serve or the edification of Christendom; it is, therefore, in no\nwise to be obeyed, but is to be opposed with life and goods and all\nour strength.\n\nEven though a miracle were to be done in the pope's behalf against the\ntemporal powers, or though someone were to be stricken with a\nplague--which they boast has sometimes happened--it should be\nconsidered only the work of the devil, because of the weakness of our\nfaith in God. Christ Himself prophesied in Matthew xxiv: \"There shall\ncome in My Name false Christs and false prophets, and do signs and\nwonders, so as to deceive even the elect,\" [Matt. 24:24] and Paul says\nin II Thessalonians ii, that Antichrist shall, through the power of\nSatan, be mighty in lying wonders [2 Thess. 2:9]. Let us, therefore,\nhold fast to this: No Christian authority can do anything against\nChrist; as St. Paul says, \"We can do nothing against Christ, but for\nChrist.\" [2 Cor. 13:8] Whatever does aught against Christ is the power\nof Antichrist and of the devil, even though it were to rain and hail\nwonders and plagues. Wonders and plagues prove nothing, especially in\nthese last evil times, for which all the Scriptures prophesy false\nwonders [2 Thess. 2:9 f.]. Therefore we must cling with firm faith to\nthe words of God, and then the devil will cease from wonders.\n\nThus I hope that the false, lying terror with which the Romans have\nthis long time made our conscience timid and stupid, has been allayed.\nThey, like all of us, are subject to the temporal sword; they have no\npower to interpret the Scriptures by mere authority, without learning;\nthey have no authority to prevent a council or, in sheer wantonness,\nto pledge it, bind it, or take away its liberty; but if they do this,\nthey are in truth the communion of Antichrist and of the devil, and\nhave nothing at all of Christ except the name.\n\nII. ABUSES TO BE DISCUSSED IN COUNCILS\n\nWe shall now look at the matters which should be discussed in the\ncouncils, and with which popes, cardinals, bishops and all the\nscholars ought properly to be occupied day and night if they loved\nChrist and His Church. But if they neglect this duty, then let the\nlaity[42] and the temporal authorities see to it, regardless of bans\nand thunders; for an unjust ban is better than ten just releases, and\nan unjust release worse than ten just bans. Let us, therefore, awake,\ndear Germans, and fear God rather than men [Acts 5:29], that we may\nnot share the fate of all the poor souls who are so lamentably lost\nthrough the shameful and devilish rule of the Romans, in which the\ndevil daily takes a larger and larger place,--if, indeed, it were\npossible that such a hellish rule could grow worse, a thing I can\nneither conceive nor believe.\n\n[Sidenote: Worldliness of the pope]\n\n1. It is a horrible and frightful thing that the ruler of Christendom,\nwho boasts himself vicar of Christ and successor of St. Peter, lives\nin such worldly splendor that in this regard no king nor emperor can\nequal or approach him, and that he who claims the title of \"most holy\"\nand \"most spiritual\" is more worldly than the world itself. He wears a\ntriple crown, when the greatest kings wear but a single crown[43]; if\nthat is like the poverty of Christ and of St. Peter, then it is a new\nkind of likeness. When a word is said against it, they cry out\n\"Heresy!\" but that is because they do not wish to hear how unchristian\nand ungodly such a practice is. I think, however, that if the pope\nwere with tears to pray to God, he would have to lay aside these\ncrowns, for our God can suffer no pride; and his office is nothing\nelse than this,--daily to weep and pray or Christendom, and to set an\nexample of all humility.\n\nHowever that may be, this splendor of his is an offence, and the pope\nis bound on his soul's salvation to lay it aside, because St. Paul\nsays, \"Abstain from all outward shows, which give offence,\" [1 Thess.\n5:21] and in Rom. xii, \"We should provide good, not only in the sight\nof God, but also in the sight of all men.\" [Rom. 12:17] An ordinary\nbishop's crown would be enough for the pope; he should be greater than\nothers in wisdom and holiness, and leave the crown of pride to\nAntichrist, as did his predecessors several centuries ago. They say he\nis a lord of the world; that is a lie; for Christ, Whose vicar and\nofficer he boasts himself to be, said before Pilate, \"My kingdom is\nnot of this world,\" [John 17:36] and no vicar's rule can go beyond his\nlord's. Moreover he is not the vicar of the glorified, but of the\ncrucified Christ, as Paul says, \"I was willing to know nothing among\nyou save Christ, and Him only as the Crucified\" [1 Cor. 2:2]; and in\nPhilippians ii, \"So think of yourselves as ye see in Christ, Who\nemptied Himself and took upon Him the appearance of a servant\" [Phil.\n2:5]; and again in I Corinthians i, \"We preach Christ, the Crucified.\"\n[1 Cor. 1:23] Now they make the pope a vicar of the glorified Christ\nin heaven, and some of them have allowed the devil to rule them so\ncompletely that they have maintained that the pope is above the angels\nin heaven and has authority over them[44]. These are indeed the very\nworks of the very Antichrist.\n\n[Sidenote: The Cardinals]\n\n2. What is the use in Christendom of those people who are called the\ncardinals? I shall tell you. Italy and Germany have many rich\nmonasteries, foundations, benefices, and livings. No better way has\nbeen discovered to bring all these to Rome than by creating cardinals\nand giving them the bishoprics, monasteries and prelacies, and so\noverthrowing the worship of God. For this reason we now see Italy a\nvery wilderness--monasteries in ruins, bishoprics devoured, the\nprelacies and the revenues of all the churches drawn to Rome, cities\ndecayed, land and people laid waste, because there is no more worship\nor preaching. Why? The cardinals must have the income[45]. No Turk\ncould have so devastated Italy and suppressed the worship of God.\n\nNow that Italy is sucked dry, they come into Germany[46], and begin\noh, so gently. But let us beware, for Germany will soon become like\nItaly. Already we have some cardinals; what the Romans seek by that\nthe \"drunken Germans\" are not to understand until we have not a\nbishopric, a monastery, a living, a benefice, a _heller_ or a\n_pfennig_ left. Antichrist must take the treasures of the earth, as it\nwas prophesied [Dan. 11:39, 43]. So it goes on. They skim the cream of\nthe bishoprics, monasteries and benefices, and because they do not yet\nventure to turn them all to shameful use, as they have done in Italy,\nthey only practise for the present the sacred trickery of coupling\ntogether ten or twenty prelacies and taking a yearly portion from each\nof them, so as to make a tidy sum after all. The priory of Wurzburg\nyields a thousand _gulden_; that of Bamberg, something; Mainz, Trier\nand the others, something more; and so from one to ten thousand gulden\nmight be got together, in order that a cardinal might live at Rome\nlike a rich king.\n\n\"After they are used to this, we will create thirty or forty cardinals\nin a day[47], and give to one Mount St. Michael at Bamberg[48] and the\nbishopric of Wurzburg to boot, hang on to these a few rich livings,\nuntil churches and cities are waste, and after that we will say, 'We\nare Christ's vicars and shepherds of Christ's sheep; the mad, drunken\nGermans must put up with it.'\"\n\nI advise, however, that the number of the cardinals be reduced, or\nthat the pope be made to keep them at his own expense. Twelve of them\nwould be more than enough, and each of them might have an income of a\nthousand gulden a year[49]. How comes it that we Germans must put up\nwith such robbery and such extortion of our property, at the hands of\nthe pope? If the Kingdom of France has prevented it[50], why do we\nGermans let them make such fools and apes of us? It would all be more\nbearable if in this way they only stole our property; but they lay\nwaste the churches and rob Christ's sheep of their pious shepherds,\nand destroy the worship and the Word of God. Even if there were not a\nsingle cardinal, the Church would not go under. As it is they do\nnothing for the good of Christendom; they only wrangle about the\nincomes of bishoprics and prelacies, and that any robber could do.\n\n[Sidenote: The Curia]\n\n3. If ninety-nine parts of the papal court[51] were done away and only\nthe hundredth part allowed to remain, it would still be large enough\nto give decisions in matters of faith. Now, however, there is such a\nswarm of vermin yonder in Rome, all boasting that they are \"papal,\"\nthat there was nothing like it in Babylon. There are more than three\nthousand papal secretaries alone; who will count the other offices,\nwhen they are so many that they scarcely can be counted? And they all\nlie in wait for the prebends and benefices of Germany as wolves lie in\nwait for the sheep. I believe that Germany now gives much more to the\npope at Rome than it gave in former times to the emperors. Indeed,\nsome estimate that every year more than three hundred thousand gulden\nfind their way from Germany to Rome, quite uselessly and fruitlessly;\nwe get nothing for it but scorn and contempt. And yet we wonder that\nprinces, nobles, cities, endowments, land and people are impoverished!\nWe should rather wonder that we still have anything to eat!\n\nSince we here come to the heart of the matter, we will pause a little,\nand let it be seen that the Germans are not quite such gross fools as\nnot to note or understand the sharp practices of the Romans. I do not\nnow complain that at Rome God's command and Christian law are\ndespised; for such is the state of Christendom, and particularly of\nRome, that we may not now complain of such high matters. Nor do I\ncomplain that natural or temporal law and reason count for nothing.\nThe case is worse even than that. I complain that they do not keep\ntheir own self-devised canon law, though it is, to be sure, mere\ntyranny, avarice and temporal splendor, rather than law. Let us see!\n\n[Sidenote: The Annates]\n\nIn former times German emperors and princes permitted the pope to\nreceive the _annates_ from all the benefices of the German nation, i.\ne., the half of the first year's revenues from each benefice[52]. This\npermission was given, however, in order that by means of these large\nsums of money, the pope might accumulate a treasure for fighting\nagainst the Turks and infidels in defence of Christendom, so that the\nburden of the war might not rest too heavily upon the nobility, but\nthat the clergy also should contribute something toward it. This\nsingle-hearted devotion of the German nation the popes have so used,\nthat they have received this money for more than a hundred years, have\nnow made of it a binding tax and tribute, and have not only\naccumulated no treasure, but have used the money to endow many orders\nand offices at Rome, and to provide these offices with salaries, as\nthough the annates were a fixed rent.\n\n[Sidenote: Saracen-tax]\n\nWhen they pretend that they are about to fight against the Turks, they\nsend out emissaries to gather money. Ofttimes they issue an indulgence\non this same pretext of fighting the Turks[53], for they think the mad\nGermans are forever to remain utter and arrant fools, give them money\nwithout end, and satisfy their unspeakable greed; though we clearly\nsee that not a _heller_ of the annates or of the indulgence-money or\nof all the rest, is used against the Turks, but all of it goes into\nthe bottomless bag. They lie and deceive, make laws and make\nagreements with us, and they do not intend to keep any of them. All\nthis must be counted the work of Christ and St. Peter!\n\nNow, in this matter the German nation, bishops and princes, should\nconsider that they too are Christians, and should protect the people,\nwhom they are set to rule and guard in things temporal and spiritual,\nagainst these ravening wolves who, in sheep's clothing, pretend to be\nshepherds and rulers; and, since the annates are so shamefully abused\nand the stipulated conditions are not fulfilled, they should not\npermit their land and people to be so sadly robbed and ruined, against\nall justice; but by a law of the emperor or of the whole nation, they\nshould either keep the annates at home or else abolish them again[54].\nFor since the Romans do not keep the terms of the agreement, they have\nno right to the annates. Therefore the bishops and princes are bound\nto punish or prevent such thievery and robbery, as the law requires.\n\nIn this they should aid the pope and support him, or he is perchance\ntoo weak to prevent such an abuse all by himself; or if he were to\nundertake to defend and maintain this practice, they ought resist him\nand fight against him as against a wolf and a tyrant, for he has no\nauthority to do or to defend evil. Moreover, if it were ever desired\nto accumulate such a treasure against the Turks, we ought in the\nfuture to have sense enough to see that the German nation would be a\nbetter custodian or it than the pope; for the German nation has people\nenough or the fighting, if only the money is forthcoming. It is with\nthe annates as it has been with many another Roman pretence.\n\n[Sidenote: Papal Months]\n\nAgain, the year has been so divided between the pope and the ruling\nbishops and canons[55], that the pope has six months in the\nyear--every other month--in which to bestow the benefices which all\nvacant in his months[56]. In this way almost all the benefices are\nabsorbed by Rome, especially the very best livings and dignities[57],\nand when once they fall into the hands of Rome, they never come out of\nthem again, though a vacancy may never again occur in the pope's\nmonth. Thus the canons are cheated. This is a genuine robbery, which\nintends to let nothing escape. Therefore it is high time that the\n\"papal months\" be altogether abolished, and that everything which they\nhave brought to Rome be taken back again. For the princes and nobles\nshould take measures that the stolen goods be returned, the thieves\npunished, and those who have abused privilege be deprived of\nprivilege. If it is binding and valid when the pope on the day after\nhis election makes, in his chancery, rules and laws whereby our\nfoundations and livings are robbed,--a thing which he has no right to\ndo; then it should be still more valid if the Emperor Charles on the\nday after his coronation[58] were to make rules and laws that not\nanother benefice or living in all Germany shall be allowed to come\ninto the hands of Rome by means of the \"papal months,\" and that the\nlivings which have already fallen into its hands shall be released,\nand redeemed from the Roman robbers; for he has this right by virtue\nof his office and his sword.\n\nBut now the Roman See of Avarice and Robbery has not been able to\nawait the time when all the benefices, one after another, would, by\nthe \"papal months,\" come into its power, but hastens, with insatiable\nappetite, to get possession of them all as speedily as possible; and\nso besides the annates and the \"months\" it has hit upon a device by\nwhich benefices and livings all to Rome in three ways:\n\n_First_, If any one who holds a free[59] living dies at Rome or on the\nway to Rome, his living must forever belong to the Roman--I should\nrather say the robbing--See[60]; and yet they will not be called\nrobbers, though they are guilty of such robbery as no one has ever\nheard or read about.\n\n_Second_, In case any one who belongs to the household of the pope or\nof the cardinals[61] holds or takes over a benefice, or in case one\nwho already holds a benefice afterwards enters the \"household\" of the\npope or of a cardinal. But who can count the \"household\" of the pope\nand of the cardinals, when the pope, if he only goes on a\npleasure-ride, takes with him three or our thousand mule-riders,\neclipsing all emperors and kings? Christ and St. Peter went on foot in\norder that their vicars might have the more pomp and splendor. Now\navarice has cleverly thought out another scheme, and brings it to pass\nthat even here many have the name of \"papal servant,\" just as though\nthey were in Rome; all in order that in every place the mere rascally\nlittle word \"papal servant\" may bring all benefices to Rome and tie\nthem fast there forever. Are not these vexatious and devilish\ninventions? Let us beware! Soon Mainz, Madgeburg and Halberstadt will\ngently pass into the hands of Rome, and the cardinalate will be paid\nfor dearly enough[62]. \"Afterwards we will make all the German bishops\ncardinals so that there will be nothing let outside.\"\n\n_Third_, When a contest has started at Rome over a benefice[63]. This\nI hold to be almost the commonest and widest road or bringing livings\nto Rome. For when there is no contest at home, unnumbered knaves will\nbe found at Rome to dig up contests out of the earth and assail\nlivings at their will. Thus many a good priest has to lose his living,\nor settle the contest for a time by the payment of a sum of money[64].\nSuch a living rightly or wrongly contested must also belong forever to\nthe Roman See. It would be no wonder if God were to rain from heaven\nfire and brimstone and to sink Rome in the abyss, as He did Sodom and\nGomorrah of old [Gen. 19:24]. Why should there be a pope in\nChristendom, if his power is used or nothing else than such\narchknavery, and if he protects and practices it? O noble princes and\nlords, how long will ye leave your lands and people naked to these\nravening wolves!\n\n[Sidenote: The Pallium]\n\nSince even these practices were not enough, and Avarice grew impatient\nat the long time it took to get hold of all the bishoprics, therefore\nmy Lord Avarice devised the fiction that the bishoprics should be\nnominally abroad, but that their land and soil should be at Rome, and\nno bishop can be confirmed unless with a great sum of money he buy the\n_pallium_[65], and bind himself with terrible oaths to be the pope's\nservant[66]. This is the reason that no bishop ventures to act against\nthe pope. That, too, is what the Romans were seeking when they imposed\nthe oath, and thus the very richest bishoprics have fallen into debt\nand ruin. Mainz pays, as I hear, 20,000 gulden. These be your Romans!\nTo be sure they decreed of old in the canon law that the _pallium_\nshould be bestowed gratis, the number of papal servants diminished,\nthe contests lessened, the chapters[67] and bishops allowed their\nliberty. But this did not bring in money, and so they turned over a\nnew leaf, and all authority was taken from the bishops and chapters;\nthey are made ciphers, and have no office nor authority nor work, but\neverything is ruled by the archknaves at Rome; soon they will have in\nhand even the office of sexton and bell-ringer in all the churches.\nAll contests are brought to Rome, and by authority of the pope\neveryone does as he likes.\n\nWhat happened this very year? The Bishop of Strassburg[68] wished to\ngovern his chapter properly and to institute reforms in worship, and\nwith this end in view made certain godly and Christian regulations.\nBut my dear Lord Pope and the Holy Roman See, at the instigation of\nthe priests, overthrew and altogether condemned this holy and\nspiritual ordinance. This is called \"feeding the sheep of Christ!\"\n[John 20:15-17] Thus priests are to be encouraged against their own\nbishop, and their disobedience to divine law is to be protected!\nAntichrist himself, I hope, will not dare to put God to such open\nshame! There you have your pope after your own heart! Why did he do\nthis? Ah! if one church were reformed, it would be a dangerous\ndeparture; Rome's turn too might come! Therefore it were better that\nno priest should be let at peace with another, that kings and princes\nshould be set at odds, as has been the custom heretofore, and the\nworld filled with the blood of Christians, only so the concord of\nChristians should not trouble the Holy Roman See with a reformation.\n\nSo far we have been getting an idea of how they deal with livings\nwhich become vacant. But for tender-hearted Avarice the vacancies are\ntoo few, and so he brings his foresight to bear upon the benefices\nwhich are still occupied by their incumbents, so that they must be\nunfilled, even though they are not unfilled[69]. And this he does in\nmany ways, as follows:\n\n[Sidenote: Coadjutorships]\n\n_First_, He lies in wait for fat prebends or bishoprics which are held\nby an old or a sick man, or by one with an alleged disability. To such\nan incumbent, without his desire or consent, the Holy See gives a\ncoadjutor, i. e., an \"assistant,\" or the coadjutor's benefit, because\nhe is a \"papal servant,\" or has paid for the position, or has earned\nit by some other ignoble service to Rome. In this case the rights of\nthe chapter or the rights of him who has the bestowal of the\nliving[70] must be surrendered, and the whole thing all into the hands\nof Rome.\n\n[Sidenote: Commendations]\n\n_Second_, There is a little word _commend_[71], by which the pope\nentrusts the keeping of a rich, fat monastery or church to a cardinal\nor to another of his people, just as though I were to give you a\nhundred gulden to keep. This is not called the giving or bestowing of\nthe monastery nor even its destruction, or the abolition of the\nworship of God, but only \"giving it into keeping\"; not that he to whom\nit is entrusted is to care or it, or build it up, but he is to drive\nout the incumbent, to receive the goods and revenues, and to install\nsome apostate, renegade monk[72], who accepts five or six gulden a\nyear and sits in the church all day selling pictures and images to the\npilgrims, so that henceforth neither prayers nor masses are said\nthere. If this were to be called destroying monasteries and abolishing\nthe worship of God, then the pope would have to be called a destroyer\nof Christendom and an abolisher of God's worship, because this is his\nconstant practice. That would be a hard saying at Rome, and so we must\ncall it a commend or a \"command to take charge\" of the monastery. The\npope can every year make commends out of our or more of these\nmonasteries, a single one of which may have an income of more than six\nthousand gulden. This is the way the Romans increase the worship of\nGod and preserve the monasteries. The Germans also are beginning to\nfind it out.\n\n[Sidenote: Incorporation]\n\n[Sidenote: Union]\n\n_Third_, There are some benefices which they call\n_incompatibilia_[73], and which, according to the ordinances of the\ncanon law, cannot be held by one man at the same time, as for\ninstance, two parishes, two bishoprics and the like. In these cases\nthe Holy Roman See of Avarice evades the canon law by making\n\"glosses,\"[74] called _unio_ and _incorporatio_, i. e., by\n\"incorporating\" many _incompatibilia_, so that each becomes a part of\nevery other and all of them together are looked upon as though they\nwere one living. They are then no longer \"incompatible,\" and the holy\ncanon law is satisfied, in that it is no longer binding, except upon\nthose who do not buy these \"glosses\"[75] from the pope or his\n_datarius_[76]. The _unio_, i. e., \"uniting,\" is of the same nature.\nThe pope binds many such benefices together like a bundle of sticks,\nand by virtue of this bond they are all regarded as one benefice. So\nthere is at Rome one courtesan[77] who holds, for himself alone, 22\nparishes, 7 priories and 44 canonries besides,--all by the help of\nthat masterly \"gloss,\" which holds that this is not illegal. What\ncardinals and other prelates have, everyone may imagine or himself. In\nthis way the Germans are to have their purses eased and their itch\ncured.\n\n[Sidenote: Administration]\n\nAnother of the \"glosses\" is the _administratio_, i. e., a man may have\nbeside his bishopric, an abbacy or a dignity[78], and possess all the\nproperty which goes with it, only he has no other title than that of\n\"administrator.\"[79] For at Rome it is sufficient that words are\nchanged and not the things they stand for; as though I were to teach\nthat a bawdy-house keeper should have the name of \"burgomaster's\nwife,\" and yet continue to ply her trade. This kind of Roman rule St.\nPeter foretold when he said, in II Peter ii: \"There shall come false\nteachers, who in covetousness, with feigned words, shall make\nmerchandise of you, to get their gains.\" [2 Pet. 2:3]\n\n[Sidenote: Regression]\n\nAgain, dear Roman Avarice has invented the custom of selling and\nbestowing livings to such advantage that the seller or disposer\nretains reversionary rights[80] upon them: to wit, if the incumbent\ndies, the benefice freely reverts to him who previously sold, bestowed\nor surrendered it. In this way they have made livings hereditary\nproperty, so that henceforth no one can come into possession of them,\nexcept the man to whom the seller is willing to dispose of them, or to\nwhom he bequeaths his rights at death. Besides, there are many who\ntransfer to others the mere title to a benefice from which those who\nget the title derive not a _heller_ of income. It is now an old\ncustom, too, to give another man a benefice and to reserve a certain\npart out of the annual revenue[81]. In olden times this was\nsimony[82]. Of these things there are so many more that they cannot\nall be counted. They treat livings more shamefully than the heathen\nbeneath the cross treated the garments of Christ. [Matt. 27:35]\n\n[Sidenote: Reservation in pectore]\n\nYet all that has hitherto been said is ancient history and an\nevery-day occurrence at Rome. Avarice has devised one thing more,\nwhich may, I hope, be his last morsel, and choke him. The pope has a\nnoble little device called _pectoralis reservatio_, i. e., his \"mental\nreservation,\" and _proprius motus_, i. e., the \"arbitrary will of his\nauthority.\"[83] It goes like this. When one man has gotten a benefice\nat Rome, and the appointment has been regularly signed and sealed,\naccording to custom, and there comes another, who brings money, or has\nlaid the pope under obligation in some other way, of which we will not\nspeak, and desires of the pope the same benefice, then the pope takes\nit from the first man and gives it to the second[84]. If it is said\nthat this is unjust, then the Most Holy Father must make some excuse,\nthat he may not be reproved or doing such open violence to the law,\nand says that in his mind and heart he had reserved that benefice to\nhimself and his own plenary disposal, although he had never before in\nhis whole life either thought or heard of it. Thus he has now found a\nlittle \"gloss\" by which he can, in his own person, lie and deceive,\nand make a fool and an ape of anybody--all this he does brazenly and\nopenly, and yet he wishes to be the head of Christendom, though with\nhis open lies he lets the Evil Spirit rule him.\n\nThis arbitrary will and lying \"reservation\" of the pope creates in\nRome a state of affairs which is unspeakable. There is buying,\nselling, bartering, trading, trafficking, lying, deceiving, robbing,\nstealing, luxury, harlotry, knavery, and every sort of contempt of\nGod, and even the rule of Antichrist could not be more scandalous.\nVenice, Antwerp, Cairo[85] are nothing compared to this fair which is\nheld at Rome and the business which is done there, except that in\nthose other places they still observe right and reason. At Rome\neverything goes as the devil wills, and out of this ocean like virtue\nflows into all the world. Is it a wonder that such people fear a\nreformation and a free council, and prefer to set all kings and\nprinces at enmity rather than have them unite and bring about a\ncouncil? Who could bear to have such knavery exposed if it were his\nown?\n\n[Sidenote: The Dataria]\n\nFinally, for all this noble commerce the pope has built a warehouse,\nnamely, the house of the datarius[86], in Rome. Thither all must come\nwho deal after this fashion in benefices and livings. From him they\nmust buy their \"glosses\"[87] and get the power to practice such\narchknavery. In former times Rome was generous, and then justice had\neither to be bought or else suppressed with money, but now she has\nbecome exorbitant, and no one dare be a knave unless with a great sum\nhe has first bought the right. If that is not a brothel above all the\nbrothels one can imagine, then I do not know what brothel means.\n\nIf you have money in this house, then you can come by all the things I\nhave said; and not only these, but all sorts of usury[88] are here\nmade honest, Phil. 2:5 for a consideration, and the possession of all\nproperty acquired by theft or robbery is legalised. Here vows are\ndissolved; here monks are granted liberty to leave their orders; here\nmarriage is on sale to the clergy; here bastards can become\nlegitimate; here all dishonor and shame can come to honor; all\nill-repute and stigma of evil are here knighted and ennobled; here is\npermitted the marriage which is within the forbidden degrees or has\nsome other defect[89].  Oh! what a taxing and a robbing rules there!\nIt looks as though all the laws of the Church were made for one\npurpose only--to be nothing but so many money-snares, from which a man\nmust extricate himself[90] if he would be a Christian. Yea, here the\ndevil becomes a saint, and a god to boot. What heaven and earth\ncannot, that this house can do!  They call them _compositiones_[91]!\n\"Compositions\" indeed! rather \"confusions\"! Oh, what a modest tax is\nthe Rhine-toll[92], compared with the tribute taken by this holy\nhouse!\n\nLet no one accuse me of exaggeration! It is all so open that even at\nRome they must confess the evil to be greater and more terrible than\nany one can say. I have not yet stirred up the hell-broth of personal\nvices, nor do I intend to do so. I speak of things which are common\ntalk, and yet I have not words to tell them all. The bishops, the\npriests and, above all, the doctors in the universities, who draw\ntheir salaries or this purpose, should have done their duty and with\ncommon consent have written and cried out against these things; but\nthey have done the very opposite[93].\n\n[Sidenote: The Fuggers]\n\nThere remains one last word, and I must say that too. Since boundless\nAvarice has not been satisfied with all these treasures, which three\ngreat kings might well think sufficient, he now begins to transfer\nthis trade and sell it to Fugger of Augsburg[94], so that the lending\nand trading and buying of bishoprics and benefices, and the driving of\nbargains in spiritual goods has now come to the right place, and\nspiritual and temporal goods have become one business. And now I would\nfain hear of a mind so lofty that it could imagine what this Roman\nAvarice might yet be able to do and has not already done; unless\nFugger were to transfer or sell this combination of two lines of\nbusiness to somebody else. I believe we have reached the limit.\n\nAs for what they have stolen in all lands and still steal and extort,\nby means of indulgences, bulls, letters of confession[95],\n\"butter-letters\"[96] and other _confessionalia_[97],--all this I\nconsider mere patch-work, and like casting a single devil more into\nhell[98]. Not that they bring in little, for a mighty king could well\nsupport himself on their returns, but they are not to be compared with\nthe streams of treasure above mentioned. I shall also say nothing at\npresent of how this indulgence money has been applied. Another time I\nshall inquire about that, for Campoflore[99] and Belvidere[100] and\ncertain other places probably know something about it.\n\nSince, then, such devilish rule is not only open robbery and deceit,\nand the tyranny of the gates of hell, but also ruins Christendom in\nbody and soul, it is our duty to use all diligence in protecting\nChristendom against such misery and destruction. If we would fight the\nTurks, let us make a beginning here, where they are at their worst. If\nwe justly hang thieves and behead robbers, why should we let Roman\nAvarice go free? For he is the greatest thief and robber that has come\nor can come into the world, and all in the holy Name of Christ and of\nSt. Peter! Who can longer endure it or keep silence? Almost everything\nhe owns has been gotten by theft and robbery; that is the truth, and\nall history shows it. The pope never got by purchase such great\nproperties that from his _officia_[101] alone he can raise about a\nmillion ducats, not to mention the mines of treasure named above and\nthe income of his lands. Nor did it come to him by inheritance from\nChrist or from St. Peter; no one ever loaned it or gave it to him; it\nhas not become his by virtue of immemorial use and enjoyment. Tell me,\nthen, whence he can have it? Learn from this what they have in mind\nwhen they send out legates to collect money or use against the Turks.\n\nIII. PROPOSALS FOR REFORM\n\nNow, although I am too small a man to make propositions which might\neffect a reform in this dreadful state of things, nevertheless I may\nas well sing my fool's song to the end, and say, so far as I am able,\nwhat could and should be done by the temporal authorities or by a\ngeneral council.\n\n[Sidenote: Abolition of Annates]\n\n1. Every prince, nobleman and city should boldly forbid their subjects\nto pay the annates to Rome and should abolish them entirely[102]; for\nthe pope has broken the compact, and made the annates a robbery, to\nthe injury and shame of the whole German nation. He gives them to his\nfriends, sells them for large amounts of money, and uses them to endow\noffices. He has thus lost his right to them, and deserves punishment.\nIt is therefore the duty of the temporal authorities to protect the\ninnocent and prevent injustice, as Paul teaches in Romans xiii [Rom.\n13:4], and St. Peter in I Peter ii [1 Pet. 2:14], Rom. and even the\ncanon law in Case 16, Question 7, _de filiis_[103]. Thus it has come\nabout that men are saying to the pope and his followers, _Tu ora_,\n\"Thou shalt pray\"; to the emperor and his followers, _Tu protege_,\n\"Thou shalt guard\"; to the common man, _Tu labora_, \"Thou shalt work.\"\nNot, however, as though everyone were not to pray, guard and work; for\nthe man who is diligent in his calling is praying, guarding and\nworking in all that he does, but everyone should have his own especial\ntask.\n\n[Sidenote: Prohibition of Roman Appointments]\n\n2. Since the pope with his Roman practices--his commends[104],\nadjutories[105], reservations[106], _gratiae expectativae_[107], papal\nmonths[108], incorporations[109], unions[110], _pallia_[111], rules in\nchancery[112], and such like knavery--usurps all the German\nfoundations without authority and right, and gives and sells them to\nforeigners at Rome, who do nothing in German lands to earn them; and\nsince he thereby robs the ordinaries[113] of their rights, makes the\nbishops mere ciphers and figure-heads, and acts against his own canon\nlaw, against nature and against reason, until it has finally gone so\nfar that out of sheer avarice the livings and benefices are sold to\ngross, ignorant asses and knaves at Rome, while pious and learned folk\nhave no profit of their wisdom and merit, so that the poor people of\nthe German nation have to go without good and learned prelates and\nthus go to ruin:\n\nTherefore, the Christian nobility should set itself against the pope\nas against a common enemy and destroyer of Christendom, and should do\nthis for the salvation of the poor souls who must go to ruin through\nhis tyranny. They should ordain, order, and decree, that henceforth no\nbenefice shall be drawn into the hands of Rome, and that hereafter no\nappointment shall be obtained there in any manner whatsoever, but that\nthe benefices shall be brought out and kept out from under this\ntyrannical authority; and they should restore to the ordinaries the\nright and office of ordering these benefices in the German nation as\nbest they may. And if a \"courtesan\" were to come from Rome, he should\nreceive a strict command either to keep his distance, or else to jump\ninto the Rhine or the nearest river, and take the Roman ban, with its\nseals and letters, to a cold bath. They would then take note at Rome\nthat the Germans are not always mad and drunken, but that they have\nreally become Christians, and intend to permit no longer the mockery\nand scorn of the holy name of Christ, under which all this knavery and\ndestruction of souls goes on, but have more regard to God and His\nglory than to the authority of men.\n\n[Sidenote: Restoration of Local Church Rights]\n\n3. An imperial law should be issued, that no bishop's cloak[114] and\nno confirmation of any dignity[115] whatsoever shall henceforth be\nsecured from Rome, but that the Church ordinance of the most holy and\nmost famous Council of Nicaea[116] shall be restored, in which it is\ndecreed that a bishop shall be confirmed by the two nearest bishops or\nby the archbishop. If the pope will break the statutes of this and of\nall other councils, what is the use of holding councils; or who has\ngiven him the authority thus to despise and break the rules of\ncouncils?\n\nIf he has this power then we should depose all bishops, archbishops\nand primates[117] and make them mere parish-priests, so that the pope\nalone may be over them, as he now is. He leaves to bishops,\narchbishops and primates no regular authority or office, usurps\neverything for himself, and lets them keep only the name and empty\ntitle. It has gone so far that by his \"exemptions\"[118] the\nmonasteries, the abbots and the prelates are withdrawn from the\nregular authority of the bishops, so that there is no longer any order\nin Christendom. From this must follow what has followed--relaxation of\ndiscipline and license to do evil everywhere--so that I verily fear\nthe pope can be called the \"man of sin.\" [2 Thess. 2:3] There is in\nChristendom no discipline, no rule, no order; and who is to blame\nexcept the pope? This usurped authority of his he applies strictly to\nall the prelates, and takes away their rods; and he is generous to all\nsubjects, giving them or selling them their liberty.\n\nNevertheless, for fear he may complain that he is robbed of his\nauthority, it should be decreed that when the primates or archbishops\nare unable to settle a case, or when a controversy arises among\nthemselves, such a case must be laid before the pope, but not every\nlittle matter[120]. Thus it was done in olden times, and thus the\nfamous Council of Nicaea decreed[121]. If a case can be settled\nwithout the pope, then his Holiness should not be troubled with such\nminor matters, but give himself to that prayer, meditation and care\nfor all Christendom, of which he boasts. This is what the Apostles\ndid. They said, \"It is not meet that we should leave the Word of God\nand serve tables, but we will keep to preaching and prayer and set\nothers over the work.\" [Acts 6:2] But now Rome stands or nothing else\nthan the despising of the Gospel and of prayer, and for the serving of\n\"tables,\" i. e., of temporal affairs, and the rule of the Apostles and\nof the pope agree as Christ agrees with Lucifer, heaven with hell,\nnight with day; yet he is called \"Vicar of Christ and Successor of the\nApostles.\"\n\n[Sidenote: Exclusion of Temporal Matters from the Papal Court]\n\n4. It should be decreed that no temporal matter shall be taken to\nRome[122], but that all such cases shall be left to the temporal\nauthorities, as the Romans themselves decree in that canon law of\ntheirs, which they do not keep. For it should be the duty of the pope,\nas the man most learned in Papal the Scriptures and most Holy, not in\nname only, but in truth, to administer affairs which concern the faith\nand holy life of Christians, to hold the primates and archbishops to\nthese things, and to help them in dealing with and caring for these\nmatters. So St. Paul teaches in I Corinthians vi, and takes the\nCorinthians severely to task or their concern with worldly things [1\nCor. 6:7]. For it works intolerable injury to all lands that such\ncases are tried at Rome. It increases the costs, and moreover the\njudges do not know the manners, laws and customs of the various\ncountries, so that they often do violence to the acts and base their\ndecisions on their own laws and opinions, and thus injustice is\ninevitably done the contestants.\n\n[Sidenote: and from the Bishops' Courts]\n\nMoreover, the outrageous extortion practised by the _officiales_[123]\nmust be forbidden in all the dioceses, courts so that they may attend\nto nothing else than matters of faith and good morals, and leave to\nthe temporal judges the things that concern money, property, life and\nhonor. The temporal authorities, therefore, should not permit\nsentences of ban or exile when faith or right life is not concerned.\nSpiritual authorities should have rule over spiritual goods, as reason\nteaches; but spiritual goods are not money, nor anything pertaining to\nthe body, but they are faith and good works.\n\n[Sidenote: A German Church Organization]\n\nNevertheless it might be granted that cases which concern benefices or\nlivings should be tried before bishops, archbishops and primates.\nTherefore, in order to decide contests and contentions, it might be\npossible for the Primate of Germany to maintain a general consistory,\nwith auditors and chancellors, which should have control over the\n_signaturae gratiae_ and _signaturae justitiae_[124], that are now\ncontrolled at Rome, and which should be the final court of appeal for\nGerman cases. The officers of this consistory must not, however, be\npaid, as at Rome, by chance presents and gifts, and thereby acquire\nthe habit of selling justice and injustice, which they now have to do\nat Rome because the pope gives them no remuneration, but allows them\nto fatten themselves on presents. For at Rome no one cares what is\nright or not right, but only what is money or not money. This court\nmight, however, be paid out of the annates, or some other way might\neasily be devised, by those who are more intelligent and who have more\nexperience in these matters than I. All I wish to do is to arouse and\nset to thinking those who have the ability and the inclination to help\nthe German nation become once more free and Christian, after the\nwretched, heathenish and unchristian rule of the pope.\n\n[Sidenote: Abolition of Reservations]\n\n5. No more reservations should be valid, and no more benefices should\nbe seized by Rome, even if the incumbent dies, or there is a contest,\nor the incumbent is a \"servant\" of a cardinal or of the pope[125]; and\nit should be strictly forbidden and prevented that any\n\"courtesan\"[126] should institute a contest over any benefice, so as\nto cite pious priests to Rome, harass them and drive them into\nlawsuits. If, in consequence of this prohibition, there should come\nfrom Rome a ban or an ecclesiastical censure, it should be\ndisregarded, just as though a thief were to lay a man under the ban\nbecause he would not let him steal. Indeed they should be severely\npunished because they so blasphemously misuse the ban and the name of\nGod to support their robbery, and with falsely devised threats would\ndrive us to endure and to praise such blasphemy of God's name and such\nabuse of Christian authority, and thus to become, in the sight of God,\npartakers in their rascality; it is our duty before God to resist it,\nor St. Paul, in Romans i, reproves as guilty of death not only \"those\nwho do such things,\" but also those who consent to such things and\nallow them to be done [Rom. 1:32]. Most unbearable of all is the lying\n_reservatio pectoralis_[127], whereby Christendom is so scandalously\nand openly put to shame and scorn, because its head deals in open\nlies, and out of love for the accursed money, shamelessly deceives and\nfools everybody.\n\n[Sidenote: Abolition of Reserved Cases]\n\n6. The _casus reservati_[128], the \"reserved cases,\" should also be\nabolished, for not only are they the means of served extorting much\nmoney from the people, but by means of them the ravening tyrants\nensnare and confuse many poor consciences, to the intolerable injury\nof their faith in God. This is especially true of the ridiculous and\nchildish cases about which they make so much ado in the Bull _Coena\nDomini_[129], and which are not worth calling daily sins, still less\ncases so grave that the pope may not remit them by any indulgence; as\nfor example, hindering a pilgrim on his way to Rome, furnishing\nweapons to the Turks, or tampering with papal letters. With such\ngross, crazy, clumsy things do they make fools of us! Sodom and\nGomorrah, and all the sins which are committed and can be committed\nagainst the commandments of God are not reserved cases; but sins\nagainst what God has never commanded and what they have themselves\ndevised, these must be reserved cases, solely that no one be hindered\nin bringing money to Rome, in order that, safe from the Turks, they\nmay live in luxury and keep the world under their tyranny with their\nwanton, useless bulls and breves[130].\n\nAll priests ought rightly to know, or else there should be a public\nordinance to that effect, that no secret sin, of which a man has not\nbeen publicly accused, is a reserved case, and that every priest has\nthe power to remit all sorts of sins, however they may be called, so\nlong as they are secret; moreover that no abbot, bishop or pope has\nthe power to reserve any such case to himself[131]. If they attempt\nit, their reservation does not hold and is not valid, and they should\nbe reproved, as men who without authority interfere in God's judgment,\nand without cause ensnare and burden poor, ignorant consciences. But\nif great public sins are committed, especially sins against God's\ncommandments, then there is indeed a reason for reserved cases, but\neven then there should not be too many of them, and they should not be\nreserved arbitrarily and without cause; for Christ has set in His\nChurch not tyrants, but shepherds, as saith St. Peter [1 Pet. 5:3].\n\n[Sidenote: Diminution of the Papal Household]\n\n7. The Roman See should also do away with the _officia_[132], and\ndiminish the swarm of vermin at Rome, so that the pope's household can\nbe supported by the pope's own purse. The pope should not allow his\ncourt to surpass in pomp and extravagance the courts of all kings,\nseeing that such a condition not only has never been serviceable to\nthe cause of Christian faith, but the courtiers have been kept thereby\nfrom study and prayer, until they are scarce able to speak about the\nfaith at all. This they proved quite plainly at the last Roman\nCouncil[133], in which, amongst many other childish and frivolous\nthings, they decreed that the soul of man is immortal and that every\npriest must say his prayers once a month on pain of losing his\nbenefice. How shall matters which concern faith and the Church be\ndecided by people so hardened and blinded by great avarice, wealth and\nworldly splendor, that they have only now decreed that the soul is\nimmortal? It is no small shame to all Christians that at Rome they\ndeal so disgracefully with the faith. If they had less wealth and\npomp, they could pray and study better, and so become worthy and able\nto deal with matters of faith, as was the case in olden times when\nthey were bishops, and did not presume to be kings over all kings.\n\n[Sidenote: Bishops' Oaths]\n\n8. The hard and terrible oaths should be abolished, which the bishops\nare wrongfully compelled to render to the pope[134], and by which they\nare bound like servants, as that worthless and unlearned chapter,\n_Significasti_[135], arbitrarily and most stupidly decrees. It is not\nenough that they burden us in body, soul and property with their many\nmad laws, by which faith is weakened and Christendom ruined; but they\nseize upon the person and office and work of the bishops, and now upon\nthe investiture[136] also, which was in olden times the right of the\nGerman emperors, and in France and other kingdoms still belongs to the\nkings. On this point they had great wars and disputes with the\nemperors[137] until at last, with impudent authority, they took the\nright and have kept it until now; just as though the Germans, above\nall the Christians on earth, had to be the puppets of the pope and the\nRoman See and do and suffer what no one else will do and suffer.\nSince, then, this is sheer violence and robbery, hindering the regular\nauthority of the bishops and injuring poor souls, therefore the\nemperor and his nobles are in duty bound to prevent and punish such\ntyranny.\n\n[Sidenote: Pope and Emperor]\n\n9. The pope should have no authority over the emperor, except that he\nanoints and crowns him at the altar, just as a bishop anoints and\ncrowns a king[138]; and we should not henceforth yield to that\ndevilish pride which compels the emperor to kiss the pope's feet or\nsit at his feet, or, as they claim, hold his stirrup or the bridle of\nhis mule when he mounts for a ride; still less should he do homage and\nswear faithful allegiance to the pope, as the popes have shamelessly\nventured to demand as if they possessed that right. The chapter\n_Solite_[139], in which the papal authority is raised above the\nimperial authority, is not worth a heller, nor are any of those who\nrest upon it or fear it; for it does nothing else than force the holy\nwords of God out of their true meaning, and wrest them to human\ndreams, as I have showed in a Latin treatise[140].\n\nSuch extravagant, over-presumptuous, and more than wicked doings of\nthe pope have been devised by the devil, in order that under their\ncover he may in time bring in Antichrist, and raise the pope above\nGod, as many are already doing and have done. It is not proper for the\npope to exalt himself above the temporal authorities, save only in\nspiritual offices such as preaching and absolving. In other things he\nis to be subject, as Paul and Peter teach, in Romans xiii [Rom. 13:1],\nand I Peter iii [1 Pet. 2:13 f.], and as I have said above.\n\nHe is not vicar of Christ in heaven, but of Christ as He walked on\nearth [Phil. 2:7][142]. For Christ in heaven, in the form of a ruler,\nneeds no vicar, but He sits and sees, does, and knows all things, and\nhas all power. But He needs a vicar in the form of a servant, in which\nHe walked on earth, toiling, preaching, suffering and dying. Now they\nturn it around, take from Christ the heavenly form of ruler and give\nit to the pope, leaving the form of a servant to perish utterly. He\nmight almost be the \"Counter-christ\" whom the Scriptures call\nAntichrist, for all his nature, work and doings are against Christ,\nfor the destruction of Christ's nature and work.\n\nIt is also ridiculous and childish that the pope, with such perverted\nand deluded reasoning, boasts in his decretal _Pastoralis_[143], that\nhe is rightful heir to the Empire, in case of a vacancy. Who has given\nhim this right? Did Christ, when He said, \"The princes of the Gentiles\nare lords, but ye shall not be so\" [Luke 22:25 f.]? Did St. Peter will\nit to him? It vexes me that we must read and learn such shameless,\ngross, crazy lies in the canon law, and must even hold them for\nChristian doctrine, when they are devilish lies. Of the same sort is\nalso that unheard-of lie about the \"Donation of Constantine.\"[144] It\nmust have been some special plague of God that so many people of\nunderstanding have let themselves be talked into accepting such lies\nas these, which are so manifest and clumsy that I should think any\ndrunken peasant could lie more adroitly and skilfully. How can a man\nrule an empire and at the same time continue to preach, pray, study\nand care for the poor? Yet these are the duties which properly and\npeculiarly belong to the pope, and they were imposed by Christ in such\nearnest that He even forbade His disciples to take with them cloak or\nmoney [Matt. 10:10], since these duties can scarcely be performed by\none who has to rule even a single household. Yet the pope would rule\nan empire and continue to be pope! This is a device of the knaves who\nwould like, under the pope's name, to be lords of the world, and by\nmeans of the pope and the name of Christ, to restore the Roman Empire\nto its former state.\n\n[Sidenote: Temporal Power--the Kingdom of Naples]\n\n10. The pope should restrain himself, take his fingers out of the pie,\nand claim no title to the Kingdom of Naples the and Sicily[145]. He\nhas exactly as much right to that kingdom as I have, and yet he wishes\nto be its overlord. It is plunder got by violence, like almost all his\nother possessions. The emperor, therefore, should not grant him this\nfief, and if it has been granted, he should no longer give his consent\nto it, and should point him instead to the Bible and the prayer-books,\nso that he may preach and pray, and leave to temporal lords the ruling\nof lands and peoples, especially when no one has given them to him.\n\n[Sidenote: The States of the Church]\n\nThe same opinion should hold as regards Bologna, Imola, Vicenza,\nRavenna and all the territories in the Mark of Ancona, in Romagna, and\nin other Italian lands, which the pope has taken by force and\npossesses without right[146]. Moreover, he has meddled in these things\nagainst all the commands of Christ and of St. Paul. For thus saith St.\nPaul, \"No one entangleth himself with worldly affairs, whose business\nit is to wait upon the divine knighthood.\"[147][2 Tim. 2:3] Now the\npope should be the head and front of this knighthood, yet he meddles\nin worldly affairs more than any emperor or king. Why then he must be\nhelped out of them and allowed to attend to his knighthood. Christ\nalso, Whose vicar he boasts himself to be, was never willing to have\naught to do with temporal rule; indeed, to one who asked of him a\ndecision respecting his brother. He said, \"Who made Me a judge over\nyou?\" [Luke 12:14] But the pope rushes in unbidden, and boldly takes\nhold of everything as though he were a god, until he no longer knows\nwhat Christ is, Whose vicar he pretends to be.\n\n[Sidenote: Papal Homage]\n\n11. The kissing of the pope's feet[148] should take place no more. It\nis an unchristian, nay, an antichristian thing for a poor sinful man\nto let his feet be kissed by one who is a hundred times better than\nhimself. If it is done in honor of his authority, why does not the\npope do the same to others in honor of their holiness? Compare the\ntwo--Christ and the pope! Christ washed His disciples' feet and dried\nthem [John 13:1 ff.], and the disciples never washed His feet; the\npope, as though he were higher than Christ, turns things around and,\nas a great favor, allows people to kiss his feet, though he ought\nproperly to use all his power to prevent it, if anyone wished to do\nit; like Paul and Barnabas, who would not let the people of Lystra pay\nthem divine honor, but said, \"We are men like you.\" [Acts 14:11-16]\nBut our sycophants have gone so far as to make for us an idol, and now\nno one ears God so much as he fears the pope, no one pays Him such\nceremonious honor. That they can endure! What they cannot endure is\nthat a hair's-breadth should be taken away from the proud estate of\nthe pope. Now if they were Christians, and held God's honor above\ntheir own, the pope would never be happy while he knew that God's\nhonor was despised and his own exalted, and he would let no man pay\nhim honor until he saw that God's honor was again exalted and was\ngreater than his own.\n\n[149][It is another piece of the same scandalous pride, that the pope\nis not satisfied to ride or to be driven in a vehicle, but although he\nis strong and in good health, he has himself borne by men, with\nunheard-of splendor, like an idol. How, pray, does such satanic pride\nagree with the example of Christ, Who went on foot, as did all His\ndisciples? Where has there ever been a worldly monarch who went about\nin such worldly glory as he who wishes to be the head of all those who\nare to despise and lee worldly glory, i. e., of Christians? Not that\nthis in itself should give us very much concern, but we should rightly\nfear the wrath of God, if we flatter this kind of pride and do not\nshow our indignation. It is enough that the pope should rant and play\nthe fool in this wise; but that we should approve it and tolerate\nit,--this is too much.\n\nFor what Christian heart can or ought to take pleasure in seeing that\nwhen the pope wishes to receive the communion, he sits quiet, like a\ngracious lord, and has the sacrament passed to him on a golden rod by\na bowing cardinal on bended knee? As though the holy sacrament were\nnot worthy that a pope, a poor stinking sinner, should rise to show\nGod honor, when all other Christians, who are much more holy than the\nMost Holy Father, the pope, receive it with all reverence! Would it be\na wonder if God were to send a plague upon us all because we suffer\nsuch dishonor to be done Him by our prelates, and approve it, and by\nour silence or our flattery make ourselves partakers of such damnable\npride?\n\nIt is the same way when he carries the sacrament in procession. He\nmust be carried, but the sacrament is set before him, like a can of\nwine on the table. In short, at Rome Christ counts for nothing, the\npope counts for everything; and yet they would compel us with threats\nto approve, and praise and honor such antichristian sins, though this\nis against God and against all Christian doctrine. Now God help a free\nCouncil to teach the pope that he too is a man, and is not more than\nGod, as he presumes to be.]\n\n[Sidenote: Abolition of Pilgrimages to Rome]\n\n12. Pilgrimages to Rome[150] should either be abolished, or else no\none should be allowed to make such a pilgrimage out of curiosity or\nbecause of a pious impulse, unless it is first recognized by his\nparish-priest, his town authorities or his overlord, that he has good\nand sufficient reason for it. I say this not because pilgrimages are\nbad, but because they are at this time ill-advised. For men see at\nRome no good example, but only that which offends; and they have\nthemselves made the proverb, \"The nearer Rome, the worse\nChristians.\"[151] Men bring back with them contempt or God and His\ncommandments. It is said: \"The first time one goes to Rome he seeks a\nrascal, the second time he finds him, the third time he brings him\nhome with him.\"[152] Now, however, they have become so clever that\nthey make the three journeys at once, and they have verily brought\nback from Rome such pretty things that it were better never to have\nseen or known Rome.\n\nEven if this reason did not exist, there is still another and a\nbetter: to wit, that by these pilgrimages men are led away into a\nfalse conceit and a misunderstanding of the divine commandments; or\nthey think that this going on pilgrimage is a precious, good work, and\nthis is not true. It is a very small good work, oftentimes an evil,\ndelusive work, for God has not commanded it. But He has commanded that\na man shall care for his wife and children, and look after such other\nduties as belong to the married state, and besides this, to serve and\nhelp his neighbor. Now it comes to pass that a man makes a pilgrimage\nto Rome when no one has commanded him to do so, spends fifty or a\nhundred gulden, more or less, and leaves his wife and child, or at\nleast his neighbor, at home to suffer want. Yet the foolish fellow\nthinks to gloss over such disobedience and contempt of the divine\ncommandments with his self-willed pilgriming, when it is really only\ncuriosity or devilish delusion which leads him to it. The popes have\nhelped this along with their false, feigned, foolish, \"golden\nyears,\"[153] by which the people are excited, stirred up, torn away\nfrom God's commandments, and drawn toward their own deluded\nundertakings. Thus they have accomplished the very thing they should\nhave forbidden; but it has brought in money and strengthened false\nauthority, therefore it has had to continue, though it is against God\nand the salvation of souls.\n\nIn order to destroy in simple Christians this false, seductive faith,\nand to restore a true understanding of good works, all pilgrimages\nshould be given up; for there is in them nothing good--no commandment,\nno obedience--but, on the contrary, numberless occasions for sin and\nfor the despising of God's commandments. Hence come the many beggars,\nwho by this pilgriming carry on endless knaveries and learn the habit\nof begging when they are not in want. Hence, too, come vagabondage,\nand many other ills which I shall not now recount.\n\nIf any one, now, wishes to go on pilgrimage or take a pilgrim's vow,\nhe should first show his reasons to his parish-priest or to his lord.\nIf it turns out that he wishes to do it for the sake of the good work,\nthe priest or lord should boldly tread the vow and good work under\nfoot, as though it were a lure of the devil, and show him how to apply\nthe money and labor necessary for the pilgrimage to the keeping of\nGod's commandments and to works a thousandfold better, viz., by\nspending it on his own family or on his poor neighbors. But if he\nwishes to make the pilgrimage out of curiosity, to see new lands and\ncities, he may be allowed to do as he likes. If, however, he has made\nthe vow while ill, then such vows ought to be forbidden and canceled,\nand the commandments of God exalted, and he ought to be shown that he\nshould henceforth be satisfied with the vow he made in baptism[154],\nto keep the commandments of God. And yet, in order to quiet his\nconscience, he may be allowed this once to perform his foolish vow. No\none wants to walk in the straight and common path of God's\ncommandments; everyone makes himself new roads and new vows, as though\nhe had fulfilled all the commandments of God.\n\n[Sidenote: Reform of the Mendicant Orders]\n\n13. Next we come to that great crowd who vow much and keep little. Be\nnot angry, dear lords! Truly, I mean it well. It is the truth, and\nbitter-sweet, and it is this,--the building of mendicant-houses[155]\nshould no more be permitted. God help us, there are already far too\nmany of them! Would to God they were all done away, or at least given\nover to two or three orders! Wandering about the land has never\nbrought any good, and never will bring any good. It is my advice,\ntherefore, to put together ten of these houses, or as many as may be\nnecessary, and out of them all to make one house, which will be well\nprovided and need no more begging. It is much more important to\nconsider what the common people need for their salvation, than what\nSt. Francis, St. Dominic, St. Augustine[156] or any other man has\ndecreed; especially since things have not turned out as they expected.\n\nThe mendicants should also be relieved of preaching and hearing\nconfession, except when they are called to this work by the express\ndesire of bishops, parishes, congregations or the temporal\nauthorities. Out of their preaching and shriving there has come\nnothing but hatred and envy between priests and monks, and great\noffence and hindrance to the common people. For this reason it should\nproperly and deservedly cease, because it can well be dispensed\nwith[157]. It looks suspiciously as though it were not for nothing\nthat the Holy Roman See has increased this army, so that the priests\nand bishops, tired of its tyranny, might not some time become too\nstrong or it and begin a reformation which would not be to the liking\nof his Holiness.\n\nAt the same time the manifold divisions and differences within one and\nthe same order should be abolished. These divisions have at times\narisen for small reason and maintained themselves for still smaller,\ncombatting one another with unspeakable hatred and envy[158].\nNevertheless the Christian faith, which can well exist without any of\nthese distinctions, is lost by both sides, and a good Christian life\nis valued and sought after only in outward laws, works and forms; and\nthis results only in the devising of hypocrisy and the destruction of\nsouls, as everyone may see with his own eyes.\n\nThe pope must also be forbidden to found and confirm any more of these\norders; nay, he must be commanded to abolish some of them and reduce\ntheir number, since the faith of Christ, which is alone the highest\ngood and which exists without any orders, is in no small danger,\nbecause these many different works and forms easily mislead men into\nliving for them instead of giving heed to the faith. Unless there are\nin the monasteries wise prelates, who preach and who concern\nthemselves with faith more than with the rules of the orders, the\norder cannot but harm and delude simple souls who think only of works.\n\nIn our days, however, the prelates who have had faith and who founded\nthe orders have almost all passed away. Just as in olden days among\nthe children of Israel, when the fathers, who knew God's works and\nwonders, had passed away, the children, from ignorance of God's works\nand of faith, immediately became idolatrous and set up their own human\nworks; so now, alas! these orders have lost the understanding of God's\nworks and of faith, and only torture themselves pitifully, with labor\nand sorrow, in their own rules, laws and customs, and withal never\ncome to a right understanding of a good spiritual life, as the Apostle\ndeclared when he said, in II Timothy iii: \"They have the appearance of\na spiritual life, yet there is nothing back of it; they are ever and\never learning, but they never come to a knowledge of what a true\nspiritual life is.\" [2 Tim. 3:5, 7] There should be no monastery\nunless there were a spiritual prelate, learned in the Christian faith,\nto rule it, for no other kind of prelate can rule without injury and\nruin, and the holier and better he appears to be in his outward works\nand life, the more injury and ruin he causes.\n\nTo my way of thinking it would be a necessary measure, especially in\nthese perilous times of ours, that all foundations and monasteries\nshould be re-established as they were at the first, in the days of the\nApostles and for a long time afterwards, when they were all open to\nevery man, and every man might remain in them as long as he pleased.\nFor what were the foundations and monasteries except Christian schools\nin which the Scriptures and Christian living were taught, and people\nwere trained to rule and to preach? So we read that St. Agnes[159]\nwent to school, and we still see the same practice in some of the\nnunneries, like that at Quedlinburg[160] and others elsewhere. And in\ntruth all monasteries and convents ought to be so free that God is\nserved in them with free will and not with forced avarice. Afterward,\nhowever, they hedged them about with vows and turned them into a\nlifelong prison, so that these vows are thought to be of more account\nthan the vows of baptism. What sort of fruit this has borne, we see,\nhear, read and learn more and more every day.\n\nI suppose this advice of mine will be regarded as the height of\nfoolishness; but I am not concerned about that just now. I advise what\nI think best; let him reject it who will! I see how the vows are kept,\nespecially the vow of chastity, which has become so universal through\nthese monasteries and yet is not commanded by Christ; on the contrary,\nit is given to very few to keep it, as He himself says [Matt. 19:11\nff.], and St. Paul [1 Cor. 7:7, Col. 2:20]. I would have all men to be\nhelped, and not have Christian souls caught in human, self-devised\ncustoms and laws.\n\n[Sidenote: Marriage of the Clergy]\n\n14. We also see how the priesthood has fallen, and how many a poor\npriest is overburdened with wife and child, and his conscience\ntroubled, yet no one does anything to help him though he might easily\nbe helped. Though pope and bishops may let things go as they go, and\nlet them go to ruin if they will, I will save my conscience and open\nmy mouth freely, whether it vex pope, bishops or any one else.\nWherefore I say that according to the institution of Christ and the\nApostles every city should have a priest or bishop, as St. Paul\nclearly says in Titus i [Tit. 1:6]; and this priest should not be\ncompelled to live without a wedded wife, but should be permitted to\nhave one, as St. Paul says in I Timothy iii, and Titus i, \"A bishop\nshould be a man who is blameless, and the husband of but one wedded\nwife, whose children are obedient and virtuous,\" etc. [1 Tim. 3:2,\nTit. 1:6] For with St. Paul a bishop and a priest are one and the same\nthing, as witness also St. Jerome[161]. But of bishops as they now\nare, the Scriptures know nothing; they have been appointed by the\nordinance of the Christian Church, that one of them may rule over many\npriests.\n\nSo then we clearly learn from the Apostle that it should be the custom\nfor every town to choose out of the congregation[162] a learned and\npious citizen, entrust to him the office of the ministry, and support\nhim at the expense of the community, leaving him free choice to marry\nor not. He should have with him several priests or deacons, who might\nalso be married or not, as they chose, to help him rule the people of\nthe community[163] by means of preaching and the sacraments, as is\nstill the practice in the Greek Church. At a later time[164], when\nthere were so many persecutions and controversies with heretics, there\nwere many holy fathers who of their own accord abstained from\nmatrimony, to the end that they might the better devote themselves to\nstudy and be prepared at any time for death or for controversy. Then\nthe Roman See interfered, out of sheer wantonness, and made a\nuniversal commandment forbidding priests to marry[165]. This was done\nat the bidding of the devil, as St. Paul declares in I Timothy iv,\n\"There shall come teachers who bring doctrines of devils, and forbid\nto marry.\" From this has arisen so much untold misery, occasion was\ngiven for the withdrawal of the Greek Church[166], and division, sin,\nshame and scandal were increased without end,--which is the result of\neverything the devil does.\n\nWhat, then, shall we do about it? My advice is that matrimony be again\nmade free[167], and that every one be let free choice to marry or not\nto marry. In that case, however, there must be a very different\ngovernment and administration of Church property, the whole canon law\nmust go to pieces and not many benefices find their way to Rome[168].\nI fear that greed has been a cause of this wretched unchaste chastity,\nand as a result of greed every man has wished to become a priest and\neveryone wants his son to study for the priesthood, not with the idea\nof living in chastity, for that could be done outside the priesthood,\nbut of being supported in temporal things without care or labor,\ncontrary to the command of God in Genesis iii, \"In the sweat of thy\nface shat thou eat thy bread.\" [Gen. 3:19] They have construed this to\nmean that their labor was to pray and say mass.\n\nI am not referring here to popes, bishops, canons and monks. God has\nnot instituted these offices. They have taken burdens on themselves;\nlet them bear them. I would speak only of the ministry which God has\ninstituted[169] and which is to rule a congregation by means of\npreaching and sacraments, whose incumbents are to live and be at home\namong the people. Such ministers should be granted liberty by a\nChristian council to marry, for the avoidance of temptation and sin.\nFor since God has not bound them, no one else ought to bind them or\ncan bind them, even though he were an angel from heaven [Gal. 1:8],\nstill less if he be only a pope; and everything that the canon law\ndecrees to the contrary is mere fable and idle talk.\n\nFurthermore, I advise that henceforth neither at his consecration to\nthe priesthood nor at any other time shall any one under any\ncircumstances promise the bishop to live in celibacy, but shall\ndeclare to the bishop that he has no authority to demand such a vow,\nand that to demand it is the devil's own tyranny.\n\nBut if anyone is compelled to say or wishes to say, as do some, \"so\nfar as human frailty permits,\"[170] let everyone frankly interpret\nthese words negatively, to mean \"I do not promise chastity.\"[171] For\nhuman frailty does not permit a chaste life[172], but only angelic\npower and celestial might[2 Pet. 2:11][173] Thus he should keep his\nconscience free from all vows.\n\nOn the question whether those who are not yet married should marry or\nremain unmarried, I do not care to give advice either way. I leave\nthat to common Christian order and to everyone's better judgment. But\nas regards the wretched multitude who now sit in shame and heaviness\nof conscience because their wives are called \"priests' harlots\" and\ntheir children \"priests' children\" I will not withhold my faithful\ncounsel nor deprive them of the comfort which is their due. I say this\nboldly by my jester's right[174]. You will find many a pious priest\nagainst whom no one has anything to say except that he is weak and has\ncome to shame with a woman, though both parties may be minded with all\ntheir heart to live always together in wedded love and troth, if only\nthey could do it with a clear conscience, even though they might have\nto bear public shame. Two such persons are certainly married before\nGod. And I say that where they are thus minded, and so come to live\ntogether, they should boldly save their consciences; let him take and\nkeep her as his wedded wife, and live honestly with her as her\nhusband, caring nothing whether the pope will have it so or not,\nwhether it be against canon law or human law. The salvation of your\nsoul is of more importance than tyrannical, arbitrary, wicked laws,\nwhich are not necessary for salvation and are not commanded by God.\nYou should do like the children of Israel, who stole from the\nEgyptians the hire they had earned [Ex. 12:35 f.], or like a servant\nwho steals from his wicked master the wages he has earned. In like\nmanner steal thou from the pope thy wife and child! Let the man who\nhas faith enough to venture this, boldly follow me; I shall not lead\nhim astray. Though I have not the authority of a pope, I have the\nauthority of a Christian to advise and help my neighbor against sins\nand temptations; and that not without cause and reason.\n\n_First_, Not every priest can do without a woman, not only on account\nof the weakness of the flesh, but much more because of the necessities\nof the household. If he, then, may have a woman, and the pope grants\nhim that, and yet may not have her in marriage,--what is that but\nleaving a man and a woman alone and forbidding them to fall? It is as\nthough one were to put fire and straw together and command that it\nshall neither smoke nor burn.\n\n_Second_, The pope has as little power to command this, as he has to\nforbid eating, drinking, the natural movement of the bowels or growing\nfat. No one, therefore, is bound to keep it, but the pope is\nresponsible for all the sins which are committed against this\nordinance, for all the souls which are lost thereby, for all the\nconsciences which are thereby confused and tortured; and therefore he\nhas long deserved that some one should drive him out of the world, so\nmany wretched souls has he strangled with this devil's snare; though I\nhope that there are many to whom God has been more gracious at their\nlast hour than the pope has been in their life. Nothing good has ever\ncome out of the papacy and its laws, nor ever will.\n\n_Third_, Although the law of the pope is against it, nevertheless,\nwhen the estate of matrimony has been entered against the pope's law,\nthen his law is at an end, and is no longer valid; for the commandment\nof God, which decrees that no one shall put man and wife asunder\n[Matt. 19:6], takes precedence of the law of the pope; and the\ncommandments of God must not be broken and neglected for the sake of\nthe pope's commandment, though many mad jurists, in the papal\ninterest, have devised \"impediments\"[175] and have prevented,\ndestroyed and confused the estate of matrimony, until by their means\nGod's commandment has been altogether destroyed. To make a long story\nshort, there are not in the whole \"spiritual\" law of the pope two\nlines which could be instructive to a pious Christian, and there are,\nalas! so many mistaken and dangerous laws that the best thing would be\nto make a bonfire of it[176].\n\nBut if you say that this[177] would give offence, and the pope must\nfirst grant dispensation, I reply that whatever offence is in it, is\nthe fault of the Roman See, which has established such laws without\nright and against God; before God and the Scriptures it is no offence.\nMoreover, if the pope can grant dispensations from his avaricious and\ntyrannical laws for money's sake, then every Christian can grant\ndispensations from them--for the sake of God and the salvation of\nsouls. For Christ has set us free from all human laws, especially when\nthey are opposed to God and the salvation of souls, as St. Paul\nteaches in Galatians v [Gal. 5:1] and I Corinthians xi [1 Cor. 9:4\nff.; 10:23].\n\n[Sidenote: Abolition of Reserved Cases in the Monasteries]\n\n15. Nor must I forget the poor convents! The evil spirit, who by human\nlaws now confuses all estates in life, and has made them unbearable,\nhas taken possession of in certain abbots, abbesses and prelates also,\nand causes them so to govern their brethren and sisters as to send\nthem the more speedily to hell, and make them lead a wretched life\neven here; for such is the lot of all the devil's martyrs. That is to\nsay, they have reserved to themselves in confession, all, or at least\nsome, of the mortal sins which are secret, so that no brother, on his\nobedience and on pain of the ban, can absolve another from these\nsins[178]. Now we do not always find angels everywhere, but we find\nalso flesh and blood, which suffers all bannings and threatenings\nrather than confess secret sins to the prelates and the appointed\nconfessors. Thus they go to the sacrament with such consciences that\nthey become \"irregular\"[179] and all sorts of other terrible things. O\nblind shepherds! O mad prelates! O ravening wolves!\n\nTo this I say: If a sin is public or notorious, then it is proper that\nthe prelate alone should punish it, and of these sins only and no\nothers he may make exceptions, and reserve them to himself; over\nsecret sins he has no authority, even though they were the worst sins\nthat are or ever can be found, and if the prelate makes exceptions of\nthese sins, he is a tyrant, for he has no such right and is\ninterfering in the judgment of God.\n\nAnd so I advise these children, brethren and sisters: If your\nsuperiors are unwilling to grant you permission to confess your secret\nsins to whomever you wish, then take them to whatever brother or\nsister you will and confess them, receive absolution, and then go and\ndo whatever you wish and ought to do; only believe firmly that you are\nabsolved, and nothing more is needed. And do not allow yourself to be\ntroubled by ban, \"irregularity,\" or any of the other things they\nthreaten; these things are valid only in the case of public or\nnotorious sins which one is unwilling to confess; they do not affect\nyou at all. Why do you try by your threatenings, O blind prelate, to\nprevent secret sins? Let go what you cannot publicly prove, so that\nGod's judgment and grace may also have its work in your subjects! He\ndid not give them so entirely into your hands as to let them go\nentirely out of His own! Nay, what you have under your rule is but the\nsmaller part. Let your statutes be statutes, but do not exalt them to\nheaven, to the judgment-seat of God.\n\n[Sidenote: Abolition of Mortuary Masses]\n\n16. It were also necessary to abolish all anniversary, mortuary and\n\"soul\" masses[180], or at least to diminish their number, since we\nplainly see that they have become nothing but a mockery, by which God\nis deeply angered, and that their only purpose is money-getting,\ngorging and drunkenness. What kind of pleasure should God have in such\na miserable gabbling of wretched vigils and masses, which is neither\nreading nor praying, and even when prayed[181], they are performed not\nfor God's sake and out of willing love, but for money's sake and\nbecause they are a bounden duty. Now it is not possible that any work\nnot done out of willing love can please God or obtain anything from\nHim. And so it is altogether Christian to abolish, or at least\ndiminish, everything which we see growing into an abuse, and which\nangers rather than reconciles God. It would please me more--nay, it\nwould be more acceptable to God and far better--that a foundation,\nchurch or monastery should put all its anniversary masses and vigils\ntogether, and on one day, with hearty sincerity, devotion and faith,\nhold a true vigil and mass for all its benefactors, rather than hold\nthem by the thousand every year, for each benefactor a special mass,\nwithout this devotion and faith. O dear Christians! God cares not for\nmuch praying, but for true praying! Nay, He condemns the many and long\nprayers, and says in Matthew vi, they will only earn more punishment\nthereby [Matt. 67:7; 23:14]. But avarice, which cannot trust God,\nbrings such things to pass, earing that otherwise it must die of\nhunger!\n\n[Sidenote: Abolition of the Interdict]\n\n17. Certain of the penalties or punishments of the canon law should\nalso be abolished, especially the interdict[182], which is, beyond all\ndoubt, an invention of the evil Spirit. Is it not a devil's work to\ntry to atone for one sin with many greater sins? And yet, to put God's\nWord and worship to silence, or to do away with them, is a greater sin\nthan strangling twenty popes at once, and far greater than killing a\npriest or keeping back some Church property. This is another of the\ntender virtues taught in the \"spiritual law.\" For one of the reasons\nwhy this law is called \"spiritual\" is because it comes from the\nSpirit; not, however, from the Holy Spirit, but from the evil spirit.\n\nThe ban[183] is to be used in no case except where the Scriptures\nprescribe its use, i. e., against those who do not hold the true\nfaith, or who live in open sin; it is not to be used for the sake of\ntemporal possessions. But now it is the other way around. Everyone\nbelieves and lives as he pleases, most of all those who use the ban to\nplunder and defame other people, and all the bans are now laid only on\naccount of temporal possessions, or which we have no one to thank but\nthe holy \"spiritual lawlessness.\"[184] Of this I have previously said\nmore in the Discourse[185].\n\nThe other punishments and penalties,--suspension, irregularity,\naggravation, reaggravation, deposition, lightnings, thunderings,\ncursings, damnings and the rest of these devices,--should be buried\nten fathoms deep in the earth, so that there should be neither name\nnor memory of them left on earth. The evil spirit, who has been let\nloose by the \"spiritual law\" has brought this terrible plague and\nmisery into the heavenly kingdom of the holy Church, and has\naccomplished by it nothing else than the destruction and hindrance of\nsouls, so that the word of Christ may well be applied to them[186]:\n\"Woe unto you scribes! Ye have taken upon you the authority to teach,\nand ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men. Ye go not in\nyourselves, and ye suffer not them that are entering.\" [Matt. 23:13]\n\n[Sidenote: Abolition of Saints'-Days]\n\n18. All festivals[187] should be abolished, and Sunday alone retained.\nIf it were desired, however, to retain the festivals of Our Lady and\nof the greater saints, they should be transferred to Sunday, or\nobserved only by a morning mass, after which all the rest of the day\nshould be a working-day. The reason is this: The feast-days are now\nabused by drinking, gaming, idleness and all manner of sins, so that\non the holy days we anger God more than on other days, and have\naltogether turned things around; the holy days are not holy and the\nworking days are holy, and not only is no service done to God and His\nsaints by the many holy days, but rather great dishonor. There are,\nindeed, some mad prelates who think they are doing a good work if they\nmake a festival in honor of St. Ottilia or St. Barbara or some other\nsaint, according to the promptings of their blind devotion; but they\nwould be doing a far better work if they honored the saint by turning\na saint's-day into a working day.\n\nOver and above the spiritual injury, the common man receives two\nmaterial injuries from this practice, i. e., he neglects his work and\nhe spends more than at other times; nay, he also weakens his body and\nunfits it for work. We see this every day, yet no one thinks to make\nit better. We ought not to consider whether or not the pope has\ninstituted the feasts, and whether we must have dispensation and\npermission to omit them. If a thing is opposed to God, and harmful to\nman in body and soul, any community[188], council[189] or government\nhas not only the right to abolish it and put a stop to it, without the\nwill or knowledge of pope or bishop, but they are bound on their\nsouls' salvation to prevent it, even against the will of pope and\nbishop, though these ought to be themselves the first to forbid it.\n\nAbove all, we ought utterly to abolish the consecration days[190],\nsince they have become nothing else than taverns, airs and gaming\nplaces[191], and serve only to the increase of God's dishonor and to\nthe damnation of souls. All the pretence about the custom having had a\ngood beginning and being a good work is of no avail. Did not God\nHimself set aside His own law, which He had given from heaven, when it\nwas perverted and abused? And does He not still daily overturn what He\nhas appointed and destroy what He has made, because of such perversion\nand abuse? As it is written of Him in Psalm xviii, \"With the perverted\nThou wilt show Thyself perverse.\" [Ps. 18:27]\n\n[Sidenote: Extension of Right of Dispensation]\n\n19. The grades or degrees within which marriage is forbidden should be\nchanged, as, for instance, the sponsorships and the third and fourth\ndegrees; and if the pope can grant dispensation in these matters or\nmoney and for the sake of his shameful traffic[192], then every parish\npriest may give the same dispensations gratis and or the salvation of\nsouls. Yea, would to God that all the things which we must buy at Rome\nto free ourselves from that money-snare, the canon law,--such things\nas indulgences, letters of indulgence, \"butter-letters,\"[193]\n\"mass-letters,\"[194] and all the rest of the _confessionalia_[195] and\nknaveries for sale at Rome, with which the poor folk are deceived and\nrobbed of their money; would to God, I say, that any priest could,\nwithout payment, do and omit all these things!  For if the pope has\nthe authority to sell his snares for money and his spiritual nets (I\nshould say laws)[196], surely any priest has much more authority to\nrend his nets and for God's sake to tread them under foot. But if he\nhas not this right, neither has the pope the right to sell them at his\nshameful fair[196].\n\nThis is the place to say too that the fasts should be matters of\nliberty, and all sorts of food made free, as the Gospel makes them\n[Matt. 15:11]. For at Rome they themselves laugh at the fasts, making\nus foreigners eat the oil with which they would not grease their\nshoes, and afterwards selling us liberty to eat butter and all sorts\nof other things; yet the holy Apostle says that in all these things we\nalready have liberty through the Gospel [1 Cor. 10:25 ff.]. But they\nhave caught us with their canon law and stolen our rights from us, so\nthat we may have to buy them back with money. Thus they have made our\nconsciences so timid and shy that it is no longer easy to preach about\nthis liberty because the common people take such great offence,\nthinking it a greater sin to eat butter than to lie, to swear, or even\nto live unchastely. Nevertheless, what men have decreed, that is the\nwork of man; put it where you will[198], nothing good ever comes out\nof it.\n\n[Sidenote: Prohibition of Pilgrimages]\n\n20. The forest chapels and rustic churches[199] must be utterly\ndestroyed,--those, namely, to which the recent pilgrimages have been\ndirected,--Wilsnack[200], Sternberg[201], Trier[202], the\nGrimmenthal[203], and now Regensburg[204] and a goodly number of\nothers. Oh, what a terrible and heavy account will the bishops have to\nrender, who permit this devilish deceit and receive its profits![205]\nThey should be the first to forbid it, and yet they think it a divine\nand holy thing, and do not see that it is the devil's doing, to\nstrengthen avarice, to create a false, feigned faith, to weaken the\nparish churches, to multiply taverns and harlotry, to waste money and\nlabor, and to lead the poor folk by the nose. If they had only read\nthe Scriptures to as good purpose as they have read their damnable\ncanon law, they would know well how to deal with this matter.\n\nThat miracles are done at these places does not help things, for the\nevil spirit can do miracles, as Christ has told us in Matthew xxiv\n[Matt. 24:24]. If they took the matter seriously and forbade this sort\nof thing, the miracles would quickly come to an end; on the other\nhand, if the thing were of God their prohibition would not hinder it\n[Acts 5:39]. And if there were no other evidence that it is not of\nGod, this would be enough,--that people run to these places in excited\ncrowds, as though they had lost their reason, like herds of cattle;\nfor this cannot possibly be of God. Moreover, God has commanded\nnothing of all this; there is neither obedience nor merit in it; the\nbishops, therefore, should boldly step in and keep the folk away. For\nwhat is not commanded--and is concerned for self rather than for the\ncommands of God--that is surely the devil himself. Then, too, the\nparish churches receive injury, because they are held in smaller\nhonor. In short, these things are signs of great unbelief among the\npeople; if they truly believed, they would have all that they need in\ntheir own churches, for to them they are commanded to go.\n\n[Sidenote: Canonisations to be Prohibited]\n\nBut what shall I say? Every one[206] plans only how he may establish\nand maintain such a place of pilgrimage in his diocese and is not at\nall concerned to have the people believe and live aright; the rulers\nare like the people; one blind man leads another [Matt. 13:14]. Nay,\nwhere pilgrimages are not successful, they begin to canonise\nsaints[207], not in honor of the saints--for they are sufficiently\nhonored without canonisation--but in order to draw crowds and bring in\nmoney. Pope and bishop help along; it rains indulgences; there is\nalways money enough for that. But for what God has commanded no one\nprovides; no one runs after these things; there is no money or them.\nAlas, that we should be so blind! We not only give the devil his own\nway in his tricks, but we even strengthen him in his wantonness and\nincrease his pranks. I would that the dear saints were let in peace,\nand the poor folk not led astray! What spirit has given the pope the\nauthority to canonise the saints? Who tells him whether they are\nsaints or not? Are there not already sins enough on earth, that we too\nmust tempt God, interfere in His judgment and set up the dear saints\nas lures for money?\n\nTherefore I advise that the saints be left to canonise themselves.\nYea, it is God alone who should canonise them. And let every man stay\nin his own parish, where he finds more than in all the shrines of\npilgrimage, even though all the shrines were one. Here we find baptism,\nthe sacrament, preaching and our neighbor, and these are greater\nthings than all the saints in heaven, for it is by God's Word and\nsacrament that they have all been made saints. So long as we despise\nsuch great things God is just in the wrathful judgment by which He\nappoints the devil to lead us hither and thither, to establish\npilgrimages, to found churches and chapels, to secure the canonisation\nof saints, and to do other such fool's-works, by which we depart from\ntrue faith into new, false misbelief. This is what he did in olden\ntimes to the people of Israel, when he led them away from the temple\nat Jerusalem to countless other places, though he did it in the name\nof God and under the plausible guise of holiness, though all the\nprophets preached against it and were persecuted or so doing. But now\nno one preaches against it, perhaps or fear that pope, priests and\nmonks would persecute him also. In this way St. Antoninus of\nFlorence[208] and certain others must now be made saints and\ncanonised, that their holiness, which would otherwise have served only\nfor the glory of God and as a good example, may serve to bring in fame\nand money.\n\nAlthough the canonising of saints may have been good in olden times,\nit is not good now; just as many other things were good in olden times\nand are now scandalous and injurious, such as feast-days,\nchurch-treasures and church-adornment. For it is evident that through\nthe canonising of saints neither God's glory nor the improvement of\nChristians is sought, but only money and glory, in that one church\nwants to be something more and have something more than others, and\nwould be sorry if another had the same thing and its advantage were\ncommon property. So entirely, in these last, evil days, have spiritual\ngoods been misused and applied to the gaining of temporal goods, that\neverything, even God Himself, has been forced into the service of\navarice. And even these special advantages lead only to dissensions,\ndivisions and pride, in that the churches, differing from one another,\nhold each other in contempt, and exalt themselves one above another,\nthough all the gifts which God bestows are the common and equal\nproperty of all churches and should only serve the cause of unity. The\npope, too, is glad or the present state of affairs; he would be sorry\nif all Christians were equal and were at one.\n\n[Sidenote: Prohibition of Special Privileges]\n\npThis is the place to speak of the church licenses, bulls and other\nthings which the pope sells at his laying-place in Rome. We should\neither abolish them or disregard them, or at least make them the\ncommon property of all churches. For if he sells or gives away\nlicenses and privileges, indulgences, graces, advantages,\nfaculties[209] to Wittenberg, to Halle, to Venice and, above, all to\nhis own Rome, why does he not give these things to all churches alike?\nIs he not bound to do for all Christians, gratis and for God's sake,\neverything that he can, and even to shed his blood for them? Tell me,\nthen, why he gives or sells to one church and not to another? Or must\nthe accursed money make, in the eyes of His Holiness, so great a\ndifference among Christians, who all have the same baptism, Word,\nfaith, Christ, God and all things? [Eph. 4:4 f.] Are we to be blind\nwhile we have eyes to see, fools while we have our reason, that they\nexpect us to worship such greed, knavery and humbug? He is a\nshepherd,--yes, so long as you have money, and no longer! And yet they\nare not ashamed of their knavery, leading us hither and yon with their\nbulls! Their one concern is the accursed money, and nothing else!\n\nMy advice is this: If such fool's-work cannot be abolished, then every\npious Christian man should open his eyes, and not be misled by the\nhypocritical Roman bulls and seals, stay at home in his own church and\nbe content with his baptism, his Gospel, his faith, his Christ and\nwith God, Who is everywhere the same; and let the pope remain a blind\nleader of the blind. Neither angel nor pope can give you as much as\nGod gives you in your parish-church. Nay, the pope leads you away from\nthe gifts of God, which you have without pay, to his gifts, which you\nmust buy; and he gives you lead[210] for gold, hide for meat, the\nstring for the purse, wax for honey, words for goods, the letter for\nthe spirit. You see this before your very eyes, but you are unwilling\nto notice it. If you are to ride to heaven on his wax and parchment,\nyour chariot will soon go to pieces, and you will fall into hell, not\nin God's name!\n\nLet this be your fixed rule: What you must buy from the pope is\nneither good nor of God; for what is from God, to wit, the Gospel and\nthe works of God, is not only given without money, but the whole world\nis punished and damned because it has not been willing to receive it\nas a free gift. We have deserved of God that we should be so deceived,\nbecause we have despised His holy Word and the grace of baptism, as\nSt. Paul says: \"God shall send a strong delusion upon all those who\nhave not received the truth to their salvation, to the end that they\nmay believe and follow after lies and knavery,\" [2 Thess. 2:11 f.]\nwhich serves them right.\n\n[Sidenote: Mendicancy to be Prohibited, and the Poor to be Cared for]\n\n21. One of our greatest necessities is the abolition of all begging\nthroughout Christendom. Among Christians no one ought to go begging!\nIt would also be easy to make a law, if only we had the courage and\nthe serious intention, to the effect that every city should provide\nfor its own poor, and admit no foreign beggars by whatever name they\nmight be called, whether pilgrims or mendicant monks. Every city could\nsupport its own poor, and if it were too small, the people in the\nsurrounding villages also should be exhorted to contribute, since in\nany case they have to feed so many vagabonds and knaves in the guise\nof mendicants. In this way, too, it could be known who were really\npoor and who not.\n\nThere would have to be an overseer or warden who knew all the poor and\ninformed the city council or the priests what they needed; or some\nother better arrangement might be made. In my judgment there is no\nother business in which so much knavery and deceit are practised as in\nbegging, and yet it could all be easily abolished. Moreover, this free\nand universal begging hurts the common people. I have considered that\neach of the five or six mendicant orders[211] visits the same place\nmore than six or seven times every year; besides these there are the\ncommon beggars, the \"stationaries\"[212] and the palmers[213], so that\nit has been reckoned that every town is laid under tribute about sixty\ntimes a year, not counting what is given to the government in taxes,\nimposts and assessments, what is stolen by the Roman See with its\nwares, and what is uselessly consumed. Thus it seems to me one of\nGod's greatest miracles that we can continue to support ourselves.\n\nTo be sure, some think that in this way[214] the poor would not be so\nwell provided for and that not so many great stone houses and\nmonasteries would be built. This I can well believe. Nor is it\nnecessary. He who wishes to be poor should not be rich; and if he\nwishes to be rich, let him put his hand to the plow and seek his\nriches in the earth! It is enough if the poor are decently cared for,\nso that they do not die of hunger or of cold. It is not fitting that\none man should live in idleness on another's labor, or be rich and\nlive comfortably at the cost of another's discomfort, according to the\npresent perverted custom; for St. Paul says, \"If a man will not work,\nneither shall he eat.\" [2 Thess. 3:10] God has not decreed that any\nman shall live from another's goods save only the priests, who rule\nand preach, and these because of their spiritual labor, as Paul says\nin I Corinthians ix [1 Cor. 9:14], and Christ also says to the\nApostles, \"Every laborer is worthy of his hire.\" [Luke 10:7]\n\n[Sidenote: Prohibition of Endowed Masses]\n\n22. It is also to be feared that the many masses[215] which are\nendowed in the foundations and monasteries are not only of little use,\nbut greatly arouse the wrath of God. It would therefore be profitable\nnot to endow any more, but rather Masses to abolish many that are\nalready endowed, since we see that they are regarded only as\nsacrifices and good works[216], though they are really sacraments,\njust like baptism and penance[217], which profit only those who\nreceive them, and no others. But now the custom has crept in, that\nmasses are said for the living and the dead, and all hopes are built\nupon them; for this reason so many of them have been founded and the\npresent state of affairs has come about.\n\nMy proposal is perhaps too novel and daring, especially for those who\nfear that through the discontinuance of these masses their trade and\nlivelihood may be destroyed, and so I must refrain from saying more\nabout it until we have come back to a correct understanding of what\nthe mass is and what it is good for. These many years, alas, it has\nbeen made a trade practised for a temporal livelihood, so that I would\nhenceforth advise a man to become a shepherd or to seek some other\ntrade rather than become a priest or a monk, unless he first knows\nwell what it is to celebrate mass. I am not speaking, however, of the\nold foundations and cathedrals, which were doubtless established in\norder that the children of the nobility (since, according to the\ncustoms of the German nation not all of them can become heirs or\nrulers), might be provided for in these foundations, and there be free\nto serve God, to study, to become scholars and to make scholars. But I\nam speaking of the new foundations, which have been established only\nfor the saying of prayers and masses; for after their example, even\nthe old foundations have been burdened with like prayers and masses,\nso that they are of little or no profit; though it is also of God's\ngrace that they too come at last, as they deserve, to the dregs, i.\ne., to the wailing of organs and of choral singers, and to dead, cold\nmasses, by which the incomes of the worldly endowments are gotten and\nspent.  Such things pope, bishops and doctors should examine and\nproscribe; but now it is they who are most given to them. They let\neverything pass, if only it brings in money; one blind man is always\nleading another. This is the work of avarice and of the spiritual law.\n\nAgain, no one person should be allowed any longer to hold more than\none canonry or prebend. He must be content with a modest position,\nthat some one else may also have something. This would do away with\nthe excuses of those who say that they must hold more than one such\noffice to \"maintain a proper station.\" A \"proper station\" might be so\nbroadly interpreted that a whole land would not be enough to maintain\nit! Moreover avarice and veiled distrust of God assuredly go with it,\nso that what is alleged to be the need of \"a proper station\" is often\nnothing else than avarice and distrust.\n\n[Sidenote: Sodalities and Indulgences]\n\n23. Sodalities[218], indulgences, letters of indulgence,\n\"butter-letters,\"[219] mass-letters[220], dispensations, and\neverything else of the sort, are to be drowned and destroyed. There is\nnothing good in them. If the pope has the power to grant you\ndispensation to eat butter and to absent yourself from mass, then he\nought also be able to leave this power to the priests, from whom,\nindeed, he has no right to take it. I speak especially of those\nfraternities in which indulgences, masses and good works are portioned\nout. Dear friend, in your baptism you entered into a fraternity with\nChrist, all the angels, saints and Christians on earth. Hold to this\nfraternity and live up to its demands, and you have fraternities\nenough. The others--let them glitter as they will--are but as counters\ncompared with _guldens_. But if there were a fraternity which\ncontributed money to feed the poor or to help somebody in some other\nway, such a one would be good, and would have its indulgence and its\nmerit in heaven. Now, however, they have become excuses or gluttony\nand drunkenness[221].\n\nAbove all, we should drive out of German lands the papal legates with\ntheir \"faculties,\"[222] which they sell us for large sums of money,\nthough that is sheer knavery. For example, in return for money they\nlegalize unjust gains, dissolve oaths, vows and agreements, break and\nteach men to break the faith and fealty which they have pledged to one\nanother; and they say the pope has the authority to do this. It is the\nevil Spirit who bids them say this. Thus they sell us a doctrine of\ndevils, and take money or teaching us sin and leading us to hell.\n\nIf there were no other evil wiles to prove the pope the true\nAntichrist, yet this one thing were enough to prove it. Hearest thou\nthis, pope, not most holy, but most sinful? O that God from heaven\nwould soon destroy thy throne and sink it in the abyss of hell! Who\nhath given thee authority to exalt thyself above thy God, to break and\nto loose His commandments, and to teach Christians, especially the\nGerman nation, praised in all history for its nobility, its constancy\nand fidelity, to be inconstant, perjurers, traitors, profligates,\nfaithless? God hath commanded to keep oath and faith even with an\nenemy, and thou undertakest to loose this His commandment, and\nordainest in thine heretical, antichristian decretals that thou hast\nHis power. Thus through thy throat and through thy pen the wicked\nSatan doth lie as he hath never lied before. Thou dost force and wrest\nthe Scriptures to thy fancy. O Christ, my Lord, look down, let the day\nof thy judgment break, and destroy the devil's nest at Rome! Here\nsitteth the man of whom St. Paul hath said that he shall exalt himself\nabove Thee, sit in Thy Church and set himself up as God [2 Thess. 2:3\nf.],--the man of sin and the son of perdition! What else is the papal\npower than only the teaching and increasing of sin and evil, the\nleading of souls to damnation under Thy name and guise?\n\nIn olden times the children of Israel had to keep the oath which they\nhad unwittingly been deceived into giving to their enemies, the\nGibeonites [Josh. 9:19 ff.], and King Zedekiah was miserably lost,\nwith all his people, because he broke this oath to the King of Babylon\n[2 Kings 24:20; 25:4 ff.]. Even among us, a hundred years ago, that\nfine king of Hungary and Poland, Wladislav[223], was slain by the\nTurk, with so many noble people, because he allowed himself to be\ndeceived by the papal legate and cardinal, and broke the good and\nadvantageous treaty which he had sworn with the Turk. The pious\nEmperor Sigismund had no good fortune after the Council of Constance,\nwhen he allowed the knaves to break the safe-conduct which had been\ngiven to John Hus and Jerome[224] and all the trouble between us and\nthe Bohemians was the consequence. Even in our own times, God help us!\nhow much Christian blood has been shed over the oath and alliance\nwhich Pope Julius made between the Emperor Maximilian and King Louis\nof France[225], and afterwards broke? How could I tell all the\ntroubles which the popes have stirred up by the devilish presumption\nwith which they annul oaths and vows which have been made between\ngreat princes, making a jest of these things, and taking money for it.\nI have hopes that the judgment day is at the door; nothing can\npossibly be worse than the Roman See. He suppresses God's commandment,\nhe exalts his own commandment over it; if he is not Antichrist, then\nlet some one else tell who he can be! But more of this another time,\nand better.\n\n24. It is high time that we seriously and honestly consider the case\nof the Bohemians[224], and come into union with them so that the\nterrible slander, hatred and envy on both sides may cease. As befits\nmy folly, I shall be the first to submit an opinion on this subject,\nwith due deference to every one who may understand the case better\nthan I.\n\n_First_, We must honestly confess the truth, stop justifying\nourselves, and grant the Bohemians that John Hus and Jerome of Prague\nwere burned at Constance in violation of the papal, Christian,\nimperial safe-conduct and oath; whereby God's commandment was sinned\nagainst and the Bohemians were given ample cause for bitterness; and\nalthough they ought to have been perfect and to have patiently endured\nthis great injustice and disobedience of God on our part, nevertheless\nthey were not bound to approve of it and to acknowledge that it was\nwell done. Nay, even to-day they should give up life and limb rather\nthan confess that it is right to violate an imperial, papal, Christian\nsafe-conduct, and faithlessly to act contrary to it. So then, although\nit is the impatience of the Bohemians which is at fault, yet the pope\nand his followers are still more to blame for all the trouble, error\nand loss of souls that have followed upon that council.\n\nI have no desire to pass judgment at this time upon John Hus's\narticles or to defend his errors, though I have not yet found any\nerrors in his writings, and I am quite prepared to believe that it was\nneither fair judgment nor honest condemnation which was passed by\nthose who, in their faithless dealing, violated a Christian\nsafe-conduct and a commandment of God. Beyond doubt they were\npossessed rather by the evil spirit than by the Holy Spirit. No one\nwill doubt that the Holy Spirit does not act contrary to the\ncommandment of God; and no one is so ignorant as not to know that the\nviolation of faith and of a safe-conduct is contrary to the\ncommandment of God, even though they had been promised to the devil\nhimself, still more when the promise was made to a mere heretic. It is\nalso quite evident that such a promise was made to John Hus and the\nBohemians and was not kept, but that he was burned in spite of it. I\ndo not wish, however, to make John Hus a saint or a martyr, as do some\nof the Bohemians, though I confess that injustice was done him, and\nthat his books and doctrines were unjustly condemned; for the\njudgments of God are secret and terrible, and no one save God alone\nshould undertake to reveal or utter them. All I wish to say is this:\nthough he were never so wicked a heretic, nevertheless he was burned\nunjustly and against God's commandment, and the Bohemians should not\nbe forced to approve of such conduct, or else we shall never come into\nunity. Not obstinacy but the open admission of truth must make us one.\nIt is useless to pretend, as was done at that time, that a\nsafe-conduct given to a heretic need not be kept[227]. That is as much\nas to say that God's commandments are not to be kept to the end that\nGod's commandments may be kept. The devil made them mad and foolish,\nso that they did not know what they were saying or doing. God has\ncommanded that a safe-conduct shall be kept. This commandment we\nshould keep though the world all. How much more, when it is only a\nquestion of freeing a heretic! We should vanquish heretics with books,\nnot with burning; for so the ancient fathers did. If it were a science\nto vanquish the heretics with fire, then the hang-men would be the\nmost learned doctors on earth; we should no longer need to study, but\nhe who overcame another by force might burn him at the stake.\n\n_Second_, The emperor and the princes should send to the Bohemians\nsome pious and sensible bishops and scholars; but by no means a\ncardinal or papal legate or inquisitor, for those people are utter\nignoramuses as regards things Christian; they seek not the welfare of\nsouls, but, like all the pope's hypocrites, only their own power,\nprofit and glory; indeed, they were the prime movers in this miserable\nbusiness at Constance. The men thus sent into Bohemia should inform\nthemselves about the faith of the Bohemians, and whether it be\npossible to unite all their sects. Then the pope should, for their\nsouls' sake, lay aside his supremacy for the time being, and,\naccording to the decree of the most Christian Council of Nicaea[228],\nallow the Bohemians to choose one of their number to be Archbishop of\nPrague[229], and he should be confirmed by the bishop of Olmutz in\nMoravia, or the bishop of Gran in Hungary, or the bishop of Gnesen in\nPoland, or the bishop of Magdeburg in Germany[230]. It will be enough\nif he is confirmed by one or two of these, as was the custom in the\ntime of St. Cyprian[231]. The pope has no right to oppose such an\narrangement, and if he does oppose it, he becomes a wolf and a tyrant;\nno one should follow him and his ban should be met with a counter-ban.\n\nIf, however, it were desired, in honor of the See of St. Peter, to do\nthis with the pope's consent, I should be satisfied, provided it does\nnot cost the Bohemians a _heller_ and the pope does not bind them at\nall nor make them subject to his tyrannies by oaths and obligations,\nas he does all other bishops, in despite of God and of justice. If he\nwill not be satisfied with the honor of having his consent asked, then\nlet them not bother any more about him[232] and his rights, laws and\ntyrannies; let the election suffice, and let the blood of all the\nsouls which are endangered cry out against him, for no one should\nconsent to injustice; it is enough to have offered tyranny an honor.\nIf it cannot be otherwise, then an election and approval by the common\npeople can even now be quite as valid as a confirmation by a tyrant;\nbut I hope this will not be necessary. Some of the Romans or the good\nbishops and scholars will sometime mark and oppose papal tyranny.\n\nI would also advise against compelling them to abolish both kinds in\nthe sacrament[233], since that is neither unchristian nor heretical,\nbut they should be allowed to retain their own practice, if they wish.\nYet the new bishop should be careful that no discord arise because of\nsuch a practice, but should kindly instruct them that neither practice\nis wrong[234]; just as it ought not to cause dissension that the\nclergy differ from the laity in manner of life and in dress. In like\nmanner if they were unwilling to receive the Roman canon law, they\nshould not be forced to do so, but we should first make sure that they\nlive in accordance with faith and with the Scriptures. For Christian\nfaith and life can well exist without the intolerable laws of the\npope, nay, they cannot well exist unless there be fewer of these Roman\nlaws, or none at all. In baptism we have become free and have been\nmade subject to God's Word only; why should any man ensnare us in his\nwords? As St.  Paul says, \"Ye have become free, be not servants of\nmen,\" [1 Cor.  7:23; Gal. 5:1] i. e. of those who rule with man-made\nlaws.\n\nIf I knew that the Picards[235] held no other error touching the\nsacrament of the altar except that they believe that the bread and\nwine are present in their true nature, but that the body and blood of\nChrist are truly present under them, then I would not condemn them,\nbut would let them enter the obedience of the bishop of Prague. For it\nis not an article of faith that bread and wine are not essentially and\nnaturally in the sacrament, but this is an opinion of St. Thomas[236]\nand the pope. On the other hand, it is an article of faith that in the\nnatural bread and wine the true natural body and blood of Christ are\npresent[237]. And so we should tolerate the opinions of both sides\nuntil they come to an agreement, because there is no danger in\nbelieving that bread is there or is not there. For we have to endure\nmany practices and ordinances so long as they are not harmful to\nfaith. On the other hand, if they had a different faith[238], I would\nrather have them outside the Church; yet I would teach them the truth.\n\nWhatever other errors and schisms might be discovered in Bohemia\nshould be tolerated until the archbishop had been restored and had\ngradually brought all the people together again in one common\ndoctrine. They will assuredly never be united by force, nor by\ndefiance, nor by haste; it will take time and forbearance. Had not\neven Christ to tarry with His disciples a long while and bear with\ntheir unbelief, until they believed His resurrection? If they but had\nagain a regular bishop and church order, without Roman tyranny, I\ncould hope that things would soon be better.\n\nThe restoration of the temporal goods which formerly belonged to the\nChurch should not be too strictly demanded, but since we are\nChristians and each is bound to help the rest, it is in our power, for\nthe sake of unity, to give them these things and let them keep them in\nthe sight of God and men. For Christ says, \"Where two are at one with\neach other on earth, there am I in the midst of them.\" [Matt. 18:19\nf.] Would to God that on both sides we were working toward this unity,\noffering our hands to one another in brotherly humility, and not\nstanding stubbornly on our powers or rights! Love is greater and more\nnecessary than the papacy at Rome, or there can be papacy without love\nand love without papacy.\n\nWith this counsel I shall have done what I could. If the pope or his\nfollowers hinder it, they shall render an account for seeking their\nown things rather than the things of their neighbor, contrary to the\nlove of God [Phil. 2:4]. The pope ought to give up his papacy and all\nhis possessions and honors, if he could by that means save one soul;\nbut now he would let the world go to destruction rather than yield a\nhair's-breadth of his presumptuous authority. And yet he would be the\n\"most holy\"! Here my responsibility ends.\n\n[Sidenote: The Universities]\n\n[Sidenote: Aristotle]\n\n25. The universities also need a good, thorough reformation--I must\nsay it no matter whom it vexes--for everything which the papacy has\ninstituted and ordered is directed only towards the increasing of sin\nand error. What else are the universities, if their present condition\nremains unchanged, than as the book of Maccabees says, _Gymnasia\nEpheborum et Graecae gloriae_[239][2 Macc. 4:9, 12], in which loose\nliving prevails, the Holy Scriptures and the Christian faith are\nlittle taught, and the blind, heathen Aristotle master Aristotle[240]\nrules alone, even more than Christ. In this regard my advice would be\nthat Aristotle's _Physics_, _Metaphysics_, _On the Soul_, _Ethics_,\nwhich have hitherto been thought his best books, should be altogether\ndiscarded, together with all the rest of his books which boast of\ntreating the things of nature, although nothing can be learned from\nthem either of the things of nature or the things of the Spirit.\nMoreover no one has so far understood his meaning, and many souls have\nbeen burdened with profitless labor and study, at the cost of much\nprecious time. I venture to say that any potter has more knowledge of\nnature than is written in these books. It grieves me to the heart that\nthis damned, conceited, rascally heathen has with his false words\ndeluded and made fools of so many of the best Christians. God has sent\nhim as a plague upon us for our sins.\n\nWhy, this wretched man, in his best book, _On the Soul_, teaches that\nthe soul dies with the body, although many have tried with vain words\nto save his reputation. As though we had not the Holy Scriptures, in\nwhich we are abundantly instructed about all things, and of them\nAristotle had not the faintest inkling! And yet this dead heathen has\nconquered and obstructed and almost suppressed the books of the living\nGod, so that when I think of this miserable business I can believe\nnothing else than that the evil spirit has introduced the study of\nAristotle. Again, his book on _Ethics_ is the worst of all books. It\nflatly opposes divine grace and all Christian virtues, and yet it is\nconsidered one of his best works. Away with such books! Keep them away\nfrom all Christians! Let no one accuse me of exaggeration, or of\ncondemning what I do not understand! My dear friend, I know well\nwhereof I speak. I know my Aristotle as well as you or the likes of\nyou. I have lectured on him[241] and heard lectures on him, and I\nunderstand him better than do St. Thomas or Scotus[242]. This I can\nsay without pride, and if necessary I can prove it. I care not that so\nmany great minds have wearied themselves over him for so many hundred\nyears. Such objections do not disturb me as once they did; for it is\nplain as day that other errors have remained or even more centuries in\nthe world and in the universities.\n\nI should be glad to see Aristotle's books on _Logic_, _Rhetoric_ and\n_Poetics_ retained or used in an abridged form; as text-books for the\nprofitable training of young people in speaking and preaching. But the\ncommentaries and notes should be abolished, and as Cicero's _Rhetoric_\nis read without commentaries and notes, so Aristotle's _Logic_ should\nbe read as it is, without such a mass of comments. But now neither\nspeaking nor preaching is learned from it, and it has become nothing\nbut a disputing and a weariness to the flesh. Besides this there are\nthe languages--Latin, Greek and Hebrew--the mathematical disciplines\nand history. But all this I give over to the specialists, and, indeed,\nthe reform would come of itself, if we were only seriously bent upon\nit. In truth, much depends upon it; for it is here[243] that the\nChristian youth and the best of our people, with whom the future of\nChristendom lies, are to be educated and trained. Therefore I consider\nthat there is no work more worthy of pope or emperor than a thorough\nreformation of the universities, and there is nothing worse or more\nworthy of the devil than unreformed universities.\n\n[Sidenote: The Canon Law]\n\nThe medical men I leave to reform their own faculties; the jurists and\ntheologians I take as my share, and I say, in the first place, that it\nwere well if the canon law, from the first letter to the last, and\nespecially the decretals, were utterly blotted out. The Bible contains\nmore than enough directions for all our living, and so the study of\nthe canon law only stands in the way of the study of the Holy\nScriptures; moreover, it smacks for the most part of mere avarice and\npride. Even though there were much in it that is good, it might as\nwell be destroyed, for the pope has taken the whole canon law captive\nand imprisoned it in the \"chamber of his heart,\"[244] so that the\nstudy of it is henceorth a waste of time and a farce. At present the\ncanon law is not what is in the books, but what is in the sweet will\nof the pope and his flatterers. Your cause may be thoroughly\nestablished in the canon law; still the pope has his _scrinium\npectoris_[245], and all law and the whole world must be guided by\nthat. Now it is ofttimes a knave, and even the devil himself, who\nrules this _scrinium_, and they boast that it is ruled by the Holy\nSpirit! Thus they deal with Christ's unfortunate people. They give\nthem many laws and themselves keep none of them, but others they\ncompel either to keep them or else to buy release.\n\nSince, then, the pope and his followers have suspended the whole canon\nlaw, and since they pay no heed to it, but regard their own wanton\nwill as a law exalting them above all the world, we should follow\ntheir example and for our part also reject these books. Why should we\nwaste our time studying them? We could never discover the whole\narbitrary will of the pope, which has now become the canon law. The\ncanon law has arisen in the devil's name, let it all in the name of\nGod, and let there be no more _doctores decretorum_[246] in the world,\nbut only _doctores scrinii papalis_, that is, \"hypocrites of the\npope\"! It is said that there is no better temporal rule anywhere than\namong the Turks, who have neither spiritual nor temporal law, but only\ntheir Koran; and we must confess that there is no more shameful rule\nthan among us, with our spiritual and temporal law, so that there is\nno estate which lives according to the light of nature, still less\naccording to Holy Scripture.\n\n[Sidenote: Secular Law]\n\nThe temporal law,--God help us! what a wilderness it has become![247]\nThough it is much better, wiser and more rational than the \"spiritual\nlaw\" which has nothing good about it except the name, still there is\nfar too much of it. Surely the Holy Scriptures and good rulers would\nbe law enough; as St. Paul says in I Corinthians vi, \"Is there no one\namong you can judge his neighbor's cause, that ye must go to law\nbefore heathen courts?\" [1 Cor. 6:1] It seems just to me that\nterritorial laws and territorial customs should take precedence of the\ngeneral imperial laws, and the imperial laws be used only in case of\nnecessity. Would to God that as every land has its own peculiar\ncharacter, so it were ruled by its own brief laws, as the lands were\nruled before these imperial laws were invented, and many lands are\nstill ruled without them! These diffuse and far-etched laws are only a\nburden to the people, and hinder causes more than they help them. I\nhope, however, that others have given this matter more thought and\nattention than I am able to do.\n\n[Sidenote: Theology]\n\nMy friends the theologians have spared themselves pains and labor;\nthey leave the Bible in peace and read the Sentences. I should think\nthat the Sentences[248] ought to be the first study of young students\nin theology and the Bible ought to be the study for the doctors. But\nnow it is turned around; the Bible comes first, and is put aside when\nthe bachelor's degree is reached, and the Sentences come last. They\nare attached forever to the doctorate, and that with such a solemn\nobligation that a man who is not a priest may indeed read the Bible,\nbut the Sentences a priest must read. A married man, I observe, could\nbe a Doctor of the Bible, but under no circumstances a Doctor of the\nSentences. What good fortune can we expect if we act so perversely and\nin this way put the Bible, the holy Word of God, so far to the rear?\nMoreover the pope commands, with many severe words, that his laws are\nto be read and used in the schools and the courts, but little is said\nof the Gospel. Thus it is the custom that in the schools and the\ncourts the Gospel lies idle in the dust under the bench[249], to the\nend that the pope's harmful laws may rule alone.\n\nIf we are called by the title of teachers[250] of Holy Scripture, then\nwe ought to be compelled, in accordance with our name, to teach the\nHoly Scriptures and nothing else, although even this title is too\nproud and boastful and no one ought to be proclaimed and crowned\nteacher of Holy Scripture. Yet it might be suffered, if the work\njustified the name; but now, under the despotism of the Sentences, we\nfind among the theologians more of heathen and human opinion than of\nthe holy and certain doctrine of Scripture. What, then, are we to do?\nI know of no other way than humbly to pray God to give us Doctors of\nTheology, Pope, emperor and universities may make Doctors of Arts, of\nMedicine, of Laws, of the Sentences; but be assured that no one will\nmake a Doctor of Holy Scripture, save only the Holy Ghost from heaven,\nas Christ says in John vi, \"They must all be taught of God Himself.\"\n[John 6:45] Now the Holy Ghost does not concern Himself about red or\nbrown birettas[251] or other decorations, nor does He ask whether one\nis old or young, layman or priest, monk or secular, virgin or married;\nnay He spake of old by an ass, against the prophet who rode upon it\n[Num. 22:28]. Would God that we were worthy to have such doctors given\nus, whether they were layman or priests, married or virgin. True, they\nnow try to force the Holy Ghost into pope, bishops and doctors,\nalthough there is no sign or indication whatever that He is in them.\n\n[Sidenote: Theological Textbooks]\n\nThe number of theological books must also be lessened, and a selection\nmade of the best of them. For it is not many books or much reading\nthat makes men learned; but it is good things, however little of them,\noften read, that make men learned in the Scriptures, and make them\ngodly, too. Indeed the writings of all the holy fathers should be read\nonly for a time, in order that through them we may be led to the Holy\nScriptures. As it is, however, we read them only to be absorbed in\nthem and never come to the Scriptures. We are like men who study the\nsign-posts and never travel the road. The dear fathers wished, by\ntheir writings, to lead us to the Scriptures, but we so use them as to\nbe led away from the Scriptures, though the Scriptures alone are our\nvineyard in which we ought all to work and toil.\n\n[Sidenote: Schools]\n\nAbove all, the foremost and most general subject of study, both in the\nhigher and the lower schools, should be the Holy Scriptures, and for\nthe young boys the Gospel. And would to God that every town had a\ngirls' school also, in which the girls were taught the Gospel for an\nhour each day either in German or Latin. Indeed the schools,\nmonasteries and nunneries began long ago with that end in view, and it\nwas a praiseworthy and Christian purpose, as we learn from the story\nof St. Agnes[252] and other of the saints. That was the time of holy\nvirgins and martyrs, and then it was well with Christendom; but now\nthey[253] have come to nothing but praying and singing. Ought not\nevery Christian at his ninth or tenth year to know the entire holy\nGospel from which he derives his name[254] and his life? A spinner or\na seamstress teaches her daughter the trade in her early years; but\nnow even the great, learned prelates and bishops themselves do not\nknow the Gospel.\n\nO how unjustly we deal with these poor young people who are committed\nto us for direction and instruction! We must give a terrible accounting\nor our neglect to set the Word of God before them. They are as\nJeremiah says in Lamentations ii: \"Mine eyes are grown weary with\nweeping, my bowels are terrified, my liver is poured out upon the\nground, because of the destruction of the daughter of my people, or\nthe youth and the children perish in all the streets of the whole\ncity; they said to their mothers, Where is bread and wine? and they\nswooned as the wounded in the streets of the city and gave up the\nghost in their mothers' bosom.\" [Lam. 2:11 ff.] This pitiful evil we\ndo not see,--how even now the young folk in the midst of Christendom\nlanguish and perish miserably for want of the Gospel, in which we\nought to be giving them constant instruction and training.\n\n[Sidenote: Restriction of Number of Students]\n\nMoreover, if the universities were diligent in the study of Holy\nScripture, we should not send everybody there, as we do when all we\nask is numbers, and everyone wishes to have a doctor's degree; but we\nshould send only the best qualified students, who have previously been\nwell trained in the lower schools. A prince or city council ought to\nsee to this, and permit only the well qualified to be sent. But where\nthe Holy Scriptures do not rule, there I advise no one to send his\nson. Everyone not unceasingly busy with the Word of God must become\ncorrupt; that is why the people who are in the universities and who\nare trained there are the kind of people they are. For this no one is\nto blame but the pope, the bishops and the prelates, who are charged\nwith the training of the youth. For the universities ought to turn out\nonly men who are experts in the Holy Scriptures, who can become\nbishops and priests, leaders in the fight against heretics, the devil\nand all the world. But where do you find this true? I greatly fear that\nthe universities are wide gates of hell, if they do not diligently\nteach the Holy Scriptures and impress them on the youth.\n\n[Sidenote: The Pope and the Holy Roman Empire]\n\n26.[255] I know full well that the Roman crowd will make pretensions\nand great boasts about how the pope took the Holy Roman Empire from\nthe Greek Emperor[256] and bestowed it on the Germans, for which honor\nand benevolence he is said to have justly deserved and obtained from\nthe Germans submission and thanks and all good things. For this reason\nthey will, perhaps, undertake to throw to the winds all attempts to\nreform them, and will not allow us to think about anything but the\nbestowal of the Roman Empire. For this cause they have heretofore\npersecuted and oppressed many a worthy emperor so arbitrarily and\narrogantly that it is pity to tell of it, and with the same adroitness\nthey have made themselves overlords of all the temporal powers and\nauthorities, contrary to the Holy Gospel. Of this too I must therefore\nspeak.\n\nThere is no doubt that the true Roman Empire, which the writings of\nthe prophets foretold in Numbers xxiv [Num. 24:24] and in Daniel [Dan.\n2:39 ff.], has long since been overthrown and brought to an end, as\nBalaam clearly prophesied in Numbers xxiv, when he said: \"The Romans\nshall come and overthrow the Jews; and afterwards they also shall be\ndestroyed.\" That was brought to pass by the Goths[257], but especially\nwhen the Turkish Empire arose almost a thousand years ago[258]; then\nin time Asia and Africa fell away, and finally Venice arose, and there\nremained to Rome nothing of its former power.\n\nNow when the pope could not subdue to his arrogant will the Greeks and\nthe emperor at Constantinople, who was hereditary Roman Emperor, he\nbethought himself of this device, viz., to rob him of his empire and\nhis title and turn it over to the Germans, who were at that time\nwarlike and of good repute, so as to bring the power of the Roman\nEmpire under his control and give it away as a fief. So too it turned\nout. It was taken away from the emperor at Constantinople and its name\nand title were given to us Germans. Thereby we became the servants of\nthe pope, and there is now a second Roman Empire, which the pope has\nbuilt upon the Germans; for the other, which was first, has long since\nfallen, as I have said.\n\nSo then the Roman See has its will. It has taken possession of Rome,\ndriven out the German Emperor and bound him with oaths not to dwell at\nRome. He is to be Roman Emperor, and yet he is not to have possession\nof Rome, and besides he is at all times to be dependent upon the\ncaprice of the pope and his followers, so that we have the name and\nthey have the land and cities. They have always abused our simplicity\nto serve their own arrogance and tyranny, and they call us mad\nGermans, who let ourselves be made apes and fools at their bidding.\n\nAh well! For God the Lord it is a small thing to toss empires and\nprincipalities to and fro! He is so generous with them that once in a\nwhile He gives a kingdom to a knave and takes it from a good man,\nsometimes by the treachery of wicked, faithless men and sometimes by\nheredity, as we read of the Kingdoms of Persia and Greece, and of\nalmost all kingdoms; and Daniel ii and iv says: \"He Who ruleth over\nall things dwelleth in heaven, and it is He alone Who changeth\nkingdoms, tosseth them to and fro, and maketh them.\" [Dan. 2:21; 4:14]\nSince, therefore, no one can think it a great thing to have a kingdom\ngiven him, especially if he is a Christian, we Germans too cannot be\npuffed up because a new Roman Empire is bestowed on us; for in His\neyes it is a trifling gift, which He often gives to the most unworthy,\nas Daniel iv says: \"All who dwell upon the earth are in His eyes as\nnothing, and He has power in all the kingdoms of men, to give them to\nwhomsoever He will.\" [Dan. 4:35]\n\nBut although the pope unjustly and by violence robbed the true emperor\nof his Roman Empire, or of its name, and gave it to us Germans, it is\ncertain, nevertheless, that in this matter God has used the pope's\nwickedness to give such an empire to the German nation, and after the\nall of the first Roman Empire, to set up another, which still exists.\nAnd although we gave no occasion to this wickedness of the popes, and\ndid not understand their false aims and purposes, nevertheless,\nthrough this papal trickery and roguery, we have already paid too\ndearly for our empire, with incalculable bloodshed, with the\nsuppression of our liberty, with the risk and robbery of all our\ngoods, especially the goods of the churches and canonries, and with\nthe suffering of unspeakable deception and insult. We have the name of\nthe empire, but the pope has our wealth, honor, body, life, soul and\nall that is ours. So we Germans are to be cheated in the trade[259].\nWhat the popes sought was to be emperors, and since they could not\nmanage that, they at least succeeded in setting themselves over the\nemperors.\n\nBecause then, the empire has been given us without our fault, by the\nprovidence of God and the plotting of evil men, I would not advise\nthat we give it up, but rather that we rule it wisely and in the fear\nof God, so long as it shall please Him. For, as has been said, it\nmatters not to Him where an empire comes from; it is His will that it\nshall be ruled. Though the popes took it dishonestly from others,\nnevertheless we did not get it dishonestly. It is given us by the will\nof God through evil-minded men; and we have more regard for God's will\nthan for the treacherous purpose of the popes, who, in bestowing it,\nwished to be emperors themselves, and more than emperors, and only to\nfool and mock us with the name. The King of Babylon also seized his\nempire by robbery and force; yet it was God's will that it should be\nruled by the holy princes, Daniel, Hananiah, Azariah and Mishael [Dan\n3:30; 5:29]; much more then is it His will that this empire be ruled\nby the Christian princes of Germany, regardless whether the pope stole\nit, or got it by robbery, or made it anew. It is all God's ordering,\nwhich came to pass before we knew of it.\n\nTherefore the pope and his followers may not boast that they have done\na great favor to the German nation by the bestowal of this Roman\nEmpire. _First_, because they did not mean it for our good, but were\nrather taking advantage of our simplicity in order to strengthen\nthemselves in their proud designs against the Roman Emperor at\nConstantinople, from whom the pope godlessly and lawlessly took this\nempire, a thing which he had no right to do. _Second_, because the\npope's intention was not to give us the empire, but to get it for\nhimself, that he might bring all our power, our freedom, wealth, body\nand soul into subjection to himself and use us (if God had not\nprevented) to subdue all the world. He clearly says so himself in his\ndecretals, and he has attempted it, by many evil wiles, with a number\nof the German emperors. How beautifully we Germans have been taught\nour German! When we thought to be lords, we became slaves of the most\ndeceitful tyrants; we have the name, title and insignia of the empire,\nbut the pope has its treasures, its authority, its law and its\nliberty. So the pope gobbles the kernel, and we play with the empty\nhulls.\n\nNow may God, Who by the wiles of tyrants has tossed this empire into\nour lap, and charged us with the ruling of it, help us to live up to\nthe name, title and insignia, to rescue our liberty, and to show the\nRomans, for once, what it is that we, through them, have received from\nGod! They boast that they have bestowed on us an empire. So be it,\nthen! If it is true, then let the pope give us Rome and everything\nelse which he has got from the empire; let him free our land from his\nintolerable taxing and robbing, and give us back our liberty,\nauthority, wealth, honor, body and soul; let the empire be what an\nempire should be, and let his words and pretensions be fulfilled!\n\nIf he will not do that, then why all this shamming, these false and\nlying words and juggler's tricks? Is he not satisfied with having so\nrudely led this noble nation by the nose these many hundred years\nwithout ceasing? It does not follow that the pope must be above an\nemperor because he makes or crowns him. The prophet Samuel at God's\ncommand anointed and crowned Kings Saul and David, and yet he was\ntheir subject; and the prophet Nathan anointed King Solomon, but was\nnot set over him on that account [1 Sam. 16:1; 16:13]; Elisha too had\none of his servants anoint Jehu King of Israel [1 Kings 1:38 f.], and\nyet they remained obedient and subject to him [2 Kings 9:1 ff.].\nExcept in the case of the pope, it has never happened in all the\nworld's history that he who consecrated or crowned the king was over\nthe king. He lets himself be crowned pope by three cardinals, who are\nunder him, and he is nevertheless their superior. Why then should he,\ncontrary to the example which he himself sets, and contrary to the\ncustom and teaching of all the world and of the Scriptures, exalt\nhimself above temporal authorities, or the empire, simply because he\ncrowns or consecrates the emperor? It is enough that he should be the\nemperor's superior in divine things, to wit, in preaching, teaching\nand administering the sacraments, in which things, indeed, any bishop\nor priest is over every other man, as St. Ambrose in his See was over\nthe emperor Theodosius[260], and the prophet Nathan over David, and\nSamuel over Saul. Therefore, let the German Emperor be really and\ntruly emperor, and let not his authority or his sword be put down by\nthis blind pretension of papal hypocrites, as though they were to be\nexcepted from his dominion and themselves direct the temporal sword in\nall things.]\n\n[Sidenote: Economic and Social Reforms]\n\n27. Enough has now been said about the failings of the clergy, though\nmore of them can and will be found if these are properly considered.\nWe would say something too about the failings of the temporal estate.\n\n[Sidenote: Luxury in Dress]\n\n1. There is great need of a general law and decree of the German\nnation against the extravagance and excess in dress, by which so many\nnobles and rich men are impoverished[251]. God has given to us, as to\nother lands, enough wool, hair, lax and every thing else which\nproperly serves or the seemly and honorable dress of every rank, so\nthat we do not need to spend and waste such enormous sums or silk and\nvelvet and golden ornaments and other foreign wares. I believe that\neven if the pope had not robbed us Germans with his intolerable\nexactions, we should still have our hands more than full with these\ndomestic robbers, the silk and velvet merchants[262]. In the matter of\nclothes, as we see, everybody wants to be equal to everybody else, and\npride and envy are aroused and increased among us, as we deserve. All\nthis and much more misery would be avoided if our curiosity would only\nlet us be thankful, and be satisfied with the goods which God has\ngiven us.\n\n[Sidenote: The Spice Trade]\n\n2. In like manner it is also necessary to restrict the\nspice-traffic[263] which is another of the great ships in which money\nis carried out of German lands. There grows among us, by God's grace,\nmore to eat and drink than in any other land, and just as choice and\ngood. Perhaps the proposals that I make may seem foolish and\nimpossible and give the impression that I want to suppress the\ngreatest of all trades, that of commerce; but I am doing what I can. I\nreforms are not generally introduced, then let every one who is\nwilling reform himself. I do not see that many good customs have ever\ncome to a land through commerce, and in ancient times God made His\npeople of Israel dwell away from the sea on this account, and did not\nlet them engage much in commerce.\n\n[Sidenote: The Traffic in Annuities]\n\n3. But the greatest misfortune of the German nation is certainly the\ntraffic in annuities[264]. If that did not exist many a man would have\nto leave unbought his silks, velvets, golden ties ornaments, spices\nand ornaments of every sort. It has not existed much over a hundred\nyears, and has already brought almost all princes, cities, endowed\ninstitutions, nobles and their heirs to poverty, misery and ruin; if\nit shall continue or another hundred years Germany cannot possibly\nhave a _pfennig_ left and we shall certainly have to devour one\nanother.  The devil invented the practice, and the pope, by confirming\nit[265], has injured the whole world. Therefore I ask and pray that\neveryone open his eyes to see the ruin of himself, his children and\nhis heirs, which not only stands before the door, but already haunts\nthe house, and that emperor, princes, lords and cities do their part\nthat this trade be condemned as speedily as possible, and henceforth\nprevented, regardless whether or not the pope, with all his law and\nunlaw, is opposed to it, and whether or not benefices or church\nfoundations are based upon it. It is better that there should be in a\ncity one living based on an honest freehold or revenue, than a hundred\nbased on an annuity; indeed a living based on an annuity is worse and\nmore grievous than twenty based on freeholds. In truth this traffic in\nrents must be a sign and symbol that the world, for its grievous sins,\nhas been sold to the devil, so that both temporal and spiritual\npossessions must fail us, and yet we do not notice it at all.\n\nHere, too, we must put a bit in the mouth of the Fuggers and similar\ncorporations[266]. How is it possible that in the lifetime of a single\nman such great possessions, worthy of a king, can be piled up, and yet\neverything be done legally and according to God's will? I am not a\nmathematician, but I do not understand how a man with a hundred gulden\ncan make a profit of twenty gulden in one year, nay, how with one\ngulden he can make another[267]; and that, too, by another way than\nagriculture or cattle-raising, in which increase of wealth depends not\non human wits, but on God's blessing. I commend this to the men of\naffairs. I am a theologian, and find nothing to blame in it except its\nevil and offending appearance, of which St. Paul says, \"Avoid every\nappearance or show of evil.\" [1 Thess. 5:22] This I know well, that it\nwould be much more pleasing to God if we increased agriculture and\ndiminished commerce, and that they do much better who, according to\nthe Scriptures, till the soil and seek their living from it, as was\nsaid to us and to all men in Adam, \"Accursed be the earth when thou\nlaborest therein, it shall bear thee thistles and thorns, and in the\nsweat of thy face shalt thou eat thy bread.\" [Gen. 3:17 ff.] There is\nstill much land lying untilled.\n\n[Sidenote: Excesses in Eating and Drinking]\n\n4. Next comes the abuse of eating and drinking[268] which gives us\nGermans a bad reputation in foreign lands, as though it were our\nspecial vice. Preaching cannot stop it; it has become too common, and\nhas got too firmly the upper hand. The waste of money which it causes\nwould be a small thing, were it not followed by other sins,--murder,\nadultery, stealing, irreverence and all the vices. The temporal sword\ncan do something to prevent it; or else it will be as Christ says:\n\"The last day shall come like a secret snare, when they shall be\neating and drinking, marrying and wooing, building and planting,\nbuying and selling.\" [Luke 21:34 f.] It is so much like that now that\nI verily believe the judgment day is at the door, though men are\nthinking least of all about it.\n\n[Sidenote: The Social Evil]\n\n5. Finally, is it not a pitiful thing that we Christians should\nmaintain among us open and common houses of prostitution, though all\nof us are baptised unto chastity? I know very well what some say to\nthis, to wit, that it is not the custom of any one people, that it is\nhard to break up, that it is better that there should be such houses\nthan that married women, or maidens, or those of more honorable estate\nshould be outraged. But should not the temporal, Christian government\nconsider that in this heathen way the evil is not to be controlled? I\nthe people of Israel could exist without such an abomination, why\ncould not Christian people do as much? Nay, how do many cities, towns\nand villages exist without such houses? Why should not great cities\nalso exist without them?\n\nIn this, and in the other matters above mentioned, I have tried to\npoint out how many good works the temporal government could do, and\nwhat should be the duty of every government, to the end that every one\nmay learn what an awful responsibility it is to rule, and to have high\nstation. What good would it do that an overlord were in his own life\nas holy as St. Peter, if he have not the purpose diligently to help\nhis subjects in these matters? His very authority will condemn him!\nFor it is the duty of the authorities to seek the highest good of\ntheir subjects. But if the authorities were to consider how the young\npeople might be brought together in marriage, the hope of entering the\nmarried state would greatly help every one to endure and to resist\ntemptation.\n\n[Sidenote: Celibacy and Its Abuses]\n\nBut now every man is drawn to the priesthood or the monastic life, and\namong them, I fear, there is not one in a hundred who has any other\nreason than that he seeks a living, and doubts that he will ever be\nable to support himself in the estate of matrimony. Therefore they\nlive wildly enough beforehand, and wish, as they say, to \"wear out\ntheir lust,\" but rather wear it in[269], as experience shows. I find\nthe proverb true, \"Despair makes most of the monks and priests\"[270];\nand so things are as we see them.\n\nMy faithful counsel is that, in order to avoid many sins which have\nbecome very common, neither boy nor maid should take the vow of\nchastity, or of the \"spiritual life,\" before the age of thirty\nyears[271]. It is, as St. Paul says, a peculiar gift [1 Cor. 7].\nTherefore let him whom God does not constrain, put off becoming a\ncleric and taking the vows. Nay, I will go farther and say, If you\ntrust God so little that you are not willing to support yourself as a\nmarried man, and wish to become a cleric only because of this\ndistrust, then for the sake of your own soul, I beg of you not to\nbecome a cleric, but rather a farmer, or whatever else you please. For\nif to obtain your temporal support you must have one measure of trust\nin God, you must have ten measures of trust to continue in the life of\na cleric. If you do not trust God to support you in the world, how\nwill you trust him to support you in the Church? Alas, unbelief and\ndistrust spoil everything and lead us into all misery, as we see in\nevery estate of life!\n\nMuch could be said of this miserable condition. The young people have\nno one to care for them. They all do as they please, and the\ngovernment is of as much use to them as if it did not exist; and yet\nthis should be the chief concern of pope, bishops, lords and councils.\nThey wish to rule far and wide, and yet to help no one. O, what a rare\nbird will a lord and ruler be in heaven just on this account, even\nthough he build a hundred churches or God and raise up all the dead!\n\n[Sidenote: Conclusion]\n\n[Let this suffice for this time! Of what the temporal powers and the\nnobility ought to do, I think I have said enough in the little book.\n_On Good Works_[272]. There is room for improvement in their lives and\nin their rule, and yet the abuses of the temporal power are not to be\ncompared with those of the spiritual power, as I have there\nshown.][273]\n\nI think too that I have pitched my song in a high key, have made many\npropositions which will be thought impossible and have attacked many\nthings too sharply. But what am I to do? I am in duty bound to speak.\nIf I were able, these are the things I should wish to do. I prefer the\nwrath of the world to the wrath of God; they can do no more than take\nmy life[274]. Many times heretofore I have made overtures of peace to\nmy opponents; but as I now see, God has through them compelled me to\nopen my mouth wider and wider and give them enough to say, bark, shout\nand write, since they have nothing else to do. Ah well, I know another\nlittle song about Rome and about them if I their ears itch for it I\nwill sing them that song too, and pitch the notes to the top of the\nscale. Understandest thou, dear Rome, what I mean?\n\nI have many times offered my writings for investigation and judgment,\nbut it has been of no use. To be sure, I know that if my cause is\njust, it must be condemned on earth, and approved only by Christ in\nheaven; or all the Scriptures show that the cause of Christians and of\nChristendom must be judged by God alone. Such a cause has never yet\nbeen approved by men on earth, but the opposition has always been too\ngreat and strong. It is my greatest care and fear that my cause may\nremain uncondemned, by which I should know or certain that it was not\nyet pleasing to God.\n\nTherefore let them boldly go to work,--pope, bishop, priest, monk and\nscholar! They are the right people to persecute the truth, as they\nhave ever done.\n\nGod give us all a Christian mind, and especially to the Christian\nnobility of the German nation a right spiritual courage to do the best\nthat can be done for the poor Church. Amen.\n\nWittenberg, 1520.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES\n\n\n[1] _Unserm furnchmen nach_. See Introduction, p. 57.\n\n[2] An ironical comparison of the monks' cowl and tonsure with the\nheadgear of the jester.\n\n[3] i. e., Which one turns out to be the real fool.\n\n[4] The proverb ran, _Monachus semper praesens_, \"a monk is always\nthere.\" See Wander, _Deutsches Sprichworterlexicon_, under Monch, No.\n130.\n\n[5] Evidently a reference to the _Gravamina of the German Nation_; see\nGebhardt, _Die Grav. der Deutschen Nation_, Breslau, 1895.\n\n[6] Councils of the Church, especially those of Constance (1414-18),\nand of Basel (1431-39).\n\n[7] Charles V. was elected Emperor in 1519, when but twenty years of\nage. Hutten expresses his \"hopes of good\" from Charles in _Vadiscus_\n(Bocking, IV, 156).\n\n[8] Frederick Barbarossa (1152-1100).\n\n[9] Frederick II (1212-1250), grandson of Barbarossa and last of the\ngreat Hohenstaufen Emperors. He died under excommunication.\n\n[10] Pope Julius II (1503-1513). Notorious among the popes for his\nunscrupulous pursuit of political power, he was continually involved\nin war with one and another of the European powers over the possession\nof territories in Italy.\n\n[11] Luther's recollection of the figures was faulty.\n\n[12] The term \"Romanist\" is applied by Luther to the champions of the\nextreme form of papal supremacy. C. Vol. I, p. 343 f.\n\n[13] i. e., The three rods for the punishment of an evil pope.\n\n[14] _Spuknisse_, literally \"ghosts.\" The gist of the sentence is,\n\"the Romanists have frightened the world with ghost-stories.\"\n\n[15] _Olegotze_--\"an image anointed with holy oil to make it sacred\";\nin modern German, \"a blockhead.\"\n\n[16] Lay-baptism in view of imminent death is a practice as old as the\nChristian Church. The right of the laity to administer baptism in such\ncases was expressly recognized by the Council of Elvira, in the year\n306, and the decree of that Council became a part of the law of the\nChurch. The right of the laity to give absolution in such cases rests\non the principle that in the absence of the appointed official of the\nChurch any Christian can do for any other Christian the things that\nare absolutely necessary or salvation, for \"necessity knows no law.\"\nCf. Vol. I, p. 30, note 2.\n\n[17] The canon law, called by Luther throughout this treatise and\nelsewhere, the \"spiritual law,\" is a general name for the decrees of\ncouncils (\"canons\" in the strict sense) and decisions of the popes\n(\"decretals,\" \"constitutions,\" etc.), promulgated by authority of the\npopes, and collected in the so-called _Corpus juris canonici_. It\ncomprised the whole body of Church law, and embodied in legal forms\nthe mediaeval theory of papal absolutism, which accounts for the\nbitterness with which Luther speaks of it, especially in this\ntreatise. The Corpus includes the following collections of canons and\ndecretals: The _Decretum of Gratian_ (1142), the _Liber Extra_ (1234),\nthe _Liber Sextus_ (1298), the _Constitutiones Clementinae_ (1318 or\n1317), and the two books of _Extravagantes_ ,--the _Extravagantes of\nJohn XXII_, and the _Extravagantes communes_. The last pope whose\ndecrees are included is Sixtus IV (died 1484). See _Catholic\nEncyclop._,IV, pp. 391 ff.\n\n[18] Augustine, the master-theologian of the Ancient Church, bishop of\nHippo in Africa from 395-430.\n\n[19] Ambrose, bishop of Milan from 374-397, had not yet been baptised\nat the time of his election to the episcopate, which was forced upon\nhim by the unanimous voice of the people of the city.\n\n[20] Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, 247-258, is said to have consented\nto accept the office only when the congregation surrounded his house\nand besought him to yield to their entreaties.\n\n[21] _Was ausz der Tauff krochen ist_.\n\n[22] The _character indelebilis_, or \"indelible mark,\" received\nauthoritative statement in the bull _Exultate Deo_ (1439). Eugenius\nIV, summing up the Decrees of the Council of Florence, says: \"Among\nthese sacraments there are three--baptism, confirmation, and\norders--which indelibly impress upon the soul a character, i. e., a\ncertain spiritual mark which distinguishes them from the rest\" (Mirbt,\n_Quellen_, 2d ed., No. 150). The Council of Trent in its XXIII.\nSession, July 15, 1563 (Mirbt, No. 312), defined the correct Roman\nteaching as follows: \"Since in the sacrament of orders, as in baptism\nand confirmation, a character is impressed which cannot be destroyed\nor taken away, the Holy Synod justly condemns the opinion of those who\nassert that the priests of the New Testament have only temporary\npower, and that those once rightly ordained can again be made laymen,\nif they do not exercise the ministry of the Word of God.\"\n\n[23] i. e., They are all Christians, among whom there can be no\nessential difference.\n\n[24] The sharp distinction which the Roman Church drew between clergy\nand laity found practical application in the contention that the\nclergy should be exempt from the jurisdiction of the civil courts,\nThis is the so-called _privilegium fori_, \"benefit of clergy.\" It was\nfurther claimed that the government of the clergy and the\nadministration of Church property must be entirely in the hands of the\nChurch authorities, and that no lay rulers might either make or\nenforce laws which in any way affected the Church. See Lea, _Studies\nin Church History_, 169-219 and _Prot. Realencyk._, VI, 594.\n\n[25] It was the contention of the Church authorities that priests\ncharged with infraction of the laws of the state should first be tried\nin the ecclesiastical courts. If found guilty, they were degraded from\nthe priesthood and handed over to the state authorities for\npunishment.  Formula for degradation in the canon law, C. 2 in VI, _de\npoen._ (V, 9). See _Prot. Realencyk._, VI, 589.\n\n[26] The interdict is the prohibition of the administration of the\nsacraments and of the other rites of the Church within the territory\nupon which the interdict is laid (_Realencyk._, IX, 208 f.). Its use\nwas not uncommon in the Middle Ages, and during the time that the\npower of the popes was at its height it proved an effective means of\nbringing refractory rulers to terms. A famous instance is the\ninterdict laid upon the Kingdom of England by Innocent III in 1208.\nInterdicts of more limited local extent were quite frequent. The use\nof the interdict as punishment for trifling infractions of church law\nwas a subject of complaint at the diets of Worms (1521) and Nurnberg\n(1524). See A. Wrede, _Deutsche Reichstagsakten unter Kaiser Karl V._,\nII, pp. 685 f, III, 665.\n\n[27] The statement of which Luther here complains is found in the\nDecretum of Gratian, _Dist. XL, c. 6, Si papa_. In his _Epitome_ (see\nIntroduction, p. 58), Prierias had quoted this canon against Luther,\nas follows: \"_A Pontifex indubitatus_ (i. e., a pope who is not\naccused of heresy or schism) cannot lawfully be deposed or judged\neither by a council or by the whole world, even if he is so scandalous\nas to lead people with him by crowds into the possession of hell.\"\nLuther's comment is: \"Be astonished, O heaven; shudder, O earth!\nBehold, O Christians, what Rome is!\" (_Weimar Ed._, VI, 336).\n\n[28] Gregory the Great, pope 590-604. The passage is found in Migne,\nLXXVI, 203; LXXVII, 34.\n\n[29] Antichrist, the incarnation of all that is hostile to Christ and\nHis Kingdom. His appearance is prophesied in 2 Thess. 2:3-10 (the \"man\nof sin, sitting in the temple of God\"); 1 John 2:18, 22; 4:3, and Rev.\n13. In the early Church the Fathers sometimes thought the prophecies\nfulfilled in the person of some especially pestilent heretic. Wyclif\napplied the term to the pope,--\"the pope would seem to be not the\nvicar of Christ, but the vicar of Antichrist\" (see Loos,\n_Dogmengeschichte_, 4th ed., p. 649). On Dec. 11, 1518, Luther wrote\nto Link: \"You can see whether my suspicion is correct that at the\nRoman court the true Antichrist rules of whom St. Paul speaks\"; and\nMarch 13, 1519, he wrote to Spalatin: \"I am not sure but that the pope\nis Antichrist or his apostle.\" It was the worldly pretensions of the\npapacy which suggested the idea both to Wyclif and to Luther. By the\nyear 1520 Luther had come to the definite conclusion that the pope was\nthe \"man of sin, sitting in the temple of God,\" and this opinion he\nnever surrendered.\n\n[30] See above, p. 65.\n\n[31] According to academic usage, the holder of a Master's degree was\nauthorised to expound the subject named in the degree.\n\n[32] The doctrine of papal infallibility was never officially\nsanctioned in the Middle Ages, but the claim of infallibility was\nrepeatedly made by the champions of the more extreme view of papal\npower, e. g., Augustinus Triumphus (died 1328) in his _Summa de\npotestate Papae_. In his attack upon the XCV Theses (_Dialogus de\npotestate Papae_, Dec, 1517) Prierias had asserted, \"The supreme\npontiff (i. e., the pope) cannot err when giving a decision as\npontiff, i. e., speaking officially (_ex officio_), and doing what in\nhim lies to learn the truth\"; and again, \"Whoever does not rest upon\nthe teaching of the Roman Church and the supreme pontiff as an\ninfallible rule of faith, from which even Holy Scripture draws its\nvigor and authority, is a heretic\" (_Erl. Ed., op. var. arg._, I,\n348). In the _Epitome_ he had said: \"Even though the pope as an\nindividual (_singularis persona_) can do wrong and hold a wrong faith,\nnevertheless as pope he cannot give a wrong decision\" (_Weimar Ed._,\nVI, 337).\n\n[33] Most recently in Prierias's _Epitome_. See preceding note.\n\n[34] Luther had discussed the whole subject of the power of the keys\nin a Latin treatise, _Resolutio super propositione xiii. de potestate\npapae_, of 1519 (_Weimar Ed._, II, pp. 185 ff.), and in the German\ntreatise _The Papacy at Rome_ (Vol. I, pp. 337-394).\n\n[35] Pp. 66 ff.\n\n[36] Another contention of Prierias. In 1518 (Nov. 25th) Luther had\nappealed his cause from the decision of the pope, which he foresaw\nwould be adverse, to the decision of a council to be held at some\nfuture time. In the _Epitome_ Prierias discusses this appeal,\nasserting, among other things, that \"when there is one undisputed\npontiff, it belongs to him alone to call a council,\" and that \"the\ndecrees of councils neither bind nor hold (_nullum ligant vel\nastringunt_) unless they are confirmed by authority of the Roman\npontiff\" (_Weimar Ed._, VI, 335).\n\n[37] i. e., A mere gathering of people.\n\n[38] The Council of Nicaea, the first of the great councils of the\nChurch, assembled in 325 for the settlement of the Arian controversy.\nLuther's statement that it was called by the Emperor Constantine, and\nthat its decisions did not derive their validity from any papal\nconfirmation, is historically correct. On Luther's statements about\nthis council, see _Schaffer, _Luther als Kirchenhistoriker_, pp. 291\nff.; Kohler, Luther und die Kg., pp. 148 ff.\n\n[39] Luther is here referring to the earlier so-called \"ecumenical\"\ncouncils.\n\n[40] i. e., A council which will not be subject to the pope. Cf.\n_Erl. Ed._, xxvi, 112.\n\n[41] i. e., They belong to the \"spiritual estate\"; see above, p. 69.\n\n[42] _Der Haufe_, i. e. Christians considered _en masse_, without\nregard to official position in the Church.\n\n[43] The papal crown dates from the XI Century; the triple crown, or\ntiara, from the beginning of the XIV. It was intended to signify that\nvery superiority of the pope to the rulers of this world, of which\nLuther here complains. See _Realencyk._, X, 532, and literature there\ncited.\n\n[44] A statement made by Augustinus Triumphus. See above, p. 73, note\n5; and below, p. 246.\n\n[45] The Cardinal della Rovere, afterwards Pope Julius II, held at one\ntime the archbishopric of Avignon, the bishoprics of Bologna,\nLausanne, Coutances, Viviers, Mende, Ostia and Velletri, and the\nabbacies of Nonantola and Grottaferrata. This is but one illustration\nof the scandalous pluralism practised by the cardinals. Cf. Lea, in\n_Cambridge Mod. Hist._, I, pp. 650 f.\n\n[46] The complaint that the cardinals were provided with incomes by\nappointment to German benefices goes back to the Council of Constance\n(1415). C. Benrath, p. 87, note 17.\n\n[47] The creation of new cardinals was a lucrative proceeding for the\npopes. On July 31, 1517, Leo X created thirty-one cardinals, and is\nsaid to have received from the new appointees about 300,000 ducats.\nNeedless to say, the cardinals expected to make up the fees out of the\nincome of their livings. See _Weimar Ed._, VI, 417, note I, and\nPastor, _Gesch. der Papste_ IV, I, 137. C. Hutten's _Vadiscus_\n(Bocking IV, 188).\n\n[48] The famous Benedictine monastery just outside the city of\nBamberg.\n\n[49] The proposal made at Constance (see above, p. 82, note 2) was\nmore generous. It suggested a salary of three to four thousand gulden.\n\n[50] As early as the XIV Century both England and France had enacted\nlaws prohibiting the very practices of which Luther here complains. It\nshould be noted, however, that these laws were enforced only\noccasionally, and never very strictly.\n\n[51] The papal court or curia consisted of all the officials of\nvarious sorts who were employed in the transaction of papal business,\nincluding those who were in immediate attendance upon the person of\nthe pope, the so-called \"papal family.\" On the number of such\nofficials in the XVI Century, see Benrath, p. 88, note 18, where\nreference is made to 949 offices, exclusive of those which had to do\nwith the administration of the city of Rome and of the States of the\nChurch, and not including the members of the pope's \"family.\" The\n_Gravamina_ of 1521 complain that the increase of these offices in\nrecent years has added greatly to the financial burdens of the German\nChurch (Wrede, _Deutsche Reichstagsakten unter Kaiser Karl V_, II,\n675).\n\n[52] On the annates, see Vol. I, p. 383, note 1. Early in their\nhistory, which dates from the beginning of the XIV. Century, the\nannates (_fructus medii temporis_) had become a fixed tax on all\nChurch offices which fell vacant, and the complaint of extortion in\ntheir appraisement and collection was frequently raised. The Council\nof Constance restricted the obligation to bishoprics and abbacies, and\nsuch other benefices as had a yearly income of more than 24 gulden.\nThe Council of Basel (1430) resolved to abolish them entirely, but the\nresolution of the Council was inoperative, and in the Concordat of\nVienna (1448) the German nation agreed to abide by the decision of\nConstance. On the use of the term \"annates\" to include other payments\nto the curia, especially the _servitia_, see Catholic Encyclopedia, I,\npp. 537 f.\n\nLuther here alleges that the annates are not applied to their\nostensible purpose, viz., the Crusade. This charge is repeated in the\n_Gravamina_ of the German Nation presented to the Diet of Worms\n(1521), with the additional allegation that the amount demanded in the\nway of annates has materially increased (A. Wrede, _Deutsche\nReichstagsakten unter Kaiser Karl V._, II, pp. 675 f.). Similar\ncomplaints had been made at the Diet of Augsburg (1518), and were\nrepeated at the Diet of Nurnberg (Wrede, _op. cit._, III, 660).\nHutten calls the annates \"a good at robbery\" (_Ed._ Bocking, IV, 207).\nIn England the annates were abolished by Act of Parliament (April 10,\n1532)\n\n[53] On the crusading-indulgences, see Vol. I, p. 18.\n\n[54] i. e., As was done by the Council of Basel. See above, p. 84,\nnote i.\n\n[55] The canons are the clergy attached to a cathedral church who\nconstituted the \"chapter\" of that cathedral, and to whom the right to\nelect the bishop normally belonged.\n\n[56] This whole section deals with the abuse of the \"right of\nreservation,\" i. e., the alleged right of the pope to appoint directly\nto vacant church positions. According to papal theory the right of\nappointment belonged absolutely to the pope, who graciously yielded\nthe right to others under certain circumstances, reserving it to\nhimself in other cases. The practice of reserving the appointments\nseems to date from the XII Century, and was originally an arbitrary\nexercise of papal authority. The rules which came to govern the\nreservation of appointments were regarded as limitations upon the\nauthority of the pope, The rule of the \"papal months,\" as it obtained\nin Germany in Luther's time, is found in the Concordat of Vienna of\n1448 (Mirbt, _Quellen_, 2d ed., No. 261, pp. 167 f.). It provides that\nlivings, with the exception of the higher dignities in the cathedrals\nand the chief posts in the monasteries, which all vacant in the months\nof February, April, June, August, October and December, shall be\nfilled by the ordinary method--election, presentation, appointment by\nthe bishop, etc.--but that vacancies occurring in the other months\nshall be filled by appointment of the pope.\n\n[57] i. e., Church offices which carried with them certain rights of\njurisdiction and gave their possessors a certain honorary precedence\nover other officials of the Church. See Meyer in _Realencyk._, IV,\n658.\n\n[58] Charles V, though elected emperor, was not crowned until October\n22d.\n\n[59] i. e., A living which has not hitherto been filled by papal\nappointment.\n\n[60] This rule, like that of the \"papal months,\" is found in the\nConcordat of Vienna. Luther's complaint is reiterated in the\n_Gravamina_ of 1521. (Wrede, _Deutsche Reichstagsakten_, etc., II,\n673.)\n\n[61] _Des Papstes und der Cardinale Gesinde_, i. e., all those who\nwere counted members of the \"family\" or \"household\" (called\n_Dienstverwandte_ in the Gravamina of 1521) of the pope or of any of\nthe cardinals. The term included those who were in immediate\nattendance upon the pope or the cardinals, and all those to whom, by\nvirtue of any special connection with the curia, the name \"papal\nservant\" could be made to apply. These are the \"courtesans\" to whom\nLuther afterwards refers.\n\n[62] In 1513 Albrecht of Brandenburg was made Archbishop of Magdeburg\nand later in the same year Administrator of Halberstadt; in 1514 he\nbecame Archbishop of Mainz as well. In 1518 he was made cardinal.\n\n[63] This rule, like the others mentioned above, is contained in the\nConcordat of Vienna.\n\n[64] Cf. The _Gravamina_ of 1521, No. 20, _Von anfechtung der\ncordissanen_ (see above, p. 88, note 3), where the name _cordissei_ is\napplied to the practice of attacking titles to benefices. (Wrede, _op.\ncit._, II, pp. 677 f.)\n\n[65] The _pallium_ is a woolen shoulder-cape which is the emblem of\nthe archbishop's office, and which must be secured from Rome. The\nbestowal of the _pallium_ by the pope is a very ancient custom.\nGregory I (590-604) mentions it as _prisca consuetudo_ (_Dist._, C.c.\n3). The canon law prescribes (_Dist. C. c. I_) that the\narchbishop-elect must secure the _pallium_ from Rome within three\nmonths of his election; otherwise he is forbidden to discharge any of\nthe duties of his office. It is regarded as the necessary complement\nof his election and consecration, conferring the \"plenitude of the\npontifical office,\" and the name of archbishop. Luther's charge that\nit had to be purchased \"with a great sum of money\" is substantiated by\nsimilar complaints from the XII Century on, though the language of the\ncanon law makes it evident that Luther's other contention is also\ncorrect, viz., that the _pallium_ was originally bestowed gratis. The\nsum required from the different archbishops varied with the wealth of\ntheir sees, and was a fixed sum in each case. The _Gravamina_ of 1521\ncomplain that the price has been raised: \"Although according to\nancient ordinance the bishoprics of Mainz, Cologne, Salzburg, etc.,\nwere bound to pay or the _pallium_ about 10,000 gulden and no more,\nthey can now scarcely get a _pallium_ from Rome for 20 or 24 thousand\ngulden.\" (Wrede, _op. cit._, II, 675.)\n\n[66] The oath of allegiance to the pope was required before the\npallium could be bestowed (_Dist. C, c._ I). The canon law describes\nthis oath as one \"of allegiance, obedience and unity\" (X, I, 6, c. 4).\n\n[67] See above, p. 86, note 2.\n\n[68] cf. Luther to Spalatin, June 25, 1520 (Enders, II, 424; Smith,\nNo. 271).\n\n[69] i. e., The benefices are treated as though they were vacant.\n\n[70] In the case of certain endowed benefices the right to nominate\nthe incumbent was vested in individuals, usually of the nobility, and\nwas hereditary in their family, This is the so-called _jus patronum_,\nor \"right of patronage.\" The complaint that this right is disregarded\nis frequent in the _Gravamina_ of 1521.\n\n[71] _Commendation_ was one of the practices by which the pope evaded\nthe provision of the canon law which prescribed that the same man\nshould not hold two livings with the cure of souls. The man who\nreceived an office in _commendam_ was not required to fulfil the\nduties attached to the position and when a living or an abbacy was\ngranted in this way during the incumbency of another, the recipient\nreceived its entire income during a subsequent vacancy. The practice\nwas most common in the case of abbacies. At the Diet of Worms (1521),\nDuke George of Saxony, an outspoken opponent of Luther, was as\nemphatic in his protest against this practice as Luther himself\n(Wrede, _op. cit._, II, 665); his protest was incorporated in the\n_Gravamina_ (_ibid._, 672), and reappears in the Appendix (_ibid._,\n708).\n\n[72] A monk who deserted his monastery was known as an \"apostate.\"\n\n[73] i. e., Offices which cannot be united in the hands of one man.\nSee e. g., note 3, p. 91.\n\n[74] A gloss is a note explanatory of a word or passage of doubtful\nmeaning. The glosses are the earliest form of commentary on the Bible.\nThe glosses of the canon law are the more or less authoritative\ncomments of the teachers, and date from the time when the study of the\ncanon law became a part of the theological curriculum. Their aim is\nchiefly to show how the law applies to practical cases which may\narise. The so-called _glossa ordinaria_ had in Luther's time an\nauthority almost equal to that of the _corpus juris_ itself. Cf.\n_Cath. Encyc._, VI, pp. 588 f.\n\n[75] The thing which was bought was, of course, the dispensation, or\npermission to avail oneself of the gloss.\n\n[76] _Dataria_ is the name for that department of the curia which had\nto deal with the granting of dispensations and the disposal of\nbenefices. _Datarius_ is the title of the official who presided over\nthis department.\n\n[77] See above, p. 88, note 2. For a catalogue of papal appointments\nbestowed upon two \"courtesans,\" Johannes Zink und Johannes\nIngenwinkel, see Schulte, _Die Fugger in Rom_, I, pp. 282, 291 ff.\nBetween 1513 and 1521, Zink received 56 appointments, and Ingenwinkel\nreceived, between 1496 and 1521, no fewer than 106.\n\n[78] See above, p. 87, note 1.\n\n[79] So Albrecht of Mainz bore the title of \"administrator\" of\nHalberstadt.\n\n[80] The name of this practice was \"regression\" (_regressus_).\n\n[81] The complaint was made at Worms (1521) that it was impossible for\na German to secure a clear title to a benefice at Rome unless he\napplied for it in the name of an Italian, to whom he was obliged to\npay a percentage of the income, a yearly pension, for a fixed sum of\nmoney for the use of his name (Wrede, _op. cit._, II, 712).\n\n[82] _Simony_--the sin of Simon Magus (Acts 8:18-20)--the sin\ncommitted by the sale or the purchase of an office or position which\nis normally conferred by a ritual act of the Church. In the ancient\nand earlier mediaeval Church the use of money to secure preferment was\nheld to invalidate the title of the guilty party to the position thus\nsecured, and the acceptance of money for such a purpose was an offence\npunishable by deposition and degradation. The \"heresy of Simon\" was\nconceived to be the greatest of all heresies. The traffic in Church\noffices, which became a flagrant abuse from the time of John XXII\n(1316-1334), would have been regarded in earlier days as the most\natrocious simony.\n\n[83] The _reservatio mentalis_ or _in pectore_ is the natural\nconsequence of the papal theory that the right of appointment to all\nChurch offices of every grade belongs to the pope (see above, p. 86,\nnote 3). According to the theory of the canonists (Lancelotti,\n_Institutiones juris canonici. Lib. I, Tit._ XXVII) this right is\nexercised either _per petitionem alterius_, i. e., by confirmation of\nthe election, appointment, etc., of others, or _proprio motu_, i. e.,\n\"on his own motion.\" In ordinary cases the exercise of the appointing\npower was limited by rules, which though bitterly complained of (see\nabove, pp. 86 ff, and notes), were generally understood, but the\ntheory allowed any given case to be made an exception to the rules. Of\nsuch a case it was said that it was \"reserved in the heart of the\nPope,\" and the appointment was then made \"on his own motion.\" Hutten\nsays of this _reservatio in pectore_ that \"it is an easy, agile and\nslippery thing, and bears no comparison to any other form of cheating\"\n(Ed. Booking, IV, 215).\n\n[84] For a similar instance quoted at Worms (1521), see Wrede, _op.\ncit._, II, 710.\n\n[85] The three chief centers of foreign commerce in the XV and the\nearly XVI Century. The annual fairs (_Jahrmarkt_), held at stated\ntimes in various cities, brought great numbers of merchants together\nfrom widely distant points, and were the times when the greater part\nof the wholesale business for the year was done.;\n\n[86] Built by Innocent VIII (1454-1490).\n\n[87] See above, p. 93, note 2.\n\n[88] The Church law forbade the taking of interest on loans of money.\n\n[89] During the Middle Ages all questions touching marriage and\ndivorce, including, therefore, the question of the legitimacy of\nchildren, were governed by the laws of the Church, on the theory that\nmarriage was a sacrament.\n\n[90] i. e., By buying dispensations.\n\n[91] The sums paid or special dispensations were so called.\n\n[92] The toll which the \"robber-barons\" of the Rhine levied upon\nmerchants passing through their domains.\n\n[93] _Ja wend das blat umb szo indistu es_--The translators have\nadopted the interpretation of O. Clemen, _L's. Werke_, I, 383.\n\n[94] The Fuggers of Augsburg were the greatest of the German\ncapitalists in the XVI Century. They were international bankers, \"the\nRothschilds of the XVI Century.\" Their control of large capital\nenabled them to advance large sums of money to the territorial rulers,\nwho were in a chronic state of need. In return for these favors they\nreceived monopolistic concessions by which their capital was further\nincreased. The spiritual, as well as the temporal lords, availed\nthemselves regularly of the services of this accommodating firm. They\nwere the pope's financial representatives in Germany. On their\nconnection with the indulgence against which Luther protested, see\nVol. I, p. 21; on their relations with the papacy, see Schulte, _Die\nFugger in Rom_, 2 Vols., Leipzig, 1904.\n\n[95] Certificates entitling the holder to choose his own confessor and\nauthorizing the confessor to absolve him from certain classes of\n\"reserved\" sins; referred to in the XCV Theses as _confessionalia_.\nCf.  Vol. I, p. 22.\n\n[96] Certificates granting their possessor permission to eat milk,\neggs, butter and cheese on fast days.\n\n[97] The word is used here in the broad sense, and means dispensations\nof all sorts, including those just mentioned, relating to penance.\n\n[98] Equivalent to \"carrying coals to Newcastle.\"\n\n[99] The _Campo di Fiore_, a Roman market-place, restored and adorned\nat great expense by Eugenius IV (1431-1447), and his successors.\n\n[100] A part of the Vatican palace notorious as the banqueting-hall of\nAlexander VI (1402-1503), turned by Julius II (1503-1513) into a\nmuseum for the housing of his wonderful and expensive collection of\nancient works of art. Luther is hinting that the indulgence money has\nbeen spent on these objects rather than on the maintenance of the\nChurch. Cf. Clemen, I, 384, note 15.\n\n[101] i. e., The offices and positions in Rome which were for sale.\nSee Benrath, p. 88, note 18; p. 95, note 36.\n\n[102] See above, p. 84, note 1.\n\n[103] The passage is chapter 31, _Filiis vel nepotibus_. It provides\nthat in case the income of endowments bequeathed to the Church is\nmisused, and appeals to the bishop and archbishop fail to correct the\nmisuse, the heirs of the testator may appeal to the royal courts.\nLuther wishes this principle applied to the annates.\n\n[104] See above, pp. 91 f.\n\n[105] See above, p. 91.\n\n[106] See above, p. 94.\n\n[107] i. e.. Promises to bestow on certain persons livings not yet\nvacant. Complaint of the evils arising out of the practice was\ncontinually heard from the year 1416. For the complaints made at Worms\n(1521), see Wrede, _op. cit._, II, 710.\n\n[108] See above, pp. 86 f.\n\n[109] See above, pp. 92 f.\n\n[110] See above, p. 93.\n\n[111] See above, p. 89.\n\n[112] Rules for the transaction of papal business, including such\nmatters as appointments and the like. At Worms (1521) the Estates\ncomplain that these rules are made to the advantage of the\n\"courtesans\" and the disadvantage of the Germans. (Wrede, _op. cit._,\nII, pp. 675 f.)\n\n[113] The local Church authorities, here equivalent to \"the bishops.\"\nOn use of term see _Realencyk._, XIV, 424.\n\n[114] The sign of the episcopal office; as regards archbishops, the\n_pallium_; see above, p. 8q, and note.\n\n[115] See above, p. 87, note 1.\n\n[116] The first of the ecumenical councils (A. D. 325). The decree to\nwhich Luther here refers is canon IV of that Council. Cf. Kohler, _L.\nund die Kg._, pp. 139 ff.\n\n[117] The primate is the ranking archbishop of a country.\n\n[118] \"Exemption\" was the practice by which monastic houses were\nwithdrawn from the jurisdiction of the bishops and made directly\nsubject to the pope. The practice seems to have originated in the X\nCentury with the famous monastery of Cluny (918), but it was almost\nuniversal in the case of the houses of the mendicant orders. The\nbishops made it a constant subject of complaint, and the Lateran\nCouncil (Dec. 19, 1516) passed a decree abolishing all monastic\nexemptions, though the decree does not seem to have been effective.\nSee _Creighton_, History of the Papacy, V, 266.\n\n[119] i. e., Antichrist. See above, p. 73, note 2.\n\n[120] The papal interference in the conduct of the local Church courts\nwas as flagrant as in the appointments, of which Luther has heretofore\nspoken. At Worms (1521) it was complained that cases were cited to\nRome as a court of first instance, and the demand was made that a\nregular course of appeals should be re-established. Wrede, _op. cit._,\nII, 672, 718.\n\n[121] The reference is Canon V of the Council of Sardica (A. D. 343),\nincorporated in the canon law as a canon of Nicaea (_Pt. II, qu. 6, c.\n5_). See Kohler, _L. und die Kg._, 151.\n\n[122] i. e., Appealed to Rome for decision. This is the subject of the\nfirst of the 102 _Gravamina_ of 1521 (Wrede, _op. cit._, II, 672).\n\n[123] The judges in the bishops' courts. The complaint is that they\ninterfere with the administration of justice by citing into their\ncourts cases which properly belong in the lay courts, and enforce\ntheir verdicts (usually fines) by means of ecclesiastical censures.\nThe charges against these courts are specified in the _Gravamina_ of\n1521, Nos. 73-100 (Wrede, _op. cit._, II, 694-703).\n\n[124] The _signatura gratiae_ and the _signatura justitiae_ were the\nbureaus through which the pope regulated those matters of\nadministration which belonged to his own special prerogative.\n\n[125] See above, pp. 88 f.\n\n[126] See above, p. 88, note 3.\n\n[127] See above, p. 94.\n\n[128] i. e., The cases in which a priest was forbidden to give\nabsolution. The reference here is to cases in which only the pope\ncould absolve. Cf. _The XCV Theses_, Vol. I, p. 30.\n\n[129] A papal bull published annually at Rome on Holy Thursday. It was\ndirected against heretics, but to the condemnation of the heretics and\ntheir heresies was added a list of offences which could receive\nabsolution only from the pope, or by his authorisation. In 1522 Luther\ntranslated this bull into German as a New Year present for the pope\n(_Weimar Ed._, VIII, 691). On Luther's earlier utterances concerning\nit, see Kohler, _L. u. die Kg._, pp. 59 2.\n\n[130] The breve is a papal decree, of equal authority with the bull,\nbut differing from it in form, and usually dealing with matters of\nsmaller importance.\n\n[131] Cf. Luther's earlier statement to the same effect in _A\nDiscussion of Confession_, Vol. I, pp. 96 f.\n\n[132] See above, p. 99.\n\n[133] The Fifth Lateran Council (1512-17).\n\n[134] See above, p. 90, note 1.\n\n[135] In the canon law, _Decretal. Greg. lib. i, tit. 6, cap. 4_. The\ndecretal forbids the bestowing of the pallium (see above, p. 89, note\n3) on an archbishop elect, until he shall first have sworn allegiance\nto the Holy See.\n\n[136] The induction of Church officials into office. The term was used\nparticularly of the greater offices--those of bishop and abbot. These\noffices carried with them the enjoyment of certain incomes, and the\npossession of certain temporal powers. For this reason the right of\ninvestiture was a bone of contention between popes and emperors during\nthe Middle Ages.\n\n[137] Especially in the time of the Emperors Henry IV and V\n(1056-1125).\n\n[138] The German Empire was regarded during the Middle Ages as a\ncontinuation of the Roman Empire. (See below, p. 153.) The right to\ncrown an emperor was held to be the prerogative of the pope; until the\npope bestowed the imperial crown, the emperor bore the title, \"King of\nthe Romans.\"\n\n[139] In the canon law, _Decretal. Greg. lib. i, tit. 33, cap. 6._\n\n[140] In the treatise, _Resolutio Lutheriana super propositione XIII,\nde potestate papae_ (1520). _Weimar Ed._, II, pp. 217 ff.; _Erl. Ed.,\nop. var. arg._, Ill, pp. 293 ff.\n\n[141] See p. 70.\n\n[142] cf. _The Papacy at Rome_, Vol. I, pp. 357 f.\n\n[143] A decree of Pope Clement V of 1313, incorporated subsequently in\nthe canon law, _Clement, lib. ii, tit. 11, cap. 2._\n\n[144] A forged document of the VIII Century, professing to come from\nthe hand of the Emperor Constantine (306-337). The Donation conveyed\nto the pope title to the city of Rome (the capital had been removed to\nConstantinople), certain lands in Italy and \"the islands of the sea.\"\nIt was used by the popes of the Middle Ages to support their claims to\nworldly power, and its genuineness was not disputed. In 1440, however,\nLaurentius Valla, an Italian humanist, published a work in which he\nproved that the Donation was a forgery. This work was republished in\nGermany by Ulrich von Hutten in 1517, and seems to have come to\nLuther's attention in the early part of 1520, just before the\ncomposition of the present treatise (C. Enders II, 332). Luther\nsubsequently (1537) issued an annotated translation of the text of the\nDonation (_Erl. Ed._, XXV, pp. 176 ff.).\n\n[145] The papal claim to temporal sovereignty over this little\nkingdom, which comprised the island of Sicily and certain territories\nin Southern Italy, goes back to the XI Century, and was steadily\nasserted during the whole of the later Middle Ages. It was one of the\nquestions at issue in the conflict between the Emperor Frederick II\n(1200-1260) and the popes, and played an important part in the history\nof the stormy times which followed the all of the Hohenstaufen. The\npopes claimed the right to award the kingdom to a ruler who would\nswear allegiance to the Holy See. The right to the kingdom was at this\ntime contested between the royal houses of France and of Spain, of\nwhich latter house the Emperor Charles V was the head.\n\n[146] The popes claimed temporal sovereignty over a strip of territory\nin Italy, beginning at Rome and stretching in a northeasterly\ndirection across the peninsula to a point on the Adriatic south of\nVenice, including the cities and lands which Luther mentions. This\nformed the so-called \"States of the Church.\" The attempt to\nconsolidate the States and make the papal sovereignty effective\ninvolved Popes Alexander VI (1492-1503) and Julius II (1503-1513) in\nwar and entangled them in political alliances with the European powers\nand petty Italian states. It resulted at last in actual war between\nPope Clement VII and the Emperor Charles V (1526-1527). See Cambridge\n_Modern History_, I, 104-143; 219-252, and literature cited pp.\n706-713; 727 f.\n\n[147] A free translation of the Vulgate, _Nemo militans Deo_.\n\n[148] The kissing of the pope's feet was a part of the \"adoration\"\nwhich he claimed as his right. See above, p. 108.\n\n[149] The three paragraphs enclosed in brackets were added by Luther\nto the 2d edition; see Introduction, p. 59.\n\n[150] The holy places of Rome had long been favorite objects of\npilgrimage, and the practice had been zealously fostered by the popes\nthrough the institution of the \"golden\" or \"jubilee years.\" Cf. Vol.\nI, p. 18, and below, p. 114.\n\n[151] Cf. the Italian proverb, \"God is everywhere except at Rome;\nthere He has a vicar.\"\n\n[152] Cf. Hutten's saying in _Vadiscus_: \"Three things there are which\nthose who go to Rome usually bring home with them, a bad conscience, a\nruined stomach and an empty purse.\" (Ed. Bocking, IV, p. 169.)\n\n[153] The \"golden\" or \"jubilee years\" were the years when special\nrewards were attached to worship at the shrines of Rome. The custom\nwas instituted by Boniface VIII in 1300, and it was the intention to\nmake every hundredth year a jubilee. In 1343 the interval between\njubilees was fixed at fifty, in 1389 at thirty-three, in 1473 at\ntwenty-five years. Cf. Vol. I, p. 18.\n\n[154] Cf. the statements in the _Treatise on Baptism_ and the\n_Discussion of Confession_, Vol. I, pp. 68 ff., 98.\n\n[155] The houses, or monasteries, of the mendicant or \"begging\"\norders--the \"friars.\" The members of these orders were sworn to\nsupport themselves on the alms of the faithful.\n\n[156] The three leading mendicant orders were the Franciscan (the\nMinorites, or \"little brothers\"), founded by St. Francis of Assisi\n(died 1226), the Dominican (the \"preaching brothers\"), founded by St.\nDominic (died 1221), and the Augustinian Hermits, to which Luther\nhimself belonged, and which claimed foundation by St. Augustine (died\n430).\n\n[157] The interference of the friars in the duties of the parish\nclergy was a continual subject of complaint through this period.\n\n[158] By the middle of the XV Century there were eight distinct sects\nwithin the Franciscan order alone (See _Realencyk._, VI, pp. 212 ff.),\nand Luther had himself taken part in a vigorous dispute between two\nparties in the Augustinian order.\n\n[159] St. Agnes the Martyr, put to death in the beginning of the IV\nCentury, one of the favorite saints of the Middle Ages. See Schafer,\n_L. als Kirchenhistoriker_, p. 235.\n\n[160] One of the most famous of the German convents, founded in 936.\n\n[161] The celebrated Church Father (died 420). The passages referred\nto are in _Migne_, XXII, 656, and XXVI, 562.\n\n[162] Or \"community\" (_Gemeine_). Cf. _The Papacy at Rome_, Vol. I.\np. 345, note 4. See also _Dass eine christl. Gemeine Recht und Macht\nhabe_, etc. _Weimar Ed._ XI, pp. 408 ff.\n\n[163] Or \"congregation.\" See note 2.\n\n[164] i. e.. At a time later than that of the Apostles.\n\n[165] The first absolute prohibition of marriage to the clergy is\ncontained in a decree of Pope Siricius and dated 385. See H. C. Lea,\n_History of Sacerdotal Celibacy_, 3d ed. (1907), I, pp. 59 ff.\n\n[166] The priests of the Greek Church are required to marry, and the\ncontroversy over celibacy was involved in the division between the\nGreek and Roman Churches.\n\n[167] Cf. Hutten's _Vadiscus_ (Bocking, IV, 199).\n\n[168] i. e., Lie in Roman appointment.\n\n[169] i. e., The ministry in the congregation. See above, p. 119.\n\n[170] _Quantum ragilitas humana permittit_. A qualification of the\nvow.\n\n[171] i. e., Celibacy. _Non promitto castitatem_.\n\n[172] _Fragilitas humana non permittit caste vivere_.\n\n[173] _Angelica fortitudo at coelestis virtus_.\n\n[174] The court-jester was allowed unusual freedom of speech. See\nPrefatory Letter above, p. 62.\n\n[175] The laws governing marriage were entirely the laws of the\nChurch. The canon law prohibited marriage of blood-relatives as far as\nthe seventh degree of consanguinity. In 1204 the prohibition was\nrestricted to the first our degrees; lawful marriage within these\ndegrees was possible only by dispensation, which was not all too\ndifficult to secure, especially by those who were willing to pay for\nit (see above, p. 96). The relation of god-parents to god-children was\nalso held to establish a \"spiritual consanguinity\" which might serve\nas a bar to lawful marriage. See Benrath, p. 103, note 74, and in the\nBabylonian Captivity, below, p. 265.\n\n[176] This Luther actually did. When he burned the papal bull of\nexcommunication (Dec. 10, 1520) a copy of the canon law was also given\nto the flames.\n\n[177] i. e., The marriage of the clergy.\n\n[178] On this sort of reserved cases see Discussion of Confession,\nVol. I, pp. 96 ff.\n\n[179] \"Irregularity\" is the condition of any member of a monastic\norder who has violated the prescriptions of the order and been\ndeprived, in consequence, of the benefits enjoyed by those who live\nunder the _regula_, viz., the rule of the order.\n\n[180] The three kinds of masses are really but one thing, viz., masses\nfor the dead, celebrated on certain fixed days in each year, in\nconsideration of the enjoyment of certain incomes, received either out\nof bequeathed endowments or from the heirs of the supposed\nbeneficiaries.\n\n[181] i. e., Even when the mass is decently said.\n\n[182] See above, p. 72, note 1.\n\n[183] See above, p. 104.\n\n[184] _Das geistliche Unrecht_.\n\n[185] The _Treatise concerning the Ban_, above, pp. 33 ff.\n\n[186] i. e., To those who teach and enforce the canon law.\n\n[187] Luther means the saint's-days and minor religious holidays. See\nalso the _Discourse on Good Works_, Vol. I, pp. 240 f.\n\n[188] Or \"congregation.\"\n\n[189] i. e., City-council.\n\n[190] _Kirchweihen_, i. e., the anniversary celebration of the\nconsecration of a church. These days had become  feast days for the\nparish, and were observed in anything but a spiritual fashion.\n\n[191] i. e., Occasions for drunkenness, gain and gambling.\n\n[192] See above, pp. 96 f.\n\n[193] See above, p. 98, note 2.\n\n[194] Letters entitling their holder to the benefits of the masses\nfounded by the sodalities or confraternities. See Benrath, p. 103.\n\n[195] See above, p. 98, and Vol. I, p. 22.\n\n[196] The pun is untranslatable,--_Netz, Gesetz solt ich sagen_.\n\n[197] What the pope sold was release from the \"snares\" and \"nets,\"\nviz., dispensation.\n\n[198] i. e., Even into the law of the church.\n\n[199] _Die wilden Kapellen und Feldkirchen_, i. e., churches which are\nbuilt in the country, where there are no congregations.\n\n[200] A little town in East Prussia, where was displayed a sacramental\nwafer, said to have been miraculously preserved from a fire which\ndestroyed the church in 1383. It was alleged that at certain times\nthis wafer exuded drops of blood, reverenced as the blood of Christ,\nand many miracles were said to have been performed by it. Wilsnack\nearly became a favorite resort for pilgrims. In 1412 the archbishop of\nPrague, at the instigation of John Hus, forbade the Bohemians to go\nthere. Despite the protests of the Universities of Leipzig and Erfurt,\nPope Eugenius IV in 1446 granted special indulgences for this\npilgrimage, and the popularity of the shrine was undiminished until\nthe time of the Reformation. Cf. _Realencyk_, xxi, pp. 347 ff.\n\n[201] In Mecklenburg, where another relic of \"the Holy Blood\" was\ndisplayed after 1491. C. Benrath, pp. 104 f.\n\n[202] The \"Holy Coat of Trier\" was believed by the credulous to be the\nseamless coat of Christ, which the soldiers did not rend. It was first\nexhibited in 1512, but was said to have been presented to the\ncathedral church of Trier by the Empress Helena, mother of Constantine\nthe Great.\n\n[203] Pilgrimage to the Grimmenthal in Meiningen began in 1499. An\nimage of the Virgin, declared to have been miraculously created, was\ndisplayed there, and was alleged to work wonderful cures, especially\nof syphilis.\n\n[204] The \"Fair Virgin (_die schone Maria_) of Regensburg\" was an\nimage of the Virgin similar to that exhibited in the Grimmenthal. The\nshrine was opened March 25, 1519, and within a month 50,000 pilgrims\nare said to have worshipped there. (_Weimar Ed._, VI, 447, note 1).\nFor another explanation see Benrath, p. 105.\n\n[205] The pilgrimages were a source of large revenue, derived from the\nsale of medals which were worn as amulets, the fees for masses at the\nshrines, and the free-will offerings of the pilgrims. A large part of\nthis revenue accrued to the bishop of the diocese, though the popes\nnever overlooked the profits which the sale of indulgences or worship\nat these shrines could produce. In the _Gravamina_ of 1521 complaint\nis made that the bishops demand at least 25 to 33 per cent, of the\nofferings made at shrines of pilgrimage (Wrede, _op. cit._, II, 687).\n\n[206] i. e., Every bishop.\n\n[207] The possession of a saint gave a church a certain reputation and\ndistinction, which was sufficiently coveted to make local Church\nauthorities willing to pay roundly for the canonisation of a departed\nbishop or other local dignitary. Cf. Hutten's _Vadiscus_ (Bocking, IV,\n232).\n\n[208] Archbishop of Florence (died 1450). He was canonised, May 31,\n1523, by Pope Hadrian VI. When Luther wrote this the process of\ncanonisation had already begun.\n\n[209] _Indulta_, i. e., grants of special privilege.\n\n[210] \"Lead,\" the leaden seal attached to the bull; \"hide\", the\nparchment on which it is written; \"the string,\" the ribbon or silken\ncord from which the seals depend; \"wax,\" the seal holding the cord to\nthe parchment.\n\n[211] Franciscans, Dominicans, Augustinians, Carmelites and Servites.\n\n[212] _Botschaten_, interpreted by _Benrath_ (p. 105), Clemen (I, 406,\nnote) and Weimar Ed. (VI, 406, note 1) as a reference to the\n_stationarii_. They were wandering beggars who, for an alms, would\nenroll the contributor in the list of beneficiaries of their patron\nsaint, an alleged insurance against disease, accident, etc. They were\nclassified according to the names of their patron saints, St. Anthony,\nSt. Hubert, St. Valentine, etc. Protests against their operations were\nraised at the Diets of Worms (1521) and Nurnberg (1523). Included in\nthese protests are the _terminarii_, i.e., the collectors of alms sent\nout by the mendicant orders. See Wrede, _op. cit._, II, 678, 688, III,\n651, and Benrath, loc. cit.\n\n[213] _Wallbruder_, the professional pilgrims who spent their lives in\nwandering from one place of pilgrimage to another and subsisted on the\nalms of the faithful.\n\n[214] i. e., If the plan above proposed were adopted.\n\n[215] See above, p. 129, note 1.\n\n[216] See _Treatise on the New Testament_, Vol. I, pp. 308 ff.\n\n[217] In the _Babylonian Captivity_ (below, pp. 291 f.) Luther\ndefinitely excludes penance from the number of sacraments, but see\nalso p. 177.\n\n[218] The sodalities (\"fraternities,\" \"confraternities\"), still an\nimportant institution in the Roman Church, flourished especially in\nthe XVI Century. They are associations for devotional purposes. The\nmembers of the sodalities are obligated to the recitation of certain\nprayers and the attendance upon certain masses at stipulated times. By\nvirtue of membership in the association each member is believed to\nparticipate in the benefits accruing from these \"good works\" of all\nthe members. In the case of most of the sodalities membership entitled\nthe member to the enjoyment of certain indulgences. In 1520 Wittenberg\nboasted of 20 such fraternities, Cologne of 80, Hamburg of more than\n100 (Realencyk., Ill, 437). In 1519 Degenhard Peffinger, of\nWittenberg, was a member of 8 such fraternities in his home city, and\nof 27 in other places. For Luther's view of the sodalities see above,\npp. 8, 26 ff. On the whole subject see Benrath, pp. 106 f.; Kolde in\n_Realencyk._, III, pp. 434 ff.; Lea, _Hist. of Conf. and Indulg_, III,\npp. 470 ff.\n\n[219] See above, p. 98, note 2.\n\n[220] See above, p. 128, note 5.\n\n[221] The excesses committed at the feasts of the religious societies\nwere often a public scandal. See Lea, _Hist, of Conf. and Indulg_,\nIII, pp. 437 ff.\n\n[222] \"Faculties\" were extraordinary powers, usually for the granting\nof indulgences and of absolution in \"reserved cases\" (see above, p.\n105, note 3). They were bestowed by the pope and could be revoked by\nhim at any time. Sometimes they were given to local Church officials,\nbut were usually held by the legates or commissaries sent from Rome.\nComplaints were made at the Diets of Worms (1520) and Nurnberg (1523)\nthat the papal commissaries and legates interfered with the ordinary\nmethods of ecclesiastical jurisdiction and appointment. See Weede,\n_op. cit._, II, 673, III, 653.\n\n[223] Wladislav I forced the Sultan to sue for peace in 1443. At the\ninstigation of the papal legate, Cardinal Caesarini, who represented\nthat the treaty had not been approved by the pope, and absolved the\nking from the fulfilment of its conditions, he renewed the war in\n1444. At the battle of Varna, Nov. 10th, 1444, the Hungarians were\ndecisively defeated, and Wladislav and Caesarini both killed. See\nCreighton, _Hist. of the Papacy_, III, 67.\n\n[224] John Hus and Jerome of Prague were convicted of heresy by the\nCouncil of Constance and burned at the stake, the former July 6th,\n1415, the latter May 30th, 1416. Hus had come to Constance under the\nsafe-conduct of the Emperor Sigismund. Luther is in error when he\nassumes that Jerome had a similar safe-conduct. In September, 1415,\nthe Council passed a decree which asserted that \"neither by natural,\ndivine or human law was any promise to be observed to the prejudice of\nthe catholic faith.\" On the whole matter of the safe-conduct and its\nviolation see Lea, _Hist. of the Inquisition in the M.A._, II, pp. 453\nff.\n\n[225] The League of Cambray, negotiated in 1508 for war against\nVenice. In 1510 Venice made terms with the pope and detached him from\nthe alliance, and the result was war between the pope and the King of\nFrance. See Cambridge _Modern History_, I, pp. 130 ii., and literature\nthere cited.\n\n[226] i. e. The Hussites. After the martyrdom of Hus his followers\nmaintained for a time a strong organisation in Bohemia, and resisted\nwith arms all attempts to force them into conformity with the Roman\nChurch. The Council of Basel succeeded (1434) in reconciling the more\nmoderate party among the Bohemians (the Calixtines) by allowing the\nadministration of the cup to the laity. The more extreme party,\nhowever, refused to subscribe the _Compactata_ of Basel. Though they\nsoon ceased to be a actor in the political situation, they remained\noutside the Church and perpetuated the teachings of Hus in sectarian\norganisations. The most important of these, the so-called Bohemian\nBrethren, had extended into Poland and Prussia before Luther's time.\nSee _Realencyk._, Ill, 465-467.\n\n[227] See above, p. 140, note 1.\n\n[228] See Kohler, _L. und die Kirchengesch._, 139, 151.\n\n[229] The Archbishop of Prague was primate of the Church in Bohemia.\n\n[230] The dioceses of these bishops were contiguous to that of the\nArchbishop of Prague.\n\n[231] Bishop of Carthage, 240-258 A. D.\n\n[232] _Lass man ihn ein gut jar ha ben_, literally, \"Bid him\ngood-day.\"\n\n[233] One of the chief points of controversy between the Roman Church\nand the Hussites. The Roman Church administered to the laity only the\nbread, the Hussites used both elements. See below, pp. 178 f.\n\n[234] Luther had not yet reached the conviction that the\nadministration of the cup to the laity was a necessity, but see the\nargument in _the Babylonian Captivity_, below, pp. 178 ff.\n\n[235] The Bohemian Brethren, who are here distinguished from the\nHussites, Cf. _Realencyk._, Ill, 452, 49.\n\n[236] St. Thomas Aquinas, the great Dominican theologian of the XIII.\nCentury (1225-74), whose influence is still dominant in Roman\ntheology.\n\n[237] The view of the sacramental presence adopted by William of\nOccam. For Luther's own view at this time, see below, pp. 187 ff.\n\n[238] i. e., If they did not believe in the real presence of the body\nand blood of Christ in the Lord's Supper.\n\n[239] Places for training youths in Greek glory.\n\n[240] The philosophy of Aristotle dominated the mediaeval universities.\nIt not only provided the forms in which theological and religious\ntruth came to expression, but it was the basis of all scientific study\nin every department. The man who did not know Aristotle was an\nignoramus.\n\n[241] Or, \"I have read him.\" Luther's _lesen_ allows of either\ninterpretation.\n\n[242] Duns Scotus, died 1308. In the XV and XVI Centuries he was\nregarded as the rival of Thomas Aquinas for first place among the\ntheological teachers of the Church.\n\n[243] i. e., In the universities.\n\n[244] See above, pp. 94 f.\n\n[245] i. e., \"The chamber of his heart.\" Boniface VIII (1294-1303) had\ndecreed, _Romanus pontiex jura omnia in scrinio pectoris sui censetur\nhabere_, \"the Roman pontiff has all laws in the chamber of his heart.\"\nThis decree was received into the canon law (_c._ I, de const. In VIto\n(I, 2)).\n\n[246] _Doctores decretorum_, \"Doctor of Decrees,\" an academic degree\noccasionally given to professors of Canon Law; _doctor scrinii\npapalis_, \"Doctor of the Papal Heart.\"\n\n[247] The introduction of Roman law into Germany, as the accepted law\nof the empire, had begun in the XII Century. With the decay of the\nfeudal system and the increasing desire of the rulers to provide their\ngovernment with some effective legal system, its application became\nmore widespread, until by the end of the XV Century it was the\naccepted system of the empire. The attempt to apply this ancient law\nto conditions utterly different from those of the time when it was\nformulated, and the continual conflict between the Roman law, the\nfeudal customs and the remnants of Germanic legal ideas, naturally\ngave rise to a state of affairs which Luther could justly speak of as\n\"a wilderness.\"\n\n[248] \"Sentences\" (_Sententiae, libri sententiarum_) was the title of\nthe text-books in theology. Theological instruction was largely by way\nof comment on the most famous book of Sentences, that of Peter\nLombard.\n\n[249] Cf. Vol. I, p. 7.\n\n[250] i. e., Doctors.\n\n[251] The head-dress of the doctors.\n\n[252] See above, p. 118, note 2.\n\n[253] i. e., The monasteries and nunneries.\n\n[254] i. e.. The name of Christian.\n\n[255] This section did not appear in the first edition; see\nIntroduction, p. 59.\n\n[256] Charles the Great, King of the Franks, was crowned Roman Emperor\nby Pope Leo III in the year 800 A. D. He was a German, but regarded\nhimself successor to the line of emperors who had ruled at Rome. The\nfiction was fostered by the popes, and the German kings, after\nreceiving the papal coronation, were called Roman Emperors. From this\ncame the name of the German Empire of the Middle Ages, \"the Holy Roman\nEmpire of the German Nation.\" The popes of the later Middle Ages\nclaimed that the bestowal of the imperial dignity lay in the power of\nthe pope, and Pope Clement V (1313) even claimed that in the event of\na vacancy the pope was the possessor of the imperial power (cf. above,\np. 109). On the whole subject see Bryce, _Holy Roman Empire_, 2d ed.\n(1904), and literature there cited.\n\n[257] The city of Rome was sacked by the Visigoths in 410.\n\n[258] Luther is characteristically careless about his chronology. By\nthe \"Turkish Empire\" he means the Mohammedan power.\n\n[259] _So sol man die Deutschen teuschen und mit teuschen teuschenn_,\ni.e., made Germans (_Deutsche_) by cheating (_teuschen_) them.\n\n[260] See _Cambridge Mediaeval History_, I (1911), pp. 244 f.\n\n[261] Such a law as Luther here suggests was proposed to the Diet of\nWorms (1521). Text in Wrede, _Reischstagsakten_, II, 335-341.\n\n[262] Cf. Luther's _Sermon von Kaubandlung und Wucher_, of 1524.\n(_Weim. Ed. XV_, pp. 293)\n\n[263] Spices were one of the chief articles of foreign commerce in the\nXVI Century. The discovery of the cape-route to India had given the\nPortuguese a practical monopoly of this trade. A comparative statement\nof the cost of spices for a period of years was reported to the Diet\nof Nurnberg (1523). See Wrede, _op. cit._, III, 576.\n\n[264] The _Zinskauf_ or _Rentenkauf_ was a means or evading the\nprohibition of usury. The buyer purchased an annuity, but the purchase\nprice was not regarded as a loan, or it could not be recalled, and the\nannual payments could not therefore be called interest.\n\n[265] The practice was legalised by the Lateran Council, 1512.\n\n[266] The XVI Century was the hey-day of the great trading-companies,\namong which the Fuggers of Augsburg (see above, p. 97, note 5) easily\ntook first place. The effort of these companies was directed toward\nsecuring monopolies in the staple articles of commerce, and their\nability to finance large enterprises made it possible for them to gain\npractical control of the home markets. The sharp rise in the cost of\nliving which took place on the first half of the XVI Century was laid\nat their door. The Diet of Cologne (1512) had passed a stringent law\nagainst monopolies which had, however, failed to suppress them. The\nDiet of Worms (1521) debated the subject (Wrede, _Reichstagsakten_ II,\npp. 355 iff.) \"in somewhat heated language\" (_ibid._, 842), but failed\nto agree upon methods of suppression. The subject was discussed again\nat the Diet of Nurnberg (1523) and various remedies were proposed\n(ibid., Ill, 556-599).\n\n[267] The profits of the trading-companies were enormous. The 9 per\ncent, annually of the Welser (Ehrenberg, _Zeitalter der Fugger_, I,\n195), pales into insignificance beside the 1634 per cent, by which the\nfortune of the Fuggers grew in twenty-one years (Schulte, _Die Fugger\nin Rom_, I, 3). In 1511 a certain Bartholomew Rem invested 900 gulden\nin the Hochstetter company of Augsburg; by 1517 he claimed 33,000\ngulden profit. The company was willing to settle at 26,000, and the\nresulting litigation caused the figures to become public (Wrede, _op.\ncit._, II, 842, note 4; III, pp. 574 ff.). On Luther's view of\ncapitalism see Eck, _Introduction to the Sermon von Kaushandlungund\nWucher_, in _Berl. Ed._, VII, 494-513.\n\n[268] The Diets of Augsburg (1500) and Cologne (1512) had passed\nedicts against drunkenness. A committee of the Diet of Worms (1521)\nrecommended that these earlier edicts be reaffirmed (Wrede, _op.\ncit._, II, pp. 343 f.), but the Diet adjourned without acting on the\nrecommendation (ibid., 737)\n\n[269] _Sie wollen ausbuben, so sich's vielmehr hineinbubt_.\n\n[270] Cf. Muller, _Luther's theol. Quellen_, 1912, ch. I.\n\n[271] In the _Confitendi Ratio_ Luther had set the age for men at\neighteen to twenty, or women at fifteen to sixteen years. See Vol. I,\np. 100.\n\n[272] Translated in this edition, Vol. I, pp. 184 ff; see especially\npp. 266 ff.\n\n[273] These sentences did not appear in the first edition.\n\n[274] See _Letter to Staupitz_, Vol. I, p. 43.\n\n[275] This \"little song\" is the _Prelude on the Babylonian Captivity\nof the Church_. See below, pp. 170 ff.\n\n\n\nA PRELUDE ON THE BABYLONIAN CAPTIVITY OF THE CHURCH\n\n1520\n\n\n\nINTRODUCTION\n\n\nIn the _Open Letter to the Christian Nobility_ Luther overthrew the\nthree walls behind which Rome sat entrenched in her spiritual-temporal\npower; in the _Babylonian Captivity of the Church_ he enters and takes\nher central stronghold and sanctuary--the sacramental system by which\nshe accompanied and controlled her members from the cradle to the\ngrave; only then could he set forth, in language of almost lyrical\nrapture, the _Liberty of a Christian Man_.\n\nThe first of these three great reformatory treatises of the year 1520,\nas they have been called, closed with the words: \"I know another\nlittle song about Rome, and if their ears itch to hear it I will sing\nit for them, and pitch it in a high key. Dost thou take my meaning,\nbeloved Rome?\" (See above, p. 164.) That some ears were itching to\nhear his little song was brought home to Luther especially by two\nwritings, the one appearing in the summer of 1520, the other published\nin the previous autumn, but not reaching Wittenberg until some months\nlater.\n\nThe former came from the pen of Augustin Alveld, that \"celebrated\nRomanist of Leipzig,\" against whom Luther had culminated in _The\nPapacy at Rome_, promising further disclosures if Alveld \"came again.\"\n(See Vol. I, p. 393.) He came again, this time with a _Tractatus de\ncommunione sub utraque specie_,--date of dedication, June 23, 1520.\n\"The Leipzig ass has set up a fresh braying against me, full of\nblasphemies\"; thus Luther describes it in a letter to Spalatin, July\n22, 1520. (Enders, _Luther's Briewechsel_, II, no. 328.)\n\nThe other work was the anonymous tract of a \"certain Italian friar of\nCremona,\" who has only recently been identified as Isidore Isolani, a\nDominican hailing from Milan, who taught theology in various Italian\ncities, wrote a number of controversial works and died in 1528. (See\nFr. Lauchert, _Die italienischen literarischen Gegner Luthers_,\nFreiburg, 1912.) The title of his tract is, _Revocatio Martini Lutheri\nAugustiniani ad sanctam Sedem_; its date, Cremona, November 20, 1520,\naccording to Enders, which is a mistake for November 22,1519. Its\nbeginning and close, which have epistolary character, are printed in\nEnders, II, no. 366, and one paragraph from each is translated in\nSmith, _Luther's Correspondence_, I, no. 199.\n\nThese two treatises may be regarded as the immediate occasion for the\nwriting of the _Babylonian Captivity_, which is, however, in no sense\na direct reply to either of them. \"I will not reply to Alveld,\" Luther\nwrites on August 5 to Spalatin, \"but he will be the occasion of my\npublishing something by which the vipers will be more irritated than\never.\" (Enders, II, no. 335; Smith, I, no. 283.) Indeed, he had\npromised some such work more than half a year before, in a letter to\nSpalatin of December 18, 1519: \"There is no reason why you or any one\nelse should expect from me a treatise on the other sacraments [besides\nbaptism, the Lord's supper, and penance] until I am taught by what\ntext I can prove that they are sacraments. I regard none of the others\nas a sacrament, for there is no sacrament save where there is a direct\ndivine promise, exercising our faith. We can have no intercourse with\nGod except by the word of Him promising, and by the faith of man\nreceiving the promise. _At another time you shall hear more about\ntheir fables of the seven sacraments._\" (Enders, II, no. 254; Smith,\nI, no. 206.)\n\nThus the _Prelude_ grows under his hand and assumes the form of an\nelaborate examination of the whole sacramental system of the Church.\nHe makes short work of his two opponents, and after a few pages of\ndelicious irony, of which Erasmus was suspected in some quarters of\nbeing the author, he turns his back on them and addresses himself to a\npositive and constructive treatment of his larger theme, lenient\ntoward all non-essentials, but inexorable with respect to everything\ntruly essential, that is, scriptural. The _Captivity_ thus represents\nthe culmination of Luther's reformatory thinking on the theological\nside, as the _Nobility_ does on the national, and the _Liberty_ on the\nreligious side. It sums up and carries forward all of his previous\nwritings on the sacraments, just as, nine years later, the\n_Catechisms_ gathered up and moulded into classic form his writings on\ncatechetical subjects. Passage after passage, often whole pages, from\nthe _Resolutiones disp._, the _Treatise on Baptism_, the _Conitendi\nRatio_, the _Treatise on the New Testament_, the _Treatise on the\nBlessed Sacrament_, are transferred bodily to this new and definitive\nwork, and find in it the goal toward which they had been consciously\nor unconsciously tending. The reader is referred to a fine comparative\nstudy in Kostlin's _Theology of Luther_ (English trans.), I, 388-409.\nThe title is a reminiscence from the _Resolutiones super prop, xiii._,\nof 1519,--\"absit ista plus quam babylonica captivitas!\" The sense in\nwhich the work is called a \"prelude\" is explained on page 176; the\ntheologian in Luther could not deny the musician, he goes into battle\nsinging and comes back with the stanza of a hymn upon his lips.\n\nThe _Captivity_ marks Luther's final and irreparable break with the\nChurch of Rome, and it is not without a peculiar significance that in\nthe same letter to Spalatin, of October 3d, in which he mentions the\narrival in Leipzig of Eck armed with the papal bull, he announces the\npublication of his book on the _Babylonian Captivity of the Church_\nfor the following Saturday--October 6th. (Enders, II, no. 350; Smith,\nI, no. 303.)\n\nWhile the _Nobility_, addressed to the German nation as such, was\nwritten in the language of the people, the _Captivity_, as becomes a\ntheological treatise, is composed in Latin, just as later the Liberty,\naffecting the religious life of the individual, whether layman or\ntheologian, is sent out in both German and Latin.\n\nA translation into German appeared in the following year--the work of\nthe Franciscan, Thomas Murner (on whom see Theod. v. Liebenau, _Der\nFranziskaner Thomas Murner_, Freiburg, 1913). Luther calls the\nFranciscan his \"venomous foe\" and accuses him of making the\ntranslation in order to bring him into disrepute. This charge Luther\nmakes in his answer to Henry VIII's _Assertio septem sacramentorum\nadversus Mart. Lutherum_ (1521), the royal theologian's reply to the\n_Babylonian Captivity_, for which he won from the pope the proud title\nof \"Defender of the Faith.\"\n\nThe translation which follows is based on the Latin text as given in\nClemen's \"student-edition\"--_Luthers Werke in Auswahl_ (Bonn, 1912-3),\nI, 426-512, which reproduces, though by no means slavishly, the text\nof the _Weimar Edition_ (Vol. VI), which, together with the _Erlangen\nEdition_ (_opera var. arg., V_), has been compared. The German _St.\nLouis Edition_ (Vol. XIX) has been consulted, and especially the\nadmirable German rendering of Kawerau in the Berlin Edition (Vol. II)\nas well as the careful literal translation of Lemme, _Die drei grossen\nReormationsschriten Luthers vom Jahre 1520_, 2. ed. (Gotha, 1884).\nLike the last mentioned, Wace and Buchheim's English translation\n(London, 1896) is incomplete, and besides is not always accurate; the\n_Captivity_ is not contained in Cole's _Select Works_. The catalogue\nof the British Museum notes no early English translation.\nKostlin-Kawerau's (1903) and Berger's (1895) lives should be\nconsulted; the former for the historical setting and full analysis,\nthe latter for a fine appreciation of this as of the other two\nreformatory treatises of this year. For the theological development,\nbeside Kostlin's work mentioned above, and Tschackert, _Entstehung der\nluth. und re. Kirchenlehre_ (1910), compare the exhaustive article\nSakramente, by Kattenbusch, in _Prot. Realencyklopadie_, 3. ed., XVII,\n349-81. The treatise is here Englished in its entirety, including\nthose portions of the section on marriage which are frequently\nomitted. The homeless paragraph on page 260, whose proper location is\nnot found even in the _Weimar Edition_ nor in Clemen, we have placed\nin a foot-note, following the example of Kawerau.\n\n            ALBERT T. W. STEINHAEUSER.\n\nAllentown. PA.\n\n\nTHE BABYLONIAN CAPTIVITY OF THE CHURCH\n\n1520\n\n\nJESUS\n\nMartin Luther, Augustinian,\n\nto his friend,\n\nHerman Tulich[1],\n\nGreeting\n\nWilly nilly, I am compelled to become every day more learned, with so\nmany and such able masters vying with one another to improve my mind.\nSome two years ago I wrote a little book on indulgences[2], which I\nnow deeply regret having published; for at the time I was still sunk\nin a mighty superstitious veneration for the Roman tyranny and held\nthat indulgences should not be altogether rejected, seeing they were\napproved by the common consent of men. Nor was this to be wondered at,\nfor I was then engaged single-handed in my Sisyphean task. Since then,\nhowever, through the kindness of Sylvester and the friars[3], who so\nstrenuously defended indulgences, I have come to see that they are\nnothing but an imposture of the Roman sycophants by which they play\nhavoc with men's faith and fortunes. Would to God I might prevail upon\nthe book-sellers and upon all my readers to burn up the whole of my\nwritings on indulgences and to substitute for them this proposition:\nINDULGENCES ARE A KNAVISH TRICK OF THE ROMAN SYCOPHANTS.\n\nNext, Eck and Emser, with their fellows, undertook to instruct me\nconcerning the primacy of the pope. Here too, not to prove ungrateful\nto such learned folk, I acknowledge how greatly I have profited by\ntheir labors. For, while denying the divine authority of the papacy, I\nhad yet admitted its human authority[4]. But after hearing and reading\nthe subtle subtleties of these coxcombs with which they adroitly prop\ntheir idol--for in these matters my mind is not altogether\nunteachable--I now know of a certainty that the papacy is the kingdom\nof Babylon[5] and the power of Nimrod the mighty hunter[6]. Once more,\ntherefore, that all may all out to my friends' advantage, I beg both\nbooksellers and readers to burn what I have published on that subject\nand to hold to this proposition: THE PAPACY IS THE MIGHTY HUNTING OF\nTHE ROMAN BISHOP. This follows from the arguments of Eck, Emser and\nthe Leipzig lecturer[7] on the Holy Scriptures.\n\nNow they are putting me to school again and teaching me about\ncommunion in both kinds and other weighty subjects. And I must all to\nwith might and main, so as not to hear these my pedagogues without\nprofit. A certain Italian friar of Cremona[8] has written a\n\"Revocation of Martin Luther to the Holy See\"--that is, a revocation\nin which not I revoke anything (as the words declare) but he revokes\nme. That is the kind of Latin the Italians are now beginning to\nwrite[9]. Another friar, a German of Leipzig, that same lecturer, you\nknow, on the whole canon of the Scriptures, has written a book against\nme concerning the sacrament in both kinds, and is planning, I\nunderstand, still greater and more marvelous things. The Italian was\ncanny enough not to set down his name, fearing perhaps the fate of\nCajetan and Sylvester[10]. But the Leipzig man, as becomes a fierce\nand valiant German, boasts on his ample title-page of his name, his\ncareer, his saintliness, his scholarship, his office, glory, honor,\nay, almost of his very clogs[11]. Here I shall doubtless gain no\nlittle information, since indeed his dedicatory epistle is addressed\nto the Son of God Himself. On so familiar a footing are these saints\nwith Christ Who reigns in heaven! Moreover, methinks I hear three\nmagpies chattering in this book; the first in good Latin, the second\nin better Greek, the third in purest Hebrew[12]. What think you, my\nHerman, is there for me to do but to prick up my ears? The thing\nemanates from Leipzig, from the Observance of the Holy Cross[13].\n\nFool that I was, I had hitherto thought it would be well if a general\ncouncil decided that the sacrament be administered to the laity in\nboth kinds[14]. The more than learned friar would set me right, and\ndeclares that neither Christ nor the apostles commanded or commended\nthe administration of both kinds to the laity; it was, therefore, left\nto the judgment of the Church what to do or not to do in this matter,\nand the Church must be obeyed. These are his words.\n\nYou will perhaps ask, what madness has entered into the man, or\nagainst whom he is writing, since I have not condemned the use of one\nkind, but have left the decision about the use of both kinds to the\njudgment of the Church--the very thing he attempts to assert and which\nhe turns against me. My answer is, that this sort of argument is\ncommon to all those who write against Luther; they assert the very\nthings they assail, for they set up a man of straw whom they may\nattack. Thus Sylvester and Eck and Emser, thus the theologians of\nCologne and Louvain[15]; and if this friar had not been of the same\nkidney he would never have written against Luther.\n\nYet in one respect this man has been happier than his fellows. For in\nundertaking to prove that the use of both kinds is neither commanded\nnor commended, but left to the will of the Church, he brings forward\npassages of Scripture to prove that by the command of Christ one kind\nonly was appointed for the laity. So that it is true, according to\nthis new interpreter of the Scriptures, that one kind was not\ncommanded, and at the same time was commanded, by Christ! This novel\nsort of argument is, as you know, the particular forte of the Leipzig\ndialecticians. Did not Emser in his earlier book[16] profess to write\nof me in a friendly spirit, and then, after I had convicted him of\nfilthy envy and foul lying, did he not openly acknowledge in his later\nbook[17], written to refute my arguments, that he had written in both\na friendly and an unfriendly spirit? A sweet fellow, forsooth, as you\nknow.\n\nBut hearken to our distinguished distinguisher of \"kinds,\" for whom\nthe will of the Church and a command of Christ, and a command of\nChrist and no command of Christ, are all one and the same! How\ningeniously he proves that only one kind is to be given to the laity,\nby the command of Christ, that is, by the will of the Church. He puts\nit in capital letters, thus: THE INFALLIBLE FOUNDATION. Thereupon he\ntreats John vi with incredible wisdom, in which passage Christ speaks\nof the bread from heaven and the bread of life, which is He Himself.\nThe learned fellow not only refers these words to the sacrament of the\naltar, but because Christ says, \"I am the living bread,\" [John 6:35,\n41, 51] and not, \"I am the living cup,\" he actually concludes that we\nhave in this passage the institution of the sacrament in only one kind\nfor the laity. But there follow the words,--\"My flesh is meat indeed,\nand my blood is drink indeed,\" [John 6:55] and, \"Except ye eat the\nflesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood\" [John 6:53]; and when it\ndawned upon the good friar that these words speak undeniably or both\nkinds and against one kind--presto! how happily and learnedly he slips\nout of the quandary by asserting that in these words Christ means to\nsay only that whoever receives the one kind receives under it both\nflesh and blood. This he puts or the \"infallible foundation\" of a\nstructure well worthy of the holy and heavenly Observance.\n\nNow prithee, herefrom learn with me that Christ, in John vi, enjoins\nthe sacrament in one kind, yet in such wise that His commanding it\nmeans leaving it to the will of the Church; and further, that Christ\nis speaking in this chapter only of the laity and not of the priests.\nFor to the latter the living bread from heaven does not pertain, but\npresumably the deadly bread from hell! And how is it with the deacons\nand subdeacons, who are neither laymen nor priests?[18] According to\nthis brilliant writer, they ought to use neither the one kind nor both\nkinds! You see, dear Tulich, this novel and observant method of\ntreating Scripture.\n\nBut learn this, too,--that Christ is speaking in John vi of the\nsacrament of the altar; although He Himself teaches that His words\nrefer to faith in the Word made flesh, for He says, \"This is the work\nof God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.\" [John 6:29] But our\nLeipzig professor of the Scriptures must be permitted to prove\nanything he pleases from any Scripture passage whatsoever. For he is\nan Anaxagorian, or rather an Aristotelian[19] theologian, for whom\nnouns and verbs, interchanged, mean the same thing and any thing. So\naptly does he cite Scripture proof-texts throughout the whole of his\nbook, that if he set out to prove the presence of Christ in the\nsacrament, he would not hesitate to commence thus: \"Here beginneth the\nbook of the Revelation of St. John the Divine.\" All his quotations are\nas apt as this one would be, and the wiseacre imagines he is adorning\nhis drivel with the multitude of his quotations. The rest I pass over,\nlest you should smother in the filth of this vile cloaca.\n\nIn conclusion, he brings forward I Corinthians xi, where Paul says he\nreceived from the Lord, and delivered to the Corinthians, the use of\nboth the bread and the cup [1 Cor. 11:23]. Here again our\ndistinguisher of kinds, treating the Scriptures with his usual\nbrilliance, teaches that Paul did not deliver, but permitted both\nkinds. Do you ask where he gets his proof? Out of his own head, as he\ndid in the case of John vi. For it does not behoove this lecturer to\ngive a reason for his assertions; he belongs to the order of those who\nteach and prove all things by their visions[20]. Accordingly we are\nhere taught that the Apostle, in this passage, addressed not the whole\nCorinthian congregation, but the laity alone--but then he \"permitted\"\nnothing at all to the clergy, and they are deprived of the sacrament\naltogether!--and further, that, according to a new kind of grammar, \"I\nhave received from the Lord\" means \"It is permitted by the Lord,\" and\n\"I have delivered it to you\" means \"I have permitted it to you.\" I\npray you, mark this well. For by this method, not only the Church, but\nevery passing knave will be at liberty, according to this magister, to\nturn all the commands, institutions and ordinances of Christ and the\napostles into a mere \"permission.\"\n\nI perceive, therefore, that this man is driven by an angel of Satan,\nand that he and his partners seek but to make a name or themselves\nthrough me, as men who were worthy to cross swords with Luther. But\ntheir hopes shall be dashed: I shall ignore them and not mention their\nnames from henceforth even for ever. This one reply shall suffice me\nfor all their books. If they be worthy of it, I pray Christ in His\nmercy to bring them to a sound mind; if not, I pray that they may\nnever leave off writing such books, and that the enemies of the truth\nmay never deserve to read any other. It is a popular and true saying,\n\n    This I know of a truth--whenever with filth I contended,\n    Victor or vanquished, alike, came I defiled from the fray.\n\nAnd, since I perceive that they have an abundance of leisure and of\nwriting-paper, I shall see to it that they may have ample opportunity\nfor writing. I shall run on before, and while they are celebrating a\nglorious victory over one of my so-called heresies, I shall be\nmeanwhile devising a new one. For I too am desirous that these gallant\nleaders in battle should win to themselves many titles and\ndecorations. Therefore, while they complain that I laud communion in\nboth kinds, and are happily engrossed in this most important and\nworthy matter, I will go yet one step farther and undertake to show\nthat all those who deny communion in both kinds to the laity are\nwicked men. And the more conveniently to do this, I will compose a\nprelude on the captivity of the Roman Church. In due time I shall have\na great deal more to say, when the learned papists have disposed of\nthis book.\n\nI take this course, lest any pious reader who may chance upon this\nbook, should be offended at my dealing with such filthy matters, and\nshould justly complain of finding in it nothing to cultivate and\ninstruct his mind or even to furnish good or learned thought. For you\nknow how impatient my friends are because I waste my time on the\nsordid fictions of these men, which, they say, are amply refuted in\nthe reading; they look for greater things from me, which Satan seeks\nin this way to hinder. I have at length resolved to follow their\ncounsel and to leave to those hornets the pleasant business of\nwrangling and hurling invectives.\n\nOf that friar of Cremona I will say nothing. He is an unlearned man\nand a simpleton, who attempts with a few rhetorical passages to recall\nme to the Holy See, from which I am not as yet aware of having\ndeparted, nor has any one proved it to me. He is chiefly concerned in\nthose silly passages with showing that I ought to be moved by the vow\nof my order and by the act that the empire has been transferred to us\nGermans[21]. He seems thus to have set out to write, not my\n\"revocation,\" but rather the praises of the French people and the\nRoman pontiff. Let him attest his loyalty in his little book; it is\nthe best he could do. He does not deserve to be harshly treated, for\nmethinks he was not prompted by malice; nor yet to be learnedly\nrefuted, for all his chatter is sheer ignorance and simplicity[22].\n\nAt the outset I must deny that there are seven sacraments, and hold\nfor the present[23] to but three--baptism, penance and the bread[24].\nThese three have been subjected to a miserable captivity by the Roman\ncuria, and the Church has been deprived of all her liberty. To be\nsure, if I desired to use the term in its scriptural sense, I should\nallow but a single sacrament[25], with three sacramental signs; but of\nthis I shall treat more fully at the proper time.\n\nTHE SACRAMENT OF THE BREAD\n\nLet me tell you what progress I have made in my studies on the\nadministration of this sacrament. For when I published my treatise on\nthe Eucharist[26], I clung to the common usage, being in no wise\nconcerned with the question of the right or wrong of the papacy. But\nnow, challenged and attacked, nay, forcibly thrust into the arena, I\nshall freely speak my mind, let all the papists laugh or weep\ntogether.\n\n[Sidenote: The First Captivity: the Withholding of the Cup from the\nLaity]\n\nIn the first place, John vi is to be entirely excluded from this\ndiscussion, since it does not refer in a single syllable to the\nsacrament. For not only was the sacrament not yet instituted, but the\nwhole context plainly shows that Christ is speaking of faith in the\nWord made flesh, as I have said above[27]. For He says, \"My words are\nspirit, and they are life,\" [John 6:63] which shows that He is\nspeaking of a spiritual eating, whereby whoever eats has life, whereas\nthe Jews understood Him to be speaking of bodily eating and therefore\ndisputed with Him. But no eating can give life save the eating which\nis by faith, for that is the truly spiritual and living eating. As\nAugustine also says: \"Why make ready teeth and stomach? Believe, and\nthou hast eaten.\"[28] For the sacramental eating does not give life,\nsince many eat unworthily. Therefore, He cannot be understood as\nspeaking of the sacrament in this passage.\n\nThese words have indeed been wrongly applied to the sacrament, as in\nthe decretal _Dudum_[29] and often elsewhere. But it is one thing to\nmisapply the Scriptures, it is quite another to understand them in\ntheir proper meaning. But if Christ in this passage enjoined the\nsacramental eating, then by saying, \"Except ye eat my flesh and drink\nmy blood, ye have no life in you,\" [John 6:53] He would condemn all\ninfants, invalids and those absent or in any wise hindered from the\nsacramental eating, however strong their faith might be. Thus\nAugustine, in the second book of his _Contra Julianum_[30], proves\nfrom Innocent that even infants eat the flesh and drink the blood of\nChrist, without the sacrament; that is, they partake of them through\nthe faith of the Church. Let this then be accepted as proved,--John vi\ndoes not belong here. For this reason I have elsewhere[31] written\nthat the Bohemians have no right to rely on this passage in support of\ntheir use of the sacrament in both kinds.\n\nNow there are two passages that do clearly bear upon this matter--the\nGospel narratives of the institution of the Lord's Supper, and Paul in\nI Corinthians xi. These let us examine.\n\nMatthew, Mark and Luke agree that Christ gave the whole sacrament to\nall the disciples [Matt. 26, Mark 14, Luke 22], and it is certain that\nPaul delivered both kinds [1 Cor. 11]. No one has ever had the\ntemerity to assert the contrary. Further, Matthew reports that Christ\nsaid not of the bread, \"Eat ye all of it,\" [Matt. 26:27] but of the\ncup, \"Drink ye all of it\"; and Mark likewise says not, \"They all ate\nof it,\" but, \"They all drank of it.\" [Mark 14:23] Both Matthew and\nMark attach the note of universality to the cup, not to the bread; as\nthough the Spirit saw this schism coming, by which some would be\nforbidden to partake of the cup, which Christ desired should be common\nto all. How furiously, think you, would they rave against us, if they\nhad found the word \"all\" attached to the bread instead of the cup!\nThey would not leave us a loophole to escape, they would cry out upon\nus and set us down as heretics, they would damn us or schismatics. But\nnow, since it stands on our side and against them, they will not be\nbound by any force of logic--these men of the most free will[32], who\nchange and change again even the things that be God's, and throw\neverything into confusion.\n\nBut imagine me standing over against them and interrogating my lords\nthe papists. In the Lord's Supper, I say, the whole sacrament, or\ncommunion in both kinds, is given only to the priests or else it is\ngiven also to the laity. If it is given only to the priests, as they\nwould have it, then it is not right to give it to the laity in either\nkind; for it must not be rashly given to any to whom Christ did not\ngive it when He instituted it. For if we permit one institution of\nChrist to be changed, we make all of His laws invalid, and every one\nwill boldly claim that he is not bound by any law or institution of\nHis. For a single exception, especially in the Scriptures, invalidates\nthe whole. But if it is given also to the laity, then it inevitably\nfollows that it ought not to be withheld from them in either form.\nAnd if any do withhold it from them when they desire it, they act\nimpiously and contrary to the work, example and institution of Christ.\n\nI confess that I am conquered by this to me unanswerable argument, and\nthat I have neither read nor heard nor found anything to advance\nagainst it. For here the word and example of Christ stand firm, when\nHe says, not by way of permission but of command, \"Drink ye all of\nit.\" [Matt.26:27] For if all are to drink, and the words cannot be\nunderstood as addressed to the priests alone, then it is certainly an\nimpious act to withhold the cup from laymen who desire it, even though\nan angel from heaven were to do it. For when they say that the\ndistribution of both kinds was left to the judgment of the Church,\nthey make this assertion without giving any reason or it and put it\nforth without any authority; it is ignored just as readily as it is\nproved, and does not hold against an opponent who confronts us[33]\nwith the word and work of Christ. Such an one must be refuted with a\nword of Christ, but this we[34] do not possess.\n\nBut if one kind may be withheld from the laity, then with equal right\nand reason a portion of baptism and penance might also be taken from\nthem by this same authority of the Church. Therefore, just as baptism\nand absolution must be administered in their entirety, so the\nsacrament of the bread must be given in its entirety to all laymen, if\nthey desire it. I am amazed to find them asserting that the priests\nmay never receive only the one kind, in the mass, on pain of\ncommitting a mortal sin; and that for no other reason, as they\nunanimously say, than that both kinds constitute the one complete\nsacrament, which may not be divided. I pray them to tell me why it may\nbe divided in the case of the laity, and why to them alone the whole\nsacrament may not be given. Do they not acknowledge, by their own\ntestimony, either that both kinds are to be given to the laity, or\nthat it is not a valid sacrament when only one kind is given to them?\nHow can the one kind be a complete sacrament or the laity and not a\ncomplete sacrament for the priests? Why do they flaunt the authority\nof the Church and the power of the pope in my face? These do not make\nvoid the Word of God and the testimony of the truth.\n\nBut further, if the Church can withhold the wine from the laity, it\ncan also withhold the bread from them; it could, therefore, withhold\nthe entire sacrament of the altar from the laity and completely annul\nChrist's institution so far as they are concerned. I ask, by what\nauthority? But if the Church cannot withhold the bread, or both kinds,\nneither can it withhold the wine. This cannot possibly be gainsaid;\nfor the Church's power must be the same over either kind as over both\nkinds, and if she has no power over both kinds, she has none over\neither kind. I am curious to hear what the Roman sycophants will have\nto say to this.\n\nWhat carries most weight with me, however, and quite decides me is\nthis. Christ says: \"This is my blood, which is shed for you and for\nmany for the remission of sins.\" [Matt. 26:28] Here we see very\nplainly that the blood is given to all those for whose sins it was\nshed. But who will dare to say it was not shed for the laity? Do you\nnot see whom He addresses when He gives the cup? Does He not give it\nto all?  Does He not say that it is shed or all? \"For you,\" He\nsays--well: we will let these be the priests--\"and for many\"--these\ncannot be priests; and yet He says, \"Drink ye all of it.\" [Matt.\n26:27] I too could easily trifle here and with my words make a mockery\nof Christ's words, as my dear trifler[34] does; but they who rely on\nthe Scriptures in opposing us, must be refuted by the Scriptures. This\nis what has prevented me from condemning the Bohemians, who, be they\nwicked men or good, certainly have the word and act of Christ on their\nside, while we have neither, but only that hollow device of men--\"the\nChurch has appointed it.\" It was not the Church that appointed these\nthings, but the tyrants of the churches, without the consent of the\nChurch, which is the people of God.\n\nBut where in all the world is the necessity, where the religious duty,\nwhere the practical use, of denying both kinds, i. e., the visible\nsign, to the laity, when every one concedes to them the grace[35] of\nthe sacrament without the sign? If they concede the grace, which is\nthe greater, why not the sign, which is the lesser? For in every\nsacrament the sign as such is of far less importance than the thing\nsignified.  What then is to prevent them from conceding the lesser,\nwhen they concede the greater? I can see but one reason; it has come\nabout by the permission of an angry God in order to give occasion for\na schism in the Church, to bring home to us how, having long ago lost\nthe grace of the sacrament, we contend for the sign, which is the\nlesser, against that which is the most important and the chief thing;\njust as some men for the sake of ceremonies contend against love. Nay,\nthis monstrous perversion seems to date from the time when we began\nfor the sake of the riches of this world to rage against Christian\nlove. Thus God would show us, by this terrible sign, how we esteem\nsigns more than the things they signify. How preposterous would it be\nto admit that the faith of baptism is granted the candidate or\nbaptism, and yet to deny him the sign of this faith, namely, the\nwater!\n\nFinally, Paul stands invincible and stops every mouth, when he says in\nI Corinthians xi, \"I have received from the Lord what I also delivered\nunto you.\" [1 Cor. 11:23] He does not say, \"I permitted unto you,\" as\nthat friar lyingly asserts[36]. Nor is it true that Paul delivered\nboth kinds on account of the contention in the Corinthian\ncongregation. For, first, the text shows that their contention was not\nabout both kinds, but about the contempt and envy among rich and poor,\nas it is clearly stated: \"One is hungry, and another is drunken, and\nye put to shame them that have not.\" [1 Cor. 11:21] Again, Paul is not\nspeaking of the time when he first delivered the sacrament to them,\nfor he says not, \"I _receive_ of the Lord and _give_ unto you,\" but,\n\"I received and delivered\"--namely, when he first began to preach\namong them, a long while before this contention. This shows that he\ndelivered both kinds to them; and \"delivered\" means the same as\n\"commanded,\" for elsewhere he uses the word in this sense.\nConsequently there is nothing in the friar's fuming about permission;\nit is a hotch-potch without Scripture, reason or sense. His opponents\ndo not ask what he has dreamed, but what the Scriptures decree in this\nmatter; and out of the Scriptures he cannot adduce one jot or tittle\nin support of his dreams, while they can bring forward mighty\nthunderbolts in support of their faith.\n\nCome hither then, ye popish flatterers, one and all! Fall to and\ndefend yourselves against the charge of godlessness, tyranny,\nlese-majesty against the Gospel, and the crime of slandering your\nbrethren,--ye that decry as heretics those who will not be wise after\nthe vaporings of your own brains, in the face of such patent and\npotent words of Scripture. If any are to be called heretics and\nschismatics, it is not the Bohemians nor the Greeks, for they take\ntheir stand upon the Gospel; but you Romans are the heretics and\ngodless schismatics, for you presume upon your own fictions and fly in\nthe face of the clear Scriptures of God. Parry that stroke, if you\ncan!\n\nBut what could be more ridiculous, and more worthy of this friar's\nbrain, than his saying that the Apostle wrote these words and gave\nthis permission, not to the Church universal, but to a particular\nchurch, that is, the Corinthian? Where does he get his proof? Out of\nhis one storehouse, his own impious head. If the Church universal\nreceives, reads and follows this epistle in all points as written for\nitself, why should it not do the same with this portion of it? If we\nadmit that any epistle, or any part of any epistle, of Paul does not\napply to the Church universal, then the whole authority of Paul falls\nto the ground. Then the Corinthians will say that what he teaches\nabout faith in the epistle to the Romans does not apply to them. What\ngreater blasphemy and madness can be imagined than this! God forbid\nthat there should be one jot or tittle in all of Paul which the whole\nChurch universal is not bound to follow and keep! Not so did the\nFathers hold, down to these perilous times, in which Paul foretold\nthere should be blasphemers and blind and insensate men [2 Tim. 3:2],\nof whom this friar is one, nay the chief.\n\nHowever, suppose we grant the truth of this intolerable madness. If\nPaul gave his permission to a particular church, then, even from your\nown point of view, the Greeks and Bohemians are in the right, for they\nare particular churches; hence it is sufficient that they do not act\ncontrary to Paul, who at least gave permission. Moreover, Paul could\nnot permit anything contrary to Christ's institution. Therefore I cast\nin thy teeth, O Rome, and in the teeth of all thy sycophants, these\nsayings of Christ and Paul, on behalf of the Greeks and the Bohemians.\nNor canst thou prove that thou hast received any authority to change\nthem, much less to accuse others of heresy or disregarding thy\narrogance; rather dost thou deserve to be charged with the crime of\ngodlessness and despotism.\n\nFurthermore, Cyprian, who alone is strong enough to hold all the\nRomanists at bay, bears witness, in the fifth book of his treatise _Of\nthe Fallen_, that it was a wide-spread custom in his church to\nadminister both kinds to the laity, and even to children[37], yea to\ngive the body of the Lord into their hands; of which he cites many\ninstances. He inveighs, or example, against certain members of the\ncongregation as follows: \"The sacrilegious man is angered at the\npriests because he does not forthwith receive the body of the Lord\nwith unclean hands, or drink the blood of the Lord with defiled lips.\"\nHe is speaking, as you see, of laymen, and irreverent laymen, who\ndesired to receive the body and the blood from the priests. Dost thou\nfind anything to snarl at here, thou wretched flatterer? Say that even\nthis holy martyr, a Church Father preeminent for his apostolic spirit,\nwas a heretic and used that permission in a particular church.\n\nIn the same place, Cyprian narrates an incident that came under his\nown observation. He describes at length how a deacon was administering\nthe cup to a little girl, who drew away from him, whereupon he poured\nthe blood of the Lord into her mouth. We read the same of St. Donatus,\nwhose broken chalice this wretched flatterer so lightly disposes of.\n\"I read of a broken chalice,\" he says, \"but I do not read that the\nblood was given.\"[38] It is no wonder! He that finds what he pleases\nin the Scriptures will also read what he pleases in the histories. But\nwill the authority of the Church be established, or will heretics be\nrefuted, in this way? Enough of this! I did not undertake this work to\nreply to him who is not worth replying to, but to bring the truth of\nthe matter to light.\n\nI conclude, then, that it is wicked and despotic to deny both kinds to\nthe laity, and that this is not in the power of any angel, much less\nof any pope or council. Nor does the Council of Constance give me\npause, for if its authority carries weight, why does not that of the\nCouncil of Basel also carry weight? For the latter council decided, on\nthe contrary, after much disputing, that the Bohemians might use both\nkinds, as the extant records and documents of the council prove. And\nto that council this ignorant flatterer refers in support of his\ndream; in such wisdom does his whole treatise abound[39].\n\nThe first captivity of this sacrament, therefore, concerns its\nsubstance or completeness, of which we have been deprived by the\ndespotism of Rome. Not that they sin against Christ, who use the one\nkind, for Christ did not command the use of either kind, but let it to\nevery one's free will, when He said: \"As oft as ye do this, do it in\nremembrance of me.\" [1 Cor. 11:25] But they sin who forbid the giving\nof both kinds to such as desire to exercise this free will. The fault\nlies not with the laity, but with the priests. The sacrament does not\nbelong to the priests, but to all, and the priests are not lords but\nministers, in duty bound to administer both kinds to those who desire\nthem, and as oft as they desire them. If they wrest this right from\nthe laity and forcibly withhold it, they are tyrants; but the laity\nare without fault, whether they lack one kind or both kinds; they must\nmeanwhile be sustained by their faith and by their desire for the\ncomplete sacrament. Just as the priests, being ministers, are bound to\nadminister baptism and absolution to whoever seeks them, because he\nhas a right to them; but if they do not administer them, he that seeks\nthem has at least the full merit of his faith, while they will be\naccused before Christ as wicked servants. In like manner the holy\nFathers of old who dwelt in the desert did not receive the sacrament\nin any form for many years together[40].\n\nTherefore I do not urge that both kinds be seized by force, as though\nwe were bound to this form by a rigorous command; but I instruct men's\nconsciences that they may endure the Roman tyranny, well knowing they\nhave been deprived of their rightful share in the sacrament because of\ntheir own sin. This only do I desire,--that no one justify the tyranny\nof Rome, as though it did well to forbid one of the two kinds to the\nlaity; we ought rather to abhor it, withhold our consent, and endure\nit just as we should do if we were held captive by the Turk and not\npermitted to use either kind. That is what I meant by saying[41] it\nseemed well to me that this captivity should be ended by the decree of\na general council, our Christian liberty restored to us out of the\nhands of the Roman tyrant, and every one let free to seek and receive\nthis sacrament, just as he is free to receive baptism and penance. But\nnow they compel us, by the same tyranny, to receive the one kind year\nafter year; so utterly lost is the liberty which Christ has given us.\nThis is but the due reward of our godless ingratitude.\n\n[Sidenote: The Second Captivity: Transubstantiation]\n\nThe second captivity of this sacrament is less grievous so far as the\nconscience is concerned, yet the very gravest danger threatens the man\nwho would attack it, to say nothing of condemning it. Here I shall be\ncalled a Wyclifite[42] and a heretic a thousand times over. But what\nof that? Since the Roman bishop has ceased to be a bishop and become a\ntyrant, I fear none of his decrees, for I know that it is not in his\npower, nor even in that of a general council, to make new articles of\nfaith.\n\nYears ago, when I was delving into scholastic theology, the Cardinal\nof Cambray[43] gave me food for thought, in his comments on the fourth\nbook of the Sentences[44], where he argues with great acumen that to\nhold that real bread and real wine, and not their accidents only[45],\nare present on the altar, is much more probable and requires fewer\nunnecessary miracles--if only the Church had not decreed otherwise.\nWhen I learned later what church it was that had decreed this--namely,\nthe Church of Thomas[46], i. e., of Aristotle--I waxed bolder, and\nafter floating in a sea of doubt, at last found rest for my conscience\nin the above view--namely, that it is real bread and real wine, in\nwhich Christ's real flesh and blood are present, not otherwise and not\nless really than they assume to be the case under their accidents. I\nreached this conclusion because I saw that the opinions of the\nThomists, though approved by pope and council, remain but opinions and\ndo not become articles of faith, even though an angel from heaven were\nto decree otherwise [Gal. 1:8]. For what is asserted without Scripture\nfor an approved revelation, may be held as an opinion, but need not be\nbelieved. But this opinion of Thomas hangs so completely in the air,\ndevoid of Scripture and reason, that he seems here to have forgotten\nboth his philosophy and his logic. For Aristotle treats so very\ndifferently from St. Thomas of subject and accidents, that methinks\nthis great man is to be pitied, not only for drawing his opinions in\nmatters of faith from Aristotle, but for attempting to base them on\nhim without understanding his meaning--an unfortunate superstructure\nupon an unfortunate foundation.\n\nI therefore permit every man to hold either of these views, as he\nchooses. My one concern at present is to remove all scruples of\nconscience, so that no one may fear to become guilty of heresy if he\nshould believe in the presence of real bread and real wine on the\naltar, and that every one may feel at liberty to ponder, hold and\nbelieve either one view or the other, without endangering his\nsalvation. However, I shall now more fully set forth my own view.\n\nIn the first place, I do not intend to listen or attach the least\nimportance to those who will cry out that this teaching of mine is\nWyclifite, Hussite, heretical, and contrary to the decision of the\nChurch, for they are the very persons whom I have convicted of\nmanifold heresies in the matter of indulgences, the freedom of the\nwill and the grace of God, good works and sin, etc. If Wyclif was once\na heretic, they are heretics ten times over, and it is a pleasure to\nbe suspected and accused by such heretics and perverse sophists, whom\nto please were the height of godlessness. Besides, the only way in\nwhich they can prove their opinions and disprove those of others, is\nby saying, \"That is Wyclifite, Hussite, heretical!\" They have this\nfeeble retort always on their tongue, and they have nothing else. If\nyou demand a Scripture passage, they say, \"This is our opinion, and\nthe decision of the Church--that is, of ourselves!\" Thus these men,\n\"reprobate concerning the faith\" [2 Tim. 3:8] and untrustworthy, have\nthe effrontery to set their own fancies before us in the name of the\nChurch as articles of faith.\n\nBut there are good grounds for my view, and this above all,--no\nviolence is to be done to the words of God, whether by man or angel;\nbut they are to be retained in their simplest meaning wherever\npossible, and to be understood in by their grammatical and literal\nsense unless the context plainly forbids; lest we give our adversaries\noccasion to make a mockery of all the Scriptures. Thus Origen was\nrepudiated, in olden times, because he despised the grammatical sense\nand turned the trees, and all things else written concerning Paradise,\ninto allegories; for it might therefrom be concluded that God did not\ncreate trees. Even so here, when the Evangelists plainly write that\nChrist took bread and brake it [Matt. 26:26; Mark 14:22; Luke 22:19;\nActs 2:46; 1 Cor. 11:23], and the book of Acts and Paul, in their\nturn, call it bread, we have to think of real bread, and real wine,\njust as we do of a real cup; or even they do not maintain that the cup\nis transubstantiated. But since it is not necessary to assume a\ntransubstantiation wrought by Divine power, it is to be regarded as a\nfigment of the human mind, or it rests neither on Scripture nor on\nreason, as we shall see.\n\nTherefore it is an absurd and unheard-of juggling with words, to\nunderstand \"bread\" to mean \"the form, or accidents of bread,\" and\n\"wine\" to mean \"the form, or accidents of wine.\" Why do they not also\nunderstand all other things to mean their forms, or accidents? And\neven if this might be done with all other things, it would yet not be\nright thus to emasculate the words of God and arbitrarily to empty\nthem of their meaning.\n\nMoreover, the Church had the true faith for more than twelve hundred\nyears, during which time the holy Fathers never once mentioned this\ntransubstantiation--forsooth, a monstrous word for a monstrous\nidea!--until the pseudophilosophy of Aristotle became rampant in the\nChurch, these last three hundred years, during which many other things\nhave been wrongly defined; as for example, that the Divine essence\nneither is begotten nor begets; that the soul is the substantial form\nof the human body, and the like assertions, which are made without\nreason or sense, as the Cardinal of Cambray himself admits.\n\nPerhaps they will say that the danger of idolatry demands that bread\nand wine be not really present. How ridiculous! The laymen have never\nbecome familiar with their fine-spun philosophy of substance and\naccidents, and could not grasp it if it were taught them. Besides,\nthere is the same danger in the case of the accidents which remain and\nwhich they see, as in the case of the substance which they do not see.\nFor if they do not adore the accidents, but Christ hidden under them,\nwhy should they adore the bread, which they do not see?\n\nBut why could not Christ include His body in the substance of the\nbread just as well as in the accidents? The two substances of fire and\niron are so mingled in the heated iron that every part is both iron\nand fire. Why could not much rather Christ's body be thus contained in\nevery part of the substance of the bread?\n\nWhat will they say? We believe that in His birth Christ came forth out\nof the unopened womb of His mother. Let them say here too that the\nflesh of the Virgin was meanwhile annihilated, or as they would more\naptly say, transubstantiated, so that Christ, after being enfolded in\nits accidents, finally came forth through the accidents! The same\nthing will have to be said of the shut door and of the closed mouth of\nthe sepulchre, through which He went in and out without disturbing\nthem. Hence has risen that hotch-potch of a philosophy of constant\nquantity distinct from the substance, until it has come to such a pass\nthat they themselves no longer know what are accidents and what is\nsubstance. For who has ever proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that\nheat, color, cold, light, weight or shape are mere accidents? Finally,\nthey have been driven to the fancy that a new substance is created by\nGod or their accidents on the altar--all on account of Aristotle, who\nsays, \"It is the essence of an accident to be in something,\" and\nendless other monstrosities, of all which they would be rid if they\nsimply permitted real bread to be present. And I rejoice greatly that\nthe simple faith of this sacrament is still to be found at least among\nthe common people; for as they do not understand, neither do they\ndispute, whether accidents are present or substance[47] but believe\nwith a simple faith that Christ's body and blood are truly contained\nin whatever is there, and leave to those who have nothing else to do\nthe business of disputing about that which contains them.\n\nBut perhaps they will say: From Aristotle we learn that in an\naffirmative proposition subject and predicate must be identical, or,\nto set down the beast's own words, in the sixth book of his\n_Metaphysics_: \"An affirmative proposition demands the agreement of\nsubject and predicate,\" which they interpret as above. Hence, when it\nis said, \"This is my body,\" the subject cannot be identical with the\nbread, but must be identical with the body of Christ. What shall we\nsay when Aristotle and the doctrines of men are made to be the\narbiters of these lofty and divine matters? Why do we not put by such\ncuriosity, and cling simply to the word of Christ, willing to remain\nin ignorance of what here takes place, and content with this, that the\nreal body of Christ is present by virtue of the words?[48] Or is it\nnecessary to comprehend the manner of the divine working in every\ndetail?\n\nBut what do they say to Aristotle's assigning a subject to whatever is\npredicated of the attributes, although he holds that the substance is\nthe chief subject? Hence for him, \"this white,\" \"this large,\" etc.,\nare subjects of which something is predicated. If that is correct, I\nask: If a transubstantiation must be assumed in order that Christ's\nbody be not predicated of the bread, why not also a transaccidentation\nin order that it be not predicated of the accidents? For the same\ndanger remains if one understands the subject to be \"this white\" or\n\"this round\"[49] is my body, and for the same reason that a\ntransubstantiation is assumed, a transaccidentation must also be\nassumed, because of this identity of subject and predicate.\n\nLet us not, however, dabble too much in philosophy. Does not Christ\nappear to have admirably anticipated such curiosity by saying of the\nwine, not, \"_Hoc est sanguis meus_,\" but \"_Hie est sanguis mens_\"\n[Matt. 26:28]? And yet more clearly, by bringing in the word \"cup,\"\nwhen He said, \"This cup is the new testament in my blood.\" [1 Cor.\n11:25] Does it not seem as though He desired to keep us in a simple\nfaith, so that we might but believe His blood to be in the cup?  For\nmy part, if I cannot fathom how the bread is the body of Christ, I\nwill take my reason captive to the obedience of Christ [2 Cor. 10:5],\nand clinging simply to His word, firmly believe not only that the body\nof Christ is in the bread, but that the bread is the body of Christ.\nFor in this I am borne out by the words, \"He took bread, and giving\nthanks, He brake it and said, Take, eat; this [i. e., this bread which\nHe took and brake] is my body.\" [1 Cor. 11:23] And Paul says: \"The\nbread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?\"\n[1 Cor. 10:16] He says not, in the bread, but the bread itself, is the\ncommunion of the body of Christ. What matters it if philosophy cannot\nfathom this? The Holy Spirit is greater than Aristotle. Does\nphilosophy fathom that transubstantiation of theirs, of which they\nthemselves admit that here all philosophy breaks down? But the\nagreement of the pronoun \"this\" with \"body,\" in Greek and Latin, is\nowing to the fact that in these languages the two words are of the\nsame gender. But in the Hebrew language, which has no neuter gender,\n\"this\" agrees with \"bread,\" so that it would be proper to say, \"_Hie\nest corpus meum_.\" This is proved also by the use of language and by\ncommon sense; the subject, forsooth, points to the bread, not to the\nbody, when He says, \"_Hoc est corpus meum_,\" \"_Das ist mein\nLeib_,\"--i. e., This bread is my body.\n\nTherefore it is with the sacrament even as it is with Christ. In order\nthat the Godhead may dwell in Him, it is not necessary that the human\nnature be transubstantiated and the Godhead be contained under its\naccidents; but both natures are there in their entirety, and it is\ntruly said, \"This man is God,\" and \"This God is man.\" Even though\nphilosophy cannot grasp this, faith grasps it, and the authority of\nGod's Word is greater than the grasp of our intellect. Even so, in\norder that the real body and the real blood of Christ may be present\nin the sacrament, it is not necessary that the bread and wine be\ntransubstantiated and Christ be contained under their accidents; but\nboth remain there together, and it is truly said, \"This bread is my\nbody, this wine is my blood,\" [Matt. 26:26] and _vice versa_. Thus I\nwill for the nonce understand it, or the honor of the holy words of\nGod, which I will not suffer any petty human arguments to override or\nwrest to meanings foreign to them. At the same time, I permit other\nmen to follow the other opinion, which is laid down in the decree\n_Firmiter_[50]; only let them not press us to accept their opinions as\narticles of faith, as I said above.\n\n[Sidenote: The Third Captivity: The Mass a Good Work and a Sacrifice]\n\nThe third captivity of this sacrament is that most wicked abuse of\nall, in consequence of which there is to-day no more generally\naccepted and firmly believed opinion in the Church than this,--that\nthe mass is a good work and a sacrifice. And this abuse has brought an\nendless host of others in its train, so that the faith of this\nsacrament has Sacrifice become utterly extinct and the holy sacrament\nhas been turned into a veritable air, tavern, and place of\nmerchandise. Hence participations[51], brotherhoods[52],\nintercessions, merits, anniversaries, memorial days, and the like\nwares are bought and sold, traded and bartered in the Church, and from\nthis priests and monks derive their whole living.\n\nI am attacking a difficult matter, and one perhaps impossible to\nabate, since it has become so firmly entrenched through century-long\ncustom and the common consent of men that it would be necessary to\nabolish most of the books now in vogue, to alter well-nigh the whole\nexternal form of the churches, and to introduce, or rather\nre-introduce, a totally different kind of ceremonies. But my Christ\nlives; and we must be careful to give more heed to the Word of God\nthan to all the thoughts of men and of angels. I will perform the\nduties of my office, and uncover the acts in the case; I will give the\ntruth as I have received it, freely and without malice [Matt. 10:8].\nFor the rest let every man look to his own salvation; I will\nfaithfully do my part that none may cast on me the blame for his lack\nof faith and knowledge of the truth, when we appear before the\njudgment-seat of Christ.\n\n[Sidenote: The Word of Christ, which is the Testament]\n\nIn the first place, in order to attain safely and fortunately to a\ntrue and unbiased knowledge of this sacrament, we must above all else\nbe careful to put aside whatever has been added by the zeal and\ndevotion of men to the original, simple institution of this\nsacrament,--such things as vestments, ornaments, chants, prayers,\norgans, candles, and the whole pageantry of outward things[53]; we\nmust turn our eyes and hearts simply to the institution of Christ and\nto this alone, and set naught before us but the very word of Christ by\nwhich He instituted this sacrament, made it perfect, and committed it\nto us. For in that word, and in that word alone, reside the power, the\nnature, and the whole substance of the mass. All else is the work of\nman, added to the word of Christ; and the mass can be held and remain\na mass just as well without it. Now the words of Christ, in which He\ninstituted this sacrament, are these:\n\n\"And whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and\nbrake: and gave to His disciples, and said: Take ye and eat. This is\nmy body, which shall be given for you. And taking the chalice. He gave\nthanks, and gave to them, saying: Drink ye all of this. This is the\nchalice, the new testament in my blood, which shall be shed for you\nand for many unto remission of sins. This do for the commemoration of\nme.\" [Matt. 26:26; 1 Cor. 11:24 f.; Luke 22:20]\n\nThese words the Apostle also delivers and more fully expounds in i\nCor. xi [1 Cor. 11:23 ff.]. On them we must lean and build as on a\nfirm foundation, if we would not be carried about with every wind of\ndoctrine, even as we have hitherto been carried about by the wicked\ndoctrines of men, who turn aside the truth [Titus 1:14]. For in these\nwords nothing is omitted that pertains to the completeness, the use\nand the blessing of this sacrament; and nothing is included that is\nsuperfluous and not necessary for us to know. Whoever sets them aside\nand meditates or teaches concerning the mass, will teach monstrous and\nwicked doctrines, as they have done who made of the sacrament an _opus\noperatum_[56] and a sacrifice.\n\nTherefore let this stand at the outset as our infallibly certain\nproposition,--the mass, or sacrament of the altar, is Christ's\ntestament which He left behind Him at His death, to be distributed\namong His believers. For that is the meaning of His word,--\"This is\nthe chalice, the new testament in my blood.\" [Luke 22:20] Let this\ntruth stand, I say, as the immovable foundation on which we shall base\nall that we have to say, or we are going to overthrow, as you will\nsee, all the godless opinions of men imported into this most precious\nsacrament. Christ, Who is the Truth, saith truly that this is the new\ntestament in His blood, which is shed for us. Not without reason do I\ndwell on this sentence; the matter is of no small moment, and must be\nmost deeply impressed upon us.\n\nLet us enquire, therefore, what a testament is, and we shall learn at\nthe same time what the mass is, what its use and blessing, and what\nits abuse. A testament, as every one knows, is a promise made by one\nabout to die, in which he designates his bequest and appoints his\nheirs. Therefore a testament involves, first, the death of the\ntestator, and secondly, the promise of the bequest and the naming of\nthe heir. Thus St. Paul discusses at length the nature of a testament\nin Romans iv, Galatians iii and iv, and Hebrews ix. The same thing is\nalso clearly seen in these words of Christ. Christ testifies\nconcerning His death when He says: \"This is my body, which shall be\ngiven; this is my blood, which shall be shed.\" [Luke 22:19 f.] He\ndesignates the bequest when He says: \"Unto remission of sins.\" And He\nappoints the heirs when He says: \"For you, and for many\"--i. e., for\nsuch as accept and believe the promise of the testator; or here it is\nfaith that makes men heirs, as we shall see.\n\nYou see, therefore, that what we call the mass is the promise of\nremission of sins made to us by God; and such a promise as has been\nconfirmed by the death of the Son of God. For the one difference\nbetween a promise and a testament is that a testament is a promise\nwhich implies the death of him who makes it. A testator is a man\nmaking a promise who is about to die; whilst he that makes a promise\nis, if I may so put it, a testator who is not about to die. This\ntestament of Christ was forshadowed in all the promises of God from\nthe beginning of the world; nay, whatever value those olden promises\npossessed was altogether derived from this new promise that was to\ncome in Christ. Hence the words \"covenant\" and \"testament of the Lord\"\noccur so frequently in the Scriptures, which words signified that God\nwould one day die. For where there is a testament, the death of the\ntestator must needs follow (Hebrews ix). Now God made a testament:\ntherefore it was necessary that He should die [Heb. 9:16]. But God\ncould not die unless He became man. Thus both the incarnation and the\ndeath of Christ are briefly comprehended in this one word \"testament.\"\n\nFrom the above it will at once be seen what is the right and what the\nwrong use of the mass, what is the worthy and what the unworthy\npreparation for it. If the mass is a promise, as has been said, it is\nto be approached, not with any work or strength or merit, but with\nfaith alone. For where there is the word of God Who makes the promise,\nthere must be the faith of man who takes it. It is plain, therefore,\nthat the first step in our salvation is faith, which clings to the\nword of the promise made by God, Who without any effort on our part,\nin free and unmerited mercy makes a beginning and offers us the word\nof His promise. For He sent His Word, and by it healed them [Ps.\n107:20]. He did not accept our work and thus heal us. God's Word is\nthe beginning of all; on it follows faith, and on faith charity; then\ncharity works every good work, for it worketh no ill, nay, it is the\nfulfilling of the law [Rom. 13:10]. In no other way can man come to\nGod and deal with Him than through faith; that is, not man, by any\nwork of his, but God, by His promise, is the author of salvation, so\nthat all things depend on the word of His power, and are upheld and\npreserved by it [Heb. 1:3], with which word He begat us, that we\nshould be a kind of firstfruits of His creatures [Jas. 1:18].\n\nThus, in order to raise up Adam after the all, God gave him this\npromise, addressing the serpent: \"I will put enmities between thee and\nthe woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and\nthou shalt lie in wait for her heel.\" [Gen. 3:15] In this word of\npromise Adam, with them that were his, was carried as it were in God's\nbosom, and by faith in it he was preserved, patiently waiting for the\nwoman who should crush the serpent's head, as God had promised. And in\nthat faith and expectation he died, not knowing when or in what guise\nshe would come, yet never doubting that she would come. For such a\npromise, being the truth of God, preserves, even in hell, those who\nbelieve it and wait for it. After this came another promise, made to\nNoah--to last until the time of Abraham--when a bow was set as a sign\nin the clouds [Gen. 9:12], by faith in which Noah and his descendants\nfound a gracious God. After that He promised Abraham that all nations\nshould be blessed in his seed [Gen. 12:3]; and this is Abraham's\nbosom, into which his posterity was carried [Luke 16:22]. Then to\nMoses and the children of Israel, and especially to David, He gave the\nplain promise of Christ [Deut. 18:18], thereby at last making clear\nwhat was meant by the promise to them of old time [2 Sam. 7:6]. And so\nit came finally to the most complete promise of the new testament, in\nwhich with plain words life and salvation are freely promised, and\ngranted to such as believe the promise. And He distinguished this\ntestament by a particular mark from the old, calling it the \"new\ntestament.\" [Luke 22:20] For the old testament, which He gave by\nMoses, was a promise not of remission of sins or of eternal things,\nbut of temporal,--namely, the land of Canaan,--by which no man was\nrenewed in his spirit, to lay hold on the heavenly inheritance.\nTherefore it was also necessary that dumb beasts should be slain, as\ntypes of Christ, that by their blood the testament might be confirmed;\nso that the testament was even as the blood, and the promise even as\nthe sacrifice. But here He says: \"The new testament in my blood\" [Luke\n22:20]--not in another's, but in His own, and by this blood grace is\npromised, through the Spirit, unto the remission of sins, that we may\nobtain the inheritance.\n\nThe mass, according to its substance, is, therefore, nothing else than\nthe aforesaid words of Christ--\"Take and eat\" [1 Cor. 11:24]; as if He\nsaid: \"Behold, O sinful man and condemned, out of pure and unmerited\nlove wherewith I love thee, and by the will of the Father of all\nmercies, I promise thee in these words, or ever thou canst desire or\ndeserve them, the forgiveness of all thy sins and life everlasting.\nAnd, that thou mayest be most certainly assured of this my irrevocable\npromise, I give my body and shed my blood, thus by my very death\nconfirming this promise, and leaving thee my body and blood as a sign\nand memorial of this same promise. As oft, therefore, as thou\npartakest of them, remember me, and praise, magnify, and give thanks\nor my love and largess toward thee.\"\n\nHerefrom you will see that nothing else is needed for a worthy holding\nof mass than a faith that confidently relies on this promise, believes\nChrist to be true in these words of His, and doubts not that these\ninfinite blessings have been bestowed upon it. Hard on this faith\nthere follows, of itself, a most sweet stirring of the heart, whereby\nthe spirit of man is enlarged and waxes at--that is love, given by the\nHoly Spirit through faith in Christ--so that he is drawn unto Christ,\nthat gracious and good Testator, and made quite another and a new man.\nWho would not shed tears of gladness, nay well-nigh faint for the joy\nhe hath toward Christ, if he believed with unshaken faith that this\ninestimable promise of Christ belonged to him! How could one help\nloving so great a Benefactor, who offers, promises and grants, all\nunbidden, such great riches, and this eternal inheritance, to one\nunworthy and deserving of somewhat far different?\n\nTherefore, it is our one misfortune, that we have many masses in the\nworld, and yet none or but the fewest of us recognize, consider and\nreceive these promises and riches that are offered, although verily we\nshould do nothing else in the mass with greater zeal (yea, it demands\nall our zeal) than set before our eyes, meditate, and ponder these\nwords, these promises of Christ, which truly are the mass itself, in\norder to exercise, nourish, increase, and strengthen our faith by such\ndaily remembrance. For this is what He commands, saying, \"This do in\nremembrance of me.\" [1 Cor. 11:24]\n\nThis should be done by the preachers of the Gospel, in order that this\npromise might be faithfully impressed upon the people and commended to\nthem, to the awakening of faith in the same. But how many are there\nnow who know that the mass is the promise of Christ? I will say\nnothing of those godless preachers of fables, who teach human\ntraditions instead of this promise. And even if they teach these words\nof Christ, they do not teach them as a promise or testament, and,\ntherefore, not to the awakening of faith.\n\nO the pity of it! Under this captivity, they take every precaution\nthat no layman should hear these words of Christ, as if they were too\nsacred to be delivered to the common people. So mad are we[57] priests\nthat we arrogantly claim that the so-called words of consecration may\nbe said by ourselves alone, as secret words, yet so that they do not\nprofit even us, or we too fail to regard them as promises or as a\ntestament, for the strengthening of faith. Instead of believing them,\nwe reverence them with I know not what superstitious and godless\nfancies. This misery of ours, what is it but a device of Satan to\nremove every trace of the mass out of the Church? although he is\nmeanwhile at work filing every nook and corner on earth with masses,\nthat is, abuses and mockeries of God's testament, and burdening the\nworld more and more heavily with grievous sins of idolatry, to its\ndeeper condemnation. For what worse idolatry can there be than to\nabuse God's promises with perverse opinions and to neglect or\nextinguish faith in them?\n\nFor God does not deal, nor has He ever dealt, with man otherwise than\nthrough a word of promise, as I have said[58]; again, we cannot deal\nwith God otherwise than through faith in the word of His promise. He\ndoes not desire works, nor has He need of them; we deal with men and\nwith ourselves on the basis of works. But He has need of this,--that\nwe deem Him true to His promises, wait patiently for Him, and thus\nworship Him with faith, hope and love. Thus He obtains His glory among\nus, since it is not of ourselves who run, but of Him who showeth mercy\n[Ps. 115:1], promiseth and giveth, that we have and hold every\nblessing [Rom. 9:16]. That is the true worship and service of God\nwhich we must perform in the mass. But if the words of promise are not\nproclaimed, what exercise of faith can there be? And without faith,\nwho can have hope or love? Without faith, hope and love, what service\ncan there be? There is no doubt, therefore, that in our day all\npriests and monks, together with all their bishops and superiors, are\nidolaters and in a most perilous state, by reason of this ignorance,\nabuse and mockery of the mass, or sacrament, or testament of God.\n\nFor any one can easily see that these two--the promise and faith--must\ngo together. For without the promise there is nothing to believe,\nwhile without faith the promise, remains without effect; for it is\nestablished and fulfilled through faith. From this every one will\nreadily gather that the mass, which is nothing else than the promise,\nis approached and observed only in this faith, without which whatever\nprayers, preparations, works, signs of the cross, or genuflections are\nbrought to it, are incitements to impiety rather than exercises of\npiety; for they who come thus prepared are wont to imagine themselves\non that account justly entitled to approach the altar, when in reality\nthey are less prepared than at any other time and in any other work,\nby reason of the unbelief which they bring with them. How many priests\nwill you find every day offering the sacrifice of the mass, who accuse\nthemselves of a horrible crime if they--wretched men!--commit a\ntrifling, blunder, such as putting on the wrong robe or forgetting to\nwash their hands or stumbling over their prayers; but that they\nneither regard nor believe the mass itself, namely, the divine\npromise--this causes them not the slightest qualms of conscience. O\nworthless religion of this our age, the most godless and thankless of\nall ages!\n\nHence the only worthy preparation and proper use of the mass is faith\nin the mass, that is to say, in the divine promise. Whoever,\ntherefore, is minded to approach the altar and to receive the\nsacrament, let him beware of appearing empty before the Lord God [Ex.\n23:15; 34:20]. But he will appear empty unless he has faith in the\nmass, or this new testament. What godless work that he could commit\nwould be a more grievous crime against the truth of God, than this\nunbelief of his, by which, as much as in him lies, he convicts God of\nbeing a liar and a maker of empty promises? The safest course,\ntherefore, will be to go to mass in the same spirit in which you would\ngo to hear any other promise of God; that is, not to be ready to\nperform and bring many works, but to believe and receive all that is\nthere promised, or proclaimed by the priest as having been promised to\nyou. If you do not go in this spirit, beware of going at all; you will\nsurely go to your condemnation.\n\nI was right then in saying[59] that the whole power of the mass\nconsists in the words of Christ, in which He testifies that the\nremission of sins is bestowed on all those who believe that His body\nis given and His blood shed for them. For this reason nothing is more\nimportant for those who go to hear mass than diligently and in full\nfaith to ponder these words. Unless they do this, all else that they\ndo is in vain.\n\n[Sidenote: The External Sign, which is the Sacrament]\n\nBut while the mass is the word of Christ, it is also true that God is\nwont to add to well-nigh every promise of His a certain sign as a mark\nor memorial of His promise, so that we may thereby the more faithfully\nhold to His promise and be the more forcibly admonished by it. Thus,\nto his promise to Noah that He would not again destroy the world by a\nflood, He added His bow in the clouds, to show that He would be\nmindful of His covenant [Gen. 9:13]. And after promising Abraham the\ninheritance in his seed, He gave him the sign of circumcision as the\nseal of his righteousness by faith. Thus, to Gideon He granted the\nsign of the dry and the wet fleece, to confirm His promise of victory\nover the Midianites [Judges 6:36 ff.]. And to Ahaz He offered a sign\nthrough Isaiah concerning his victory over the kings of Syria and\nSamaria, to strengthen his faith in the promise [Isa. 7:10 ff.]. And\nmany such signs of the promises of God do we find in the Scriptures.\n\nThus also to the mass, that crown of all His promises. He adds His\nbody and blood in the bread and wine, as a memorial sign of this great\npromise; as He says, \"This do in remembrance of me.\" [1 Cor. 11:24]\nEven so in baptism He adds to the words of the promise, the sign of\nimmersion in water. We learn from this that in every promise of God\ntwo things are presented to us--the word and the sign--so that we are\nto understand the word to be the testament, but the sign to be the\nsacrament. Thus, in the mass, the word of Christ is the testament, and\nthe bread and wine are the sacrament. And as there is greater power in\nthe word than in the sign, so there is greater power in the testament\nthan in the sacrament; for a man can have and use the word, or\ntestament, apart from the sign, or sacrament. \"Believe,\" says\nAugustine, \"and thou hast eaten.\"[60] But what does one believe save\nthe word of promise? Therefore I can hold mass every day, yea, every\nhour, for I can set the words of Christ before me, and with them\nrefresh and strengthen my faith, as often as I choose. That is a truly\nspiritual eating and drinking.[61]\n\nHere you may see what great things our theologians of the\nSentences[62] have produced. That which is the principal and chief\nthing, namely, the testament and word of promise, is not treated by\none of them; thus they have obliterated faith and the whole power of\nthe mass. But the second part of the mass,--the sign, or\nsacrament,[63]--this alone do they discuss, yet in such a manner that\nhere too they teach not faith but their preparations and _opera\noperata_, participations and fruits[64], as though these were the\nmass, until they have fallen to babbling of transubstantiation and\nendless other metaphysical quibbles, and have destroyed the proper\nunderstanding and use of both sacrament and testament, altogether\nabolished faith, and caused Christ's people to forget their God, as\nthe prophet says, days without number [Jer. 2:32]. But do you let the\nothers tell over the manifold fruits of hearing mass, and turn hither\nyour mind, and say and believe with the prophet, that God here\nprepares a table before you, against all those that afflict you, at\nwhich your soul may eat and grow fat [Ps. 23:5]. But your faith is fed\nonly with the word of divine promise, for \"not in bread alone doth man\nlive, but in every word that proceedeth from the mouth of God.\" [Deut.\n8:3; Matt. 4:4] Hence, in the mass you must above all things pay\nclosest heed to the word of promise, as to your rich banquet, green\npasture, and sacred refreshment; you must esteem this word higher than\nall else, trust in it above all things, and cling firmly to it even\nthrough the midst of death and all sins. By thus doing you will attain\nnot merely to those tiny drops and crumbs of \"fruits of the mass,\"\nwhich some have superstitiously imagined, but to the very fountainhead\nof life, which is faith in the word, from which every blessing flows;\nas it is said in John iv: \"He that believeth in me, out of his belly\nshall flow rivers of living water\" [John 7:38]; and again: \"He that\nshall drink of the water that I will give him, it shall become in him\na fountain of living water, springing up into life everlasting.\" [John\n4:14][65]\n\nNow there are two things that commonly tempt us to lose the fruits of\nthe mass: first, the fact that we are sinners and unworthy of such\ngreat things because of our exceeding vileness; and, secondly, the act\nthat, even if we were worthy, these things are so high that our\nfaint-hearted nature dare not aspire to them or ever hope to attain to\nthem. For to have God for our Father, to be His sons and heirs of all\nHis goods--these are the great blessings that come to us through the\nforgiveness of sins and life everlasting. And who that regarded them\naright must not rather stand aghast before them than desire to possess\nthem? Against this twofold faintness of ours we must lay hold on the\nword of Christ and fix our gaze on it much more firmly than on those\nthoughts of our weakness. For \"great are the works of the Lord [Ps.\n111:2]; wrought out according to all His wills, who is able to do\nexceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think.\" [Eph. 3:20] If\nthey did not surpass our worthiness, our grasp and all our thoughts,\nthey would not be divine. Thus Christ also encourages us when He says:\n\"Fear not, little flock, for it hath pleased your Father to give you a\nkingdom.\" [Luke 17:32] For it is just this overflowing goodness of the\nincomprehensible God, lavished upon us through Christ, that moves us\nto love Him again with our whole heart above all things, to be drawn\nto Him with all confidence, to despise all things else, and be ready\nto suffer all things for Him; wherefore this sacrament is well styled\n\"a fount of love.\"\n\nLet us take an illustration of this from every day life[66]. If a\nthousand _gulden_ were bequeathed by a rich lord to a beggar or an\nunworthy and wicked servant, it is certain that he would boldly claim\nand take them regardless of his unworthiness and the greatness of the\nbequest. And if any one should seek to oppose him by casting in his\nteeth his unworthiness and the large amount of the legacy, what do you\nsuppose he would say? He would say, forsooth: \"What is that to you?\nWhat I accept, I accept not on my merits or by any right that I may\npersonally have to it; I know that I am unworthy and receive more than\nI have deserved, nay, I have deserved the very opposite. But I claim\nit because it is so written in the will, and on the score of another's\ngoodness. If it was not an unworthy thing for him to bequeath so great\na sum to an unworthy person, why should I reuse to accept it because\nof my unworthiness? Nay, the more unworthy I am, the more reason have\nI to accept this other man's gracious gift.\" With such thoughts we\nneed to fortify the consciences of men against all qualms and\nscruples, that they may lay hold on the promise of Christ with\nunwavering faith, and take the greatest care to approach the\nsacrament, not trusting in their confession, prayer and preparation,\nbut rather despairing of these and with a proud confidence in Christ\nWho gives the promise.  For, as we have said again and again, the word\nof promise must here reign supreme in a pure and unalloyed faith, and\nsuch faith is the one and all-sufficient preparation.\n\n[Sidenote: The Mass Converted into a Good Work]\n\nHence we see how angry God is with us, in that he has permitted\ngodless teachers to conceal the words of this testament from us, and\nthereby, as much as in them lay, to extinguish faith. And the\ninevitable result of this extinguishing of faith is even now plainly\nto be seen--namely, the most godless superstition of works. For when\nfaith dies and the word of faith is silent, works and the traditions\nof works immediately crowd into their place. By them we have been\ncarried away out of our own land, as in a Babylonian captivity, and\ndespoiled of all our precious possessions. This has been the fate of\nthe mass; it has been converted by the teaching of godless men into a\ngood work, which they themselves call an _opus operatum_[67] and by\nwhich they presumptuously imagine themselves all-powerful with God.\nThereupon they proceeded to the very height of madness, and having\ninvented the lie that the mass works _ex opere operate_[68], they\nasserted further that it is none the less profitable to others, even\nif it be harmful to the wicked priest celebrating it. On such a\nfoundation of sand they base their applications, participations,\nsodalities, anniversaries and numberless other money-making schemes.\n\nThese lures are so powerful, widespread and firmly entrenched that you\nwill scarcely be able to prevail against them unless you keep before\nyou with unremitting care the real meaning of the mass, and bear well\nin mind what has been said above. We have seen that the mass is\nnothing else than the divine promise or testament of Christ, sealed\nwith the sacrament of His body and blood. If that is true, you will\nunderstand that it cannot possibly be a work, and that there is\nnothing to do in it, nor can it be dealt with in any other way than by\nfaith alone. And faith is not a work, but the mistress and the life of\nall works[69]. Where in all the world is there a man so foolish as to\nregard a promise made to him, or a testament given to him, as a good\nwork which by his acceptance of it he renders to the testator? What\nheir will imagine he is doing his departed father a kindness by\naccepting the terms of the will and the inheritance bequeathed to him?\nWhat godless audacity is it, therefore, when we who are to receive the\ntestament of God come as those who would perform a good work or Him!\nThis ignorance of the testament, this captivity of the sacrament--are\nthey not too sad for tears? When we ought to be grateful for benefits\nreceived, we come in our pride to give that which we ought to take,\nmocking with unheard-of perversity the mercy of the Giver by giving as\na work the thing we receive as a gift; so that the testator, instead\nof being the dispenser of His own goods, becomes the recipient of\nours. Out upon such godless doings!\n\nWho has ever been so mad as to regard baptism as a good work, or to\nbelieve that by being baptised he was performing a work which he might\noffer to God or himself and communicate to others? I, therefore, there\nis no good work that can be communicated to others in this one\nsacrament or testament, neither will there be any in the mass, since\nit too is nothing else than a testament and sacrament. Hence it is a\nmanifest and wicked error to offer or apply masses for sins, or\nsatisfactions, for the dead, or for any necessity whatsoever of one's\nown or of others. You will readily see the obvious truth of this if\nyou but hold firmly that the mass is a divine promise, which can\nprofit no one, be applied to no one, intercede or no one, and be\ncommunicated to no one, save him alone who believes with a faith of\nhis own. Who can receive or apply, in behalf of another, the promise\nof God, which demands the personal faith of every individual? Can I\ngive to another what God has promised, even if he does not believe?\nCan I believe for another, or cause another to believe? But this is\nwhat I must do if I am able to apply and communicate the mass to\nothers; for there are but two things in the mass--the promise of God,\nand the faith of man which takes that which the promise offers. But if\nit is true that I can do this, then I can also hear and believe the\nGospel for others, I can be baptised for another, I can be absolved\nfrom sins for another, I can also partake of the sacrament of the\naltar for another, and--to run the gamut of their sacraments also--I\ncan marry a wife for another, be ordained for another, receive\nconfirmation and extreme unction for another! In fine, why did not\nAbraham believe for all the Jews? Why was faith in the promise made to\nAbraham demanded of every individual Jew?\n\nTherefore, let this irrefutable truth stand fast. Where there is a\ndivine promise every one must stand upon his own feet, every one's\npersonal faith is demanded, every one will give an account for himself\nand will bear his own burden [Gal. 6:5], as it is said in the last\nchapter of Mark: \"He that believeth and is baptised, shall be saved;\nbut he that believeth not, shall be damned.\" [Mark 16:16] Even so\nevery one may derive a blessing from the mass for himself alone and\nonly by his own faith, and no one can commune for any other; just as\nthe priest cannot administer the sacrament to any one in another's\nstead, but administers the same sacrament to each individual by\nhimself. For in consecrating and administering, the priests are our\nministers, through whom we do not offer a good work or commune (in the\nactive), but receive the promises and the sign and are communed (in\nthe passive). That has remained to this day the custom among the\nlaity, for they are not said to do good, but to receive it. But the\npriests have departed into godless ways; out of the sacrament and\ntestament of God, the source of blessings to be received, they have\nmade a good work which they may communicate and offer to others.\n\nBut you will say: How is this? Will you not overturn the practice and\nteaching of all the churches and monasteries, by virtue of which they\nhave flourished these many centuries? For the mass is the foundation\nof their anniversaries, intercessions, applications, communications,\netc.--that is to say, of their at income. I answer: This is the very\nthing that has constrained me to write of the captivity of the Church,\nfor in this manner the adorable testament of God has been subjected to\nthe bondage of a godless traffic, through the opinions and traditions\nof wicked men, who, passing over the Word of God, have put forth the\nthoughts of their own hearts and misled the whole world. What do I\ncare for the number and influence of those who are in this error? The\ntruth is mightier than they all. If you are able to gainsay Christ,\naccording to Whom the mass is a testament and sacrament, then I will\nadmit that they are in the right. Or if you can bring yourself to say\nthat that man is doing a good work, who receives the benefit of the\ntestament, or who uses this sacrament of promise in order to receive\nit, then I will gladly condemn my teachings. But since you can do\nneither, why do you hesitate to turn your back on the multitude who go\nafter evil, and to give God the glory and confess His truth? Which is,\nindeed, that all priests today are perversely mistaken, who regard the\nmass as a work whereby they may relieve their own necessities and\nthose of others, dead or alive. I am uttering unheard-of and startling\nthings; but if you will consider the meaning of the mass, you will\nrealize that I have spoken the truth. The fault lies with our utter\nsupineness, in which we have become blind to the wrath of God that is\nraging against us.\n\n[Sidenote: The Prayers Distinguished from the Mass]\n\nI am ready, however, to admit that the prayers which we pour out\nbefore God when we are gathered together to partake of the mass, are\ngood works or benefits, which we impart, apply and communicate to one\nanother, and which we offer for one another; as James teaches us to\npray for one another that we may be saved [Jas. 5:16], and as Paul, in\nI Timothy ii, commands that supplications, prayers and intercessions\nbe made for all men, for kings, and for all that are in high station\n[1 Tim. 2:1 f.]. These are not the mass, but works of the mass--if the\nprayers of heart and lips may be called works--for they flow from the\nfaith that is kindled or increased in the sacrament. For the mass,\nbeing the promise of God, is not fulfilled by praying, but only by\nbelieving; but when we believe, we shall also pray and perform every\ngood work. But what priest of them all offers the sacrifice of the\nmass in this sense and believes that he is offering up naught but the\nprayers? They all imagine themselves to be offering up Christ Himself,\nas all-sufficient sacrifice, to God the Father, and to be performing a\ngood work for all whom they have the intention to benefit. For they\nput their trust in the work which the mass accomplishes, and they do\nnot ascribe this work to prayer. Thus, gradually, the error has grown,\nuntil they have come to ascribe to the sacrament what belongs to the\nprayers, and to offer to God what should be received as a benefit.\n\nIt is necessary, therefore, to make a sharp distinction between the\ntestament or sacrament itself and the prayers which are there offered;\nand no less necessary to bear in mind that the prayers avail nothing,\neither for him who offers them or for those for whom they are offered,\nunless the sacrament be first received in faith, so that it is faith\nthat offers the prayers, for it alone is heard, as James teaches in\nhis first chapter [Jas. 1:6 f.]. So great is the difference between\nprayer and the mass. The prayer may be extended to as many persons as\none desires; but the mass is received by none but the person who\nbelieves for himself, and only in proportion to his faith. It cannot\nbe given either to God or to men; but God alone gives it, by the\nministration of the priest, to such men as receive it by faith alone,\nwithout any works or merits. For no one would dare to make the mad\nassertion that a ragged beggar does a good work when he comes to\nreceive a gift from a rich man. But the mass is, as has been said[70],\nthe gift and promise of God, offered to all men by the hand of the\npriest. It is certain, therefore, that the mass is not a work which\nmay be communicated to others, but it is the object, as it is called,\nof faith, for the strengthening and nourishing of the personal faith\nof each individual.\n\n[Sidenote: The Most Dangerous Error of All: the Mass a Sacrifice]\n\nBut there is yet another stumbling-block that must be removed, and\nthis is much greater and the most dangerous of all. It is the common\nbelief that the mass is a sacrifice, which is offered to God. Even the\nwords of the canon[71] tend in this direction, when they speak of\n\"these gifts,\" \"these offerings,\" \"this holy sacrifice,\" and farther\non, of \"this oblation.\" Prayer also is made, in so many words, \"that\nthe sacrifice may be accepted even as the sacrifice of Abel,\" etc.,\nand hence Christ is termed the \"Sacrifice of the altar.\" In addition\nto this there are the sayings of the holy Fathers, the great number of\nexamples, and the constant usage and custom of all the world.\n\nTo all of this, firmly entrenched as it is, we must resolutely oppose\nthe words and example of Christ. For unless we hold fast to the truth,\nthat the mass is the promise or testament of Christ, as the words\nclearly say, we shall lose the whole Gospel and all our comfort. Let\nus permit nothing to prevail against these words, even though an angel\nfrom heaven should teach otherwise [Gal. 1:8]. For there is nothing\nsaid in them of a work or a sacrifice. Moreover, we have also the\nexample of Christ on our side. For at the Last Supper, when He\ninstituted this sacrament and established this testament, Christ did\nnot offer Himself to God the Father, nor did He perform a good work on\nbehalf of others, but He set this testament before each of them that\nsat at table with Him and offered him the sign. Now, the more closely\nour mass resembles that first mass of all, which Christ performed at\nthe Last Supper, the more Christian will it be. But Christ's mass was\nmost simple, without the pageantry of vestments, genuflections, chants\nand other ceremonies. Indeed, if it were necessary to offer the mass\nas a sacrifice, then Christ's institution of it was not complete.\n\nNot that any one should revile the Church universal for embellishing\nand amplifying the mass with many additional rites and ceremonies. But\nthis is what we contend for; no one should be deceived by the glamour\nof the ceremonies and entangled in the multitude of pompous forms, and\nthus lose the simplicity of the mass itself, and indeed practice a\nsort of transubstantiation--losing sight of the simple substance of\nthe mass and clinging to the manifold accidents of outward pomp. For\nwhatever has been added to the word and example of Christ, is an\naccident of the mass, and ought to be regarded just as we regard the\nso-called monstrances and corporal cloths in which the host itself is\ncontained[72]. Therefore, as distributing a testament, or accepting a\npromise, differs diametrically from offering a sacrifice, so it is a\ncontradiction in terms to call the mass a sacrifice; for the former is\nsomething that we receive, while the latter is something that we\noffer. The same thing cannot be received and offered at the same time,\nnor can it be both given and taken by the same person; just as little\nas our prayer can be the same as that which our prayer obtains, or the\nact of praying the same as the act of receiving the answer to our\nprayer.\n\nWhat shall we say, then, of the canon of the mass[73] and the sayings\nof the Fathers? First of all, if there were nothing at all to be said\nagainst them, it would yet be the safer course to reject them all\nrather than admit that the mass is a work or a sacrifice, lest we deny\nthe word of Christ and overthrow faith together with the mass.\nNevertheless, not to reject altogether the canons and the Fathers, we\nshall say the following: The Apostle instructs us in I Corinthians xi\nthat it was customary for Christ's believers, when they came together\nto mass, to bring with them meat and drink, which they called\n\"collections\" and distributed among all who were in want [1 Cor. 11:20\nff.], after the example of the apostles in Acts iv [Acts 4:34 f.].\nFrom this store was Acts taken the portion of bread and wine that was\nconsecrated for use in the sacrament[74]. And since all this store of\nmeat and drink was sanctified by the word and by prayer [1 Tim. 4:5],\nbeing \"lifted up\" according to the Hebrew rite of which we read in\nMoses [Lev. 8:27], the words and the rite of this lifting up, or for\noffering, have come down to us, although the custom of collecting that\nwhich was offered, or lifted up, has fallen long since into disuse.\nThus, in Isaiah xxxvii, Hezekiah commanded Isaiah to lift up his\nprayer in the sight of God for the remnant [Isa. 37:4]. The Psalmist\nsings: \"Lift up your hands to the holy places\" [Ps. 134:2]; and: \"To\nThee will I lift up my hands.\" [Ps. 63:4] And in I Timothy ii we read:\n\"Lifting up pure hands in every place.\" [1 Tim. 2:8] For this reason\nthe words \"sacrifice\" and \"oblation\" must be taken to refer, not to\nthe sacrament and testament, but to these collections, whence also the\nword \"collect\" has come down to us, as meaning the prayers said in the\nmass.\n\nThe same thing is indicated when the priest elevates the bread and the\nchalice immediately after the consecration, whereby he shows that he\nis not offering anything to God, for he does not say a single word\nhere about a victim or an oblation. But this elevation is either a\nsurvival of that Hebrew rite of lifting up what was received with\nthanksgiving and returned to God, or else it is an admonition to us,\nto provoke us to faith in this testament which the priest has set\nforth and exhibited in the words of Christ, so that now he shows us\nalso the sign of the testament. Thus the oblation of the bread\nproperly accompanies the demonstrative this in the words, \"This is my\nbody,\" by which sign the priest addresses us gathered about him; and\nin like manner the oblation of the chalice accompanies the\ndemonstrative this in the words, \"This chalice is the new testament,\netc.\" For it is faith that the priest ought to awaken in us by this\nact of elevation. And would to God that, as he elevates the sign, or\nsacrament, openly before our eyes, he might also sound in our ears the\nwords of the testament with a loud, clear voice, and in the language\nof the people, whatever it may be, in order that faith may be the more\neffectively awakened. For why may mass be said in Greek and Latin and\nHebrew, and not also in German or in any other language?[75]\n\n[Sidenote: Fraternal Advice to the Priests]\n\nLet the priests, therefore, who in these corrupt and perilous times\noffer the sacrifice of the mass, take heed, first, that the words of\nthe greater and the lesser canon[76] together with the collects, which\nsmack too strongly of sacrifice, be not referred by them to the\nsacrament, but to the bread and wine which they consecrate, or to the\nprayers which they say. For the bread and wine are offered at the\nfirst, in order that they may be blessed and thus sanctified by the\nWord and by prayer; but after they have been blessed and consecrated,\nthey are no longer offered, but received as a gift from God. And let\nthe priest bear in mind that the Gospel is to be set above all canons\nand collects devised by men; and the Gospel does not sanction the\ncalling of the mass a sacrifice, as has been shown.\n\nFurther, when a priest celebrates a public mass, he should determine\nto do naught else through the mass than to commune himself and others;\nyet he may at the same time offer prayers for himself and for others,\nbut he must beware lest he presume to offer the mass. But let him that\nholds a private mass[77] determine to commune himself. The private\nmass does not differ in the least from the ordinary communion which\nany layman receives at the hand of the priest, and has no greater\neffect, apart from the special prayers and the act that the priest\nconsecrates the elements for himself and administers them to himself.\nSo far as the blessing[78] of the mass and sacrament is concerned, we\nare all of us on an equal footing, whether we be priests or laymen.\n\nIf a priest be requested by others to celebrate so-called votive\nmasses[79], let him beware of accepting a reward for the mass, or of\npresuming to offer a votive sacrifice; he should be at pains to refer\nall to the prayers which he offers for the dead or the living, saying\nwithin himself, \"I will go and partake of the sacrament for myself\nalone, and while partaking I will say a prayer for this one and that.\"\nThus he will take his reward--to buy him food and clothing--not for\nthe mass, but for the prayers. And let him not be disturbed because\nall the world holds and practices the contrary. You have the most sure\nGospel, and relying on this you may well despise the opinions of men.\nBut if you despise me and insist upon offering the mass and not the\nprayers alone, know that I have faithfully warned you and will be\nwithout blame on the day of judgment; you will have to bear your sin\nalone. I have said what I was bound to say as brother to brother for\nhis soul's salvation; yours will be the gain if you observe it, yours\nthe loss if you neglect it. And if some should even condemn what I\nhave said, I reply in the words of Paul: \"But evil men and seducers\nshall grow worse and worse: erring and driving into error.\" [2 Tim.\n3:13]\n\nFrom the above every one will readily understand what there is in that\noft quoted saying of Gregory's[80]: \"A mass celebrated by a wicked\npriest is not to be considered of less effect than one celebrated by\nany godly priest, and St. Peter's mass would not have been better than\nJudas the traitor's, if they had offered the sacrifice of the mass.\"\nWhich saying has served many as a cloak to cover their godless doings,\nand because of it they have invented the distinction between _opus\noperati_ and _opus operantis_[81], so as to be free to lead wicked\nlives themselves and yet to benefit other men. But Gregory speaks\ntruth; only they misunderstand and pervert his words. For it is true\nbeyond a question, that the testament or sacrament is given and\nreceived through the ministration of wicked priests no less completely\nthan through the ministration of the most saintly. For who has any\ndoubt that the Gospel is preached by the ungodly? Now the mass is part\nof the Gospel, nay, its sum and substance; for what is the whole\nGospel but the good tidings of the forgiveness of sins? But whatever\ncan be said of the forgiveness of sins and the mercy of God, is all\nbriefly comprehended in the word of this testament. Wherefore the\npopular sermons ought to be naught else than expositions of the mass,\nthat is, a setting forth of the divine promise of this testament; that\nwould be to teach faith and truly to edify the Church. But in our day\nthe expounders of the mass play with the allegories of human rites and\nplay the fool with the people.\n\nTherefore, just as a wicked priest may baptise, that is, apply the\nword of promise and the sign of the water to a candidate for baptism,\nso he may also set forth the promise of this sacrament and administer\nit to those who partake, and even himself partake, like Judas the\ntraitor, at the Lord's Supper. It still remains always the same\nsacrament and testament, which works in the believer its own work, in\nthe unbeliever a \"strange work.\" [Isa. 28:21] But when it comes to\noffering a sacrifice the case is quite different. For not the mass but\nthe prayers are offered to God, and therefore it is as plain as day\nthat the offerings of a wicked priest avail nothing, but, as Gregory\nsays again, when an unworthy intercessor is chosen, the heart of the\njudge is moved to greater displeasure. We must, therefore, not\nconfound these two--the mass and the prayers, the sacrament and the\nwork, the testament and the sacrifice; for the one comes from God to\nus, through the ministration of the priest, and demands our faith, the\nother proceeds from our faith to God, through the priest, and demands\nHis answer. The former descends, the latter ascends. Therefore the\nformer does not necessarily require a worthy and godly minister, but\nthe latter does indeed require such an one, because God heareth not\nsinners [John 9:31]. He knows how to send down blessings through\nevildoers, but He does not accept the work of any evildoer, as He\nshowed in the case of Cain [Gen. 4:5], and as it is said in Proverbs\nxv, \"The victims of the wicked are abominable to the Lord\" [Prov.\n15:8]; and in Romans xiv, \"All that is not of faith is sin.\" [Rom.\n14:23]\n\n[Sidenote: Worthy Communicants]\n\nBut in order to make an end of this first part, we must take up one\nremaining point against which an opponent might arise. From all that\nhas been said we conclude that the mass was provided only for such as\nhave a sad, afflicted, disturbed, perplexed and erring conscience, and\nthat they alone commune worthily. For, since the word of divine\npromise in this sacrament sets forth the remission of sins, that man\nmay fearlessly draw near, whoever he be, whose sins distress him,\neither with remorse or past or with temptation to future wrongdoing.\nFor this testament of Christ is the one remedy against sins, past,\npresent and future, if you but cling to it with unwavering faith and\nbelieve that what the words of the testament declare is freely granted\nto you. But if you do not believe this, you will never, nowhere, and\nby no works or efforts of your own, find peace of conscience. For\nfaith alone sets the conscience at peace, and unbelief alone keeps the\nconscience troubled.\n\nTHE SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM\n\nBlessed be God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Who according\nto the riches of His mercy hath preserved in His Church this sacrament\nat least, untouched and untainted by the ordinances of men, and hath\nmade it free unto all nations and every estate of mankind, nor\nsuffered it to be oppressed by the filthy and godless monsters of\ngreed and superstition. For He desired that by it little children,\nincapable of greed and superstition, might be initiated and sanctified\nin the simple faith of His Word; for whom even to-day baptism hath its\nchief blessing. But if this sacrament were to be given to such as had\narrived at man's estate, methinks it could not possibly have retained\nits power and its glory against the tyranny of greed and superstition\nwhich has everywhere laid waste things divine. Doubtless the wisdom of\nthe flesh would here too have devised its preparations and\nworthinesses, its reservations, restrictions, and I know not what\nother snares for taking money, until water fetched as high a price as\nparchment[82] does now.\n\nBut Satan, though he could not quench the power of baptism in little\nchildren, nevertheless succeeded in quenching it in all adults, so\nthat there are scarce any who call to mind their baptism and still\nfewer who glory in it; so many other ways have they discovered of\nridding themselves of their sins and of reaching heaven. The source of\nthese false opinions is that dangerous saying of St.\nJerome's[83]--either unhappily phrased or wrongly interpreted--in\nwhich he terms penance \"the second plank\" after the shipwreck; as if\nbaptism were not penance. Accordingly, when men fall into sin, they\ndespair of \"the first plank,\" which is the ship, as though it had gone\nunder, and fasten all their faith on the second plank, that is,\npenance. This has produced those endless burdens of vows, religious\nworks, satisfactions, pilgrimages, indulgences, and sects[84], whence\nhas arisen that flood of books, questions, opinions and human\ntraditions, which the world cannot contain; so that this tyranny plays\nworse havoc with the Church of God than any tyrant ever did with the\nJewish people or with any other nation under heaven.\n\nIt was the duty of the pontiffs to abate this evil, and with all\ndiligence to lead Christians to the true understanding of baptism, so\nthat they might know what manner of men they are and how it becomes\nChristians to live. But instead of this, their work is now to lead the\npeople as far astray as possible from their baptism, to immerse all\nmen in the flood of their oppression, and to cause the people of\nChrist, as the prophet says, to forget Him days without number [Jer.\n2:32]. O unhappy, all who bear the name of priest to-day! They not\nonly do not know nor do what becometh priests, but they are ignorant\nof what they ought to know and do. They fulfil the saying in Isaiah\nlvi: \"His watch-men are all blind, they are all ignorant: the\nshepherds themselves knew no understanding; all have declined into\ntheir own way, every one after his own gain.\" [Isa. 56:10]\n\n[Sidenote: The First Part of Baptism: The Divine Promise]\n\nNow, the first thing in baptism to be considered is the divine\npromise, which says: \"He that believeth and is baptised shall be\nsaved.\" This promise must be set far above all the glitter of works,\nvows, religious orders, and whatever man has added thereto; for on it\nall our salvation depends [Mark 16:16]. But we must so consider it as\nto exercise our faith therein and in nowise doubt that we are saved\nwhen we are baptised. For unless this faith be present or be conferred\nin baptism, baptism will profit us nothing, nay, it becomes a\nhindrance to us, not only in the moment of its reception, but all the\ndays of our life; for such unbelief accuses God's promise of being a\nlie, and this is the blackest of all sins. If we set ourselves to this\nexercise of faith, we shall at once perceive how difficult it is to\nbelieve this promise of God. For our human weakness, conscious of its\nsins, finds nothing more difficult to believe than that it is saved or\nwill be saved; and yet unless it does believe this, it cannot be\nsaved, because it does not believe the truth of God that promiseth\nsalvation.\n\nThis message should have been untiringly impressed upon the people and\nthis promise dinned without ceasing in their ears; their baptism\nshould have been called again and again to their mind, and faith\nconstantly awakened and nourished. For, just as the truth of this\ndivine promise, once pronounced over us, continues unto death, so our\nfaith in the same ought never to cease, but to be nourished and\nstrengthened until death, by the continual remembrance of this promise\nmade to us in baptism. Therefore, when we rise from sins, or repent,\nwe do but return to the power and the faith of baptism from whence we\nfell, and find our way back to the promise then made to us, from which\nwe departed when we sinned. For the truth of the promise once made\nremains steadfast, ever ready to receive us back with open arms when\nwe return. This, if I mistake not, is the real meaning of the obscure\nsaying, that baptism is the beginning and foundation of all the\nsacraments, without which none of the others may be received.\n\nIt will, therefore, be no small gain or a penitent to lay hold before\nall else on the memory of his baptism, confidently to call to mind the\npromise of God, which he has forsaken, and to plead it with His Lord,\nrejoicing that he is baptised and therefore is yet within the fortress\nof salvation, and abhorring his wicked ingratitude in falling away\nfrom its faith and truth. His soul will find wondrous comfort, and\nwill be encouraged to hope or mercy, when he considers that the divine\npromise which God made to him and which cannot possibly lie, still\nstands unbroken and unchanged, yea, unchangeable by any sins; as Paul\nsays in 1I Timothy ii, \"If we believe not. He continueth faithful, He\ncannot deny Himself.\" [2 Tim. 2:13] Ay, this truth of God will sustain\nhim, so that if all else should sink in ruins, this truth, if he\nbelieve it, will not ail him. For in it he has a shield against all\nassaults of the enemy, an answer to the sins that disturb his\nconscience, an antidote for the dread of death and judgment, and a\ncomfort in every temptation,--namely, this one truth,--and he can say,\n\"God is faithful that promised [Heb. 10:23], Whose sign I have\nreceived in my baptism. If God be for me, who is against me?\" [Rom.\n8:31]\n\nThe children of Israel, whenever they repented of their sins, turned\ntheir thoughts first of all to the exodus from Egypt, and, remembering\nthis, returned to God Who had brought them out. This memory and this\nrefuge were many times impressed upon them by Moses, and afterward\nrepeated by David. How much rather ought we to call to mind our exodus\nfrom Egypt, and, remembering, turn back again to Him Who led us forth\nthrough the washing of regeneration [Titus 3:5], which we are bidden\nremember for this very purpose. And this we can do most fittingly in\nthe sacrament of bread and wine. Indeed, in olden times these three\nsacraments--penance, baptism and the bread--were all celebrated at the\nsame service, and one supplemented and assisted the other. We read\nalso of a certain holy virgin who in every time of temptation made\nbaptism her sole defence, saying simply, \"I am a Christian\"; and\nstraight-way the adversary led from her, or he knew the power of her\nbaptism and of her faith which clung to the truth of God's\npromise[85].\n\nLo, how rich therefore is a Christian, or one who is baptised! Even if\nhe would, he cannot lose his salvation, however much he sin, unless he\nwill not believe. For no sin can condemn him save unbelief alone. All\nother sins,--if faith in God's promise made in baptism return or\nremain,--all other sins, I say, are immediately blotted out through\nthat same faith, or rather through the truth of God, because He cannot\ndeny Himself if you but confess Him and cling believing to Him that\npromises. But as for contrition, confession of sins, and\nsatisfaction[86],--with all those carefully thought-out exercises of\nmen,--if you turn your attention to them and neglect this truth of\nGod, they will suddenly fail you and leave you more wretched than\nbefore. For whatever is done without faith in the truth of God, is\nvanity of vanities and vexation of spirit [Eccl. 1:2, 14].\n\nAgain, how perilous, nay, how false it is to suppose that penance is\nthe second plank after the shipwreck! How harmful an error it is to\nbelieve that the power of baptism is broken, and the ship has\nfoundered, because we have sinned! Nay; that one, solid and unsinkable\nship remains, and is never broken up into floating timbers; it carries\nall those who are brought to the harbor of salvation; it is the truth\nof God giving us its promise in the sacraments. Many, indeed, rashly\nleap overboard and perish in the waves; these are they who depart from\nfaith in the promise and plunge into sin. But the ship herself remains\nintact and holds her steady course; and if one be able somehow to\nreturn to the ship, it is not on any plank but in the good ship\nherself that he is borne to life. Such an one is he who through faith\nreturns to the sure promise of God that abideth forever. Therefore\nPeter, in his second epistle, rebukes them that sin, because they have\nforgotten that they were purged from their old sins [2 Peter 1:9]; in\nwhich words he doubtless chides their ingratitude or the baptism they\nhad received and their wicked unbelief.\n\nWhat is the good, then, of making many books on baptism and yet not\nteaching this faith in the promise? All the sacraments were instituted\nfor the purpose of nourishing faith, but these godless men so\ncompletely pass over this faith that they even assert a man dare not\nbe certain of the forgiveness of sins, that is, of the grace of the\nsacraments. With such wicked teachings they delude the world, and not\nonly take captive but altogether destroy the sacrament of baptism, in\nwhich the chief glory of our conscience consists. Meanwhile they madly\nrage against the miserable souls of men with their contritions,\nanxious confessions, circumstances[87], satisfactions, works and\nendless other absurdities. Read, therefore, with great caution the\nMaster of the Sentences[88] in his fourth book, or, better yet,\ndespise him together with all his commentators, who at their best\nwrite only of the material and form[87] of the sacraments, that is,\nthey treat of the dead and death-dealing letter of the sacraments, but\npass over in utter silence the spirit, life and use, that is, the\ntruth of the divine promise and our faith.\n\nBeware, therefore, lest the external pomp of works and the deceits of\nhuman traditions mislead you, so that you may not wrong the divine\ntruth and your faith. If you would be saved, you must begin with the\nfaith of the sacraments, without any works whatever; but on faith the\nworks will follow: only do not think lightly of faith, which is a\nwork, and of all works the most excellent and the most difficult to\ndo. Through it alone you will be saved, even if you should be\ncompelled to do without any other works. For it is a work of God, not\nof man, as Paul teaches [Eph. 2:8]. The other works He works through\nus and with our help, but this one He works in us and without our\nhelp.\n\nFrom this we can clearly see the difference, in baptism, between man\nthe minister and God the Doer. For man baptises and does not baptise:\nhe baptises, for he performs the work, immersing the person to be\nbaptised; he does not baptise, for in that act he officiates not by\nhis own authority, but in the stead of God. Hence, we ought to receive\nbaptism at the hands of a man just as if Christ Himself, nay, God\nHimself, were baptising us with His own hands. For it is not man's\nbaptism, but Christ's and God's baptism, which we receive by the hand\nof a man; just as every other created thing that we make use of by the\nhand of another, is God's alone. Therefore beware of dividing baptism\nin such a way as to ascribe the outward part to man and the inward\npart to God. Ascribe both to God alone, and look upon the person\nadministering it as the instrument in God's hands, by which the Lord\nsitting in heaven thrusts you under the water with His own hands, and\nspeaking by the mouth of His minister promises you, on earth with a\nhuman voice, the forgiveness of your sins.\n\nThis the words themselves indicate, when the priest says: \"I baptise\nthee in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.\nAmen\"--and not: \"I baptise thee in my own name.\" It is as though he\nsaid: \"What I do, I do not by my own authority, but in the name and\nstead of God, so that you should regard it just as if our Lord Himself\nhad done it in a visible manner. The Doer and the minister are\ndifferent persons, but the work of both is the same work, or, rather,\nit is the work of the Doer alone, through my ministry.\" For I hold\nthat \"in the name of\" refers to the person of the Doer, so that the\nname of the Lord is not only to be uttered and invoked while the work\nis being done, but the work itself is to be done not as one's own\nwork, but in the name and stead of another. In this sense Christ says,\n\"Many shall come in my name,\" [Matt. 24:5] and in Romans i it is said,\n\"By whom we have received grace and apostleship for obedience to the\nfaith, in all nations, for His name.\" [Rom. 1:5]\n\nThis view I heartily endorse; for there is much of comfort and a mighty\naid to faith in the knowledge that one has been baptised not by man,\nbut by the Triune God Himself through a man acting among us in His\nname. This will dispose of that fruitless quarrel about the \"form\"[90]\nof baptism, as these words are called. The Greeks say: \"May the\nservant of Christ be baptised,\" while the Latins say: \"I baptise.\"\nOthers again, pedantic triflers, condemn the use of the words, \"I\nbaptise thee in the name of Jesus Christ\"[91]--although it is certain\nthat the Apostles used this formula in baptising, as we read in the\nActs of the Apostles--and would allow no other form to be valid than\nthis: \"I baptise thee in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and\nof the Holy Ghost.\" But their contention is in vain, for they bring no\nproof, but merely assert their own dreams. Baptism truly saves in\nwhatever way it is administered, if only it be not administered in the\nname of man but of God. Nay, I have no doubt that if one received\nbaptism in the name of the Lord, even though the wicked minister\nshould not give it in the name of the Lord, he would yet be truly\nbaptised in the name of the Lord. For the effect of baptism depends\nnot so much on the faith or use of him that confers it as on the faith\nor use of him that receives it; of which we have an illustration in\nthe case of the play-actor who was baptised in jest[92]. Such anxious\ndisputings and questionings are aroused in us by those who ascribe\nnothing to faith and everything to works and forms, whereas we owe\neverything to faith alone and nothing to forms, and faith makes us\nfree in spirit from all those scruples and fancies.\n\n[Sidenote: The Second Part of Baptism: The Sign, or Sacrament]\n\nThe second part of baptism is the sign, or sacrament, which is that\nimmersion into water whence also it derives its name; for the Greek\n_baptizo_ means I immerse, and _baptisma_ means immersion. For, as has\nbeen said[93], signs are added to the divine promises to represent\nthat which the words signify, for, as they now say, that which the\nsacrament \"effectively signifies.\" We shall see how much of truth\nthere is in this. The great majority have supposed that there is some\nhidden spiritual power in the word or in the water, which works the\ngrace of God in the soul of the recipient. Others deny this and hold\nthat there is no power in the sacraments, but that grace is given by\nGod alone, Who according to His covenant aids the sacraments He has\ninstituted[94]. Yet all are agreed that the sacraments are effective\nsigns of grace, and they reach this conclusion by this one argument:\nIf the sacraments of the New Law merely \"signified,\" it would not be\napparent in what respect they surpassed the sacraments of the Old Law.\nHence they have been driven to attribute such great power to the\nsacraments of the New Law that in their opinion they benefit even such\nmen as are in mortal sins, and that they do not require faith or\ngrace; it is sufficient not to oppose a \"bar,\" that is, an actual\nintention to sin again.\n\nBut these views must be carefully avoided and shunned, because they\nare godless and infidel, being contrary to faith and to the nature of\nthe sacraments. For it is an error to hold that the sacraments of the\nNew Law differ from those of the Old Law in the efficacy of their\n\"signifying.\" The \"signifying\" of both is equally efficacious. The\nsame God Who now saves me by baptism saved Abel by his sacrifice, Noah\nby the bow, Abraham by circumcision, and all the others by their\nrespective signs. So far as the \"signifying\" is concerned, there is no\ndifference between a sacrament of the Old Law and one of the New;\nprovided that by the Old Law you mean that which God wrought among the\npatriarchs and other fathers in the days of the law. But those signs\nwhich were given to the patriarchs and fathers must be sharply\ndistinguished from the legal types which Moses instituted in his law,\nsuch as the priestly rites concerning robes, vessels, meats,\ndwellings, and the like. Between these and the sacraments of the New\nLaw there is a vast difference, but no less between them and those\nsigns that God from time to time gave to the fathers living judges\nunder the law, such as the sign of Gideon's fleece [Judges 6:36],\nManoah's sacrifice [Judges 13:19], or the sign which Isaiah offered to\nAhaz, in Isaiah vii [Isa. 7:10]; for to these signs God attached a\ncertain promise which required faith in Him.\n\nThis, then, is the difference between the legal types and the new and\nold signs--the former have not attached to them any word of promise\nrequiring faith. Hence they are not signs of justification, for they\nare not sacraments of the faith that alone justifies, but only\nsacraments of works; their whole power and nature consisted in works,\nnot in faith, and he that observed them fulfilled them, even if he did\nit without faith. But our signs, or sacraments, as well as those of\nthe fathers, have attached to them a word of promise, which requires\nfaith, and they cannot be fulfilled by any other work. Hence they are\nsigns or sacraments of justification, for they are the sacraments of\njustifying faith and not of works. Their whole efficacy, therefore,\nconsists in faith itself, not in the doing of a work; for whoever\nbelieves them fulfils them, even if he should not do a single work.\nWhence has arisen the saying, \"Not the sacrament but the faith of the\nsacrament justifies.\" Thus circumcision did not justify Abraham and\nhis seed, and yet the Apostle calls it the seal of the righteousness\nof faith [Rom. 4:11], because faith in the promise, to which\ncircumcision was added, justified him and fulfilled that which\ncircumcision signified. For faith was the spiritual circumcision of\nthe foreskin of the heart [Deut. 10:16; Jer. 4:4], which was\nsymbolised by the literal circumcision of the flesh. And in the same\nmanner it was obviously not Abel's sacrifice that justified him, but\nit was his faith, by which he offered himself wholly to God and which\nwas symbolised by the outward sacrifice.\n\nEven so it is not baptism that justifies or benefits anyone, but it is\nfaith in the word of promise, to which baptism is added. This faith\njustifies, and fulfils that which baptism signifies. For faith is the\nsubmersion of the old man and the emerging of the new. Therefore it\ncannot be that the new sacraments differ from the old, for both have\nthe divine promise and the same spirit of faith; although they do\ndiffer vastly from the olden types on account of the word of promise,\nwhich is the one decisive point of difference. Even so, to-day, the\noutward show of vestments, holy places, meats and of all the endless\nceremonies has doubtless a fine symbolical meaning, which is to be\nspiritually fulfilled; and yet because there is no word of divine\npromise attached to these things, they can in nowise be compared with\nthe signs of baptism and of the bread, nor do they in any way justify\nor benefit one, since they are fulfilled in the very observance, apart\nfrom faith. For while they are taking place or are being performed,\nthey are being fulfilled; as the Apostle says of them, in Colossians\nii, \"Which are all to perish with the using, after the commandments\nand doctrines of men.\" [Col. 2:22] The sacraments, on the contrary,\nare not fulfilled when they are observed, but when they are believed.\n\nIt cannot be true, therefore, that there is in the sacraments a power\nefficacious for justification, or that they are effective signs of\ngrace[95]. All such assertions tend to destroy faith, and arise from\nignorance of the divine promise. Unless you should call them effective\nin the sense that they certainly and efficaciously impart grace, where\nfaith is unmistakably present. But it is not in this sense that\nefficacy is now ascribed to them; as witness the act that they are\nsaid to benefit all men, even the godless and unbelieving, provided\nthey do not oppose a \"bar\"--as if such unbelief were not in itself the\nmost obstinate and hostile of all bars to grace. So firmly bent are\nthey on turning the sacrament into a command, and faith into a work.\nFor if the sacrament confers grace on me because I receive it, then\nindeed I obtain grace by virtue of my work and not of faith; I lay\nhold not on the promise in the sacrament, but on the sign instituted\nand commanded by God. Do you not see, then, how completely the\nsacraments have been misunderstood by our sententious theologians?[96]\nThey have taken no account, in their discussions on the sacraments, of\neither faith or the promise, but cling only to the sign and the use of\nthe sign, and draw us away from faith to the work, from the word to\nthe sign. Thus they have not only carried the sacraments captive (as I\nhave said)[97], but have completely destroyed them, as far as they\nwere able.\n\nTherefore, let us open our eyes and learn to give more heed to the\nword than to the sign[98], and to faith than to the work, for the use\nof the sign, remembering that wherever there is a divine promise there\nfaith is required, and that these two are so necessary to each other\nthat neither can be efficacious apart from the other. For it is not\npossible to believe unless there be a promise, and the promise is not\nestablished unless it be believed. But where these two meet, they give\na real and most certain efficacy to the sacraments. Hence, to seek the\nefficacy of the sacrament apart from the promise and apart from faith,\nis to labor in vain and to ind damnation. Thus Christ says: \"He that\nbelieveth and is baptised, shall be saved; he that believe not shall\nbe damned.\" [Mark 16:16] He shows us in this word that faith is so\nnecessary a part of the sacrament that it can save even without the\nsacrament; for which reason He did not see it to say: \"He that\nbelieveth not, _and is not baptised_. . .\"\n\nBaptism, then, signifies two things--death and resurrection; that is,\nfull and complete justification. The minister's immersing the child in\nthe water signifies death; his drawing it forth again signifies life.\nThus Paul expounds it in Romans vi, \"We are buried together with\nChrist by baptism into death; that as Christ is risen from the dead by\nthe glory of the Father, so we also may walk in newness of life.\"\n[Rom. 6:4] This death and resurrection we call the new creation,\nregeneration, and the spiritual birth. And this must not be understood\nonly in a figurative sense, of the death of sin and the life of grace,\nas many understand it, but of actual death and resurrection. The\nsignificance of baptism is not an imaginary significance, and sin does\nnot completely die, nor does grace completely rise, until the body of\nsin that we carry about in this life is destroyed; as the Apostle\nteaches in the same chapter [Rom. 6:6]. For as long as we are in the\nflesh, the desires of the flesh stir and are stirred. Wherefore, as\nsoon as ever we begin to believe, we also begin to die to this world\nand to live unto God in the life to come; so that faith is truly a\ndeath and a resurrection, that is, it is that spiritual baptism in\nwhich we go under and come forth.\n\nHence it is indeed correct to say that baptism is a washing from sins,\nbut that expression is too weak and mild to bring out the full\nsignificance of baptism, which is rather a symbol of death and\nresurrection. For this reason I would have the candidates for baptism\ncompletely immersed in the water, as the word[99] says and as the\nsacrament signifies. Not that I deem this necessary, but it were well\nto give to so perfect and complete a things a perfect and complete\nsign; thus it was also doubtless instituted by Christ. The sinner does\nnot so much need to be washed as he needs to die, in order to be\nwholly renewed and made another creature, and to be conformed to the\ndeath and resurrection of Christ, with Whom, through baptism, he dies\nand rises again. Although you may properly say that Christ was washed\nclean of mortality when He died and rose again, yet that is a weaker\nway of putting it than if you said He was completely changed and\nrenewed. In the same way it is far more forceful to say that baptism\nsignifies our utter dying and rising to eternal life, than to say that\nit signifies merely our being washed clean from sins.\n\nHere, again, you see that the sacrament of baptism, even in respect to\nits sign, is not the matter of a moment, but continues for all time.\nAlthough its administration is soon over, yet the thing it\nsignifies[100] continues until we die, nay, until we rise at the last\nday. For as long as we live we are continually doing that which our\nbaptism signifies,--we die and rise again. We die, that is, not only\nspiritually and in our affections, by renouncing the sins and vanities\nof this world, but we die in very truth, we begin to leave this bodily\nlife and to lay hold on the life to come; so that there is, as they\nsay, a real and even a bodily going out of this world to the Father.\n\nWe must, therefore, beware of those who have reduced the power of\nbaptism to such a vanishing point as to say that the grace of God is\nindeed inpoured in baptism, but afterwards poured out again through\nsin, and that thereupon one must reach heaven by another way; as if\nbaptism had then become entirely useless. Do not you hold to such a\nview, but know that baptism signifies your dying and living again, and\ntherefore, whether it be by penance or by any other way, you can but\nreturn to the power of your baptism, and do afresh that which you were\nbaptised to do and which your baptism signified. Never does baptism\nlose its power, unless you despair and refuse to return to its\nsalvation. You may, indeed, or a season wander away from the sign, but\nthat does not make the sign of none effect. You have, thus, been\nbaptised once in the sacrament, but you must be constantly baptised\nagain through faith, you must constantly die, you must constantly live\nagain. Baptism swallowed up your whole body, and gave it forth again;\neven so that which baptism signifies[101] should swallow up your whole\nlife in body and soul, and give it forth again at the last day, clad\nin robes of glory and immortality. We are, therefore, never without\nthe sign of baptism nor yet without the thing it signifies; nay, we\nmust be baptised ever more and more completely, until we perfectly\nfulfil the sign, at the last day.\n\nTherefore, whatever we do in this life that avails for the mortifying\nof the flesh and the giving life to the spirit, belongs to baptism;\nand the sooner we depart this life the sooner do we fulfil our\nbaptism, and the greater our sufferings the more closely do we conform\nto our baptism. Hence those were the Church's halcyon days, when the\nmartyrs were being killed every day and accounted as sheep for the\nslaughter [Ps. 44:22; Rom. 8:36]; for then the power of baptism\nreigned supreme in the Church, which power we have to-day lost sight\nof amid the multitude of works and doctrines of men. For all our life\nshould be baptism, and the fulfilling of the sign, or sacrament, of\nbaptism; we have been set free from all else and wholly given over to\nbaptism alone, that is, to death and resurrection.\n\n[Sidenote: The Glorious Liberty of the Baptised]\n\nThis glorious liberty of ours, and this understanding of baptism have\nbeen carried captive in our day; and whom have we to thank for this\nbut the Roman pontiff with his despotism? More than all others, it was\nhis first duty, as chief shepherd, to preach and defend this liberty\nand this knowledge, as Paul says in I Corinthians: \"Let a man so\naccount of us as of the ministers of Christ, and the dispensers of the\nmysteries, or sacraments[101], of God.\" [1 Cor. 4:1] Instead of this,\nhe seeks only to oppress us with his decrees and his laws, and to\nenslave and ensnare us in the tyranny of his power. By what right, in\nGod's name, does the pope impose his laws upon us? to say nothing of\nhis wicked and damnable neglect to teach these mysteries. Who gave him\npower to despoil us of this liberty, granted us in baptism? One thing\nonly (as I have said)[103] has been enjoined upon us all the days of\nour life,--to be baptised; that is, to be put to death and to live\nagain, through faith in Christ; and this faith alone should have been\ntaught, especially by the chief shepherd. But now there is not a word\nsaid about faith, and the Church is laid waste with endless laws\nconcerning works and ceremonies; the power and right understanding of\nbaptism are put by, and faith in Christ is prevented.\n\nTherefore I say: Neither pope nor bishop nor any other man has the\nright to impose a single syllable of law upon a Christian man without\nhis consent; and if he does, it is done in the spirit of tyranny.\nTherefore the prayers, fasts, donations, and whatever else the pope\ndecrees and demands in all of his decretals, as numerous as they are\niniquitous, he demands and decrees without any right whatever; and he\nsins against the liberty of the Church whenever he attempts any such\nthing. Hence it has come to pass that the churchmen of our day are\nindeed such vigorous defenders of the liberty of the Church, that is,\nof wood and stone, of land and rents--for \"churchly\" is nowadays the\nsame as \"spiritual\"--yet with such fictions they not only take captive\nbut utterly destroy the true liberty of the Church, and deal with us\nfar worse than the Turk, in opposition to the word of the Apostle, \"Be\nnot made the bondslaves of men.\" [1 Cor. 7:23] For, verily, to be\nsubjected to their statutes and tyrannical laws is to be made the\nbondslaves of men.\n\nThis impious and desperate tyranny is fostered by the pope's\ndisciples, who here drag in and pervert that saying of Christ, \"He\nthat heareth you heareth me.\" [Luke 10:16] With puffed cheeks they\nblow up this saying to a great size in support of their traditions.\nThough Christ spake it to the apostles when they went forth to preach\nthe Gospel, and though it applies solely to the Gospel, they pass over\nthe Gospel and apply it only to their fables. He says in John x: \"My\nsheep hear my voice, but the voice of a stranger they hear not\" [John\n10:27]; and to this end He left us the Gospel, that His voice might be\nuttered by the pontiffs. But they utter their own voice, and\nthemselves desire to be heard. Moreover, the Apostle says that he was\nnot sent to baptise but to preach the Gospel [1 Cor. 1:17]. Therefore,\nno one is bound to the traditions of the pope, nor does he need to\ngive ear to him unless he teaches the Gospel and Christ, and the pope\nshould teach nothing but faith without any restrictions. But since\nChrist says, \"He that heareth you heareth me,\" [Luke 10:16] and does\nnot say to Peter only, \"He that heareth thee\"; why does not the pope\nalso hear others? In fine, where there is true faith, there must also\nbe the word of faith. Why then does not an unbelieving pope now and\nthen hear a believing servant of his, who has the word of faith? It is\nblindness, sheer blindness, that holds the popes in its power.\n\nBut others, more shameless still, arrogantly ascribe to the pope the\npower to make laws, on the basis of Matthew xvi, \"Whatsoever thou\nshalt bind,\" [Matt. 16:19] etc., though Christ treats in this passage\nof binding and loosing sins, not of taking the whole Church captive\nand oppressing it with laws. So this tyranny treats everything with\nits own lying words and violently wrests and perverts the words of\nGod. I admit indeed that Christians ought to bear this accursed\ntyranny just as they would bear any other violence of this world,\naccording to Christ's word: \"If one strike thee on thy right cheek,\nturn to him also the other.\" [Matt. 5:39] But this is my\ncomplaint,--that the godless pontiffs boastfully claim the right to do\nthis, that they pretend to be seeking the Church's welfare with this\nBabylon of theirs, and that they foist this fiction upon all mankind.\nFor if they did these things, and we suffered their violence, well\nknowing, both of us, that it was godlessness and tyranny, then we\nmight number it among the things that tend to the mortifying of this\nlife and the fulfilling of our baptism, and might with a good\nconscience glory in the inflicted injury. But now they seek to deprive\nus of this consciousness of our liberty, and would have us believe\nthat what they do is well done, and must not be censured or complained\nof as wrongdoing. Being wolves, they masquerade as shepherds; being\nanti-christs, they would be honored as Christ.\n\nSolely in behalf of this freedom of conscience, I lift my voice and\nconfidently cry: No laws may by any right be laid upon Christians,\nwhether by men or angels, without their consent; for we are free from\nall things. And if any laws are laid upon us, we must bear them in\nsuch a way as to preserve the consciousness of our liberty, and know\nand certainly affirm that the making of such laws is an injustice,\nwhich we will bear and glory in, giving heed not to justify the tyrant\nnor yet to rebel against his tyranny.  \"For who is he,\" says Peter,\n\"that will harm you, if ye be followers of that which is good?\" [1\nPet. 3:13] \"All things work together or good to the elect.\" [Rom.\n8:28]\n\nNevertheless, since but few know this glory of baptism and the\nblessedness of Christian liberty, and cannot know them because of the\ntyranny of the pope, I for one will clear my skirts and salve my\nconscience by bringing this charge against the pope and all his\npapists: Unless they will abolish their laws and traditions, and\nrestore to Christ's churches their liberty and have it taught among\nthem, they are guilty of all the souls that perish under this\nmiserable captivity, and the papacy is of a truth the kingdom of\nBabylon, yea, of very Antichrist! For who is \"the man of sin\" and \"the\nson of perdition\" [2 Thess. 2:3 f.] but he that with his doctrines and\nhis laws increases sins and the perdition of souls in the Church,\nwhile he sitteth in the Church as if he were God? All this the papal\ntyranny has fulfilled, and more than fulfilled, these many centuries;\nit has extinguished faith, obscured the sacraments and oppressed the\nGospel; but its own laws, which are not only impious and sacrilegious,\nbut even barbarous and foolish, it has enjoined and multiplied world\nwithout end.\n\nBehold, then, our miserable captivity; how the city doth sit solitary\nthat was full of people! How the mistress of the Gentiles is become as\na widow: the princess of provinces made tributary! There is none to\ncomfort her, all her friends have despised her. [Lament. 1:1 f.] So\nmany orders, so many rites, so many sects, so many professions,\nexertions and works, in which Christians are engaged, until they lose\nsight of their baptism, and for this swarm of locusts, cankerworms and\ncaterpillars [Joel 1:4] not one of them is able to remember that he is\nbaptised or what blessings his baptism brought him. We should be even\nas little children, newly baptised, who are engaged in no efforts and\nno works, but are free in every way, secure and saved solely through\nthe glory of their baptism. For we are indeed little children,\ncontinually baptised anew in Christ.\n\n[Sidenote: Infant Baptism]\n\nIn contradiction of what has been said, some will perhaps point to the\nbaptism of infants, who do not grasp the promise of God and cannot\nhave the faith of baptism; so that either faith is not necessary or\nelse infant baptism is without effect. Here I say what all say:\nInfants are aided by the faith of others, namely, those who bring them\nto baptism[104]. For the Word of God is powerful, when it is uttered,\nto change even a godless heart, which is no less deaf and helpless\nthan any infant. Even so the infant is changed, cleansed and renewed\nby inpoured faith, through the prayer of the Church that presents it\nfor baptism and believes, to which prayer all things are possible\n[Mark 9:23]. Nor should I doubt that even a godless adult might be\nchanged, in any of the sacraments, if the same Church prayed and\npresented him; as we read in the Gospel of the man sick of the palsy,\nwho was healed through the faith of others [Matt. 9:1 ff.]. I should\nbe ready to admit that in this sense the sacraments of the New Law are\nefficacious to confer grace, not only to those who do not, but even to\nthose who do most obstinately, oppose a bar[105]. What obstacle will\nnot the faith of the Church and the prayer of faith remove? Do we not\nbelieve that Stephen by this powerful means converted Paul the\nApostle? But then the sacraments accomplish what they do not by their\nown power, but by the power of faith, without which they accomplish\nnothing at all, as has been said[106].\n\nThere remains the question, whether it is right to baptise an infant\nnot yet born, with only a hand or a foot presenting. Here I will\ndecide nothing hastily, and confess my ignorance. I am not sure\nwhether the reason given by some is sufficient,--that the soul resides\nin its entirety in every part of the body; or it is not the soul but\nthe body that is externally baptised with water. Nor do I share the\nview of others, that he who is not yet born cannot be born again, even\nthough it has considerable force. I leave these matters to the\nteaching of the Spirit, and meanwhile permit every one to abound in\nhis own sense [Rom. 14:15 (Vulg.)].\n\n[Sidenote: Vows and the Baptismal Vow]\n\nOne thing I will add--and would to God I might persuade all to do\nit!--viz., completely to abolish or avoid all vows, be they vows to\nenter religious orders, to make pilgrimages or to do any works\nwhatsoever, that we may remain in the liberty of our baptism, which is\nthe most religious and rich in works. It is impossible to say how\ngreatly that widespread delusion of vows lowers baptism and obscures\nthe knowledge of Christian liberty; to say nothing now of the\nunspeakable and infinite peril of souls which that mania for making\nvows and that ill-advised rashness daily increase. O most godless\npontiffs and unhappy pastors, who slumber on unheeding and indulge\nyour evil lusts, without pity or this \"affliction of Joseph,\" [Amos\n6:4-6] so dreadful and fraught with peril!\n\nVows should either be abolished by a general edict, particularly such\nas are taken for life, and all men diligently recalled to the vows of\nbaptism, or else everyone should be warned not to take a vow rashly,\nand no one encouraged to do so, nay, permission be given only with\ndifficulty and reluctance. For we have vowed enough in baptism, nay,\nmore than we can ever fulfil; if we give ourselves to the keeping of\nthis one vow, we shall have all we can do. But now we compass earth\nand sea to make many proselytes [Matt. 23:15]; we fill the world with\npriests, monks and nuns, and imprison them all in life-long vows. You\nwill find those who argue and decide that a work done in fulfilment of\na vow ranks higher than one done without a vow, and is to be rewarded\nwith I know not what great rewards in heaven. Blind and godless\nPharisees, who measure righteousness and holiness by the greatness,\nnumber or other quality of the works! But God measures them by faith\nalone, and with Him there is no difference between works except that\nwhich is wrought by faith.\n\nWith such bombast these wicked men advertise their inventions and puff\nup human works, to lure on the unthinking populace, who are almost\nalways led by the glitter of works to make shipwreck of their faith,\nto forget their baptism and do despite to their Christian liberty. For\na vow is a kind of law or requirement; therefore, when vows are\nmultiplied, laws and works are necessarily multiplied, and when this\nis done, faith is extinguished and the liberty of baptism taken\ncaptive. Others, not content with these wicked allurements, add yet\nthis and say that entrance into a religious order is a new\nbaptism[107], as it were, which may afterward be repeated as often as\nthe purpose to live the religious life is renewed. Thus these\n\"votaries\" have appropriated to themselves all righteousness,\nsalvation and glory, and let to those who are merely baptised nothing\nto compare with them. Nay, the Roman pontiff, that fountain and source\nof all superstitions, confirms, approves and adorns this mode of life\nwith high-sounding bulls and dispensations, while no one deems baptism\nworthy of even a thought. And with such glittering pomp (as we have\nsaid)[108] they drive the easily led people of Christ into certain\ndisaster, so that in their ingratitude toward baptism they presume to\nachieve greater things by their works than others achieve by their\nfaith.\n\nTherefore, God again shows Himself froward to the froward [Ps. 18:26],\nand to repay the makers of vows for their ingratitude and pride,\ncauses them to break their vows or to keep them only with prodigious\nlabor; to remain sunk in them, never coming to the knowledge of the\ngrace of faith and baptism; to continue in their hypocrisy unto the\nend--since their spirit is not approved of God--and at last to become\na laughing-stock to the whole world, ever ensuing righteousness and\nnever attaining unto righteousness; so that they fulfil the word of\nIsaiah: \"The land is full of idols.\" [Isa. 2:8]\n\nI am indeed far from forbidding or discouraging any one who may desire\nto take a vow privately and of his own free choice; for I would not\naltogether despise and condemn vows. But I would most strongly advise\nagainst setting up and sanctioning the making of vows as a public mode\nof life. It is enough that every one should have the private right to\ntake a vow at his peril; but to commend the vowing of vows as a public\nmode of life--this I hold to be most harmful to the Church and to\nsimple souls. And I hold this, first, because it runs directly counter\nto the Christian life; for a vow is a certain ceremonial law and a\nhuman tradition or presumption, and from these the Christian has been\nset free through baptism. For a Christian is subject to no laws but\nthe law of God. Again, there is no instance in Scripture of such a\nvow, especially of life-long chastity, obedience and poverty[109]. But\nwhatever is without warrant of Scripture is hazardous and should by no\nmeans be commended to any one, much less established as a common and\npublic mode of life, although whoever will must be permitted to make\nthe venture at his own peril. For certain works are wrought by the\nSpirit in a few men, but they must not be made an example or a mode of\nlife or all.\n\nMoreover, I greatly fear that these modes of life of the religious\norders belong to those things which the Apostle foretold: \"They shall\nteach a life in hypocrisy, forbidding to marry, to abstain from meats,\nwhich God hath created to be received with thanksgiving.\" [1 Tim. 4:2\nf.] Let no one retort by pointing to Sts. Bernard, Francis, Dominic\nand others, who founded or fostered monastic orders. Terrible and\nmarvelous is God in His counsels toward the sons of men. He could keep\nDaniel, Ananias, Azarias and Misael holy at the court of the king of\nBabylon [Dan 1:6 ff.], that is, in the midst of godlessness; why could\nHe not sanctify those men also in their perilous mode of living or\nguide them by the special operation of His Spirit, yet without\ndesiring it to be an example to others? Besides, it is certain that\nnone of them was saved through his vows and his \"religious\" life; they\nwere saved through faith alone, by which all men are saved, and with\nwhich that splendid slavery of vows is more than anything else in\nconflict.\n\nBut every one may hold to his own view of this [Rom. 14:5]. I will\nreturn to my argument. Speaking now in behalf of the Church's liberty\nand the glory of baptism, I feel myself in duty bound publicly to set\nforth the counsel I have learned under the Spirit's guidance. I\ntherefore counsel the magnates of the churches, first of all, to\nabolish all those vows, or at least not to approve and extol them. If\nthey will not do this, then I counsel all men who would be assured of\ntheir salvation, to abstain from all vows, above all from the great\nand life-long vows; I give this counsel especially to all growing boys\nand youths. This I do, first, because this manner of life has no\nwitness or warrant in the Scriptures, as I have said, but is puffed up\nsolely by the bulls (and they truly are \"bulls\")[110] of human popes.\nAnd, secondly, because it greatly tends to hypocrisy, by reason of its\noutward show and its unusual character, which engender conceit and a\ncontempt of the common Christian life. And if there were no other\nreason for abolishing these vows, this one were reason enough, namely,\nthat through them, faith and baptism are slighted and works are\nexalted, which cannot be done without harmful results. For in the\nreligious orders there is scarce one in many thousands, who is not\nmore concerned about works than about faith, and on the basis of this\nmadness they have even made distinctions among themselves, such as\n\"the more strict\" and \"the more lax,\" as they call them[111].\n\nTherefore I advise no one to enter any religious order or the\npriesthood--nay, I dissuade everyone--unless he be forearmed with this\nknowledge and understand that the works of monks and priests, be they\nnever so holy and arduous, differ no whit in the sight of God from the\nworks of the rustic toiling in the field or the woman going about her\nhousehold tasks, but that all works are measured before Him by faith\nalone; as Jeremiah says: \"O Lord, thine eyes are upon faith\" [Jer.\n5:3]; and Ecclesiasticus: \"In every work of thine regard thy soul in\nfaith: for this is the keeping of the commandments.\" [Eccles. 32:27]\nNay, he should know that the menial housework of a maidservant or\nmanservant is ofttimes more acceptable to God than all the fastings\nand other works of a monk or a priest, because the latter lacks faith.\nSince, therefore, vows seem to tend nowadays only to the glorification\nof works and to pride, it is to be feared that there is nowhere less\nof faith and of the Church than among the priests, monks and bishops,\nand that these men are in truth heathen or hypocrites, who imagine\nthemselves to be the Church or the heart of the Church, and\n\"spiritual,\" and the Church's leaders, when they are everything else\nbut that. And it is to be feared that this is indeed \"the people of\nthe captivity,\" [Ps. 64:1 (Vulg.)] among whom all things freely given\nus in baptism are held captive, while \"the people of the earth\" are\nleft behind in poverty and in small numbers, and, as is the lot of\nmarried folk, appear vile in their eyes[112].\n\n[Sidenote: Papal Dispensations and their Inconsistency]\n\nFrom what has been said we learn that the Roman pontiff is guilty of\ntwo glaring errors. In the first place, he grants dispensations from\nvows[113], and does it as though he alone of all Christians possessed\nthis authority; such is the temerity and audacity of wicked men. If it\nbe possible to grant a dispensation from a vow, then any brother may\ngrant one to his neighbor or even to himself. But if one's neighbor\ncannot grant a dispensation, neither can the pope by any right. For\nwhence has he his authority? From the power of the keys? But the keys\nbelong to all, and avail only for sins (Matthew xviii) [Matt. 18:15\nff.][114]. Now they themselves claim that vows are \"of divine right.\"\nWhy then does the pope deceive and destroy the poor souls of men by\ngranting dispensations in matters of divine right, in which no\ndispensations can be granted? He babbles indeed, in the section \"Of\nvows and their redemption,\"[115] of having the power to change vows,\njust as in the law the firstborn of an ass was changed or a sheep\n[Ex.13:13]--as if the firstborn of an ass, and the vow he commands to\nbe everywhere and always offered, were one and the same thing, or as\nif when God decrees in His law that a sheep shall be changed or an\nass, the pope, a mere man, may straightway claim the same power, not\nin his own law but in God's! It was not a pope, but an ass changed for\na pope[116], that made this decretal; so egregiously senseless and\ngodless is it.\n\nThe other error is this. The pope decrees, on the other hand, that\nmarriage is dissolved if one party enter a monastery even without the\nconsent of the other, provided the marriage be not yet consummated.\nGramercy, what devil puts such monstrous things into the pope's mind!\nGod commands men to keep faith and not break their word to one\nanother, and again, to do good with that which is their own; for He\nhates \"robbery in a holocaust,\" [Isa. 61:8] as he says by the mouth of\nIsaiah. But one spouse is bound by the marriage contract to keep faith\nwith the other, and he is not his own. He cannot break his faith by\nany right, and whatever he does with himself is robbery if it be\nwithout the other's consent. Why does not one who is burdened with\ndebts follow this same rule and obtain admission to an order, so as to\nbe released from his debts and be free to break his word? O more than\nblind! Which is greater; the faith commanded by God or a vow devised\nand chosen by man? Thou art a shepherd of souls, O pope? And ye that\nteach such things are doctors of sacred theology? Why then do ye teach\nthem? Because, forsooth, ye have decked out your vow as a better work\nthan marriage, and do not exalt faith, which alone exalts all things,\nbut ye exalt works, which are naught in the sight of God, or which are\nall alike so far as any merit is concerned[117].\n\nI have no doubt, therefore, that neither men nor angels can grant a\ndispensation from vows, if they be proper vows. But I am not fully\nclear in my own mind whether all the things that men nowadays vow come\nunder the head of vows. For instance, it is simply foolish and stupid\nfor parents to dedicate their children, before birth or in early\ninfancy, to \"the religious life,\" or to perpetual chastity; nay, it is\ncertain that this can by no means be termed a vow. It seems a mockery\nof God to vow things which it is not at all in one's power to keep. As\nto the triple vow of the monastic orders, the longer I consider it,\nthe less I comprehend it, and I marvel whence the custom of exacting\nthis vow has arisen. Still less do I understand at what age vows may\nbe taken in order to be legal and valid. I am pleased to find them\nunanimously agreed that vows taken before the age of puberty are not\nvalid. Nevertheless, they deceive many young children who are ignorant\nboth of their age and of what they are vowing; they do not observe the\nage of puberty in receiving such children, who after making their\nprofession are held captive and devoured by a troubled conscience, as\nthough they had afterward given their consent. As if a vow which was\ninvalid could afterward become valid with the lapse of time.\n\nIt seems absurd to me that the terms of a legal vow should be\nprescribed to others by those who cannot prescribe them for\nthemselves. Nor do I see why a vow taken at eighteen years of age\nshould be valid, and not one taken at ten or twelve years. It will not\ndo to say that at eighteen a man feels his carnal desires. How is it\nwhen he scarcely feels them at twenty or thirty, or when he feels them\nmore keenly at thirty than at twenty? Why do they not also set a\ncertain age-limit or the vows of poverty and obedience? But at what\nage will you say a man should feel his greed and pride? Even the most\nspiritual hardly become aware of these emotions. Therefore, no vow\nwill ever become binding and valid until we have become spiritual, and\nno longer have any need of vows. You see, these are uncertain and\nperilous matters, and it would therefore be a wholesome counsel to\nleave such lofty modes of living, unhampered by vows, to the Spirit\nalone, as they were of old, and by no means to change them into a rule\nbinding or life. But let this suffice for the present concerning\nbaptism and its liberty; in due time[118] I may treat of the vows at\ngreater length. Of a truth they stand sorely in need of it.\n\nTHE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE\n\nWe come in the third place to the sacrament of penance. On this\nsubject I have already given no little offence by my published\ntreatises and disputations[119], in which I have amply set forth my\nviews. These I must now briefly rehearse, in order to unmask the\ntyranny that is rampant here no less than in the sacrament of the\nbread. For because these two sacraments furnish opportunity for gain\nand profit, the greed of the shepherds rages in them with incredible\nzeal against the flock of Christ; although baptism, too, has sadly\ndeclined among adults and become the servant of avarice, as we have\njust seen in our discussion of vows.\n\n[Sidenote: The Abuse of Penance]\n\nThis is the first and chief abuse of this sacrament: They have utterly\nabolished the sacrament itself, so that there penance is not a vestige\nof it left. For they have overthrown both the word of divine promise\nand our faith, in which this as well as other sacraments consists.\nThey have applied to their tyranny the word of promise which Christ\nspake in Matthew xvi, \"Whatsoever thou shalt bind,\" etc. [Matt.\n16:19], in Matthew xviii, \"Whatsoever ye shall bind,\" [Matt. 18:18]\netc., and in John, the last chapter, \"Whose soever sins ye remit, they\nare remitted unto them,\" [John 20:23] etc. In these words the faith of\npenitents is aroused, to the obtaining of remission of sins. But in\nall their writing, teaching and preaching their sole concern has been,\nnot to teach Christians what is promised in these words or what they\nought to believe and what great comfort they might find in them, but\nonly to extend their own tyranny far and wide through force and\nviolence, until it has come to such a pass that some of them have\nbegun to command the very angels in heaven[120] and to boast in\nincredible mad wickedness of having in these words obtained the right\nto a heavenly and an earthly rule, and of possessing the power to bind\neven in heaven. Thus they say nothing of the saving faith of the\npeople, but babble only of the despotic power of the pontiffs, whereas\nChrist speaks not at all of power, but only of faith.\n\nFor Christ hath not ordained principalities or powers or lordships,\nbut ministries, in the Church; as we learn from the Apostle, who says:\n\"Let a man so account of us as of the ministers of Christ, and the\ndispensers of the mysteries of God.\" [1 Cor. 4:1] Now when He said:\n\"He that believeth and is baptised shall be saved,\" [Mark 16:16] He\ncalled forth the faith of those to be baptised, so that by this word\nof promise a man might be certain of being saved if he believed and\nwas baptised. In that word there is no impartation of any power\nwhatever, but only the institution of the ministry of those who\nbaptise. Similarly, when He says here: \"Whatsoever thou shalt bind,\"\netc. [Matt. 16:19], He calls forth the faith of the penitent, so that\nby this word of promise he may be certain of being truly absolved in\nheaven, if he be absolved and believe. Here there is no mention at all\nof power, but of the ministry of him that absolves. It is a wonder\nthese blind and overbearing men missed the opportunity of arrogating a\ndespotic power to themselves from the promise of baptism. But if they\ndo not do this in the case of baptism, why should they have presumed\nto do it in the case of the promise of penance? For in both there is a\nlike ministry, a similar promise, and the same kind of sacrament. So\nthat, if baptism does not belong to Peter alone, it is undeniably a\nwicked usurpation of power to claim the keys for the pope alone.\nAgain, when Christ says: \"Take, eat; this is my body, which is given\nor you. Take, drink; this is the chalice in my blood,\" etc. [1 Cor.\n11:24 f.], He calls forth the faith of those who eat, so that through\nthese words their conscience may be strengthened by faith and they may\nrest assured of receiving the forgiveness of sins, if they have eaten.\nHere, too, He says nothing of power, but only of a ministry.\n\nThus the promise of baptism remains in some sort, at least to infants;\nthe promise of bread and the cup has been destroyed and made\nsubservient to greed, faith becoming a work and the testament a\nsacrifice; while the promise of penance has fallen prey to the most\noppressive despotism of all and serves to establish a more than\ntemporal rule.\n\nNot content with these things, this Babylon of ours has so completely\nextinguished faith that it insolently denies its necessity in this\nsacrament; nay, with the wickedness of Antichrist it calls it heresy\nif any one should assert its necessity. What more could this tyranny\ndo that it has not done? [Isa. 5:4] Verily, by the rivers of Babylon\nwe sit and weep, when we remember thee, O Zion. We hang our harps upon\nthe willows in the midst thereof. [Ps. 137:1, 2] The Lord curse the\nbarren willows of those streams! Amen.\n\nNow let us see what they have put in the place of the promise and the\nfaith which they have blotted out and overthrown. Three parts have\nthey made of penance,--contrition, confession, and satisfaction; yet\nso as to destroy whatever of good there might be in any of them and to\nestablish here also their covetousness and tyranny.\n\n[Sidenote: I. Contrition.]\n\nIn the first place, they teach that contrition precedes faith in the\npromise; they hold it much too cheap[121], making it not a work of\nfaith, but a merit; nay, they do not mention it at all. So deep are\nthey sunk in works and in those instances of Scripture that show how\nmany obtained grace by reason of their contrition and humility of\nheart; but they take no account of the faith which wrought such\ncontrition and sorrow of heart, as it is written of the men of Nineveh\nin Jonah iii, \"And the men of Nineveh believed in God: and they\nproclaimed a fast,\" [Jonah 3:5] etc. Others, again, more bold and\nwicked, have invented a so-called \"attrition,\" which is converted into\ncontrition by virtue of the power of the keys, of which they know\nnothing[122]. This attrition they grant to the wicked and unbelieving\nand thus abolish contrition altogether. O the intolerable wrath of\nGod, that such things should be taught in the Church of Christ! Thus,\nwith both faith and its work destroyed, we go on secure in the\ndoctrines and opinions of men--yea, we go on to our destruction. A\ncontrite heart is a precious thing, but it is found only where there\nis a lively faith in the promises and the threats of God. Such faith,\nintent on the immutable truth of God, startles and terrifies the\nconscience and thus renders it contrite, and afterwards, when it is\ncontrite, raises it up, consoles and preserves it; so that the truth\nof God's threatening is the cause of contrition, and the truth of His\npromise the cause of consolation, if it be believed. By such faith a\nman merits the forgiveness of sins. Therefore faith should be taught\nand aroused before all else; and when faith is obtained, contrition\nand consolation will follow inevitably and of themselves.\n\nTherefore, although there is something of truth in their teaching that\ncontrition is to be attained by what they call the recollection and\ncontemplation of sins, yet their teaching is perilous and perverse so\nlong as they do not teach first of all the beginning and cause of\ncontrition,--the immutable truth of God's threatening and promise, to\nthe awakening of faith,--so that men may learn to pay more heed to the\ntruth of God, whereby they are cast down and lifted up, than to the\nmultitude of their sins, which will rather irritate and increase the\nsinful desires than lead to contrition, if they be regarded apart from\nthe truth of God. I will say nothing now of the intolerable burden\nthey have bound upon us with their demand that we should frame a\ncontrition for every sin. That is impossible; we can know only the\nsmaller part of our sins, and even our good works are found to be\nsins, according to Psalm cxliii, \"Enter not into judgment with thy\nservant; for in thy sight shall no man living be justified.\" [Ps.\n143:2] It is enough to lament the sins which at the present moment\ndistress our conscience, as well as those which we can readily call to\nmind. Whoever is in this frame of mind is without doubt ready to\ngrieve and fear for all his sins, and will do so whenever they are\nbrought to his knowledge in the future.\n\nBeware, then, of putting your trust in your own contrition and of\nascribing the forgiveness of sins to your own sorrow. God does not\nhave respect to you because of that, but because of the faith by which\nyou have believed His threatenings and promises, and which wrought\nsuch sorrow within you. Thus we owe whatever of good there may be in\nour penance, not to our scrupulous enumeration of sins, but to the\ntruth of God and to our faith. All other things are the works and\nfruits of this, which follow of their own accord, and do not make a\nman good, but are done by a man already made good through faith in the\ntruth of God. Even so, \"a smoke goeth up in His wrath, because He is\nangry and troubleth the mountains and kindleth them,\" [Ps. 18:8] as it\nis said in Psalm xviii. First comes the terror of His threatening,\nwhich burns up the wicked, then faith, accepting this, sends up the\ncloud of contrition, etc.\n\n[Sidenote: 2. Confession]\n\nContrition, however, is less exposed to tyranny and gain than wholly\ngiven over to wickedness and pestilent teaching. But confession and\nsatisfaction have become the chief workshop of greed and violence. Let\nus first take up confession. There is no doubt that confession is\nnecessary and commanded of God. Thus we read in Matthew iii: \"They\nwere baptised of John in Jordan, confessing their sins.\" [Matt. 3:6]\nAnd in I John i: \"If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to\nforgive us our sins. If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a\nliar, and his word is not in us.\" [1 John 1:9 f.] If the saints may\nnot deny their sin, how much more ought those who are guilty of open\nand great sins[123] to make confession! But most effectively of all\ndoes Matthew xviii prove the institution of confession, in which\npassage Christ teaches that a sinning brother should be rebuked, haled\nbefore the Church, accused and, if he will not hear, excommunicated.\nBut he hears when, heeding the rebuke, he acknowledges and confesses\nhis sin. [Matt. 18:15]\n\n[Sidenote: Private Confession]\n\n[Sidenote: \"Reserved Cases\"]\n\nOf private confession, which is now observed, I am heartily in favor,\neven though it cannot be proved from the Scriptures; it is useful and\nnecessary, nor would I have it abolished--nay, I rejoice that it\nexists in the Church of Christ, for it is a cure without an equal for\ndistressed consciences. For when we have laid bare our conscience to\nour brother and privately made known to him the evil that lurked\nwithin, we receive from our brother's lips the word of comfort spoken\nby God Himself; and, if we accept it in faith, we find peace in the\nmercy of God speaking to us through our brother. This alone do I\nabominate,--that this confession has been subjected to the despotism\nand extortion of the pontiffs. They reserve[124] to themselves even\nhidden sins, and command that they be made known to confessors named\nby them, only to trouble the consciences of men. They merely play the\npontiff, while they utterly despise the true duties of pontiffs, which\nare to preach the Gospel and to care for the poor. Yea, the godless\ndespots leave the great sins to the plain priests, and reserve to\nthemselves those sins only which are of less consequence, such as\nthose ridiculous and fictitious things in the bull _Coena\ndomini_[125]. Nay, to make the wickedness of their error the more\napparent, they not only do not reserve, but actually teach and\napprove, the sins against the service of God, against faith and the\nchief commandments; such as their running on pilgrimages, the perverse\nworship of the saints, the lying saints' legends, the various forms of\ntrust in works and ceremonies, and the practicing of them, by all of\nwhich faith in God is extinguished and idolatry encouraged, as we see\nin our day. We have the same kind of priests to-day as Jereboam\nordained of old in Dan and Beersheba [1 Kings 12:26 ff.],--ministers\nof the golden calves, men who are ignorant of the law of God, of faith\nand of whatever pertains to the feeding of Christ's sheep, and who\ninculcate in the people nothing but their own inventions with terror\nand violence.\n\nAlthough my advice is that we bear this outrage of reserved cases,\neven as Christ bids us bear all the tyranny of men, and teaches us\nthat we must obey these extortioners; nevertheless I deny that they\nhave the right to make such reservations, nor do I believe they can\nbring one jot or tittle of proof that they have it. But I am going to\nprove the contrary. In the first place, Christ, speaking in Matthew\nxviii of open sins, says that if our brother shall hear us when we\nrebuke him, we have saved the soul of our brother, and that he is to\nbe brought before the Church only if he refuse to hear us; so that his\nsin may be corrected among brethren. How much more will it be true of\nhidden sins, that they are forgiven if one brother freely makes\nconfession to another? So that it is not necessary to tell it to the\nChurch, that is, as these babblers interpret it, the prelate or\npriest. We have another proof of this in Christ's words in the same\nchapter: \"Whatsoever you shall bind on earth, shall be bound also in\nheaven; and whatsoever you shall loose on earth, shall be loosed in\nheaven.\" [Matt. 18:18] For this is said to each and every Christian.\nAgain, He says in the same place: \"Again I say to you, that if two of\nyou shall consent upon earth, concerning anything whatsoever that they\nshall ask, it shall be done to them by my Father who is in heaven.\"\n[Matt 18:19] Now, the brother who lays his hidden sins before his\nbrother and craves pardon, certainly consents with his brother upon\nearth in the truth, which is Christ. Of which Christ says yet more\nclearly, confirming His preceding words: \"Verily I say unto you, where\ntwo or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst\nof them.\" [Matt. 18:20]\n\nHence, I have no doubt but that every one is absolved from his hidden\nsins when he has made confession, either of his own accord or after\nbeing rebuked, has sought pardon and amended his ways, privately\nbefore any brother, however much the violence of the pontiffs may rage\nagainst it; for Christ has given to every one of His believers the\npower to absolve even open sins. Add yet this little point: If any\nreservation of hidden sins were valid, so that one could not be saved\nunless they were forgiven, then a man's salvation would be prevented\nmost of all by those aforementioned good works and idolatries, which\nare nowadays taught by the popes. But if these most grievous sins do\nnot prevent one's salvation, how foolish it is to reserve those\nlighter sins! Verily, it is the foolishness and blindness of the\npastors that produce these monstrous things in the Church. Therefore I\nwould admonish these princes of Babylon and bishops of Bethaven [Hosea\n4:15; 10:5] to refrain from reserving any cases whatsoever. Let them,\nmoreover, permit all brothers and sisters freely to hear the\nconfession of hidden sins, so that the sinner may make his sins known\nto whomever he will and seek pardon and comfort, that is, the word of\nChrist, by the mouth of his neighbor. For with these presumptions of\ntheirs they only ensnare the consciences of the weak without\nnecessity, establish their wicked despotism, and fatten their avarice\non the sins and ruin of their brethren. Thus they stain their hands\nwith the blood of souls, sons are devoured by their parents, Ephraim\ndevours Juda, and Syria Israel with open mouth, as Isaiah saith [Isa\n9:20].\n\n[Sidenote: \"Circumstances\"]\n\nTo these evils they have added the \"circumstances,\"[126] and also the\nmothers, daughters, sisters, brothers- and sisters-in-law, branches\nand fruits of sins; since, forsooth, astute and idle men have worked\nout a kind of family tree of relationships and affinities even among\nsins--so prolific is wickedness coupled with ignorance. For this\nconceit, whatever rogue be its author, has like many another become a\npublic law. Thus do the shepherds keep watch over the Church of\nChrist; whatever new work or superstition those stupid devotees may\nhave dreamed of, they straightway drag to the light of day, deck out\nwith indulgences and safeguard with bulls; so far are they from\nsuppressing it and preserving to God's people the true faith and\nliberty. For what has our liberty to do with the tyranny of Babylon?\nMy advice would be to ignore all circumstances utterly. With\nChristians there is only one circumstance,--that a brother has sinned.\nFor there is no person to be compared with a Christian brother. And\nthe observance of places, times, days, persons, and all other\nsuperstitious moonshine, only magnifies the things that are nothing,\nto the injury of those which are everything; as if aught could be\ngreater or of more importance than the glory of Christian brotherhood!\nThus they bind us to places, days and persons, that the name of\nbrother may be lightly esteemed, and we may serve in bondage instead\nof being free--we to whom all days, places, persons, and all external\nthings are one and the same.\n\n[Sidenote: 3. Satisfaction]\n\nHow unworthily they have dealt with satisfaction, I have abundantly\nshown in the controversies concerning indulgences[127]. They have\ngrossly abused it, to the ruin of Christians in body and soul. To\nbegin with, they taught it in such a manner that the people never\nlearned what satisfaction really is, namely, the renewal of a man's\nlife. Then, they so continually harp on it and emphasize its\nnecessity, that they leave no room for faith in Christ. With these\nscruples they torture poor consciences to death, and one runs to Rome,\none to this place, another to that, this one to Chartreuse, that one\nto some other place, one scourges himself with rods, another ruins his\nbody with fasts and vigils, and all cry with the same mad zeal, \"Lo\nhere is Christ! lo there!\" [Luke 17:20 f.] believing that the kingdom\nof heaven, which is within us, will come with observation[128].\n\nFor these monstrous things we are indebted to thee, O Roman See, and\nthy murderous laws and ceremonies, with which thou hast corrupted all\nmankind, so that they think by works to make satisfaction or sin to\nGod, Who can be satisfied only by the faith of a contrite heart! This\nfaith thou not only keepest silent with this uproar of thine, but even\noppressest, only so thy insatiable horseleech have those to whom it\nmay say, \"Bring, bring!\" [Prov. 30:15] and may traffic in sins.\n\nSome have gone even farther and have constructed those instruments for\ndriving souls to despair,--their decrees that the penitent must\nrehearse all sins anew for which he neglected to make the imposed\nsatisfaction. Yea, what would not they venture to do, who were born\nfor the sole purpose of carrying all things into a tenfold captivity?\nMoreover, how many are possessed with the notion that they are in a\nsaved state and are making satisfaction for their sins, if they but\nmumble over, word for word, the prayers the priest has imposed, even\nthough they give never a thought meanwhile to amending their life!\nThey believe that their life is changed in the one moment of\ncontrition and confession, and it remains only to make satisfaction\nfor their past sins. How should they know better, when they are not\ntaught otherwise? No thought is given here to the mortifying of the\nflesh, no value is attached to the example of Christ, Who absolved the\nwoman taken in adultery and said to her, \"Go, and sin no more!\" [John\n8:11] thereby laying upon her the cross--the mortifying of her flesh.\nThis perverse error is greatly encouraged by our absolving sinners\nbefore the satisfaction has been completed, so that they are more\nconcerned about completing the satisfaction which lies before them,\nthan they are about contrition, which they suppose to be past and over\nwhen they have made confession. Absolution ought rather to follow on\nthe completion of satisfaction, as it did in the ancient Church, with\nthe result that, after completing the work, penitents gave themselves\nwith greater diligence to faith and the living of a new life.\n\nBut this must suffice in repetition of what I have more fully said on\nindulgences, and in general this must suffice for the present\nconcerning the three sacraments, which have been treated, and yet not\ntreated, in so many harmful books, theological as well as juristic. It\nremains to attempt some discussion of the other sacraments also, lest\nI seem to have rejected them without cause.\n\nCONFIRMATION\n\nI wonder what could have possessed them to make a sacrament of\nconfirmation out of the laying on of hands, which Christ employed when\nHe blessed young children [Mark 10:16], and the apostles when they\nimparted the Holy Spirit [Acts 8:17; Acts 19:6; Acts 6:6; Mark 16:18],\nordained elders and cured the sick, as the Apostle writes to Timothy,\n\"Lay hands suddenly on no man.\" [1 Tim. 5:22] Why have they not also\nturned the sacrament of the bread into confirmation? For it is written\nin Acts ix, \"And when he had taken meat he was strengthened,\"[129] and\nin Psalm civ, \"And that bread may cheer[130] man's heart.\" [Ps.\n104:15] Confirmation would thus include three sacraments--the bread,\nordination, and confirmation itself. But if everything the apostles\ndid is a sacrament, why have they not rather made preaching a\nsacrament?\n\nI do not say this because I condemn the seven sacraments, but because\nI deny that they can be proved from the Scriptures. Would to God we\nhad in the Church such a laying on of hands as there was in apostolic\ntimes, whether we called it confirmation or healing! But there is\nnothing left of it now but what we ourselves have invented to adorn\nthe office of the bishops, that they may have at least something to do\nin the Church. For after they relinquished to their inferiors those\narduous sacraments together with the Word, as being too common for\nthemselves,--since, forsooth, whatever the divine Majesty has\ninstituted must needs be despised of men!--it was no more than right\nthat we should discover something easy and not too burdensome for such\ndelicate and great heroes to do, and should by no means entrust it to\nthe lower clergy as something common--for whatever human wisdom has\ndecreed must needs be held in honor among men! Therefore, as are the\npriests, so let their ministry and duty be. For a bishop who does not\npreach the Gospel or care for souls [1 Cor. 8:4], what is he but an\nidol in the world, having but the name and appearance of a bishop?\n\nBut we seek, instead of this, sacraments that have been divinely\ninstituted, among which we see no reason for numbering confirmation.\nFor, in order that there be a sacrament, there is required above all\nthings a word of divine promise, whereby faith may be trained. But we\nread nowhere that Christ ever gave a promise concerning confirmation,\nalthough He laid hands on many and included the laying on of hands\namong the signs in Mark xvi: \"They shall lay their hands on the sick,\nand they shall recover.\" [Mark 16:18] Yet no one referred this to a\nsacrament, nor can this be done. Hence it is sufficient to regard\nconfirmation as a certain churchly rite or sacramental ceremony,\nsimilar to other ceremonies, such as the blessing of holy water and\nthe like. For if every other creature is sanctified by the word and by\nprayer [1 Tim. 4:4 f.], why should not much rather man be sanctified\nby the same means? Still, these things cannot be called sacraments of\nfaith, because there is no divine promise connected with them, neither\ndo they save; but sacraments do save those who believe the divine\npromise.\n\nMARRIAGE\n\nNot only is marriage regarded as a sacrament without the least warrant\nof Scripture, but the very traditions which extol it as a sacrament\nhave turned it into a farce. Let me explain.\n\nWe said[131] that there is in every sacrament a word of divine\npromise, to be believed by whoever receives the sign, and that the\nsign alone cannot be a sacrament. Now we read nowhere that the man who\nmarries a wife receives any grace of God. Nay, there is not even a\ndivinely instituted sign in marriage, for nowhere do we read that\nmarriage was instituted by God to be a sign of anything. To be sure,\nwhatever takes place in a visible manner may be regarded as a type or\nfigure of something invisible; but types and figures are not\nsacraments in the sense in which we use this term. Furthermore, since\nmarriage existed from the beginning of the world and is still found\namong unbelievers, it cannot possibly be called a sacrament of the New\nLaw and the exclusive possession of the Church. The marriages of the\nancients were no less sacred than are ours, nor are those of\nunbelievers less true marriages than those of believers, and yet they\nare not regarded as sacraments. Besides, there are even among\nbelievers married folk who are wicked and worse than any heathen; why\nshould marriage be called a sacrament in their case and not among the\nheathen? Or are we going to prate so foolishly of baptism and the\nChurch as to hold that marriage is a sacrament only in the Church,\njust as some make the mad claim that temporal power exists only in the\nChurch? That is childish and foolish talk, by which we expose our\nignorance and our arrogance to the ridicule of unbelievers.\n\nBut they will say: The Apostle writes in Ephesians v, \"They shall be\ntwo in one flesh. This is a great sacrament.\" [Eph. 5:31 f.] Surely\nyou are not going to contradict so plain a statement of the Apostle! I\nreply: This argument, like the others, betrays great shallowness and a\nnegligent and thoughtless reading of Scripture. Nowhere in Holy\nScripture is this word sacrament employed in the meaning to which we\nare accustomed; it has an entirely different meaning. For wherever it\noccurs it signifies not the sign of a sacred thing, but a sacred,\nsecret, hidden thing. Thus Paul writes in i Corinthians iv, \"Let a man\nso account of us as the ministers of Christ, and dispensers of the\nmysteries[132]--i. e., sacraments--of God.\" [1 Cor. 4:1] Where we have\nthe word _sacrament_ the Greek text reads _mystery_, which word our\nversion sometimes translates and sometimes retains in its Greek form.\nThus our verse reads in the Greek: \"They shall be two in one flesh;\nthis is a great _mystery_.\" [Eph. 5:31] This explains how they came to\nfind a sacrament of the New Law here--a thing they would never have\ndone if they had read the word _mystery_, as it is in the Greek[133].\nThus Christ Himself is called a sacrament in I Timothy iii, \"And\nevidently great is the sacrament--i. e., mystery--of godliness, which\nwas manifested in the flesh, was justified in the spirit, appeared\nunto angels, hath been preached unto the Gentiles, is believed by the\nworld, is taken up in glory.\"[1 Tim. 3:16][134] Why have they not\ndrawn out of this passage an eighth sacrament of the New Law, since\nthey have the clear authority of Paul? But if they restrained\nthemselves here, where they had a most excellent opportunity to\nunearth a new sacrament, why are they so wanton in the former passage?\nIt was their ignorance, forsooth, of both words and things; they clung\nto the mere sound of the words, nay, to their own fancies. For, having\nonce arbitrarily taken the word sacrament to mean a sign, they\nstraightway, without thought or scruple, made a sign of it every time\nthey came upon it in the Sacred Scriptures. Such new meanings of words\nand such human customs they have also elsewhere dragged into Holy\nWrit, and conformed it to their dreams, making anything out of any\npassage whatsoever. Thus they continually chatter nonsense about the\nterms: good and evil works, sin, grace, righteousness, virtue, and\nwellnigh every one of the fundamental words and things. For they\nemploy them all after their own arbitrary judgment, learned from the\nwritings of men, to the detriment both of the truth of God and of our\nsalvation.\n\nTherefore, _sacrament_, or _mystery_, in Paul's writings, is that\nwisdom of the Spirit, hidden in a mystery [1 Cor. 2:7 ff.], as he says\nin i Corinthians ii, which is Christ, Who is for this very reason not\nknown to the princes of this world, wherefore they also crucified Him,\nand Who still is to them foolishness, an offense, a stone of stumbling\n[1 Cor. 1:23; Rom. 9:33], and a sign which is spoken against [Luke\n2:34]. The preachers he calls dispensers of these mysteries because\nthey preach Christ, the power and the wisdom of God [1 Cor. 1:23 f.;\n4:1], yet so that one cannot receive this unless one believe.\nTherefore, a sacrament is a mystery, or secret thing, which is set\nforth in words and is received by the faith of the heart. Such a\nsacrament is spoken of in the verse before us--\"They shall be two in\none flesh. This is a great sacrament\"[Eph 5:31]--which they understand\nas spoken of marriage, whereas Paul wrote these words of Christ and\nthe Church, and clearly explained his meaning by adding, \"But I speak\nin Christ and in the Church.\" Ay, how well they agree with Paul! He\ndeclares he is setting forth a great sacrament in Christ and the\nChurch, but they set it forth in a man and a woman! If such wantonness\nbe permitted in the Sacred Scriptures, it is small wonder if one find\nthere anything one please, even a hundred sacraments.\n\nChrist and the Church are, therefore, a mystery, that is, a great and\nsecret thing, which it was possible and proper[135] to represent by\nmarriage as by a certain outward allegory, but that was no reason for\ntheir calling marriage a sacrament. The heavens are a type of the\napostles, as Psalm xix declares; the sun is a type of Christ; the\nwaters, of the peoples [Ps. 19:1 ff.]; but that does not make those\nthings sacraments, for in every case there are lacking both the divine\ninstitution and the divine promise, which constitute a sacrament.\nHence Paul, in Ephesians v, following his own mind[136], applies to\nChrist these words in Genesis ii about marriage, or else, following\nthe general view,[136] he teaches that the spiritual marriage of\nChrist is also contained therein, saying: \"As Christ cherisheth the\nChurch: because we are members of his body, of his flesh and of his\nbones. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and\nshall cleave to his wife, and they shall be two in one flesh. This is\na great sacrament; I speak in Christ and in the Church.\" [Eph. 5:29\nff.] You see, he would have the whole passage apply to Christ, and is\nat pains to admonish the reader to find the sacrament in Christ and\nthe Church, and not in marriage.[137]\n\nTherefore we grant that marriage is a type of Christ and the Church,\nand a sacrament, yet not divinely instituted, but invented by men in\nthe Church, carried away by their ignorance both of the word and of\nthe thing. Which ignorance, since it does not conflict with the faith,\nis to be charitably borne with, just as many other practices of human\nweakness and ignorance are borne with in the Church, so long as they\ndo not conflict with the faith and with the Word of God. But we are\nnow dealing with the certainty and purity of the faith and the\nScriptures; so that our faith be not exposed to ridicule, when after\naffirming that a certain thing is contained in the Sacred Scriptures\nand in the articles of our faith, we are refuted and shown that it is\nnot contained therein, and, being found ignorant of our own affairs,\nbecome a stumbling-block to our opponents and to the weak; nay, that\nwe destroy not the authority of the Holy Scriptures. For those things\nwhich have been delivered to us by God in the Sacred Scriptures must\nbe sharply distinguished from those that have been invented by men in\nthe Church, it matters not how eminent they be for saintliness and\nscholarship.\n\n[Sidenote: Hindrances to Marriage]\n\nSo far concerning marriage itself. But what shall we say of the wicked\nlaws of men by which this divinely ordained manner of life is ensnared\nand tossed to and fro? Good God! it is dreadful to contemplate the\naudacity of the Roman despots, who wantonly tear marriages asunder and\nagain force them together. Prithee, is mankind given over to the\nwantonness of these men, for them to mock and in every way abuse and\nmake of them whatever they please, for filthy lucre's sake?\n\nThere is circulating far and wide and enjoying a great reputation, a\nbook whose contents have been poured together out of the cesspool of\nall human traditions, and whose title is \"The Angelic Sum,[138]\"\nthough it ought rather to be \"The More than Devilish Sum.\" Among\nendless other monstrosities, which are supposed to instruct the\nconfessors, while they most mischievously confuse them, there are\nenumerated in this book eighteen hindrances to marriage[139]. If you\nwill examine these with the just and unprejudiced eye of faith, you\nwill see that they belong to those things which the Apostle foretold:\n\"There shall be those that give heed to spirits of devils, speaking\nlies in hypocrisy, forbidding to marry.\" [1 Tim. 4:1 ff.] What is\nforbidding to marry if it is not this--to invent all those hindrances\nand set those snares, in order to prevent men from marrying or, if\nthey be married, to annul their marriage? Who gave this power to men?\nGranted that they were holy men and impelled by godly zeal, why should\nanother's holiness disturb my liberty? why should another's zeal take\nme captive? Let whoever will, be a saint and a zealot, and to his\nheart's content; only let him not bring harm upon another, and let him\nnot rob me of my liberty!\n\nYet I am glad that those shameful laws have at length attained to\ntheir full measure of glory, which is this: the Romanists of our day\nhave through them become merchants. What is it they sell? The shame of\nmen and women--merchandise, forsooth, most worthy of such merchants,\ngrown altogether filthy and obscene through greed and godlessness. For\nthere is nowadays no hindrance that may not be legalised upon the\nintercession of mammon, so that these laws of men seem to have sprung\ninto existence for the sole purpose of serving those grasping and\nrobbing Nimrods as snares for taking money and as nets for catching\nsouls, and in order that that \"abomination\" might stand \"in the holy\nplace,\" [Matt. 24:15] the Church of God, and openly sell to men the\nshame of either sex, or as the Scriptures say, \"shame and nakedness,\"\n[Lev. 13:6 ff.] of which they had previously robbed them by means of\ntheir laws. O worthy trade for our pontiffs to ply, instead of the\nministry of the Gospel, which in their greed and pride they despise,\nbeing delivered up to a reprobate sense with utter shame and infamy.\n[Rom. 1:28]\n\nBut what shall I say or do? If I enter into details, the treatise will\ngrow to inordinate length, for everything is in such dire confusion\none does not know where to begin, whither to go on, or where to leave\noff. I know that no state is well governed by means of laws. If the\nmagistrate be wise, he will rule more prosperously by natural bent\nthan by laws. If he be not wise, he will but further the evil by means\nof laws; for he will not know what use to make of the laws nor how to\nadapt them to the individual case. More stress ought, therefore, to be\nlaid, in civil affairs, on putting good and wise men in office than on\nmaking laws; for such men will themselves be the very best laws, and\nwill judge every variety of case with lively justice. And if there be\nknowledge of the divine law combined with natural wisdom, then written\nlaws will be entirely superfluous and harmful. Above all, love needs\nno laws whatever[140].\n\nNevertheless I will say and do what I can. I admonish and pray all\npriests and brethren[141], when they encounter any hindrance from\nwhich the pope can grant dispensation and which is not expressly\ncontained in the Scriptures, by all means to confirm[142] any marriage\nthat may have been contracted[143] in any way contrary to the\necclesiastical or pontifical laws. But let them arm themselves with\nthe divine law, which says, \"What God hath joined together, let no man\nput asunder.\" [Matt. 19:6] For the joining together of a man and a\nwoman is of divine law and is binding, however it may conflict with\nthe laws of men; the laws of men must give way before it without\nhesitation. For if a man leaves father and mother and cleaves to his\nwife, how much more will he tread underfoot the silly and wicked laws\nof men[144] in order to cleave to his wife! And if pope, bishop or\nofficial[145] annul any marriage because it was contracted contrary to\nthe laws of men, he is antichrist, he does violence to nature, and is\nguilty of lese-majesty toward God, because this word stands,--\"What\nGod hath joined together, let no man put asunder.\" [Matt. 19:6]\n\nBesides this, no man had the right to frame such laws, and Christ has\ngranted to Christians a liberty which is above all laws of men,\nespecially where a law of God conflicts with them. Thus it is said in\nMark ii, \"The Son of man is lord also of the sabbath,\" [Mark 2:28]\nand, \"The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath.\" [Mark\n2:27] Moreover, such laws were condemned beforehand by Paul, when he\nforetold that there would be men forbidding to marry [1 Tim. 4:3].\nHere, therefore, those cruel hindrances arising from affinity,\nspiritual or legal relationship[146], and consanguinity must give way,\nso far as the Scriptures permit, in which the second degree of\nconsanguinity alone is prohibited. Thus it is written in Leviticus\nxviii, in which chapter there are twelve persons a man is prohibited\nfrom marrying; namely, his mother, his mother-in-law, his full sister,\nhis half-sister by either parent, his granddaughter, his father's or\nmother's sister, his daughter-in-law, his brother's wife, his wife's\nsister, his stepdaughter, and his uncle's wife. [Lev. 18:6 ff.] Here\nonly the first degree of affinity and the second degree of\nconsanguinity are forbidden; yet not without exception, as will appear\non closer examination, for the brother's or sister's daughter, or the\nniece, is not included in the prohibition, although she is in the\nsecond degree. Therefore, if a marriage has been contracted outside of\nthese degrees, it should by no means be annulled on account of the\nlaws of men, since it is nowhere written in the Bible that any other\ndegrees were prohibited by God. Marriage itself, as of divine\ninstitution, is incomparably superior to any laws; so that marriage\nshould not be annulled for the sake of the laws, rather should the\nlaws be broken for the sake of marriage.\n\nThat nonsense about conpaternities, conmaternities, confraternities,\nconsororities, and confilieties must therefore be altogether\nabolished, when a marriage has been contracted. What was it but the\nsuperstition of men that invented those spiritual relationships?[147]\nIf one may not marry the person one has baptised or stood sponsor for,\nwhat right has any Christian to marry any other Christian? Is the\nrelationship that grows out of the external rite, or the sign, of the\nsacrament more intimate that that which grows out of the blessing[148]\nof the sacrament itself? Is not a Christian man brother to a Christian\nwoman, and is not she his sister? Is not a baptised man the spiritual\nbrother of a baptised woman? How foolish we are! If a man instruct his\nwife in the Gospel and in faith in Christ and thus become truly her\nfather in Christ, would it not be right for her to remain his wife?\nWould not Paul have had the right to marry a maiden out of the\nCorinthian congregation, of whom he boasts that he has begotton them\nall in Christ? [1 Cor. 4:15] Lo, thus has Christian liberty been\nsuppressed through the blindness of human superstition.\n\nThere is even less in the legal relationship[149], and yet they have\nset it above the divine right of marriage. Nor would I recognise that\nhindrance which they term \"disparity of religion,\"[150] and which\nforbids one to marry any unbaptised person, even on condition that she\nbecome converted to the faith. Who made this prohibition? God or man?\nWho gave to men the power to prohibit such a marriage? The spirits,\nforsooth, that speak lies in hypocrisy, as Paul says [1 Tim 4:1]. Of\nthem it must be said: \"The wicked have told me fables; but not as thy\nlaw.\" [Ps. 119:85] The heathen Patricius married the Christian Monica,\nthe mother of St. Augustine; why should not the same be permitted\nnowadays?\n\nThe same stupid, nay, wicked cruelty is seen in \"the hindrance of\ncrime,\"[151]--as when a man has married a woman with whom he had lived\nin adultery, or when he plotted to bring about the death of a woman's\nhusband in order to be able to wed the widow. I pray you, whence comes\nthis cruelty of man toward man, which even God never demanded? Do they\npretend not to know that Bathsheba, the wife of Uriah, was wed by\nDavid, a most saintly man, after the double crime of adultery and\nmurder? If the divine law did this, what do these despotic men to\ntheir fellowservants?\n\nAnother hindrance is that which they call \"the hindrance of a\ntie,\"[152]--as when a man is bound by being betrothed to another\nwoman. Here they decide that, if he has had carnal knowledge of the\nsecond, the betrothal with the first becomes null and void. This I do\nnot understand at all. I hold that he who has betrothed himself to one\nwoman belongs no longer to himself, and because of this act, by the\nprohibition of the divine law, he belongs to the first, though he has\nnot known her, even if he has known the second. For it was not in his\npower to give the latter what was no longer his own; he deceived her\nand actually committed adultery. But they regard the matter\ndifferently because they pay more heed to the carnal union than to the\ndivine command, according to which the man, having plighted his troth\nto the first, is bound to keep it for ever. For whoever would give\nanything must give of that which is his own. And God forbids a man to\noverreach or circumvent his brother in any matter [1 Thess. 4:6]. This\nprohibition must be kept, over and above all the traditions of all\nmen. Therefore, the man in the above case cannot with a good\nconscience live in marriage with the second woman, and this hindrance\nshould be completely overthrown. For if a monastic vow make a man to\nbe no longer his own, why does not a promise of betrothal given and\nreceived do the same?--since this[153] is one of the precepts and\nfruits of the Spirit (Galatians v) [Gal. 5:22 f.; Eph. 5:9], while a\nmonastic vow is of human invention. And if a wife may claim her\nhusband despite the act that he has taken a monastic vow, why may not\na bride claim her betrothed, even though he has known another? But we\nsaid above[154] that he who has plighted his troth to a maiden ought\nnot to take a monastic vow, but is in duty bound to keep faith with\nher, which faith he cannot break for any tradition of men, because it\nis commanded by God. Much more should the man here keep faith with his\nfirst bride, since he could not plight his troth to a second save with\na lying heart, and therefore did not really plight it, but deceived\nher, his neighbor, against God's command. Therefore, the \"hindrance of\nerror\"[155] enters in here, by which his marriage to the second woman\nis rendered null and void.\n\nThe \"hindrance of ordination\"[156] also is a lying invention of men,\nespecially since they prate that even a contracted marriage is\nannulled by it. Thus they constantly exalt their traditions above the\ncommands of God. I do not indeed sit in judgment on the present state\nof the priestly order, but I observe that Paul charges a bishop to be\nthe husband of one wife [1 Tim. 3:2]; hence no marriage of deacon,\npriest, bishop or any other order can be annulled,--although it is\ntrue that Paul knew nothing of this species of priests, and of the\norders that we have to-day. Perish those cursed human traditions,\nwhich have crept into the Church only to multiply perils, sins and\nevils! There exists, therefore, between a priest and his wife a true\nand indissoluble marriage, approved by the divine commandment. But\nwhat if wicked men in sheer despotism prohibit or annul it? So be it!\nLet it be wrong among men; it is nevertheless right before God, Whose\ncommand must needs take precedence if it conflicts with the commands\nof men.\n\nAn equally lying invention is that \"hindrance of public decency,\"[157]\nby which contracted marriages are annulled. I am incensed at that\nbarefaced wickedness which is so ready to put asunder what God hath\njoined together that one may well scent antichrist in it, for it\nopposes all that Christ has done and taught. What earthly reason is\nthere for holding that no relative of a deceased husband, even to the\nfourth degree, may marry the latter's widow? That is not a\njudgment[158] of public decency, but ignorance[158] of public decency.\nWhy was not this judgment of public decency found among the people of\nIsrael, who were endowed with the best laws, the laws of God? On the\ncontrary, the next of kin was even compelled by the law of God to\nmarry the widow of his relative [Deut. 25:5]. Must the people of\nChristian liberty be burdened with severer laws than the people of\nlegal bondage? But, to make an end of these figments, rather than\nhindrances--thus far there seem to me to be no hindrances that may\njustly annul a contracted marriage save these: impotence of the\nhusband, ignorance of a previously contracted marriage, and a vow of\nchastity. Still, concerning the last, I am to this day so far from\ncertain that I do not know at what age such a vow is to be regarded as\nbinding; as I also said above in discussing the sacrament of\nbaptism[159]. Thus you may learn, from this one question of marriage,\nhow wretchedly and desperately all the activities of the Church have\nbeen confused, hindered, ensnared, and subjected to danger through the\npestilent, ignorant and wicked traditions of men, so that there is no\nhope of betterment unless we abolish at one stroke all the laws of all\nmen, restore the Gospel of liberty, and by it judge and rule all\nthings. Amen.\n\n[Sidenote: Impotence]\n\nWe have to speak, then, of sexual impotence, that we may the more\nreadily advise the souls that are in peril.[160] But first I wish to\nstate that what I have said of hindrances is intended to apply after a\nmarriage has been contracted; no marriage should be annulled by any\nsuch hindrance. But as to marriages which are to be contracted, I\nwould briefly repeat what I said above[161]. Under the stress of\nyouthful passion or of any other necessity for which the pope grants\ndispensation, any brother may grant a dispensation to another or even\nto himself, and following that counsel snatch his wife out of the\npower of the tyrannical laws as best he can. For with what right am I\ndeprived of my liberty by another's superstition and ignorance? If the\npope grants a dispensation for money, why should not I, for my soul's\nsalvation, grant a dispensation to myself or to my brother? Does the\npope set up laws? Let him set them up or himself, and keep hands off\nmy liberty; else I will take it by stealth! Now let us discuss the\nmatter of impotence.\n\nTake the following case. A woman, wed to an impotent man, is unable to\nprove her husband's impotence before court, or perhaps she is\nunwilling to do so with the mass of evidence and all the notoriety\nwhich the law demands; yet she is desirous of having children or is\nunable to remain continent. Now suppose I had counseled her to demand\na divorce from her husband in order to marry another, satisfied that\nher own and her husband's conscience and their experience were ample\ntestimony of his impotence; but the husband refused his consent to\nthis. Then suppose I should further counsel her, with the consent of\nthe man (who is not really her husband, but merely a dweller under the\nsame roof with her), to give herself to another, say her husband's\nbrother, but to keep this marriage secret and to ascribe the children\nto the so-called putative father. The question is: Is such a woman in\na saved state? I answer, Certainly. Because in this case the error and\nignorance of the man's impotence are a hindrance to the marriage; the\ntyranny of the laws permits no divorce; the woman is free through the\ndivine law, and cannot be compelled to remain continent. Therefore the\nman ought to yield her this right, and let another man have her as\nwife whom he has only in outward appearance.\n\nMoreover, if the man will not give his consent, or agree to this\ndivision,--rather than allow the woman to burn or to commit adultery,\nI should counsel her to contract a marriage with another and flee to\ndistant parts unknown. What other counsel could be given to one\nconstantly in danger from lust? Now I know that some are troubled by\nthe act that then the children of this secret marriage are not the\nrightful heirs of their putative father. But if it was done with the\nconsent of the husband, then the children will be the rightful heirs.\nIf, however, it was done without his knowledge or against his will,\nthen let unbiased Christian reason, nay, let Christian charity, decide\nwhich of the two has done the greater injury to the other. The wife\nalienates the inheritance, but the husband has deceived his wife and\nis completely defrauding her of her body and her life. Is not the sin\nof the man who wastes his wife's body and life a greater sin than that\nof the woman who merely alienates the temporal goods of her husband?\nLet him, therefore, agree to a divorce, or else be satisfied with\nstrange heirs; for by his own fault he deceived the innocence of a\nmaiden and defrauded her of the proper use of her body, besides giving\nher a wellnigh irresistible opportunity to commit adultery. Let both\nbe weighed in the same scales. Certainly, by every right, deceit\nshould all back on the deceiver, and whoever has done an injury must\nmake it good. What is the difference between such a husband and the\nman who holds another's wife captive together with her husband? Is not\nsuch a tyrant compelled to support wife and children and husband, or\nelse to set them free? Why should not the same hold here? Therefore I\nmaintain that the man should be compelled either to submit to a\ndivorce or to support the other man's child as his heir. Doubtless\nthis would be the judgment of charity. In that case, the impotent man,\nwho is not really the husband, should support the heirs of his wife in\nthe same spirit in which he would at great cost wait on his wife if\nshe fell sick or suffered some other ill; for it is by his fault and\nnot by his wife's that she suffers this ill. This have I set forth to\nthe best of my ability, for the strengthening of anxious consciences,\nbeing desirous to bring my afflicted brethren in this captivity what\nlittle comfort I can.[162]\n\n[Sidenote: Divorce]\n\nAs to divorce, it is still a moot question whether it be allowable.\nFor my part I so greatly detest divorce that I should prefer bigamy to\nit,[163] but whether it be allowable, I do not venture to decide.\nChrist Himself, the Chief Pastor[164], says in Matthew v, \"Whosoever\nshall put away his wife, excepting for the cause of fornication,\nmaketh her commit adultery; and he that shall marry her that is put\naway, committeth adultery.\" [Matt. 5:32] Christ, then, permits\ndivorce, but for the cause of fornication only. The pope must,\ntherefore, be in error whenever he grants a divorce for any other\ncause, and no one should feel safe who has obtained a dispensation by\nthis temerity (not authority) of the pope. Yet it is a still greater\nwonder to me, why they compel a man to remain unmarried after being\nseparated from his wife, and why they will not permit him to remarry.\nFor if Christ permits divorce for the cause of fornication and compels\nno one to remain unmarried, and if Paul would rather have one marry\nthan burn [1 Cor. 7:9], then He certainly seems to permit a man to\nmarry another woman in the stead of the one who has been put away.\nWould to God this matter were thoroughly threshed out and decided, so\nthat counsel might be given in the infinite perils of those who,\nwithout any fault of their own, are nowadays compelled to remain\nunmarried, that is, of those whose wives or husbands have run away and\ndeserted them, to come back perhaps after ten years, perhaps never.\nThis matter troubles and distresses me; I meet cases of it every day,\nwhether it happen by the special malice of Satan or because of our\nneglect of the word of God.\n\nI, indeed, who, alone against all, can decide nothing in this matter,\nwould yet greatly desire at least the passage in I Corinthians vii to\nbe applied here,--\"But if the unbeliever depart, let him depart. For a\nbrother or sister is not under servitude in such cases.\" [1 Cor. 7:15]\nHere the Apostle gives permission to put away the unbeliever who\ndeparts and to set the believing spouse free to marry again. Why\nshould not the same hold true when a believer--that is, a believer in\nname, but in truth as much an unbeliever as the one Paul speaks\nof--deserts his wife, especially if he never intends to return? I\ncertainly can see no difference between the two. But I believe that if\nin the Apostle's day an unbelieving deserter had returned and had\nbecome a believer or had promised to live again with his believing\nwife, he would not have been taken back, but he too would have been\ngiven the right to marry again. Nevertheless, in these matters I\ndecide nothing, as I have said,\"[165] although there is nothing I\nwould rather see decided, since nothing at present more grievously\nperplexes me and many more with me. I would have nothing decided here\non the mere authority of the pope or the bishops; but if two learned\nand pious men agreed in the name of Christ and published their opinion\nin the spirit of Christ [Matt. 18:19 f.], I should prefer their\njudgment even to such councils as are nowadays assembled, famous only\nfor numbers and authority, not for scholarship and saintliness.\nHerewith I hang up my harp[166][Ps. 137:2], until another and a better\nman shall take up this matter with me.\n\nORDINATION\n\nOf this sacrament the Church of Christ knows nothing; it is an\ninvention of the church of the pope. Not only is there nowhere any\npromise of grace attached to it, but there is not the least mention of\nit in the whole New Testament. Now it is ridiculous to put forth as a\nsacrament of God that which cannot be proved to have been instituted\nby God. I do not hold that this rite, which has been observed for so\nmany centuries, should be condemned; but in sacred things I am opposed\nto the invention of human fictions, nor is it right to give out as\ndivinely instituted what was not divinely instituted, lest we become a\nlaughing-stock to our opponents. We ought to see to it that every\narticle of faith of which we boast be certain, pure, and based on\nclear passages of Scripture. But that we are utterly unable to do in\nthe case of the sacrament under consideration.\n\n[Sidenote: The Church Cannot Institute Sacraments]\n\nThe Church has no power to make new divine promises, as some prate,\nwho hold that what is decreed by the Church is of no less authority\nthan what is decreed by God, since the Church is under the guidance of\nthe Holy Spirit. But the Church owes its life to the word of promise\nthrough faith, and is nourished and preserved by this same word. That\nis to say, the promises of God make the Church, not the Church the\npromise of God. For the Word of God is incomparably superior to the\nChurch, and in this Word the Church, being a creature, has nothing to\ndecree, ordain or make, but only to be decreed, ordained and made. For\nwho begets his own parent? Who first brings forth his own maker? This\none thing indeed the Church can do--it can distinguish the Word of God\nfrom the words of men; as Augustine confesses that he believed the\nGospel, moved thereto by the authority of the Church, which\nproclaimed, this is the Gospel.[167] Not that the Church is,\ntherefore, above the Gospel; if that were true, she would also be\nabove God, in Whom we believe because she proclaims that He is God.\nBut, as Augustine elsewhere says,[168] the truth itself lays hold on\nthe soul and thus renders it able to judge most certainly of all\nthings; but the truth it cannot judge, but is forced to say with\nunerring certainty that it is the truth. For example, our reason\ndeclares with unerring certainty that three and seven are ten, and yet\nit cannot give a reason why this is true, although it cannot deny that\nit is true; it is taken captive by the truth and does not so much\njudge the truth as it is judged by the truth. Thus it is also with the\nmind of the Church [1 Cor. 2:16], when under the enlightenment of the\nSpirit she judges and approves doctrines; she is unable to prove it,\nand yet is most certain of having it. For as in philosophy no one\njudges general conceptions, but all are judged by them, so it is in\nthe Church with the mind of the Spirit, that judgeth all things and is\njudged by none, as the Apostle says [1 Cor. 2:15]. But of this another\ntime.[169]\n\n[Sidenote: Ordination not a Sacrament]\n\nLet this then stand fast,--the Church can give no promises of grace;\nthat is the work of God alone. Therefore she cannot institute a\nsacrament. But even if she could, it yet would not follow that\nordination is a sacrament. For who knows which is the Church that has\nthe Spirit? since when such decisions are made there are usually only\na few bishops or scholars present; it is possible that these may not\nbe really of the Church, and that all may err, as councils have\nrepeatedly erred, particularly the Council of Constance[170], which\nfell into the most wicked error of all. Only that which has the\napproval of the Church universal, and not of the Roman church alone,\nrests on a trustworthy foundation. I therefore admit that ordination\nis a certain churchly rite, on a par with many others introduced by\nthe Church Fathers, such as the blessing of vases, houses, vestments,\nwater, salt, candles, herbs, wine, and the like. No one calls any of\nthese a sacrament, nor is there in them any promise. In the same\nmanner, to anoint a man's hands with oil, or to shave his head, and\nthe like, is not to administer a sacrament, since there is no promise\ngiven to those things; he is simply prepared, like a vessel or an\ninstrument, for a certain work.\n\nBut you will reply: \"What do you say to Dionysius,[171] who in his\n_Ecclesiastical Hierarchy_ enumerates six sacraments, among which he\nalso includes orders?\" I answer: I am well aware that this is the one\nwriter of antiquity who is cited in support of the seven sacraments,\nalthough he omits marriage and thus has only six. We read simply\nnothing about these \"sacraments\" in the other Fathers, nor do they\never refer to them as sacraments; for the invention of sacraments is\nof recent date. Indeed, to speak more boldly, the setting so great\nstore by this Dionysius, whoever he may have been, greatly displeases\nme, for there is scarce a line of sound scholarship in him. Prithee,\nby what authority and with what reasons does he establish his\nhotch-potch about the angels, in his _Celestial Hierarchy_?--a book\nover which many curious and superstitious spirits have cudgeled their\nbrains. If one were to read and judge fairly, is not all shaken out of\nhis sleeve and very like a dream? But in his _Mystic Theology_, which\ncertain most ignorant theologians greatly puff, he is downright\ndangerous, being more of a Platonist than a Christian; so that, if I\nhad my way, no believing mind would give the least attention to these\nbooks. So far from learning Christ in them, you will lose even what\nyou know of Him. I know whereof I speak. Let us rather hear Paul, that\nwe may learn Jesus Christ and Him crucified [1 Cor. 2:2]. He is the\nway, the life and the truth; He is the ladder by which we come unto\nthe Father, as He saith: \"No man cometh unto the Father but by me.\"\n[John 14:6]\n\n[Sidenote: Allegories]\n\nAnd in the _Ecclesiastical Hierarchy_, what does this Dionysius do but\ndescribe certain churchly rites and play round them with his\nallegories without proving them? just as among us the author of the\nbook entitled _Rationale divinorum_.[172] Such allegorical studies are\nthe work of idle men. Think you I should find it difficult to play\nwith allegories round anything in creation? Did not Bonaventure[173]\nby allegory draw the liberal arts into theology? And Gerson even\nconverted the smaller Donatus into a mystic theologian.[173] It would\nnot be a difficult task for me to compose a better hierarchy than that\nof Dionysius, for he knew nothing of pope, cardinals and archbishops,\nand put the bishop at the top. Nay, who has so weak a mind as not to\nbe able to launch into allegories? I would not have a theologian give\nhimself to allegorizing until he has perfected himself in the\ngrammatical and literal interpretation of the Scriptures; otherwise\nhis theology will bring him into danger, as Origen discovered.[175]\n\nTherefore a thing does not need to be a sacrament simply because\nDionysius describes it. Otherwise, why not also make a sacrament of\nthe processions, which he describes in his book, and which continue to\nthis day? There will then be as many sacraments as there have been\nrites and ceremonies multiplied in the Church. Standing on so unsteady\na foundation, they have nevertheless invented \"characters\"[176] which\nthey attribute to this sacrament of theirs and which are indelibly\nimpressed on those who are ordained. Whence do such ideas come? By\nwhat authority, with what reasons, are they established? We do not\nobject to their being free to invent, say and give out whatever they\nplease; but we also insist on our liberty and demand that they shall\nnot arrogate to themselves the right to turn their ideas into articles\nof faith, as they have hitherto presumed to do. It is enough that we\naccommodate ourselves to their rites and ceremonies for the sake of\npeace; but we reuse to be bound by such things as though they were\nnecessary to salvation, when they are not. Let them put by their\ndespotic demands, and we shall yield free obedience to their opinions,\nand thus live at peace with them. It is a shameful and wicked slavery\nfor a Christian man, who is free, to be subject to any but heavenly\nand divine traditions.\n\n[Sidenote: The Alleged Scriptural Basis of Ordination]\n\nWe come now to their strongest argument. It is this: Christ said at\nthe Last Supper: \"Do this in remembrance of me.\" [1 Cor. 11:24] Here,\nthey say, Christ ordained the apostles to the priesthood. From this\npassage they also concluded, among other things, that both kinds are\nto be administered to the priests alone.[177] In fine, they have drawn\nout of this passage whatever they pleased, as men who might arrogate\nto themselves the free will to prove anything whatever from any words\nof Christ, no matter where found. But is that interpreting the words\nof God? Pray, answer me! Christ gives us no promise here, but only\ncommands that this be done in remembrance of Him. Why do they not\nconclude that He also ordained priests when He laid upon them the\noffice of the Word and of baptism, saying, \"Go ye into all the world,\nand preach the Gospel to every creature, baptising them in the name,\"\n[Mark 16:15; Matt. 28:19] etc.? For it is the proper duty of priests\nto preach and to baptise. Or, since it is nowadays the chief and, as\nthey say, indispensable duty of priests to read the canonical\nhours,[178] why have they not discovered the sacrament of ordination\nin those passages in which Christ, in many places and particularly in\nthe garden, commanded them to pray that they might not enter into\ntemptation? [Matt. 26:41] But perhaps they will evade this argument by\nsaying that it is not commanded to _pray_; it is enough to _read_ the\ncanonical hours. Then it follows that this priestly work can be proved\nnowhere in the Scriptures, and thus their praying priesthood is not of\nGod, as, indeed, it is not.\n\nBut which of the ancient Fathers claimed that in this passage priests\nwere ordained? Whence comes this novel interpretation? I will tell\nyou. They have sought by this device to set up a nursery of implacable\ndiscord, whereby clerics and laymen should be separated from each\nother farther than heaven from earth, to the incredible injury of the\ngrace of baptism and the confusion of our fellowship in the Gospel.\nHere, indeed, are the roots of that detestable tyranny of the clergy\nover the laity; trusting in the external anointing by which their\nhands are consecrated, in the tonsure and in vestments, they not only\nexalt themselves above lay Christians, who are only anointed with the\nHoly Spirit, but regard them almost as dogs and unworthy to be\nincluded with them in the Church. Hence they are bold to demand, to\nexact, to threaten, to urge, to oppress, as much as they please. In\nshort, the sacrament of ordination has been and is a most approved\ndevice for the establishing of all the horrible things that have been\nwrought hitherto and will yet be wrought in the Church. Here Christian\nbrotherhood has perished, here shepherds have been turned into wolves,\nservants into tyrants, churchmen into worse than worldlings.\n\n[Sidenote: The Priesthood of All Christians]\n\nIf they were forced to grant that as many of us as have been baptised\nare all priests without distinction, as indeed we are, and that to\nthem was committed the ministry only, yet with our consent, they would\npresently learn that they have no right to rule over us except in so\nfar as we freely concede it. For thus it is written in i Peter ii, \"Ye\nare a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, and a priestly kingdom.\"\n[1 Peter 2:9] Therefore we are all priests, as many of us as are\nChristians.[179] But the priests, as we call them, are ministers\nchosen from among us, who do all that they do in our name. And the\npriesthood is nothing but a ministry, as we learn from I Corinthians\niv, \"Let a man so account of us as of the ministers of Christ, and the\ndispensers of the mysteries of God.\" [1 Cor. 4:1]\n\nIt follows herefrom that whoever does not preach the Word, called by\nthe Church to this very thing, is no priest at all. And further, that\nthe sacrament of ordination can be nothing else than a certain rite of\nchoosing preachers in the Church. For thus is a priest defined in\nMalachi ii, \"The lips of the priest shall keep knowledge, and they\nshall seek the law at his mouth: because he is the angel of the Lord\nof hosts.\" [Mal. 2:7] You may be certain, then, that whoever is not an\nangel of the Lord of hosts, or whoever is called to anything else than\nsuch angelic service--if I may so term it--is never a priest; as Hosea\nsays, \"Because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will reject thee, that\nthou shalt not do the office of priesthood to me.\" [Hosea 4:6] They\nare also called pastors because they are to pasture, that is, to\nteach. Therefore, they who are ordained only to read the canonical\nhours and to offer masses are indeed papist, but not Christian,\npriests, because they not only do not preach, but are not called to\npreach; nay, it comes to this, that such a priesthood is a different\nestate altogether from the office of preaching. Thus they are\nhour-priests and mass-priests, that is, a sort of living idol, having\nthe name of priest, while they are in reality such priests as Jeroboam\nordained, in Bethaven, of the off-scouring of the people, and not of\nthe tribe of Levi.[180][1 Kings 12:31]\n\nLo, whither hath the glory of the Church departed! The whole earth is\nfilled with priests, bishops, cardinals and clerics, and yet not one\nof them preaches by virtue of his office, unless he be called to do so\nby another and a different call besides his sacramental ordination.\nEvery one thinks he is doing full justice to his sacrament by mumbling\nthe vain repetitions of his prescribed prayers and by celebrating\nmasses; moreover, by never really praying those hours[181], or if he\ndoes pray them, by praying them for himself, and by offering his\nmasses as a sacrifice--which is the height of perversity!--whereas the\nmass consists in the use of the sacrament. It is clear, therefore,\nthat the ordination which, as a sacrament, makes clerics of this sort\nof men, is in truth nothing but a mere fiction, devised by men who\nunderstand nothing about the Church, the priesthood, the ministry of\nthe Word, or the sacraments. And as is the sacrament, so are the\npriests it makes. To such errors and such blindness has come a still\nworse captivity; in order to separate themselves still farther from\nother Christians, whom they deem profane, they have unmanned\nthemselves, like the priests of Cybele, and taken upon them the burden\nof a pretended celibacy.\n\nIt was not enough for this hypocrisy and error to forbid bigamy, viz.,\nthe having of two wives at the same time, as it was forbidden in the\nlaw, and as is the accepted meaning of the term; but they have called\nit bigamy if a man married two virgins, one after the other, or if he\nmarried a widow. Nay, so holy is the holiness of this most holy\nsacrament, that no married man can become a priest as long as his wife\nlives. And--here we reach the very summit of holiness--even he is\nprevented from entering the priesthood, who without his knowledge or\nby an unfortunate chance married a fallen woman. But if one have\ndefiled a thousand harlots, or ravished countless matrons and virgins,\nor even kept numerous Ganymedes, that would be no hindrance to his\nbecoming bishop or cardinal or pope. Moreover, the Apostle's word,\n\"the husband of one wife,\" [1 Tim. 3:2] must be interpreted to mean,\n\"the prelate of one church,\" and this has given rise to the\n\"incompatible benefices.\"[182] At the same time the pope, that\nmunificent dispenser, may join to one man three, twenty, one hundred\nwives--I should say churches--if he be bribed with money or power--I\nshould say, moved by godly charity and constrained by the care of the\nchurches.\n\nO pontiffs worthy of this holy sacrament of ordination! O princes, not\nof the catholic churches, but of the synagogues, nay, the black dens,\nof Satan! [Rev. 2:9] I would cry out with Isaiah: \"Ye scornful men,\nwho rule over my people that is in Jerusalem\" [Isa. 28:14]; and with\nAmos: \"Woe to you that are wealthy in Sion, and to you that have\nconfidence in the mountain of Samaria: ye great men, heads of the\npeople, that go in with state into the house of Israel.\" [Amos 6:1] O\nthe reproach that such monstrous priests bring upon the Church of God!\nWhere are there any bishops or priests who know the Gospel, not to\nspeak of preaching it? Why then do they boast of being priests? Why do\nthey desire to be regarded as holier and better and mightier than\nother Christians, who are merely laymen? To read the hours--what\nunlearned men, or, as the Apostle says, what men speaking with\ntongues, cannot do that? [1 Cor. 14:23] But to _pray_ the hours--that\nbelongs to monks, hermits, and men in private life, all of them\nlaymen. The duty of the priest is to preach, and if he does not preach\nhe is as much a priest as a painted man is a man. Does ordaining such\nbabbling priests make one a bishop? Or blessing churches and bells? Or\nconfirming boys? Certainly not. Any deacon or layman could do as much.\nThe ministry of the Word makes the priest and the bishop.\n\n[Sidenote: Ordination, the Rite of Choosing Preachers]\n\nTherefore my advice is: Flee, all ye that would live in safety;\nbegone, young men, and do not enter upon this holy estate, unless you\nare determined to preach the Gospel, and are able to believe that you\nare not made one whit better than the laity through this sacrament of\nordination! For to read the hours is nothing, and to offer mass is to\nreceive the sacrament.[183] What then is there left to you that every\nlayman does not have? Tonsure and vestments? A sorry priest, forsooth,\nwho consists of tonsure and vestment! Or the oil poured on your\nfingers? But every Christian is anointed and sanctified with the oil\nof the Holy Spirit, both in body and soul, and in ancient times\ntouched the sacrament with his hands no less than the priests do\nnow.[184] But to-day our superstition counts it a great crime if the\nlaity touch either the bare chalice or the _corporale_;[185] not even\na nun who is a pure virgin would be permitted to wash the palls[186]\nand sacred linens of the altar. O God! how the sacrosanct sanctity of\nthis sacrament of ordination has grown and grown. I anticipate that\nere long the laity will not be permitted to touch the altar except\nwhen they offer their money. I can scarce contain myself when I\ncontemplate the wicked tyrannies of these desperate men, who with\ntheir farcical and childish fancies mock and overthrow the liberty and\nthe glory of the Christian religion.\n\nLet every one, therefore, who knows himself to be a Christian be\nassured of this, and apply it to himself,--that we are all priests,\nand there is no difference between us; that is to say, we have the\nsame power in respect to the Word and all the sacraments. However, no\none may make use of this power except by the consent of the community\nor by the call of a superior. For what is the common property of all,\nno individual may arrogate to himself, unless he be called. And\ntherefore this sacrament of ordination, if it have any meaning at all,\nis nothing else than a certain rite whereby one is called to the\nministry of the Church. Furthermore, the priesthood is properly\nnothing but the ministry of the Word, mark you, of the Word--not of\nthe law, but of the Gospel. And the diaconate is not the ministry of\nreading the Gospel or the Epistle, as is the present practice, but the\nministry of distributing the Church's alms to the poor, so that the\npriests may be relieved of the burden of temporal matters and may give\nthemselves more freely to prayer and the Word. For this was the\npurpose of the institution of the diaconate, as we read in Acts vi.\n[Acts 6:4] Whoever, therefore, does not know or preach the Gospel, is\nnot only not a priest or bishop, but he is a plague of the Church, who\nunder the false title of priest or bishop--in sheep's clothing,\nforsooth--oppresses the Gospel and plays the wolf in the Church.\nTherefore, unless those priests and bishops with whom the Church is\nnow filled work out their salvation in some other way, that is,\nrealise that they are not priests or bishops and bemoan the act that\nthey bear the name of an office whose duties they either do not know\nor cannot fulfil, and thus with prayers and tears lament their\nwretched hypocritical life--unless they do this, they are truly the\npeople of eternal perdition, and the words of Isaiah are fulfilled in\nthem: \"Therefore is my people led away captive, because they had not\nknowledge, and their nobles have perished with famine, and their\nmultitude were dried up with thirst. Therefore hath hell enlarged her\nsoul and opened her mouth without any bounds, and their strong ones,\nand their people, and their high and generous ones shall go down into\nit.\" [Isa. 5:13 f.] What a dreadful word for our age, in which\nChristians are sucked down into so deep an abyss!\n\nSince, therefore, what we call the priesthood is a ministry, so far as\nwe can learn from the Scriptures, I cannot understand why one who has\nbeen made a priest cannot again become a layman; for the sole\ndifference between him and a layman is his ministry. But to depose a\nman from the ministry is so far from impossible that it is even now\nthe usual penalty imposed upon guilty priests; they are either\nsuspended for a season or permanently deprived of their office. For\nthat lying \"indelible character\" has long since become a\nlaughing-stock. I admit that the pope imparts this character, but\nChrist knows nothing of it; and a priest who is consecrated with it\nbecomes thereby the life-long servant and captive, not of Christ, but\nof the pope; as it is in our day. Moreover, unless I am greatly\nmistaken, if this sacrament and this life all, the papacy itself with\nits characters will scarcely survive; our joyous liberty will be\nrestored to us; we shall realize that we are all equal by every right,\nand having cast of the yoke of tyranny, shall know that he who is a\nChristian has Christ, and that he who has Christ has all things that\nare Christ's and is able to do all things [Phil. 4:13]. Of this I will\nwrite more, and more tellingly, as soon as I perceive that the above\nhas displeased my friends the papists.[187]\n\nTHE SACRAMENT OF EXTREME UNCTION\n\n[Sidenote: The Authority of James]\n\nTo the rite of anointing the sick our theologians have made two\nadditions which are worthy of them; first, the call it a sacrament,\nand secondly, they make it the last sacrament. So that it is now the\nsacrament of extreme unction, which may be administered only to such\nas are at the point of death. Being such subtle dialecticians,\nperchance they have done this in order to relate it to the first\nunction of baptism and the two succeeding unctions of confirmation and\nordination. But here they are able to cast in my teeth, that in the\ncase of this sacrament there are, on the authority of James the\nApostle, both promise and sign, which, as I have all along maintained,\nconstitute a sacrament. For does not James say: \"Is any man sick among\nyou? Let him bring in the priests of the church, and let them pray\nover him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the\nprayer of faith shall raise him up: and if he be in sins, they shall\nbe forgiven him.\" [James 5:14 f.] There, say they, you have the\npromise of the forgiveness of sins, and the sign of the oil.\n\nBut I reply: If ever there was a mad conceit, here is one indeed. I\nwill say nothing of the act that many assert with much probability\nthat this Epistle is not by James the Apostle,[188] nor worthy of an\napostolic spirit, although, whoever be its author, it has come to be\nesteemed as authoritative. But even if the Apostle James did write it,\nI yet should say, no Apostle has the right on his own authority to\ninstitute a sacrament, that is, to give a divine promise with a sign\nattached; for this belongs to Christ alone. Thus Paul says that he\nreceived from the Lord the sacrament of the Eucharist, and that he was\nnot sent to baptise but to preach the Gospel [1 Cor. 11:23; 1 Cor.\n1:17]. And we read nowhere in the Gospel of this sacrament of extreme\nunction. But let us also waive that point. Let us examine the words of\nthe Apostle, or whoever was the author of the Epistle, and we shall at\nonce see how little heed these multipliers of sacraments have given to\nthem.\n\n[Sidenote: The Unction Not Extreme]\n\nIn the first place, then, if they believe the Apostle's words to be\ntrue and binding, by what right do they change and contradict them?\nWhy do they make an extreme and a particular kind of unction of that\nwhich the Apostle wished to be general? For he did not desire it to be\nan extreme unction or administered only to the dying; but he says\nquite generally: \"If any man be sick\"--not, \"If any man be dying.\" I\ncare not what learned discussions Dionysius has on this point in his\n_Ecclesiastical Hierarchy_;[189] the Apostle's words are clear enough,\non which words he as well as they rely, without, however, following\nthem. It is evident, therefore, that they have arbitrarily and without\nany authority made a sacrament and an extreme unction out of the\nmisunderstood words of the Apostle, to the detriment of all other sick\npersons, whom they have deprived of the benefit of the unction which\nthe Apostle enjoined.\n\n[Sidenote: The Unction Medicinal]\n\nBut what follows is still better. The Apostle's promise expressly\ndeclares that the prayer of faith shall save the sick man, and the\nLord shall raise him up. The Apostle commands us to anoint the sick\nman and to pray, in order that he may be healed and raised up; that\nis, that he may not die, and that it may not be an extreme unction.\nThis is proved also by the prayers which are said, during the\nanointing, or the recovery of the one who is sick. But they say, on\nthe contrary, that the unction must be administered to none but the\ndying; that is, that they may not be healed and raised up. If it were\nnot so serious a matter, who could help laughing at this beautiful,\napt and sound exposition of the Apostle's words? Is not the folly of\nthe sophists here shown in its true colors? As here, so in many other\nplaces, they affirm what the Scriptures deny, and deny what they\naffirm. Why should we not give thanks to these excellent magisters of\nours?[190] I therefore spoke truth when I said they never conceived a\ncrazier notion than this.[191]\n\nFurthermore, if this unction is a sacrament it must necessarily be, as\nthey say, an effective sign[192] of that which it signifies and\npromises. Now it promises health and recovery to the sick, as the\nwords plainly say: \"The prayer of faith shall save the sick man, and\nthe Lord shall raise him up.\" But who does not see that this promise\nis seldom if ever fulfilled? Scarce one in a thousand is restored to\nhealth, and when one is restored nobody believes that it came about\nthrough the sacrament, but through the working of nature or the\nmedicine; or to the sacrament they ascribe the opposite power. What\nshall we say then? Either the Apostle lies in making this promise or\nelse this unction is no sacrament. For the sacramental promise is\ncertain; but this promise deceives in the majority of cases.\nIndeed--and here again we recognize the shrewdness and foresight of\nthese theologians--for this very reason they would have it to be\nextreme unction, that the promise should not stand; in other words,\nthat the sacrament should be no sacrament. For if it is extreme\nunction, it does not heal, but gives way to the disease; but if it\nheals, it cannot be extreme unction. Thus, by the interpretation of\nthese magisters, James is shown to have contradicted himself, and to\nhave instituted a sacrament in order not to institute one; for they\nmust have an extreme unction just to make untrue what the Apostle\nintends, namely, the healing of the sick. If that is not madness, pray\nwhat is?\n\n[Sidenote: Priests and Elders]\n\nThese people exemplify the word of the Apostle in i Timothy i,\n\"Desiring to be teachers of the law, understanding neither the things\nthey say, nor whereof they affirm.\" [1 Tim. 1:7] Thus they read and\nfollow all things without judgment. With the same thoughtlessness they\nhave also found auricular confession in our Apostle's words,--\"Confess\nyour sins one to another.\" [James 5:16] But they do not observe the\ncommand of the Apostle, that the priests of the church be called, and\nprayer be made for the sick. Scarce a single priestling is sent\nnowadays, although the Apostle would have many present, not because of\nthe unction but of the prayer. Wherefore he says: \"The prayer of faith\nshall save the sick man,\" etc. I have my doubts, however, whether he\nwould have us understand priests when he says presbyters, that is,\nelders. For one who is an elder is not therefore a priest or minister;\nso that the suspicion is justified that the Apostle desired the older\nand graver men in the Church to visit the sick; these should perform a\nwork of mercy and pray in faith and thus heal him. Still it cannot be\ndenied that the ancient churches were ruled by elders, chosen for this\npurpose, without these ordinations and consecrations, solely on\naccount of their age and their long experience.\n\nTherefore, I take it, this unction is the same as that which the\nApostles practised, in Mark vi, \"They anointed with oil many that were\nsick, and healed them.\" [Mark 6:13] It was a ceremony of the early\nChurch, by which they wrought miracles on the sick, and which has long\nsince ceased; even as Christ, in the last chapter of Mark, gave them\nthat believe the power to take up serpents, to lay hands on the sick,\netc. [Mark 16:17] It is a wonder that they have not made sacraments\nalso of these things; for they have the same power and promise as the\nwords of James. Therefore, this extreme--that is, this\nfictitious--unction is not a sacrament, but a counsel of James, which\nwhoever will may use, and it is derived from Mark vi, as I have shown.\nI do not believe it was a counsel given to all sick persons, for the\nChurch's infirmity is her glory and death is gain [Rom. 5:3; Phil.\n1:21]; but it was given only to such as might bear their sickness\nimpatiently and with little faith. These the Lord allowed to remain in\nthe Church, in order that miracles and the power of faith might be\nmanifest in them.\n\n[Sidenote: Prayer the Chief Part of Unction]\n\nFor this very contingency James provided with care and foresight by\nattaching the promise of healing and the forgiveness of sins not to\nthe unction, but to the prayer of faith. For he says: \"And the prayer\nof faith shall save the sick man, and the Lord shall raise him up: and\nif he be in sins, they shall be forgiven him.\" A sacrament does not\ndemand prayer or faith on the part of the minister, since even a\nwicked person may baptise and consecrate without prayer; a sacrament\ndepends solely on the promise and institution of God, and requires\nfaith on the part of him who receives it. But where is the prayer of\nfaith in our present use of extreme unction? Who prays over the sick\none in such faith as not to doubt that he will recover? Such a prayer\nof faith James here describes, of which he said in the beginning of\nhis Epistle: \"But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering.\" [James 1:6]\nAnd Christ says of it: \"Whatsoever you ask, believe that you shall\nreceive; and it shall be done unto you.\" [Mark 11:24]\n\n[Sidenote: The Unction and Faith]\n\nIf such prayer were made, even to-day, over a sick man--that is,\nprayer made in full faith by older, grave and saintly men--it is\nbeyond all doubt that we could heal as many sick as we would. For what\ncould not faith do? But we neglect this faith, which the authority of\nthe Apostle demands above all else. By presbyters--that is, men\npreeminent by reason of their age and their faith--we understand the\ncommon herd of priests. Moreover, we turn the daily or voluntary\nunction into an extreme unction, and finally, we not only do not\neffect the result promised by the Apostle, namely, the healing of the\nsick, but we make it of none effect by striving after the very\nopposite. And yet we boast that our sacrament, nay, our figment, is\nestablished and proved by this saying of the Apostle, which is\ndiametrically opposed to it. What theologians we are! Now I do not\ncondemn this our sacrament of extreme unction, but I firmly deny that\nit is what the Apostle James prescribes; for his unction agrees with\nours neither in form, use, power nor purpose. Nevertheless we shall\nnumber it among those sacraments which we have instituted, such as the\nblessing and sprinkling of salt and holy water[193]. For we cannot\ndeny that every creature is sanctified by the word and by prayer, as\nthe Apostle Paul teaches us [1 Tim. 4:4 f.]. We do not deny,\ntherefore, that forgiveness of sins and peace are granted through\nextreme unction; not because it is a sacrament divinely instituted,\nbut because he who receives it believes that these blessings are\ngranted to him. For the faith of the recipient does not err, however\nmuch the minister may err. For one who baptises or absolves in\njest[194], that is, does not absolve so far as the minister is\nconcerned, does yet truly absolve and baptise if the person he\nbaptises or absolves believe. How much more will one who administers\nextreme unction confer peace, even though he does not really confer\npeace, so far as his ministry is concerned, since there is no\nsacrament there. The faith of the one anointed receives even that\nwhich the minister either could not or did not intend to give; it is\nsufficient for him to hear and believe the Word. For whatever we\nbelieve we shall receive, that we do really receive, it matters not\nwhat the minister may do or not do, or whether he dissemble or jest.\nThe Saying of Christ stands fast,--\"All things are possible to him\nthat believeth,\" [Mark 9:23] and, \"Be it unto thee even as thou hast\nbelieved.\" [Matt. 8:13] But in treating the sacraments our sophists\nsay nothing at all of this faith, but only babble with all their might\nof the virtues of the sacraments themselves--\"ever learning, and never\nattaining to the knowledge of the truth.\" [2 Tim. 3:7]\n\nStill it was a good thing that this unction was made extreme unction,\nor, thanks to that, it has been disturbed and subjected least of all\nthe sacraments by tyranny and greed. This one last mercy, forsooth,\nhas been let to the dying,--they may freely be anointed, even without\nconfession and communion. If it had remained a practice of daily\noccurrence, especially if it had conferred health on the sick, even\nwithout taking away sins, how many worlds would not the pontiffs have\nunder their control to-day? For through the one sacrament of penance\nand through the power of the keys, as well as through the sacrament of\nordination, they have become such mighty emperors and princes. But now\nit is a fortunate thing that they despise the prayer of faith, and\ntherefore do not heal any sick, and that they have made or themselves,\nout of an ancient ceremony, a brand-new sacrament.\n\nLet this suffice now for these four sacraments. I know how it will\ndisplease those who believe that the number and use of the sacraments\nare to be learned not from the sacred Scriptures, but from the Roman\nSee. As though the Roman See had given those sacraments and had not\nrather got them from the lecture halls of the universities, to which\nit is unquestionably indebted or whatever it has. The papal despotism\nwould not have attained its present position, had it not taken over so\nmany things from the universities. For there was scarce another of the\ncelebrated bishoprics that had so few learned pontiffs; only in\nviolence, intrigue, and superstition has it hitherto surpassed the\nrest. For the men who occupied the Roman See a thousand years ago\ndiffer so vastly from those who have since come into power, that one\nis compelled to refuse the name of Roman pontiff either to the former\nor to the latter.\n\n[Sidenote: Other Possible Sacraments]\n\nThere are yet a few other things it might seem possible to regard as\nsacraments; namely, all those to which a divine promise has been\ngiven, such as prayer, the Word, and the cross. Christ promised, in\nmany places, that those who pray should be heard; especially in Luke\nxi, where He invites us in many parables to pray [Luke 11:5 ff.]. Of\nthe Word He says: \"Blessed are they that hear the word of God, and\nkeep it.\" [Luke 11:28] And who will tell how often He promises aid and\nglory to such as are afflicted, suffer, and are cast down? Nay, who\nwill recount all the promises of God? The whole Scripture is concerned\nwith provoking us to faith; now driving us with precepts and threats,\nnow drawing us with promises and consolations. Indeed, whatever things\nare written are either precepts or promises; the precepts humble the\nproud with their demands, the promises exalt the humble with their\nforgiveness.\n\n[Sidenote: Baptism and Bread the Only Sufficient Sacraments]\n\nNevertheless, it has seemed best to restrict the name of sacrament to\nsuch promises as have signs attached to them. The remainder, not being\nbound to signs, are bare promises. Hence there are, strictly speaking,\nbut two sacraments in the Church of God--baptism and bread; for only\nin these two do we find both the divinely instituted sign and the\npromise of forgiveness of sins. The sacrament of penance, which I\nadded to these two[195] lacks the divinely instituted visible sign,\nand is, as I have said[196], nothing but a return to baptism. Nor can\nthe scholastics say that their definition fits penance, for they too\nascribe to the sacrament a visible sign, which is to impress upon the\nsenses the form of that which it effects invisibly. But penance, or\nabsolution, has no such sign; wherefore they are constrained by their\nown definition, either to admit that penance is not a sacrament, and\nthus to reduce the number of sacraments, or else to bring forward\nanother definition.\n\nBaptism, however, which we have applied to the whole of life, will\ntruly be a sufficient substitute for all the sacraments we might need\nas long as we live. And the bread is truly the sacrament of the dying;\nfor in it we commemorate the passing of Christ out of this world, that\nwe may imitate Him. Thus we may apportion these two sacraments as\nfollows: baptism belongs to the beginning and the entire course of\nlife, the bread belongs to the end and to death. And the Christian\nshould use them both as long as he is in this poor body, until, fully\nbaptised and strengthened, he passes out of this world and is born\nunto the new life of eternity, to eat with Christ in the Kingdom of\nHis Father, as He promised at the Last Supper,--\"Amen I say to you, I\nwill not drink from henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until it is\nfulfilled in the kingdom of God.\" [Matt. 26:29] Thus He seems clearly\nto have instituted the sacrament of the bread with a view to our\nentrance into the life to come. Then, when the meaning[197] of both\nsacraments is fulfilled, baptism and bread will cease.\n\n[Sidenote: Conclusion]\n\nHerewith I conclude this prelude, and freely and gladly offer it to\nall pious souls who desire to know the genuine sense of the Scriptures\nand the proper use of the sacraments. For it is a gift of no mean\nimportance, to know the things that are given us, as it is said in I\nCorinthians ii [1 Cor. 2:12], and what use we ought to make of them.\nEndowed with this spiritual judgment, we shall not mistakenly rely on\nthat which does not belong here. These two things our theologians\nnever taught us, nay, methinks they took particular pains to conceal\nthem from us. If I have not taught them, I certainly did not conceal\nthem, and have given occasion to others to think out something better.\nIt has at least been my endeavor to set forth these two things.\nNevertheless, not all can do all things[198]. To the godless, on the\nother hand, and those who in obstinate tyranny force on us their own\nteachings instead of God's, I confidently and freely oppose these\npages, utterly indifferent to their senseless fury. Yet I wish even\nthem a sound mind, and do not despise their efforts, but only\ndistinguish them from such as are sound and truly Christian.\n\nI hear a rumor of new bulls and papal maledictions sent out against\nme, in which I am urged to recant or be declared a heretic[199]. If\nthat is true, I desire this book to be a portion of the recantation I\nshall make; so that these tyrants may not complain of having had their\npains for nothing. The remainder I will publish ere long, and it will,\nplease Christ, be such as the Roman See has hitherto neither seen nor\nheard. I shall give ample proof of my obedience[200]. In the name of\nour Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.\n\n    Why doth that impious Herod fear\n    When told that Christ the King is near?\n    He takes not earthly realms away,\n    Who gives the realms that ne'er decay.[201]\n\n\nFOOTNOTES\n\n\n[1] Born at Steinheim, near Paderborn, in Westphalia; a proofreader in\nMelchior Lotter's printing-house at Leipzig, with whose oldest son he\nwent to Wittenberg in 1519; professor of poetry at the university;\nrector of the same, 1525; one of Luther's staunchest supporters;\nrector of the school at Lunenberg, 1532 until his death in 1540.\nCompare Enders, _Luther's Briewechsel_, II, 490; Tschackert, _op.\ncit._, 203, and literature in Clemen, I, 426.\n\n[2] _Resolutiones disputatio num de indulgentiarum Virtute_, 1518;\nothers think he refers to the Sermon _von Ablass und Gnade_, of the\nsame year.\n\n[3] Sylvester Prierias and the Dominicans. Comp. Kostlin-Kawerau,\nLuther, I, 189 ff.\n\n[4] _Resolutiones super prop, xiii._, 1519.\n\n[5] Comp. The Papacy at Rome, Vol. I, p. 392.\n\n[6] Comp. Fr. Lepp, _Schlagworter des Ref. zeitalters_ (Leipzig,\n1908), p. 62.\n\n[7] The Franciscan Augustin Alveld. See Introduction, and compare\nLemmens, _Pater Aug. v. Alveld_ (Freiburg, 1599).\n\n[8] Isidore Isolani. See Introduction.\n\n[9] Luther pokes fun at the use of _revocatio_ with an objective\ngenitive.\n\n[10] See above, p. 58, and compare Preserved Smith, _Luther's\nCorrespondence_, Vol. I, letter no. 265.\n\n[11] Cf. _The Papacy at Rome_, Vol. I, p. 337. The title-page of\nAlveld's treatise contained twenty-six lines.\n\n[12] A satiric reference to a section in Alveld's treatise, on the\nname of Jesus, which he spells IHSVH and brings proofs for this form\nfrom the three languages, mentioned. See Seckendor, _Hist. Luth._,\nlib.  I, sect. 27, section  lxx, add. ii.\n\n[13] Alveld calls himself, on his title-page, _Franciscanus regularis\nobservantiae Sanctae Crucis_. The Observantines were Franciscan monks\nof the stricter rule, who separated from the Conventuals in the XV.\nCentury. See _Prot. Realencyklopadie^3, VI, 213 ff.\n\n[14] In the _Treatise on the Blessed Sacrament_; see above, p. 9.\n\n[15] The universities of Cologne and Louvain had ratified Eck's\n\"victory\" over Luther at the Leipzig Disputation. See Kostlin-Kawerau,\nI, 266, 298.\n\n[16] _De disputatione Lipsicensi_, 1519.\n\n[17] _A venatione Luteriana Aegocerotis assertio_, 1519.\n\n[18] Some theologians--e. g., Cajetan and Durandus--doubted whether\nthe Sacrament of Order was received by deacons; the Council of Trent\ndecided against them.--_Cath. Encyclop._, IV, 650.\n\n[19] For Luther's opinion of Aristotle see above, pp. 146 f.\n\n[20] The Franciscans are meant. The allusion may be to the seraphic\nvision of St. Francis.\n\n[21] See above, pp. 153 ff.\n\n[22] A less lenient view was taken by Boniface Amerbach, writing to\nhis brother Basil at Basle, October 20, 1520: \"The good man (Luther)\nwas not a little injured by the libel of a poor impostor, who, by\npretending that Martin had recanted, brought back even those who had\nentered upon the way of truth to their former errors.\" See Smith, _op.\ncit._, I, no. 316.\n\n[23] The present did not last very long; see below, p. 292.\n\n[24] So called because of the withholding of the wine from the laity.\n\n[25] Cf. 1 Tim. 3:16. See Kostlin, _Theology of Luther_ (E. Tr.), I,\n403; and below, pp. 258 f.\n\n[26] The _Treatise on the Blessed Sacrament_, 1519.\n\n[27] See page 174.\n\n[28] See above, p. 10, note 1.\n\n[29] _Decretal. Greg., lib. Ill, tit. xli, cap. 17_.\n\n[30] Migne, XLIV, 699 f.\n\n[31] _Verklarung etlicher Artikel_, 1520. _Weimer Ed._, VI, 80 11 ff.\n\n[32] An allusion to his opponents' doctrine of the complete freedom of\nthe will, which Luther denied. Compare his _De servo arbitrio_ (1525).\n_Weimar Ed._, XVIII, 600 ff. He finds in their treatment of Scripture\nand of logic a practical expression of this doctrine of theirs.\n\n[33] Luther humbly identifies himself with the erring priesthood,\n\n[34] Alveld.\n\n[35] _The res sacramenti_. The sacrament consisted of these two\nparts--(1) the _sacramentum_, or external sign, and (2) the _res\nsacramenti_, or the thing signified, the sacramental grace. Another\ndistinction is that between (1) _materia_, or the external sign, and\n(2) _forma_, or the words of institution or administration. See below,\np. 223.\n\n[36] Cf. _Weimar Ed._, VI, 505, note 1.\n\n[37] Cf. Vol. I, p. 325, and _Realencyklopadie_, X, 289, pp. 11 ff.\n\n[38] Cf. _Weimar Ed._, VI, 506, note 2.\n\n[39] Cf. W. Kohler, _Luther unci die Kirchengeschichte_ (Erlangen,\n1900), chap. viii.\n\n[40] On the spiritual reception of the sacrament see H. Hering, _Die\nMystik Luthers_ (1879), pp. 173 f. Cf. above, p. 40.\n\n[41] See above, p. 172.\n\n[42] John Wyclif (Died 1384), the keenest of the mediaeval critics of the\ndoctrine of transubstantiation.\n\n[43] Pierre d'Ailly (Died 1425), who, with his master Occam, greatly\ninfluenced Luther.\n\n[44] The Sentences of Peter Lombard, the text-book of medieval\ntheology.\n\n[45] In the dogma of transubstantiation (Fourth Lateran Council, 1215)\nthe Church taught that the substance of bread and wine was changed\ninto the substance of Christ's body and blood, while the accidents of\nthe former--i. e., their attributes, such as form, color, taste,\netc.--remained.\n\n[46] Aquinas.\n\n[47] Thus the _Erlangen Ed._; the _Weimar Ed._ reads: _an accidentia\nibi sint sine substantia_.\n\n[48] See above, p. 20.\n\n[49] i. e., the host, or wafer.\n\n[50] _Decretal. Greg. lib. I, tit. i, cap. I, section 3_.\n\n[51] See above, pp. 26 ff.\n\n[52] See above, p. 137.\n\n[54] Comp. Vol. I, pp. 295 ff.\n\n[55] The Douay Version has here been followed.\n\n[56] See Luther's own definition above, pp. 22 ff.\n\n[57] See above, p. 181, note.\n\n[58] See above, p. 198.\n\n[59] See above, p. 195.\n\n[60] See above, p. 10.\n\n[61] See above, p. 187, note 1.\n\n[62] See above, p. 188.\n\n[63] See above, p. 182, note 2.\n\n[64] On \"fruits of the mass\" compare Seeberg, _Dogmengesch._., III, p.\n472.\n\n[65] Comp. Vol. I, p. 307.\n\n[66] Comp. Vol. I, pp. 302 f.\n\n[67] See above, pp. 22 f.\n\n[68] See p. 23.\n\n[69] See Vol. I, pp. 187 ff.\n\n[70] See above, p. 196.\n\n[71] That portion of the mass included between the Sanctus and the\nLord's Prayer.\n\n[72] See Vol. I, p. 312, and _Prot. Realencyklop._, XIV, 679, 41 ff.\n\n[73] See above, p. 211, note 2.\n\n[74] See above, p. 16.\n\n[75] See Vol. I, p. 306.\n\n[76] The offertory prayers in the mass. _C. Prot. Realencyklopadie_,\nXII, 720, 46 ff.\n\n[77] The private mass does not require the presence of a congregation.\nBesides the celebrant there need be present only a ministrant. There\nis no music, the mass is only read. See _Realencyklopadie_, XII, 723.\n\n[78] The _res sacramenti_. See above, p. 182.\n\n[79] Masses celebrated by special request or in honor of certain\nmysteries (e. g., of the Holy Trinity, of the Holy Spirit, or of\nangels). _Realencyklopadie_, XII, 722.\n\n[80] Pope Gregory I. See Realencyklopadie, XII, 681 f.\n\n[81] See above, p. 196, note, and comp. Seeberg, _Dogmengesch._, Ill,\n461 f.\n\n[82] For letters of indulgence.\n\n[83] _E p_. 130, 9 (Migne, XXII, 1115).\n\n[84] Factions in the monastic orders.\n\n[85] The reference may be to Blandina, who suffered martyrdom under\nMarcus Aurelius.\n\n[86] The three parts of penance; see below, p. 247.\n\n[87] See Vol. I, p. 91.\n\n[88] Peter Lombard, the fourth book of whose Sentences treats of the\nsacraments; see above, p. 188.\n\n[89] See p. 182, note 2.\n\n[90] The scholastics distinguished between the \"material\" and the\n\"form\" of a sacrament. In baptism, the material was the water; the\nform, the words, \"I baptise thee in the name of the Father, and of the\nSon, and of the Holy Ghost.\"\n\n[91] Alexander, of Hales, denied the validity of baptism \"in the name\nof Jesus,\" which Peter Lombard defended. Cf. _Realencyklopadie_, XIX,\n412.\n\n[92] Cf. _Weimar Ed._, I, 544, and _Erlangen Ed._, XLIV, 114 ff.\n\n[93] See above, p. 203.\n\n[94] A point at issue between Thomists and Franciscans. The former\nheld that the grace of the sacrament was contained in the sacramental\nsign and directly imparted through it; thus Aquinas. The Franciscans\ncontended that the sign was merely a symbol, but that God, according\nto a _pactio_, or agreement, imparted the grace of the sacrament when\nthe sign was being used; thus Bonaventura, and especially Duns Scotus.\nSee Seeberg, DC, III, 455 ff., and in _Realencyklopadie_, V, 73.\n\n[95] The conclusion of the investigation begun on p. 226.\n\n[96] See above, p. 204.\n\n[97] See above, p. 223.\n\n[98] See above, p. 226.\n\n[99] _Baptisma_; see above, p. 226, and compare Vol. I, p. 56.\n\n[100] _Res_. See above, p. 182, note 2.\n\n[101] _Res baptismi_. See above, p. 231.\n\n[102] Cf. below, pp, 258 ff.\n\n[103] See above, p. 231.\n\n[104] The position of Thomas Aquinas, going back to Augustine, and\nratified by Clement V at the Council of Vienna, 1311-12.\n\n[105] See above, p. 227.\n\n[106] See above, pp. 227 ff.\n\n[107] For a full discussion of this \"baptism,\" see Scheel, in the\n_Berlin Edition_ of Luther's works, _Erganzungsband_ II, pp. 134-157.\n\n[108] See above, p. 238.\n\n[109] The threefold vow of the mendicant orders.\n\n[110] _Bulla_ means both a papal bull and a bubble.\n\n[111] Compare above, p. 172, note 4.\n\n[112] An obscure allegorical reference to the Babylonian captivity of\nthe Jews. \"The people of the captivity\" (comp. Ps. 64:1 and 1 Kings\n24:14, Vulgate) are the better portion of the people who were carried\ncaptive, together with their possessions, to Babylon; \"the people of\nthe earth,\" _am haarez_, the common people, were left behind and\nbecame the nucleus of the hybrid Samaritan nation.\n\n[113] See above, p. 123.\n\n[114] See above, p. 75.\n\n[115] See _Decretal. Greg., lib. Ill, tit. xxxiv, cap. 7_.\n\n[116] Cf. Kohler, _Luther und die KG._, pp. 222 ff.\n\n[117] Comp. below, p. 248.\n\n[118] This time came during Luther's sojourn at the Wartburg, when he\nwrote _De votis monasticis_, 1521. See Vol. IV.\n\n[119] The XCV Theses, the _Resolutiones_, the _Sermon von Ablass und\nGnade_, the _Confitendi Ratio_; the first and last of these in Vol. I.\n\n[120] Reference to a probably spurious bull of Clement VI. In his\n_Grund u. Ursach aller Artikel D. Martin Luthers, so durch rom. Bulle\nunrechtlich verdammt sind_ (1521), Luther writes: \"Thus it happened in\nthe days of John Hus that the pope commanded the angels of heaven to\nconduct to heaven the souls of the Roman pilgrims who died en route.\nAgainst this dreadful blasphemy and more than devilish presumption Hus\nraised his voice, and though he lost his life therefor, yet forced the\npope to pipe a different tune and in future to refrain from such\nblasphemy.\"--Compare Kohler, _Luther u. die Kirchengeschichte_, p.\n206. See also above, p. 81.\n\n[121] _Longe viliorem_; the _Jena Ed._, followed by Lemme and Kawerau,\nreads, _longe meliorem_.\n\n[122] Comp. Vol. I, p. 20.\n\n[123] Comp. Vol. I, p. 86.\n\n[124] See above, pp. 105 f.\n\n[125] See above, p. 105, note 4.\n\n[126] See above, p. 223, note 1,\n\n[127] See above, p. 245, note 2.\n\n[128] A play on the word _observantia_, which means both observation\nand observance. A scriptural fling at the _Observantines_. Comp.\nabove, p. 172, note 4.\n\n[129] Luther quotes correctly, _confortatus_, but thinks\n_confirmatus_.\n\n[130] Vulgate: _confirmet_.\n\n[131] Above, pp. 203 f.\n\n[132] Vulgate: _sacramenta_.\n\n[133] Erasmus edited the first published Greek New Testament in March,\n1516 (Basle: John Froben), the Complutensian Polyglot being the first\nprinted edition (1514). Luther used Erasmus' work as soon as it came\nout, as may be seen in his lectures on Romans, 1515-16 (cf. Picker,\n_Luthers Vorlesung uber den Romerbrie_; also Preserved Smith,\n_Luther's Correspondence_, etc., I, nos. 21 and 65). In an interesting\nletter to Luther of Feb. 14, 1519, Froben announces the second edition\nof Erasmus' New Testament, which Luther used in making his\ntranslation. Cf. Smith, op. cit., 00.125.\n\n[134] See above, p. 177.\n\n[135] Namely, for Paul.\n\n[136] The precise meaning is not clear. The Latin is: _vel proprio\nspiritu vel general! sententia_.\n\n[137] Here follows a passage that clearly breaks into the context and\nbelongs elsewhere. See Introduction, p. 169.\n\n\"I admit that the sacrament of penance existed also in the Old Law,\nyea, from the beginning of the world. But the new promise of penance\nand the gift of the keys are peculiar to the New Law. For as we now\nhave baptism instead of circumcision, so we have the keys instead of\nthe sacrifices and other signs of penance. We said above that the same\nGod at divers times gave divers promises and signs for the remission\nof sins and the salvation of men, but that all nevertheless received\nthe same grace. Thus it is said in II Corinthians iv, 'Having the same\nspirit of faith, we also believe, or which cause we speak also'; and\nin i Corinthians x, 'Our fathers did all eat the same spiritual food,\nand all drank the same spiritual drink; and they drank of the\nspiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ.' Thus also\nin Hebrews xi, 'These all died, not receiving the promise; God\nproviding some better thing or us, that they should not be perfected\nwithout us.' For Christ Himself is, yesterday and to-day and forever,\nthe Head of His Church, from the beginning even to the end of the\nworld. Therefore there are divers signs, but the faith of all is the\nsame. Indeed, without faith it is impossible to please God, by which\nfaith even Abel pleased Him (Hebrews xi).\"\n\n[138] The _Summa angelica_ of Angelus de Clavassio of Genoa (died\nabout 1495), published 1486, one of the favorite handbooks of\ncasuistry, in which all possible cases of conscience were treated in\nalphabetical order. Cf. _Zeitschrit fur Kirchengesch._, XXVII, 296 ff.\nThe _Summa angelica_ was among the papal books burned by Luther,\ntogether with the bull, December 10, 1520. Cf. Smith, _Luther's\nCorrespondence_, I, no. 355.\n\n[139] For a full discussion of the hindrances see article Eherecht, by\nSehung, in _Prot. Realencyklopadie_, V.\n\n[140] On this whole paragraph compare Vol. I, p. 294.\n\n[141] It is to be borne in mind that all that follows is in the nature\nof advice to confessors in dealing with difficult cases of conscience,\nand is parallel to the closing paragraphs of the section on The\nSacrament of the Bread.\n\n[142] Namely, by officiating at the marriage ceremony.\n\n[143] Namely, by betrothal (_sponsalia de praesenti_).\n\n[144] Lemme pertinently reminds the reader that by \"laws of men\"\nLuther here understands the man-made laws of the Church of Rome.\n\n[145] See above, p. 103, note 2.\n\n[146] Relationship arising from sponsorship and legal adoption. Cf.\nabove, p. 128.\n\n[147] _Cognatio spiritualis_.\n\n[148] _The res sacramenti_. See above, p. 182.\n\n[149] _Cognatio legalis_.\n\n[150] _Disparilitas religionis_.\n\n[151] _Impedimentum criminis_.\n\n[152] _Impedimentum ligamiais_.\n\n[153] The _fides data et accepta_, which Luther finds in the _fides_\n(faith) of Gal. 5:22\n\n[154] Page 243.\n\n[155] _Impedimentum erroris_. With fine sarcasm Luther here plays of\none hindrance against another.\n\n[156] _Impedimentum ordinis_.\n\n[157] _Impedimentum publicae honestatis_.\n\n[158] An untranslatable pun: _non iustitia sed inscitia_.\n\n[159] Page 244.\n\n[160] See p. 263, note 2.\n\n[161] Page 242.\n\n[162] The following points need to be borne in mind in order to a fair\nevaluation of this much criticized section: (1) What is here given is\nin the nature of advice to confessors, and the one guiding principle\nis the relief of souls in peril. (2) It must not be forgotten that\nLuther wrote the treatise in Latin, and not for the general public.\nThere is without doubt a certain betrayal in turning into the\nvernacular a passage written in the language of the learned. Yet we\nhave done this, being unwilling to all under the charge of giving a\ngarbled version. (3) The hindrance Luther is here discussing was one\nrecognized and provided or by the Church of Rome, and the remedy\nsuggested by him was prescribed by the German _Volksrecht_ in many\nlocalities. (4) Divorce was absolutely forbidden.  (5) Luther's error\ngrew out of an unhistorical interpretation of the Old Testament, and\nconsisted in his undervaluing the importance of the public law. \"To\nmake the individual conscience the sole arbiter in matters belonging\nto public law, leads to dangerous consequences.\" (See Kawarau, _Berlin\nEd._, II, 482 f., where references are given.)\n\n[163] As he actually did in the case of Henry VIII and Philip of\nHesse.\n\n[164] See above, p. 269, note 1.\n\n[165] Page 271.\n\n[166] An allusion to the act that what he is writing is a \"Prelude.\"\nSee Introduction, p. 168.\n\n[167] _Contra epistolam Manichaei_, 5, 6 (Migne, XLII, 176). Cf.\nbelow, p. 451.\n\n[168] _De trinitate_, 9, 6, 10 (Migne, VIII, 966).\n\n[169] See below, pp. 451 ff.\n\n[170] The council that condemned and burned John Hus (1414-1418).\n\n[171] Dionysius Areopagita, the pseudonym (cf. Acts 17:54) of the\nunknown author (about 500, in Syria?) of the neoplatonic writings, _Of\nthe Celestial_, and _Of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy_, etc.\n\n[172] William Durandus the elder, died 1296.\n\n[173] The Franciscan Bonaventura (Died 1274) in his _De reductione artium\nad theologiara_.\n\n[174] Donatus (ab. 350 A.D.), a famous Latin grammarian, whose _Ars\nminor_ was a favorite mediaeval text-book. The chancellor of the\nUniversity of Paris, John Gerson (Died  1429), published a _Donatus\nmoralisatus seu per allegoriam traductus_--a mystical grammar, in\nwhich the noun was compared to man, the pronoun to man's sinful state,\nthe verb to the divine command to love, the _adverb_ to the fulfilment\nof the divine law, etc.\n\n[175] See above, p. 190.\n\n[176] The so-called _character indelebilis_, the peculiar gift of\nordination, so that \"once a priest, always a priest.\" See above, p.\n68, note 5.\n\n[177] See above, pp. 178 ff.\n\n[178] The stated daily prayers, fixed by canon, of the clergy. The\nseven hours are respectively: matins (including noctums and lauds),\nprime, tierce, sext, nones, vespers, and compline.\n\n[179] Comp. above, p. 69. The fullest development of Luther's doctrine\nof the spiritual priesthood of believers is to be found in his\nwritings against Emser, especially _Auf das uberchristliche,\nubergeistliche und uberkunstliche Buch Bock Emsers Antwort_, 1521.\n\n[180] On the last sentence see above, pp. 251 f.\n\n[181] See p. 278, note 1.\n\n[182] See above, p. 92.\n\n[183] See above, p. 280.\n\n[184] See above, p. 185.\n\n[185] See above, p. 213.\n\n[186] Covers for the chalice.\n\n[187] This promise was fulfilled in the Liberty of a Christian Man.\n\n[188] Thus Erasmus: _Fieri potest ut nomen commune cum apostolo\npraebuerit occasionem ut haec epistola lacobo apostolo ascriberetur,\ncum uerit alterius cuiusdam Iacobi._--Moffatt, _Introduction to the\nLit. of the N. T._, p. 472.\n\n[189] See above, p. 275.\n\n[190] Comp. above, p. 171.\n\n[191] See above, p. 285.\n\n[192] See above, p. 226.\n\n[193] See above, p. 275.\n\n[194] See above, p. 226.\n\n[195] See above, p. 177.\n\n[196] See above, pp. 220 f.\n\n[197] The _res sacramenti_. See above, p. 182, note 2.\n\n[198] Vergil's _Eclogues_, VIII, 63.\n\n[199] See Introduction, p. 168.\n\n[200] The remainder of Luther's \"recantation\" was the _De libertate_.\nIn the letter to the pope, which accompanied it, he gave ample proof\nof his obedience.\n\n[201] The eighth stanza of Coehus Sedulius' _Hymnus acrostichis totam\nvitam Christi continens_ (beginning, _A solis ortus cardine_), of the\nfifth century. Stanzas 8, 9, 11 and 13 were used as an Epiphany hymn,\nwhich Luther translated on December 12, 1541,--\"Was furchtst du, Feind\nHerodes, sehr.\" The above translation is taken from _Hymns Ancient and\nModern_, No. 60.\n\n\n\nA TREATISE ON CHRISTIAN LIBERTY WITH A LETTER TO POPE LEO X\n\n1520\n\n\n\nINTRODUCTION\n\n\nThe Letter to the Pope, like an earlier letter dated March 3, 1519,\nwas written at the suggestion of Carl von Miltitz. Sent to Germany to\nbring Luther to Rome, this German diplomat knew German conditions and\nto some extent sympathized with Luther's denunciation of Tetzel and\nthe sellers of indulgences. He preferred, therefore, to try to settle\nthe controversy and to leave Luther in Germany. Although the pope\ninsisted that Luther must come to Rome and recant, Miltitz arranged\nfor a hearing of the case before a German bishop. Evidently Miltitz\nwas far too optimistic in his representations both to Luther and to\nthe pope. The pope, in a writing dated March 29, 1519, spoke in\nfriendly terms to Luther, and urged him to come to Rome immediately\nand to make his recantation there. Luther, in the letter dated March\n3, 1519, writes in most humble language to the pope, but declares it\nimpossible for him to recant what he had written in the XCV Theses.\nThe pope's letter did not reach Luther; Luther's letter was not\nforwarded to the pope.\n\nLuther had promised to keep silent if his opponents would do the same,\nand had devoted himself to the study of the Scriptures. John Eck,\nhowever, had no such occupation to keep him from controversy, and\nLuther was not averse to a debate. At the Leipzig disputation, June\n27-July 15, 1519, Luther learned more of the logical implications of\nhis position. The plan of Miltitz had failed, but he would not be\ndiscouraged.\n\nWhen Miltitz went to Germany, it was under the pretence of a mission\n\"to deliver to his elector the papal golden rose, which the latter had\ncoveted in vain for two years.\"[1] Now he decided to go in person to\nAugsburg, where it had been deposited with the Fuggers, and present it\nto Frederick. This also gave an opportunity for a second meeting with\nLuther at Liebwierde, October 9, 1519. Luther, although placing little\nconfidence in Miltitz, consented to argue his case before the\narchbishop of Treves. The plan failed, partly because there was no\ncitation for Luther to appear, partly because the Elector would not\nallow Luther to go without proper safe-conduct, and partly because\nMiltitz had not tried to prevent Luther's opponents from challenging\nhim.\n\nIn spite of the evident lack of confidence on both sides, and in spite\nof Luther's constant progress in opposition to the Roman Church,\nMiltitz insisted that \"the case is not as black as we priests make\nit,\" even when a papal bull was issued against Luther on June 15,\n1520. On August 28th Miltitz attended a meeting of the Augustinian\nmonks in Eisleben, and obtained their promise that Luther should be\nrequested to write a letter to the pope assuring him that he had never\nattacked the pope's person. On September 11th Luther reported to\nSpalatin what he had done, and said that, although neither he nor his\nfellow-monks had any confidence in the plan, he would do Miltitz the\nfavor of writing such a letter. This promise seemed meaningless to him\nafter the bull against him had been published. The papal bull had been\nobtained by Eck, whom Miltitz now considered to be substituted for\nhimself in dealing with Luther, in spite of the authority he had\nreceived. That the bull was ignored in some places and despised in\nothers, pleased him and gave him new courage. There might, after all,\nbe some chance for him to make use of his diplomatic skill.\n\nAgain he invited Luther to meet him in Lichtenberg. They met in the\nmonastery of St. Anthony on October 12th, and Luther renewed his\npromise to write to the pope, to send the letter within twelve days,\nand to date it back to September 6th, that the appearance of\nintimidation by the papal bull might be avoided. It was agreed that\nLuther should send with the letter an historical account of his\ndifficulties with the Roman Church which would show that Eck was the\nchief instigator, and that Luther had been forced to take the\npositions he defended. In writing, however, the historical review\nbecame a part of the letter, and a treatise of far different tone was\nsent as a gift to the pope, and as an evidence of the kind of work\nLuther would prefer to do if his opponents permitted him to\nchoose--the Treatise on Christian Liberty.\n\nIt is again a question whether the pope received this letter. It has\nbeen an interesting speculation for more than one writer, what the\nthoughts and feelings of Leo the Tenth might have been if he did\nreceive and read it. Schaff traces the progress of Luther in the three\nletters he wrote to the pope: \"In his first letter to the pope, 1518,\nLuther had thrown himself at his feet as an obedient son of the vicar\nof Christ; in his second letter, 1519, he still had addressed him as a\nhumble subject, yet refusing to recant his conscientious convictions;\nin his third and last letter he addressed him as an equal, speaking to\nhim with great respect for his personal character even beyond his\ndeserts, but denouncing in the severest terms the Roman See, and\ncomparing him to a lamb among wolves, and to Daniel in the den of\nlions.\"[2] If the pope ever read it, \"it must have filled him with\nmingled feelings of indignation and disgust.\"\n\nWe may go even farther. Luther thinks of St. Bernard's attitude toward\nPope Eugene, and Bernard was Eugene's superior in the Cistercian order\nand had been looked up to as \"father.\" Luther writes as a father\nconfessor to a friend in trouble, and might have quoted Bernard's\nwords: \"I grieve with you. I should say, I grieve with you if, indeed,\nyou also grieve. Otherwise I should have rather said, I grieve for\nyou; because that is not grieving with another when there is none who\ngrieves. Therefore if you grieve, I grieve with you; if not, still I\ngrieve, and then most of all, knowing that the member which is without\nfeeling is the farther removed from health and that the sick man who\ndoes not feel his sickness is in the greater danger.\"[3]\n\nThe pope was a humanist, not a spiritually minded priest; we may,\ntherefore, believe that Charles Beard is not far wrong in his estimate\nof the possible effect of this letter upon him: \"If Giovanni de\nMedici, the head of a house which had long come to consider itself\nprincely, and the occupant of the Fisherman's chair, when it claimed\nto be the highest of earthly thrones, read this bold apostrophe,\naddressed to him by a 'peasant and a peasant's son,' he must have\nthought him mad with conceit and vanity. He was incapable of being\ntouched by the moral nobleness of the appeal, and so audacious a\ncontempt of merely social distinctions the world has rarely seen.\"[4]\n\nAfter the mighty thunder of the Address to the Christian Nobility and\nthe Babylonian Captivity of the Church, the Treatise on the Liberty of\na Christian Man is, indeed, like a still, small voice. Luther himself\nsays: \"Unless I am deceived, it is the whole of Christian living in a\nbrief form.\" Perhaps we may trace here also the influence of St.\nBernard's _De Consideratione_, which was written as a devotional book\nfor the pope and was a manual of Christian living for the pope, as\nthis is a manual of Christian living or all Christians.\n\nIt has been rather difficult for the enemies of Luther to find much\nfault with this book. The Catholic historians, Janssen and\nHergenrother, do not mention it. Grisar characteristically devotes a\nlittle space to each of the three great writings of 1520, and\nconsiders the book on Christian Liberty as the most mischievous of\nthem all. \"It does, indeed, frequently bring its false thoughts in the\nform of that mystical, heart-searching style which Luther learned from\nolder German models.\"[5] The French Catholic, Leon Cristiani, is far\nmore generous in his estimate: \"A truly religious spirit breathes in\nthese pages. Provoking polemic is almost entirely avoided. Here one\nfinds again the inspiration of the great mystics of the Middle Ages.\nDoes not the 'Imitation' continually describe the powerlessness of man\nwhen left to himself, the infinite mercy of God, the great benefit of\nthe redemption of Christ? Does it not preach the necessity of doing\nall things through love, nothing of necessity? He is not a true\nChristian who would venture to disapprove the passages in which Luther\nspeaks so eloquently of the goodness of God, of the gratitude which it\nshould inspire in us, of the spontaneity which should mark our\nobedience, of the desire of imitating Christ which should inspire\nus.\"[6]\n\nProtestants consider this book \"perhaps the most beautiful of Luther's\nwritings, the result of religious contemplation rather than of\ntheological labor.\"[7] \"It takes rank with the best books of Luther,\nand rises far above the angry controversies of his age, during which\nhe composed it, in the full possession of the positive truth and peace\nof the religion of Christ.\"[8] The clear presentation of the thought\nof the liberty of a Christian man occurs at the close of the\nTessaradecas.[9] In the Babylonian Captivity Luther had promised to\npublish a treatise on the subject after he had seen the effect of that\ntreatise.[10] But the promise to send a treatise to the pope gave him\nan earlier opportunity, so that barely a month and a half intervened\nbetween the publication of the Captivity, October 6th, and that of the\nLiberty, middle of November. The German, although a translation in\npart and in part an abbreviation and rewriting of the Latin, appeared\nfirst, before November 16th. The publisher, seeing his opportunity,\nhad, however, issued the Letter to the Pope in German separately\nbefore November 4th,[11] so that a new dedicatory letter, addressed to\nHieronymus Mulphordt (Muhlpfort), of Zwickau, was prefixed to the\nGerman edition.\n\nOur translation is made from the Latin, although the German has been\ncompared wherever it is a real translation.\n\nTwo translations into English appeared in the sixteenth century: one\nprinted by John Byddell before 1544, the translation being, according\nto Preserved Smith,[12] by John Tewkesbury; the other, prepared by\nJames Bell and printed by Ralph Newbery and H. Bynneman, in 1579.\nUnfortunately, neither of these was accessible to the present\ntranslators. Modern translations, into English by Wace and Buchheim,\nand into German by Lemme, have been consulted.\n\n    W. A. LAMBERT.\n\nSouth Bethlehem, PA.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES\n\n\n[1] _Catholic Encyclopedia_, x, 318.\n\n[2] _Church History_, vi, 224 f.\n\n[3] _De consideratione_, i, I.\n\n[4] _Martin Luther and the Reformation in Germany_, London, 1889, p.\n370.\n\n[5] _Luther_, I, 351.\n\n[6] _Du Lutheranisme au Protestantisme_, 1911, p. 199.\n\n[7] Kolde, _Luther_, 1, 274.\n\n[8] Schaff, VI, 224.\n\n[9] Vol. I, p. 170.\n\n[10] See above, page 284.\n\n[11] Enders, II, p. 496, gives as the date when the letter was\nwritten, \"after Oct. 13th\"; Smith, _Life and Letters of Martin\nLuther_, p. 91, dates it Oct. 20th.\n\n[12] _Nation_, May 29, 1913.\n\n\nLETTER TO POPE LEO X.\n\n\nJESUS.\n\nTo Leo the Tenth, Pope at Rome: Martin Luther wishes thee salvation in\nChrist Jesus our Lord. Amen.\n\n[Sidenote: The Pope's Person]\n\nIn the midst of the monsters of this age with whom I am now for the\nthird year waging war, I am compelled at times to look up also to\nthee, Leo, most blessed Father, and to think of thee; nay, since thou\nart now and again regarded as the sole cause of my warfare, I cannot\nbut think of thee always. And although the causeless raging of thy\ngodless flatterers against me has compelled me to appeal from thy See\nto a future council, despite those most empty decrees of thy\npredecessors Pius and Julius, who with a foolish tyranny forbade such\nan appeal, yet I have never so estranged my mind from thy Blessedness\nas not with all my heart to wish thee and thy See every blessing, for\nwhich I have, as much as lay in me, besought God with earnest prayers.\nIt is true, I have made bold almost to despise and to triumph over\nthose who have tried to righten me with the majesty of thy name and\nauthority. But there is one thing which I cannot despise, and that is\nmy excuse for writing once more to thy Blessedness. I understand that\nI am accused of great rashness, and that this rashness is said to be\nmy great fault, in which, they say, I have not spared even thy person.\n\nFor my part, I will openly confess that I know I have only spoken good\nand honorable things of thee whenever I have made mention of thy name.\nAnd if I had done otherwise, I myself could by no means approve of it,\nbut would entirely approve the judgment others have formed of me, and\ndo nothing more gladly than recant such rashness and impiety on my\npart. I have called thee a Daniel in Babylon,[1] and every one who\nreads knows with what zeal I defended thy notable innocence against\nthy dreamer, Sylvester.[2] Indeed, thy reputation and the fame of thy\nblameless life, sung as they are throughout the world by the writings\nof so many great men, are too well known and too high to be assailed\nin any way by any one man, however great he may be. I am not so\nfoolish as to attack him whom every one praises: it has rather been,\nand always will be, my endeavor not to attack even those whom public\nreport decries; for I take no pleasure in the crimes of any man, since\nI am conscious enough of the great beam in my own eye [Matt. 7:3], nor\ncould I be he that should cast the first stone at the adulteress [John\n8:7].\n\n[Sidenote: Luther's Enemies]\n\nI have indeed sharply inveighed against ungodly teachings in general,\nand I have not been slow to bite my adversaries, not because of their\nimmorality, but because of their ungodliness. And of this I repent so\nlittle that I have determined to persevere in that fervent zeal, and\nto despise the judgment of men, following the example of Christ, Who\nin His zeal called His adversaries a generation of vipers, blind,\nhypocrites, children of the devil [Matt. 23:13, 17, 33]. And Paul\narraigned the sorcerer as a child of the devil full of all subtilty\nand mischief [Acts 13:10], and brands others as dogs, deceivers and\nadulterers [Phil. 3:2; 2 Cor. 11:13; 2 Cor. 2:17]. If you will allow\nthose delicate ears to judge, nothing would be more biting and more\nunrestrained than Paul. Who is more biting than the prophets?\nNowadays, it is true, our ears are made so delicate by the mad crowds\nof flatterers that as soon as we meet with a disapproving voice we cry\nout that we are bitten, and when we cannot ward off the truth with any\nother pretext we put it to light by ascribing it to a fierce temper,\nimpatience and shamelessness. What is the good of salt if it does not\nbite? Or of the edge of the sword if it does not kill? Cursed be he\nthat doeth the work of the Lord deceitfully [Jer. 48:10].\n\nWherefore, most excellent Leo, I pray thee, after I have by this\nletter vindicated myself, give me a hearing, and believe that I have\nnever thought evil of thy person, but that I am a man who would wish\nthee all good things eternally, and that I have no quarrel with any\nman concerning his morality, but only concerning the Word of truth. In\nall things else I will yield to any man whatsoever: to give up or to\ndeny the Word I have neither the power nor the will. If any man thinks\notherwise of me, or has understood my words differently, he does not\nthink aright, nor has he understood what I have really said.\n\n[Sidenote: The Roman Curia]\n\nBut thy See, which is called the Roman Curia, and of which neither\nthou nor any man can deny that it is more corrupt than any Babylon or\nSodom ever was, and which is, as far as I can see, characterized by a\ntotally depraved, hopeless and notorious wickedness--that See I have\ntruly despised, and I have been incensed to think that in thy name and\nunder the guise of the Roman Church the people of Christ are mocked.\nAnd so I have resisted and will resist that See, as long as the spirit\nof faith shall live in me. Not that I shall strive after the\nimpossible or hope that by my lone efforts anything will be\naccomplished in that most disordered Babylon, where the rage of so\nmany sycophants is turned against me; but I acknowledge myself a\ndebtor to my brethren, whom it is my duty to warn, that fewer of them\nmay be destroyed by the plagues of Rome, or at least that their\ndestruction may be less cruel.\n\nFor, as thou well knowest, these many years there has flowed forth\nfrom Rome, like a flood covering the world, nothing but a laying waste\nof men's bodies and souls and possessions, and the worst possible\nexamples of the worst possible things. For all this is clearer than\nthe day to all men, and the Roman Church, once the most holy of all,\nbecome the most licentious den of thieves [Matt. 21:13], the most\nshameless of all brothels, the kingdom of sin, death and hell; so that\neven Antichrist himself, should he come, could think of nothing to add\nto its wickedness.\n\n[Sidenote: The Pope's Helplessness]\n\nMeanwhile thou, Leo, sittest as a lamb in the midst of wolves [Matt.\n10:16], like Daniel in the midst of the lions [Dan. 6:16], and, with\nEzekiel, thou dwellest among scorpions [Ezek. 2:6]. What canst thou do\nsingle-handed, against these monsters? Join to thyself three or four\nthoroughly learned and thoroughly good cardinals: what are even these\namong so many? [John 6:9] You would all be poisoned before you could\nundertake to make a single decree to help matters. There is no hope or\nthe Roman Curia: the wrath of God is come upon it to the end [1 Thess.\n2:16]; it hates councils, it fears a reformation, it cannot reduce the\nraging of its wickedness, and is meriting the praise bestowed upon its\nmother, of whom it is written, \"We have cured Babylon, but she is not\nhealed: let us forsake her.\"[3][Jer. 51:9] It was thy duty, indeed,\nand that of thy cardinals, to remedy these evils, but that gout of\ntheirs mocks the healing hand, and neither chariot nor horse heeds the\nguiding rein.[4] Moved by such sympathy for thee, I have always\ngrieved, most excellent Leo, that thou hast been made pope in these\ntimes, for thou wert worthy of better days. The Roman Curia has not\ndeserved to have thee or men like thee, but rather Satan himself; and\nin truth it is he more than thou who rules in that Babylon.\n\nO would that thou mightest lay aside what thy most mischievous enemies\nboast of as thy glory, and wert living on some small priestly income\nof thine own, or on thy family inheritance! To glory in that glory\nnone are worthy save the Iscariots, the sons of perdition [John\n17:12]. For what dost thou accomplish in the Curia, my dear Leo? Only\nthis: the more criminal and abominable a man is, the more successfully\nwill he use thy name and authority to destroy the wealth and the souls\nof men, to increase crime, to suppress faith and truth and the whole\nChurch of God. O truly, most unhappy Leo, thou sittest on a most\ndangerous throne; for I tell thee the truth, because I wish thee well.\nIf Bernard pitied his Pope Eugene[5] at a time when the Roman See,\nalthough even then most corrupt, yet ruled with better prospects, why\nshould not we lament who have for three hundred years had so great an\nincrease of corruption and worthlessness? Is it not true that under\nyon vast expanse of heaven there is nothing more corrupt, more\npestilential, more hateful than the Roman Curia? It surpasses the\ngodlessness of the Turks beyond all comparison, so that in truth,\nwhereas it was once a gate of heaven, it is now an open mouth of hell,\nand such a mouth as, because of the wrath of God, cannot be shut;\nthere is only one thing that we can try to do, as I have said:\nperchance we may be able to call back a few from that yawning chasm of\nRome and so save them.\n\nNow thou seest, my Father Leo, how and why I have so violently\nattacked that pestilential See: for so far have I been from raging\nagainst thy person that I even hoped I might gain thy favor and save\nthee, if I should make a strong and sharp assault upon that prison,\nnay that hell of thine. For thou and thy salvation and the salvation\nof many others with thee will be served by every thing that men of\nability can contribute to the confusion of this wicked Curia. They do\nthy work, who bring evil upon it; they glorify Christ, who in every\nway curse it. In short, they are Christians who are not Romans.\n\n[Sidenote: Luther's Controversies]\n\n[Sidenote: Eck]\n\nTo go yet farther, I never intended to inveigh against the Roman\nCuria, or to raise any controversy concerning it. For when I saw that\nall efforts to save it were hopeless, I despised it and gave it a bill\nof divorcement [Deut. 24:1] and said to it, \"He that is filthy, let\nhim be filthy still, and he that is unclean, let him be unclean\nstill.\" [Rev. 22:11] Then I gave myself to the quiet and peaceful\nstudy of holy Scripture, that I might thus be of benefit to my\nbrethren about me. When I had made some progress in these studies,\nSatan opened his eyes and filled his servant John Eck,[6] a notable\nenemy of Christ, with an insatiable lust for glory, and thereby\nstirred him up to drag me at unawares into a disputation, laying hold\non me by one little word about the primacy of the Roman Church which I\nhad incidentally let fall. Then that boasting braggart, frothing and\ngnashing his teeth, declared that he would venture all for the glory\nof God and the honor of the holy Apostolic See, and, puffed up with\nthe hope of misusing thy power, he looked forward with perfect\nconfidence to a victory over me. He sought not so much to establish\nthe primacy of Peter as his own leadership among the theologians of\nour time; and to that end he thought it no small help if he should\ntriumph over Luther. When that debate ended unhappily for the sophist,\nan incredible madness overcame the man: for he feels that he alone\nmust bear the blame of all that I have brought forth to the shame of\nRome.\n\n[Sidenote: Cajetan]\n\nBut permit me, I pray thee, most excellent Leo, this once to plead my\ncause and to make charges against thy real enemies. Thou knowest, I\nbelieve, what dealings thy legate, Cardinal of St. Sixtus,[7] an\nunwise and unfortunate, or rather, unfaithful man, had with me. When,\nbecause of reverence for thy name, I had put myself and all my case in\nhis hand, he did not try to establish peace, although with a single\nword he could easily have done so, since I at that time promised to\nkeep silent and to end the controversy, if my opponents were ordered\nto do the same. But as he was a man who sought glory, and was not\ncontent with that agreement, he began to justify my opponents, to give\nthem full freedom and to order me to recant, a thing not included in\nhis instructions. When the matter was in a fair way, his untimely\narbitrariness brought it into a far worse condition. Therefore, for\nwhat followed later Luther is not to blame; all the blame is\nCajetan's, who did not suffer me to keep silent and to rest, as I then\nmost earnestly asked him to do. What more should I have done?\n\n[Sidenote: Miltitz]\n\nNext came Carl Miltitz,[8] also a nuncio of thy Blessedness, who after\ngreat and varied efforts and constant going to and fro, although he\nomitted nothing that might help to restore that status of the question\nwhich Cajetan had rashly and haughtily disturbed, at last with the\nhelp of the most illustrious prince, Frederick the Elector, barely\nmanaged to arrange several private conferences with me. Again I\nyielded to your name, I was prepared to keep silent, and even accepted\nas arbiter either the archbishop of Treves or the bishop of Naumburg.\nSo matters were arranged. But while this plan was being followed with\ngood prospects of success, lo, that other and greater enemy of thine,\nEck, broke in with the Leipzig Disputation which he had undertaken\nagainst Dr. Carlstadt. When a new question concerning the primacy of\nthe pope was raised, he suddenly turned his weapons against me and\nquite overthrew that counsel of peace. Meanwhile Carl Miltitz waited:\na disputation was held, judges were selected; but here also no\ndecision was reached, and no wonder: through the lies, the tricks, the\nwiles of Eck everything was stirred up, aggravated and confounded\nworse than ever, so that whatever decision might have been reached, a\ngreater conflagration would have resulted. For he sought glory, not\nthe truth. Here also I let nothing undone that I ought to have\ndone.[9]\n\n[Sidenote: Eck]\n\nI admit that on this occasion no small amount of corrupt Roman\npractices came to light, but whatever wrong was done was the fault of\nEck, who undertook a task beyond his strength, and, while he strove\nmadly for his own glory, revealed the shame of Rome to all the world.\nHe is thy enemy, my dear Leo, or rather the enemy of thy Curia. From\nthe example of this one man thou canst learn that there is no enemy\nmore injurious than a flatterer. For what did he accomplish with his\nflattery but an evil which no king could have accomplished? To-day the\nname of the Roman Curia is a stench throughout the world, and papal\nauthority languishes, ignorance that was once held in honor is evil\nspoken of; and of all this we should have heard nothing if Eck had not\nupset the counsel of peace planned by Carl and myself, as he himself\nnow clearly sees, and is angry, too late and to no purpose, that my\nbooks were published. This he should have thought of when, like a\nhorse that whinnies on the picket-line, he was madly seeking only his\nown glory, and sought only his own gain through thee at the greatest\nperil to thee. The vainglorious man thought that I would stop and keep\nsilent at the terror of thy name; for I do not believe that he trusted\nentirely to his talents and learning. Now, when he sees that I have\nmore courage than that and have not been silenced, he repents him too\nlate of his rashness and understands that there is One in heaven who\nresists the proud and humbles the haughty [1 Pet. 5:5; Judith 6:15],\nif indeed he does understand it at last.\n\n[Sidenote: The Augustinians]\n\nSince we gained nothing by this disputation except that we brought\ngreater confusion to the cause of Rome, Carl Miltitz made a third\nattempt; he came to the fathers of the Augustinian Order assembled in\ntheir chapter, and asked counsel in settling the controversy which had\nnow grown most confused and dangerous. Since, by the favor of God,\nthey had no hope of being able to proceed against me with violence,\nsome of the most famous of their number were sent to me, and asked me\nat least to show honor to the person of thy Blessedness, and in a\nhumble letter to plead as my excuse thy innocence and mine; they said\nthat the affair was not yet in the most desperate state if of his\ninnate goodness Leo the Tenth would take a hand in it. As I have\nalways both offered and desired peace that I might devote myself to\nquieter and more useful studies, and have stormed with so great fury\nmerely for the purpose of overwhelming by volume and violence of\nwords, no less than of intellect, those whom I knew to be very unequal\nfoes: I not only gladly ceased, but also with joy and thankfulness\nconsidered it a most welcome kindness to me if our hope could be\nfulfilled.\n\n[Sidenote: Appeal to the Pope]\n\nSo I come, most blessed Father, and, prostrate before thee, I pray, if\nit be possible do thou interpose and hold in check those flatterers,\nwho are the enemies of peace while they pretend to keep peace. But\nthat I will recant, most blessed Father, let no one imagine, unless he\nprefer to involve the whole question in greater turmoil. Furthermore,\nI will accept no rules for the interpretation of the Word of God,\nsince the Word of God, which teaches the liberty of all things else,\ndare not be bound [2 Tim. 2:9]. Grant me these two points, and there\nis nothing that I could not or would not most gladly do or endure. I\nhate disputations; I will draw out no one; but then I do not wish\nothers to draw me out; if they do, as Christ is my Teacher, I will not\nbe speechless. For, when once this controversy has been cited before\nthee and settled, thy Blessedness will be able with a small and easy\nword to silence both parties and command them to keep the peace, and\nthat is what I have always wished to hear.\n\nDo not listen, therefore, my dear Leo, to those sirens who make thee\nout to be no mere man but a demigod, so that thou mayest command and\nrequire what thou wilt. It will not be done in that fashion, and thou\nwilt not succeed. Thou art a servant of servants,[10] and beyond all\nother men in a most pitiable and most dangerous position. Be not\ndeceived by those who pretend that thou art lord of the world and\nallow no one to be a Christian unless he accept thy authority; who\nprate that thou hast power over heaven, hell and purgatory. These are\nthy enemies and seek thy soul to destroy it [1 Kings 19:10]; as Isaiah\nsays, \"O my people, they that call thee blessed, the same deceive\nthee.\" [Isa. 3:12 (Vulgate)] They err who exalt thee above a council\nand above the Church universal. They err who ascribe to thee alone the\nright of interpreting Scripture; or under cover of thy name they seek\nto establish all their own wickedness in the Church, and alas!\nthrough them Satan has already made much headway under thy\npredecessors. In short, believe none who exalt thee, believe those who\nhumble thee. For this is the judgment of God; \"He hath put down the\nmighty from their seat, and hath exalted the humble.\" [Luke 1:52] See,\nhow unlike His successors is Christ, although they all would be His\nvicars. And I fear that most of them have indeed been too literally\nHis vicars. For a vicar is a vicar only when his lord is absent. And\nif the pope rules while Christ is absent and does not dwell in his\nheart, what else is he but a vicar of Christ? But what is such a\nChurch except a mass of people without Christ? And what is such a\nvicar else than antichrist and an idol? How much more correctly did\nthe Apostles call themselves servants of the present Christ, and not\nvicars of an absent Christ!\n\n[Sidenote: Luther Follows St. Bernard's Example]\n\nPerhaps I am impudent, in that I seem to instruct so great, so exalted\na personage, from whom we ought all to learn, and from whom, as those\nplagues of thine boast, the thrones of judges receive their decisions.\nBut I am following the example of St. Bernard in his book _de\nconsideratione ad Eugenium_, a book every pope should have by heart.\nFor what I am doing I do not from an eagerness to teach, but as an\nevidence of that pure and faithful solicitude which constrains us to\nhave regard for the things of our neighbors even when they are safe,\nand does not permit us to consider their dignity or lack of dignity,\nsince it is intent only upon the danger they run for the advantage\nthey may gain. For when I know that thy Blessedness is driven and\ntossed about at Rome, that is, that far out at sea thou art threatened\non all sides with endless dangers, and art laboring hard in that\nmiserable plight, so that thou dost need even the slightest help of\nthe least of thy brethren, I do not think it is absurd of me, if for\nthe time I forget thy high office and do what brotherly love demands.\nI have no desire to flatter in so serious and dangerous a matter, but\nif men do not understand that I am thy friend and thy most humble\nsubject, there is One that understandeth and judgeth. [John 8:50]\n\n[Sidenote: Luther's Gift]\n\nFinally, that I may not approach thee empty-handed, blessed Father, I\nbring with me this little treatise published under thy name as an omen\nof peace and of good hope. From this book thou mayest judge with what\nstudies I would prefer to be more profitably engaged, as I could be if\nyour godless flatterers would permit me, and had hitherto permitted\nme. It is a small thing if thou regard its bulk, but, unless I am\ndeceived, it is the whole of Christian living in brief form, if thou\nwilt grasp its meaning. I am a poor man, and have no other gift to\noffer, and thou hast no need to be made rich by any other than a\nspiritual gift. With this I commend myself to thy Fatherhood and\nBlessedness. May the Lord Jesus preserve thee forever. Amen.\n\nWittenberg, September 6, 1520.[11]\n\n\nA TREATISE ON CHRISTIAN LIBERTY\n\n\n[Sidenote: Faith]\n\nMany have thought Christian faith to be an easy thing, and not a few\nhave given it a place among the virtues. This they do because they\nhave had no experience of it, and have never tasted what great virtue\nthere is in faith. For it is impossible that any one should write well\nof it or well understand what is correctly written of it, unless he\nhas at some time tasted the courage faith gives a man when trials\noppress him. But he who has had even a faint taste of it can never\nwrite, speak, meditate or hear enough concerning it. For it is a\nliving fountain springing up into life everlasting, as Christ calls it\nin John iv [John 4:14]. For my part, although I have no wealth of\nfaith to boast of and know how scant my store is, yet I hope that,\ndriven about by great and various temptations, I have attained to a\nlittle faith, and that I can speak of it, if not more elegantly,\ncertainly more to the point, than those literalists and all too\nsubtile disputants have hitherto done, who have not even understood\nwhat they have written.\n\n[Sidenote: Liberty and Bondage]\n\nThat I may make the way easier or the unlearned--for only such do I\nserve--I set down first these two propositions concerning the liberty\nand the bondage of the spirit:\n\n_A Christian man is a perfectly free lord of all, subject to none._\n\n_A Christian man is a perfectly dutiful servant of all, subject to\nall._\n\nAlthough these two theses seem to contradict each other, yet, if they\nshould be found to fit together they would serve our purpose\nbeautifully. For they are both Paul's own, who says, in I Cor. ix,\n\"Whereas I was free, I made myself the servant of all,\" [1 Cor. 9:19]\nand, Rom. xiii, \"Owe no man anything, but to love one another.\" [Rom.\n13:8] Now love by its very nature is ready to serve and to be subject\nto him who is loved. So Christ, although Lord of all, was made of a\nwoman, made under the law [Gal. 4:4], and hence was at the same time\nfree and a servant, at the same time in the form of God and in the\nform of a servant [Phil. 2:6 f.].\n\n[Sidenote: Man's Nature]\n\nLet us start, however, with something more remote from our subject,\nbut more obvious. Man[12] has a twofold nature, a spiritual and a\nbodily. According to the spiritual nature, which men call the soul, he\nis called a spiritual, or inner, or new man; according to the bodily\nnature, which men call the flesh, he is called a carnal, or outward,\nor old man, of whom the Apostle writes, in II Cor. iv, \"Though our\noutward man is corrupted, yet the inward man is renewed day by day.\"\n[2 Cor. 4:16] Because of this diversity of nature the Scriptures\nassert contradictory things of the same man, since these two men in\nthe same man contradict each other, since the flesh lusteth against\nthe spirit and the spirit against the flesh (Gal. v) [Gal. 5:17].\n\n[Sidenote: The Inward Man]\n\n_First_, let us contemplate the inward man, to see how a righteous,\nfree and truly Christian man, that is, a new, spiritual, inward man,\ncomes into being. It is evident that no external thing, whatsoever it\nbe, has any influence whatever in producing Christian righteousness or\nliberty, nor in producing unrighteousness or bondage. A simple\nargument will furnish the proof. What can it profit the soul if the\nbody are well, be free and active, eat, drink and do as it pleases?\nFor in these things even the most godless slaves of all the vices are\nwell. On the other hand, how will ill health or imprisonment or hunger\nor thirst or any other external misfortune hurt the soul? With these\nthings even the most godly men are afflicted, and those who because of\na clear conscience are most free. None of these things touch either\nthe liberty or the bondage of the soul. The soul receives no benefit\nif the body is adorned with the sacred robes of the priesthood, or\ndwells in sacred places, or is occupied with sacred duties, or prays,\nfasts, abstains from certain kinds of food or does any work whatsoever\nthat can be done by the body and in the body. The righteousness and\nthe freedom of the soul demand something far different, since the\nthings which have been mentioned could be done by any wicked man, and\nsuch works produce nothing but hypocrites. On the other hand, it will\nnot hurt the soul if the body is clothed in secular dress, dwells in\nunconsecrated places, eats and drinks as others do, does not pray\naloud, and neglects to do all the things mentioned above, which\nhypocrites can do.\n\n[Sidenote: The Word of God]\n\nFurther, to put aside all manner of works, even contemplation,\nmeditation, and all that the soul can do, avail nothing. One thing and\none only is necessary for Christian life, righteousness and liberty.\nThat one thing is the most holy Word of God, the Gospel of Christ, as\nhe says, John xi, \"I am the resurrection and the life: he that\nbelieveth in me, shall not die forever\" [John 11:25]; and John viii,\n\"If the Son shall make you free, you shall be free indeed\" [John\n8:26]; and Matthew iv, \"Not in bread alone doth man live; but in every\nword that proceedeth from the mouth of God.\" [Matt. 4:4] Let us then\nconsider it certain and conclusively established that the soul can do\nwithout all things except the Word of God, and that where this is not\nthere is no help for the soul in anything else whatever. But if it has\nthe Word it is rich and lacks nothing, since this Word is the Word of\nlife, of truth, of light, of peace, of righteousness, of salvation, of\njoy, of liberty, of wisdom, of power, of grace, of glory and of every\nblessing beyond our power to estimate. This is why the prophet in the\nentire cxix Psalm, and in many other places of Scripture, with so many\nsighs yearns after the Word of God and applies so many names to it\n[Psalm 119]. On the other hand, there is no more terrible plague with\nwhich the wrath of God can smite men than a famine of the hearing of\nHis Word, as He says in Amos, just as there is no greater mercy than\nwhen He sends forth His Word [Amos 8:11 f.], as we read in Psalm cvii,\n\"He sent His word and healed them, and delivered them from their\ndestructions.\" [Psalm 107:20] Nor was Christ sent into the world for\nany other ministry but that of the Word, and the whole spiritual\nestate, apostles, bishops and all the priests, has been called and\ninstituted only or the ministry of the Word.\n\n[Sidenote: The Gospel]\n\nYou ask, \"What then is this Word of God, and how shall it be used,\nsince there are so many words of God?\" I answer. The Apostle explains\nthat in Romans i. The Word is the Gospel of God concerning His Son,\nWho was made flesh, suffered, rose from the dead, and was glorified\nthrough the Spirit Who sanctifies. For to preach Christ means to feed\nthe soul, to make it righteous, to set it free and to save it, if it\nbelieve the preaching. For faith alone is the saving and efficacious\nuse of the Word of God, Romans x, \"If thou confess with thy mouth that\nJesus is Lord, and believe with thy heart that God hath raised Him up\nfrom the dead, thou shalt be saved\" [Rom. 10:9]; and again, \"The end\nof the law is Christ, unto righteousness to every one that believeth\"\n[Rom. 10:4]; and, Romans i, \"The just shall live by his faith.\" [Rom.\n1:17] The Word of God cannot be received and cherished by any works\nwhatever, but only by faith [Hab. 2:4]. Hence it is clear that, as the\nsoul needs only the Word for its life and righteousness, so it is\njustified by faith alone and not by any works; for if it could be\njustified by anything else, it would not need the Word, and therefore\nit would not need faith. But this faith cannot at all exist in\nconnection with works, that is to say, if you at the same time claim\nto be justified by works, whatever their character; for that would be\nto halt between two sides, to worship Baal and to kiss the hand [1\nKings 18:21], which, as Job says, is a very great iniquity [Job 31:27\nf.]. Therefore the moment you begin to believe, you learn that all\nthings in you are altogether blameworthy, sinful and damnable, as\nRomans iii says, \"For all have sinned and lack the glory of God\" [Rom.\n3:23]; and again, \"There is none just, there is none that doeth good,\nall have turned out of the way: they are become unprofitable\ntogether.\" [Rom. 3:10 ff.] When you have learned this, you will know\nthat you need Christ, Who suffered and rose again or you, that,\nbelieving in Him, you may through this faith become a new man, in that\nall your sins are forgiven, and you are justified by the merits of\nanother, namely, of Christ alone.\n\n[Sidenote: Justification by Faith]\n\nSince, therefore, this faith can rule only in the inward man, as\nRomans x says, \"With the heart we believe unto righteousness\"; and\nsince faith alone justifies, it is clear that the inward man cannot be\njustified, made free and be saved by any outward work or dealing\nwhatsoever, and that works, whatever their character, have nothing to\ndo with this inward man. On the other hand, only ungodliness and\nunbelief of heart, and no outward work, make him guilty and a damnable\nservant of sin. Wherefore it ought to be the first concern of every\nChristian to lay aside all trust in works, and more and more to\nstrengthen faith alone, and through faith to grow in the knowledge,\nnot of works, but of Christ Jesus, Who suffered and rose for him, as\nPeter teaches, in the last chapter of his first Epistle [1 Pet. 5:10];\nsince no other work makes a Christian. Thus when the Jews asked\nChrist, John vi [John 6:28 f.], what they should do that they might\nwork the works of God, He brushed aside the multitude of works in\nwhich He saw that they abounded [John 6:27], and enjoined upon them a\nsingle work, saying, \"This is the work of God, that you believe in Him\nWhom He hath sent. For Him hath God the Father sealed.\" [John 6:29]\n\nHence true faith in Christ is a treasure beyond comparison, which\nbrings with it all salvation and saves from every evil, as Christ says\nin the last chapter of Mark, \"He that believeth and is baptised, shall\nbe saved; but he that believeth not, shall be condemned.\" [Mark 16:16]\nThis treasure Isaiah beheld and foretold in chapter x, \"The Lord shall\nmake an abridged and consuming word upon the land, and the consumption\nabridged shall overflow with righteousness\" [Isa. 10:22]; as if he\nsaid, \"Faith, which is a brief and perfect fulfilment of the law,\nshall fill believers with so great righteousness that they shall need\nnothing more for their righteousness.\" So also Paul says, Romans x,\n\"With the heart we believe unto righteousness.\" [Rom. 10:10]\n\n[Sidenote: Faith and Works]\n\n[Sidenote: Commands reveal Weakness]\n\nShould you ask, how it comes that faith alone justifies without works\noffers us such a treasury of great benefits, when so many works,\nceremonies and laws are prescribed in the Scriptures, I answer: First\nof all, remember what has been said: faith alone, without works,\njustifies, makes free and saves, as we shall later make still more\nclear. Here we must point out that all the Scriptures of God are\ndivided into two parts--commands and promises. The commands indeed\nteach things that are good, but the things taught reveal are not done\nas soon as taught; for the commands show us what we ought to do, but\ndo not give us the power to do it; they are intended to teach a man to\nknow himself, that through them he may recognize his inability to do\ngood and may despair of his powers. That is why they are called and\nare the Old Testament. For example: \"Thou shalt not covet\" [Ex. 20:17]\nis a command which convicts us all of being sinners, since no one is\nable to avoid coveting, however much he may struggle against it.\nTherefore, in order not to covet, and to fulfil the command, a man is\ncompelled to despair of himself, and to seek elsewhere and from some\none else the help which he does not ind in himself, as is said in\nHosea, \"Destruction is thy own, O Israel: thy help is only in Me.\"\n[Hos. 13:9] And as we are with this one command, so we are with all;\nor it is equally impossible or us to keep any one of them.\n\n[Sidenote: Promises give Strength]\n\nBut when a man through the commands has learned to know his weakness,\nand has become troubled as to how he may satisfy the law, since the\nlaw must be fulfilled so that not a jot or tittle shall perish,\notherwise man will be condemned without hope; then, being truly\nhumbled and reduced to nothing in his own eyes, he finds in himself no\nmeans of justification and salvation. Here the second part of the\nScriptures stands ready--the promises of God, which declare the glory\nof God and say, \"If you wish to fulfil the law, and not to covet, as\nthe law demands, come, believe in Christ, in Whom grace,\nrighteousness, peace, liberty and all things are promised you; if you\nbelieve you shall have all, if you believe not you shall lack all.\"\nFor what is impossible for you in all the works of the law, many as\nthey are, but all useless, you will accomplish in a short and easy way\nthrough faith. For God our Father has made all things depend on faith,\nso that whoever has faith, shall have all, and whoever has it not,\nshall have nothing. \"For He has concluded all under unbelief, that He\nmight have mercy on all,\" Romans xi [Rom. 11:32]. Thus the promises of\nGod give what the commands of God ask, and fulfil what the law\nprescribes, that all things may be of God alone, both the commands and\nthe fulfilling of the commands. He alone commands. He also alone\nfulfils. Therefore the promises of God belong to the New Testament,\nnay, they are the New Testament.\n\nAnd since these promises of God are holy, true, righteous, free and\npeaceful words, full of all goodness, it comes to pass that the soul\nwhich clings to them with a firm faith, is so united with them, nay,\naltogether taken up into them, that it not only shares in all their\npower, but is saturated and made drunken with it. For if a touch of\nChrist healed, how much more will this most tender touch in the\nspirit, rather this absorbing of the Word, communicate to the soul all\nthings that are the Word's. This, then, is how through faith alone\nwithout works the soul is justified by the Word of God, sanctified,\nmade true and peaceful and free, filled with every blessing and made\ntruly a child of God, as John i says, \"To them gave He power to become\nthe sons of God, even to them that believe on His Name.\" [John 1:12]\n\n[Sidenote: Faith Justifies]\n\nFrom what has been said it is easily seen whence faith has such great\npower, and why no good work nor all good works together can equal it:\nno work can cling to the Word of God nor be in the soul; in the soul\nfaith alone and the Word have sway. As the Word is, so it makes the\nsoul, as heated iron glows like fire because of the union of fire with\nit. It is clear then that a Christian man has in his faith all that he\nneeds, and needs no works to justify him. And if he has no need of\nworks, neither does he need the law; and if he has no need of the law,\nsurely he is free from the law, and it is true, \"the law is not made\nfor a righteous man.\" [1 Tim. 1:9] And this is that Christian liberty,\neven our faith, which does not indeed cause us to live in idleness or\nin wickedness, but makes the law and works unnecessary for any man's\nrighteousness and salvation.\n\n[Sidenote: Faith Fulfils the Commands]\n\nThis is the first power of faith. Let us now examine the second also.\nFor it is a further function of faith, that whom it trusts it also\nhonors with the most reverent and high regard, since it considers him\ntruthful and trustworthy. For there is no other honor equal to the\nestimate of truthfulness and righteousness with which we honor him\nwhom we trust. Or could we ascribe to a man anything greater than\ntruthfulness, and righteousness, and perfect goodness? On the other\nhand, there is no way in which we can show greater contempt for a man\nthan to regard him as false and wicked and to suspect him, as we do\nwhen we do not trust him. So when the soul firmly trusts God's\npromises, it regards Him as truthful and righteous, than which nothing\nmore excellent can be ascribed to God. This is the very highest\nworship of God, that we ascribe to Him truthfulness, righteousness and\nwhatever else ought to be ascribed to one who is trusted. Then the\nsoul consents to all His will, then it hallows His name and suffers\nitself to be dealt with according to God's good pleasure, because,\nclinging to God's promises, it does not doubt that He, Who is true,\njust and wise, will do, dispose and provide all things well. And is\nnot such a soul, by this faith, in all things most obedient to God?\nWhat commandment is there that such obedience has not abundantly\nfulfilled? What more complete fulfilment is there than obedience in\nall things? But this obedience is not rendered by works, but by faith\nalone. On the other hand, what greater rebellion against God, what\ngreater wickedness, what greater contempt of God is there than not\nbelieving His promises? For what is this but to make God a liar or to\ndoubt that He is truthful?--that is, to ascribe truthfulness to one's\nself, but to God lying and vanity? Does not a man who does this deny\nGod, and in his heart set up himself as his own idol? Then of what\navail are works done in such wickedness, even if they were the works\nof angels and apostles? [Rom. 11:32] Rightly, therefore, has God\nconcluded all--not in anger or lust, but in unbelief; so that they who\nimagine that they are fulfilling the law by doing the works of\nchastity and mercy required by the law (the civil and human virtues),\nmight not be confident that they will be saved; they are included\nunder the sin of unbelief, and must either seek mercy or be justly\ncondemned.\n\nBut when God sees that we count Him to be true, and by the faith of\nour heart pay Him the great honor which is due Him, He in turn does us\nthe great honor of counting us true and righteous for our faith's\nsake.  For faith works truth and righteousness by giving to God what\nbelongs to Him; therefore, God in turn gives glory to our\nrighteousness. It is true and just that God is truthful and just, and\nto count Him and confess Him, so is to be truthful and just. So in I\nSam. ii, He says, \"Them that honor Me, I will honor, and they that\ndespise Me, shall be lightly esteemed.\" [1 Sam. 2:30] So Paul says in\nRom. iv, that Abraham's faith was counted unto him or righteousness,\nbecause by it he most perfectly gave glory to God, and that or the\nsame reason our faith shall be counted unto us or righteousness if we\nbelieve. [Rom. 4:3]\n\n[Sidenote: Faith Unites with Christ]\n\nThe third incomparable benefit of faith is this, that it unites the\nsoul with Christ as a bride is united with her bridegroom. And by this\nmystery, as the Apostle teaches, Christ and the soul become one flesh\n[Eph. 5:31 f.]. And if they are one flesh and there is between them a\ntrue marriage, nay, by far the most perfect of all marriages, since\nhuman marriages are but frail types of this one true marriage, it\nfollows that all they have they have in common, the good as well as\nthe evil, so that the believing soul can boast of and glory in\nwhatever Christ has as if it were its own, and whatever the soul has\nChrist claims as His own. Let us compare these and we shall see things\nthat cannot be estimated. Christ is full of grace, life and salvation;\nthe soul is full of sins, death and condemnation. Now let faith come\nbetween them, and it shall come to pass that sins, death and hell are\nChrist's, and grace, life and salvation are the soul's. For it\nbehooves Him, if He is a bridegroom, to take upon Himself the things\nwhich are His bride's, and to bestow upon her the things that are His.\nFor if He gives her His body and His very self, how shall He not give\nher all that is His? And if He takes the body of the bride, how shall\nHe not take all that is hers?\n\nLo! here we have a pleasant vision not only of communion, but of a\nblessed strife and victory and salvation and redemption. For Christ is\nGod and man in one person, Who has neither sinned nor died, and is not\ncondemned, and Who cannot sin, die or be condemned; His righteousness,\nlife and salvation are unconquerable, eternal, omnipotent; and He by\nthe wedding-ring of faith shares in the sins, death and pains of hell\nwhich are His bride's, nay, makes them His own, and acts as if they\nwere His own, and as if He Himself had sinned; He suffered, died and\ndescended into hell that He might overcome them all. Now since it was\nsuch a one who did all this, and death and hell could not swallow Him\nup, they were of necessity swallowed up of Him in a mighty duel. For\nHis righteousness is greater than the sins of all men, His life\nstronger than death. His salvation more invincible than hell. Thus the\nbelieving soul by the pledge of its faith is free in Christ, its\nBridegroom, from all sins, secure against death and against hell, and\nis endowed with the eternal righteousness, life and salvation of\nChrist, its Bridegroom. So He presents to Himself a glorious bride,\nwithout spot or wrinkle [Eph. 5:27], cleansing her with the washing in\nthe Word of life, that is, by faith in the Word of life, of\nrighteousness, and of salvation. Thus He marries her to Himself in\nfaith, in loving kindness, and in mercies, in righteousness and in\njudgment, as Hosea ii says. [Hos. 2:19 f.]\n\nWho, then, can fully appreciate what this royal marriage means? Who\ncan understand the riches of the glory of this grace? Here this rich\nand godly Bridegroom Christ marries this poor, wicked harlot, redeems\nher from all her evil and adorns her with all His good. It is now\nimpossible that her sins should destroy her, since they are laid upon\nChrist and swallowed up in Him, and she has that righteousness in\nChrist her husband of which she may boast as of her own, and which she\ncan confidently set against all her sins in the face of death and\nhell, and say, \"If I have sinned, yet my Christ, in Whom I believe,\nhas not sinned, and all His is mine, and all mine is His\"--as the\nbride in the Song of Solomon says, \"My beloved is mine, and I am his.\"\n[Song of Sol. 2:16] This is what Paul means when he says, in I Cor.\nxv, \"Thanks be to God, Which giveth us the victory through our Lord\nJesus Christ,\"[1 Co4. 15:57]--that is, the victory over sin and death,\nas he there says, \"the sting of death is sin, and the strength of sin\nis the law.\" [1 Cor. 15:36]\n\n[Sidenote: Faith the Fulfilment of the Law]\n\nFrom this you see once more why so much is ascribed to faith, that it\nalone may fulfil the law and justify without the Law works. You see\nthat the First Commandment, which says, \"Thou shalt worship one God,\"\nis fulfilled by faith alone. For though you were nothing but good\nworks from the sole of your foot to the crown of your head, yet you\nwould not be righteous, nor worship God, nor fulfil the First\nCommandment, since God cannot be worshiped unless you ascribe to Him\nthe glory of truthfulness and of all goodness, which is due Him. And\nthis cannot be done by works, but only by the faith of the heart. For\nnot by the doing of works, but by believing, do we glorify God and\nacknowledge that He is truthful. Therefore, faith alone is the\nrighteousness of a Christian man and the fulfilling of all the\ncommandments. For he who fulfils the First, has no difficulty in\nfulfilling all the rest. But works, being insensate things, cannot\nglorify God, although they can, if faith be present, be done to the\nglory of God. At present, however, we are not inquiring what works and\nwhat sort of works are done, but who it is that does them, who\nglorifies God and brings forth the works. This is faith which dwells\nin the heart, and is the head and substance of all our righteousness.\nHence, it is a blind and dangerous doctrine which teaches that the\ncommandments must be fulfilled by works. The commandments must be\nfulfilled before any works can be done, and the works proceed from the\nfulfilment of the commandments [Rom. 13:10], as we shall hear.\n\n[Sidenote: Old Testament Types]\n\nBut that we may look more deeply into that grace which our inward man\nhas in Christ, we must consider that in the Old Testament God\nsanctified to Himself every first-born male, and the birth-right was\nhighly prized, having a two-fold honor, that of priesthood, and that\nof kingship. For the first-born brother was priest and lord over all\nthe others, and was a type of Christ, the true and only First-born of\nGod the Father and of the Virgin Mary, and true King and Priest, not\nafter the fashion of the flesh and of the world. For His kingdom is\nnot of this world [John 18:36]. He reigns in heavenly and spiritual\nthings and consecrates them--such as righteousness, truth, wisdom,\npeace, salvation, etc. Not as if all things on earth and in hell were\nnot also subject to Him--else how could He protect and save us from\nthem?--but His kingdom consists neither in them nor of them. Nor does\nHis priesthood consist in the outward splendor of robes and postures,\nlike that human priesthood of Aaron and of our present-day Church; but\nit consists in spiritual things, through which He by an unseen service\nintercedes for us in heaven before God, there offers Himself as a\nsacrifice and does all things a priest should do, as Paul in the\nEpistle to the Hebrews describes him under the type of Melchizedek\n[Heb. 6 f.]. Nor does He only pray and intercede for us, but within\nour soul He teaches us through the living teaching of His Spirit, thus\nperforming the two real unctions of a priest, of which the prayers and\nthe preaching of human priests are visible types.\n\nNow, just as Christ by his birthright obtained these two prerogatives,\nso He imparts them to and shares them with every one who believes on\nHim according to the law of the aforesaid marriage, by which the wife\nowns whatever belongs to the husband. Hence we are all priests and\nkings in Christ, as many as believe on Christ, as I Pet. ii says, \"Ye\nare a chosen generation, a peculiar people, a royal priesthood and\npriestly kingdom, that ye should show forth the virtues of Him Who\nhath called you out of darkness into His marvelous light.\" [1 Pet.\n2:9]\n\n[Sidenote: The Kingship of the Christian]\n\nThis priesthood and kingship we explain as follows: First, as to the\nkingship, every Christian is by faith so exalted above all things that\nby a spiritual power he is lord of all things without exception, so\nthat nothing can do him any harm whatever, nay, all things are made\nsubject to him and compelled to serve him to his salvation. Thus Paul\nsays in Rom. viii, \"All things work together for good to them who are\ncalled.\" [Rom. 8:28] And, in I Cor. iii, \"All things are yours,\nwhether life or death, or things present or things to come, and ye are\nChrist's.\" [1 Cor. 3:22 f.] Not as if every Christian were set over\nall things, to possess and control them by physical power,--a madness\nwith which some churchmen are afflicted,--for such power belongs to\nkings, princes and men on earth. Our ordinary experience in life shows\nus that we are subjected to all, suffer many things and even die; nay,\nthe more Christian a man is, the more evils, sufferings and deaths is\nhe made subject to, as we see in Christ the first-born Prince Himself,\nand in all His brethren, the saints. The power of which we speak is\nspiritual; it rules in the midst of enemies, and is mighty in the\nmidst of oppression, which means nothing else than that strength is\nmade perfect in weakness [2 Cor. 12:9], and that in all things I can\nfind profit unto salvation, so that the cross and death itself are\ncompelled to serve me and to work together with me for my salvation\n[Rom. 8:28]. This is a splendid prerogative and hard to attain, and a\ntrue omnipotent power, a spiritual dominion, in which there is nothing\nso good and nothing so evil, but that it shall work together for good\nto me, if only I believe. And yet, since faith alone suffices for\nsalvation, I have need of nothing, except that faith exercise the\npower and dominion of its own liberty. Lo, this is the inestimable\npower and liberty of Christians.\n\n[Sidenote: The Priesthood of the Christian]\n\nNot only are we the freest of kings, we are also priests forever,\nwhich is far more excellent than being kings, because as priests we\nare worthy to appear before God to pray for others and to teach one\nanother the things of God. For these are the functions of priests, and\ncannot be granted to any unbeliever. Thus Christ has obtained for us,\nif we believe on Him, that we are not only His brethren, co-heirs and\nfellow-kings with Him, but also fellow-priests with Him, who may\nboldly come into the presence of God in the spirit of faith and cry,\n\"Abba, Father!\" [Heb. 10:19, 22] pray for one another and do all\nthings which we see done and prefigured in the outward and visible\nworks of priests. But he who does not believe is not served by\nanything, nor does anything work for good to him, but he himself is a\nservant of all, and all things become evils to him, because he\nwickedly uses them to his own profit and not to the glory of God. And\nso he is no priest, but a profane man, whose prayer becomes sin and\nnever comes into the presence of God, because God does not hear\nsinners [John 9:31]. Who then can comprehend the lofty dignity of the\nChristian? Through his kingly power he rules over all things, death,\nlife and sin, and through his priestly glory is all powerful with God,\nbecause God does the things which he asks and desires, as it is\nwritten, \"He will fulfil the desire of them that fear Him; He also\nwill hear their cry, and will save them.\" [Phil. 4:13] To this glory a\nman attains, surely not by any works of his, but by faith alone.\n\n[Sidenote: Distinctions among Christians]\n\nFrom this any one can clearly see how a Christian man is free from all\nthings and over all things, so that he needs no works to make him\nrighteous and to save him, since faith alone confers all these things\nabundantly. But should he grow so foolish as to presume to become\nrighteous, free, saved and a Christian by means of some good work, he\nwould on the instant lose faith and all its benefits: a foolishness\naptly illustrated in the fable of the dog who runs along a stream with\na piece of meat in his mouth, and, deceived by the reflection of the\nmeat in the water, opens his mouth to snap at it, and so loses both\nthe meat and the reflection. You will ask, \"If all who are in the\nChurch are priests, how do those whom we now call priests differ from\nlaymen?\" I answer: \"Injustice is done those words, 'priest,' 'cleric,'\n'spiritual,' 'ecclesiastic,' when they are transferred from all other\nChristians to those few who are now by a mischievous usage called\n'ecclesiastics.' For Holy Scripture makes no distinction between them,\nexcept that it gives the name 'ministers,' 'servants,' 'stewards,' to\nthose who are now proudly called popes, bishops, and lords and who\nshould by the ministry of the Word serve others and teach them the\nfaith of Christ and the liberty of believers. For although we are all\nequally priests, yet we cannot all publicly minister and teach, nor\nought we if we could.\" Thus Paul writes in I Cor. iv, \"Let a man so\naccount of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the\nmysteries of God.\" [I Cor. 4:1]\n\nBut that stewardship has now been developed into so great a pomp of\npower and so terrible a tyranny, that no heathen empire or earthly\npower can be compared with it, just as if laymen were not also\nChristians. Through this perversion the knowledge of Christian grace,\nfaith, liberty and of Christ Himself has altogether perished, and its\nplace has been taken by an unbearable bondage of human words and laws,\nuntil we have become, as the Lamentations of Jeremiah say, servants of\nthe vilest men on earth, who abuse our misfortune to serve only their\nbase and shameless will [Lam. 1:11].\n\n[Sidenote: How Christ is to be Preached]\n\nTo return to our purpose, I believe it has now become clear that it is\nnot enough nor is it Christian, to preach the works, life and words of\nChrist as historical acts, as if the knowledge of these would suffice\nfor the conduct of life, although this is the fashion of those who\nmust to-day be regarded as our best preachers; and far less is it\nenough for Christian to say nothing at all about Christ and to teach\ninstead the laws of men and the decrees of the Fathers. And now there\nare not a few who preach Christ and read about Him that they may move\nmen's affections to sympathy with Christ, to anger against the Jews\nand such like childish and womanish nonsense. Rather ought Christ to\nbe preached to the end that faith in Him may be established, that He\nmay not only be Christ, but be Christ for thee and for me, and that\nwhat is said of Him and what His Name denotes may be effectual in us.\nAnd such faith is produced and preserved in us by preaching why Christ\ncame, what He brought and bestowed,[13] what benefit it is to us to\naccept Him. This is done when that Christian liberty which He bestows\nis rightly taught, and we are told in what way we who are Christians\nare all kings and priests and so are lords of all, and may firmly\nbelieve that whatever we have done is pleasing and acceptable in the\nsight of God, as I have said.\n\n[Sidenote: Effect of such Preaching]\n\nWhat man is there whose heart, hearing these things, will not rejoice\nto its very core, and in receiving such comfort grow tender so as to\nlove Christ, as he never could be made to love by any laws or works?\nWho would have power to harm such a heart or to make it afraid? If the\nknowledge of sin for the fear of death break in upon it is ready to\nhope in the Lord; it does not grow afraid when it hears tidings of\nevil, nor is it disturbed until it shall look down upon its enemies\n[Psalm 112:7 f.]. For it believes that the righteousness of Christ is\nits own, and that its sin is not its own, but Christ's; and that all\nsin is swallowed up by the righteousness of Christ is, as has been\nsaid above, a necessary consequence of faith in Christ. So the heart\nlearns to scoff at death and sin, and to say with the Apostle, \"Where,\nO death, is thy victory? where, O death, is thy sting? The sting of\ndeath is sin, and the strength of sin is the law. But thanks be to\nGod, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.\" [1\nCor. 15:55 ff.] For death is swallowed up not only in the victory of\nChrist, but also by our victory, because through faith His victory has\nbecome ours, and in that faith we also are conquerors.\n\nLet this suffice concerning the inward man, his liberty and its\nsource, the righteousness of faith,[14] which needs neither laws nor\ngood works, nay, is rather injured by them, if a man trusts that he is\njustified by them.\n\n[Sidenote: The Outward Man]\n\nNow let us turn to the second part, to the outward man. Here we shall\nanswer all those who, misled by the word \"faith\" and by all that has\nbeen said, now say: \"If faith does all things and is alone sufficient\nunto righteousness, why then are good works commanded? We will take\nour ease and do no works, and be content with faith.\" I answer, Not\nso, ye wicked men, not so. That would indeed be proper, if we were\nwholly inward and perfectly spiritual men; but such we shall be only\nat the last day, the day of the resurrection of the dead. As long as\nwe live in the flesh we only begin and make some progress in that\nwhich shall be perfected in the future life. For this reason the\nApostle, in Romans viii, calls all that we attain in this he \"the\nfirst fruits\" of the spirit [Rom. 8:23], because, forsooth, we shall\nreceive the greater portion, even the fulness of the spirit, in the\nfuture. This is the place for that which was said above, that a\nChristian man is the servant of all and made subject to all. For in so\nfar as he is free he does no works, but in so far as he is a servant\nhe does all manner of works. How this is possible, we shall see.\n\n[Sidenote: Needs to do Works]\n\nAlthough, as I have said, a man is abundantly justified by faith\ninwardly, in his spirit, and so has all that he ought to have, except\nin so far as this faith and riches must grow from day to day even unto\nthe future he: yet he remains in this mortal life on earth, and in\nthis life he must needs govern his own body and have dealings with\nmen.  Here the works begin; here a man cannot take his ease; here he\nmust, indeed, take care to discipline his body by fastings, watchings,\nlabors and other reasonable discipline, and to make it subject to the\nspirit so that it will obey and conform to the inward man and to\nfaith, and not revolt against faith and hinder the inward man, as it\nis the body's nature to do if it be not held in check. For the inward\nman, who by faith is created in the likeness of God, is both joyful\nand happy because of Christ in Whom so many benefits are conferred\nupon him, and therefore it is his one occupation to serve God joyfully\nand for naught, in love that is not constrained.\n\nWhile he is doing this, lo, he meets a contrary will in his own flesh,\nwhich strives to serve the world and to seek its own advantage. This\nthe spirit of faith cannot tolerate, and with joyful zeal it attempts\nto put the body under and to hold it in check, as Paul says in Romans\nvii, \"I delight in the law of God after the inward man; but I see\nanother law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and\nbringing me into captivity to the law of sin\" [Rom. 7:22 f.]; and, in\nanother place, \"I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection:\nlest by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be\na castaway,\" [1 Cor. 9:27] and in Galatians, \"They that are Christ's\nhave crucified the flesh with its lusts.\" [Gal. 5:24]\n\n[Sidenote: Works do not Justify]\n\nIn doing these works, however, we must not think that a man is\njustified before God by them: for that erroneous opinion faith, which\nalone is righteousness before God, cannot endure; but we must think\nthat these works reduce the body to subjection and purity it of its\nevil lusts, and our whole purpose is to be directed only toward the\ndriving out of lusts. For since by faith the soul is cleansed and made\na lover of God, it desires that all things, and especially its own\nbody, shall be as pure as itself, so that all things may join with it\nin loving and praising God. Hence a man cannot be idle, because the\nneed of his body drives him and he is compelled to do many good works\nto reduce it to subjection. Nevertheless the works themselves do not\njustify him before God, but he does the works out of spontaneous love\nin obedience to God, and considers nothing except the approval of God,\nWhom he would in all things most scrupulously obey.\n\nIn this way every one will easily be able to learn for himself the\nlimit and discretion, as they say, of his bodily castigations: for he\nwill fast, watch and labor as much as he finds sufficient to repress\nthe lasciviousness and lust of his body. But they who presume to be\njustified by works do not regard the mortifying of the lusts, but only\nthe works themselves, and think that if only they have done as many\nand as great works as are possible, they have done well, and have\nbecome righteousness; at times they even addle their brains and\ndestroy, or at least render useless, their natural strength with their\nworks. This is the height of folly, and utter ignorance of Christian\nlife and faith, that a man should seek to be justified and saved by\nworks and without faith.\n\n[Sidenote: An Analogy]\n\nIn order that what we have said may be more easily understood, we will\nexplain it by analogies. We should think of the works of a Christian\nman who is justified and saved by faith because of the pure and free\nmercy of God, just as we would think of the works which Adam and Eve\ndid in Paradise, and all their children would have done if they had\nnot sinned. We read in Genesis ii, \"God put the man whom He had formed\ninto the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.\" [Gen. 2:15] Now\nAdam was created by God righteous and upright and without sin, so that\nhe had no need of being justified and made upright through his\ndressing and keeping the garden, but, that he might not be idle, the\nLord gave him a work to do--to cultivate and to protect the garden.\nThese would truly have been the freest of works, done only to please\nGod and not to obtain righteousness, which Adam already had in full\nmeasure, and which would have been the birthright of us all.\n\nSuch also are the works of a believer. Through his faith he has been\nrestored to Paradise and created anew, has no need of works that he\nmay become or be righteous; but that he may not be idle and may\nprovide for and keep his body, he must do such works freely only to\nplease God; only, since we are not wholly re-created, and our faith\nand love are not yet perfect, these are to be increased, not by\nexternal works, however, but within themselves.\n\n[Sidenote: A Second Analogy]\n\nAgain: A bishop, when he consecrates a Church, confirms children or\nperforms any other duty belonging to his office, is not made a bishop\nby these works; nay, if he had not first been made a bishop, none of\nthese works would be valid, they would be foolish, childish and a mere\nfarce. So the Christian, who is consecrated by his faith, does good\nworks, but the works do not make him more holy or more Christian; for\nthat is the work of faith alone, and if a man were not first a\nbeliever and a Christian, all his works would amount to nothing at all\nand would be truly wicked and damnable sins.\n\nThese two sayings, therefore, are true: \"Good works do not make a good\nman, but a good man does good works; evil works do not make a wicked\nman, but a wicked man does evil works\"; so that it is always necessary\nthat the \"substance\" or person itself be good before there can be any\ngood works, and that good works follow and proceed from the good\nperson, as Christ also says, \"A corrupt tree does not bring forth good\nfruit, a good tree does not bring forth evil fruit.\" [Matt. 7:18] It\nis clear that the fruits do not bear the tree, nor does the tree grow\non the fruits, but, on the contrary, the trees bear the fruits and the\nfruits grow on the trees. As it is necessary, therefore, that the\ntrees must exist before their fruits, and the fruits do not make trees\neither good or corrupt, but rather as the trees are so are the fruits\nthey bear; so the person of a man must needs first be good or wicked\nbefore he does a good or a wicked work, and his works do not make him\ngood or wicked, but he himself makes his works either good or wicked.\n\n[Sidenote: Illustrations]\n\nIllustrations of the same truth can be seen in all trades, A good or a\nbad house does not make a good or a bad builder, but a good or a bad\nbuilder makes a bad or a good house. And in general, the work never\nmakes the workman like itself, but the workman makes the work like\nhimself. So it is also with the works of man: as the man is, whether\nbeliever or unbeliever, so also is his work--good, if it was done in\nfaith; wicked, if it was done in unbelief. But the converse is not\ntrue, that the work makes the man either a believer or an unbeliever.\nFor as works do not make a man a believer, so also they do not make\nhim righteous. But as faith makes a man a believer and righteous, so\nfaith also does good works. Since, then, works justify no one, and a\nman must be righteous before he does a good work, it is very evident\nthat it is faith alone which, because of the pure mercy of God through\nChrist and in His Word, worthily and sufficiently justifies and saves\nthe person, and a Christian man has no need of any work or of any law\nin order to be saved, since through faith he is free from every law\nand does all that he does out of pure liberty and freely, seeking\nneither benefit nor salvation, since he already abounds in all things\nand is saved through the grace of God because of his faith, and now\nseeks only to please God.\n\n[Sidenote: Works Neither Save nor Damn]\n\nFurthermore, no good work helps an unbeliever, so as to justify or\nsave him. And, on the other hand, no evil work makes him wicked or\ndamns him, but the unbelief which makes the person and the tree evil,\ndoes the evil and damnable works. Hence when a man is made good or\nevil, this is effected not by the works, but by faith or unbelief, as\nthe Wise Man says, \"This is the beginning of sin, that a man falls\naway from God,\" [Sirach 10:14 f.] which happens when he does not\nbelieve. And Paul, Hebrews xi, says, He that cometh to God must\nbelieve.\" [Heb. 11:6] And Christ says the same: \"Either make the tree\ngood and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt and his fruit\ncorrupt,\" [Matt. 12:33] as if He would say, \"Let him who would have\ngood fruit begin by planting a good tree.\" So let him who would do\ngood works not begin with the doing of works, but with believing,\nwhich makes the person good. For nothing makes a man good except\nfaith, nor evil except unbelief.\n\nIt is indeed true that in the sight of men a man is made good or evil\nby his works, but this being made good or evil is no more than that he\nwho is good or evil is pointed out and known as such; as Christ says,\nin Matthew vii, \"By their fruits ye shall know them.\" [Matt. 7:20] But\nall this remains on the surface, and very many have been deceived by\nthis outward appearance and have presumed to write and teach\nconcerning good works by which we may be justified, without even\nmentioning faith; they go their way, always being deceived and\ndeceiving, advancing, indeed, but into a worse state, blind leaders of\nthe blind [2 Tim. 3:13], wearying themselves with many works, and yet\nnever attaining to true righteousness [Matt. 15:14]. Of such Paul\nsays, in II Timothy iii, \"Having the form of godliness, but denying\nits power, always learning and never attaining to the knowledge of the\ntruth.\" [2 Tim. 3:5, 7]\n\nHe, therefore, who does not wish to go astray with those blind men,\nmust look beyond works, and laws and doctrines about works; nay,\nturning his eyes from works, he must look upon the person, and ask how\nthat is justified. For the person is justified and saved not by works\nnor by laws, but by the Word of God, that is, by the promise of His\ngrace [Tit. 3:5], and by faith, that the glory may remain God's, Who\nsaved us not by works of righteousness which we have done, but\naccording to His mercy by the word of His grace, when we believed. [1\nCor. 1:21]\n\n[Sidenote: The Doctrine of Good Works]\n\nFrom this it is easy to know in how far good works are to be rejected\nor not, and by what standard all the teachings of men concerning works\nare to be interpreted. If works are sought after as a means to\nrighteousness, are burdened with this perverse leviathan[15] and are\ndone under the false impression that through them you are justified,\nthey are made necessary and freedom and faith are destroyed; and this\naddition to them makes them to be no longer good, but truly damnable\nworks. For they are not free, and they blaspheme the grace of God,\nsince to justify and to save by faith belongs to the grace of God\nalone. What the works have no power to do, they yet, by a godless\npresumption, through this folly of ours, pretend to do, and thus\nviolently force themselves into the office and the glory of grace. We\ndo not, therefore, reject good works; on the contrary, we cherish and\nteach them as much as possible. We do not condemn them for their own\nsake, but because of this godless addition to them and the perverse\nidea that righteousness is to be sought through them; for that makes\nthem appear good outwardly, when in truth they are not good; they\ndeceive men and lead men to deceive each other, like ravening wolves\nin sheep's clothing [Matt. 7:15].\n\nBut this leviathan and perverse notion concerning works is insuperable\nwhere sincere faith is wanting. Those work-saints cannot get rid of it\nunless faith, its destroyer, come and rule in their hearts. Nature of\nitself cannot drive it out, nor even recognize it, but rather regards\nit as a mark of the most holy will. And if the influence of custom be\nadded and confirm this perverseness of nature, as wicked Magisters\nhave caused it to do, it becomes an incurable evil, and leads astray\nand destroys countless men beyond all hope of restoration. Therefore,\nalthough it is good to preach and write about penitence, confession\nand satisfaction, if we stop with that and do not go on to teach about\nfaith, our teaching is unquestionably deceitful and devilish.\n\n[Sidenote: What we are to Preach]\n\nChrist, like His forerunner John, not only said, \"Repent ye,\" [Matt.\n3:2] but added the word of faith, saying, \"The kingdom of heaven is at\nhand.\" [Matt. 4:17] And we are not to preach only one of these words\nof God, but both; we are to bring forth out of our treasure things new\nand old [Matt. 13:52], the voice of the law as well as the word of\ngrace. We must bring forth the voice of the law that men may be made\nto fear and to come to a knowledge of their sins, and so be converted\nto repentance and a better life. But we must not stop with that. For\nthat would be only to wound and not to bind up, to smite and not to\nheal, to kill and not to make alive, to lead down into hell and not to\nbring back again, to humble and not to exalt. Therefore, we must also\npreach the word of grace and the promise of forgiveness, by which\nfaith is taught and strengthened. Without this word of grace the works\nof the law, contrition, penitence and all the rest are performed and\ntaught in vain.\n\nThere remain even to our day preachers of repentance and grace, but\nthey do not so explain God's law and promise that a man might learn\nfrom them the source of repentance and grace. For repentance proceeds\nfrom the law of God, but faith or grace from the promise of God, as\nRomans x says, \"Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of\nChrist\" [Rom. 10:17]; so that a man is consoled and exalted by faith\nin the divine promise, after he has been humbled and led to a\nknowledge of himself by the threats and the fear of the divine law. So\nwe read in Psalm xxx, \"Weeping may endure for a night, but joy cometh\nin the morning.\" [Ps. 30:6]\n\n[Sidenote: Works of Love]\n\nLet this suffice concerning works in general, and at the same time\nconcerning the works which a Christian does for his own body. Lastly,\nwe will also speak of the things which he does toward his neighbor. A\nman does not live for himself alone in this mortal body, so as to work\nfor it alone, but he lives also for all men on earth, nay, rather,\nlives only for others and not for himself. And to this end he brings\nhis body into subjection, that he may the more sincerely and freely\nserve others, as Paul says in Romans xiv, \"No one lives to himself,\nand no man dies to himself. For he that liveth, liveth unto the Lord,\nand he that dieth, dieth unto the Lord.\" [Rom. 14:7 f.] Therefore, it\nis impossible that he should ever in this life be idle and without\nworks toward his neighbors, for of necessity he will speak, deal with\nand converse with men, as Christ also, being made in the likeness of\nmen, was found in form as a man, and conversed with men, as Baruch iii\nsays [Bar. 3:38].\n\n[Sidenote: Do not Save]\n\n[Sidenote: Grow out of Faith]\n\nBut none of these things does a man need for his righteousness and\nsalvation. Therefore, in all his works he should be guided by this\nthought and look to this one thing alone, that he may serve and\nbenefit others in all that he does, having regard to nothing except\nthe need and the advantage of his neighbor. Thus, the Apostle commands\nus to work with our hands that we may give to him who is in need,\nalthough he might have said that we should work to support ourselves;\nhe says, however, \"that he may have to give to him that needeth.\"\n[Eph. 4:28] And this is what makes it a Christian work to care for the\nbody, that through its health and comfort we may be able to work, to\nacquire and to lay by funds with which to aid those who are in need,\nthat in this way the strong member may serve the weaker, and we may be\nsons of God, each caring for and working for the other, bearing one\nanother's burdens, and so fulfilling the law of Christ [Gal. 6:2]. Lo,\nthis is a truly Christian life, here faith is truly out effectual\nthrough love [Gal. 5:6]; that is, it issues in works of the freest\nservice cheerfully and lovingly done, with which a man willingly\nserves another without hope of reward, and for himself is satisfied\nwith the fulness and wealth of his faith.\n\nSo Paul after teaching the Philippians how rich they were made through\nfaith in Christ, in which they obtained all things, proceeds\nimmediately to teach them further, saying, \"If there be any\nconsolation in Christ, if any comfort of love, if any fellowship of\nthe Spirit, fulfil ye my joy, that ye be likeminded, having the same\nlove, being of one accord, thinking nothing through strife or\nvainglory, but in lowliness each esteeming the other better than\nthemselves; looking not every man on his own things, but on the things\nof others.\" [Phil. 2:1 ff.] Here we see clearly that the Apostle has\nprescribed this rule for the life of Christians,--that we should\ndevote all our works to the welfare of others, since each has such\nabundant riches in his faith, that all his other works and his whole\nHe are a surplus with which he can by voluntary benevolence serve and\ndo good to his neighbor.\n\n[Sidenote: The Example of Christ]\n\nAs an example of such a life the Apostle cites Christ, saying, \"Let\nthis mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus, Who, being in the\nform of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: but made\nHimself of no reputation, and took upon Him the form of a servant, and\nwas made in the likeness of men: and being found in fashion as a man,\nHe became obedient unto death.\" [Phil. 2:5 ff.] This salutary word of\nthe Apostle has been obscured for us by those who have not at all\nunderstood the Apostle's words, \"form of God,\" \"form of a servant,\"\n\"fashion,\" \"likeness of men,\" and have applied them to the divine and\nthe human nature. Paul means this: Although Christ was filled with the\nform of God and rich in all good things, so that He needed no work and\nno suffering to make Him righteous and saved (for He had all this\nalways from the beginning), yet He was not puffed up by them, nor did\nHe lift Himself up above us and assume power over us, although He\ncould rightly have done so; but, on the contrary, He so lived,\nlabored, worked, suffered and died, that He might be like other men,\nand in fashion and in actions be nothing else than a man, just as if\nHe had need of all these things and had nothing of the form of God.\nBut He did all this for our sake, that He might serve us, and that all\nthings He accomplished in this form of a servant might become ours.\n\nSo a Christian, like Christ, his Head, is filled and made rich by\nfaith, and should be content with this form of God which he has\nobtained by faith; only, as I have said, he ought to increase this\nfaith until it be made perfect. For this faith is his life, his\nrighteousness and his salvation: it saves him and makes him\nacceptable, and bestows upon him all things that are Christ's, as has\nbeen said above, and as Paul asserts in Gal. ii, when he says, \"And\nthe life which I now live in the flesh, I live by the faith of the Son\nof God.\" [Gal. 2:20] Although the Christian is thus free from all\nworks, he ought in this liberty to empty himself, to take upon himself\nthe form of a servant, to be made in the likeness of men, to be found\nin fashion as a man, and to serve, help and in every way deal with his\nneighbor as he sees that God through Christ has dealt and still deals\nwith himself. And this he should do freely, having regard to nothing\nexcept the divine approval. He ought to think: \"Though I am an\nunworthy and condemned man, my God has given me in Christ all the\nriches of righteousness and salvation without any merit on my part,\nout of pure, free mercy, so that henceforth I need nothing whatever\nexcept faith which believes that this is true. Why should I not\ntherefore freely, joyfully, with all my heart, and with an eager will,\ndo all things which I know are pleasing and acceptable to such a\nFather, Who has overwhelmed me with His inestimable riches? I will\ntherefore give myself as a Christ to my neighbor, just as Christ\noffered Himself to me; I will do nothing in this life except what I\nsee is necessary, profitable and salutary to my neighbor, since\nthrough faith I have an abundance of all good things in Christ.\"\n\n[Sidenote: Faith and Love]\n\nLo, thus from faith flow forth love and joy in the Lord, and from love\na joyful, willing and free mind that serves one's neighbor willingly\nand takes no account of gratitude or ingratitude, of praise or blame,\nof gain or loss. For a man does not serve that he may put men under\nobligations, he does not distinguish between friends and enemies, nor\ndoes he anticipate their thankfulness or unthankfulness; but most\nfreely and most willingly he spends himself and all that he has,\nwhether he waste all on the thankless or whether he gain a reward. For\nas his Father does, distributing all things to all men richly and\nfreely, causing His sun to rise upon the good and upon the evil [Matt.\n5:45], so also the son does all things and suffers all things with\nthat freely bestowing joy which is his delight when through Christ he\nsees it in God, the dispenser of such great benefits.\n\nTherefore, if we recognize the great and precious things which are\ngiven us, as Paul says [Rom. 5:5], there will be shed abroad in our\nhearts by the Holy Ghost the love which makes us free, joyful,\nalmighty workers and conquerors over all tribulations, servants of our\nneighbors and yet lords of all. But for those who do not recognize the\ngifts bestowed upon them through Christ, Christ has been born in vain;\nthey go their way with their works, and shall never come to taste or\nto feel those things. Just as our neighbor is in need and lacks that\nin which we abound, so we also have been in need before God and have\nlacked His mercy. Hence, as our heavenly Father has in Christ freely\ncome to our help, we also ought freely to help our neighbor through\nour body and its works, and each should become as it were a Christ to\nthe other, that we may be Christs to one another and Christ may be the\nsame in all; that is, that we may be truly Christians.\n\n[Sidenote: The Christian Serves Freely]\n\nWho then can comprehend the riches and the glory of the Christian\nlife? It can do all things, and has all things, and lacks nothing; it\nis lord over sin, death and hell, and yet at the same time it serves,\nministers to and benefits all men. But, alas, in our day this life is\nunknown throughout the world; it is neither preached about nor sought\nafter; we are altogether ignorant of our own name and do not know why\nwe are Christians or bear the name of Christians. Surely we are so\nnamed after Christ, not because He is absent from us, but because He\ndwells in us, that is, because we believe on Him and are Christs one\nto another and do to our neighbors as Christ does to us. But in our\nday we are taught by the doctrine of men to seek naught but merits,\nrewards and the things that are ours; of Christ we have made only a\ntaskmaster far more harsh than Moses.\n\n[Sidenote: Examples: The Virgin]\n\nOf such faith we have a pre-eminent example in the blessed Virgin. As\nis written in Luke ii, she was purified according to the law of Moses,\nafter the custom of all women, although she was not bound by that law,\nand needed not to be purified. But out of free and willing love she\nsubmitted to the law, being made like other women, lest she should\noffend or despise them. She was not justified by this work, but being\nrighteous she did it freely and willingly. So our works also should be\ndone, not that we may be justified by them; since, being justified\nbeforehand by faith, we ought to do all things freely and joyfully for\nthe sake of others.\n\n[Sidenote: St. Paul]\n\nSt. Paul also circumcised his disciple Timothy, not because\ncircumcision was necessary for his righteousness, but that he might\nnot offend or despise the Jews who were weak in the faith and could\nnot yet grasp the liberty of faith. But on the other hand, when they\ndespised the liberty of faith and insisted that circumcision was\nnecessary for righteousness, he withstood them and did not allow Titus\nto be circumcised, (Gal. ii) [Gal. 2:3]. For as he was unwilling to\noffend for to despise any man's weak faith, and yielded to their will\nfor the time, so he was also unwilling that the liberty of faith\nshould be offended against or despised by stubborn work-righteous men.\nHe chose a middle way, sparing the weak or a time, but always\nwithstanding the stubborn, that he might convert all to the liberty of\nfaith. What we do should be done with the same zeal to sustain the\nweak in faith, as Romans xiv teaches [Rom. 14:1 ff.]; but we should\nfirmly withstand the stubborn teachers of works. Of this we will say\nmore later.\n\nChrist also, in Matthew xvii, when the tribute money was demanded of\nHis disciples, argued with St. Peter, Christ whether the sons of the\nking were not free from the payment of tribute, and Peter affirmed\nthat they were. None the less Christ commanded Peter to go to the sea,\nand said, \"Lest we should offend them, go, and take up the fish that\nfirst cometh up; and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find\na piece of money: that take, and give unto them for me and thee.\"\n[Matt. 17:24 ff.] This incident its beautifully to our subject, since\nChrist here calls Himself and those that are His, children and sons of\nthe King, who need nothing; and yet He freely submits and pays the\ntribute. Just as necessary or helpful as this work was to Christ's\nrighteousness or salvation, just so much do all other works of His or\nof His followers avail for righteousness; since they all follow after\nrighteousness and are free, and are done only to serve others and to\ngive them an example of good works.\n\nOf the same nature are the precepts which Paul gives, in Romans xiii\n[Rom. 13:1 ff.] and Titus iii [Tit. 3:1], that Christians should be\nsubject to the powers that be, and be ready to do every good work, not\nthat they shall in this way be justified, since they already are\nrighteous through faith, but that in the liberty of the Spirit they\nshall by so doing serve others and the powers themselves, and obey\ntheir will freely and out of love. Of this nature should be the works\nof all colleges, monasteries and priests. Each one should do the works\nof his profession and position, not that by them he may strive after\nrighteousness, but that through them he may keep under his body, be an\nexample to others, who also need to keep under their bodies, and\nfinally that by such works he may submit his will to that of others in\nthe freedom of love. But very great care must always be taken that no\nman in a false confidence imagine that by such works he will be\njustified, or acquire merit or be saved; for this is the work of faith\nalone, as I have repeatedly said.\n\n[Sidenote: Church Precepts]\n\nAny one knowing this could easily and without danger find his way\namong those numberless mandates and precepts of pope, bishops,\nmonasteries, churches, princes and magistrates, upon which some\nignorant pastors insist as if they were necessary to righteousness and\nsalvation, calling them \"precepts of the Church,\" although they are\nnothing of the kind. For a Christian, as a free man, will say, \"I will\nfast, pray, do this and that as men command, not because it is\nnecessary to my righteousness or salvation; but that I may show due\nrespect to the pope, the bishop, the community, some magistrate or my\nneighbor, and give them an example, I will do and suffer all things,\njust as Christ did and suffered far more for me, although He needed\nnothing of it all or Himself, and was made under the law for my sake,\nalthough He was not under the law.\" And although tyrants do violence\nor injustice in making their demands, yet it will do no harm, so long\nas they demand nothing contrary to God.\n\nFrom what has been said, every one can pass a safe judgment on all\nworks and laws and make a trustworthy distinction between them, and\nknow who are the blind and ignorant pastors and who are the good and\ntrue. For any work that is not done solely for the purpose of keeping\nunder the body or of serving one's neighbor, so long as he asks\nnothing contrary to God, is not good nor Christian. And for this\nreason I mightily fear that few or no colleges, monasteries, altars\nand offices of the Church are really Christian in our day: no, nor the\nspecial fasts and prayers on certain saints' days[16] either. I fear,\nI say, that in all these we seek only our own profit, thinking that\nthrough them our sins are purged away and that we ind salvation in\nthem. In this way Christian liberty perishes altogether. And this\ncomes from our ignorance of Christian faith and of liberty.\n\n[Sidenote: Ignorance of Liberty]\n\nThis ignorance and suppression of liberty very many blind pastors take\npains to encourage: they stir up and urge on their people in these\npractices by praising such works, puffing them up with their\nindulgences, and never teaching faith. But I would counsel you, if you\nwish to pray, fast or establish some foundation in the Church, take\nheed not to do it in order to obtain some benefit, whether temporal or\neternal. For you would do injury to your faith, which alone offers you\nall things, Your one care should be that faith may increase, whether\nit be trained by works or by sufferings. Give your gifts freely and\nfor nothing, that others may profit by them and are well because of\nyou and your goodness. In this way you shall be truly good and\nChristian. For of what benefit to you are the good works which you do\nnot need for the keeping under of your body? Your faith is sufficient\nfor you, through which God has given you all things.\n\nSee, according to this rule the good things we have from God should\nflow from one to the other and be common to all, so that every one\nshould \"put on\" his neighbor, and so conduct himself toward him as if\nhe himself were in the other's place. From Christ they have flowed and\nare flowing into us: He has so \"put on\" us and acted for us as if He\nhad been what we are. From us they flow on to those who have need of\nthem, so that I should lay before God my faith and my righteousness\nthat they may cover and intercede for the sins of my neighbor, which I\ntake upon myself and so labor and serve in them as if they were my\nvery own. For that is what Christ did for us. This is true love and\nthe genuine rule of a Christian life. The love is true and genuine\nwhere there is true and genuine faith. Hence, the Apostle says of love\nin I Cor. xiii, that it seeketh not its own. [1 Cor. 13:5]\n\n[Sidenote: Conclusion]\n\nWe conclude, therefore, that a Christian man lives not in himself, but\nin Christ and in his neighbor. Otherwise he is not a Christian. He\nlives in Christ through faith, in his neighbor through love; by faith\nhe is caught up beyond himself into God, by love he sinks down beneath\nhimself into his neighbor; yet he always remains in God and in His\nlove, as Christ says in John i, \"Verily, I say unto you, Hereafter ye\nshall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending\nupon the Son of man.\" [John 1:51]\n\nEnough now of liberty. As you see, it is a spiritual and true liberty,\nand makes our hearts free from all sins, laws and mandates, as Paul\nsays, I Tim. i, \"The law is not made for a righteous man.\" [1 Tim.\n1:9] It is more excellent than all other liberty which is external, as\nheaven is more excellent than earth. This liberty may Christ grant us\nboth to understand and to preserve. Amen.\n\n[Sidenote: Liberty]\n\n[Sidenote: Neither License]\n\n[Sidenote: Nor Necessity]\n\nFinally, something must be added for the sake of those for whom\nnothing can be so well said that they will not spoil it by\nmisunderstanding it, though it is a question whether they will\nunderstand even what shall here be said. There are very many who, when\nthey hear of this liberty of faith, immediately turn it into an\noccasion for the flesh, and think that now all things are allowed\nthem. They want to show that they are free men and Christians only by\ndespising and finding fault with ceremonies, traditions and human\nlaws; as if they were Christians because on stated days they do not\nfast or eat meat when others fast, or because they do not use the\naccustomed prayers, and with upturned nose scoff at the precepts of\nmen, although they utterly disregard all else that pertains to the\nChristian religion. The extreme opposite of these are those who rely\nfor their salvation solely on their reverent observance of ceremonies,\nas if they would be saved because on certain days they fast or abstain\nfrom meats, or pray certain prayers; these make a boast of the\nprecepts of the Church and of the Fathers, and care not a fig or the\nthings which are of the essence of our faith.  Plainly, both are in\nerror, because they neglect the weightier things which are necessary\nto salvation, and quarrel so noisily about those trifling and\nunnecessary matters.\n\nHow much better is the teaching of the Apostle Paul, who bids us take\na middle course, and condemns both sides when he says, \"Let not him\nthat eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth\nnot judge him that eateth.\" [Rom. 14:3] Here you see that they who\nneglect and disparage ceremonies, not out of piety, but out of mere\ncontempt, are reproved, since the Apostle teaches us not to despise\nthem. Such men are puffed up by knowledge. On the other hand, he\nteaches those who insist on the ceremonies not to judge the others, or\nneither party acts toward the other according to the love that\nedifies. Wherefore, we ought here to listen to the Scriptures, which\nteach that we should not go aside to the right nor to the left [Deut.\n28:14], but follow the statutes of the Lord which are right, rejoicing\nthe heart [Ps. 19:8]. For as a man is not righteous because he keeps\nand clings to the works and forms of the ceremonies, so also will a\nman not be counted righteous merely because he neglects and despises\nthem.\n\n[Sidenote: freedom from False Opinions]\n\nOur faith in Christ does not free us from works, but from false\nopinions concerning works, that is, from the foolish presumption that\njustification is acquired by works. For faith redeems, corrects and\npreserves our consciences, so that we know that righteousness does not\nconsist in works, although works neither can nor ought to be wanting;\njust as we cannot be without food and drink and all the works of this\nmortal body, yet our righteousness is not in them, but in faith; and\nyet those works of the body are not to be despised or neglected on\nthat account. In this world we are bound by the needs of our bodily\nlife, but we are not righteous because of them. \"My kingdom is not of\nthis world,\" [John 18:36] says Christ, but He does not say, \"My\nkingdom is not here, that is, in this world.\" And Paul says, \"Though\nwe walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh,\" [2 Cor. 10:3]\nand in Galatians ii, \"The life which I now live in the flesh, I live\nin the faith of the Son of God.\" [Gal. 2:20] Thus what we do, live,\nand are in works and in ceremonies, we do because of the necessities\nof this life and of the effort to rule our body; nevertheless we are\nrighteous not in these, but in the faith of the Son of God.\n\n[Sidenote: Opponents]\n\n[Sidenote: Ceremonialists]\n\n[Sidenote: Ignorant Men]\n\nHence, the Christian must take a middle course and face those two\nclasses of men. He will meet first the unyielding, stubborn\nceremonialists, who like deaf adders [Ps. 58:4] are not willing to\nhear the truth of liberty, but, having no faith, boast of, prescribe\nand insist upon their ceremonies as means of justification. Such were\nthe Jews of old, who were unwilling to learn how to do good. These he\nmust resist, do the very opposite and offend them boldly, lest by\ntheir impious views they drag many with them into error. In the\npresence of such men it is good to eat meat, to break the fasts and\nfor the sake of the liberty of faith to do other things which they\nregard the greatest of sins. Of them we must say, \"Let them alone,\nthey are blind and leaders of the blind.\" [Matt. 15:14] For on this\nprinciple Paul would not circumcise Titus when the Jews insisted that\nhe should [Gal. 2:3], and Christ excused the Apostles when they\nplucked ears of corn on the sabbath [Matt. 12:1 ff.]; and there are\nmany similar instances. The other class of men whom a Christian will\nmeet, are the simple-minded, ignorant men, weak in the faith, as the\nApostle calls them, who cannot yet grasp the liberty of faith, even if\nthey were willing to do so. These he must take care not to offend; he\nmust yield to their weakness until they are more fully instructed.\nFor since these do and think as they do, not because they are\nstubbornly wicked, but only because their faith is weak, the fasts and\nother things which they think necessary must be observed to avoid\ngiving them offence. For so love demands, which would harm no one, but\nwould serve all men. It is not by their fault that they are weak, but\ntheir pastors have taken them captive with the snares of their\ntraditions and have wickedly used these traditions as rods with which\nto beat them. From these pastors they should have been delivered by\nthe teaching of faith and liberty. So the Apostle teaches us, Romans\nxiv, \"If my meat cause my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while\nthe world standeth\" [Rom. 14:14]; and again, \"I know that through\nChrist nothing is unclean, except to him who esteemeth any thing to be\nunclean; but it is evil or the man who eats and is offended.\"\n\nWherefore, although we should boldly resist those teachers of\ntraditions and sharply censure the laws of the popes by means of which\nthey plunder the people of God, yet we must spare the timid multitude\nwhom those impious tyrants hold captive by means of these laws, until\nthey be set free. Fight strenuously therefore against the wolves, but\nfor the sheep, and not also against the sheep. This you will do if you\ninveigh against the laws and the law-givers, and at the same time\nobserve the laws with the weak, so that they will not be offended,\nuntil they also recognize the tyranny and understand their liberty.\nBut if you wish to use your liberty, do so in secret, as Paul says,\nRomans xiv, \"Hast thou the faith? have it to thyself before God\" [Rom.\n14:22]; but take care not to use your liberty in the sight of the\nweak. On the other hand, use your liberty constantly and consistently\nin the sight of the tyrants and the stubborn, in despite of them, that\nthey also may learn that they are impious, that their laws are of no\navail for righteousness, and that they had no right to set them up.\n\n[Sidenote: Ceremonies]\n\nNow, since we cannot live our life without ceremonies and works, and\nthe froward and untrained youth need to be restrained and saved from\nharm by such bonds; and since each one should keep his body under by\nmeans of such works, there is need that the minister of Christ be\nfar-seeing and faithful; he ought so to govern and teach the people of\nChrist in all these matters that their conscience and faith be not\noffended, and that there spring not up in them a suspicion and a root\nof bitterness, and many be defiled thereby [Heb. 12:15], as Paul\nadmonishes the Hebrews; that is, that they may not lose faith and\nbecome defiled by the false estimate of the value of works, and think\nthat they must be justified by works. This happens easily and defiles\nvery many, unless faith is at the same time constantly taught; it is\nimpossible to avoid it when faith is not mentioned and only the\ndevisings of men are taught, as has been done until now through the\npestilent, impious, soul-destroying traditions of our popes and the\nopinions of our theologians. By these snares numberless souls have\nbeen dragged down to hell, so that you might see in this the work of\nAntichrist.\n\n[Sidenote: The Test of Faith]\n\n[Sidenote: Temporary Helps]\n\nIn brief, as wealth is the test of poverty, business the test of\nfaithfulness, honors the test of humility, easts the test of\ntemperance, pleasures the test of chastity, so ceremonies are the test\nof the righteousness of faith. \"Can a man,\" says Solomon, \"take fire\nin his bosom, and his clothes not be burned?\" [Prov. 6:27] Yet, as a\nman must live in the midst of wealth, business, honors, pleasures and\neasts, so also must he live in the midst of ceremonies, that is, in\nthe midst of dangers. Nay, as infant boys need beyond all else to be\ncherished in the bosoms and by the hands of maidens to keep them from\nperishing, and yet when they are grown up their salvation is\nendangered if they associate with maidens, so the inexperienced and\nfroward youth need to be restrained and trained by the iron bars of\nceremonies, lest their unchecked ardor rush headlong into vice after\nvice. Yet it would be death or them to be always held in bondage to\nceremonies, thinking that these justify them. They are rather to be\ntaught that they have been so imprisoned in ceremonies, not that they\nshould be made righteous or gain great merit by them, but that they\nmight thus be kept from doing evil, and might be more easily\ninstructed unto the righteousness of faith. Such instruction they\nwould not endure if the impulsiveness of their youth were not\nrestrained. Hence ceremonies are to be given the same place in the\nlife of a Christian as models and plans have among builders and\nartisans. They are prepared not as permanent structures, but because\nwithout them nothing could be built or made. When the structure is\ncompleted they are laid aside. You see, they are not despised, rather,\nthey are greatly sought after; but what we despise is the false\nestimate of them, since no one holds them to be the real and permanent\nstructure. If any man were so egregiously foolish as to care for\nnothing all his life long except the most costly, careful and\npersistent preparation of plans and models, and never to think of the\nstructure itself, and were satisfied with his work in producing such\nplans and mere aids to work, and boasted of it, would not all men pity\nhis insanity, and estimate that with what he has wasted something\ngreat might have been built? Thus we do not despise ceremonies and\nworks, nay, we set great store by them; but we despise the false\nestimate placed upon works, in order that no one may think that they\nare true righteousness, as those hypocrites believe who spend and lose\ntheir whole lives in zeal for works, and never reach that for the sake\nof which the works are to be done; as the Apostle says, \"ever learning\nand never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.\" [2 Tim. 3:7]\nFor they seem to wish to build, they make their preparations, and yet\nthey never build, Thus they remain caught in the form of godliness and\ndo not attain unto its power [2 Tim. 3:5]. Meanwhile they are pleased\nwith their efforts, and even dare to judge all others whom they do not\nsee shining with a like show of works. Yet with the gifts of God which\nthey have spent and abused in vain they might, if they had been filled\nwith faith, have accomplished great things to the salvation of\nthemselves and of others.\n\n[Sidenote: Men Need to be Taught of God]\n\nBut since human nature and natural reason, as it is called, are by\nnature superstitious and ready to imagine, when laws and works are\nprescribed, that righteousness must be obtained through them; and\nfurther, since they are trained and confirmed in this opinion by the\npractice of all earthly lawgivers, it is impossible that they should\nof themselves escape from the slavery of works and come to a knowledge\nof the liberty of faith. Therefore there is need of the prayer that\nthe Lord may give us [John 6:45] and make us _theodidacti_, that is,\ntaught of God, and Himself, as He has promised, write His law in our\nhearts; otherwise there is no hope for us. For if He Himself do not\nteach our hearts this wisdom hidden in a mystery [1 Cor. 2:7], nature\ncan only condemn it and judge it to be heretical, because nature is\noffended by it and regards it as foolishness. So we see that it\nhappened in olden times, in the case of the Apostles and prophets, and\nso godless and blind popes and their flatterers do to me and to those\nwho are like me. May God at last be merciful to them and to us, and\ncause His face to shine upon us [Ps. 67:1 f.], that we may know His\nway upon earth. His salvation among all nations, God, Who is blessed\nforever [2 Cor. 11:31]. Amen.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES\n\n\n[1] See below, page 304.\n\n[2] Sylvester Prierias. See Vol. I, p. 338.\n\n[3] Cf. Preface to Prierias' Epitome, _Weimar Ed._, VI, 329.\n\n[4] Virgil, _Georgics_, I, 514.\n\n[5] Pope Eugene III, 1145-1153, for whom Bernard of Clairvaux wrote a\ndevotional book, _De consideratione_, in which he rehearsed the duties\nand the dangers of the pope. See Realencyklopadie II, 632; Kohler,\nLuther u. die Kirchengeschichte, 311 f. Cf. Resolutiones disput. de\nindulg. virtute, 1518, Clemen, 1, 113.\n\n[6] John Maier, born in Eck an der Gunz, and generally known as John\nEck; an ambitious theologian, who first attacked his professor in\nFreiburg, then Erasmus' Annotations to the New Testament, and next\nwrote against Luther's XCV Theses (see Vol. I, 10, 176, etc.). He was\nthe opponent of Luther and Carlstadt at the Leipzig Disputation\n(1519), to which Luther here refers.\n\n[7] Jacopo de Vio, born in Gaeta, Italy, in 1469, died in 1534. The\nname Cajetan he derived from his birthplace, the Latin name of which\nis Cajeta. In the Dominican Order he was known as Thomas, so that his\nwritings are published under the title, _Thomae de Vio Cajetani\nopera_. He was made cardinal-presbyter with the title of S. Sisto in\n1517, and in the following year was sent as papal legate to the Diet\nof Augsburg. Here he met and examined Luther, but accomplished nothing\nbecause he insisted that Luther must recant. See Kolde in\nRealencyklopadie 3, 632 ff.\n\n[8] Carl von Miltitz was educated at Cologne, was prebendary at Mainz,\nTrier and Meissen, and later went to Rome, where he acted as agent for\nFrederick, Elector of Saxony, and Duke George the Bearded. \"After the\nendeavours of Cardinal Cajetan to silence Luther had failed, Miltitz\nappeared to be the person most suited to bring the negotiations to a\nsuccessful ending.\" (_Catholic Encyclopedia_, X, 318, where, however,\nthe statement that Miltitz was educated at Mainz, Trier and Meissen is\nevidently a slip.) It seems that Miltitz returned to Rome for a time,\nbut in 1522 again came to Germany, where he was drowned in the Main,\nNovember 20, 1529. See Flathe, Art. _Miltitz, in Allgemeine Deutsche\nBiographie_, 21, 759 f.\n\n[9] The German reads: \"Thus I always did what was required of me, and\nneglected nothing which it was my duty to do.\"\n\n[10] This was the usual title of the pope, with which the bull of\nexcommunication opened: _Leo Episcopus Servus Servorum Dei_.\n\n[11] See above, pp. 298, 300, and compare the letters of Miltitz to\nthe elector Frederick in Smith, _Luther's Correspondence_, I, pp. 367\nf.\n\n[12] Here the German is more accurate: \"Every Christian man.\"\n\n[13] German: _Wie man sein brauchen und niessen soll_, \"how we are to\nbenefit by and enjoy what He is for us.\"\n\n[14] German: _der heubt gerechtigkteit._\n\n[15] Possibly a reminiscence of the _Leviathan serpentem tortuosum_ in\nIsa. 27:1. Cf. _Erl. Ed._, xxiv, 73; xxvii, 323 f; xviii, 91. Lemme\ntranslates _Teuelswahn_.\n\n[16] German: _die fasten und gepett etiichen heyligen so derlich\ngethan_.\n\n\n\nA BRIEF EXPLANATION (EINE KURZE FORM) OF THE TEN COMMANDMENTS, THE\nCREED, AND THE LORD'S PRAYER\n\n1520\n\n\n\nINTRODUCTION\n\n\nThe work here presented bears the German title, _Eine kurze Form der\nzehn Gebote, eine kurze Form des Glaubens, eine kurze Form des\nVaterunsers_. It is the most important of Luther's catechetical works\nprior to the Catechisms of 1529, and deserves the name that has been\ngiven it, \"the first evangelical catechism.\"[1]\n\nTo be sure, the name \"catechism\" was not applied to the _Kurze Form_\nat the time. In mediaeval usage \"catechism\" was the name for oral\ninstruction in the elements of Christian truth. This instruction had\nbeen based from time immemorial upon the Creed and the Lord's Prayer.\nThe decalogue held a minor place and was overshadowed by the\ncommandments of the church. During the later Middle Ages the influence\nof the sacrament of penance gave it a higher position. It gradually\nbecame a subject of \"catechetical\" instruction, but only alongside of\nthe other standards for the classification of sins.[2] It was the work\nof Luther so to expound the Ten Commandments as to give them a\npermanent place of their own in Christian instruction, side by side\nwith the Creed and the Lord's Prayer.\n\nThe first manuals of instruction of this kind were prepared for the\nuse of the priests, to guide them in the questioning of penitents, but\nwith the discovery of the art of printing popular hand-books for the\nuse of the laity became more and more common, and with certain of\nthese manuals Luther was familiar.[3]\n\nFrom the beginning of his ministry at Wittenberg, Luther had preached\nfrom time to time upon the Ten Commandments and the Lord's Prayer. In\n1518 his friend Agricola published a series of sermons on the Lord's\nPrayer which Luther had preached in Lent, 1517.[4] In the same year\nLuther published his own _Kurze Auslegung der zehn Gebote, ihrer\nErfullung und Uebertretung_.[5] The year 1519 saw the publication of\nthe _Kurze Form das Paternoster zu verstehen und zu beten_, and the\n_Kurze und gute Auslegung des Vaterunsers vor sich und hinter sich_.[7]\nThe _Treatise on Good Works_[8], which is essentially an exposition of\nthe decalogue, was written in the early months of 1520. During the\nsame period the mind of Luther was frequently occupied with the abuses\nof the confessional, as we learn from the _Confitendi Ratio_,[9] and\nthe _Kurze Unterweisung wie man beichten soil_.[10] All the material\nfor the first and third parts of the present work was, therefore, in\nhand and had appeared in print before 1520.\n\nIn 1520 the Kurze Form came from the press.[11] It consists of three\nseparately composed expositions of the three chief subjects of\ncatechetical instruction in the Middle Ages. The expositions of the\nCommandments and the Lord's Prayer are reproductions of the _Kurze\nAuslegung der zehn Gebote_ and the _Kurze Form das Paternoster zu\nverstehen und zu beten_. The treatment of the Apostles' Creed is new,\nas is also the Introduction, in which Luther sets forth the relation\nof the three parts to one another in the unity of the Christian life.\n\nThe work is not scientific and theological, but popular and religious.\nIts purpose is primarily devotional, not pedagogical. The mediaeval\nroot out of which it grew is not to be denied. The catalogue of\ntransgressions and fulfilments attached to the explanation of the\ndecalogue shows that it is intended to be a manual for penitents, but\nthe spirit in which the Creed and the Lord's Prayer are explained is\nnot mediaeval, and the manner in which the explanations of the\ndecalogue are simplified and rid of the excrescences of the XV Century\nhand-books shows the new evangelical conception of confession to which\nLuther had attained. The division of the Creed into three articles\ninstead of the traditional twelve marks an epoch in the development of\ncatechetical instruction. The little book contains passages of rare\nbeauty, clouded at times, we fear, by the new language into which it\nhas here been put, and seldom has the _Wesen des Christentums_ been\nmore simply and tellingly set forth than in the treatment of the\nCreed.\n\nIn 1522 Luther republished the _Kurze Form_ with a few slight changes\nand a number of additions under the title _Betbuchlein_. The\n_Betbuchlein_ ran through many editions, and grew in the end to a book\nof rather large proportions, a complete manual of devotion.\n\nIn its original form and as the chief content of the _Betbuchlein_,\nthe _Kurze Form_ exercised a profound influence upon the manuals of\nChristian doctrine that appeared in ever-increasing number after\n1522.[12] Its influence extended to England, where Marshall's _Goodly\nPrimer_ (1534 and 35) offered to English readers a translation of the\n_Betbuchlein_, in which, however, no acknowledgments were made to the\noriginal author.[13]\n\nThe _Kurze Form_ is found in _Weimar Ed._, VII, 194 ff.; _Erl. Ed._,\nXXII, 3 ff.; _Clemen Ed._, II, 38 ff.; _Walch Ed._, X, 182 ff.; _St.\nLouis Ed._, X, 149 ff.\n\nLITERATURE\n\nF. Cohrs, _Die evang. Katechismusversuche vor L.'s Enchiridion_\n(especially I, 1 ff. and IV, 229 ff.), Arts. _Katechismen L.'s and\nKatechismusunterricht_ in _Realencyk._, X, 130 ff., and XXIII, 743\nff., and _Introd. to Betbuchlein_ in _Weimar Ed._, X; O. Albrecht,\n_Vorbemerkungen zu den beiden Katechismen von 1529_, in _Weimar Ed._,\nXXX', 426 ff. (Further literature cited by all the above.) See also\nGecken, _Bilderkatechismus d. XV Jh_. and von Zezschwitz, _System d.\nKatechetik_ (especially II, i).\n\n        CHARLES M. JACOBS.\n\nLUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY,\n\n    Mount Airy, Philadelphia\n\n\nFOOTNOTES\n\n\n[1] Cohrs, _Evang. Katechismusversuche_, I, 4.\n\n[2] _von Zezschwitz, Katechetik_, II, 176, 265 ff.\n\n[3] _Weimar Ed._, X', 475.\n\n[4] _Weimar Ed._, IX, 122 ff. The same series was republished by\nLuther himself, ibid., IV, 74 ff.\n\n[5] _Weimar Ed._, I, 248 ff.\n\n[6] _Weimar Ed._, VI, 9 ff.\n\n[7] _Weimar Ed._, VI, 20 ff.\n\n[8] Vol. I, pp. 187 ff.\n\n[9] Vol. I, pp. 81-101.\n\n[10] _Weimar Ed._, II, 47 ff.\n\n[11] On the exact date, see _Weimar Ed._, VII, 195; _Clemen_, II, 38.\n\n[12] See Cohrs, IV, 326 ff.\n\n[13] For this information I am indebted to the Rev. J. F. Bornhold, of\nMount Holly, N. J. The act was discovered almost simultaneously by\nPro. M. Reu, of Dubuque, Iowa.\n\n\n\nA BRIEF EXPLANATION OF THE TEN COMMANDMENTS, THE CREED, AND THE LORD'S\nPRAYER\n\n1520\n\n\n\nPREFACE\n\n\nThe ordinary Christian, who cannot read the Scriptures, is required to\nlearn and know the Ten Commandments, the Creed, and the Lord's Prayer;\nand this has not come to pass without God's special ordering. For\nthese three contain fully and completely everything that is in the\nScriptures, everything that ever should be preached, and everything\nthat a Christian needs to know, all put so briefly and so plainly that\nno one can make complaint or excuse, saying that what he needs or his\nsalvation is too long or too hard to remember.\n\nThree things a man needs to know in order to be saved. _First_, he\nmust know what he ought to do and what he ought not to do. _Second_,\nwhen he finds that by his own strength he can neither do the things he\nought, nor leave undone the things he ought not to do, he must know\nwhere to seek and find and get the strength he needs. _Third_, he must\nknow how to seek and find and get this strength.\n\nWhen a man is ill, he needs to know first what his illness is,--what\nhe can do and what he cannot do. Then he needs to know where to find\nthe remedy that will restore his health and help him to do and leave\nundone the things he ought. Third, he must ask for this remedy, and\nseek it, and get it or have it brought to him. In like manner, the\n_Commandments_ teach a man to know his illness, so that he feels and\nsees what he can do and what he cannot do, what he can and what he\ncannot leave undone, and thus knows himself to be a sinner and a\nwicked man. After that the _Creed_ shows him and teaches him where he\nmay find the remedy,--the grace which helps him to become a good man\nand to keep the Commandments; it shows him God, and the mercy which He\nhas revealed and offered in Christ. In the third place, the _Lord's\nPrayer_ teaches him how to ask or this grace, get it, and take it to\nhimself, to wit, by habitual, humble, comforting prayer; then grace is\ngiven, and by the fulfillment of God's commandments he is saved.\n\nThese are the three chief things in all the Scriptures. Therefore we\nbegin at the beginning, with the Commandments, which are the first\nthing, and learn to recognise our sin and wickedness, that is, our\nspiritual illness, which prevents us from doing the things we ought to\ndo and leaving undone the things we ought not to do.\n\nTHE TEN COMMANDMENTS\n\n[Sidenote: The First Table]\n\nThe _First Table of Moses_--the Table of the Right Hand--contains the\nfirst three Commandments, In these man is taught his duty toward God,\nwhat things he is in duty bound to do, and what to leave undone.\n\n[Sidenote: The First Commandment]\n\nThe _First Commandment_ teaches how man shall treat God inwardly, in\nthe heart, that is, how he ought always to remember Him and think of\nHim and esteem Him. To Him, as to a Father and good Friend, man is to\nlook at all times or all good things, in all trust and faith and love,\nwith fear; he is not to offend Him, but trust Him as a child its\nfather. For nature teaches us that there is one God, Who gives all\ngood and helps against all evil, as even the heathen show us by their\nworshiping of idols. This commandment is,\n\n_Thou shalt have no other gods._\n\n[Sidenote: The Second Commandment]\n\nThe _Second Commandment_ teaches how man shall act toward God\noutwardly, in words, before other men, or even inwardly before his own\nself; that is, he shall honor God's Name. For no one can show God\neither to himself or to others in His divine nature, but only in His\nnames. This commandment is,\n\n_Thou shalt not take the Name of the Lord thy God in vain._\n\n[Sidenote: The Third Commandment]\n\nThe _Third Commandment_ teaches how man shall act toward God outwardly\nin deeds, that is, in the worship of God. It is,\n\n_Thou shalt hallow the holy day._[1]\n\nThese three commandments, then, teach how man is to act toward God in\nthoughts, words and deeds,--that is, in all his life.\n\n[Sidenote: The Second Table]\n\nThe _Second Table of Moses_--the Table of the Left Hand--contains the\nother seven Commandments. In these man is taught what he is in duty\nbound to do and not to do to other men, that is, to his neighbor,\n\n[Sidenote: The Fourth Commandment]\n\nThe _first_ of them teaches how one is to conduct oneself toward all\nthe authorities who are God's representatives. Therefore, it has its\nplace before the rest, and immediately after the first three, which\nconcern God Himself. Such authorities are father and mother, spiritual\nand temporal lords, etc. It is,\n\n_Honor thy father and thy mother._\n\nThe _second_ teaches how one is to conduct oneself toward one's\nneighbor in matters that concern his person,--not to do him injury,\nbut to benefit and help him when he is in need. It is,\n\n_Thou shalt not kill._\n\n[Sidenote: The Sixth Commandment]\n\nThe _third_ teaches how one is to conduct oneself toward the best\npossession one's neighbor has next to his person,--that is, toward his\nwife, his child, his friend. He is to put no shame upon them, but to\npreserve their honor, so far as he is able. It is,\n\n_Thou shalt not commit adultery._\n\n[Sidenote: The Seventh Commandment]\n\nThe _fourth_ teaches how one is to conduct oneself toward one's\nneighbor's temporal possessions,--not to take them from him or hinder\nhim in their use, but to aid him in increasing them. It is,\n\n_Thou shalt not steal._\n\n[Sidenote: The Eighth Commandment]\n\nThe _fifth_ teaches how one is to conduct oneself toward one's\nneighbor's worldly honor and good name,--not to impair them, but to\nincrease and guard and protect them. It is,\n\n_Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor._\n\nSo, then, it is forbidden to harm one's neighbor in any of his\npossessions, and it is commanded to advance his interests. If we\nconsider the natural law,[2] we find how just and right all these\ncommandments are; for there is no act here commanded, toward God or\none's neighbor, that each of us would not wish to have done toward\nhimself, if he were God, or in God's place or his neighbor's.\n\n[Sidenote: The Ninth and Tenth Commandments]\n\nThe last two Commandments teach how wicked human nature is, and how\npure we should be from all the desires of the flesh and desires for\nthis world's goods; but that means struggle and labor as long as we\nlive here below. They are,\n\n_Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house._\n\n_Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his\nmaidservant, nor his cattle, nor anything that is thy neighbor's._\n\nA BRIEF CONCLUSION TO THE TEN COMANDMENTS\n\nChrist Himself says, \"Whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you,\ndo ye even so to them; this is the whole law and all the prophets.\"\n[Matt. 7:12] Now no one wishes to receive ingratitude for benefits\nconferred or to let another take away his good name. No one wishes to\nhave pride shown toward him. No one wishes to endure disobedience,\nwrath, a wife's impurity, robbery, lying, deceit, slander; but every\none wishes to find in his neighbor kindliness, thankfulness,\nhelpfulness, truth and fidelity. All this the Ten Commandments\nrequire.\n\nTHE TRANSGRESSION OF THE COMMANDMENTS\n\n_Against the First_\n\n[Sidenote: the First Commandment]\n\nHe who in his tribulation seeks the help of sorcery, black art, or\nwitchcraft.\n\nHe who uses letters[3], signs, herbs, words[4], charms and the like.\n\nHe who uses divining-rods and incantations, and practices\ncrystal-gazing, cloak-riding, and milk-stealing[5].\n\nHe who orders his life and work by lucky days, the signs of the zodiac\nand the advice of the fortune-tellers.\n\nHe who seeks by charms and incantations to protect himself, his\ncattle, his house, his children and all his property against wolves,\niron, fire and water.\n\nHe who blames his misfortunes and tribulations on the devil or on\nwicked men, and does not accept them with praise and love, as good and\nevil which come from God alone, and who does not ascribe them to God\nwith thanksgiving and willing patience.\n\nHe who tempts God, and needlessly puts himself in danger of body or\nsoul.\n\nHe who glories in his piety, his wisdom, or other spiritual gifts.\n\nHe who honors God and the saints only for the sake of temporal gain,\nand is forgetful of his soul's need.\n\nHe who does not trust in God at all times, and is not confident of\nGod's mercy in all he does.\n\nHe who doubts concerning the faith or the grace of God.\n\nHe who does not keep back others from unbelief and doubt, and does not\nhelp them, so far as in him lies, to believe and trust in God's grace.\n\nHere, too, belong all forms of unbelief, despair, and misbelief.\n\n_Against the Second_\n\n[Sidenote: The Second Commandment]\n\nHe who swears needlessly or habitually.\n\nHe who perjures himself, or breaks a vow.\n\nHe who vows or swears to do evil.\n\nHe who curses by God's name.\n\nHe who tells foolish tales of God, and frivolously perverts the words\nof Scripture.\n\nHe who in his tribulation calls not upon God's name, nor blesses Him\nin joy and sorrow, in good fortune and in ill.\n\nHe who by his piety, wisdom or the like seeks reputation and honor and\na name.\n\nHe who calls upon God's name falsely, as do the heretics and all\nvainglorious saints.\n\nHe who does not praise God's name in all that befalls him.\n\nHe who does not resist those that dishonor the name of God, use it\nfalsely and work evil by it.\n\nHere belong all the sins of vainglory and spiritual pride.\n\n_Against the Third_\n\n[Sidenote: The Third Commandment]\n\nHe who is given to gluttony, drunkenness, gambling, dancing, idleness\nand unchastity.\n\nHe who is lazy, who sleeps when he ought to be at mass, stays away\nfrom mass, goes walking and indulges in idle talk.\n\nHe who without special need works and transacts business on the Lord's\nday.\n\nHe who prays not, meditates not upon Christ's sufferings, repents not\nof his sins and asks no grace, and therefore keeps the day only in\noutward fashion, by his dress, his food and his actions.\n\nHe who in all his works and sufferings is not satisfied that God shall\ndo with him as He will.\n\nHe who does not help others to do this and does not resist them when\nthey do otherwise.\n\nHere belongs the sin of slothfulness and indifference to worship.\n\n_Against the Fourth_\n\n[Sidenote: The Fourth Commandment]\n\nHe who is ashamed of his parents because of their poverty, their\nfailings or their lowly position.\n\nHe who does not provide them with food and clothing in their need.\n\nMuch more, he who curses them, speaks evil of them, hates them and\ndisobeys them.\n\nHe who does not from the heart esteem them highly because of God's\ncommandment.\n\nHe who does not honor them, even though they do wrong and violence.\n\nHe who does not keep the commandments of the Christian Church with\nrespect to fast- and feast-days, etc.\n\nHe who dishonors, slanders and insults the priestly office.\n\nHe who dost not pay honor, allegiance and obedience to his lords and\nthose in authority, be they good or bad.\n\nAmong the transgressors of this commandment are all heretics,\nschismatics, apostates, excommunicates, hardened sinners and the like.\n\nHe who does not help men to keep this commandment and resist those who\nbreak it.\n\nHere belong all forms of pride and disobedience.\n\n_Against the Fifth_\n\n[Sidenote: The Fifth Commandment]\n\nHe who is angry with his neighbor.\n\nHe who sayeth to his neighbor, _Raca_, which stands for all terms of\nanger and hatred. [Matt. 5:22]\n\nHe who sayeth to his neighbor, _Fatue_, \"thou fool,\" which stands for\nevery sort of vile language, cursing, slander, evil speaking, judging,\ncondemning, mockery, etc.\n\nHe who scolds about his neighbor's sins or failings, and does not\nrather cover and excuse them.\n\nHe who forgives not his enemies nor prays for them, is not kindly\ndisposed toward them and does them no good.\n\nThis commandment includes also all the sins of anger and hatred, such\nas murder, war, robbery, arson, quarreling, contention, envy of a\nneighbor's good fortune and joy over his misfortune.\n\nHe who does not practice works of mercy even toward his enemies.\n\nHe who sets men at enmity with one another.\n\nHe who sows discord between man and man.\n\nHe who does not reconcile those who are at enmity.\n\nHe who does not hinder or prevent wrath and enmity when he is able.\n\n_Against the Sixth_\n\n[Sidenote: The Sixth Commandment]\n\nHe who seduces virgins, commits adultery and is guilty of incest and\nlike unchastity.\n\nHe who uses unnatural means to satisfy his desires--these are the\n\"mute sins.\"[6]\n\nHe who arouses or displays evil desires with obscene words, songs,\ntales or pictures.\n\nHe who by looks, touch or thoughts arouses his own desires and defiles\nhimself.\n\nHe who does not avoid the causes of unchastity, such as gluttony,\ndrunkenness, idleness, laziness, oversleeping and intimate association\nwith men or women.\n\nHe who by extravagant dress or demeanor incites others to unchastity.\n\nHe who gives house, place, time or help to the commission of this sin.\n\nHe who does not by word and deed help others to preserve their\nchastity.\n\n_Against the Seventh_\n\n[Sidenote: The Seventh Commandment]\n\nHe who practices thievery, robbery and usury.\n\nHe who uses false weights and measures, or sells bad wares for good.\n\nHe who receives bequests and incomes dishonestly. He who withholds\nwages that have been earned, and repudiates a debt.\n\nHe who will not lend to a needy neighbor without taking interest.[7]\n\nAll who are avaricious and make haste to be rich, and do any of those\nother things by which a neighbor's property is withheld or taken away.\n\nHe who does not protect another against loss.\n\nHe who does not warn another against loss.\n\nHe who places an obstacle in the way of his neighbor's profit and\nbegrudges his neighbor's gains.\n\nAgainst the Eighth\n\n[Sidenote: The Eight Commandment]\n\nHe who conceals or suppresses the truth in a court of law.\n\nHe who lies and deceives to another's hurt.\n\nAll hurtful flatterers, whisperers and double-dealers.\n\nHe who speaks evil of his neighbor's possessions, lie, words and works\nand defames them.\n\nHe who gives place to slanderers, helps them on and does not resist\nthem.\n\nHe who does not use his tongue to defend his neighbor's good name.\n\nHe who does not rebuke the slanderer.\n\nHe who does not say all good of every man and keep silent about all\nevil.\n\nHe who conceals or does not defend the truth.\n\n_Against the Last Two_\n\n[Sidenote: The Ninth and Tenth Commandments]\n\nThe last two commandments have no place in confession[8], but are set\nas a goal to which we are to attain, and toward which, through\nrepentance and by the help and grace of God, we are daily to strive;\nor wicked inclinations do not wholly die, until the flesh turns to\ndust and is new created[9].\n\nThe \"five senses\"[10] are included in the Fifth and Sixth\nCommandments; the \"six works of mercy,\" in the Fifth and Seventh; of\nthe \"seven deadly sins,\" pride is included in the First and Second,\nunchastity in the Sixth, anger, and hatred in the Fifth, gluttony in\nthe Sixth, indolence in the Third, and indeed in all the commandments.\nThe \"alien sins\" are included in all the commandments, or it is\npossible to sin against all the commandments by bidding, advising and\nhelping others to sin against them. The \"crying sins\" and the \"mute\nsins\" are committed against the Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Commandments,\netc.\n\nIn all these works we see nothing else than self-love, which seeks its\nown, takes from God what is His, from men what is theirs, and out of\nall it is and all it has and all it can do gives nothing either to God\nor men. St. Augustine well says, \"The beginning of all sin is the love\nof one's own self.\"[11]\n\nFrom all this it follows that the commandments command nothing but\nlove and forbid nothing but love; nothing but love fulfils the\ncommandments and nothing but love breaks them. Wherefore, St. Paul\nsays that love is the fulfilling of all commandments; just as evil\nlove is the transgression of all commandments.\n\nThe Fulfilment of the Commandments\n\nOf the First\n\n[Sidenote: The First Commandment]\n\nTo fear and love God in true faith, and always, in all our works, to\ntrust Him firmly, and be wholly, completely, altogether resigned in\nall things, whether they be evil or good.\n\nHere belongs whatever is written in all the Scriptures concerning\nfaith, hope and love of God, all of which is briefly comprehended in\nthis commandment.\n\n_Of the Second_\n\n[Sidenote: The Second Commandment]\n\nTo praise, honor, bless and call upon God's Name, and to count our own\nname and honor as altogether nothing, so that God alone may be\npraised; for He alone is all things, and worketh all things.\n\nHere belongs all that is taught in the Scripture about rendering\npraise and honor and thanks to God, about God's name and about joy in\nHim.\n\n_Of the Third_\n\n[Sidenote: The Third Commandment]\n\nTo prepare oneself for God and to seek His grace by praying, hearing\nmass and the Gospel, and meditating on the sufferings of Christ, so\nthat one goes to the sacrament in a spiritual manner; for this\ncommandment requires a soul \"poor in spirit,\" [Matt. 5:3.] which\noffers its nothingness to God, that He may be its God and receive in\nit the honor due His work and Name according to the first two\ncommandments.\n\nHere belongs all that is commanded about worship, the hearing of\nsermons, and good works by which the body is made subject to the\nspirit, so that all our works may be God's and not our own.\n\n_Of the Fourth_\n\n[Sidenote: The Fourth Commandment]\n\nWilling obedience, humility, submission to all authority because it is\nGod's good-pleasure, as the Apostle St. Peter says, without retort,\ncomplaint or murmuring.\n\nHere belongs all that is written of obedience, humility,\nsubmissiveness and reverence.\n\n_Of the Fifth_\n\n[Sidenote: The Fifth Commandment]\n\nPatience, meekness, kindness, peacefulness, mercy, and a heart in all\nthings sweet and kindly, without hatred, anger or bitterness toward\nany man, even toward enemies. Here belong all the teachings about\npatience, meekness, peace and concord.\n\n_Of the Sixth_\n\nChastity, purity and modesty, in works, words, demeanor and thoughts;\nmoderation in eating, drinking and sleeping; and everything that\nfurthers chastity.\n\nHere belong all the teachings about chastity, fasting, sobriety,\nmoderation, prayer, watching, laboring and everything by which\nchastity is preserved.\n\n_Of the Seventh_\n\n[Sidenote: The Seventh Commandment]\n\nPoverty of spirit, charity, willingness to lend and give of one's\npossessions, and a life free from greed and avarice. Here belong all\nthe teachings about avarice, unrighteous wealth, usury, guile, deceit,\ninjury and hindrance of one's neighbor in temporal things.\n\n_Of the Eighth_\n\n[Sidenote: The Eight Commandment]\n\nA peaceful, wholesome tongue, that injures no one and profits every\none, that reconciles those that are at enmity, apologizes for those\nthat are slandered and takes their part; in short, truthfulness and\nsimplicity in speech. Here belong all the teachings about talking and\nkeeping silent in matters which concern one's neighbor's honor and\nrights, his cause and his salvation.\n\n_Of the Last Two_\n\n[Sidenote: The Ninth and Tenth Commandments]\n\nThat entire chastity and utter despising of temporal desire and\npossessions, which are perfectly attained only in the life to come.\n\nIn all these works we see nothing else than the love of others--that\nis, of God and of one's neighbor--which seeketh not its own, but what\nis God's and its neighbor's [1 Cor. 13:5], and surrendereth itself\nfreely to every one to be his, to serve him and to do his will.\n\nThus you see that the Ten Commandments contain, in a very brief and\norderly manner, all the teaching that is needful for man's life; and\nif a man desires to keep them, he has good works or every hour of his\nlife, and has no need to choose him other works, to run hither and\nthither, and do what is not commanded[12].\n\nAll this is evident from the act that these commandments teach nothing\nabout what a man shall do or not do or himself, or what he shall ask\nof others, but only what he shall do and not do for others--God and\nman. From this we are to learn that their fulfilment consists in love\ntoward others, not toward ourselves; for in his own behalf man already\nseeks and does and leaves undone too much. He needs not to be taught\nthis, but to be kept from it. Therefore he lives best who lives in no\nwise for himself, and he who lives for himself, lives worst; for so\nthe Ten Commandments teach. From them we learn how few men lead good\nlives; nay, as man, no one can lead a good life. Knowing this, we must\nlearn next whence we shall get the power to lead good lives and to\nkeep the Commandments[13].\n\nTHE CREED\n\n[Sidenote: Division of the Creed]\n\nThe Creed is divided into three parts[14], according to the Creed\nthree Persons of the holy and divine Trinity who are therein\nmentioned. The first part belongs to the Father, the second to the\nSon, the third to the Holy Ghost; for the Trinity is the chief thing\nin the Creed, on which everything else depends.\n\n[Sidenote: Two Ways of Believing]\n\nWe should note that there are two ways of believing. One way is to\nbelieve about God, as I do when I believe that what is said of God is\ntrue; just as I do when I believe what is said about the Turk, the\ndevil or hell. This faith is knowledge or observation rather than\nfaith. The other way is to believe in God, as I do when I not only\nbelieve that what is said about Him is true, but put my trust in Him,\nsurrender myself to Him and make bold to deal with Him, believing\nwithout doubt that He will be to me and do to me just what is said of\nHim. I could not thus believe in the Turk or in any man, however\nhighly his praises might be sung. For I can readily believe that a man\nis good, but I do not venture on that account to build my faith on\nhim.\n\n[Sidenote: True Faith]\n\nThis faith, which in He or death dares to believe that God is what He\nis said to be, is the only faith that makes a man a Christian and\nobtains from God whatever it will. This faith no false and evil heart\ncan have, for it is a living faith; and this faith is commanded in the\nFirst Commandment, which says, \"I am the Lord thy God, thou shalt have\nno other gods.\" Wherefore the word _in_ is rightly used; and it is\ndiligently to be noted that we may not say, \"I believe God the\nFather,\" or \"about the Father,\" but \"_in_ God the Father, _in_ Jesus\nChrist, _in_ the Holy Ghost.\" This faith we should render to no one\nbut to God. Therefore we confess the divinity of Jesus Christ and of\nthe Holy Ghost, when we believe in them even as we believe in the\nFather; and just as our faith in all three Persons is one and the same\nfaith, so the three Persons are one and the same God.\n\nThe First Part of the Creed\n\n[Sidenote: The First Article]\n\n_I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth._\n\n_This means--_\n\nI renounce the evil spirit, all idolatry, all sorcery and misbelief.\n\nI put my trust in no man on earth, nor in myself, my power, my\nlearning, my wealth, my piety, nor anything that I may have.\n\nI put my trust in no creature in heaven or on earth.\n\nI dare to put my trust only in the one absolute, invisible,\nincomprehensible God, Who made heaven and earth, and Who alone is over\nall creatures.\n\nOn the other hand, I am not afraid of any wickedness of the devil and\nhis company, or my God is above them all.\n\nEven though I be forsaken or persecuted by all men, I still believe in\nGod.\n\nI believe, even though I am poor, unwise, unlearned, despised or in\nneed of everything.\n\nI believe, even though I am a sinner. For this faith of mine must and\nshall soar above everything that is and everything that is not--above\nsin and virtue and all else--so that it may remain simply and purely a\nfaith in God, as the First Commandment constrains me.\n\nNor do I ask of Him a sign, to tempt Him. [Luke 11:16]\n\nI trust constantly in Him, however long He tarry, and do not prescribe\nthe goal, the time, the measure or the manner of His working, but in\nbold, true faith I leave all to His divine will.\n\nIf He is almighty, what can I lack that He cannot give me and do for\nme?\n\nIf He is Creator of heaven and earth and Lord of all things, who will\ntake anything from me, or harm me? [Rom. 8:28] Nay, how shall not all\nthings rather serve me and turn out to my good, if He to Whom all\nthings are obedient and subject wishes me well?\n\nBecause He is God, He can do the thing that is best for me, and knows\nwhat that thing is.\n\nBecause He is Father, He wills to do what is best for me, and to do it\nwith all His heart.\n\nBecause I do not doubt, but put my trust in Him, I am assuredly His\nchild. His servant and His heir forever, and as I believe, so will it\nbe done unto me. [Matt. 8:13]\n\nThe Second Part\n\n[Sidenote: The Second Article]\n\n_And in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord, Who was conceived by the\nHoly Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate,\nwas crucified, dead, and buried; He descended into hell; the third day\nHe rose again from the dead; He ascended into heaven, and sitteth on\nthe right hand of God the Father Almighty; from thence He shall come\nto judge the quick and the dead._\n\n_This means--_\n\nI believe not only that Jesus Christ is the true and only Son of God,\nbegotten from eternity in one eternal, divine nature and substance;\nbut also that all things are made subject to Him by His Father, and\nthat in His humanity He is made Lord of me and of all things which, in\nHis divinity, He, with the Father, has created.\n\nI believe that no one can believe in the Father or come to the Father\nby his own learning, works or reason, nor by anything that can be\nnamed in heaven or on earth, save only in and through Jesus Christ,\nHis only Son--that is, through faith in His name and lordship. [John\n14:6]\n\nI firmly believe that for my sake He was conceived by the Holy Ghost,\nwithout human or fleshly work, without bodily father or seed of man,\nto the end that so He might purify my sinful, fleshly, unclean,\ndamnable conception, and the conception of all who believe in Him, and\nmake it spiritual through His own and His almighty Father's gracious\nwill.\n\nI believe that for me He was born of the pure Virgin Mary, without\nharm to her bodily and spiritual virginity, in order that, by the\nmercy of His Father, He might make my sinful, damnable birth, and the\nbirth of all who believe in Him, blessed and harmless and pure.\n\nI believe that He bore His cross and passion for my sin and the sin of\nall believers, and thereby has consecrated all sufferings and every\ncross, and made them not only harmless, but salutary and highly\nmeritorious.\n\nI believe that He died and was buried to slay entirely and to bury my\nsin and the sin of all who believe in Him, and that He has destroyed\nbodily death and made it altogether harmless, nay profitable and\nsalutary.\n\nI believe that He descended into hell to overthrow and take captive\nthe devil and all his power, guile and wickedness, for me and for all\nwho believe in Him, so that henceforth the devil cannot harm me; and\nthat He has redeemed me from the pains of hell, and made them harmless\nand meritorious.\n\nI believe that He rose on the third day from the dead, to give to me\nand to all who believe in Him a new life; and that He has thereby\nquickened us with Him, in grace and in the Spirit, that we may sin no\nmore, but serve Him alone in every grace and virtue.\n\nI believe that He ascended into heaven and received from the Father\npower and honor above all angels and all creatures, and thus sitteth\non the right hand of God--that is, He is King and Lord over all that\nis God's, in heaven and hell and earth. Therefore, He can help me and\nall believers in all our necessities against all our adversaries and\nenemies.\n\nI believe that He will come again from heaven at the last day, to\njudge those who then are living and those who have died meanwhile, and\nall men, all angels and devils must come before His judgment-seat and\nsee Him in the flesh; that He will come to redeem me and all who\nbelieve in Him from bodily death and all infirmities, to punish our\nenemies and adversaries eternally, and to redeem us eternally from\ntheir power.\n\nThe Third Part\n\n[Sidenote: The Third Article]\n\n_I believe in the Holy Ghost, a Holy Christian Church, a communion of\nsaints, a forgiveness of sins, a resurrection of the body, and a life\neverlasting. Amen._\n\n_This means--_\n\nI believe not only that the Holy Ghost is one true God, with the\nFather and the Son, but that no one can come to the Father through\nChrist and His life, sufferings and death, and all that has been said\nof Him, nor attain any of His blessings, without the work of the Holy\nGhost, by which the Father and the Son teach, quicken, call, draw me\nand all that are His, make us, in and through Christ, alive and holy\nand spiritual, and thus bring us to the Father; for it is He by Whom\nthe Father, through Christ and in Christ, worketh all things and\ngiveth life to all.\n\nI believe that there is on earth, through the whole wide world, no\nmore than one holy, common[15], Christian Church, which is nothing\nelse than the congregation[16], or assembly of the saints, i. e., the\npious, believing men on earth, which is gathered, preserved, and ruled\nby the Holy Ghost, and daily increased by means of the sacraments and\nthe Word of God.\n\nI believe that no one can be saved who is not found in this\ncongregation, holding with it to one faith, word, sacraments, hope and\nlove, and that no Jew, heretic, heathen or sinner can be saved along\nwith it, unless he become reconciled to it, united with it and\nconformed to it in all things.\n\nI believe that in this congregation, or Church[17], all things are\ncommon, that everyone's possessions belong to the others and no one\nhas anything of his own; therefore, all the prayers and good works of\nthe whole congregation must help, assist and strengthen me and every\nbeliever at all times, in life and death, and thus each bear the\nother's burden, as St. Paul teaches. [Gal. 6:2]\n\nI believe that in this congregation, and nowhere else, there is\nforgiveness of sins; that outside of it, good works, however great\nthey be or many, are of no avail for the forgiveness of sins; but that\nwithin it, no matter how much, how greatly or how often men may sin,\nnothing can hinder forgiveness of sins, which abides wherever and as\nlong as this one congregation abides. To this congregation Christ\ngives the keys, and says, in Matthew xviii, \"Whatsoever ye shall bind\non earth shall be bound in heaven.\" [Matt. 18:18] In like manner He\nsays, in Matthew xvi, to the one man Peter, who stands as the\nrepresentative of the one and only Church [Matt. 16:19], \"Whatsoever\nthou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.\"\n\nI believe that there will be a resurrection of the dead, in which, by\nthe same Holy Ghost, all flesh will be raised again--that is, all men,\nin flesh, or body, the good and the wicked; and, therefore, the\nself-same flesh which has died, been buried, mouldered and been\ndestroyed in many ways shall return and become alive.\n\nI believe that after the resurrection there will be an eternal life\nfor the saints and an eternal death or sinners; and I doubt not that\nthe Father, through His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, with and in the\nHoly Ghost, will bring all this to pass--that is the meaning of\n_Amen_, \"It is assuredly and certainly true.\"\n\nHereupon follows\n\nTHE LORD'S PRAYER\n\n[Sidenote: The Preface]\n\nThe Preface and Preparation for offering the Seven Petitions to God:\n_Our Father Who art in heaven_.\n\n_This means--_\n\nO Almighty God, Who in Thy boundless mercy hast not only granted us\npermission, but by Thine only beloved Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, hast\nbidden and taught us through His merit and mediation to look to Thee\nas Father and call Thee Father, though Thou mightest in all justice be\na stern Judge of us sinners, who have sinned so often and so\ngrievously against Thy divine and gracious will, and thus have angered\nThee: Put in our hearts, by this Thy mercy, a comfortable confidence\nin Thy fatherly love, and make us feel and taste the sweetness of\nchildlike trust, so that we may joyfully name Thee Father, and know\nThee and love Thee, and call upon Thee in all our necessities. Have us\nin Thy keeping, that we may remain Thy children, and not be guilty of\nmaking Thee, dear Father, a terrible Judge, and ourselves Thine\nenemies, and not Thy children.\n\nIt is Thy will that we not only call Thee Father, but that all of us\ntogether call Thee our Father, and thus offer our prayers with one\naccord or all: Grant us, therefore, brotherly love and unity, that we\nmay know and think of one another as true brethren and sisters, and\npray to Thee, our one common Father, or all men and for every man,\neven as one child prays or another to its father.\n\nLet no one among us seek his own things or forget before Thee the\nthings of others; but, all hatred, envy and dissension laid aside\n[Phil. 2:4], may we love one another as good and true children of God,\nand thus say with one accord not \"my Father,\" but \"_our_ Father.\"\n\nMoreover, since Thou art not a father according to the flesh nor upon\nearth, but art in heaven, a spiritual Father, Who diest not and art\nnot weak, but unlike an earthly father who cannot help himself,\nwhereby Thou showest us how immeasurably better a Father Thou art, and\nteachest us to hold as nothing in comparison with Thee all earthly\nfatherhood, fatherland, friends, goods, flesh and blood: Grant us,\ntherefore, O Father, that we may also be Thy heavenly children; teach\nus to think only of our souls and of our heavenly inheritance, that\nour temporal fatherland and earthly lot may not deceive and hold and\nhinder us, and make us altogether children of this world, so that with\nreal and true cause we may say, \"Of our _heavenly_ Father,\" and may be\ntruly Thy heavenly children.\n\nThe First Petition: _Hallowed be thy Name_. The\n\n_This means--_\n\n[Sidenote: The First Petition]\n\nO Almighty God, dear heavenly Father, in this wretched vale of sorrows\nThy Holy Name is so much profaned, blasphemed and put to shame, given\nto much which is not for Thine honor, abused in many things and made a\ncloak for sin, so that even a shameful life may well be called a\nshaming and dishonoring of Thy Holy Name:\n\nGrant us, therefore, Thy divine grace, that we may be on our guard\nagainst everything which doth not serve to the praise and honor of Thy\nHoly Name. Help us, that all witchcraft and sorcery may be done away.\nHelp us, that all conjuring of the devil or of creatures by Thy Name\nmay cease. Help us, that all false beliefs and superstitions may be\nrooted out. Help us, that all heresy and false doctrine which disguise\nthemselves with Thy Name may come to naught. Help us, that no false\npretence of truth and piety and holiness may deceive any man. Help us\nthat none may swear or lie or deceive by Thy Name.\n\nProtect us against all false confidence pretending to rest upon Thy\nName. Protect us against all spiritual pride and the vainglory of\nworldly honor or reputation. Help us in all our necessities and\nweaknesses to call upon Thy Holy Name. Help us in anguish of\nconscience and in the hour of death not to forget Thy Name. Help us\nwith all our goods and in all our words and works to praise and honor\nThee alone, and not thereby to make or seek to make a name for\nourselves, but only for Thee, Whose alone are all things. Preserve us\nfrom the shameful vice of ingratitude.\n\nGrant that by our good works and life all other men may be stirred up\nto praise, not us, but Thee in us, and to honor Thy Name [Matt. 5:16].\nHelp us, that our evil works or weaknesses may give no one occasion to\nstumble and dishonor Thy Name or to cease from praising Thee. Keep us,\nthat we may not desire any temporal or eternal blessing which is not\nto the honor and praise of Thy Name, and if we pray for such things,\ngive Thou no ear to our folly. Help us so to live that we may be found\ntrue children of God, that Thy Fathername may not be named upon us\nfalsely or in vain.\n\nTo this petition belong all the psalms and prayers in which we praise,\nhonor, thank and sing to God, and here belongs the whole Hallelujah.\n\nThe Second Petition: _Thy Kingdom come_.\n\n[Sidenote: The Second Petition]\n\n_This means--_\n\nThis wretched life is a kingdom of all sin and wickedness, under one\nlord, the evil spirit, the source and head of all wickedness and sin;\nbut Thy kingdom is a kingdom of every grace and virtue under one Lord,\nJesus Christ Thy dear Son, the Head and Source of every grace and\nvirtue. Therefore help us, dear Father, and be gracious unto us.\nGrant us above all things a true and constant faith in Christ, a\nfearless hope in Thy mercy despite all the fearfulness of our sinful\nconscience, and a thorough love to Thee and to all mankind. Keep us\nfrom unbelief and despair and revengefulness.\n\nHelp us against lewdness and unchastity, and give us a love for\nvirginity and all purity. Help us out of dissension, war and discord,\nand let the virtue of Thy kingdom come--peace, and unity, and quiet\nrest. Grant that neither wrath nor any other bitterness may set up its\nkingdom within us, but that there may rule within us, by Thy grace,\nsweet simplicity and brotherly fidelity, and all kindliness, charity\nand gentleness. Help us to have within us no undue sorrow or sadness,\nbut let joy and gladness in Thy grace and mercy come to us. And help\nus, finally, that all sin may be turned away from us, so that we may\nbe filled with Thy grace, and all virtues and good works, and thus\nbecome Thy kingdom, so that all our heart, mind and spirit, with all\nour powers of body and soul, may obediently serve Thee, keep Thy\ncommandments and do Thy will, be ruled by Thee alone, and may not\nfollow after self or flesh or world or devil.\n\nGrant that this Thy kingdom, now begun in us, may increase, and daily\ngrow in power; that indifference to God's service--that subtle\nwickedness--may not overcome us and make us all away, but give us\nrather the power and earnest purpose not only to make a beginning in\nrighteousness, but boldly to go on unto perfection; as saith the\nprophet, \"Lighten mine eyes, lest I sleep the sleep of death or grow\nidle in the good life I have begun; and lest the enemy again prevail\nagainst us.\" [Ps. 13:3 f.]\n\nHelp us that we may remain constant, and that Thy future kingdom may\nfinish and complete this Thy kingdom which is here begun. Help us out\nof this sinful, perilous life; help us to long for the life to come,\nand more and more to hate this life. Help us not to fear death, but\ndesire it. Take away from us the love of living here, and all\ndependence on this present life, that thus Thy kingdom may in us be\nmade perfect and complete.\n\nTo this petition belong all the psalms, versicles and prayers in which\nwe pray to God or grace and virtue.\n\nThe Third Petition: _Thy Will be done on earth as it is in heaven_.\n\n[Sidenote: The Third Petition]\n\n_This means--_\n\nOur will, compared with Thy will, is never good, but always evil; but\nThy will is always best, lovable above all things and most to be\ndesired. Therefore, be merciful to us, dear Father, and let nothing be\ndone according to our will. Grant us and teach us to have real and\nperfect patience when our will is broken or hindered. Help us, if\nanyone speaks or is silent, does or omits anything that is contrary to\nour will, that we become not angry or wrathful, neither curse, nor\ncomplain, nor cry out, nor judge, nor condemn, nor accuse. Help us\nwith all humility to give place to those who oppose or hinder our\nwill, and letting our own will go, to praise and bless them and do\ngood to them as those who, against our own will, fulfil Thy divine\nwill, which is altogether good.\n\nGive us grace willingly to bear illness, poverty, shame, suffering and\nadversity, and to know that these are Thy divine will, or the\ncrucifying of our will. Help us to bear even injustice gladly, and\nkeep us from avenging ourselves. Suffer us not to render evil or evil\nor to resist force with force, but grant us grace to take pleasure in\nthis will of Thine, which lays these things upon us, and to give Thee\npraise and thanks. Suffer us not to lay it to the charge of the devil\nor of wicked men when anything befalls us contrary to our will, but\nhelp us to ascribe it only to Thy divine will, which orders all such\nthings for the hindering of our will and the increasing of our\nblessedness in Thy kingdom.\n\nHelp us to die willingly and joyfully, and to welcome death as a\nmanifestation of Thy will, so that impatience and despair may not make\nus disobedient toward Thee. Help us that all our members--eyes,\ntongue, heart, hands, feet--be not submissive to their own desires or\nwill, but be taken captive, imprisoned and broken in Thy will.\nPreserve us from all evil, rebellious, obstinate, stubborn and\ncapricious self-will.\n\nGrant us a true obedience, a submissiveness simple and complete in all\nthings, spiritual and worldly, temporal and eternal. Preserve us from\nthe cruel vice of aspersion, slander, back-biting, malicious judging,\ncondemning and accusing of other men. O keep far from us the great\nunhappiness and grievous plague of tongues like these; but teach us,\nwhen we see or hear in others things blameworthy and to us\ndispleasing, to hold our peace, to cover them over, to make complaint\nof them to none but Thee, to give them over to Thy will, and thus\nheartily to forgive our debtors and have sympathy with them.\n\nTeach us to know that no one can do us any harm, except he first do\nhimself a thousandfold greater harm in Thine eyes, so that we may be\nmoved thereby to mercy rather than to anger, to pity rather than\nrevenge. Help us not to rejoice when it goes ill with those who have\nnot done our will or have hurt us or otherwise displeased us by their\nway of life; help us also not to be disturbed when it goes well with\nthem.\n\n    To this petition belong all the psalms, versicles and prayers in\n    which we pray to be delivered from sin and from our enemies.\n\nThe Fourth Petition: _Give us this day our daily Bread_.\n\n[Sidenote: The Fourth Petition]\n\n_This means--_\n\nThe bread is our Lord Jesus Christ[19], Who feedeth and comforteth the\nsoul. Therefore, O heavenly Father, grant us grace, that Christ's life\nand words, His works and sufferings be preached, made known and\npreserved to us and to all the world. Help us that in all our life we\nmay have His words and works before us as a powerful example and\nmirror of all virtue. Help us in sufferings and adversities to find\nstrength and comfort in and through His cross and passion. Help us in\nfirm faith to overcome our own death by His death, and thus boldly to\nfollow our beloved Leader into the other life.\n\nGive Thy grace to all preachers, that they may preach Thy Word and\nChrist, to profit and salvation, in all the world. Help all who hear\nthe preaching of Thy Word to learn Christ, and honestly to better\ntheir lives thereby. Graciously drive out of the Holy Church all\nstrange preaching and teaching from which men do not learn Christ.\nHave mercy upon all bishops, priests, clergy and all that are in\nauthority, that they may be enlightened by Thy grace to teach and\ngovern us aright by precept and example. Preserve all that are weak in\nfaith, that they may not stumble at the wicked example of their\nrulers.\n\nPreserve us from heretical and apostate teachers, that we may remain\none, partaking of one daily bread--the daily doctrine and word of\nChrist. Graciously teach us to regard aright the sufferings of Christ,\nreceive them into our hearts, and form them in our lives, to our\nsalvation. Suffer us not at our last hour to be deprived of the true\nand holy body of Christ[20]. Help all priests to use and administer\nthe holy sacrament worthily and savingly, to the edification of the\nwhole Church. Help us and all Christians to receive the Holy Sacrament\nat its proper season, with Thy grace and to our salvation. And _summa\nsummarum_, \"Give us our daily bread,\" that is, may Christ abide in us\nand we in Him forever, and may we worthily bear His name, the name of\nChristian.\n\n    To this petition belong all prayers or psalms which are prayed for\n    rulers, and especially those or protection against false teachers,\n    those for the Jews, heretics and all that are in error, and also\n    those or all distressed and comfortless sufferers.\n\nThe Fifth Petition: _And forgive us our Debts, as we forgive our\nDebtors._\n\n[Sidenote: The Fifth Petition]\n\n_This means--_\n\nTo this petition a condition is attached, viz., that we first forgive\nour debtors. When that has been done we may say afterward, \"Forgive us\nour debts.\" That we may do this, we have prayed in the Third Petition,\n\"Thy will be done.\" It is God's will that we patiently suffer all\nthings, and not render evil for evil, nor seek revenge; but render\ngood for evil, as doth our Father in heaven. Who maketh His sun to\nrise upon the good and evil, and sendeth rain upon the thankful and\nunthankful [Matt. 5:45]. Therefore, we pray: O Father, comfort our\nconscience now and in our last hour, for it is now and will be\nhereafter in grievous terror because of our sin and Thy judgment. Send\nThy peace into our hearts, that we may with joy await Thy judgment.\nEnter not with us into the sharpness of Thy judgment, for then will no\nman be found righteous [Ps. 143:2]. Teach us, dear Father, not to rely\non our own good works or merits, or to comfort ourselves therewith;\nbut boldly to cast ourselves upon Thy boundless mercy alone. In like\nmanner, suffer us not to despair because of our blameworthy, sinful\nlife, but to deem Thy mercy higher and broader and stronger than all\nour life.\n\nHelp all men who in the hour of death or of temptation feel the\nanguish of despair, and especially N. or N. Have mercy also upon all\npoor souls in purgatory, especially N. and N. Forgive them and all of\nus our sins, comfort them and receive them into grace. Render us Thy\ngood for our evil, as Thou hast commanded us to do to others. Silence\nthe evil spirit, that cruel slanderer, accuser and magnifier of our\nsins now and at our last hour, and in all anguish of conscience, even\nas we too refrain from slander, and from magnifying the sins of other\nmen. Judge us not according to the accusation of the devil and of our\nmiserable conscience, and hearken not to the voice of our enemies who\naccuse us day and night before Thee, even as we too will not give ear\nto those who accuse and slander other men. Remove from us the heavy\nburden of sin and conscience, that with light and joyous hearts we may\nlive and die, do and suffer, trusting wholly in Thy mercy.\n\n    To this petition belong all the psalms and prayers which invoke\n    God's mercy upon sin.\n\nThe Sixth Petition: _And lead us not into Temptation_.\n\n[Sidenote: The Sixth Petition]\n\n_This means--_\n\nWe have three temptations or adversaries, the flesh, the world and the\ndevil. Therefore, we pray:\n\n[Sidenote: The Flesh]\n\nDear Father, grant us grace that we may have control over the lust of\nthe flesh. Help us to resist its desire to eat, to drink, to sleep\novermuch, to be idle, to be slothful. Help us by fasting, by\nmoderation in food and dress and sleep and work, by watching and\nlabor, to bring the flesh into subjection and it it for good works.\nHelp us to fasten its evil, unchaste inclinations and all its desires\nand incitements with Christ upon the cross, and to slay them, so that\nwe may not consent to any of its allurements, nor follow after them.\nHelp us when we see a beautiful person, or image or any other\ncreature, that it may not be a temptation, but an occasion or love of\nchastity and for praising Thee in Thy creatures. When we hear sweet\nsounds and feel things that please the senses, help us to seek therein\nnot lust, but Thy praise and honor.\n\n[Sidenote: The World]\n\nPreserve us from the great vice of avarice and the desire or the\nriches of this world. Keep us, that we may not seek this world's honor\nand power, nor consent to the desire for them. Preserve us, that the\nworld's deceit, pretences and false promises may not move us to walk\nin its ways. Preserve us, that the wickedness and the adversities of\nthe world may not lead us to impatience, revenge, wrath or other\nvices. Help us to renounce the world's lies and deceits, its promises\nand unfaithfulness and all its good and evil (as we have already\npromised in baptism to do), to abide firmly in this renunciation and\nto grow therein from day to day.\n\n[Sidenote: The Devil]\n\nPreserve us from the suggestions of the devil, that we may not consent\nto pride, become self-satisfied, and despise others for the sake of\nriches, rank, power, knowledge, beauty or other good gifts of Thine.\nPreserve us, that we all not into hatred or envy or any cause.\nPreserve us, that we yield not to despair, that great temptation of\nour faith, neither now nor at our last hour.\n\nHave in Thy keeping, heavenly Father, all who strive and labor against\nthese great and manifold temptations. Strengthen those who are yet\nstanding; raise up all those who have fallen and are overcome; and to\nall of us grant Thy grace, that in this miserable and uncertain life,\nincessantly surrounded by so many enemies, we may fight with\nconstancy, and with a firm and knightly faith, and win the everlasting\ncrown.\n\nThe Seventh Petition: _Deliver us from evil._\n\n[Sidenote: The Seventh Petition]\n\n_This means--_\n\nThis petition is a prayer against all that is evil in pain and\npunishment; as the holy Church prays in the litanies: Deliver us, O\nFather, from Thine eternal wrath and from the pains of hell. Deliver\nus from Thy strict judgment, in death and at the last day. Deliver us\nfrom sudden death. Preserve us from water and fire, from lightning and\nhail. Preserve us from famine and scarcity. Preserve us from war and\nbloodshed. Preserve us from Thy great plagues, pestilence, the French\nsickness, and other grievous diseases. Preserve us from all evils and\nnecessities of body, yet in such wise that in all these things Thy\nName may be honored, Thy Kingdom increased and Thy divine Will be\ndone. Amen.\n\nAMEN\n\n[Sidenote: The Amen]\n\nThe God help us, without doubting, to obtain all these petitions, and\nsuffer us not to doubt that Thou hast heard us and wilt hear us in\nthem all; that it is \"Yea,\" not \"Nay,\" and not \"Perhaps.\" Therefore we\nsay with joy, \"Amen--it is true and certain.\" Amen.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES\n\n\n[1] For this translation see Vol. I, p. 222, note 1.\n\n[2] The law that we have outside of divine revelation. C.f. Rom. 2:15.\n\n[3] The possessor of these letters (_Himmels-und Teuelsbriefe_) was\nthought to be under the special protection of the spirits.\n\n[4] Magical formulas.\n\n[5] Practices popularly ascribed to the witches.\n\n[6] See below, p. 364, note 1.\n\n[7] Luther believed, with the mediaeval Church, that the lending of\nmoney at interest was a sin. See above pp. 159 ff., and _Weimar Ed._,\nXXV, 293 ff.\n\n[8] i. e., In the confession made to the priest. See Vol. I, p. 285,\nand Introduction, above, p. 351.\n\n[9] C. Vol. I, pp. 58, 285.\n\n[10] In the manuals for confession with which Luther was familiar sins\nwere divided into the various classes mentioned here. C. Vol. I, pp.\n90 ff.; Gecken, _Der Bilderkatechismus des XV Jhs._, and especially v.\nZezschwitz, II, 197 ff.\n\n[11] _Serm._, 96, 2; _Migne_, XXVIII, 585.\n\n[12] Cf. Vol. I, p. 187.\n\n[13] See above, p. 355.\n\n[14] Luther has here departed from the customary Roman division of the\nCreed into twelve articles.\n\n[15] _Gemein._\n\n[16] _Gemeine._\n\n[17] _Christenheit_, cf. Vol. I, p. 338.\n\n[18] _Kirche._\n\n[19] In the catechisms of 1529 Luther abandons this interpretation of\nthe bread.\n\n[20] i. e. The sacrament of the Lord's Supper.\n\n\n\nTHE EIGHT WITTENBERG SERMONS\n\n1522\n\n\n\nINTRODUCTION\n\n\nAfter the bold utterance of unshaken conviction at the Diet of Worms\nLuther disappeared from the scene of his activities. In the darkness\nof night he was taken by the friendly \"foe\" to the secure hiding-place\nwhere the imperial proscription could not affect him. Thus he entered\nthe Wartburg on May 4, 1521. But the \"crowded canvas of the sixteenth\ncentury,\" bereft of its central figure, threatened to become mere\nportrayal of turbulence and confusion. In Wittenberg and other places\nthe new life of the soul had burst its ancient fetters and was about\nto lose its spiritual value in a destructive lateral movement. The\ninability of the hesitating elector and the helpless Melanchthon to\nstem the tide, caused Luther, in utter disregard of personal safety,\nto return to his beloved city on March 6, 1522, and on Sunday, March\n9th, and the seven days following to preach the _Eight Sermons_\nherewith given, guiding the turbulent waves of popular uprising into\nthe channels marked by faith and love.\n\nDuring his absence others had heeded the clarion call to lead the\nChurch out of its \"Babylonian Captivity,\" and had put into practice\nthe measures which would carry out the principles he had uttered. The\nmass was abolished[1], monks left the monasteries, some priests took\nwives, and communion under both kinds was instituted. With these\nmeasures Luther was in sympathy, which is evident from his letters to\nMelanchthon[2] and to Wenceslaus Link, Staupitz's successor as the\nAugustinian vicar[3], and the treatises _De votis monasticis_ and _De\nabroganda missa privata_[4]. But these treatises also show that Luther\nwas not fully informed of the disturbances accompanying the new\nmeasures. In so critical a time the absence of a great leader was soon\nmanifest. Melanchthon, ardent in the beginning, could not hold back\nthe radical procedure of Carlstadt and Zwilling.\n\nCarlstadt, moderate at first in his conduct, nevertheless had sown the\nseeds, in his teaching, which resulted in the bountiful harvest of\ndisorder Without Luther's clearness of vision and aptness of speech,\nhe likewise failed to discern the pitfalls which Luther so carefully\navoided. \"In my opinion, he who partakes only of the bread, sins.\"[5]\n\"In all things of divine appointment, the divine law must be taught\nand observed, even if it cause offence.\"[6] \"The Gregorian chant keeps\nthe spirit away from God. . . . Organs belong to theatrical\nexhibitions and princes' palaces.\"[7] \"That we have images in churches\nis wrong and contrary to the first commandment. To have carved and\npainted idols standing on the altar is even more harmful and\ndevilish.\"[8] For his Scripture proof in other places, too,\nparticularly concerning vows, Carlstadt drew largely from the Old\nTestament. On Christmas Day, 1521, he preached a sermon in which he\nopposed going to confession before receiving communion. Attired in his\nstreet garb he then proceeded to celebrate an \"evangelical\" mass by\ngiving communion in both kinds to the people, placing the elements\ndirectly into their hands. Many of the communicants had not previously\nconfessed, nor observed the prescribed rule of fasting. From a denial\nof any distinction between clergy and laity, Carlstadt finally\nprogressed to a condemnation of all scholarship and learning as\nunnecessary to an understanding of the Divine Word, since it is given\ndirectly from above[9].\n\nWithout the theological acumen of Carlstadt, and with less restraint,\nthe Augustinian monk Gabriel Zwilling labored in season and out of\nseason for the new order of things. In December the Zwickau prophets,\nNiclas Storch, Thomas Drechsel, weavers by trade, and Marcus Stubner,\na former university student, appeared in Wittenberg claiming direct\ndivine inspiration, and preached the overturn of present conditions.\nEarlier in the month (December 3d) some students and citizens had\ncaused a disturbance in the parish church and driven off the priests\nwho were saying mass. Soon after a number of citizens crowded into the\ncouncil chamber and demanded of the three councillors who presided\nover Wittenberg the abolition of the mass by law, the restitution of\nthe cup, and the release of those in custody for causing the tumult of\nDecember 3d. On Christmas Eve both the parish and the castle churches\nwitnessed scenes of wild disorder. On January 11th the monks, led by\nZwilling, destroyed all the altars except one in the convent church,\nand cast out the images. The city council, in the endeavor to restore\norder, on January 24, 1522, in full accord with a commission of the\nuniversity, adopted a \"Worthy Ordinance for the princely City of\nWittenberg,\"[10] in which the popular demands were met and a date was\nfixed on which the images should be removed from the parish\nchurch--the only one of the four churches of Wittenberg subject to the\ncouncil's control. But the excited populace did not await the day.\nTaking the matter into its own hands it invaded the church, tore\nimages and pictures from the walls and burned them up.\n\nThe council and the university turned to Luther. Immediately after his\nthree-day secret visit to Wittenberg in December, on which he had\nsensed the unrest in Wittenberg and elsewhere, he issued his _Faithful\nExhortation for all Christians to shun Riot and Rebellion_[11], in\nwhich he emphasizes the principles reiterated in the _Eight Sermons_,\nthe sufficiency of the Word and the duty of dealing gently with the\nweak. But the time for writing had passed. \"Satan had broken into his\nsheepfold\" and had caused such havoc that he could not meet it \"by\nwriting.\"[12] In spite of the elector's instruction to remain--the\nsame whose ineffectual measures had failed to avert the storm--Luther\non March 1st bade farewell to the Wartburg. On his way to Wittenberg,\nin Borna on March 5th, he wrote the famous letter to the elector[13]\nin which he declared that he desired no protection from the elector.\n\"I come to Wittenberg under much higher protection.\" He arrived in\nWittenberg on Thursday, March 6th, and on the following Sunday, March\n6th, the first Sunday in Lent, he again ascended the pulpit in the\nparish church. In an interesting report of an eye and ear\nwitness--Johann Kessler--we are told that he first gave an explanation\nof the Gospel for the day on the temptation of Christ (Matt. 4:1 ff.),\nafter which \"he dropped the text and took up the present affair.\"[14]\nThis earlier portion of the sermon has not come down to us. It may be\nthat Luther likewise first preached on the Gospel for the day on the\nfollowing Sunday, and for that reason it is called \"a brief summary\"\n(see Sermon No. 8) in the early printed editions, when, in reality, it\nis longer than that of Saturday (No. 7).\n\nThe sermons, delivered in a _vox suavis et sonora_[15], produced\nimmediate results. In a letter by Schurf, dated March 15th, even\nbefore the last of the sermons had been delivered, it is stated that\n\"Gabriel [Zwilling] has confessed that he was wrong.\" Carlstadt was\nsilenced, the city council made acknowledgment to Luther by\nsubstantial gifts and Wittenberg bowed to law and order.\n\nLuther did not publish these sermons himself. He elaborated the\nprinciples here uttered in the treatise, published a few weeks later,\n_The Reception of both Kinds in the Sacrament_[16]. A fragment,\ncovering the thoughts of sermons 1 to 4, and formerly described as a\npastoral letter to the Wittenberg congregation, is now held to be a\npiece of written preparation by Luther for these sermons[17].\n\nThe notes of a hearer of these sermons furnished the basis for the\nprinted editions. The Wednesday sermon (No. 4--On the Images) was\npublished separately at Augsburg and other places; the eight sermons\nwere published in Augsburg and Mainz. Seven editions of the former and\nsix of the latter are known.\n\nJohann Aurifaber, the publisher of Luther's Table-talk, also edited\nand published these sermons at Eisleben in 1564. His free\namplification of the older text, in an attempt to modernize it, is not\nan improvement. His considerable additions to Luther's Scripture\ncitations are from Luther's own translation of a later date. Yet for\ntwo centuries this edition remained the standard. The _Walch Edition_\nwas the first again to pay attention to the original text, however\nplacing the Aurifaber text first. (_Walch Ed._, XX.) The _Erlangen\nEdition_ (XXYHI) observes the same order. O. von Gerlach, _Luthers\nWerke_, _Auswahl seiner Hauptschriten_ (Berlin, 1841), gives only the\nolder text (V); Buchwald, in the Berlin Edition (I), gives only the\nAurifaber text. The Weimar Edition (Xc) places the old text on the\nupper half of the page, with the Aurifaber recension immediately\nbelow. The translation which follows is based on the older text as\nfound in the _Weimar Edition_, with which the other editions have been\ncompared.\n\nFor further discussion, see, in addition to the literature mentioned,\nthe biographies of Luther and the Church Histories. Also\n\nBarge's articles in the _Realencyklopadie_, X, 73 ff. and XXIII, 738\nff.; also Kolde's, IV, 639 ff. and XIII, 556 ff.\n\nBarge, _Fruhprotestantisches Gemeindechristentum in Wittenberg und\nOrlamiinde_, Leipzig, 1909.\n\nCristiani, _Du Lutheranisme au Protestantisme_, Paris, 1911.\n\nBoehmer, _Luther im Lichte der neueren Forschung_, third ed., Leipzig,\n1914.\n\nVedder, _The Reformation in Germany_. New York, 1914.\n\n            A. STEIMLE.\n\nAllentown, Pa.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES\n\n\n[1] The consequent closing of the churches except for preaching\nservices leads Muller (_Luther und Karlstadt_, p. 52) to see in this\nthe origin of the Protestant custom of closing churches on weekdays.\n\n[2] August 1, 1521. Enders, _Luthers Briewechsel_, III, 208.\n\n[3] December 20, 1521. Enders, III, 257.\n\n[4] Date of both, November, 1521. Both in _Weimar Ed._, VIII, and in\n_Erl. Ed., O; var. arg._, VI. The latter also in German (_Vom\nMisbrauch der Messe_), _Erl. Ed._, XXVIII.\n\n[5] 24 Theses (July, 1521). Barge, _Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt_,\nI, 291. Repeated in _De celebratione missae_ (October), _ibid._, 487.\n\n[6] _De scandalo et missa_ (Oct. or Nov.), _ibid._, 491.\n\n[7] _De cantu gregoriano disputatio_ (1520), _ibid._, 492.\n\n[8] _Von Abthuung der Bilder_ (January, 1522), _ibid._, 367.\n\n[9] See Kostlin-Kawesau, _Martin Luther_, I, 485.\n\n[10] Published by H. Lietzmann in _Kleine Texte_, no. 21; also in\nRichter, _Kirchenordnungen_, II, 484.\n\n[11] _Weimar Ed._, VIII, 670 ff. _Erl. Ed._, XXII, 43 ff.\n\n[12] Luther's letter to the elector on March 7th. De Wette, II, 138;\n_Weimar Ed._, Xc Introd., xlvii f.\n\n[13] Enders, III, 484.\n\n[14] Kessler, _Sabbata_, _St. Gallen_, 1902. Quoted at length in\n_Weimar Ed._, Xc, Introduction, lii.\n\n[15] Letter of Albert Burer, _Briewechsel des Beatus Rhenanus_, 303.\nSee also Introd., liii, in _Weimar Ed._, Xc.\n\n[16] _Weimar Ed._, Xb; _Erl. Ed._, XXVIII.\n\n[17] See Kawerau, _Luthers Ruckkehr von der Wartburg_, 67. Fragment in\nfull in _Weimar Ed._, Xc, Introduction, lv ff., where see also a\nrecently discovered short Latin fragment, which served a similar\npurpose.\n\n\nEIGHT SERMONS BY DR. MARTIN LUTHER\n\n\nPreached at Wittenberg in Lent, 1522\n\nTreating Briefly of the Mass, Images, Both Kinds In The Sacrament,\nEating of Meats, Private Confession, etc.\n\n\nTHE FIRST SERMON\n\nINVOCAVIT SUNDAY\n\n\n[Sidenote: The Chief Things]\n\nThe challenge of death comes to us all, and no one can die for\nanother. Every one must fight his own battle with death by himself,\nalone. We can shout into one another's ears, but every one must be\nprepared finally to meet death alone. I will not be with you then, nor\nyou with me. Therefore every one must know for himself the chief\nthings in Christianity, and be armed therewith. They are the same\nwhich you, my beloved, have long ago heard from me.\n\nIn the first place, We must know that we are the children of wrath,\nand all our works, intentions and thoughts are nothing at all. To\nprove this point we must have a clear, strong text, and although there\nare many such in the Bible I will not overwhelm you with them, but ask\nyou to note just this one, \"We are all the children of wrath.\" [Eph.\n2:3] And pray, do not boast in reply: I have builded an altar, given a\nfoundation for masses, etc.\n\nSecondly, That God has sent us His only-begotten Son that we may\nbelieve in Him, and whosoever will put his trust in Him, should be\nfree from sin and a child of God, as John declares in the first\nchapter, \"He gave them power to become the sons of God, even to them\nthat believe in his name.\" [John 1:12] Here we should all be\nthoroughly at home in the Bible and be ready with many passages to\nconfront the devil. In respect to these two points nothing seems to be\nlacking or amiss, but they have been rightly preached to you; I should\nbe very sorry if it were otherwise. Nay, I am well aware and I dare\nsay, that you are more learned herein than I, and that there are not\nonly one, two, three, or four, but perhaps ten or more, who have this\nwisdom and enlightenment.\n\n[Sidenote: Love]\n\nThirdly, There must also be love, and through love we must do unto one\nanother as God has done unto us through faith. For without love faith\nis nothing, as St. Paul says, I Cor. ii, \"If I could speak with the\ntongues of angels, and of the highest things in faith, and have not\nlove, I am nothing.\" [1 Cor. 13:1] And here, dear friends, have you\nnot grievously failed? I see no signs of love among you, and I observe\nthat you have not been grateful to God for His rich gifts and\ntreasures.\n\nLet us beware lest Wittenberg become Capernaum. I notice that you have\na great deal to say of the doctrine which is preached to you, of faith\nand of love. This is not surprising; an ass can almost intone the\nlessons, and why should you not be able to repeat the doctrines and\nformulas? Dear friends, the kingdom of God,--and we are that\nkingdom,--consists not in speech or in words, but in deeds, in works\nand exercises. God does not want hearers and repeaters of words, but\ndoers and followers who exercise themselves in the faith that worketh\nby love. For a faith without love is not enough--rather it is not\nfaith at all [1 Cor. 13:12], but a counterfeit of faith, just as a\nface seen in a mirror is not a real face, but merely the reflection of\na face.\n\n[Sidenote: Patience]\n\nFourthly, We likewise need patience. For whoever has faith, trusts in\nGod and shows love to his neighbor, practicing it day by day, must\nneeds suffer persecution. For the devil never sleeps, and continually\nmolests. But patience works and produces hope, which freely yields\nitself to God and finds solace in Him [Rom. 5:4]. Thus faith, by much\naffliction and persecution, ever increases, and is strengthened day by\nday. And the heart which by God's grace has received such virtues must\never be active and freely expend itself for the benefit and service of\nthe brethren, even as it has received from God.\n\n[Sidenote: Forbearance]\n\nAnd here, dear friends, one must not insist upon his rights, but must\nsee what may be useful and helpful to his brother, as St. Paul says,\n_Omnia mihi licent, sed non omnia expediunt_, \"All things are lawful\nfor me, but not all things are expedient.\" [1 Cor. 6:12] We are not\nall equally strong in faith; some of you have a stronger faith than I.\nTherefore we must not look upon ourselves, or our strength, or our\nrank, but upon our neighbor, for God has said through Moses, \"I have\nborne and nourished thee, even as a mother her child.\" [Deut. 1:31]\nHow does a mother nourish her child? First, she feeds it with milk,\nthen gruel, then eggs and soft food. If she weaned it and at once gave\nit the ordinary, coarse food, the child would never thrive. So we\nshould also deal with our brother, have patience with him for a time,\nsuffer his weakness and help him bear it; we should give him milk-food\n[1 Peter 2:2], too, as was done with us, until he likewise grows\nstrong, and thus we do not travel heavenward alone, but bring the\nbrethren, who are not now on our side, with us. If all mothers were to\nabandon their children, where would we have been? Dear brother, if you\nhave suckled long enough, do not at once cut off the breast, but let\nthy brother be nourished also. I would not have gone so far as you\nhave done, if I had been here. What you did was good, but you have\ngone too fast. For there are also brothers and sisters on the other\nside who belong to us, and must still be won.\n\nLet me illustrate. The sun has two properties, light and heat. No king\nhas power enough to bend or guide the light of the sun; it remains\nstraight in the place where it shines. But the heat may be turned and\nguided, and yet is ever about the sun. Thus the faith must always\nremain pure and immovable in the heart, never wavering; but love moves\nand is guided, according as our neighbors may grasp it or follow us.\nThere are some who can run, others must walk, still others can hardly\ncreep. Therefore we must not look upon our own, but upon our brother's\npowers, so that he who is weak in faith, and attempts to follow the\nstrong, may not be destroyed of the devil. Therefore, dear brethren,\nobey me. I have never been a destroyer, and I was also the very first\nwhom God called to this work. Neither can I run away, but must remain\nas long as it pleases God. I was the first, too, to whom God revealed\nit, to preach His Word to you; moreover, I am sure that you have the\npure Word of God.\n\n[Sidenote: Abolishing the Mass]\n\nLet us, therefore, take up this matter with fear and humility, cast\nourselves at one another's feet, join hands with each other, and help\none another. I will do my part, which is no more than my duty, for I\nlove you even as I love my own soul. For here we battle not against\npope or bishop, but against the devil [Eph. 6:12], and do you imagine\nhe is asleep? He sleeps not, but sees the true light rising, and to\nkeep it from shining into his eyes he would make a flank attack--and\nhe will succeed, if we are not on our guard. I know him well[1], and I\nhope, too, that with the help of God I am his master. But if we yield\nhim but an inch, we must soon look to it how we may be rid of him.\nTherefore all those have erred who have consented and helped to\nabolish the mass--in itself a good undertaking, but not accomplished\nin an orderly way. You say it was right according to the Scriptures.\nI agree, but what becomes of order? For it was done in wantonness,\nwith no regard to proper order and with offence to your neighbor. If,\nbeforehand, you had called upon God in earnest prayer, and had\nobtained the aid of the authorities, one could be certain that it had\ncome from God. I, too, would have taken steps toward the same end if\nit had been a good thing to do; and if the mass were not so evil a\nthing, I would introduce it again. For I cannot defend your action, as\nI have just said. To the papists and the blockheads I could defend it,\nfor I could say: How do you know whether it was done with good or bad\nintention, since the work in itself was really a good work? But I can\nfind nothing to reply to the devil. For if on their deathbeds the\ndevil reminds those who began this affair of texts like these, \"Every\nplant, which My father hath not planted, shall be rooted up,\" [Matt.\n15:13] or \"I have not sent them, yet they ran,\" [Jer. 23:21] how will\nthey be able to withstand?[2] He will cast them into hell. But I have\na weapon to brandish in the devil's face, so that the wide world will\nbecome too small for him: I know that in spite of my reluctance I was\nregularly called by the Council to preach in this place. And I would\nthat you should have the same assurance as I. You could so easily have\nconsulted me about the matter.\n\n[Sidenote: \"Must\" and \"Free\"]\n\nI was not so far away that you could not reach me with a letter,\nespecially since I did not interfere with you in any way. Did you want\nto begin something, and then leave me to shoulder the responsibility?\nThat is more than I can undertake, and I will not do it. Here one can\nsee that you have not the Spirit, in spite of your deep knowledge of\nthe Scriptures. Take note of these two things, \"must\" and \"free.\" The\n\"must\" is that which necessity requires, and which must ever be\nunyielding; as, for instance, the faith, which I shall never permit\nany one to take away from me, but which I must always keep in my heart\nand freely confess before every one. But \"free\" is that in which I\nhave choice, and may use or not, yet in such wise that it profit my\nbrother and not me. Now do not make a \"must\" out of what is \"free,\" as\nyou have done, so that you may not be called to account for those who\nwere led astray by your exercise of liberty without love. For if you\nentice any one to eat meat on Friday, and he is troubled about it on\nhis deathbed, and thinks, Woe is me, for I have eaten meat and I am\nlost! God will call you to account for that soul. I would like to\nbegin many things, in which but few would follow me; but what is the\nuse? I know that those who have begun this thing, when it comes to the\npoint, cannot maintain themselves, and will be the first to retreat.\nHow would it be, if I brought the people to the point of attack, and\nthough I had been the foremost to exhort others, I would then flee,\nand not face death with courage? How the poor people would be\ndeceived!\n\nLet us, therefore, feed others also with the milk which we received,\nuntil they, too, become strong in the faith. For there are many who\nare otherwise in accord with us and who would also gladly accept this\none thing, but they do not yet fully understand it--all such we drive\naway. Therefore, let us show love to our neighbors, or our work will\nnot endure. We must have patience with them for a time, and not cast\nout him who is weak in the faith; much more should we regulate our\ndoing and our not doing according to the demands of love, provided no\ninjury is done to our faith. If we do not earnestly pray to God, and\nact circumspectly in this matter, the thing looks to me as if all the\nmisery which we have begun to cause the papists will all upon us.\nTherefore I could no longer remain away, but was compelled to come and\nsay these things to you.\n\nThis is enough about the mass; tomorrow we shall treat of the images.\n\n\nTHE SECOND SERMON\n\nMONDAY AFTER INVOCAVIT\n\n\n[Sidenote: Necessity and Choice]\n\nDear Friends: You heard yesterday the characteristics of a Christian\nman, how his whole life is faith and love. Faith is directed toward\nGod, love toward man and one's neighbor, and consists in such love and\nservice for him as we have received from God without our work and\nmerit. Thus there are two things: the one, which is the most needful,\nand which must be done in one way and no other; the other, which is a\nmatter of choice and not of necessity, which may be kept or not,\nwithout endangering faith or incurring hell. In both, love must deal\nwith our neighbor in the same manner as God has dealt with us; it must\nwalk the straight road, straying neither to the let nor to the right.\nIn the things which are \"musts\" and are matters of necessity, such as\nbelieving in Christ, love nevertheless never uses force or undue\nconstraint. Thus the mass is an evil thing, and God is displeased with\nit, because it is performed as a sacrifice and work of merit.\nTherefore it must be abolished. Here there is no room for question,\njust as little as if you should ask whether you should pray to God.\nHere we are entirely agreed: the private mass must be abolished, as I\nhave said in my writings[3]. And I heartily wish it would be abolished\neverywhere and only the evangelical mass for all the people be\nretained. Yet Christian love should not employ harshness here nor\nforce the matter. It should be preached and taught with tongue and\npen, that to hold mass in such a manner is a sin, but no one should be\ndragged away from it by force. The matter should be let to God; His\nword should do the work alone, without our work. Why? Because it is\nnot in my power to fashion the hearts of men as the potter moulds the\nclay, and to do with them as I please. I can get no farther than to\nmen's ears; their hearts I cannot reach. And since I cannot pour faith\ninto their hearts, I cannot, nor should I, force any one to have\nfaith. That is God's work alone, who causes faith to live in the\nheart. Therefore we should give free course to the Word, and not add\nour works to it. We have the _jus verbi_[4], but not the\n_executio_[5]; we should preach the Word, but the consequences must be\nlet to God's own good pleasure.\n\n[Sidenote: Compulsion and Persuasion]\n\nNow if I should rush in and abolish the mass by force, there are many\nwho would be compelled to consent to it and yet not know their own\nminds, but say: I do not know if it is right or wrong, I do not know\nwhere I stand, I was compelled by force to submit to the majority. And\nthis forcing and commanding results in a mere mockery, an external\nshow, a fool's play, man-made ordinances, sham-saints and hypocrites.\nFor where the heart is not good, I care nothing at all for the work.\nWe must first win the hearts of the people. And that is done when I\nteach only the Word of God, preach the Gospel and say: \"Dear lords or\npastors, desist from holding the mass, it is not right, you are\nsinning when you do it; I cannot refrain from telling you this.\" But I\nwould not make it an ordinance for them, nor urge a general law; he\nwho would follow me could do so, and he who refused would remain\nwithout. In the latter case the Word would sink into the heart and\nperform its work. Thus he would become convinced and acknowledge his\nerror, and all away from the mass; to-morrow another would do the\nsame, and thus God would accomplish more with His Word than if you and\nI would forge into one all power and authority. For if you have won\nthe heart, you have won the whole man--and the mass must finally fall\nof its own weight and come to an end. And if the hearts and minds of\nall men are united in the purpose--abolish the mass; but if all are\nnot heart and soul for its abolishment--leave it in God's hands, I\nbeseech you, otherwise the result will not be good. Not, indeed, that\nI would again set up the mass; I let it live in God's name. Faith must\nnot be chained and imprisoned, nor bound by an ordinance to any work.\nThis is the principle by which you must be governed. For I am sure you\nwill not be able to carry out your plans, and if you should carry them\nout with such general laws, then I will recant all the things that I\nhave written and preached, and I will not support you, and therefore I\nask you plainly: What harm can the mass do to you? You have your\nfaith, pure and strong, toward God, and the mass cannot hurt you.\n\n[Sidenote: Paul's Method]\n\nLove, therefore, demands that you have compassion on the weak, as all\nthe apostles had. Once, when Paul came to Athens, a mighty city, he\nfound in the temple many altars, and he went from one to the other and\nlooked at them all [Acts 17:16 ff.], but did not touch any one of them\neven with his foot. But he stood in the midst of the market-place and\nsaid they were all idolatrous works, and begged the people to forsake\nthem; yet he did not destroy one of them by force. When the word took\nhold of their hearts, they forsook their idols of their own accord,\nand in consequence idolatry fell of itself. Now, if I had seen that\nthey held mass, I would have preached and admonished them concerning\nit. Had they heeded my admonition, they would have been won; if not, I\nwould nevertheless not have torn them from it by the hair or employed\nany force, but simply allowed the Word to act, while I prayed for\nthem. For the Word created heaven and earth and all things; the Word\nmust do this thing, and not we poor sinners.\n\n[Sidenote: Luther's Method]\n\n[Sidenote: Jerome and Augustine]\n\nIn conclusion: I will preach it, teach it, write it, but I will\nconstrain no man by force, for faith must come freely without\ncompulsion. Take myself as an example. I have opposed the indulgences\nand all the papists, but never by force. I simply taught, preached,\nwrote God's Word; otherwise I did nothing. And then while I slept, or\ndrank Wittenberg beer with my Philip[6] and with Amsdor[7], the Word\nso greatly weakened the papacy, that never a prince or emperor\ninflicted such damage upon it. I did nothing; the Word did it all. Had\nI desired to foment trouble, I could have brought great bloodshed upon\nGermany, Yea, I could have started such a little game at Worms that\neven the emperor would not have been safe. But what would it have\nbeen? A fool's play. I did nothing; I left it to the Word. What do you\nsuppose is Satan's thought, when an effort is made to do things by\nviolence? He sits back in hell and thinks: How fine a game these fools\nwill make for me! But it brings him distress when we only spread the\nWord, and let it alone do the work. For it is almighty and takes\ncaptive the hearts, and if the hearts are captured the evil work will\nall of itself. Let me cite an instance. Aforetime there were sects,\ntoo, Jewish and Gentile Christians, differing on the law of Moses in\nrespect to circumcision. The former would keep it, the latter not [1\nCor. 7:18 ff.]. Then came Paul and preached that it might be kept or\nnot, it mattered not one way or the other; they should make no \"must\"\nof it, but leave it to the choice of the individual; to keep it or\nnot, was immaterial. Later came Jerome, who would have made a \"must\"\nout of it, and wanted laws and ordinances to prohibit it. Then came\nSt. Augustine, who held to the opinion of St. Paul: it might be kept\nor not, as one wished; St. Jerome had missed the meaning of St. Paul\nby a hundred miles. The two doctors bumped heads rather hard over the\nproposition. But when St. Augustine died, St. Jerome accomplished his\npurpose. After that came the popes; they would add something of their\nown, and they, too, made laws. Thus out of the making of one law grew\na thousand laws, until they have completely buried us under laws. And\nso it will be here; one law will soon make two, two will increase to\nthree, and so forth.\n\nLet this be enough at this time concerning the things that are\nnecessary, and let us beware lest we lead astray those of weak\nconscience.\n\n\nTHE THIRD SERMON\n\nTUESDAY AFTER INVOCAVIT\n\n\nWe have heard the things most necessary in Christian life, and what is\na necessary result, namely, the doing away with the private mass. For\nthe works which are necessary are those which God has either commanded\nor forbidden, according to the appointment of the Majesty on high. But\nno one shall be dragged to them by the hair, or kept from them by\nforce, for I can drive no man to heaven with a club. I said this\nplainly enough, and I believe you understood what I said.\n\n[Sidenote: Nonessentials]\n\n[Sidenote: Marriage of Monks and Nuns]\n\nWe shall now consider the things that are not matters of necessity,\nbut are let to our free choice by God, and which we may keep or not;\nfor instance, whether one shall marry or not, or whether monks and\nnuns shall leave the cloisters. These things are matters of choice and\nmust not be forbidden by any one, and if they are forbidden, the\nforbidding is wrong, since it is contrary to God's appointment. In the\nthings that are free, such as being married or remaining single, you\nshould do on this wise: If you can restrain yourself without burdening\nyour conscience thereby, do so by all means, but there must be no\ngeneral law, and every one shall be perfectly free. Any priest, monk\nor nun who cannot restrain the desires of the flesh, should marry, and\nthus relieve the burden of conscience. But see to it that you be\nwell-armed and fortified, so that you can stand before God and the\nworld when you are assailed, and especially when the devil attacks you\nin the hour of death. It is not enough to say: This man or that has\ndone the same, I followed the example of the crowd, according to the\npreaching of the provost[8] or Dr. Carlstadt, or Gabriel[9], or\nMichael[10]. Not so, but every one must stand on his own feet and be\nprepared to give battle to the devil. You must rest upon a strong and\nclear text of Scripture if you would stand the test. If you cannot do\nthat, you will never withstand,--the devil will pluck you like a\nwithered leaf.  Therefore the priests who have taken wives, and the\nnuns who have taken husbands, in order to save their consciences must\nstand squarely upon a clear text of Scripture, such as this one by St.\nPaul--although there are many more: \"In the latter times some shall\ndepart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines\nof devils (methinks Paul uses plain language here!) forbidding to\nmarry and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created.\"\nThis text the devil shall not overthrow nor devour, it shall rather\noverthrow and devour him. Therefore any monk or nun who is too weak to\nkeep the vow of chastity, should conscientiously examine himself; if\nheart and conscience are strong, so that he can defend himself with a\ngood conscience, let him marry. Would to God all monks and nuns could\nhear this sermon and properly understood this matter and would all\nforsake the cloisters and thus all the cloisters in the world cease to\nexist--this is my earnest desire. But now they have no understanding\nof the matter (for no one preaches it to them), and hearing that in\nother places many are leaving the cloisters, who however are\nwell-prepared or such a step, they would follow their example, but\nhave not yet fortified their consciences and do not know that it is a\nmatter of liberty. This is bad, although it is better that the evil\nshould be outside than inside[11]. Therefore I say, what God has made\nfree shall remain free, and you must not obey if some one forbids it,\neven as the pope has done, the Antichrist. He who can do so without\nharm and or love of his neighbor, may wear a cowl or a tonsure, since\nit will not injure his faith; wearing a cowl will not kill him.\n\n[Sidenote: Monks' Vows]\n\nThus, dear friends, it is plain enough, and I believe you ought to\nunderstand it and not make liberty a law, saying: This priest has\ntaken a wife, therefore all priests must take wives. Not at all. Or\nthis monk or that nun has left the cloister, therefore they must all\ncome out. Not at all. Or this man has broken the images and burnt\nthem, therefore all images must be burned--not at all, dear brother!\nAnd again, this priest has no wife, therefore no priest dare marry.\nNot at all! They who cannot retain their chastity should take wives,\nand for others who can be chaste, it is good that they restrain\nthemselves, as those who live in the spirit and not in the flesh.\nNeither should they be troubled about the vows they have made, such as\nthe monks' vows of obedience, chastity and poverty (though they are\nrich enough withal). For we cannot vow anything that is contrary to\nGod's commands. God has made it a matter of liberty to marry or not to\nmarry, and thou fool undertakest to turn this liberty into a vow\nagainst the ordinance of God? Therefore you must leave liberty alone\nand not make a compulsion out of it; your vow is contrary to God's\nliberty. Suppose I should vow to strike my father on the mouth, or to\nsteal some one's property, do you believe God would be pleased with\nsuch a vow? And as little as I ought to keep a vow to strike my father\non the mouth, so little ought I to abstain from marriage because I am\nbound by a vow of chastity, for in both cases God has ordered it\notherwise. God has ordained that I should be free to eat fish or\nflesh, and there should be no commandment concerning them. Therefore\nall the Carthusians[12] and all monks and nuns forsake the ordinance\nand liberty which God has given when they believe that if they eat\nmeat they are defiled.\n\n[Sidenote: The Images]\n\n[Sidenote: Moses and Images]\n\nBut we must come to the images, and concerning them also it is true\nthat they are unnecessary, and we are free to have them or not,\nalthough it would be much better if we did not have them. I am not\npartial to them. A great controversy arose on the subject of images\nbetween the Roman emperor and the pope; the emperor held that he had\nthe authority to banish the images, but the pope insisted that they\nshould remain, and both were wrong. Much blood was shed, but the pope\nemerged as victor and the emperor lost[13]. What was it all about?\nThey wished to make a \"must\" out of that which is free, and that God\ncannot tolerate. Do you wish to change the ordering of the Majesty on\nhigh? Not so; you will not do any such thing. You read in the Law,\nExodus xx, \"Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any\nlikeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth\nbeneath, or that is in the water under the earth.\" [Ex. 20:4] There\nyou take your stand; that is your ground. Now let us see! When our\nadversaries shall say: The first commandment aims at this, that we\nshould worship one God alone and not any image, even as it is said\nimmediately following, \"Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them nor\nserve them,\" and declare that the worship of images is forbidden and\nnot the making of them, they disturb and unsettle our foundation for\nus. And if you reply: The text says, \"Thou shalt not make any images,\"\nthey answer: It also says, \"Thou shalt not worship them.\" In the face\nof such uncertainty who would be so bold as to destroy the images? Not\nI. But let us go farther. They say: Did not Noah, Abraham, Jacob build\naltars? And who will deny that? We must admit it. Again, did not Moses\nerect a brazen serpent [Num. 21:9], as we read in his fourth book? How\ncan you say Moses forbids the making of images when he himself makes\none? It seems to me, such a serpent is an image, too. How shall we\nanswer that? Again, do we not read that two birds were erected on the\nmercy-seat, the very place where God willed that He should be\nworshiped? [Ex. 37:7] Here we must admit, that we may make images and\nhave images but we must not worship them, and when they are worshiped,\nthey should be put away and destroyed, just as King Hezekiah brake in\npieces the serpent erected by Moses [2 Kings 18:4]. And who will be so\nbold as to say, when called to account: They worship the images. They\nwill answer: Art thou the man who dares to accuse us of worshiping the\nimages? Do not believe that they will acknowledge it. To be sure it is\ntrue, but we cannot make them admit it. Remember how they acted when I\ncondemned works without faith. They said: Do you believe that we have\nno faith, or that our works are performed without faith? I can do\nnothing more than put my lute back in its pocket; give them a hair's\nbreadth, and they take a hundred miles.\n\n[Sidenote: St. Paul and the Twins]\n\nTherefore it should have been preached that images were nothing and\nthat God is not served by their erection, and they would have fallen\nof themselves. That is what I did; that is what Paul did in Athens,\nwhen he went into their churches and saw all their idols[14]. He did\nnot strike at any of them, but stood in the market-place and said, \"Ye\nmen of Athens, ye are all idolatrous.\" [Acts 17;22] He preached\nagainst their idols, but he overthrew none by force. And you would\nrush in, create an uproar, break down the altars and overthrow the\nimages? Do you really believe you can abolish the images on this wise?\nNay, you will only set them up more firmly. Even if you overthrew the\nimages in this place, do you think you have overthrown those in\nNurnberg and the rest of the world? Not at all, St. Paul, as we read\nin the Book of Acts, sat in a ship on whose prow were painted or\ncarved the Twin Brothers[15]. He went on board and did not bother\nabout it at all, neither did he break them off. Why must Luke describe\nthe Twins at this place? Without doubt he wanted to show that outward\nthings could do no harm to faith, if only the heart does not cleave to\nthem nor put its trust in them. This is what we must preach and teach,\nand let the Word alone do the work, as I said before. The Word must\nfirst capture the hearts of men and enlighten them,--we cannot do it.\nTherefore the apostles gloried in their service, _ministerium_, and\nnot in its effect, _executio_.\n\nWe will let this be enough or to-day, and pray God for His grace.\n\n\nTHE FOURTH SERMON WEDNESDAY AFTER INVOCAVIT\n\n\n[Sidenote: The Abuse of Images]\n\nDear Friends: We have heard the things which are necessary, as for\ninstance, that the mass is regarded as a sacrifice[16]. Then we\nconsidered the things which are left to our liberty, such as marriage,\nthe monastic life, the abolishing of images. We have treated these\nfour subjects, and have said that in all these matters love is the\ncaptain.  On the subject of images, in particular, we saw that they\nought to be abolished if they are going to be worshiped, otherwise\nnot, although I wish they were abolished everywhere because they are\nabused,--it is useless to deny it. For whoever places an image in a\nchurch, imagines he has performed a service unto God and a good work,\nwhich is downright idolatry. And this, the greatest, foremost and\nhighest reason or abolishing the images, you have neglected, and taken\nup the very lowest. For I suppose there is scarcely any man who does\nnot understand that yonder crucifix is not my God, for my God is in\nheaven, but that this is simply a sign. But the world is full of the\nother abuse, for who would place an image of silver or of wood in a\nchurch, if he did not think that in so doing he was doing God a\nservice?  Think you that Duke Frederick, the bishop of Halle, and the\nothers would have placed so many silver images in the churches, if\nthey thought it counted nothing before God? Nay, they would not do it.\nBut this is not sufficient reason to abolish, destroy and burn all the\nimages; and why? Because we must admit that there are still people who\nhave not the wrong opinion of them, but to whom they may be useful.\nAlthough they are few, yet we cannot and should not condemn anything\nwhich is still useful to the devotions of any man. But you should have\ntaught that images are nothing, God cares nothing for them, and that\nHe is not served, nor pleased when we make an image for Him, but that\nwe would do better to give a poor man a gold-piece than to give God a\ngolden image, or God has forbidden the latter, but not the former. If\nthey had heard this teaching, that images count or nothing, they would\nhave ceased of their own accord, and the images would have fallen\nwithout any uproar or tumult, even as it was already coming to pass.\n\n[Sidenote: The Devil's Game]\n\nWe must, therefore, be on our guard, for the devil is after us,\nthrough his apostles, with all his craft and cunning. Now, although it\nis true, and no one can deny that the images are evil because they are\nabused, nevertheless we must not on that account reject them, nor\ncondemn anything because it is abused. That would result in utter\nconfusion. God has commanded us not to lift up our eyes unto the sun,\netc. [Deut. 4:19], that we may not worship them, for they are created\nto serve all nations. But there are many people who worship the sun\nand the stars. Shall we, therefore, essay to pull the sun and stars\nfrom the skies? Nay, we will not do it. Again, wine and women bring\nmany a man to misery and make a fool of him. Shall we, therefore, kill\nall the women and pour out all the wine? Again, gold and silver cause\nmuch evil, shall we, therefore, condemn them? Nay, if we would drive\naway our one worst enemy, who does us the most harm, we would have to\nkill ourselves, for we have no greater enemy than our own heart, even\nas Jeremiah says, \"The heart of man is crooked,\" [Jer. 17:9] or, as I\ntake the meaning, \"always twisting to one side or the other.\" And what\ngood would that do us?\n\nHe who would blacken the devil must have good charcoal, for he, too,\nwears fine clothes and goes to the fair. But I can catch him by asking\nhim: Do you not place the images in the churches because you think it\na special service of God? and when he says Yes, as he must, you may\nconclude that what was meant as a service of God he has turned into\nidolatry by abusing the images; he eagerly sought what God has not\ncommanded and neglected God's positive command, to help the neighbor.\nBut I have not yet caught him; he escapes me by saying: I help the\npoor, too; cannot I give to my neighbor and at the same time place\nimages in churches? That is not true,--for who would not rather give\nhis neighbor a gold-piece, than God a golden image! Nay, he would not\ntrouble himself about placing images in churches if he believed that\nGod was not served thereby. Therefore I freely admit, images are\nneither here nor there, neither evil nor good, we may have them or\nnot, as we please. This trouble has been caused by you; the devil\nwould not have accomplished it with me, for I cannot deny that it is\npossible to find some one to whom images are useful. And if I were\nasked about it, I would confess that none of these things give offence\nto me, and if just one man were found upon earth who used the images\naright, the devil would soon draw the conclusion against me: Why\ncondemnest thou that which is still useful in worship? This challenge\nI could not answer; he would have successfully defied me. He would not\nhave got nearly so far if I had been here. He played a bold game, and\nwon, although it does no harm to the Word of God. You wanted to paint\nthe devil black, but forgot the charcoal and used chalk. If you would\nfight the devil, you must be well versed in the Scriptures, and,\nbesides, use them at the right time.\n\n[Sidenote: Of Meats]\n\nLet us proceed and speak of the eating of meats. It is true that we\nare free to eat any manner of food, meats, fish, eggs or butter. This\nno one can deny. God has given us this liberty. That is true;\nnevertheless we must know how to use our liberty, and treat the weak\nbrother differently from the stubborn. Observe, then, how you must use\nthis liberty.\n\nFirst of all, If you cannot give up meat without harm to yourself, or\nif you are sick, you may eat whatever you like, and if any one takes\noffence, let him be offended. And if the whole world took offence, yet\nyou are not committing a sin, for God can excuse you in view of the\nliberty He has so graciously bestowed upon you, and of the necessities\nof your health, which would be endangered by your abstinence.\n\n[Sidenote: Liberty and Law]\n\nSecondly, If you should be pressed to eat fish instead of meat on\nFriday, and to eat fish and abstain from eggs and butter during Lent,\netc., as the pope has done with his fools' laws, then you must in no\nwise allow yourself to be drawn away from the liberty in which God has\nplaced you, but do just the contrary to spite him, and say: Because\nyou forbid me to eat meat, and presume to turn my liberty into law, I\nwill eat meat in spite of you. And thus you must do in all other\nthings which are matters of liberty. To give you an example: If the\npope, or any one else would force me to wear a cowl, just as he\nprescribes it, I would take of the cowl just to spite him. But since\nit is left to my own free choice, I wear it or take it off, according\nto my pleasure.\n\n[Sidenote: Peter and the Gentiles]\n\nThirdly, There are some who are still weak in faith, who ought to be\ninstructed, and who would gladly believe as we do. But their ignorance\nprevents them, and if this were faithfully preached to them, as it was\nto us, they would be one with us. Toward such well-meaning people we\nmust assume an entirely different attitude from that which we assume\ntoward the stubborn. We must bear patiently with them and not use our\nliberty, since it brings no peril or harm to body or soul, nay, rather\nis salutary, and we are doing our brothers and sisters a great service\nbesides. But if we use our liberty without need, and deliberately\ncause offence to our neighbor, we drive away the very one who in time\nwould come to our faith. Thus St. Paul circumcised Timothy because\nsimple-minded Jews had taken offence [Acts 16:3]; he thought, What\nharm can it do, since they are offended because of their ignorance?\nBut when, in Antioch, they would insist that he ought and must\ncircumcise Titus, Paul withstood them all and to spite them would not\nhave Titus circumcised [Gal. 2:3]. And he held his ground. He did the\nsame when St. Peter by the exercise of his liberty caused a wrong\nconception in the minds of the unlearned [Gal. 2:11 ff.]. It was on\nthis wise: When Peter was with the Gentiles, he ate pork and sausage\nwith them, but when the Jews came in, he would not touch this food and\nate no more with them. Then the Gentiles who had become Christians,\nthought: Alas! we, too, must be like the Jews, eat no pork and live\naccording to the law of Moses. But when Paul found that it would\ninjure the liberty of the Gospel, he reproved Peter publicly and read\nhim an apostolic lecture, saying: \"If thou, being a Jew, livest after\nthe manner of the Gentiles, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live\nas do the Jews?\" [Gal. 2:14] Thus we, too, should order our lives and\nuse our liberty at the proper time, so that Christian liberty may\nsuffer no injury, and no offence be given to our weak brothers and\nsisters who are still without the knowledge of this liberty.\n\n\nTHE FIFTH SERMON: A SERMON ON THE SACRAMENT THURSDAY AFTER INVOCAVIT\n\n\nWe have heard of the things that are necessary, such as the mass,\nwhich is regarded as a sacrifice[17], and of the unnecessary things,\nsuch as the leaving of monasteries by monks, the marriage of priests,\nand the images. We have seen how we must treat these matters, that no\ncompulsion or law must be made of them, and that no one shall be\ndragged from them by the hair, but that we must let the Word of God\nalone do the work. Let us now consider how we must observe the blessed\nsacrament.\n\n[Sidenote: Foolish Law of the Pope]\n\nYou have heard how I preached against the foolish law the Pope of the\npope and opposed his precept[18], that no woman shall wash the\naltar-linen on which the body of Christ has lain, even if it be a pure\nnun, except it first be washed by a pure priest. Likewise, when any\none touches the body of Christ with the hand, the priests come running\nand scrape his fingers, and much more of the same sort. But when a\npriest is incontinent, the pope winks at it. If the woman bears a\nchild, he lets that pass, too. The altar-linen and the sacrament,\nhowever, dare not be touched.\n\n[Sidenote: Handling the Sacrament]\n\nAgainst such fools' laws we have preached, and set forth that no sin\nis involved in these foolish prescriptions of the pope, and that a\nlayman does not commit sin if he touch the cup or the body of Christ\nwith his hands. You should give thanks to God that you have come to\nsuch clear knowledge, which many great men have lacked. But now you\nhave become just as foolish as the pope, with your notion that you\nmust handle the sacrament; you would prove that you are good\nChristians by touching the sacrament with your hands. You have dealt\nwith the sacrament, our highest treasure, in such a way that it is a\nwonder you were not struck down by thunder and lightning. The other\nthings God would have suffered you to do, but to make this a matter of\ncompulsion. He can in no wise tolerate. And if you do not recede from\nthis, neither the emperor nor any one else need drive me from you, I\nwill go without urging; yea, I dare say, none of my enemies, although\nthey have caused me much sorrow, have wounded me as you have wounded\nme in this matter. If you would show that you are good Christians by\nhandling the sacrament, and boast of it before everybody, then indeed\nHerod and Pilate are the chief and best Christians. Methinks they\nhandled the body of Christ when they had him nailed to the cross and\nput to death.\n\n[Sidenote: What does \"Take\" mean?]\n\nNay, my dear friends, the kingdom of God consists not in outward\nthings, which can be touched or perceived, but in faith [Luke 17:20].\nBut you may say: We live and should live in accordance with the\nScriptures, and God has instituted the sacrament in such a manner that\nwe should take it with our hands, for He said: \"Take and eat, this is\nmy body.\" [Matt. 26:26] Answer: Though I am convinced beyond a doubt\nthat the disciples of the Lord took it with their hands, and though I\nadmit that you may do the same without committing sin, nevertheless I\ncan neither make it compulsory nor prove that it is the only way. And\nmy reason therefor is this: when the devil, in his seeking after us,\nargues, Where have you read in the Scriptures that \"take\" means\n\"seizing with the hands\"?--how shall I prove or defend it? Nay, how\nwill I answer him when he cites, from the Scriptures, the very\nopposite, and proves that \"take\" does not mean to receive with the\nhands only, but also to convey to ourselves in other ways? \"See, my\ngood fellow,\" so he says, \"how the word 'take' is used by three\nEvangelists in describing the taking of gall and vinegar by the Lord\n[Matt. 27:34, Mark 15:23, Luke 23:26]. You must admit that the Lord\ndid not touch or handle it with His hands, for His hands were nailed\nto the cross.\" This verse is a strong argument against me. Again, he\ncites the passage: _Et accepit omnes timor_,--\"And fear took hold on\nall,\" [Luke 7:16] where again we must admit that fear has no hands.\nThus I am driven into a corner and must concede, even against my will,\nthat \"take\" means not only to receive with the hands, but to convey to\nmyself in any other way in which it can be done. So you see, dear\nfriends, we must be on firm ground, if we are to withstand the devil's\nattack. Although I must acknowledge that you committed no sin when you\ntouched the sacrament with your hands, nevertheless I must tell you\nthat it was not a good work, because it caused offence everywhere.\nFor the universal custom is, to receive the blessed sacrament directly\nfrom the hands of the priest. Why will you not herein also serve those\nwho are weak in the faith and abstain from your liberty? It does not\nhelp you if you do it, nor harm you if you do it not.\n\nTherefore no new practices should be introduced, unless the Gospel has\nfirst been thoroughly preached and understood, even as it has been\nwith you. On this account, dear friends, let us deal soberly and\nwisely in the things that pertain to God, or God will not be mocked.\nYou may mock the saints, but with God it is vastly different.\nTherefore, I pray you, give up this practice.\n\n[Sidenote: Both Kinds in the Sacrament]\n\nLet us now speak of the two kinds. Although I hold that it is\nnecessary that the sacrament should be received in both kinds,\naccording to the institution of the Lord, nevertheless it must not be\nmade compulsory nor a general law. We must occupy ourselves with the\nWord, practice it and preach it. For the result we should look\nentirely to the Word, and let every one have his liberty in this\nmatter. Where that is not done, the sacrament becomes an external\nobservance and a hypocrisy, which is just what the devil wants. But\nwhen the Word is given free course and is not bound to any observance,\nit takes hold of one to-day and falls into his heart, to-morrow it\ntouches another, and so on. Thus quietly and soberly it will do its\nwork, and no one will know how it all came about.\n\nI was glad to know when some one wrote me, that some people in this\ncity had begun to receive the sacrament in both kinds. You should have\nallowed it to remain thus and not have forced it into a law. But now\nyou go at it pell-mell, and headlong force every one to it. Dear\nfriends, you will not succeed in that way. And if you desire to be\nregarded as better Christians than others, by this that you take the\nsacrament into your hands and receive it in both kinds, you are really\npoor Christians indeed! In this way even a sow could be a Christian,\nfor she has a big enough snout to receive the sacrament outwardly. We\nmust deal soberly with such high things. Dear friends, this dare be no\nmockery, and if you would heed me, give it up. If you will not heed\nme, no one need drive me away from you--I will leave you unbidden, and\nI shall regret that I ever preached so much as one sermon in this\nplace.  The other things could be passed by, but this cannot be passed\nby; you have gone so far that men say: \"At Wittenberg there are very\ngood Christians, for they take the sacrament with the hands and handle\nthe cup, and then they go to their brandy and drink until they are\ndrunken.\" Thus are the weak and simple-minded men driven away, who\nwould come to us if as much instruction had been given to them as was\ngiven to us.\n\nBut if there is any one so stupid that he must touch the sacrament\nwith his hands, let him have it brought home to his house and there\nlet him handle it to his heart's content. But in public let him\nabstain, since that will not bring him harm and the offence will be\navoided which is caused to our brothers, sisters and neighbors, who\nare now so angry with us that they are ready to kill us. I may say\nthat none of the enemies who have opposed me until now have brought so\nmuch grief upon me as you.\n\nThis is enough for to-day; we shall continue on the morrow.\n\n\nTHE SIXTH SERMON FRIDAY AFTER INVOCAVIT\n\n\n[Sidenote: The Reception of the Sacrament]\n\nIn our discussion of the chief things we have come to the reception of\nthe sacrament, which we have not yet finished. To-day we shall see how\nwe must conduct ourselves here, and also who is worthy to receive the\nsacrament and who belongs there.\n\nIt is very necessary here that your hearts and consciences be well\ninstructed, so that you distinguish well between the outward reception\nand the inner and spiritual reception. This is the bodily and outward\nreception, when a man receives with his mouth the body of Christ and\nHis blood. Any man can receive the sacrament in this way, for such\nreception may be without faith and love. But that reception does not\nmake a man a Christian, for if it did, even a mouse would be a\nChristian, or it can likewise eat the bread and drink out of the cup.\nIt is such a simple thing to do. But the true, inner, spiritual\nreception is a very different thing, for it consists in the right use\nof the sacrament and of its fruits.\n\nI would say in the first place that such reception is the true inner\none, and is a reception in faith. We Christians have no other outward\nsign by which we may be distinguished from others than this sacrament\nand baptism; but a mere outward reception, without faith, amounts to\nnothing. There must be faith to make one well prepared or the\nreception and acceptable before God, otherwise it is all sham and a\nmere external show, which is not Christianity at all. Christianity is\na thing of faith, which is never bound to any external work.\n\n[Sidenote: The One Requisite: Faith]\n\nBut faith (which we all must have, if we wish to go to the sacrament\nworthily) is a firm trust, that Christ, the Son of God, stands in our\nplace and has taken all our sins upon Faith His shoulders, that He is\nthe eternal satisfaction for our sin and reconciles us with God the\nFather. He who has this faith belongs to this sacrament, and neither\ndevil nor hell nor sin can harm him. Do you ask why? Because God is\nhis protector and defender. And when I have this faith, then I am\ncertain God is fighting for me; I can defy devil, death, hell and sin,\nand all the harm with which they threaten me. This is the great,\ninestimable treasure given us in Christ, which the words of man fail\nto describe. Only faith can take hold of the heart, and not every one\nhas such faith. Therefore this sacrament must not be made a law, as\nthe most holy father, the pope, has done with his fools' commandment:\nAll Christians must go to the sacrament at the holy Eastertide, and he\nwho does not go shall not be buried in consecrated ground[19]. Is it\nnot a foolish law which the pope has set up? You ask why? Because we\nare not all alike; we do not all have equal faith; the faith of one is\nstronger than that of another. It is therefore impossible that the\nsacrament can be made a law, and the greatest sins are committed at\nEaster solely on account of this unchristian command, which would\ndrive everybody to the sacrament. And if all robbery, usury,\nunchastity and all the other sins were cast upon one great heap, this\nsin would overtop it--even at the time and place of seeming greatest\nsilliness. And why? Because the pope can look into no one's heart to\nsee whether he has faith or not.\n\n[Sidenote: The Result: Assurance]\n\nBut if you believe that God is with you and stakes all His treasures\nand His blood for you, as if He said: Fall in behind Me without fear\nor delay, and then let come what may to attempt thy harm, let devil,\ndeath, sin and hell and all creation try it, I shall go before thee,\nfor I will be thy captain and thy shield, trust Me and rely upon Me\ncompletely--he who believes thus cannot be harmed by devil, hell, sin\nor death; if God fights for him, what can you do to him?\n\n[Sidenote: Who are Worthy]\n\nHe who has such faith is fit for the altar and receives the sacrament\nas an assurance, or seal, or sign to assure him of God's promises and\ngrace. But such faith we do not all have; would to God one-tenth of\nthe Christians had it! See, such rich, immeasurable treasures, which\nGod in His grace showers upon us, cannot be the possession of every\none, but only of those who suffer either bodily or spiritual\nadversity: the bodily through the persecution of man, and the\nspiritual by despair of conscience; outwardly or inwardly, when the\ndevil causes your heart to be weak, timid and discouraged, so that you\nknow not how you stand with God, and when he reproaches you with your\nsins. And in such terrified and trembling hearts alone God desires to\ndwell, as the prophet Isaiah says [Isa. 66:2]. For he who has not felt\nthe battle within him, is not distressed by his sins nor has a daily\nquarrel with them, and wishes no protector, defender and shield to\nstand before him, is not yet ready for this food. This food demands a\nhungering and longing man, for it delights to enter a hungering soul,\none that is in constant battle with its sins and eager to be rid of\nthem. He who is not thus prepared should abstain for a while from this\nsacrament, for this food is not for a sated and full heart, and if it\ncomes to such, it is harmful. Therefore, if we think upon, and feel\nwithin us, such distress of conscience and the fear of a timid heart,\nwe shall come with all humbleness and reverence, and not rush to it\npell-mell, with insolence and without fear and humility. We are not\nalways fit for it; to-day I have the grace, and am fit for it, but not\nto-morrow, yea, it may be that or six months I have no desire nor\nfitness or it.\n\nTherefore are they the most worthy who are constantly vexed by death\nand the devil, and they receive it most opportunely, to remind them\nand strengthen them in the faith that no harm can come unto them, for\nHe is now with them, from Whom no one can take them away; let come\ndeath or devil or sin, they cannot do them harm.\n\nThis is what Christ did, when He prepared to institute the blessed\nsacrament. He brought anguish upon His disciples and trembling to\ntheir hearts when He said that He would go away from them [Matt.\n26:2], and again they were tormented when He said: One of you shall\nbetray me [Matt. 26:21]. Think you not that that cut them to the\nheart? Truly, they received the word with all fear, and sat there as\nthough they were all traitors to God. And after He had made them all\ntremble with fear and sorrow, then only did He institute the blessed\nsacrament as a comfort, and consoled them again. For this bread is a\ncomfort for the sorrowing, a healing for the sick, a life for the\ndying, a food for all the hungry, and a rich treasure for all the poor\nand needy[20].\n\nLet this be enough at this time concerning the proper use of this\nsacrament. I commend you to God.\n\n\nTHE SEVENTH SERMON SATURDAY BEFORE REMINISCERE\n\n\nYesterday we heard of the use of the holy and blessed sacrament and\nsaw who are worthy to receive it, even those in whom is the fear of\ndeath, who have timid and despairing consciences and who live in fear\nof hell. All such come prepared to partake of this food for the\nstrengthening of their weak faith and the comforting of their\nconscience. This is the true and right use of this sacrament, and\nwhoever does not find himself in this state, let him refrain from\ncoming until God also takes hold of him and draws him through His\nWord.\n\n[Sidenote: Fruit of the Sacrament: Love]\n\nWe shall now speak of the fruit of this sacrament, which is love; that\nis, that we should treat our neighbor even as God has treated us. Now\nwe have received from God naught but love and favor, for Christ has\npledged and given us His righteousness and everything that He has, has\npoured out upon us all His treasures, which no man can measure and no\nangel can understand or fathom, for God is a glowing furnace of love,\nreaching even from the earth to the heavens.\n\n[Sidenote: The Lack of Love]\n\nLove, I say, is a fruit of this sacrament. But I do not yet perceive\nit among you here in Wittenberg, although there is much preaching of\nlove and you ought to practice it above all other things. This is the\nprincipal thing, and alone is seemly in a Christian. But no one shows\neagerness for this, and you want to do all sorts of unnecessary\nthings, which are of no account. If you do not want to show yourselves\nChristians by your love, then leave the other things undone, too, for\nSt. Paul says in I Corinthians, \"If I speak with the tongues of men\nand of angels, and have not love, I am as sounding brass or a tinkling\ncymbal.\" [1 Cor. 13:1] This is a terrible saying of Paul. And further:\n\"And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries\nof God, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I\ncould remove mountains, and have not love, I am nothing. And if I\nbestow all my goods to feed the poor, and if I give my body to be\nburned, but have not love, it profiteth me nothing.\" [1 Cor. 13:2, 3]\nYou have not got so far as that, although you have received great and\nrich gifts from God, especially a knowledge of the Scriptures. It is\ntrue, you have the pure Gospel and the true Word of God, but no one as\nyet has given his goods to the poor, no one has yet been burned, and\neven these things would profit nothing without love. You would take\nall of God's goods in the sacrament, and yet not pour them forth again\nin love. One will not lend the other a helping hand, no one thinks\nfirst of another, but every one looks out or himself and his own gain,\nseeks but his own and lets everything else go as it will,--if anybody\nis helped, well and good. No one looks after the poor or seeks how to\nhelp them. It is pitiful. You have heard many sermons about it and all\nmy books are full of it and have the one purpose, to urge you to faith\nand love.\n\nAnd if you will not love one another, God will send a great plague\nupon you; let this be a warning to you, for God will not reveal His\nWord and have it preached in vain. You are tempting God too far, my\nfriends. If some one in times past had preached the Word to our\nforefathers, they would perchance have acted differently. Or if the\nWord were preached to-day to many poor children in the cloisters, they\nwould receive it with much greater joy than you. You do not heed it at\nall, and give yourselves to other things, which are unnecessary and\nfoolish.\n\nI commend you to God.\n\n\nTHE EIGHTH SERMON\n\nA SHORT SUMMARY[21] OF THE SERMON OF DR. M. LUTHER DELIVERED ON\nREMINISCERE SUNDAY ON PRIVATE CONFESSION\n\n\n[Sidenote: Confession before the Congregation]\n\nNow we have heard all the things which ought to be considered here,\nexcept confession. Of this we shall speak now. In the first place,\nThere is a confession which is founded on the Scriptures; namely, when\nsome one commits a sin publicly, or with other men's knowledge, and is\naccused before the congregation. If he abandons his sin, they\nintercede for him with God. But if he will not hear the congregation,\nhe is excluded from the church and cast out, so that no one will have\nanything to do with him. And this confession is commanded by God in\nMatthew xviii, \"If thy brother trespass against thee (so that thou and\nothers are offended), go and tell him his fault between thee and him\nalone.\" [Matt. 18:15] Of this confession there is no longer even a\ntrace to be found, and in this particular the Gospel is put aside in\nthis place. He who could reestablish it would perform a good work.\nHere is where you ought to have taken pains and reestablished this\nkind of confession, and let the other things go. For by this no one\nwould have been offended, and it would have been accomplished without\ndisturbance. It should be done in this way: When you see a usurer,\nadulterer, thief or drunkard, you should go to him in secret and\nadmonish him to give up his sin. If he will not hear, you should take\ntwo others with you and admonish him once more, in a brotherly way, to\ngive up his sin. But if he scorns that, you should tell the pastor\nbefore the whole congregation, have your witnesses with you, and\naccuse him before the pastor in the presence of the people, saying:\n\"Dear pastor, this man has done this and that, and would not receive\nour brotherly admonition to give up his sin. Therefore I accuse him,\ntogether with my witnesses who were present.\" And then, if he will not\ngive up and willingly acknowledge his guilt, the pastor should exclude\nhim and put him under the ban before the whole assembly, for the sake\nof the congregation, until he comes to himself and is received back\nagain. This would be Christian. But I cannot undertake to carry it out\nsingle-handed.\n\n[Sidneote: Confession to God]\n\nSecondly, A confession is necessary for us, when we go away in a corner\nby ourselves, and confess to God Himself and pour out before Him all\nour faults. And this confession is also commanded. From this comes the\nfamiliar word of Scripture: \"_Facite judicium et justitiam_.\" [Gen.\n18:19] _Judicium acere est nos ipsos accusare et damnare; justitiam\nautem acere est idere misericordiae Dei_[22]. As it is written,\n\"Blessed are they that keep judgment and do righteousness at all\ntimes.\" [Ps. 106:3] The judgment is nothing else than a man's knowing\nand judging and condemning himself, and this is true humility and\nself-abasement. The righteousness is nothing else than a man's knowing\nhimself and praying to God or the mercy and help through which God\nraises him up again. This is what David means when he says: \"I have\nsinned; I will confess my transgressions unto the Lord,\" [Ps. 32:5 f.]\nand, \"Thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin; for this all Thy saints\nshall pray unto Thee.\"\n\n[Sidenote: Confession to a Brother]\n\nThirdly, There is also a confession when one takes another aside, and\ntells him what troubles him, so that he may hear from him a word of\ncomfort; and this confession is commanded by the pope. It is this\nurging and forcing which I condemned when I wrote concerning\nconfession[23], and I refuse to go to confession just because the pope\nwishes it and has commanded it. For I wish him to keep his hands of\nthe confession and not make of it a compulsion or command, which he\nhas not the power to do. Yet I will let no man take private confession\naway from me, and I would not give it up for all the treasures in the\nworld, since I know what comfort and strength it has given me. No one\nknows what it can do or him except one who has struggled much with the\ndevil. Yea, the devil would have slain me long ago, if the confession\nhad not sustained me. For there are many doubts which a man cannot\nresolve by himself, and so he takes a brother aside and tells him his\ntrouble. What harm is there, if he humbles himself a little before his\nneighbor, puts himself to shame, looks or a word of comfort from him,\nand takes it to himself and believes it, as if he heard it from God\nhimself, as we read in Matthew xviii: \"If two of you shall agree as\ntouching anything that they shall ask, it shall be done for them.\"\n[Matt. 18:19]\n\n[Sidenote: Many Absolutions]\n\nAnd we must have many absolutions, so that we may strengthen our timid\nconsciences and despairing hearts against the devil and against God.\nTherefore no man shall forbid the confession nor keep or drive any one\naway from it. And if any one wrestles with his sins, is eager to be\nrid of them and looks or some assurance from the Scriptures, let him\ngo and confess to another in secret, and receive what is said to him\nthere as if it came directly from God's own lips. Whoever has the\nstrong and firm faith that his sins are forgiven, may ignore this\nconfession and confess to God alone. But how many have such a strong\nfaith? Therefore, as I have said, I will not let this private\nconfession be taken from me. Yet I would force no one to it, but leave\nthe matter to every one's free will.\n\n[Sidenote: Five Comforts for the Conscience]\n\nFor our God is not so miserly that He has left us with only one\ncomfort or strengthening for our conscience, or one absolution, but we\nhave many absolutions in the Gospel, and are showered richly with\nthem. For instance, we have this in the Gospel: \"If ye forgive men\ntheir trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you.\" [Matt.\n6:14] Another comfort we have in the Lord's Prayer: \"Forgive us our\ntrespasses,\" [Matt. 6:12] etc. A third is our baptism, when I reason\nthus: See, my Lord, I am baptized in Thy name so that I may be assured\nof Thy grace and mercy. After that we have the private confession,\nwhen I go and receive a sure absolution as if God Himself spake it, so\nthat I may be assured that my sins are forgiven. Finally I take to\nmyself the blessed sacrament, when I eat His body and drink His blood\nas a sign that I am rid of my sins and God has freed me from all my\nfrailties; and in order to make me sure of this, He gives me His body\nto eat and His blood to drink, so that I shall not and cannot despair:\nI cannot doubt I have a gracious God. Thus we see that confession must\nnot be despised, but that it is a true comfort. And since we need many\nabsolutions and comforts, because we must fight against the devil,\ndeath, hell and sin, we must not allow any of our weapons to be taken\naway, but keep intact the whole armor and equipment which God has\ngiven us or use against our enemies. For you do not yet know what work\nit is to fight with the devil and to overcome him. I know it well; I\nhave eaten salt with him once or twice[24]. I know him well, and he\nknows me well, too. I only you knew him, you would not in this manner\ndrive out confession.\n\nI commend you to God. Amen.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES\n\n\n[1] Cp. his experiences at the Wartburg. See Kostlin-Kawerau, I, 439\nff.\n\n[2] Carlstadt, without authority, preached, administered the sacrament\nand brought about the upheaval in the _parish_ church--Luther's own.\nHe was archdeacon and preacher at the _castle_ church. See Muller,\n_Luther und Karlstadt_, 69 and passim.\n\n[3] In the _Open Letter to the Christian Nobility_ and the _Babylonian\nCaptivity_. See pp. 125 f., 136 f., and 215 f. of this volume.\n\n[4] Right to speak.\n\n[5] Power to do.\n\n[6] Melanchthon.\n\n[7] See above, p. 61.\n\n[8] Justus Jonas, provost at the castle church.\n\n[9] Gabriel Zwilling, an Augustinian, who, next to Carlstadt, was the\nleader in forcing the reforms which Luther is here discussing. See\nIntroduction, p. 388.\n\n[10] Was Luther led by the name of Gabriel to add a last touch by the\nmention of the other archangel, in the thought of St. Paul, that even\nan angel from heaven cannot change the Gospel, Gal. 1:8. See note in\n_Weimar Ed._, Xc, 438. See also a similar outburst in a letter to\nJohann Lang in 1516, six years previous, where Gabriel Biel's name\nfurnished the incitement. Enders, I, 54; Smith, I, 42.\n\n[11] Namely, of the monasteries.\n\n[12] A monastic order, founded 1084, noted or the strictness of its\nrule.\n\n[13] The Iconoclastic controversy in the Eastern church, which called\nforth the Seventh Ecumenical Council at Nice in 787, whose decrees\nwere favorable to images in the churches. The controversy, which raged\nfor over a century, was finally settled in 843. Since the promulgation\nof this decree the First Sunday in Lent has been celebrated annually\nas the \"Feast of Orthodoxy.\" See _Realencyk._, III, 222 ff.\n\n[14] See above, p. 309.\n\n[15] i. e., Castor and Pollux.\n\n[16] Luther's great objection to the mass was its turning of the\nSacrament into a sacrifice. This view of the mass was for him an utter\nperversion of the gospel, and, therefore, comes under the category of\nessentials. See Vol. I, pp. 309 ff., and above, pp. 211 ff.\n\n[17] See above, p. 407, note 1.\n\n[18] Cf. above, p. 282.\n\n[19] In the canon law, C. 12, X, _de poenitentiis_.\n\n[20] On the last four paragraphs, cf. above, pp. 15 f.\n\n[21] On this title, see Introduction, p. 389.\n\n[22] \"Let there be judgment and righteousness.\" To keep judgment is to\naccuse and condemn ourselves; but to do righteousness is to trust in\nthe mercy of God.\n\n[23] The treatise _Von der Beichte, ob die der Papst Macht habe zu\ngebieten_, written during the sojourn on the Wartburg. See _Weimar\nEd._, VIII, 129; _Erl. Ed._, XXVII, 318.\n\n[24] See above, p. 394.\n\n\n\nTHAT DOCTRINES OF MEN ARE TO BE REJECTED\n\nTOGETHER WITH A REPLY TO TEXTS QUOTED IN DEFENCE OF THE DOCTRINES OF\nMEN (VON MENSCHENLEHREN ZU MEIDEN)\n\n1522\n\n\n\nINTRODUCTION\n\n\n\"Silver and gold have I none: but such as I have give I thee.\"\nSomewhat in the spirit of these words Luther had planned to dedicate a\nsmall book to his host of the Wartburg, Hans von Berlepsch. For a time\nLuther had thought that von Berlepsch himself was bearing the expense\nof his entertainment in that retreat, and that he was being more\nroyally treated than he deserved. Not only the material comforts with\nwhich he was surrounded appealed to him, however. Von Berlepsch was\ninterested in Luther and in Luther's work. He talked with him\nseriously on religious questions, and expressed a desire to have more\ninformation, particularly concerning the authority of the teachings of\nthe Roman Church which had no direct warrant in Scripture.\n\nTo this desire of von Berlepsch we can trace the origin of our\ntreatise, That the Doctrines of Men are to be Rejected. There is no\ndedication to von Berlepsch, however, and no reference to the months\nof companionship on the Wartburg. Luther returned from the Wartburg\nearly in March, 1522, and on the 28th of March sent the first part of\nthe treatise to Spalatin, with the request that it be forwarded to von\nBerlepsch. The second part, the Reply to Texts Quoted in Defence of\nthe Doctrines of Men, was added in a second edition.\n\nThis was not the only writing forwarded to von Berlepsch in memory of\nthe pleasant days spent on the Wartburg. Perhaps of even greater\ninterest was the gift sent on September 25, 1522--one of the first\ncomplete copies of the German New Testament.\n\nBuchwald has called our treatise \"a model of sound explanation of the\nScriptures for the purpose of refuting error.\" We must caution the\nreader, however, not to think of Luther's occasional statements\nconcerning the authority of Scripture as final. Luther is still\nlargely upon medieval ground, accepting the premise of the Roman\nChurch, and refuting the practice of the popes, priests and monks from\nthe fundamental assumption of the authority of the Scriptures. The\nsucceeding years, the controversies with the leaders of the peasants\nand with the heavenly prophets, led him to clearer views. Where in\nthis treatise he wrote, \"The same things which are found in the Books\nof Moses are found in the others. For the other books do no more than\nshow how in the course of history the word of Moses was kept or not\nkept,\" he was thinking of the one Gospel which he found everywhere in\nthe Scriptures. But he distinguished carefully between the permanent\nand the temporary in the Books of Moses and elsewhere, and speaks of\n\"that which God has decreed\" in the Old Testament as having \"come to\nan end, and no longer binding the consciences of men\" (p. 442). That\nwhich is permanent is the Gospel, \"for it is beyond question that all\nthe Scriptures point to Christ alone\" (p. 432). Probably the clearest\nstatement of his views is found in a sermon preached in 1527: \"The\nWord was given in many ways from the beginning. We must not only ask\nwhether it is God's Word, whether God spoke it, but much more, to whom\nHe spoke it, whether it applies to you or to another.\" \"The false\nprophets rush in and say, 'Dear people, this is God's Word.' It is\ntrue, and we cannot deny it; but we are not the people to whom He\nspeaks\" (_Erl. Ed._, 33, 16.)\n\nIn reading the treatise, therefore, it will be well to consider when\nit was written and for whom; and not to think of it as a final\nstatement of Luther's views on the authority of the Scriptures.\n\nThe treatise is found in the original German in Weimar Ed., X2; in\nErlangen, 28, 318-343; in Berlin, 2, 289-314.\n\n                W. A. LAMBERT.\n\nSouth Bethlehem, PA.\n\n\nTHAT WE ARE TO REJECT THE DOCTRINES OF MEN:\n\nTOGETHER WITH A REPLY TO THE TEXTS QUOTED IN DEFENCE OF THE DOCTRINES\nOF MEN\n\n\nTo all who read or hear this little book may God grant grace and\nunderstanding. Amen.\n\nI, Martin Luther, have published this brief book for the comfort and\nsaving of the poor consciences which are by the law of men held in\nbondage in monasteries and convents; that they may be able to arm and\nstrengthen themselves with the Word of God, so as to be steadfast in\nthe pains of death and other trials. But those who are overbold and\nunruly, who give no other evidence of being Christians except that\nthey can eat eggs, meat and milk, stay away from confession and break\nthe images, etc.,--these I warn that I do not wish my words to help\nthem. For I regard them as the filthy people who defiled the camp of\nIsrael [Deut. 23:12 f.], although such cleanliness was enjoined upon\nthe people that a man was required to go outside the camp to ease\nhimself and to cover up with earth that which came from him. We also\nmust endure these unclean lapwings in our nest [Deut. 14:18, Lev.\n11:19], until God teach them manners. This Christian liberty I would\nhave preached only to poor, humble, captive consciences, so that poor\nchildren, nuns and monks, who would like to escape from their bondage\nmay inform their consciences how they may do so with God's approval\nand without danger, and use their freedom in an orderly and Christian\nway. May God grant His blessing. Amen.\n\n_That the doctrines of men are to be rejected: proof from the\nScriptures_.\n\nI\n\nMoses in Deuteronomy iv, 2 says, \"Ye shall not add unto the word which\nI command you, neither shall ye diminish aught from it,\" [Deut. 4:2]\n\nBut some one will say that Moses speaks only of his word; but to the\nbooks of Moses there have also been added many books of the prophets\nand the entire New Testament. I answer: True; but nothing new has been\nadded: the same things that are found in the books of Moses are found\nin the others. For the other books do no more than show how in the\ncourse of history the word of Moses was kept or not kept. It is indeed\nstated in different words and the histories are different, but\nthoughout there is one and the same teaching. And here we can\nchallenge them to point out anywhere in all the books added to the\nbooks of Moses a single word that is not found earlier in the books of\nMoses. For it is beyond question that all the Scriptures point to\nChrist alone. Now Christ says, in John V, 46, \"Moses wrote of me.\"\n[John 5:46] Therefore everything that is in the other books is also in\nthe books of Moses, and these are the original documents.\n\nII\n\nIsaiah xxix, 13, which the Lord quotes in Matthew xv, 8: \"This people\ndraweth nigh unto me with their mouth, but their heart is far from me.\nBut in vain do they worship me, teaching the doctrines and\ncommandments of men.\" [Isa. 29:13, Matt. 15:8]\n\nMark the word of Christ, Who calls it vain worship to serve God after\nthe doctrines of men. For Christ is not drunken or a fool; on His word\nwe must build in all things rather than on all angels and creatures\n[Gal. 1:8].\n\nIII\n\nThe same Christ in the same chapter, Matthew xv, 11, says, \"Not that\nwhich goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out\nof the mouth, this defileth a man.\" [Matt. 15:11]\n\nThis saying must be well understood, for it is powerful and mightily\noverthrows all teaching, custom and manner of life that distinguishes\nbetween foods, and it sets all consciences free from all laws\nconcerning food and drink; so that it is allowable to eat milk,\nbutter, eggs, cheese and meat every day, whether it be Sunday or\nFriday, Lent or Advent; and no one needs to pay butter-money or buy\nbutter-letters. For this word stands firm and does not deceive: \"That\nwhich goeth into the mouth doth not defile a man.\"\n\n[Sidenote: Fast-days]\n\nFrom this it follows, first, that it is a lie when they say that St.\nPeter instituted the fast-days and that the commandment of the Church\nhas made it a mortal sin to eat eggs, butter, milk and meat on\nfast-days. For neither St. Peter nor the Church institutes or teaches\nanything contrary to Christ. And if they did, we must not obey them.\nTo do what they ask would indeed not be wicked; but it is wicked to\nmake a necessity and a commandment of that which is free, and to\npretend that something does defile and is sin of which Christ Himself\nsays that it is no sin and does not defile.\n\n[Sidenote: Dispensation]\n\nIt follows, secondly, that it is sheer devil's knavery for the pope to\nsell letters and grant permission to eat butter, meat, etc.; for\nChrist in this word has already made it a matter of liberty and has\npermitted it.\n\n[Sidenote: Special Fast-days]\n\nIn the third place, it is an error and a lie to say that goldfasts[1],\nbanfasts[2], and the fasts on the eve of Apostles' days and saints'\ndays must be observed and that their non-observance is sin, because\nthe Church has so commanded. For against everything of the kind stands\nthis word of Christ: \"That which goeth into the mouth doth not defile\nthe man.\" Fasting should be free and voluntary, both as to the day and\nas to the food, forever.\n\n[Sidenote: The Orders]\n\nFourthly, the orders of St. Benedict, and of St. Bernard, the\nCarthusians, and all others which avoid the use of meat and other food\nbecause they hold that this is necessary and commanded and that not to\ndo so would be sin, contradict Christ. For their law flatly\ncontradicts the word of Christ and says: That which goeth into the\nmouth defileth. Then they must make Christ a liar when He says: \"That\nwhich goeth into the mouth defileth not the man.\" Thus you see that\nthis one saying of Christ mightily condemns all orders and spiritual\nrules. For if that which goeth into the mouth does not defile, how\nmuch less will that defile which is put on the body? whether it be\ncowl, coat, shirt, hose, shoes, cloak, whether green, yellow, blue,\nred, white, motley, or whatever one wish. And the same is true of\nplaces, whether churches, cells or the rooms of a house.\n\nIt follows that he who regards it a sin for a monk to go without the\ndress of his order, and would not leave it a matter of freedom, also\nmakes Christ a liar and makes that a sin which Christ freed from sin,\nand says Yes! where Christ says No! What then are such monks but\npeople who say to Christ's very ace. Thou liest! there is sin in that\nwhich thou sayest is not sin. It will not help them to quote St.\nBernard, St. Gregory, St. Francis and other saints. We must hear what\nChrist says, Who alone has been made our Teacher by the Father, when\non Mount Tabor He said, Matthew xvii, 5, \"This is my beloved Son, in\nWhom I am well pleased; hear ye Him.\" [Matt. 17:5] He did not say.\nHear ye St. Bernard, St. Gregory, etc., but, Hear ye Him, Him, Him, my\nbeloved Son. Who knows how far the saints sinned or did right in this\nmatter? What they did, they did not of necessity nor by commandment.\nOr if they did it as of necessity and by commandment, they erred, and\nwe must not forsake Christ to follow them.\n\nAll this is confirmed by Christ in the words which follow in Matthew\nxv, 11, \"That which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man. For\nout of the mouth, coming forth from the heart, come evil thoughts,\nadulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies, etc.\nThese defile a man.\" [Matt. 15:11] Here we ask, If that alone is sin\nand defiles a man, which proceeds from the heart, as Christ here so\nstrongly argues and decides, how then can butter, milk, eggs, cheese\ndefile, which proceed not from the mouth nor from the heart, but come\nfrom the belies of cows and of hens? Who has ever seen meat, tonsures,\ncowls, monasteries, hair-shirts coming out of men's mouths? Then it\nmust be the cows that sin in giving us milk and butter, and in bearing\ncalves.\n\nTherefore, all the laws of monks and of men concerning food, clothing\nand places and all things that are external, are not only blasphemy of\nGod and lying and deceiving, but the buffoonery of apes. It is true, a\nman may have an inordinate desire to eat excessively and to dress\nextravagantly; but that proceeds from the heart, and may refer to fish\nas well as to meat, to gray homespun as well as to red velvet. In\nshort, Christ does not lie when He says, \"That which goeth into the\nmouth defileth not a man, but that which cometh out of the mouth, this\ndefileth a man.\"\n\nBut if it is true that neglect to do what men command neither defiles\nnor is sin, then on the other hand, the keeping and doing of men's\ncommandments cannot make us clean nor give us merit; since only the\nopposite of sin and of the unclean is clean and gives merit.\nTherefore, all of the monastic life neither makes clean nor gives\nmerit. And that is what the Lord Christ means when He says, Matthew\nXV, 9, \"In vain do they worship me with the commandments of men.\"\n[Matt. 15:9] Why 'in vain'? Because neglecting them is no sin and\nkeeping them is no merit, but both are free. They deceive themselves,\ntherefore, and make a merit of that which is no merit, and are afraid\nof sinning where there is no sin, as Psalm xiv, 5, says, \"There have\nthey trembled for fear, where there was no fear.\" [Ps. 14:5]\n\nIV\n\nSt. Paul in I Timothy iv, 1-7 says: \"Now the Spirit speaketh\nexpressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith,\ngiving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; speaking\nlies in hypocrisy; having their consciences seared with a hot iron;\nforbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God\nhath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe\nand know the truth. For every creature of God is good, and nothing to\nbe reused, if it be received with thanksgiving: for it is sanctified\nby the word of God and prayer. If thou put the brethren in remembrance\nof these things, thou shat be a good minister of Jesus Christ,\nnourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine, whereunto\nthou hast attained.  But refuse profane and old wives' fables.\" [1\nTim. 4:1-7]\n\nO how this thunders and storms against all the works, doctrines and\norders of men. First, if they boast that they have derived their\npractice from the pope and from holy fathers, what will Christ's\njudgment be? Will He not say, \"Paul, My Apostle, is My chosen vessel,\nas Luke writes. Acts ix, 15: why then have you not ascribed greater\nauthority to his word than to that of the pope and the fathers, of\nwhom you do not know whose vessels they are?\" [Acts 9:15] How will\nthey stand before Him?\n\nNext, we ask them whether butter, eggs, meat, milk and all the food\nwhich they avoid on fast-days and in the orders, have not been created\nby God, and are not God's good creatures? Then it is certain that they\nare the men of whom Paul here says that they forbid the food which God\nhas created and has given to believers to use. And they also forbid\nmarriage, so that they cannot escape: this passage its them and is\nspoken of them. Let us see what Paul thinks of them and how he\nreproves them.\n\n[Sidenote: Departed from the Faith]\n\nI. They have departed from the faith; for they could not have\nintroduced such doctrines and works if they had not thought the\ndoctrines and works would make them pious and save them. But such an\nopinion is of itself a sure sign that they have fallen away from the\nfaith, since it is the work of faith alone to do that which they\nexpect works to do, as has frequently been said.\n\n[Sidenote: Give Heed to Seducing Spirits]\n\nII. They give heed to seducing spirits. He does not say, \"to seducing\nmen,\" but \"to seducing spirits\"; and these are they who pretend to be\nspiritual and bear the name spiritual, and claim to be of the Spirit\nand in the Spirit. But since they are without faith it is impossible\nfor them not to err in spiritual matters. Hence this is a fitting\nsuccession: they depart from the faith and follow after error in the\nspirit.\n\n[Sidenote: Doctrines of Devils]\n\nIII. Their doctrines he calls \"doctrines of devils.\" This also must\nfollow where faith and the true Spirit are wanting: the devil gives\nthem the seducing spirit and leads them on with beautifully varnished\ndoctrines and works, so that they think they are altogether spiritual.\nBut since the doctrine does not originate in the Scriptures, it can be\nthe doctrine of no one but the devil.\n\n[Sidenote: Speakers of Lies]\n\nIV. They are speakers of lies. For they at times quote even the\nScriptures and the sayings of the fathers and wrest them to support\ntheir doctrines, as we see them do daily. But this is all false and a\nlie, since the Scriptures are altogether against them.\n\n[Sidenote: Hypocrisy]\n\nV. It is sheer hypocrisy. This is true and needs no comment. For all\nthat they do is only appearance and show, concerned with external\nmatters of food and clothes.\n\n[Sidenote: Seared Conscience]\n\nVI. They have their conscience seared with a hot iron; that is, they\nhave an unnatural conscience. For where there is no sin nor matter of\nconscience, they make sin and a matter of conscience, as was said\nabove. Just as a scar caused by searing is an unnatural mark on the\nbody.\n\n[Sidenote: Forbid to Marry]\n\nVII. They forbid to marry, by creating an estate in which there shall\nbe no marriage, as we see in the case of both priests and monks.\nWherefore, behold the judgment of God upon such doctrines and estates:\nthat they are doctrines of devils, seducing doctrines, false\ndoctrines, faithless doctrines, hypocritical doctrines. God help us!\nWho would remain in them when God Himself passes such judgment? What\nwould it help you, if you had made a thousand vows and oaths on such\ndoctrines? Nay, the stricter the vow, the more reason to break it,\nbecause it was made after the devil's doctrines and against God.\n\n[Sidenote: The Tatianists]\n\nBut see how cleverly they worm themselves out and ward off this text\nfrom themselves, saying that it does not apply to them, but to the\nTatianists[3], the heretics who condemned marriage altogether. Paul,\nhowever, does not speak here of those who condemn marriage, but of\nthose who forbid it for the sake of appearing spiritual. Let us grant,\nhowever, that Paul speaks against the Tatianists. Then, if the pope\ndoes what the Tatianists did, why does it not apply to him as well? Be\nthey Tatianists or the pope, this text speaks of those who forbid\nmarriage. The words of Paul condemn the work, and make no distinction\nabout the person who does it. He who forbids marriage is the devil's\ndisciple and apostle, as the words clearly say. And since the pope\ndoes this, he must be the devil's disciple, as must all his followers;\notherwise, St. Paul must be a liar.\n\n[Sidenote: Forbid Food]\n\nVIII. They forbid the food which God has created. Here, again, you see\nthat the doctrines of man are ascribed to the devil by God Himself\nthrough the mouth of Paul. What greater and more terrible thing would\nyou wish to hear concerning the doctrines of men, than that they are a\nfalling away from the faith, seducing, false, devilish, hypocritical?\nWhat will satisfy those whom this text does not satisfy? But if the\ndoctrine that forbids certain kinds of food is devilish and\nunchristian, that which concerns clothes, tonsures, places and\neverything external will be just as devilish and unchristian.\n\n[Sidenote: The Manicheans]\n\nBut here again they worm themselves out, and say that St. Paul is\nspeaking of the Manicheans[4]. We are not asking about that. St. Paul\nspeaks of the forbidding of meats, and, be they Manicheans or\nTatianists, the pope and his followers forbid meats. Paul speaks of\nthe work which we see that the pope does. Therefore we cannot save him\nfrom this text. If some other man arose today or tomorrow and forbade\nmeats, would it not apply to him, even if he were no Manichean? If\nthat way of interpreting Scripture were true, we might boldly do what\nPaul here forbids, and say. It does not apply to us, but to the\nancient Manicheans. But that is not the way. Whether the pope with his\nmonks and priests be not a Manichean, I do not discuss; but I do say,\nthat in his teaching and works he contradicts the teaching of St. Paul\nmore than any Manichean.\n\n[Sidenote: Unthankful]\n\nIX. They are unthankful. For God has created meats, says St. Paul, to\nbe received with thanksgiving. And they refuse to receive them, that\nthey may have no occasion to be thankful for God's goodness. The\nreason for which is, that they have no faith and do not know the\ntruth. For Paul says, I Tim. iv, 3, \"To them which believe and to them\nwhich know the truth, they are given to be used with thanksgiving.\" [1\nTim. 4:3] But if they are unbelieving and do not know the truth, as\nSt. Paul here says they are, they are beyond question heathen,\nnon-Christians, blind and foolish. And this, I suppose, they regard as\npraise of the pope, priests and monks!\n\n[Sidenote: Harmful Preachers]\n\nX. Paul rebukes them as wicked, harmful preachers; for he says that\nTimothy shall be a good preacher, nourished up in the words of faith\nand of good doctrine, if he will put the brethren in remembrance of\nthese things. It follows that they who teach the contrary must be\nwicked preachers and be nourished with words of unbelief and of wicked\ndoctrines.\n\n[Sidenote: Old Wives' Fables]\n\nXI. He calls such doctrines profane and old wives' fables. Is not that\nfoolish talk? He says that the great doctors busy themselves with\nfables such as old wives chatter about behind the stove, and calls\nthem profane, unchristian and unholy idle talk, although the doctors\nclaim that they are the very essence of holiness!\n\nWho has ever heard the doctrines of men so terribly decried in every\nway? that they are apostate, unbelieving, unchristian, heathen,\nseducing, devilish, false, hypocritical, searing the conscience,\nunthankful, that they dishonor God and His creature and are harmful\nables and old wives' chatter. Let him who can, flee from beneath this\njudgment of God.\n\nV\n\nSt. Paul in Colossians ii, 16 and the following verses says: \"Let no\nman burden you in meat or in drink or in respect of certain days which\nare holy days, or days of the new moon or sabbaths, which are a shadow\nof things to come, but the body is in Christ. Let no one seduce you\nwho follows his own will in the humility and religion of angels, of\nwhom he has never seen even one, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind,\nand does not hold fast the Head, from which all the body, by joints\nand bands, is supplied with nourishment and is knit together, and so\ngroweth unto a stature given of God. If then you be dead with Christ\nfrom the elements of this world, why do you burden yourselves with\nordinances as if you were alive? Ordinances which say. This thou shalt\nnot touch, this thou shalt not eat or drink, this thou shalt not put\non (which all perish in the using), according to the commandments and\ndoctrines of men, who have a show of wisdom because of their\nself-chosen spirituality and humility, and because they do not spare\nthe body and do not supply its needs.\" [Col. 2:16 ff.] Is St. Paul\nhere also speaking of the Manicheans or Tatianists? Or can we find\nexcuse here for the papists? He speaks against those who take captive\nthe consciences of men with the doctrines of men and make matters of\nconscience of food, drink, clothes, days and everything that is\nexternal. And it cannot be denied that the pope, the chapters and\nmonasteries with their rules and statutes do this when they forbid the\neating of meat, eggs and butter, and the wearing of ordinary clothes\nsuch as other people wear. And here stands St. Paul, and says:\n\n[Sidenote: Burden the Conscience]\n\nI. \"Let no man burden your consciences, or judge or condemn you in\nrespect of food, drink, clothes or days.\" What does this mean if not\nthis: Be not priests nor monks, nor in any way keep the pope's laws;\nand believe him not when he says that a certain thing is sin or a\nmatter of conscience. See, here God through Paul commands us to\ndespise the laws of the pope and of the monasteries, and to keep them\nfree, so that they do not take captive the conscience. That is as much\nas to say, Do not become monks or priests, and let him who has become\nmonk or priest turn back, or else retain his position as a matter of\nfreedom without constraint of conscience.\n\nAnd although Paul wrote this of the Jews, who did such things\naccording to the Law (for he says in Colossians ii, 17, that they have\nthe shadow and type of things to come, but that the body itself is in\nChrist [Col. 2:17]), yet it holds much more against the decrees of the\npope and of the monks. For if that which God has decreed comes to an\nend and shall no longer bind the consciences of men, how much more\nshall men neither decree nor keep anything that would bind the\nconscience? And farther on more will be said of the laws of mere men,\nfor\n\n[Sidenote: By-paths]\n\nII. He says, \"Let no one seduce you or lead you toward paths the prize\nin by-paths.\" What does this mean but to lead men to works and away\nfrom faith, which alone is the one right road by which to gain the\nprize of salvation, to strive toward heaven by other ways, and to\nclaim that this is the way to gain the prize? And this is what the\norders and the pope's doctrines do. And what are the ways they\npropose? Listen:\n\n[Sidenote: Humility]\n\nIII. He says, \"In self-willed humility and the religion of angels.\"\nWhat words could better it the orders? Is it not true that the pope\nand all of them prattle much of their obedience, which is said to be\nthe noblest virtue, that is, the precious spiritual humility of the\npapists? But who has commanded this humility? They themselves have\ninvented it and sought it out that they might seduce themselves. For\nwith it they have withdrawn themselves from the common humility and\nobedience which God has commanded, namely, that every one shall humble\nhimself and be subject to his neighbor. But they are subject to no man\non earth, and have withdrawn themselves entirely; they have made an\nobedience and a humility of their own after their statutes. Yet they\nclaim that their obedience is superhuman, perfect and, as it were,\nangelic, although there are no more disobedient and less humble people\non earth than they are.\n\nIn the same way they also have their vows of chastity and poverty.\nThey do not work like other people but, like the angels in heaven,\nthey praise and worship God day and night; in short, their life is\nheavenly, although nowhere on earth can you ind more horrible\nunchastity, greater wealth, less devotional hearts, or more hardened\npeople than in the spiritual estate, as every one knows. Yet they\nseduce all the world from the true way to the by-path with their\nself-willed, beautiful, spiritual and angelic life. All this, it seems\nto me, is not spoken of the Jews nor of the Manicheans, but of the\npapists; the works prove it.\n\n[Sidenote: Uncertainty]\n\nIV. He says, \"He walks in such religion and in that which he has never\nseen.\" This is the very worst feature of the doctrines of men and the\nlife built upon them, that they are without foundation and without\nwarrant in the Scriptures, and that men cannot know whether what they\ndo is good or wicked. For all their life is an uncertain venture. If\nyou ask them whether they are certain that what they are and do is\npleasing to God, they say, they do not know, they must take the\nchances: \"the end will show us.\" And this is all they can say, for\nthey have no faith, and faith alone makes us certain that all that we\nare is well-pleasing to God, not because of our merit, but because of\nHis mercy. Thus all their humility, obedience and all of their\nreligion is, at the very best, uncertain and in vain.\n\n[Sidenote: Vainly Puffed Up]\n\nV. \"Vainly they puff themselves up,\" that is, they have no\nreason to do so. For although their practices are uncertain,\nunbelieving and altogether damnable, yet they make bold to puff\nthemselves up and to claim that they have the best and the only true\nway, so that in comparison with theirs every other manner of living\nstinks and is nothing at all. But this puffed-up carnal mind of theirs\nthey neither see nor feel, so great is their angelic humility and\nobedience! O, the fruit of the doctrines of men!\n\n[Sidenote: Against Christ]\n\nVI. \"They do not hold fast the Head,\" which is Christ. For the\ndoctrines of men and Christ cannot agree; one must destroy the other.\nIf the conscience finds comfort in Christ, the comfort derived from\nworks and doctrines must all; if it finds comfort in works, Christ\nmust fall. The heart cannot build upon a twofold foundation; one must\nbe forsaken. Now we see that all the comfort of the papists rests upon\ntheir practices; for if it did not rest upon them, they would not\nesteem them and would give them up, or else they would use them as\nmatters of freedom, how and when they pleased.\n\nIf there were no other misfortune connected with the doctrines of men,\nthis were of itself all too great--that for their sake Christ must be\nforsaken, the Head must be lost, and the heart must build on such an\nabomination. For this reason St. Peter calls the orders abominable and\ndamnable heresies, which deny Christ, when he says, in the Second\nEpistle, ii, I, \"There shall arise among you false teachers, who\nprivily shall bring in damnable heresies, and deny the Lord that\nbought them.\" [2 Pet. 2:1]\n\n[Sidenote: Why Burden the Conscience?]\n\nVII. It is clear enough that he means our spiritual estate when he\nsays, \"If ye be dead with Christ, why do ye burden your consciences\nwith ordinances, such as: This thou shalt not touch, this thou shalt\nnot eat, this thou shalt not wear, etc.\" Who can here deny that God\nthrough St. Paul forbids us to teach and to hear all doctrines of men,\nin so far as they constrain the conscience? Who then can with a good\nconscience be a monk or a priest, or be subject to the pope? They must\nconfess that their consciences are taken captive with such laws. Thus\nthou seest what a mighty saying this is against all doctrines of men.\nIt is dreadful to hear that they forsake Christ the Head, deny the\nfaith and so must needs become heathen, and yet think their holiness\nupholds the world.\n\nVI.\n\nPaul, in Galatians I, 8., says: \"But though we, or an angel from\nheaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have\npreached unto you, let him be accursed[5]. As we said before, so say I\nnow again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye\nhave received, let him be accursed.\" [Gal. 1:8 f.]\n\n[Sidenote: God's Ban]\n\nIn these words you hear a judgment of God against the pope and all\ndoctrines of men, which says that they are under the ban. And this ban\nis not like the pope's ban; it is eternal and separates a man from\nGod, from Christ, from all salvation and from everything that is good,\nand makes him the companion of devils. O what a terrible judgment is\nthis! Look now, whether the pope, priests and monks do not proclaim\nanother and a different doctrine than that taught by Christ and His\nApostles. We said above that Christ teaches, \"What goeth into the\nmouth doth not defile a man.\" Contrary to this and beyond it the pope,\npriests and monks say, \"Thou liest, Christ, in so saying; for the\neating of meat defiles a Carthusian and condemns him; and the same is\ntrue of the other orders.\" Is not this striking Christ on the mouth,\ncalling Him a liar and blaspheming Him, and teaching other doctrines\nthan He taught? Therefore it is a just judgment, that they in their\ngreat holiness are condemned like blasphemers of God with an eternal\nban.\n\nVII\n\nPaul, in Titus i, 14, says: \"Teach them not to give heed Titus to\nJewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn them from the\ntruth.\" [Titus 1:14]\n\n[Sidenote: Christ, or Men?]\n\nThis is a strong command, that we are not at all to regard the\ncommandments of men. Is not this clear enough? And Paul gives his\nreason: they turn men from the truth, he says. For as has been said\nabove, the heart cannot trust in Christ and at the same time in the\ndoctrines or the works of men. Therefore, as soon as a man turns to\nthe doctrines of men he turns away from the truth, and does not regard\nit. On the other hand, he who finds his comfort in Christ cannot\nregard the commandments and the works of men. Look now, whose ban you\nshould fear most! The pope and his followers cast you far beyond hell\nif you do not heed their commandments, and Christ commands you not to\nheed them on pain of His ban. Consider whom you wish to obey.\n\nVIII\n\nII Peter ii, 1-3: \"There shall be false teachers among you, who\nprivily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that\nbought them, by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken\nof, and through covetousness shall they with feigned words make\nmerchandise of you.\"\n\n[Sidenote: The Orders Damnable Heresies]\n\nSo then, the orders and monastic houses are damnable heresies. Why?\nBecause they deny Christ, and blaspheme the way of faith. How? Christ\nsays, there is no sin and no righteousness in eating, drinking,\nclothes, places and works of men; this they condemn, and teach and\nlive the opposite, namely, that sin and righteousness are in these\nthings. Hence Christ must be a liar, He must be denied and blasphemed\ntogether with His teaching and faith. And they make use of feigned\nwords, and make much of their obedience, chastity and worship; but\nonly through covetousness, that they may make merchandise of us, until\nthey have brought all the wealth of the world into their possession,\non the ground that they are the people who by their worship would help\nevery man to heaven. For this reason they are and remain damnable and\nblasphemous heresies.\n\nIX\n\nChrist says, in Matthew xxiv, 23 ff.: \"Then if any man shall say unto\nyou, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not. For there shall\narise false Christs and false prophets, and shall show great signs and\nwonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the\nvery elect. Behold, I have told you before, Wherefore if they shall\nsay unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is\nin the secret chambers; believe it not.\"\n\nTell me, how can a monk be saved? He binds his salvation to a place\nand says, \"Here I find Christ; if I did not remain here, I should be\nlost.\" But Christ says, \"No, I am not here.\" Who will reconcile these\ntwo? Therefore, it is clear from this word of Christ that all\ndoctrines which bind the conscience to places are contrary to Christ.\nAnd if He does not allow the conscience to be bound to places, neither\ndoes He allow it to be bound to meats, clothes, postures or anything\nthat is external. There is no doubt then that this passage speaks of\nthe pope and his clergy, and that Christ Himself releases and sets\nfree all priests and monks, in that He condemns all orders and\nmonasteries and says, \"Believe not, go not out,\" etc.\n\nHe says the same thing also in Luke xvii, 20 f.: \"The kingdom of God\ncometh not with observation, and men shall not say, Lo here! or, Lo\nthere! For, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.\" [Luke 17:20 f.]\n\nIs not this also clear enough? The doctrines of men can command\nnothing but external things; and since the kingdom of God is not\nexternal, both teachers and disciples must needs miss the kingdom and\ngo astray. Nor will it help them to say that the holy fathers\ninstituted the orders. For Christ has already destroyed this argument,\nsince He says, that the very elect might be misled, that is, they will\nerr, but not remain in their error. How else would it be an exceeding\ngreat error, if the elect were not misled? Let the teaching and the\npractice of the saints be what it will, the words of Christ are\ncertain and clear. Him we must follow, and not the saints, whose\nteaching and works are uncertain. What He says stands firm, \"The\nkingdom of God is among[6] you, and not at a distance, either here or\nthere.\"\n\nX\n\nSolomon, in Proverbs xxx, 5 f., says: \"Every word of God is purified:\nand is a shield unto all them that put their trust in it. Add thou not\nunto His words, lest He reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.\"\n[Prov. 30:5 f.]\n\nWith this I will end or the present; or there is much more in the\nprophets, especially in Jeremiah, of which I have written in the\ntreatise on Confession. Here then Solomon concludes that he is a liar\nwho adds aught to the words of God; for the Word of God alone is to\nteach us, as Christ says, Matthew xxiii, 8, \"Be ye not called masters.\nOne Master is in you, even Christ.\" [Matt. 23:8] Amen.\n\n\nA REPLY TO TEXTS QUOTED IN DEFENSE OF THE DOCTRINES OF MEN\n\n\nThe first is Luke x, 16, where Christ says, \"He that heareth you,\nheareth Me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth Me.\" [Luke 10:16] He\nspoke similar words in Matthew x, 40 [Matt. 10:40], and in John xiii,\n20 [John 13:20]. Here, they claim, Christ demands of us that we accept\ntheir man-made laws.\n\n[Sidenote: The Command of Christ]\n\nI reply: That is not true. For immediately before speaking these\nwords, Christ says, \"Go and say, the kingdom of God is at hand.\"\n[Matt. 10:7, Luke 10:9] With these words Christ stops the mouths of\nall the teachers of the doctrines of men, and commands the apostles\nwhat they are to teach, and Himself puts the words in their mouth,\nsaying that they shall preach the kingdom of God. Now he who does not\npreach the kingdom of God is not sent by Christ, and him these words\ndo not concern. Much rather do these words demand of us that we hear\nnot the doctrines of men. Now to preach of the kingdom of God is\nnothing else than to preach the Gospel, in which the faith of Christ\nis taught, by which alone God dwells and rules in us. But the\ndoctrines of men do not preach about faith, but about eating,\nclothing, times, places, persons and about purely external things\nwhich do not profit the soul.\n\n[Sidenote: The Perversion of the Text]\n\nBehold how honestly the pious shepherds and faithful teachers have\ndealt with the poor common people. This text, \"Who hears you, hears\nme,\" they have in a masterly fashion torn out of its context and have\nterrified us with it, until they have made us subject to themselves.\nBut what precedes, \"Preach the kingdom of God,\" they have taken good\ncare not to mention, and have bravely leaped over it, that they might\nby no means be compelled to preach nothing but the Gospel. The noble,\nand most excellent teachers! We ought to thank them for it!\n\nIn Mark, the last chapter, we read that He sent out the disciples to\npreach. Let us hear what command He gives them, and how He sets a\nlimit to their teaching and bridles their tongues, saying, \"Go ye into\nall the world, and preach the Gospel to every creature. He that\nbelieveth, shall be saved,\" etc., Mark xvi, 15 [Mark 16:15]. He does\nnot say, Go and preach what you will, or what you think to be good;\nbut He puts His own word into their mouth, and bids them preach the\nGospel.\n\nIn Matthew, the last chapter, He says, \"Go and make disciples of all\nnations, baptise them in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of\nthe Holy Ghost; and teach them to observe all things which I have\ncommanded you.\" Here, again. He does not say, Teach them to observe\nwhat you devise, but what I have commanded you. Therefore the pope and\nhis bishops and teachers must be wolves and the apostles of the devil;\nit cannot be otherwise, for they teach not the commands of Christ, but\ntheir own words. So also in Matthew xxv, 15, in the parable of the\nthree servants, the Lord points out that the householder bade the\nservants trade not with their own property, but with his, and gave the\nfirst five talents, the second two and the third one. [Matt. 25:15]\n\nOur second text is Matthew xxiii, 2 f., where the Lord says, \"The\nscribes and Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. All therefore whatsoever\nthey bid you observe, that observe and do.\"\n\nHere, here, they say, we have authority to teach what we think to be\nright.\n\n[Sidenote: Moses' Seat]\n\nI answer: If that is what Christ means, then we are in a sorry plight.\nEvery pope might then create more new laws, until the world could no\nlonger contain all the laws. But they quote this text as they quote\nthe first. What do the words \"sit in Moses' seat\" mean? Let us ask,\nwhat did Moses teach? And if he still sat in his seat today, what\nwould he teach? Beyond a doubt, nothing but what he taught of old,\nnamely, the commandments and the word of God. He never yet spoke the\ndoctrines of men, but what God commanded him to speak, as almost every\nchapter of his shows. It follows, then, that he who teaches something\nelse than Moses teaches, does not sit in Moses' seat. For the Lord\ncalls it Moses' seat, because from it the doctrines of Moses should be\nread and taught. The same meaning is contained in the words which\nfollow, in which the Lord says, \"But do not ye after their works, for\nthey say, and do not; for they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be\nborne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not\nmove them with one of their fingers.\" [Matt. 23:3 f.]\n\nSee, here He reproves their works, because they add many laws to the\ndoctrines of Moses and lay them on the people, but themselves do not\ntouch them. And afterward He says, in verse 13, \"Woe unto you, scribes\nand Pharisees, hypocrites! which say, Whosoever shall swear by the\ntemple, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the\ntemple, he is a debtor! Ye fools and blind; for whether is greater?\nthe gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold?\" [Matt. 23:13, 16\nf.] Is it not clear that Christ here condemns their doctrines of men?\nHe can, therefore, not have confirmed them by speaking of sitting in\nMoses' seat; else He would have contradicted Himself. Therefore Moses'\nseat must mean no more than the Law of Moses, and the sitting in it no\nmore than the preaching of the Law of Moses.\n\nThis is what Moses himself said of his seat and doctrine, Deuteronomy\niv, 2, \"Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you.\" [Deut.\n4:2] And in Deuteronomy xii, 32, \"What thing soever I command you,\nobserve to do it; thou shalt not add thereto nor diminish from it.\"\n[Deut. 12:32] These doctrines they were required to teach in Moses'\nseat; therefore Moses' seat cannot endure any doctrines of men.\n\n[Sidenote: St. Augustine]\n\nSt. Augustine is quoted as having written in _the Book against the\nLetter of the Manicheans_[7], \"I would not believe the Gospel if I did\nnot believe the Church.\"\n\nHere you see, they say, we are to believe the Church more than the\nGospel.\n\n[Sidenote: Authority]\n\nI answer: Even if Augustine had used those words, who gave him\nauthority, that we must believe what he says? What Scripture does he\nquote to prove the statement? What if he erred here, as we know that\nhe frequently did, as did all the fathers? Should one single sentence\nof Augustine be so mighty as to refute all the texts quoted above?\nThat is not what God wills; St. Augustine must yield to them.\n\nFurther, if that were St. Augustine's meaning, he would contradict\nhimself; for in very many places he exalts the Holy Scriptures above\nthe opinions of all teachers, above the decrees of all councils and\nchurches, and will have men judge of him and of the teachings of all\nmen according to the Scriptures. Why then do the faithful shepherds\npass by those sayings of St. Augustine, plain and clear as they are,\nand light on this lonely one, which is so obscure and sounds so unlike\nAugustine as we know him from all his writings? It can only be because\nthey want to bolster up their tyranny with idle, empty words.\n\n[Sidenote: Words Perverted]\n\nFurthermore, they are deceivers, in that they not only ascribe to St.\nAugustine an opinion he did not hold, but they also falsify and\npervert his words. For St. Augustine's words really are, \"I would not\nhave believed the Gospel if the authority of the whole Church had not\nmoved me.\" Augustine speaks of the whole Church, and says that\nthroughout the world it with one consent preaches the Gospel and not\nthe Letter of the Manicheans; and this unanimous authority of the\nChurch moves him to consider it the true Gospel. But our tyrants apply\nthis name of the Church to themselves, as if the laymen and the common\npeople were not also Christians. And what they teach they want men to\nconsider as the teaching of the Christian Church, although they are a\nminority, and we, who are universal Christendom, should also be\nconsulted about what is to be taught in the name of universal\nChristendom. See, so cleverly do they quote the words of St.\nAugustine: what he says of the Church throughout all the world, they\nwould have us understand of the Roman See.\n\nBut how does it follow from this saying that the doctrines of men are\nalso to be observed? What doctrine of men has ever been devised that\nhas been accepted and preached by all of the universal Church\nthroughout the world? Not one; the Gospel alone is accepted by all\nChristians everywhere.\n\n[Sidenote: Their True Meaning]\n\nBut then we must not understand St. Augustine to say that he would not\nbelieve the Gospel unless he were moved thereto by the authority of\nthe whole Church. For that were false and unchristian. Every man must\nbelieve only because it is God's Word, and because he is convinced in\nhis heart that it is true, although an angel from heaven and all the\nworld preached the contrary. His meaning is rather, as he himself\nsays, that he finds the Gospel nowhere except in the Church, and that\nthis external proof can be given heretics that their doctrine is not\nright, but that that is right which all the world has with one accord\naccepted. For the eunuch in Acts viii, 37, believed on the Gospel as\npreached by Philip, although he did not know whether many or few\nbelieved on it [Acts 8:37]. So also Abraham believed the promise of\nGod all by himself, when no man knew of it, Romans iv, 18 [Rom. 4:18].\nAnd Mary, Luke i, 38 [Luke 1:38], believed the message of Gabriel by\nherself, and there was no one on earth who believed with her. In this\nway Augustine also had to believe, and all the saints, and we too,\nevery one for himself alone.\n\nFor this reason St. Augustine's words cannot bear the interpretation\nthey put upon them; but they must be understood of the external proof\nof faith, by which heretics are refuted and the weak strengthened in\nfaith, when they see that all the world preaches and regards as Gospel\nthat which they believe. And if this meaning cannot be found in St.\nAugustine's words, it is better to reject the words; for they are\ncontrary to the Scriptures and to all experience if they have that\nother meaning.\n\n[Sidenote: The Apostles Also Men]\n\nFinally, when they are refuted with Scripture so that they cannot\nescape, they begin to blaspheme God and say, \"But St. Matthew, Paul\nand Peter also were men; therefore what they teach is also the\ndoctrine of men. And if their doctrine is to be observed, let the\npope's doctrine be observed as well!\" Such blasphemy is now being\nuttered even by some princes and bishops, who count themselves wise.\nWhen you hear such utterly hardened and blinded blasphemers, turn away\nfrom them or stop your ears; they are not worthy that one should talk\nwith them. If that argument were to hold, then Moses also was a man,\nand all the prophets were men. Then let us go our way, and believe\nnothing at all, but regard everything as the doctrine of men, and\nfollow our fancy.\n\n[Sidenote: Answer]\n\nBut if you will talk with them, do so, and say, Well, let St. Paul or\nMatthew be the doctrine of men; then we ask, Whence comes their\nauthority? How will they prove that they have authority to teach and\nto be bishops? Or how shall we know where the Church is? If they say\nthat St. Matthew has so asserted in Matthew xvi, 19 [Matt. 16:19], or\nSt. Paul in some place or other, do you say, But that does not hold:\nthey are the doctrines of men, as you say; you must have God's Word to\nconfirm you. And then you will find that these hardened blasphemers\nput themselves to shame and confusion with their own folly. They\ncannot even distinguish between a man who speaks for himself and one\nthrough whom God speaks. The words of the Apostles were commanded them\nby God, and confirmed and proved by great miracles, such as were never\ndone for the doctrines of men. And if they are certain in themselves,\nand will prove it to us, that God has commanded them to teach as they\ndo, we will believe them as we believe the Apostles. If it is\nuncertain whether the words of the Apostles are of God, who will give\nus certainty that their doctrines of men are of God? _O furor et\namentia his saeculis digna!_[8]\n\n[Sidenote: Why Doctrines of Men are Condemned]\n\nBut we do not condemn the doctrines of men because they are the\ndoctrines of men, for we would gladly endure them, but because they\nare contrary to the Gospel and to the Scriptures. The Scriptures set\nthe consciences of men free, and forbid that they be taken captive\nwith the doctrines of men. The doctrines of men take captive the\nconscience. This conflict between the Scriptures and the doctrines of\nmen we cannot reconcile. Hence, because these two forms of doctrine\ncontradict one another, we allow even young children to judge here\nwhether we are to give up the Scriptures, in which the one Word of God\nis taught from the beginning of the world, or the doctrines of men\nwhich were newly devised yesterday and change daily? And we hope that\nevery one will agree in the decision that the doctrines of men must be\nforsaken and the Scriptures retained. For they cannot be reconciled,\nbut are by nature opposed to one another, like fire and water, like\nheaven and earth; As Isaiah Iv, 8 f. says: \"As the heavens are exalted\nabove the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways.\" [Isa. 55:8 f.]\nNow he who walks on the earth cannot at the same time walk in heaven,\nand he who walks in heaven cannot walk on the earth.\n\nTherefore we request the papists that they first reconcile their\ndoctrines with the Scriptures. If they accomplish that, we will\nobserve their doctrines. But that they will not do before the Holy\nSpirit has become a liar. Therefore we say again. The doctrines of men\nwe censure not because they are spoken by men, but because they are\nlies and blasphemies against the Scriptures. And the Scriptures,\nalthough they also were written by men, are not of men nor from men,\nbut from God. Now since Scriptures and the doctrines of men are\ncontrary the one to the other, one must lie and the other be true. Let\nus see to which of the two they themselves will ascribe the lie. Let\nthis suffice.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES\n\n\n[1] Goldfasts are the ember-fasts, on the three ember-days of each of\nthe four seasons of the year; possibly called \"goldfasts\" because on\nthese days rents were collected. See _Realencyklopadie_, 5: 780, 9.\n\n[2] The fasts enjoined upon a people by a public edict or ban. The\nterm \"ban\" as here used does not denote the Church's excommunication,\nbut an authoritative proclamation.\n\n[3] The Tatianists, followers of Tatian, who lived in Syria in the\nmiddle of the second century. Tatian, apparently basing his view of\nmarriage upon 1 Cor. 7:5, ascribes the institution of marriage and the\nwhole Old Testament Law to the devil. Eusebius held that Tatian was\nthe founder of a sect known as the _Encratites_, or _Abstainers_.\nModern historians see in the _Encratites_ groups of ascetic Christians\nfound frequently in the early Church, somewhat similar to the later\nmonks and nuns, so that Harnack can write that Tatian \"joined the\nEncratites.\" _Dogmengeschichte_3, I, 227 n. See _Realencyklopadie_3,\n19, 386-394 on Tatian; 5, 392 f. on the Encratites.\n\n[4] The Manicheans, strictly speaking not a Christian sect, but a\nrival religious community, which made inroads upon the Christian\nChurch. Founded by the Babylonian Mani, who was born in the third\ncentury, they taught the inherent evil of all matter, and consequently\nhad many fasts, averaging seven days in each month, while the\n\"perfect\" among them abstained from meat, wine and marriage. See\n_Realencyklopadie_ 3, 12, 193-228; von Orelli, _Religionsgeschichte_,\n279-291.\n\n[5] The Greek _anathema_ Luther here translates _ein Bann_, \"let him\nbe a ban.\" This explains the reference to the ban below.\n\n[6] _Stehet untereuch_, whereas above Luther writes _ist inwendig in\neuch_.\n\n[7] _Contra Epistolam Manichaei_, vi, _Paris Ed._, 1839, 28: 185: _Ego\nvero Evangelic non crederem, nisi me ecclesiae catholicae commoveret\nanctoritas_. On the preceding page Augustine had written: \"If the\nclaim of truth be shown to be so evident that it cannot be called into\nquestion, it is to be preferred before all those things by which I am\nheld in the Catholic faith.\"\n\n[8] O raging madness, worthy of our age!\n\n\n\nINDEX\n\n\n\nSCRIPTURE REFERENCES\n\n\nINDEX\n\n\nAbel\nAbraham\nAbsolution\n    power of\nAbuses\nAccident and substance\nAdam\nAdjutories\nAdministratio\nAdversity\nAgnes, St.\nAgricola\nAgriculture\nAhasuerus\nAhaz\nd'Ailly\nAlbrecht of Brandenburg\nAlexander of Hales\nAlexander VI.\nAlien sins\nAllegories\nAlveld\nAmbrose\nAmen, meaning of\nAmerbach, Boniface\nAmsdor\nAngelic Sum\nAngels\nAngelus de Clavissio\nArmas\nAnnates\nAmie, St.\nAnniversaries\nAnniaities\nAnthony, St.\nAntichrist\nAntonius of Florence\nAntwerp\nApostles\nApostolic Council\nAquinas, Thomas\nArchbishop\nAristotle\nArticles of faith\nAttrition\nAugsburg, Diet of\nAugustine, St.\nAugustinian fathers\nAugustinus Trimnphus\nAuriaber\nAvarice\n\nBabylon\nBabylonian captivity\nBalaam\nBalaam's ass\nBamberg\nBan\n    power of\n    greater and lesser\n    purpose of\n    penalty of\nBan, danger of\n    harms no one\n    a medicine\n    to be respected\n    to be loved\n    unjust, to be desired\n    or debt\n    abuses of\n    does not exclude from Gospel\nBanfasts\nBaptism\n    grace of\n    makes priests\n    foundation of sacraments\n    a ship\n    God's work\n    formula of\n    by wicked minister\n    efficacy of\n    significance of\n    vows of\n    comfort of\nBar to grace\nBarbara, St.\nBarnabas\nBasel, Council of\nBeer-money\nBegging\nBelief and faith\nBelvidere\nBenedict, St.\nBenefit of clergy\nBerlepsch, Hans von\nBernard, St.\nBethaven\nBiel, Gabriel\nBigamy\nBirettas\nBishops\nBishops' paths\nBlandina, St.\nBlasphemy\nBohemians\nBonaventure\nBoniace VIII.\nBoth kinds in the sacrament\nBotschaten\nBrandenburg\nBread, Sacrament of the Altar\n    daily, is Christ\nBreves\nBrotherhood, Christian\nBrotherhoods\n    perversion of\n    kinds of\n    proper conduct of\nBull, Coena Domini\n    papal\nBurer, Albrecht\nButter-letters\n\nCaesarini, Cardinal\nCaiaphas\nCairo\nCajetan\nCambray, Cardinal of\nCampolore\nCanaan\nCanon law\nCanon of the mass\nCanonical hours\nCanonization\nCanonry\nCaptivity of the Church\n    v. Babylonian Captivity.\nCardinals\nCarlstadt\nCarmelites\nCarthusian\nCastor and Pollux\nCasus reservati\nCatechisms\nCathedrals\nCelibacy\nCeremonialist\nCeremonies\nCertainty of salvation\nChancery, rules in\nChapters\nCharacter indelebilis\nCharity\nCharles the Great\nCharles V.\nChartreuse\nChastity\nChrist\n    spiritual body of\n    as king and priest\n    sacrifice of the altar\n    sacrament\n    faith in\nChristian nobility, duty of\nChristian, the name\n    what makes\n    marks of a\nChristianity\nChurch\n    authority of\n    cannot institute sacraments\n    community of Christians\n    our mother\n    and state\nChurch laws\nCicero\nCircumcision\nCircumstances\nClement V.\nClement VI.\nClement VII.\nClergy\nCoadjutorships\nCognatio legalis and spiritualis\nCollect\nCologne\nCommandments of God\nCommandments, Ten\nCommend\nCommerce\nCommunio\nCommunion\n    worthy\n    in two kinds\n    of saints\nComplutensian polyglott\nCompositions\nConcordat of Vienna\nConfession\nConfessionalia\nConfirmation\nCongregations, power to elect priests,\nConsanguinity, spiritual\nConscience\nConstance, Council of\nConstantine, Emperor\nContested benefices\nContrition\nCorporal cloths\nCorporations\nCorpus juris canonici\nCouncils\nCouncils can err\nCourtesans\nCreed\nCremona\nCrusades\nCrying sins\nCyprian\n\nDaniel\n    the pope as\nDatarius\nDavid\nDeacons\nDeath\n    must serve the Christian\nDecretals\nDevil\nDignities\nDionysius, Areopagita\nDisparihtas religionis\nDispensations\nDivorce\nDoctorate\nDoctrines of men\nDominic, St.\nDonation of Constantine\nDonatus, St.\nDress, extravagance in\nDims Scotus\nDurandus\n\nEck, John\nEconomic reforms\nEdification of the Church\nElevation of the host\nElisha\nElvira, Council of\nEmperor\nEmser\nEngland\nErasmus\nErurt\nEstates of Christendom\nEternal life\nEugenius IV.\nEvil spirit\nExcesses in eating and drinking\nExcommunication\nExecutio\nExemptions\nExtortion\nExtreme unction\nEzekiel\n\nFable quoted\nFaculties\nFaith\n    not a work\n    and promise\n    and works\n    alone justifies\n    all things depend on\n    fulfils commandments\n    unites with Christ\n    and love\nFasts\nFathers of the Church\nFeast days\nFeldkirchen\nFellowship, twofold\n    spiritual\nFive senses, sins of\nFlorence, Council of\nForgiveness of sins\nForma sacramenti\nFoundations\nFrance\nFrancis, St.\nFranciscans\nFraternities\nFrederick, Duke\nFrederick, Elector\nFrederick I.\nFrederick II.\nFree will\nFruits of the mass\nFugger of Augsburg\n\nGeneral Council\nGeorge of Saxony\nGerman knights\n    bishops and princes\n    nation\n    emperors\n    empire\n    mass\nGermans\nGermany\nGerson, John\nGibeonites\nGideon\nGlosses\nGod, faith in\nGod's bosom\nGolden rule\nGolden years\nGoldfasts\nGospel\nGoths\nGovernment, good, a gift of grace\nGrammatical sense of Scripture\nGratiae expectivse\nGreek Church\n    emperor\nGreeks\nGrimmenthal\n\nHadrian VI.\nHalberstadt\nHalle\nHamburg\nHenry IV. and V.\nHenry VIII\nHeresy\nHeretics\nHerod\nHess, John\nHezekiah\nHimmelsbriee\nHindrance of crime\n    error\nHoly Ghost, faith in\nHubert, St.\nHuss, John\nHussites\nHutten, Ulrich von\nHymns of praise\n\nIconoclastic controversy\nIdolatry\nIgnorance\nImages\nImmersion\nImpediments\nImpedimentum criminis\n    erroris\n    ligaminis\n    ordinis\nImpotence\nIncarnation\nIncompatibilia\nIncorporation\nIndulgences\nIndulta\nInfant baptism\nIngenwinkel, Joh.\nInnocent I.\nInnocent III.\nInnocent VIII.\nInquisition\nIntercessions\nInterdict\nInvestiture\nIrregular monks\nIsaiah\nIsolani, Isidore\nIsrael\nItaly\n\nJahrmarkt\nJames, St., Epistle of\nJehu\nJereboam\nJeremiah\nJerome\n    of Prague\nJohn XXII.\nJonas, Justus\nJordan, crossing of\nJoseph, affliction of\nJubilee years\nJudas\nJudgment day\nJulius II.\nJus patronum\nJus verbi\nJustification by faith\n\nKessler, John\nKeys, power of\nKingdom of God\nKingship of the Christian\nKirchweihen\nKoran\n\nLaity\nLang, Johan\nLateran Council\nLaw, the\nLaw in the universities\nLaws as snares for souls\n    of men\n        V. Doctrines of men.\nLay-baptism\nLegal relationships\nLeipzig\n    Disputation\nLeo III.\nLeo X.\nLetters of confession\nLiberty\n    not external\n    and service\nLicenses\nLink, Wenceslaus\nLivings\nLombard, Peter\nLord's Prayer\nLord's Supper\nLotther, Melchior\nLouis, King of France\nLouvain\nLove\nLuther\n    pastoral concern\n    the German\n    as a fool\n    knowledge of Aristotle\n    not a mathematician\n    as a musician\n    compelled to speak\n    his progress\n    his duty\n    recantation\n    appeal to a council\n    zeal\n    separation from Rome\n    appeal to the pope\n    friend of the pope\n    his faith\n    as a reformer\n    purpose of writing\n\nMagdeburg\nMagistrate\nMainz\nMan, nature of\n    inward\n    outward\n    of sin\nManichaeans\nManoah\nMarcus Aurelius\nMargaret of Braunschweig\nMarriage\n    of the clergy\n    forbidden degrees\n    a type\n    a sacrament\n    hindrances\nMartyrs\nMass\n    sacrifice of\n    letters\n    anniversary\n    mortuary\n    endowed\nMaximilian, Emperor\nMecklenburg\nMedicine in universities\nMeissen\nMelanchthon\nMelchizedek\nMemorial days\nMendicants orders\nMerchants\nMerseburg\nMiltitz, Carl von\nMinisterium\nMinistry\nMiracles\nMissa catechumenorum and fidelium\nMonasteries\nMonastic life\nMonstrance\nMoses\nMoses' seat\nMother of God\nMuhlphort, Hieronymus\nMurner, Thomas\nMute sins\nMystery\n    and sacrament\nMystics\n\nName of God\nNaples and Sicily, Kingdom of\nNathan\nNatural law\n    revelation\nNew Testament\nNicaea, Council of\nNimrod\nNoah\nNobility, German\nNurnberg, Diet of\n\nOblations\nObservance\nOccam, William of\nOfficia of the pope\nOfficials\nOld Testament\nOpus operantis\nOpus operatum\nOrder to be observed\nOrders, monastic\nOrdinaries\nOrdination\nOrigen\nOttilia, St.\nOur Lady\n\nPallium\nPalmers\nPapacy\nPapal court\n    secretaries\n    months\n    family\n    servant\n    letters\n    homage\nParents, duty toward\nParticipations\nPassover\nPatience\nPatron saints\nPaul, St.\nPenalties to be abolished\nPenance\n    second plank\nPenitence\nPersia\nPeter, St.\nPfeffinger, D.\nPhilip of Hesse\nPhilosophy\nPicards\nPilate\nPilgrimages\nPius, Pope\nPope\n    power of\n    can be deposed\n    errors of\n    tyranny\n    an idol\n    compared with Christ\n    wealth of\n    infallibility of\n    worldliness of\n    vicar of crucified Christ\n    vicar of absent Christ\n    duty of\n    temporal power of\n    letter to\nPower not to be trusted\nPrague\nPrayer\nPreachers\nPreaching, true\nPrebend\nPrecepts of the Church\nPresbyters\nPrierias, Sylvester\nPriesthood of believers\n    why men seek\n    is ministry of the Word\nPriests\nPriests, officeholders\n    duty of\nPrimate\nPrivate confession\n    mass\nPrivilegium fori\nPromise of God\nProprius motus\nProstitution\nProverbs quoted\nPurgatory\n\nQuedunburg, convent\n\nReal presence\nReason\nReformation\nReforms suggested\nRegeneration\nRegensburg\nRegression\nRemission of sins\nRentenkauf\nRepentance\nRes sacramenti\nReservatio pectoralis\nReservation, right of\nReserved cases\nRhine-toll\nRods, three\nRoman curia\nRoman Empire\nRoman See\nRomanists\nRome\nRulers, wicked\n\nSacrament of the Altar\n    institution of\n    reception of\n    not a law\n    not a sacrifice\n    daily use of\n    significance of\n    preparation for\n    benefit of\n    a sign\n    purpose of\n    misuse of\n    faith of\n    right use of\n    necessity of\nSacrament, types of\n    and the pope\nSacraments\n    parts of\n    signs of\n    two principal\n    grace of\n    fount of love\n    not a good work\n    efficacy of\n    of Old and New Law\n    significance of\n    not effective signs of grace\n    institution of\nSacramentum is mystery\nSacrifices\nSafe conduct\nSaints\nSaints' days\nSamuel\nSardica, Council of\nSatisfactions\nSaul\nSchism\nSchismatics\nSchools, Christian\n    for girls\nScrinium pectoris\nScriptures\n    commands and promises\nSebastian, St.\nSecret sin\nSects\nSedulius, Coelius\nSentences\nSententious theologians\nSermons\nSignatura gratiae and justitiae\nSigniicasti, Chapter\nSimony\nSins\n    demand punishment\n    seven deadly\nSiricius, Pope\nSixtus IV.\nSlanderers\nSocial evil\nSodalities\nSolite, Chapter\nSolomon\nSoul\n    immortality of\nSpalatin\nSpice trade\nSpiritual, what makes us\n    duties\n    relationship\n    law\nStates of the Church\nStationaries\nStaupitz\nStephen, St.\nSternberg\nStrassburg\nStudents, restriction of\nSubstance and accident\nSycophants\nSynaxis\n\nTatianists\nTeachings of men, v. Doctrines of men.\nTemporal estate\n    power\nTemptations\nTen Commandments\nTestament\nTestament, words of\nTetzel\nTeufelsbriefe\nTheodidacti\nTheodosius\nTheology in the universities\n    text-books\nTheses, XCV\nThomists\nTimothy\nTitus\nTransaccidentation\nTransubstantiation,\n    of communicant\nTrent, Council of\nTrier\nTriple crown\nTruth\nTulich, Herman\nTurks\n    worst in Rome\nTypes\nTyranny, Roman\n\nUnbelief\nUnchastity\nUnio\nUnity of the Church\nUniversities\nUsury\n\nValentine, St.\nValla, Laurentius\nVarna, Battle of\nVenice\nVergil\nVienna, Council, of\nVirgin Mary\nVisions\nVotaries\nVotive masses\nVows\n    of celibacy\n    ceremonial laws\n    triple\n\nWallbruder\nWalls, the three, of Rome\nWartburg\nWicked, success of\nWill of God\nWilsnack\nWitchcraft\nWittenberg\nWladislav\nWord of God\nWorks\n    measure of\n    good, are sins\n    do not justify\nWorks of love\n    six, of mercy\nWorld\nWorms, Diet of\nWorship, true\nWurzburg, 82\nWyclif\n\nZedekiah\nZink, Johaimes\nZinskau\nZwickau Prophets\nZwilling, Gabriel\n\n\nSCRIPTURE REFERENCES\n\n\nGenesis--\n    1:31\n    2:15\n    3:15\n    3:17\n    3:19\n    4:5\n    9:12\n    9:15\n    12:3\n    13:5\n    17:10ff\n    18:19\n    19:24\n    21:12\n    49:3\n\nExodus--\n    12:8, 11\n    12:35ff\n    13:2\n    13:13\n    20:4\n    20:12\n    20:17\n    22:28\n    23:15\n    34:20\n    37:7\n\nLeviticus--\n    8:27\n    11:19\n    18:6ff\n\nNumbers--\n    3:13\n    21:9\n    22:28\n    24:24\n\nDeuteronomy--\n    1:31\n    4:2\n    4:19\n    8:3\n    10:16\n    12:32\n    14:18\n    16:16.\n    23:12f.\n    24:1\n    25:5\n    28:14\n    32:35\n\nJoshua--\n    3:7\n    6:20\n    9:19\n\nJudges--\n    6:36ff\n    9:2\n    13:19\n    20:21\n\nI. Samuel--\n    2:30\n    16:13\n\nII. Samuel 7:16\n\nI. Kings--\n    1:38\n    12:26\n    12:31\n    18:21\n    19:20\n\nII. Kings--\n    9:1\n    18:4\n    24:20\n    25:4\n\nEsther 1:5\n\nJob 31:27\n\nPsalms--\n    13:3f\n    14:5\n    18;8\n    18:26\n    19:1ff\n    19:8\n    23:5\n    30:5\n    32:5f\n    33:16\n    44:23\n    58:4\n    63:5\n    64:1\n    67:1f\n    104:15\n    106:3\n    107:20\n    109:28\n    111:2\n    112:7\n    115:1\n    119\n    119:85\n    134:2\n    137:1\n    143:2\n\nProverbs--\n    6:27\n    15:8\n    30:5f\n    30:15\n\nEcclesiastes--\n    1:2\n    3:7\n\nSong of Solomon 2:16\n\nIsaiah--\n    2:8\n    3:4\n    3:10\n    5:4\n    3:13f\n    7:10ff\n    9:20\n    10:22\n    28:14\n    28:21\n    29:13\n    37:4\n    55:8\n    56:10\n    61:8\n    66:2\n\nJeremiah--\n    2:32\n    4:4\n    5:3\n    17:9\n    23:21\n    29:7\n    48:10\n    51:9\n\nLamentations--\n    1:1f\n    1:11\n    2:11ff\n\nEzekiel 2:6\n\nDaniel--\n    1:6\n    2:21\n    3:30\n    4:14\n    4:35\n    5:29\n    6:16\n    11:39,43\n\nHosea--\n    2:19\n    4:6\n    4:15\n    10:5\n    13:9\n\nJoel 1:5\n\nAmos--\n6:1\n6:4-6\n8:11\n\nJonah 3:5\n\nHabakkuk 2:4\n\nZechariah 2:8\n\nMalachi 2:7\n\nMatthew--\n    3:2\n    3:6\n    4:1ff\n    4:4\n    4:17\n    5:3\n    5:16\n    5:18\n    5:22\n    5:25\n    5:29\n    5:32\n    5:40\n    5:45\n    6:7\n    6:12\n    6:14\n    7:3\n    7:12\n    7:15\n    7:18\n    7:20\n    8:13\n    9:1\n    10:7\n    10:8\n    10:10\n    10:16\n    10:40\n    11:23\n    12:1ff\n    12:33\n    13:14\n    13:52\n    15:4\n    15:8\n    15:9\n    15:11\n    15:13\n    15:14\n    16:19\n    17:5\n    17:24ff\n    17:33\n    18:4\n    18:10\n    18:15\n    18:18\n    18:19f\n    18:20\n    18:24, 28\n    19:6 123, 263.\n    19:6\n    21:13\n    22:2f 20\n    23:3f\n    23:8\n    23:13\n    23:14\n    23:15\n    23:16f\n    24:5\n    24:15\n    24:23f\n    24:24\n    25:15\n    25:40\n    26\n    26:2\n    26:21ff\n    26:26\n    26:27\n    26:28\n    26:29\n    26:41\n    27:34\n    27:35\n    28:19\n\nMark--\n    2:27\n    6:13\n    9:23\n    10:16\n    11:24\n    14\n    14:22\n    14:23\n    15:23\n    16:15\n    16:16\n    16:17\n    16:18\n\nLuke--\n    1:38\n    1:52\n    1:53\n    2:22\n    2:34\n    6:30\n    7:16\n    9:48\n    9:56\n    10:7\n    10:9\n    10:16\n    11:5ff\n    11:16\n    11:28\n    12:14\n    12:32\n    16:22\n    17:20f\n    21:34\n    22\n    22:19f\n    22:25\n    22:32\n    22:20\n    23:26\n\nJohn--\n    1:12\n    1:51\n    4:14\n    5:46\n    6:9\n    6:27\n    6:35, 41, 51\n    6:37,39\n    6:45\n    6:53, 55\n    6:54\n    6:63\n    7:38\n    8:7\n    8:11\n    8:26\n    8:44\n    8:50\n    9:31\n    10:27\n    11:25\n    13:1ff\n    13:20\n    14:6\n    17:9, 20\n    17:12\n    17:36\n    18:36\n    20:15-17\n    20:22ff\n    20:23\n\nActs--\n    2:46f\n    3:6\n    4:34f\n    5:5\n    5:9\n    5:39\n    6:4\n    6:6\n    8:18\n    8:17\n    8:37\n    9:15\n    9:19\n    13:10\n    14:11-16\n    15:6\n    16:3\n    17:16ff\n    17:22\n    17:54\n    18:6\n    28:11\n\nRomans--\n    1:11\n    1:5\n    1:17\n    1:28\n    1:32\n    3:10ff\n    3:23\n    4:3\n    4\n    4:11\n    4:18\n    5:3\n    5:4\n    5:5\n    6:4,6\n    7:22\n    8:23\n    8:28\n    8:31\n    8:35, 3\n    8:36\n    9:16\n    9:33\n    10:4\n    10:9\n    10:10\n    10:17\n    11:32\n    12:4ff\n    12:17\n    12:19\n    13\n    13:1, 4\n    13:4\n    13:8\n    13:10\n    14:1ff\n    14:3\n    14:5\n    14:7f\n    14:14f\n    14:22\n    14:23\n\nI. Corinthians--\n    1:1\n    1:2\n    1:7\n    1:21\n    1:23\n    2:2\n    2:7\n    2:12\n    2:15\n    3:18\n    3:22\n    4:1\n    4:15\n    4:20\n    5:5\n    5:11\n    6:1ff\n    6:7\n    6:12\n    7:5\n    7:7\n    7:9\n    7:15\n    7:18ff\n    7:23\n    8:4\n    8:13\n    9:4ff\n    9:14\n    9:19\n    9:27\n    10\n    10:5\n    10:16\n    10:17\n    10:23\n    10:25ff\n    11\n    11:20\n    11:21\n    11:23\n    11:24\n    11:25\n    11:29\n    11:30\n    12:12ff\n    12:25f\n    13:1\n    13:2\n    13:5\n    13:12\n    14:23\n    14:30\n    15:55ff\n\nII. Corinthians--\n    2:17\n    3:17\n    4\n    4:13\n    4:16\n    10:3\n    10:8\n    11:13\n    11:31\n    12:9\n    13:8\n    13:10\n\nGalatians--\n    1:8\n    2:3\n    2:11\n    2:14\n    2:20\n    3:4\n    4:4\n    5:1\n    5:6\n    5:17\n    5:22\n    5:24\n    6:2\n    6:5\n\nEphesians--\n    2:3\n    2:8\n    3:20\n    4:4\n    4:14\n    4:28\n    5:9\n    5:27\n    5:29\n    5:31\n    6:12\n    6:17\n\nPhilippians--\n    1:21\n    2:1\n    2:4\n    2:5\n    2:6\n    2:7\n    3:2\n    4:13\n\nColossians--\n    2:16\n    2:20\n    2:22\n\nI. Thessalonians--\n    2:16\n    4:6\n    5:21\n    5:22\n\nII. Thessalonians--\n    2:3\n    2:3-10\n    2:9\n    2:11\n    3:10\n    3:14\n    3:15\n\nI. Timothy--\n    1:7\n    1:9\n    2:1\n    2:8\n    3:2\n    3:16\n    4:1ff\n    4:2f\n    4:3\n    4:4f\n    4:5\n    4:8\n    5:22\n\nII. Timothy--\n    2:3\n    2:9\n    2:13\n    3:2\n    3:5-7\n    3:7\n    3:8\n    3:13\n\nTitus--\n    1:6\n    1:14\n    3:1\n    3:5\n\nHebrews--\n    1:3\n    6\n    9:16\n    10:19, 22\n    10:23\n    11\n    11:6\n    12:15\n\nJames--\n    1:6\n    1:18\n    5:14\n    5:16\n\nI. Peter--\n    2:11\n    2:2\n    2:9\n    2:10\n    2:13, 15\n    2:14\n    2:18\n    3:13\n    5:3\n    5:5\n    5:10\n\nII. Peter--\n    1:9\n    2:1\n    2:1-3\n    2:3\n\nI. John--\n    1:9\n    2:18, 22\n    3:2\n    4:3\n\nII. John 10\n\nRevelation--\n    2:9\n    5:10\n    13\n    22:11\n\nOLD TESTAMENT APOCRYPHA\n\nJudith 6:15\n\nWisdom 6:8\n\nEcclesiasticus--\n    10:13\n    32:27\n\nBaruch--\n    1:11\n    3:38\n\nII. Maccabees 4:8, 12\n\n\n\n\n\n<pre id=\"pg-footer\">","title":"Works of Martin Luther, with Introductions and Notes (Volume II)","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":167684}