Selected
Martin Luther's Writings
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Concerning
Christian Liberty by Martin Luther (1483-1546)
Letter of Martin
Luther to Pope Leo X
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Part 1
Among those
monstrous evils of this age with which I have now for three years been waging
war, I am sometimes compelled to look to you and to call you to mind, most
blessed father Leo. In truth, since you alone are everywhere considered as
being the cause of my engaging in war, I cannot at any time fail to remember
you; and although I have been compelled by the causeless raging of your impious
flatterers against me to appeal from your seat to a future council--fearless of
the futile decrees of your predecessors Pius and Julius, who in their foolish
tyranny prohibited such an action--yet I have never been so alienated in
feeling from your Blessedness as not to have sought with all my might, in
diligent prayer and crying to God, all the best gifts for you and for your see.
But those who have hitherto endeavoured to terrify me with the majesty of your
name and authority, I have begun quite to despise and triumph over. One thing I
see remaining which I cannot despise, and this has been the reason of my
writing anew to your Blessedness: namely, that I find that blame is cast on me,
and that it is imputed to me as a great offence, that in my rashness I am
judged to have spared not even your person.
Now, to confess
the truth openly, I am conscious that, whenever I have had to mention your
person, I have said nothing of you but what was honourable and good. If I had
done otherwise, I could by no means have approved my own conduct, but should
have supported with all my power the judgment of those men concerning me, nor
would anything have pleased me better, than to recant such rashness and
impiety. I have called you Daniel in
I have indeed
inveighed sharply against impious doctrines, and I have not been slack to
censure my adversaries on account, not of their bad morals, but of their
impiety. And for this I am so far from being sorry that I have brought my mind
to despise the judgments of men and to persevere in this vehement zeal,
according to the example of Christ, who, in His zeal, calls His adversaries a
generation of vipers, blind, hypocrites, and children of the devil. Paul, too,
charges the sorcerer with being a child of the devil, full of all subtlety and
all malice; and defames certain persons as evil workers, dogs, and deceivers.
In the opinion of those delicate-eared persons, nothing could be more bitter or
intemperate than Paul's language. What can be more bitter than the words of the
prophets? The ears of our generation have been made so delicate by the
senseless multitude of flatterers that, as soon as we perceive that anything of
ours is not approved of, we cry out that we are being bitterly assailed; and when
we can repel the truth by no other pretence, we escape by attributing
bitterness, impatience, intemperance, to our adversaries. What would be the use
of salt if it were not pungent, or of the edge of the sword if it did not slay?
Accursed is the man who does the work of the Lord deceitfully.
Wherefore, most
excellent Leo, I beseech you to accept my vindication, made in this letter, and
to persuade yourself that I have never thought any evil concerning your person;
further, that I am one who desires that eternal blessing may fall to your lot,
and that I have no dispute with any man concerning morals, but only concerning
the word of truth. In all other things I will yield to any one, but I neither
can nor will forsake and deny the word. He who thinks otherwise of me, or has
taken in my words in another sense, does not think rightly, and has not taken
in the truth.
Your see, however,
which is called the Court of Rome, and which neither you nor any man can deny
to be more corrupt than any Babylon or Sodom, and quite, as I believe, of a
lost, desperate, and hopeless impiety, this I have verily abominated, and have
felt indignant that the people of Christ should be cheated under your name and
the pretext of the Church of Rome; and so I have resisted, and will resist, as
long as the spirit of faith shall live in me. Not that I am striving after
impossibilities, or hoping that by my labours alone, against the furious
opposition of so many flatterers, any good can be done in that most disordered
Babylon; but that I feel myself a debtor to my brethren, and am bound to take
thought for them, that fewer of them may be ruined, or that their ruin may be
less complete, by the plagues of Rome. For many years now, nothing else has
overflowed from
Meanwhile you,
Leo, are sitting like a lamb , like Daniel in the midst of lions, and, with
Ezekiel, you dwell among scorpions. What opposition can you alone make to these
monstrous evils? Take to yourself three or four of the most learned and best of
the cardinals. What are these among so many? You would all perish by poison
before you could undertake to decide on a remedy. It is all over with the Court
of Rome; the wrath of God has come upon her to the uttermost. She hates
councils; she dreads to be reformed; she cannot restrain the madness of her
impiety; she fills up the sentence passed on her mother, of whom it is said,
"We would have healed
Oh, would that,
having laid aside that glory which your most abandoned enemies declare to be
yours, you were living rather in the office of a private priest or on your
paternal inheritance! In that glory none are worthy to glory, except the race
of Iscariot, the children of perdition. For what happens in your court, Leo,
except that, the more wicked and execrable any man is, the more prosperously he
can use your name and authority for the ruin of the property and souls of men,
for the multiplication of crimes, for the oppression of faith and truth and of
the whole
Is it not true
that there is nothing under the vast heavens more corrupt, more pestilential,
more hateful, than the Court of Rome? She incomparably surpasses the impiety of
the Turks, so that in very truth she, who was formerly the gate of heaven, is
now a sort of open mouth of hell, and such a mouth as, under the urgent wrath
of God, cannot be blocked up; one course alone being left to us wretched men:
to call back and save some few, if we can, from that Roman gulf.
Behold, Leo, my
father, with what purpose and on what principle it is that I have stormed
against that seat of pestilence. I am so far from having felt any rage against
your person that I even hoped to gain favour with you and to aid you in your
welfare by striking actively and vigorously at that your prison, nay, your
hell. For whatever the efforts of all minds can contrive against the confusion
of that impious Court will be advantageous to you and to your welfare, and to
many others with you. Those who do harm to her are doing your office; those who
in every way abhor her are glorifying Christ; in short, those are Christians
who are not Romans.
But, to say yet
more, even this never entered my heart: to inveigh against the Court of Rome or
to dispute at all about her. For, seeing all remedies for her health to be
desperate, I looked on her with contempt, and, giving her a bill of
divorcement, said to her, "He that is unjust, let him be unjust still; and
he that is filthy, let him be filthy still," giving myself up to the
peaceful and quiet study of sacred literature, that by this I might be of use
to the brethren living about me.
While I was making
some advance in these studies, Satan opened his eyes and goaded on his servant
John Eccius, that notorious adversary of Christ, by the unchecked lust for
fame, to drag me unexpectedly into the arena, trying to catch me in one little
word concerning the primacy of the Church of Rome, which had fallen from me in
passing. That boastful Thraso, foaming and gnashing his teeth, proclaimed that
he would dare all things for the glory of God and for the honour of the holy
apostolic seat; and, being puffed up respecting your power, which he was about
to misuse, he looked forward with all certainty to victory; seeking to promote,
not so much the primacy of Peter, as his own pre-eminence among the theologians
of this age; for he thought it would contribute in no slight degree to this, if
he were to lead Luther in triumph. The result having proved unfortunate for the
sophist, an incredible rage torments him; for he feels that whatever discredit
to
Suffer me, I pray
you, most excellent Leo, both to plead my own cause, and to accuse your true
enemies. I believe it is known to you in what way Cardinal Cajetan, your
imprudent and unfortunate, nay unfaithful, legate, acted towards me. When, on
account of my reverence for your name, I had placed myself and all that was
mine in his hands, he did not so act as to establish peace, which he could
easily have established by one little word, since I at that time promised to be
silent and to make an end of my case, if he would command my adversaries to do
the same. But that man of pride, not content with this agreement, began to
justify my adversaries, to give them free licence, and to order me to recant, a
thing which was certainly not in his commission. Thus indeed, when the case was
in the best position, it came through his vexatious tyranny into a much worse
one. Therefore whatever has followed upon this is the fault not of Luther, but
entirely of Cajetan, since he did not suffer me to be silent and remain quiet,
which at that time I was entreating for with all my might. What more was it my
duty to do?
Next came Charles
Miltitz, also a nuncio from your Blessedness. He, though he went up and down
with much and varied exertion, and omitted nothing which could tend to restore
the position of the cause thrown into confusion by the rashness and pride of
Cajetan, had difficulty, even with the help of that very illustrious prince the
Elector Frederick, in at last bringing about more than one familiar conference
with me. In these I again yielded to your great name, and was prepared to keep
silence, and to accept as my judge either the Archbishop of Treves, or the
Bishop of Naumburg; and thus it was done and concluded. While this was being
done with good hope of success, lo! that other and greater enemy of yours, Eccius,
rushed in with his Leipsic disputation, which he had undertaken against
Carlstadt, and, having taken up a new question concerning the primacy of the
Pope, turned his arms unexpectedly against me, and completely overthrew the
plan for peace. Meanwhile Charles Miltitz was waiting, disputations were held,
judges were being chosen, but no decision was arrived at. And no wonder! for by
the falsehoods, pretences, and arts of Eccius the whole business was brought
into such thorough disorder, confusion, and festering soreness, that, whichever
way the sentence might lean, a greater conflagration was sure to arise; for he
was seeking, not after truth, but after his own credit. In this case too I
omitted nothing which it was right that I should do.
I confess that on
this occasion no small part of the corruptions of Rome came to light; but, if
there was any offence in this, it was the fault of Eccius, who, in taking on
him a burden beyond his strength, and in furiously aiming at credit for
himself, unveiled to the whole world the disgrace of Rome.
Here is that enemy
of yours, Leo, or rather of your Court; by his example alone we may learn that
an enemy is not more baneful than a flatterer. For what did he bring about by
his flattery, except evils which no king could have brought about? At this day
the name of the Court of Rome stinks in the nostrils of the world, the papal
authority is growing weak, and its notorious ignorance is evil spoken of. We
should hear none of these things, if Eccius had not disturbed the plans of
Miltitz and myself for peace. He feels this clearly enough himself in the
indignation he shows, too late and in vain, against the publication of my
books. He ought to have reflected on this at the time when he was all mad for
renown, and was seeking in your cause nothing but his own objects, and that
with the greatest peril to you. The foolish man hoped that, from fear of your
name, I should yield and keep silence; for I do not think he presumed on his
talents and learning. Now, when he sees that I am very confident and speak
aloud, he repents too late of his rashness, and sees--if indeed he does see
it--that there is One in heaven who resists the proud, and humbles the
presumptuous.
Since then we were
bringing about by this disputation nothing but the greater confusion of the
cause of Rome, Charles Miltitz for the third time addressed the Fathers of the
Order, assembled in chapter, and sought their advice for the settlement of the
case, as being now in a most troubled and perilous state. Since, by the favour
of God, there was no hope of proceeding against me by force, some of the more
noted of their number were sent to me, and begged me at least to show respect
to your person and to vindicate in a humble letter both your innocence and my
own. They said that the affair was not as yet in a position of extreme
hopelessness, if Leo X., in his inborn kindliness, would put his hand to it. On
this I, who have always offered and wished for peace, in order that I might
devote myself to calmer and more useful pursuits, and who for this very purpose
have acted with so much spirit and vehemence, in order to put down by the
strength and impetuosity of my words, as well as of my feelings, men whom I saw
to be very far from equal to myself--I, I say, not only gladly yielded, but
even accepted it with joy and gratitude, as the greatest kindness and benefit,
if you should think it right to satisfy my hopes.
Thus I come, most
blessed Father, and in all abasement beseech you to put to your hand, if it is
possible, and impose a curb to those flatterers who are enemies of peace, while
they pretend peace. But there is no reason, most blessed Father, why any one
should assume that I am to utter a recantation, unless he prefers to involve
the case in still greater confusion. Moreover, I cannot bear with laws for the
interpretation of the word of God, since the word of God, which teaches liberty
in all other things, ought not to be bound. Saving these two things, there is
nothing which I am not able, and most heartily willing, to do or to suffer. I
hate contention; I will challenge no one; in return I wish not to be
challenged; but, being challenged, I will not be dumb in the cause of Christ my
Master. For your Blessedness will be able by one short and easy word to call
these controversies before you and suppress them, and to impose silence and
peace on both sides--a word which I have ever longed to hear.
Therefore, Leo, my
Father, beware of listening to those sirens who make you out to be not simply a
man, but partly a god, so that you can command and require whatever you will.
It will not happen so, nor will you prevail. You are the servant of servants,
and more than any other man, in a most pitiable and perilous position. Let not
those men deceive you who pretend that you are lord of the world; who will not
allow any one to be a Christian without your authority; who babble of your
having power over heaven, hell, and purgatory. These men are your enemies and
are seeking your soul to destroy it, as Isaiah say, "My people, they that
call thee blessed are themselves deceiving thee." They are in error who
raise you above councils and the universal Church; they are in error who
attribute to you alone the right of interpreting Scripture. All these men are
seeking to set up their own impieties in the Church under your name, and alas!
Satan has gained much through them in the time of your predecessors.
In brief, trust
not in any who exalt you, but in those who humiliate you. For this is the
judgment of God: "He hath cast down the mighty from their seat, and hath
exalted the humble." See how unlike Christ was to His successors, though
all will have it that they are His vicars. I fear that in truth very many of
them have been in too serious a sense His vicars, for a vicar represents a prince
who is absent. Now if a pontiff rules while Christ is absent and does not dwell
in his heart, what else is he but a vicar of Christ? And then what is that
Church but a multitude without Christ? What indeed is such a vicar but
antichrist and an idol? How much more rightly did the Apostles speak, who call
themselves servants of a present Christ, not the vicars of an absent one!
Perhaps I am
shamelessly bold in seeming to teach so great a head, by whom all men ought to
be taught, and from whom, as those plagues of yours boast, the thrones of
judges receive their sentence; but I imitate St. Bernard in his book concerning
Considerations addressed to Eugenius, a book which ought to be known by heart
by every pontiff. I do this, not from any desire to teach, but as a duty, from
that simple and faithful solicitude which teaches us to be anxious for all that
is safe for our neighbours, and does not allow considerations of worthiness or
unworthiness to be entertained, being intent only on the dangers or advantage
of others. For since I know that your Blessedness is driven and tossed by the
waves at Rome, so that the depths of the sea press on you with infinite perils,
and that you are labouring under such a condition of misery that you need even
the least help from any the least brother, I do not seem to myself to be acting
unsuitably if I forget your majesty till I shall have fulfilled the office of
charity. I will not flatter in so serious and perilous a matter; and if in this
you do not see that I am your friend and most thoroughly your subject, there is
One to see and judge.
In fine, that I
may not approach you empty-handed, blessed Father, I bring with me this little
treatise, published under your name, as a good omen of the establishment of
peace and of good hope. By this you may perceive in what pursuits I should
prefer and be able to occupy myself to more profit, if I were allowed, or had
been hitherto allowed, by your impious flatterers. It is a small matter, if you
look to its exterior, but, unless I mistake, it is a summary of the Christian
life put together in small compass, if you apprehend its meaning. I, in my
poverty, have no other present to make you, nor do you need anything else than
to be enriched by a spiritual gift. I commend myself to your Paternity and
Blessedness, whom may the Lord Jesus preserve for ever. Amen.
Part 2 Beginning
of the Treatise CONCERNING
CHRISTIAN
Christian faith
has appeared to many an easy thing; nay, not a few even reckon it among the social
virtues, as it were; and this they do because they have not made proof of it
experimentally, and have never tasted of what efficacy it is. For it is not
possible for any man to write well about it, or to understand well what is
rightly written, who has not at some time tasted of its spirit, under the
pressure of tribulation; while he who has tasted of it, even to a very small
extent, can never write, speak, think, or hear about it sufficiently. For it is
a living fountain, springing up into eternal life, as Christ calls it in John
iv.
Now, though I
cannot boast of my abundance, and though I know how poorly I am furnished, yet
I hope that, after having been vexed by various temptations, I have attained
some little drop of faith, and that I can speak of this matter, if not with
more elegance, certainly with more solidity, than those literal and too subtle
disputants who have hitherto discoursed upon it without understanding their own
words. That I may open then an easier way for the ignorant--for these alone I
am trying to serve--I first lay down these two propositions, concerning
spiritual liberty and servitude:--
A Christian man is
the most free lord of all, and subject to none; a Christian man is the most
dutiful servant of all, and subject to every one.
Although these
statements appear contradictory, yet, when they are found to agree together,
they will make excellently for my purpose. They are both the statements of Paul
himself, who says, "Though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself
servant unto all" (1 Cor. ix. 19), and "Owe no man anything, but to
love one another" (Rom. xiii. 8). Now love is by its own nature dutiful
and obedient to the beloved object. Thus even Christ, though Lord of all
things, was yet made of a woman; made under the law; at once free and a
servant; at once in the form of God and in the form of a servant.
Let us examine the
subject on a deeper and less simple principle. Man is composed of a twofold
nature, a spiritual and a bodily. As regards the spiritual nature, which they
name the soul, he is called the spiritual, inward, new man; as regards the
bodily nature, which they name the flesh, he is called the fleshly, outward,
old man. The Apostle speaks of this: "Though our outward man perish, yet
the inward man is renewed day by day" (2 Cor. iv. 16). The result of this
diversity is that in the Scriptures opposing statements are made concerning the
same man, the fact being that in the same man these two men are opposed to one
another; the flesh lusting against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh
(Gal. v. 17).
We first approach
the subject of the inward man, that we may see by what means a man becomes
justified, free, and a true Christian; that is, a spiritual, new, and inward
man. It is certain that absolutely none among outward things, under whatever
name they may be reckoned, has any influence in producing Christian
righteousness or liberty, nor, on the other hand, unrighteousness or slavery.
This can be shown by an easy argument.
What can it profit
the soul that the body should be in good condition, free, and full of life;
that it should eat, drink, and act according to its pleasure; when even the
most impious slaves of every kind of vice are prosperous in these matters?
Again, what harm can ill-health, bondage, hunger, thirst, or any other outward
evil, do to the soul, when even the most pious of men and the freest in the
purity of their conscience, are harassed by these things? Neither of these
states of things has to do with the liberty or the slavery of the soul.
And so it will
profit nothing that the body should be adorned with sacred vestments, or dwell
in holy places, or be occupied in sacred offices, or pray, fast, and abstain
from certain meats, or do whatever works can be done through the body and in the
body. Something widely different will be necessary for the justification and
liberty of the soul, since the things I have spoken of can be done by any
impious person, and only hypocrites are produced by devotion to these things.
On the other hand, it will not at all injure the soul that the body should be
clothed in profane raiment, should dwell in profane places, should eat and
drink in the ordinary fashion, should not pray aloud, and should leave undone
all the things above mentioned, which may be done by hypocrites.
And, to cast
everything aside, even speculation, meditations, and whatever things can be
performed by the exertions of the soul itself, are of no profit. One thing, and
one alone, is necessary for life, justification, and Christian liberty; and
that is the most holy word of God, the Gospel of Christ, as He says, "I am
the resurrection and the life; he that believeth in Me shall not die
eternally" (John xi. 25), and also, "If the Son shall make you free,
ye shall be free indeed" (John viii. 36), and, "Man shall not live by
bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God"
(Matt. iv. 4).
Let us therefore
hold it for certain and firmly established that the soul can do without
everything except the word of God, without which none at all of its wants are
provided for. But, having the word, it is rich and wants for nothing, since
that is the word of life, of truth, of light, of peace, of justification, of
salvation, of joy, of liberty, of wisdom, of virtue, of grace, of glory, and of
every good thing. It is on this account that the prophet in a whole Psalm
(Psalm cxix, and in many other places, sighs for and calls upon the word of God
with so many groanings and words.
Again, there is no
more cruel stroke of the wrath of God than when He sends a famine of hearing
His words (Amos viii. 11), just as there is no greater favour from Him than the
sending forth of His word, as it is said, "He sent His word and healed
them, and delivered them from their destructions" (Psalm cvii. 20). Christ
was sent for no other office than that of the word; and the order of Apostles,
that of bishops, and that of the whole body of the clergy, have been called and
instituted for no object but the ministry of the word.
But you will ask,
What is this word, and by what means is it to be used, since there are so many
words of God? I answer, The Apostle Paul (Rom. i.) explains what it is, namely
the Gospel of God, concerning His Son, incarnate, suffering, risen, and
glorified, through the Spirit, the Sanctifier. To preach Christ is to feed the
soul, to justify it, to set it free, and to save it, if it believes the
preaching. For faith alone and the efficacious use of the word of God, bring
salvation. "If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt
believe in thine heart that God hath raised Him from the dead, thou shalt be
saved" (
But this faith
cannot consist at all with works; that is, if you imagine that you can be
justified by those works, whatever they are, along with it. For this would be
to halt between two opinions, to worship Baal, and to kiss the hand to him,
which is a very great iniquity, as Job says. Therefore, when you begin to
believe, you learn at the same time that all that is in you is utterly guilty,
sinful, and damnable, according to that saying, "All have sinned, and come
short of the glory of God" (Rom. iii. 23), and also: "There is none
righteous, no, not one; they are all gone out of the way; they are together
become unprofitable: there is none that doeth good, no, not one" (Rom. iii.
10ó12). When you have learnt this, you will know that Christ is necessary for
you, since He has suffered and risen again for you, that, believing on Him, you
might by this faith become another man, all your sins being remitted, and you
being justified by the merits of another, namely of Christ alone.
Since then this
faith can reign only in the inward man, as it is said, "With the heart man
believeth unto righteousness" (Rom. x. 10); and since it alone justifies,
it is evident that by no outward work or labour can the inward man be at all
justified, made free, and saved; and that no works whatever have any relation
to him. And so, on the other hand, it is solely by impiety and incredulity of
heart that he becomes guilty and a slave of sin, deserving condemnation, not by
any outward sin or work. Therefore the first care of every Christian ought to
be to lay aside all reliance on works, and strengthen his faith alone more and
more, and by it grow in the knowledge, not of works, but of Christ Jesus, who
has suffered and risen again for him, as Peter teaches (1 Peter v.) when he
makes no other work to be a Christian one. Thus Christ, when the Jews asked Him
what they should do that they might work the works of God, rejected the
multitude of works, with which He saw that they were puffed up, and commanded
them one thing only, saying, "This is the work of God: that ye believe on
Him whom He hath sent, for Him hath God the Father sealed" (John vi. 27,
29).
Hence a right
faith in Christ is an incomparable treasure, carrying with it universal
salvation and preserving from all evil, as it is said, "He that believeth
and is baptised shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned"
(Mark xvi. 16). Isaiah, looking to this treasure, predicted, "The
consumption decreed shall overflow with righteousness. For the Lord God of
hosts shall make a consumption, even determined (verbum abbreviatum et
consummans), in the midst of the land" (Isa. x. 22, 23). As if he said,
"Faith, which is the brief and complete fulfilling of the law, will fill
those who believe with such righteousness that they will need nothing else for
justification." Thus, too, Paul says, "For with the heart man
believeth unto righteousness" (Rom. x. 10).
But you ask how it
can be the fact that faith alone justifies, and affords without works so great
a treasure of good things, when so many works, ceremonies, and laws are
prescribed to us in the Scriptures? I answer, Before all things bear in mind
what I have said: that faith alone without works justifies, sets free, and
saves, as I shall show more clearly below.
Meanwhile it is to
be noted that the whole Scripture of God is divided into two parts: precepts
and promises. The precepts certainly teach us what is good, but what they teach
is not forthwith done. For they show us what we ought to do, but do not give us
the power to do it. They were ordained, however, for the purpose of showing man
to himself, that through them he may learn his own impotence for good and may
despair of his own strength. For this reason they are called the Old Testament,
and are so.
For example,
"Thou shalt not covet," is a precept by which we are all convicted of
sin, since no man can help coveting, whatever efforts to the contrary he may
make. In order therefore that he may fulfil the precept, and not covet, he is
constrained to despair of himself and to seek elsewhere and through another the
help which he cannot find in himself; as it is said, "O Israel, thou hast
destroyed thyself; but in Me is thine help" (Hosea xiii. 9). Now what is
done by this one precept is done by all; for all are equally impossible of
fulfilment by us.
Now when a man has
through the precepts been taught his own impotence, and become anxious by what
means he may satisfy the law--for the law must be satisfied, so that no jot or
tittle of it may pass away, otherwise he must be hopelessly condemned--then,
being truly humbled and brought to nothing in his own eyes, he finds in himself
no resource for justification and salvation.
Then comes in that
other part of Scripture, the promises of God, which declare the glory of God,
and say, "If you wish to fulfil the law, and, as the law requires, not to
covet, lo! believe in Christ, in whom are promised to you grace, justification,
peace, and liberty." All these things you shall have, if you believe, and
shall be without them if you do not believe. For what is impossible for you by
all the works of the law, which are many and yet useless, you shall fulfil in
an easy and summary way through faith, because God the Father has made
everything to depend on faith, so that whosoever has it has all things, and he
who has it not has nothing. "For God hath concluded them all in unbelief,
that He might have mercy upon all" (Rom. xi. 32). Thus the promises of God
give that which the precepts exact, and fulfil what the law commands; so that
all is of God alone, both the precepts and their fulfilment. He alone commands;
He alone also fulfils. Hence the promises of God belong to the New Testament;
nay, are the New Testament.
Now, since these
promises of God are words of holiness, truth, righteousness, liberty, and
peace, and are full of universal goodness, the soul, which cleaves to them with
a firm faith, is so united to them, nay, thoroughly absorbed by them, that it
not only partakes in, but is penetrated and saturated by, all their virtues.
For if the touch of Christ was healing, how much more does that most tender
spiritual touch, nay, absorption of the word, communicate to the soul all that
belongs to the word! In this way therefore the soul, through faith alone,
without works, is from the word of God justified, sanctified, endued with
truth, peace, and liberty, and filled full with every good thing, and is truly
made the child of God, as it is said, "To them gave He power to become the
sons of God, even to them that believe on His name" (John i. 12).
From all this it
is easy to understand why faith has such great power, and why no good works,
nor even all good works put together, can compare with it, since no work can
cleave to the word of God or be in the soul. Faith alone and the word reign in
it; and such as is the word, such is the soul made by it, just as iron exposed
to fire glows like fire, on account of its union with the fire. It is clear
then that to a Christian man his faith suffices for everything, and that he has
no need of works for justification. But if he has no need of works, neither has
he need of the law; and if he has no need of the law, he is certainly free from
the law, and the saying is true, "The law is not made for a righteous
man" (1 Tim. i. 9). This is that Christian liberty, our faith, the effect
of which is, not that we should be careless or lead a bad life, but that no one
should need the law or works for justification and salvation.
Let us consider
this as the first virtue of faith; and let us look also to the second. This
also is an office of faith: that it honours with the utmost veneration and the
highest reputation Him in whom it believes, inasmuch as it holds Him to be
truthful and worthy of belief. For there is no honour like that reputation of
truth and righteousness with which we honour Him in whom we believe. What
higher credit can we attribute to any one than truth and righteousness, and
absolute goodness? On the other hand, it is the greatest insult to brand any
one with the reputation of falsehood and unrighteousness, or to suspect him of
these, as we do when we disbelieve him.
Thus the soul, in
firmly believing the promises of God, holds Him to be true and righteous; and
it can attribute to God no higher glory than the credit of being so. The
highest worship of God is to ascribe to Him truth, righteousness, and whatever
qualities we must ascribe to one in whom we believe. In doing this the soul
shows itself prepared to do His whole will; in doing this it hallows His name,
and gives itself up to be dealt with as it may please God. For it cleaves to
His promises, and never doubts that He is true, just, and wise, and will do,
dispose, and provide for all things in the best way. Is not such a soul, in
this its faith, most obedient to God in all things? What commandment does there
remain which has not been amply fulfilled by such an obedience? What fulfilment
can be more full than universal obedience? Now this is not accomplished by
works, but by faith alone.
On the other hand,
what greater rebellion, impiety, or insult to God can there be, than not to
believe His promises? What else is this, than either to make God a liar, or to
doubt His truth--that is, to attribute truth to ourselves, but to God falsehood
and levity? In doing this, is not a man denying God and setting himself up as
an idol in his own heart? What then can works, done in such a state of impiety,
profit us, were they even angelic or apostolic works? Rightly hath God shut up
all, not in wrath nor in lust, but in unbelief, in order that those who pretend
that they are fulfilling the law by works of purity and benevolence (which are
social and human virtues) may not presume that they will therefore be saved,
but, being included in the sin of unbelief, may either seek mercy, or be justly
condemned.
But when God sees
that truth is ascribed to Him, and that in the faith of our hearts He is
honoured with all the honour of which He is worthy, then in return He honours
us on account of that faith, attributing to us truth and righteousness. For
faith does truth and righteousness in rendering to God what is His; and
therefore in return God gives glory to our righteousness. It is true and
righteous that God is true and righteous; and to confess this and ascribe these
attributes to Him, this it is to be true and righteous. Thus He says,
"Them that honour Me I will honour, and they that despise Me shall be
lightly esteemed" (1 Sam. ii. 30). And so Paul says that Abraham's faith
was imputed to him for righteousness, because by it he gave glory to God; and
that to us also, for the same reason, it shall be imputed for righteousness, if
we believe (Rom. iv.).
The third
incomparable grace of faith is this: that it unites the soul to Christ, as the
wife to the husband, by which mystery, as the Apostle teaches, Christ and the
soul are made one flesh. Now if they are one flesh, and if a true
marriage--nay, by far the most perfect of all marriages--is accomplished
between them (for human marriages are but feeble types of this one great
marriage), then it follows that all they have becomes theirs in common, as well
good things as evil things; so that whatsoever Christ possesses, that the
believing soul may take to itself and boast of as its own, and whatever belongs
to the soul, that Christ claims as His.
If we compare
these possessions, we shall see how inestimable is the gain. Christ is full of
grace, life, and salvation; the soul is full of sin, death, and condemnation.
Let faith step in, and then sin, death, and hell will belong to Christ, and
grace, life, and salvation to the soul. For, if He is a Husband, He must needs
take to Himself that which is His wife's, and at the same time, impart to His
wife that which is His. For, in giving her His own body and Himself, how can He
but give her all that is His? And, in taking to Himself the body of His wife,
how can He but take to Himself all that is hers?
In this is
displayed the delightful sight, not only of communion, but of a prosperous
warfare, of victory, salvation, and redemption. For, since Christ is God and
man, and is such a Person as neither has sinned, nor dies, nor is condemned,
nay, cannot sin, die, or be condemned, and since His righteousness, life, and
salvation are invincible, eternal, and almighty,--when I say, such a Person, by
the wedding-ring of faith, takes a share in the sins, death, and hell of His
wife, nay, makes them His own, and deals with them no otherwise than as if they
were His, and as if He Himself had sinned; and when He suffers, dies, and
descends to hell, that He may overcome all things, and since sin, death, and
hell cannot swallow Him up, they must needs be swallowed up by Him in
stupendous conflict. For His righteousness rises above the sins of all men; His
life is more powerful than all death; His salvation is more unconquerable than
all hell.
Thus the believing
soul, by the pledge of its faith in Christ, becomes free from all sin, fearless
of death, safe from hell, and endowed with the eternal righteousness, life, and
salvation of its Husband Christ. Thus He presents to Himself a glorious bride,
without spot or wrinkle, cleansing her with the washing of water by the word;
that is, by faith in the word of life, righteousness, and salvation. Thus He
betrothes her unto Himself "in faithfulness, in righteousness, and in
judgment, and in lovingkindness, and in mercies" (Hosea ii. 19, 20).
Who then can value
highly enough these royal nuptials? Who can comprehend the riches of the glory
of this grace? Christ, that rich and pious Husband, takes as a wife a needy and
impious harlot, redeeming her from all her evils and supplying her with all His
good things. It is impossible now that her sins should destroy her, since they
have been laid upon Christ and swallowed up in Him, and since she has in her
Husband Christ a righteousness which she may claim as her own, and which she
can set up with confidence against all her sins, against death and hell,
saying, "If I have sinned, my Christ, in whom I believe, has not sinned;
all mine is His, and all His is mine," as it is written, "My beloved
is mine, and I am His" (Cant. ii. 16). This is what Paul says:
"Thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus
Christ," victory over sin and death, as he says, "The sting of death
is sin, and the strength of sin is the law" (1 Cor. xv. 56, 57).
From all this you
will again understand why so much importance is attributed to faith, so that it
alone can fulfil the law and justify without any works. For you see that the
First Commandment, which says, "Thou shalt worship one God only," is
fulfilled by faith alone. If you were nothing but good works from the soles of
your feet to the crown of your head, you would not be worshipping God, nor
fulfilling the First Commandment, since it is impossible to worship God without
ascribing to Him the glory of truth and of universal goodness, as it ought in
truth to be ascribed. Now this is not done by works, but only by faith of
heart. It is not by working, but by believing, that we glorify God, and confess
Him to be true. On this ground faith alone is the righteousness of a Christian
man, and the fulfilling of all the commandments. For to him who fulfils the
first the task of fulfilling all the rest is easy.
Works, since they
are irrational things, cannot glorify God, although they may be done to the
glory of God, if faith be present. But at present we are inquiring, not into
the quality of the works done, but into him who does them, who glorifies God,
and brings forth good works. This is faith of heart, the head and the substance
of all our righteousness. Hence that is a blind and perilous doctrine which
teaches that the commandments are fulfilled by works. The commandments must
have been fulfilled previous to any good works, and good works follow their
fulfillment, as we shall see.
But, that we may
have a wider view of that grace which our inner man has in Christ, we must know
that in the Old Testament God sanctified to Himself every first-born male. The
birthright was of great value, giving a superiority over the rest by the double
honour of priesthood and kingship. For the first-born brother was priest and
lord of all the rest.
Under this figure
was foreshown Christ, the true and only First-born of God the Father and of the
Virgin Mary, and a true King and Priest, not in a fleshly and earthly sense.
For His kingdom is not of this world; it is in heavenly and spiritual things
that He reigns and acts as Priest; and these are righteousness, truth, wisdom,
peace, salvation, etc. Not but that all things, even those of earth and hell,
are subject to Him--for otherwise how could He defend and save us from
them?--but it is not in these, nor by these, that His kingdom stands.
So, too, His
priesthood does not consist in the outward display of vestments and gestures,
as did the human priesthood of Aaron and our ecclesiastical priesthood at this
day, but in spiritual things, wherein, in His invisible office, He intercedes
for us with God in heaven, and there offers Himself, and performs all the
duties of a priest, as Paul describes Him to the Hebrews under the figure of
Melchizedek. Nor does He only pray and intercede for us; He also teaches us
inwardly in the spirit with the living teachings of His Spirit. Now these are
the two special offices of a priest, as is figured to us in the case of fleshly
priests by visible prayers and sermons.
As Christ by His
birthright has obtained these two dignities, so He imparts and communicates
them to every believer in Him, under that law of matrimony of which we have
spoken above, by which all that is the husband's is also the wife's. Hence all
we who believe on Christ are kings and priests in Christ, as it is said,
"Ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a peculiar
people, that ye should show forth the praises of Him who hath called you out of
darkness into His marvellous light" (1 Peter ii. 9).
These two things
stand thus. First, as regards kingship, every Christian is by faith so exalted
above all things that, in spiritual power, he is completely lord of all things,
so that nothing whatever can do him any hurt; yea, all things are subject to
him, and are compelled to be subservient to his salvation. Thus Paul says,
"All things work together for good to them who are the called" (Rom.
viii. 28), and also, "Whether life, or death, or things present, or things
to come, all are yours; and ye are Christ's" (1 Cor. iii. 22, 23).
Not that in the
sense of corporeal power any one among Christians has been appointed to possess
and rule all things, according to the mad and senseless idea of certain
ecclesiastics. That is the office of kings, princes, and men upon earth. In the
experience of life we see that we are subjected to all things, and suffer many
things, even death. Yea, the more of a Christian any man is, to so many the
more evils, sufferings, and deaths is he subject, as we see in the first place
in Christ the First-born, and in all His holy brethren.
This is a
spiritual power, which rules in the midst of enemies, and is powerful in the
midst of distresses. And this is nothing else than that strength is made
perfect in my weakness, and that I can turn all things to the profit of my
salvation; so that even the cross and death are compelled to serve me and to
work together for my salvation. This is a lofty and eminent dignity, a true and
almighty dominion, a spiritual empire, in which there is nothing so good,
nothing so bad, as not to work together for my good, if only I believe. And yet
there is nothing of which I have need--for faith alone suffices for my salvation--unless
that in it faith may exercise the power and empire of its liberty. This is the
inestimable power and liberty of Christians.
Nor are we only
kings and the freest of all men, but also priests for ever, a dignity far
higher than kingship, because by that priesthood we are worthy to appear before
God, to pray for others, and to teach one another mutually the things which are
of God. For these are the duties of priests, and they cannot possibly be
permitted to any unbeliever. Christ has obtained for us this favour, if we
believe in Him: that just as we are His brethren and co-heirs and fellow-kings
with Him, so we should be also fellow-priests with Him, and venture with
confidence, through the spirit of faith, to come into the presence of God, and
cry, "Abba, Father!" and to pray for one another, and to do all
things which we see done and figured in the visible and corporeal office of
priesthood. But to an unbelieving person nothing renders service or work for
good. He himself is in servitude to all things, and all things turn out for
evil to him, because he uses all things in an impious way for his own
advantage, and not for the glory of God. And thus he is not a priest, but a
profane person, whose prayers are turned into sin, nor does he ever appear in
the presence of God, because God does not hear sinners.
Who then can
comprehend the loftiness of that Christian dignity which, by its royal power,
rules over all things, even over death, life, and sin, and, by its priestly
glory, is all-powerful with God, since God does what He Himself seeks and
wishes, as it is written, "He will fulfil the desire of them that fear
Him; He also will hear their cry, and will save them"? (Psalm cxlv. 19).
This glory certainly cannot be attained by any works, but by faith only.
From these
considerations any one may clearly see how a Christian man is free from all
things; so that he needs no works in order to be justified and saved, but
receives these gifts in abundance from faith alone. Nay, were he so foolish as
to pretend to be justified, set free, saved, and made a Christian, by means of
any good work, he would immediately lose faith, with all its benefits. Such
folly is prettily represented in the fable where a dog, running along in the
water and carrying in his mouth a real piece of meat, is deceived by the
reflection of the meat in the water, and, in trying with open mouth to seize
it, loses the meat and its image at the same time.
Here you will ask,
"If all who are in the Church are priests, by what character are those
whom we now call priests to be distinguished from the laity?" I reply, By
the use of these words, "priest," "clergy," "
spiritual person," "ecclesiastic," an injustice has been done,
since they have been transferred from the remaining body of Christians to those
few who are now, by hurtful custom, called ecclesiastics. For Holy Scripture
makes no distinction between them, except that those who are now boastfully
called popes, bishops, and lords, it calls ministers, servants, and stewards,
who are to serve the rest in the ministry of the word, for teaching the faith
of Christ and the liberty of believers. For though it is true that we are all
equally priests, yet we cannot, nor, if we could, ought we all to, minister and
teach publicly. Thus Paul says, "Let a man so account of us as of the
ministers of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God" (1 Cor. iv. 1).
This bad system
has now issued in such a pompous display of power and such a terrible tyranny
that no earthly government can be compared to it, as if the laity were
something else than Christians. Through this perversion of things it has
happened that the knowledge of Christian grace, of faith, of liberty, and
altogether of Christ, has utterly perished, and has been succeeded by an
intolerable bondage to human works and laws; and, according to the Lamentations
of Jeremiah, we have become the slaves of the vilest men on earth, who abuse
our misery to all the disgraceful and ignominious purposes of their own will.
Returning to the
subject which we had begun, I think it is made clear by these considerations
that it is not sufficient, nor a Christian course, to preach the works, life,
and words of Christ in a historic manner, as facts which it suffices to know as
an example how to frame our life, as do those who are now held the best
preachers, and much less so to keep silence altogether on these things and to
teach in their stead the laws of men and the decrees of the Fathers. There are
now not a few persons who preach and read about Christ with the object of
moving the human affections to sympathise with Christ, to indignation against
the Jews, and other childish and womanish absurdities of that kind.
Now preaching
ought to have the object of promoting faith in Him, so that He may not only be
Christ, but a Christ for you and for me, and that what is said of Him, and what
He is called, may work in us. And this faith is produced and is maintained by
preaching why Christ came, what He has brought us and given to us, and to what
profit and advantage He is to be received. This is done when the Christian
liberty which we have from Christ Himself is rightly taught, and we are shown
in what manner all we Christians are kings and priests, and how we are lords of
all things, and may be confident that whatever we do in the presence of God is
pleasing and acceptable to Him.
Whose heart would
not rejoice in its inmost core at hearing these things? Whose heart, on
receiving so great a consolation, would not become sweet with the love of
Christ, a love to which it can never attain by any laws or works? Who can
injure such a heart, or make it afraid? If the consciousness of sin or the
horror of death rush in upon it, it is prepared to hope in the Lord, and is
fearless of such evils, and undisturbed, until it shall look down upon its
enemies. For it believes that the righteousness of Christ is its own, and that
its sin is no longer its own, but that of Christ; but, on account of its faith
in Christ, all its sin must needs be swallowed up from before the face of the righteousness
of Christ, as I have said above. It learns, too, with the Apostle, to scoff at
death and sin, and to say, "O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is
thy victory? The sting of death is sin, and the strength of sin is the law. But
thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus
Christ" (1 Cor. xv. 55-57). For death is swallowed up in victory, not only
the victory of Christ, but ours also, since by faith it becomes ours, and in it
we too conquer.
Let it suffice to
say this concerning the inner man and its liberty, and concerning that
righteousness of faith which needs neither laws nor good works; nay, they are
even hurtful to it, if any one pretends to be justified by them.
Part 3 Conclusion of the Treatise
And now let us
turn to the other part: to the outward man. Here we shall give an answer to all
those who, taking offence at the word of faith and at what I have asserted,
say, "If faith does everything, and by itself suffices for justification,
why then are good works commanded? Are we then to take our ease and do no
works, content with faith?" Not so, impious men, I reply; not so. That
would indeed really be the case, if we were thoroughly and completely inner and
spiritual persons; but that will not happen until the last day, when the dead
shall be raised. As long as we live in the flesh, we are but beginning and
making advances in that which shall be completed in a future life. On this
account the Apostle calls that which we have in this life the firstfruits of
the Spirit (Rom. viii. 23). In future we shall have the tenths, and the
fullness of the Spirit. To this part belongs the fact I have stated before:
that the Christian is the servant of all and subject to all. For in that part
in which he is free he does no works, but in that in which he is a servant he
does all works. Let us see on what principle this is so.
Although, as I
have said, inwardly, and according to the spirit, a man is amply enough
justified by faith, having all that he requires to have, except that this very
faith and abundance ought to increase from day to day, even till the future
life, still he remains in this mortal life upon earth, in which it is necessary
that he should rule his own body and have intercourse with men. Here then works
begin; here he must not take his ease; here he must give heed to exercise his
body by fastings, watchings, labour, and other regular discipline, so that it
may be subdued to the spirit, and obey and conform itself to the inner man and
faith, and not rebel against them nor hinder them, as is its nature to do if it
is not kept under. For the inner man, being conformed to God and created after
the image of God through faith, rejoices and delights itself in Christ, in whom
such blessings have been conferred on it, and hence has only this task before
it: to serve God with joy and for nought in free love.
But in doing this
he comes into collision with that contrary will in his own flesh, which is
striving to serve the world and to seek its own gratification. This the spirit
of faith cannot and will not bear, but applies itself with cheerfulness and
zeal to keep it down and restrain it, as Paul says, "I delight in the law
of God after the inward man; but I see another law in my members, warring
against the law of my mind and bringing me into captivity to the law of
sin" (Rom. vii. 22, 23), and again, "I keep under my body, and bring
it unto subjection, lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I
myself should be a castaway" (1 Cor. ix. 27), and "They that are Christ's
have crucified the flesh, with the affections and lusts" (Gal. v. 24).
These works,
however, must not be done with any notion that by them a man can be justified
before God--for faith, which alone is righteousness before God, will not bear
with this false notion--but solely with this purpose: that the body may be
brought into subjection, and be purified from its evil lusts, so that our eyes
may be turned only to purging away those lusts. For when the soul has been
cleansed by faith and made to love God, it would have all things to be cleansed
in like manner, and especially its own body, so that all things might unite
with it in the love and praise of God. Thus it comes that, from the
requirements of his own body, a man cannot take his ease, but is compelled on
its account to do many good works, that he may bring it into subjection. Yet
these works are not the means of his justification before God; he does them out
of disinterested love to the service of God; looking to no other end than to do
what is well-pleasing to Him whom he desires to obey most dutifully in all
things.
On this principle
every man may easily instruct himself in what measure, and with what
distinctions, he ought to chasten his own body. He will fast, watch, and
labour, just as much as he sees to suffice for keeping down the wantonness and
concupiscence of the body. But those who pretend to be justified by works are
looking, not to the mortification of their lusts, but only to the works
themselves; thinking that, if they can accomplish as many works and as great
ones as possible, all is well with them, and they are justified. Sometimes they
even injure their brain, and extinguish nature, or at least make it useless.
This is enormous folly, and ignorance of Christian life and faith, when a man
seeks, without faith, to be justified and saved by works.
To make what we
have said more easily understood, let us set it forth under a figure. The works
of a Christian man, who is justified and saved by his faith out of the pure and
unbought mercy of God, ought to be regarded in the same light as would have
been those of Adam and Eve in paradise and of all their posterity if they had
not sinned. Of them it is said, "The Lord God took the man and put him
into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it" (Gen. ii. 15). Now
Adam had been created by God just and righteous, so that he could not have
needed to be justified and made righteous by keeping the garden and working in
it; but, that he might not be unemployed, God gave him the business of keeping
and cultivating paradise. These would have indeed been works of perfect
freedom, being done for no object but that of pleasing God, and not in order to
obtain justification, which he already had to the full, and which would have
been innate in us all.
So it is with the
works of a believer. Being by his faith replaced afresh in paradise and created
anew, he does not need works for his justification, but that he may not be
idle, but may exercise his own body and preserve it. His works are to be done
freely, with the sole object of pleasing God. Only we are not yet fully created
anew in perfect faith and love; these require to be increased, not, however,
through works, but through themselves.
A bishop, when he
consecrates a church, confirms children, or performs any other duty of his
office, is not consecrated as bishop by these works; nay, unless he had been
previously consecrated as bishop, not one of those works would have any
validity; they would be foolish, childish, and ridiculous. Thus a Christian,
being consecrated by his faith, does good works; but he is not by these works
made a more sacred person, or more a Christian. That is the effect of faith
alone; nay, unless he were previously a believer and a Christian, none of his
works would have any value at all; they would really be impious and damnable
sins.
True, then, are
these two sayings: "Good works do not make a good man, but a good man does
good works"; "Bad works do not make a bad man, but a bad man does bad
works." Thus it is always necessary that the substance or person should be
good before any good works can be done, and that good works should follow and
proceed from a good person. As Christ says, "A good tree cannot bring
forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit"
(Matt. vii. 18). Now it is clear that the fruit does not bear the tree, nor
does the tree grow on the fruit; but, on the contrary, the trees bear the
fruit, and the fruit grows on the trees.
As then trees must
exist before their fruit, and as the fruit does not make the tree either good
or bad, but on the contrary, a tree of either kind produces fruit of the same
kind, so must first the person of the man be good or bad before he can do
either a good or a bad work; and his works do not make him bad or good, but he
himself makes his works either bad or good.
We may see the
same thing in all handicrafts. A bad or good house does not make a bad or good
builder, but a good or bad builder makes a good or bad house. And in general no
work makes the workman such as it is itself; but the workman makes the work
such as he is himself. Such is the case, too, with the works of men. Such as
the man himself is, whether in faith or in unbelief, such is his work: good if
it be done in faith; bad if in unbelief. But the converse is not true that,
such as the work is, such the man becomes in faith or in unbelief. For as works
do not make a believing man, so neither do they make a justified man; but
faith, as it makes a man a believer and justified, so also it makes his works
good.
Since then works
justify no man, but a man must be justified before he can do any good work, it
is most evident that it is faith alone which, by the mere mercy of God through
Christ, and by means of His word, can worthily and sufficiently justify and
save the person; and that a Christian man needs no work, no law, for his
salvation; for by faith he is free from all law, and in perfect freedom does
gratuitously all that he does, seeking nothing either of profit or of
salvation--since by the grace of God he is already saved and rich in all things
through his faith--but solely that which is well-pleasing to God.
So, too, no good
work can profit an unbeliever to justification and salvation; and, on the other
hand, no evil work makes him an evil and condemned person, but that unbelief,
which makes the person and the tree bad, makes his works evil and condemned.
Wherefore, when any man is made good or bad, this does not arise from his
works, but from his faith or unbelief, as the wise man says, "The beginning
of sin is to fall away from God"; that is, not to believe. Paul says,
"He that cometh to God must believe" (Heb. xi. 6); and Christ says
the same thing: "Either make the tree good and his fruit good; or else
make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt" (Matt. xii. 33),--as much as
to say, He who wishes to have good fruit will begin with the tree, and plant a
good one; even so he who wishes to do good works must begin, not by working,
but by believing, since it is this which makes the person good. For nothing
makes the person good but faith, nor bad but unbelief.
It is certainly
true that, in the sight of men, a man becomes good or evil by his works; but
here "becoming" means that it is thus shown and recognised who is
good or evil, as Christ says, "By their fruits ye shall know them"
(Matt. vii. 20). But all this stops at appearances and externals; and in this
matter very many deceive themselves, when they presume to write and teach that
we are to be justified by good works, and meanwhile make no mention even of
faith, walking in their own ways, ever deceived and deceiving, going from bad
to worse, blind leaders of the blind, wearying themselves with many works, and
yet never attaining to true righteousness, of whom Paul says, "Having a
form of godliness, but denying the power thereof, ever learning and never able
to come to the knowledge of the truth" (2 Tim. iii. 5, 7).
He then who does
not wish to go astray, with these blind ones, must look further than to the
works of the law or the doctrine of works; nay, must turn away his sight from
works, and look to the person, and to the manner in which it may be justified.
Now it is justified and saved, not by works or laws, but by the word of
God--that is, by the promise of His grace--so that the glory may be to the
Divine majesty, which has saved us who believe, not by works of righteousness
which we have done, but according to His mercy, by the word of His grace.
From all this it
is easy to perceive on what principle good works are to be cast aside or embraced,
and by what rule all teachings put forth concerning works are to be understood.
For if works are brought forward as grounds of justification, and are done
under the false persuasion that we can pretend to be justified by them, they
lay on us the yoke of necessity, and extinguish liberty along with faith, and
by this very addition to their use they become no longer good, but really
worthy of condemnation. For such works are not free, but blaspheme the grace of
God, to which alone it belongs to justify and save through faith. Works cannot
accomplish this, and yet, with impious presumption, through our folly, they
take it on themselves to do so; and thus break in with violence upon the office
and glory of grace.
We do not then
reject good works; nay, we embrace them and teach them in the highest degree.
It is not on their own account that we condemn them, but on account of this
impious addition to them and the perverse notion of seeking justification by
them. These things cause them to be only good in outward show, but in reality
not good, since by them men are deceived and deceive others, like ravening
wolves in sheep's clothing.
Now this
leviathan, this perverted notion about works, is invincible when sincere faith
is wanting. For those sanctified doers of works cannot but hold it till faith,
which destroys it, comes and reigns in the heart. Nature cannot expel it by her
own power; nay, cannot even see it for what it is, but considers it as a most
holy will. And when custom steps in besides, and strengthens this pravity of
nature, as has happened by means of impious teachers, then the evil is
incurable, and leads astray multitudes to irreparable ruin. Therefore, though
it is good to preach and write about penitence, confession, and satisfaction,
yet if we stop there, and do not go on to teach faith, such teaching is without
doubt deceitful and devilish. For Christ, speaking by His servant John, not
only said, "Repent ye," but added, "for the kingdom of heaven is
at hand" (Matt. iii. 2).
For not one word
of God only, but both, should be preached; new and old things should be brought
out of the treasury, as well the voice of the law as the word of grace. The
voice of the law should be brought forward, that men may be terrified and
brought to a knowledge of their sins, and thence be converted to penitence and
to a better manner of life. But we must not stop here; that would be to wound
only and not to bind up, to strike and not to heal, to kill and not to make
alive, to bring down to hell and not to bring back, to humble and not to exalt.
Therefore the word of grace and of the promised remission of sin must also be
preached, in order to teach and set up faith, since without that word
contrition, penitence, and all other duties, are performed and taught in vain.
There still
remain, it is true, preachers of repentance and grace, but they do not explain
the law and the promises of God to such an end, and in such a spirit, that men
may learn whence repentance and grace are to come. For repentance comes from
the law of God, but faith or grace from the promises of God, as it is said,
"Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God" (Rom. x.
17), whence it comes that a man, when humbled and brought to the knowledge of
himself by the threatenings and terrors of the law, is consoled and raised up
by faith in the Divine promise. Thus "weeping may endure for a night, but
joy cometh in the morning" (Psalm xxx. 5). Thus much we say concerning
works in general, and also concerning those which the Christian practises with
regard to his own body.
Lastly, we will
speak also of those works which he performs towards his neighbour. For man does
not live for himself alone in this mortal body, in order to work on its
account, but also for all men on earth; nay, he lives only for others, and not
for himself. For it is to this end that he brings his own body into subjection,
that he may be able to serve others more sincerely and more freely, as Paul
says, "None of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself. For
whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the
Lord" (Rom. xiv. 7, 8). Thus it is impossible that he should take his ease
in this life, and not work for the good of his neighbours, since he must needs
speak, act, and converse among men, just as Christ was made in the likeness of
men and found in fashion as a man, and had His conversation among men.
Yet a Christian
has need of none of these things for justification and salvation, but in all
his works he ought to entertain this view and look only to this object--that he
may serve and be useful to others in all that he does; having nothing before
his eyes but the necessities and the advantage of his neighbour. Thus the
Apostle commands us to work with our own hands, that we may have to give to
those that need. He might have said, that we may support ourselves; but he
tells us to give to those that need. It is the part of a Christian to take care
of his own body for the very purpose that, by its soundness and well-being, he
may be enabled to labour, and to acquire and preserve property, for the aid of
those who are in want, that thus the stronger member may serve the weaker
member, and we may be children of God, thoughtful and busy one for another,
bearing one another's burdens, and so fulfilling the law of Christ.
Here is the truly
Christian life, here is faith really working by love, when a man applies
himself with joy and love to the works of that freest servitude in which he
serves others voluntarily and for nought, himself abundantly satisfied in the
fulness and riches of his own faith.
Thus, when Paul
had taught the Philippians how they had been made rich by that faith in Christ
in which they had obtained all things, he teaches them further in these words:
"If there be therefore any consolation in Christ, if any comfort of love,
if any fellowship of the Spirit, if any bowels and mercies, fulfil ye my joy,
that ye be like-minded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind.
Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let
each esteem other better than themselves. Look not every man on his own things,
but every man also on the things of others" (Phil. ii. 1-4).
In this we see
clearly that the Apostle lays down this rule for a Christian life: that all our
works should be directed to the advantage of others, since every Christian has
such abundance through his faith that all his other works and his whole life
remain over and above wherewith to serve and benefit his neighbour of
spontaneous goodwill.
To this end he
brings forward Christ as an example, saying, "Let this mind be in you,
which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, thought it not
robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, and took upon
Him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men; and being found
in fashion as a man, He humbled Himself, and became obedient unto death"
(Phil. ii. 5-8). This most wholesome saying of the Apostle has been darkened to
us by men who, totally misunderstanding the expressions "form of
God," "form of a servant," "fashion," "likeness
of men," have transferred them to the natures of Godhead and manhood.
Paul's meaning is this: Christ, when He was full of the form of God and abounded
in all good things, so that He had no need of works or sufferings to be just
and saved--for all these things He had from the very beginning--yet was not
puffed up with these things, and did not raise Himself above us and arrogate to
Himself power over us, though He might lawfully have done so, but, on the
contrary, so acted in labouring, working, suffering, and dying, as to be like
the rest of men, and no otherwise than a man in fashion and in conduct, as if
He were in want of all things and had nothing of the form of God; and yet all
this He did for our sakes, that He might serve us, and that all the works He
should do under that form of a servant might become ours.
Thus a Christian,
like Christ his Head, being full and in abundance through his faith, ought to
be content with this form of God, obtained by faith; except that, as I have
said, he ought to increase this faith till it be perfected. For this faith is
his life, justification, and salvation, preserving his person itself and making
it pleasing to God, and bestowing on him all that Christ has, as I have said
above, and as Paul affirms: "The life which I now live in the flesh I live
by the faith of the Son of God" (Gal. ii. 20). Though he is thus free from
all works, yet he ought to empty himself of this liberty, take on him the form
of a servant, be made in the likeness of men, be found in fashion as a man,
serve, help, and in every way act towards his neighbour as he sees that God
through Christ has acted and is acting towards him. All this he should do
freely, and with regard to nothing but the good pleasure of God, and he should
reason thus:--
Lo! my God,
without merit on my part, of His pure and free mercy, has given to me, an
unworthy, condemned, and contemptible creature all the riches of justification
and salvation in Christ, so that I no longer am in want of anything, except of
faith to believe that this is so. For such a Father, then, who has overwhelmed
me with these inestimable riches of His, why should I not freely, cheerfully,
and with my whole heart, and from voluntary zeal, do all that I know will be
pleasing to Him and acceptable in His sight? I will therefore give myself as a
sort of Christ, to my neighbour, as Christ has given Himself to me; and will do
nothing in this life except what I see will be needful, advantageous, and
wholesome for my neighbour, since by faith I abound in all good things in
Christ.
Thus from faith
flow forth love and joy in the Lord, and from love a cheerful, willing, free
spirit, disposed to serve our neighbour voluntarily, without taking any account
of gratitude or ingratitude, praise or blame, gain or loss. Its object is not
to lay men under obligations, nor does it distinguish between friends and
enemies, or look to gratitude or ingratitude, but most freely and willingly
spends itself and its goods, whether it loses them through ingratitude, or
gains goodwill. For thus did its Father, distributing all things to all men
abundantly and freely, making His sun to rise upon the just and the unjust.
Thus, too, the child does and endures nothing except from the free joy with
which it delights through Christ in God, the Giver of such great gifts.
You see, then,
that, if we recognize those great and precious gifts, as Peter says, which have
been given to us, love is quickly diffused in our hearts through the Spirit,
and by love we are made free, joyful, all-powerful, active workers, victors
over all our tribulations, servants to our neighbour, and nevertheless lords of
all things. But, for those who do not recognise the good things given to them
through Christ, Christ has been born in vain; such persons walk by works, and
will never attain the taste and feeling of these great things. Therefore just
as our neighbour is in want, and has need of our abundance, so we too in the
sight of God were in want, and had need of His mercy. And as our heavenly
Father has freely helped us in Christ, so ought we freely to help our neighbour
by our body and works, and each should become to other a sort of Christ, so
that we may be mutually Christs, and that the same Christ may be in all of us;
that is, that we may be truly Christians.
Who then can
comprehend the riches and glory of the Christian life? It can do all things,
has all things, and is in want of nothing; is lord over sin, death, and hell,
and at the same time is the obedient and useful servant of all. But alas! it is
at this day unknown throughout the world; it is neither preached nor sought
after, so that we are quite ignorant about our own name, why we are and are
called Christians. We are certainly called so from Christ, who is not absent,
but dwells among us--provided, that is, that we believe in Him and are
reciprocally and mutually one the Christ of the other, doing to our neighbour
as Christ does to us. But now, in the doctrine of men, we are taught only to
seek after merits, rewards, and things which are already ours, and we have made
of Christ a taskmaster far more severe than Moses.
The Blessed Virgin
beyond all others, affords us an example of the same faith, in that she was
purified according to the law of Moses, and like all other women, though she
was bound by no such law and had no need of purification. Still she submitted
to the law voluntarily and of free love, making herself like the rest of women,
that she might not offend or throw contempt on them. She was not justified by
doing this; but, being already justified, she did it freely and gratuitously.
Thus ought our works too to be done, and not in order to be justified by them;
for, being first justified by faith, we ought to do all our works freely and
cheerfully for the sake of others.
Christ also, when
His disciples were asked for the tribute money, asked of Peter whether the
children of a king were not free from taxes. Peter agreed to this; yet Jesus
commanded him to go to the sea, saying, "Lest we should offend them, go
thou to the sea, and cast a hook, and take up the fish that first cometh up;
and when thou hast opened his mouth thou shalt find a piece of money; that
take, and give unto them for Me and thee" (Matt. xvii. 27).
This example is
very much to our purpose; for here Christ calls Himself and His disciples free
men and children of a King, in want of nothing; and yet He voluntarily submits
and pays the tax. Just as far, then, as this work was necessary or useful to
Christ for justification or salvation, so far do all His other works or those
of His disciples avail for justification. They are really free and subsequent
to justification, and only done to serve others and set them an example.
Such are the works
which Paul inculcated, that Christians should be subject to principalities and
powers and ready to every good work (Titus iii. 1), not that they may be
justified by these things--for they are already justified by faith--but that in
liberty of spirit they may thus be the servants of others and subject to
powers, obeying their will out of gratuitous love.
Such, too, ought
to have been the works of all colleges, monasteries, and priests; every one
doing the works of his own profession and state of life, not in order to be
justified by them, but in order to bring his own body into subjection, as an
example to others, who themselves also need to keep under their bodies, and
also in order to accommodate himself to the will of others, out of free love.
But we must always guard most carefully against any vain confidence or
presumption of being justified, gaining merit, or being saved by these works,
this being the part of faith alone, as I have so often said.
Any man possessing
this knowledge may easily keep clear of danger among those innumerable commands
and precepts of the Pope, of bishops, of monasteries, of churches, of princes,
and of magistrates, which some foolish pastors urge on us as being necessary
for justification and salvation, calling them precepts of the Church, when they
are not so at all. For the Christian freeman will speak thus: I will fast, I will
pray, I will do this or that which is commanded me by men, not as having any
need of these things for justification or salvation, but that I may thus comply
with the will of the Pope, of the bishop, of such a community or such a
magistrate, or of my neighbour as an example to him; for this cause I will do
and suffer all things, just as Christ did and suffered much more for me, though
He needed not at all to do so on His own account, and made Himself for my sake
under the law, when He was not under the law. And although tyrants may do me
violence or wrong in requiring obedience to these things, yet it will not hurt
me to do them, so long as they are not done against God.
From all this
every man will be able to attain a sure judgment and faithful discrimination
between all works and laws, and to know who are blind and foolish pastors, and
who are true and good ones. For whatsoever work is not directed to the sole end
either of keeping under the body, or of doing service to our
neighbour--provided he require nothing contrary to the will of God--is no good
or Christian work. Hence I greatly fear that at this day few or no colleges,
monasteries, altars, or ecclesiastical functions are Christian ones; and the
same may be said of fasts and special prayers to certain saints. I fear that in
all these nothing is being sought but what is already ours; while we fancy that
by these things our sins are purged away and salvation is attained, and thus
utterly do away with Christian liberty. This comes from ignorance of Christian
faith and liberty.
This ignorance and
this crushing of liberty are diligently promoted by the teaching of very many
blind pastors, who stir up and urge the people to a zeal for these things,
praising them and puffing them up with their indulgences, but never teaching
faith. Now I would advise you, if you have any wish to pray, to fast, or to
make foundations in churches, as they call it, to take care not to do so with
the object of gaining any advantage, either temporal or eternal. You will thus wrong
your faith, which alone bestows all things on you, and the increase of which,
either by working or by suffering, is alone to be cared for. What you give,
give freely and without price, that others may prosper and have increase from
you and your goodness. Thus you will be a truly good man and a Christian. For
what to you are your goods and your works, which are done over and above for
the subjection of the body, since you have abundance for yourself through your
faith, in which God has given you all things?
We give this rule:
the good things which we have from God ought to flow from one to another and
become common to all, so that every one of us may, as it were, put on his
neighbour, and so behave towards him as if he were himself in his place. They
flowed and do flow from Christ to us; He put us on, and acted for us as if He
Himself were what we are. From us they flow to those who have need of them; so
that my faith and righteousness ought to be laid down before God as a covering
and intercession for the sins of my neighbour, which I am to take on myself,
and so labour and endure servitude in them, as if they were my own; for thus
has Christ done for us. This is true love and the genuine truth of Christian
life. But only there is it true and genuine where there is true and genuine
faith. Hence the Apostle attributes to charity this quality: that she seeketh
not her own.
We conclude
therefore that a Christian man does not live in himself, but in Christ and in
his neighbour, or else is no Christian: in Christ by faith; in his neighbour by
love. By faith he is carried upwards above himself to God, and by love he sinks
back below himself to his neighbour, still always-abiding in God and His love,
as Christ says, "Verily I say unto you, Hereafter ye shall see heaven
open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man"
(John i. 51).
Thus much
concerning liberty, which, as you see, is a true and spiritual liberty, making
our hearts free from all sins, laws, and commandments, as Paul says, "The
law is not made for a righteous man" (1 Tim. i. 9), and one which
surpasses all other external liberties, as far as heaven is above earth. May
Christ make us to understand and preserve this liberty. Amen.
Finally, for the
sake of those to whom nothing can be stated so well but that they misunderstand
and distort it, we must add a word, in case they can understand even that.
There are very many persons who, when they hear of this liberty of faith,
straightway turn it into an occasion of licence. They think that everything is
now lawful for them, and do not choose to show themselves free men and
Christians in any other way than by their contempt and reprehension of
ceremonies, of traditions, of human laws; as if they were Christians merely
because they refuse to fast on stated days, or eat flesh when others fast, or
omit the customary prayers; scoffing at the precepts of men, but utterly
passing over all the rest that belongs to the Christian religion. On the other
hand, they are most pertinaciously resisted by those who strive after salvation
solely by their observance of and reverence for ceremonies, as if they would be
saved merely because they fast on stated days, or abstain from flesh, or make
formal prayers; talking loudly of the precepts of the Church and of the
Fathers, and not caring a straw about those things which belong to our genuine
faith. Both these parties are plainly culpable, in that, while they neglect
matters which are of weight and necessary for salvation, they contend noisily
about such as are without weight and not necessary.
How much more
rightly does the Apostle Paul teach us to walk in the middle path, condemning
either extreme and saying, "Let not him that eateth despise him that
eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth" (Rom.
xiv. 3)! You see here how the Apostle blames those who, not from religious
feeling, but in mere contempt, neglect and rail at ceremonial observances, and
teaches them not to despise, since this "knowledge puffeth up." Again,
he teaches the pertinacious upholders of these things not to judge their
opponents. For neither party observes towards the other that charity which
edifieth. In this matter we must listen to Scripture, which teaches us to turn
aside neither to the right hand nor to the left, but to follow those right
precepts of the Lord which rejoice the heart. For just as a man is not
righteous merely because he serves and is devoted to works and ceremonial
rites, so neither will he be accounted righteous merely because he neglects and
despises them.
It is not from
works that we are set free by the faith of Christ, but from the belief in
works, that is from foolishly presuming to seek justification through works.
Faith redeems our consciences, makes them upright, and preserves them, since by
it we recognise the truth that justification does not depend on our works,
although good works neither can nor ought to be absent, just as we cannot exist
without food and drink and all the functions of this mortal body. Still it is
not on them that our justification is based, but on faith; and yet they ought
not on that account to be despised or neglected. Thus in this world we are
compelled by the needs of this bodily life; but we are not hereby justified.
"My kingdom is not hence, nor of this world," says Christ; but He
does not say, "My kingdom is not here, nor in this world." Paul, too,
says, "Though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh" (2
Cor. x. 3), and "The life which I now live in the flesh I live by the
faith of the Son of God" (Gal. ii. 20). Thus our doings, life, and being,
in works and ceremonies, are done from the necessities of this life, and with
the motive of governing our bodies; but yet we are not justified by these
things, but by the faith of the Son of God.
The Christian must
therefore walk in the middle path, and set these two classes of men before his
eyes. He may meet with hardened and obstinate ceremonialists, who, like deaf
adders, refuse to listen to the truth of liberty, and cry up, enjoin, and urge
on us their ceremonies, as if they could justify us without faith. Such were
the Jews of old, who would not understand, that they might act well. These men
we must resist, do just the contrary to what they do, and be bold to give them
offence, lest by this impious notion of theirs they should deceive many along
with themselves. Before the eyes of these men it is expedient to eat flesh, to
break fasts, and to do in behalf of the liberty of faith things which they hold
to be the greatest sins. We must say of them, "Let them alone; they be
blind leaders of the blind" (Matt. xv. 14). In this way Paul also would
not have Titus circumcised, though these men urged it; and Christ defended the
Apostles, who had plucked ears of corn on the Sabbath day; and many like instances.
Or else we may
meet with simple-minded and ignorant persons, weak in the faith, as the Apostle
calls them, who are as yet unable to apprehend that liberty of faith, even if
willing to do so. These we must spare, lest they should be offended. We must bear
with their infirmity, till they shall be more fully instructed. For since these
men do not act thus from hardened malice, but only from weakness of faith,
therefore, in order to avoid giving them offence, we must keep fasts and do
other things which they consider necessary. This is required of us by charity,
which injures no one, but serves all men. It is not the fault of these persons
that they are weak, but that of their pastors, who by the snares and weapons of
their own traditions have brought them into bondage and wounded their souls
when they ought to have been set free and healed by the teaching of faith and
liberty. Thus the Apostle says, "If meat make my brother to offend, I will
eat no flesh while the world standeth" (1 Cor. viii. 13); and again,
"I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean
of itself; but to him that esteemeth anything to be unclean, to him it is
unclean. It is evil for that man who eateth with offence" (Rom. xiv. 14,
20).
Thus, though we
ought boldly to resist those teachers of tradition, and though the laws of the
pontiffs, by which they make aggressions on the people of God, deserve sharp
reproof, yet we must spare the timid crowd, who are held captive by the laws of
those impious tyrants, till they are set free. Fight vigorously against the
wolves, but on behalf of the sheep, not against the sheep. And this you may do
by inveighing against the laws and lawgivers, and yet at the same time
observing these laws with the weak, lest they be offended, until they shall
themselves recognise the tyranny, and understand their own liberty. If you wish
to use your liberty, do it secretly, as Paul says, "Hast thou faith? have
it to thyself before God" (Rom. xiv. 22). But take care not to use it in
the presence of the weak. On the other hand, in the presence of tyrants and
obstinate opposers, use your liberty in their despite, and with the utmost
pertinacity, that they too may understand that they are tyrants, and their laws
useless for justification, nay that they had no right to establish such laws.
Since then we
cannot live in this world without ceremonies and works, since the hot and
inexperienced period of youth has need of being restrained and protected by
such bonds, and since every one is bound to keep under his own body by
attention to these things, therefore the minister of Christ must be prudent and
faithful in so ruling and teaching the people of Christ, in all these matters,
that no root of bitterness may spring up among them, and so many be defiled, as
Paul warned the Hebrews; that is, that they may not lose the faith, and begin
to be defiled by a belief in works as the means of justification. This is a
thing which easily happens, and defiles very many, unless faith be constantly
inculcated along with works. It is impossible to avoid this evil, when faith is
passed over in silence, and only the ordinances of men are taught, as has been
done hitherto by the pestilent, impious, and soul-destroying traditions of our
pontiffs and opinions of our theologians. An infinite number of souls have been
drawn down to hell by these snares, so that you may recognise the work of
antichrist.
In brief, as
poverty is imperilled amid riches, honesty amid business, humility amid
honours, abstinence amid feasting, purity amid pleasures, so is justification
by faith imperilled among ceremonies. Solomon says, "Can a man take fire
in his bosom, and his clothes not be burned?" (Prov. vi. 27). And yet as
we must live among riches, business, honours, pleasures, feastings, so must we
among ceremonies, that is among perils. Just as infant boys have the greatest
need of being cherished in the bosoms and by the care of girls, that they may
not die, and yet, when they are grown, there is peril to their salvation in
living among girls, so inexperienced and fervid young men require to be kept in
and restrained by the barriers of ceremonies, even were they of iron, lest
their weak minds should rush headlong into vice. And yet it would be death to
them to persevere in believing that they can be justified by these things. They
must rather be taught that they have been thus imprisoned, not with the purpose
of their being justified or gaining merit in this way, but in order that they
might avoid wrong-doing, and be more easily instructed in that righteousness
which is by faith, a thing which the headlong character of youth would not bear
unless it were put under restraint.
Hence in the
Christian life ceremonies are to be no otherwise looked upon than as builders
and workmen look upon those preparations for building or working which are not
made with any view of being permanent or anything in themselves, but only
because without them there could be no building and no work. When the structure
is completed, they are laid aside. Here you see that we do not contemn these
preparations, but set the highest value on them; a belief in them we do
contemn, because no one thinks that they constitute a real and permanent
structure. If any one were so manifestly out of his senses as to have no other
object in life but that of setting up these preparations with all possible
expense, diligence, and perseverance, while he never thought of the structure
itself, but pleased himself and made his boast of these useless preparations
and props, should we not all pity his madness and think that, at the cost thus
thrown away, some great building might have been raised?
Thus, too, we do
not contemn works and ceremonies--nay, we set the highest value on them; but we
contemn the belief in works, which no one should consider to constitute true
righteousness, as do those hypocrites who employ and throw away their whole
life in the pursuit of works, and yet never attain to that for the sake of
which the works are done. As the Apostle says, they are "ever learning and
never able to come to the knowledge of the truth" (2 Tim. iii. 7). They
appear to wish to build, they make preparations, and yet they never do build;
and thus they continue in a show of godliness, but never attain to its power.
Meanwhile they
please themselves with this zealous pursuit, and even dare to judge all others,
whom they do not see adorned with such a glittering display of works; while, if
they had been imbued with faith, they might have done great things for their
own and others' salvation, at the same cost which they now waste in abuse of
the gifts of God. But since human nature and natural reason, as they call it,
are naturally superstitious, and quick to believe that justification can be
attained by any laws or works proposed to them, and since nature is also
exercised and confirmed in the same view by the practice of all earthly
lawgivers, she can never of her own power free herself from this bondage to
works, and come to a recognition of the liberty of faith.
We have therefore
need to pray that God will lead us and make us taught of God, that is, ready to
learn from God; and will Himself, as He has promised, write His law in our
hearts; otherwise there is no hope for us. For unless He himself teach us
inwardly this wisdom hidden in a mystery, nature cannot but condemn it and
judge it to be heretical. She takes offence at it, and it seems folly to her,
just as we see that it happened of old in the case of the prophets and
Apostles, and just as blind and impious pontiffs, with their flatterers, do now
in my case and that of those who are like me, upon whom, together with
ourselves, may God at length have mercy, and lift up the light of His
countenance upon them, that we may know His way upon earth and His saving
health among all nations, who is blessed for evermore. Amen.
In the year of the
Lord MDXX.
Martin Luther
(1483-1546):
Address To The
Nobility of the German Nation, 1520
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Introductory Note
Martin Luther, the
leader of the Protestant Reformation, was born at Eisleben, Prussian Saxony,
The starting-point
of Luther's career as a reformer was his posting on the church door of
The year 1520 saw
the publication of the three great documents which laid down the fundamental
principles of the Reformation. In the "Address to the Christian Nobility
of the German Nation," Luther attacked the corruptions of the Church and
the abuses of its authority, and asserted the right of the layman to spiritual
independence. In "Concerning Christian Liberty," he expounded the doctrine
of justification by faith, and gave a complete presentation of his theological
position. In the "Babylonish Captivity of the Church," he criticized
the sacramental system, and set up the Scriptures as the supreme authority in
religion.
In the midst of
this activity came his formal excommunication, and his renunciation of
allegiance to the Pope. He was proscribed by the Emperor Charles V and taken
into the protection of prison in the Wartburg by the friendly Elector of
Saxony, where he translated the New Testament. The complete translation of the
Bible, issued in 1534, marks the establishment of the modern literary language
of
The rest of
Luther's life was occupied with a vast amount of literary and controversial
activity. He died at Eisleben,
Introduction
The Three Walls Of
The Romanists
Of The Matters To
Be Considered In The Councils
Twenty-Seven
Articles Respecting The Reformation Of The Christian Estate
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Introduction
To his most Serene
and Mighty Imperial Majesty and to the Christian Nobility of the German Nation.
Dr. Martinus Luther.
The grace and
might of God be with you, Most Serene Majesty, most gracious, well-beloved
gentlemen!
It is not out of
mere arrogance and perversity that I, an individual poor man, have taken upon
me to address your lordships. The distress and misery that oppress all the
Christian estates, more especially in Germany, have led not only myself, but
every one else, to cry aloud and to ask for help, and have now forced me too to
cry out and to ask if God would give His Spirit to any one to reach a hand to
His wretched people. Councils have often put forward some remedy, but it has
adroitly been frustrated, and the evils have become worse, through the cunning
of certain men. Their malice and wickedness I will now, by the help of God,
expose, so that, being known, they may henceforth cease to be so obstructive
and injurious. God has given us a young and noble sovereign, 1 and by this has
roused great hopes in many hearts; now it is right that we too should do what
we can, and make good use of time and grace.
[Footnote 1:
Charles V. was at that time not quite twenty years of age.]
The first thing
that we must do is to consider the matter with great earnestness, and, whatever
we attempt, not to trust in our own strength and wisdom alone, even if the
power of all the world were ours; for God will not endure that a good work
should be begun trusting to our own strength and wisdom. He destroys it; it is
all useless, as we read in Psalm xxxiii., "There is no king saved by the
multitude of a host; a mighty man is not delivered by much strength." And
I fear it is for that reason that those beloved princes the Emperors Frederick,
the First and the Second, and many other German emperors were, in former times,
so piteously spurned and oppressed by the popes, though they were feared by all
the world. Perchance they trusted rather in their own strength than in God;
therefore they could not but fall; and how would the sanguinary tyrant Julius
II. have risen so high in our own days but that, I fear,
That such a thing
may not happen to us and to our noble Emperor Charles, we must remember that in
this matter we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers of
the darkness of this world (Eph. vi. 12), who may fill the world with war and
bloodshed, but cannot themselves be overcome thereby. We must renounce all
confidence in our natural strength, and take the matter in hand with humble
trust in God; we must seek God's help with earnest prayer, and have nothing
before our eyes but the misery and wretchedness of Christendom, irrespective of
what punishment the wicked may deserve. If we do not act thus, we may begin the
game with great pomp; but when we are well in it, the spirits of evil will make
such confusion that the whole world will be immersed in blood, and yet nothing
be done. Therefore let us act in the fear of God and prudently. The greater the
might of the foe, the greater is the misfortune, if we do not act in the fear
of God and with humility. If popes and Romanists have hitherto, with the
devil's help, thrown kings into confusion, they may still do so, if we attempt
things with our own strength and skill, without God's help.
The Three Walls Of
The Romanists
The Romanists have,
with great adroitness, drawn three walls round themselves, with which they have
hitherto protected themselves, so that no one could reform them, whereby all
Christendom has fallen terribly.
Firstly, if
pressed by the temporal power, they have affirmed and maintained that the
temporal power has no jurisdiction over them, but, on the contrary, that the
spiritual power is above the temporal.
Secondly, if it
were proposed to admonish them with the Scriptures, they objected that no one
may interpret the Scriptures but the Pope.
Thirdly, if they
are threatened with a council, they pretend that no one may call a council but
the Pope.
Thus they have
secretly stolen our three rods, so that they may be unpunished, and intrenched
themselves behind these three walls, to act with all the wickedness and malice,
which we now witness. And whenever they have been compelled to call a council,
they have made it of no avail by binding the princes beforehand with an oath to
leave them as they were, and to give moreover to the Pope full power over the
procedure of the council, so that it is all one whether we have many councils
or no councils, in addition to which they deceive us with false pretences and
tricks. So grievously do they tremble for their skin before a true, free
council; and thus they have overawed kings and princes, that these believe they
would be offending God, if they were not to obey them in all such knavish,
deceitful artifices.
Now may God help
us, and give us one of those trumpets that overthrew the walls of Jericho, so
that we may blow down these walls of straw and paper, and that we may set free
our Christian rods for the chastisement of sin, and expose the craft and deceit
of the devil, so that we may amend ourselves by punishment and again obtain God's
favour.
(a) The First Wall
That the Temporal
Power has no Jurisdiction over the Spirituality
Let us, in the
first place, attack the first wall.
It has been
devised that the Pope, bishops, priests, and monks are called the spiritual
estate, princes, lords, artificers, and peasants are the temporal estate. This
is an artful lie and hypocritical device, but let no one be made afraid by it,
and that for this reason: that all Christians are truly of the spiritual
estate, and there is no difference among them, save of office alone. As
As for the unction
by a pope or a bishop, tonsure, ordination, consecration, and clothes differing
from those of laymen-all this may make a hypocrite or an anointed puppet, but
never a Christian or a spiritual man. Thus we are all consecrated as priests by
baptism, as St. Peter says: "Ye are a royal priesthood, a holy
nation" (1 Peter ii. 9); and in the book of Revelations: "and hast
made us unto our God (by Thy blood) kings and priests" (Rev. v. 10). For,
if we had not a higher consecration in us than pope or bishop can give, no
priest could ever be made by the consecration of pope or bishop, nor could he
say the mass, or preach, or absolve. Therefore the bishop's consecration is
just as if in the name of the whole congregation he took one person out of the
community, each member of which has equal power, and commanded him to exercise
this power for the rest; in the same way as if ten brothers, co-heirs as king's
sons, were to choose one from among them to rule over their inheritance, they
would all of them still remain kings and have equal power, although one is
ordered to govern.
And to put the
matter even more plainly, if a little company of pious Christian laymen were
taken prisoners and carried away to a desert, and had not among them a priest
consecrated by a bishop, and were there to agree to elect one of them, born in
wedlock or not, and were to order him to baptise, to celebrate the mass, to
absolve, and to preach, this man would as truly be a priest, as if all the
bishops and all the Popes had consecrated him. That is why in cases of
necessity every man can baptise and absolve, which would not be possible if we
were not all priests. This great grace and virtue of baptism and of the
Christian estate they have quite destroyed and made us forget by their
ecclesiastical law. In this way the Christians used to choose their bishops and
priests out of the community; these being afterwards confirmed by other
bishops, without the pomp that now prevails. So was it that
Since, then, the
temporal power is baptised as we are, and has the same faith and Gospel, we
must allow it to be priest and bishop, and account its office an office that is
proper and useful to the Christian community. For whatever issues from baptism
may boast that it has been consecrated priest, bishop, and pope, although it
does not beseem every one to exercise these offices. For, since we are all
priests alike, no man may put himself forward or take upon himself, without our
consent and election, to do that which we have all alike power to do. For, if a
thing is common to all, no man may take it to himself without the wish and
command of the community. And if it should happen that a man were appointed to
one of these offices and deposed for abuses, he would be just what he was
before. Therefore a priest should be nothing in Christendom but a functionary;
as long as he holds his office, he has precedence of others; if he is deprived
of it, he is a peasant or a citizen like the rest. Therefore a priest is verily
no longer a priest after deposition. But now they have invented characteres
indelebiles, 2 and pretend that a priest after deprivation still differs from a
simple layman. They even imagine that a priest can never be anything but a
priest-that is, that he can never become a layman. All this is nothing but mere
talk and ordinance of human invention.
[Footnote 2: In
accordance with a doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church, the act of ordination impresses
upon the priest an indelible character; so that he immutably retains the sacred
dignity of priesthood.]
It follows, then,
that between laymen and priests, princes and bishops, or, as they call it,
between spiritual and temporal persons, the only real difference is one of
office and function, and not of estate; for they are all of the same spiritual
estate, true priests, bishops, and popes, though their functions are not the
same-just as among priests and monks every man has not the same functions. And
this, as I said above,
We see, then, that
just as those that we call spiritual, or priests, bishops, or popes, do not
differ from other Christians in any other or higher degree but in that they are
to be concerned with the word of God and the sacraments-that being their work
and office-in the same way the temporal authorities hold the sword and the rod
in their hands to punish the wicked and to protect the good. A cobbler, a
smith, a peasant, every man, has the office and function of his calling, and
yet all alike are consecrated priests and bishops, and every man should by his
office or function be useful and beneficial to the rest, so that various kinds
of work may all be united for the furtherance of body and soul, just as the
members of the body all serve one another.
Now see what a
Christian doctrine is this: that the temporal authority is not above the
clergy, and may not punish it. This is as if one were to say the hand may not
help, though the eye is in grievous suffering. Is it not unnatural, not to say
unchristian, that one member may not help another, or guard it against harm?
Nay, the nobler the member, the more the rest are bound to help it. Therefore I
say, Forasmuch as the temporal power has been ordained by God for the
punishment of the bad and the protection of the good, therefore we must let it
do its duty throughout the whole Christian body, without respect of persons,
whether it strikes popes, bishops, priests, monks, nuns, or whoever it may be.
If it were sufficient reason for fettering the temporal power that it is
inferior among the offices of Christianity to the offices of priest or
confessor, or to the spiritual estate-if this were so, then we ought to
restrain tailors, cobblers, masons, carpenters, cooks, cellarmen, peasants, and
all secular workmen, from providing the Pope or bishops, priests and monks,
with shoes, clothes, houses or victuals, or from paying them tithes. But if
these laymen are allowed to do their work without restraint, what do the
Romanist scribes mean by their laws? They mean that they withdraw themselves
from the operation of temporal Christian power, simply in order that they may
be free to do evil, and thus fulfil what St. Peter said: "There shall be
false teachers among you, . . . and in covetousness shall they with feigned
words make merchandise of you" (2 Peter ii. 1, etc.).
Therefore the
temporal Christian power must exercise its office without let or hindrance,
without considering whom it may strike, whether pope, or bishop, or priest:
whoever is guilty, let him suffer for it.
Whatever the
ecclesiastical law has said in opposition to this is merely the invention of
Romanist arrogance. For this is what
Now, I imagine,
the first paper wall is overthrown, inasmuch as the temporal power has become a
member of the Christian body; although its work relates to the body, yet does
it belong to the spiritual estate. Therefore, it must do its duty without let
or hindrance upon all members of the whole body, to punish or urge, as guilt
may deserve, or need may require, without respect of pope, bishops, or priests,
let them threaten or excommunicate as they will. That is why a guilty priest is
deprived of his priesthood before being given over to the secular arm; whereas
this would not be right, if the secular sword had not authority over him
already by Divine ordinance.
It is, indeed,
past bearing that the spiritual law should esteem so highly the liberty, life,
and property of the clergy, as if laymen were not as good spiritual Christians,
or not equally members of the Church. Why should your body, life, goods, and
honour be free, and not mine, seeing that we are equal as Christians, and have
received alike baptism, faith, spirit, and all things? If a priest is killed,
the country is laid under an interdict 3: why not also if a peasant is killed?
Whence comes this great difference among equal Christians? Simply from human
laws and inventions.
[Footnote 3: By
the Interdict, or general excommunication, whole countries, districts, or towns,
or their respective rulers, were deprived of all the spiritual benefits of the
Church, such as Divine service, the administering of the sacraments, etc.]
It can have been
no good spirit, either, that devised these evasions and made sin to go unpunished.
For if, as Christ and the Apostles bid us, it is our duty to oppose the evil
one and all his works and words, and to drive him away as well as may be, how
then should we remain quiet and be silent when the Pope and his followers are
guilty of devilish works and words? Are we for the sake of men to allow the
commandments and the truth of God to be defeated, which at our baptism we vowed
to support with body and soul? Truly we should have to answer for all souls
that would thus be abandoned and led astray.
Therefore it must
have been the arch-devil himself who said, as we read in the ecclesiastical
law, If the Pope were so perniciously wicked, as to be dragging souls in crowds
to the devil, yet he could not be deposed. This is the accursed and devilish foundation
on which they build at
Where there is
sin, there remains no avoiding the punishment, as St. Gregory says, We are all
equal, but guilt makes one subject to another. Now let us see how they deal
with Christendom. They arrogate to themselves immunities without any warrant
from the Scriptures, out of their own wickedness, whereas God and the Apostles
made them subject to the secular sword; so that we must fear that it is the
work of antichrist, or a sign of his near approach.
(b) The Second
Wall
That no one may
interpret the Scriptures but the Pope
The second wall is
even more tottering and weak: that they alone pretend to be considered masters
of the Scriptures; although they learn nothing of them all their life. They
assume authority, and juggle before us with impudent words, saying that the
Pope cannot err in matters of faith, whether he be evil or good, albeit they
cannot prove it by a single letter. That is why the canon law contains so many
heretical and unchristian, nay unnatural, laws; but of these we need not speak
now. For whereas they imagine the Holy Ghost never leaves them, however
unlearned and wicked they may be, they grow bold enough to decree whatever they
like. But were this true, where were the need and use of the Holy Scriptures?
Let us burn them, and content ourselves with the unlearned gentlemen at
But not to fight
them with our own words, we will quote the Scriptures.
Therefore it is a
wickedly devised fable-and they cannot quote a single letter to confirm it-that
it is for the Pope alone to interpret the Scriptures or to confirm the
interpretation of them. They have assumed the authority of their own selves.
And though they say that this authority was given to St. Peter when the keys
were given to him, it is plain enough that the keys were not given to St. Peter
alone, but to the whole community. Besides, the keys were not ordained for
doctrine or authority, but for sin, to bind or loose, and what they claim
besides this from the keys is mere invention. But what Christ said to St.
Peter: "I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not" (St. Luke
xxii. 32), cannot relate to the Pope, inasmuch as the greater part of the Popes
have been without faith, as they are themselves forced to acknowledge; nor did
Christ pray for Peter alone, but for all the Apostles and all Christians, as He
says, "Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall
believe on Me through their word" (St. John xvii.). Is not this plain
enough?
Only consider the
matter. They must needs acknowledge that there are pious Christians among us
that have the true faith, spirit, understanding, word, and mind of Christ: why
then should we reject their word and understanding, and follow a pope who has
neither understanding nor spirit? Surely this were to deny our whole faith and
the Christian Church. Moreover, if the article of our faith is right, "I
believe in the holy Christian Church," the Pope cannot alone be right;
else we must say, "I believe in the Pope of Rome," and reduce the
Christian Church to one man, which is a devilish and damnable heresy. Besides
that, we are all priests, as I have said, and have all one faith, one Gospel,
one Sacrament; how then should we not have the power of discerning and judging
what is right or wrong in matters of faith? What becomes of
By these and many
other texts we should gain courage and freedom, and should not let the spirit
of liberty (as St. Paul has it) be frightened away by the inventions of the
popes; we should boldly judge what they do and what they leave undone by our
own believing understanding of the Scriptures, and force them to follow the
better understanding, and not their own. Did not Abraham in old days have to
obey his Sarah, who was in stricter bondage to him than we are to any one on
earth? Thus, too, Balaam's ass was wiser than the prophet. If God spoke by an
ass against a prophet, why should He not speak by a pious man against the Pope?
Besides,
(c) The Third Wall
That no one may
call a council but the Pope
The third wall
falls of itself, as soon as the first two have fallen; for if the Pope acts
contrary to the Scriptures, we are bound to stand by the Scriptures, to punish
and to constrain him, according to Christ's commandment, "Moreover, if thy
brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and
him alone; if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will
not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or
three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear
them, tell it unto the Church; but if he neglect to hear the Church, let him be
unto thee as a heathen man and a publican" (St. Matt. xviii. 15-17). Here
each member is commanded to take care for the other; much more then should we
do this, if it is a ruling member of the community that does evil, which by its
evil-doing causes great harm and offence to the others. If then I am to accuse
him before the Church, I must collect the Church together. Moreover, they can
show nothing in the Scriptures giving the Pope sole power to call and confirm
councils; they have nothing but their own laws; but these hold good only so
long as they are not injurious to Christianity and the laws of God. Therefore,
if the Pope deserves punishment, these laws cease to bind us, since Christendom
would suffer, if he were not punished by a council. Thus we read (Acts xv.)
that the council of the Apostles was not called by St. Peter, but by all the
Apostles and the elders. But if the right to call it had lain with St. Peter
alone, it would not have been a Christian council, but a heretical conciliabulum.
Moreover, the most celebrated council of all-that of
Therefore when
need requires, and the Pope is a cause of offence to Christendom, in these
cases whoever can best do so, as a faithful member of the whole body, must do
what he can to procure a true free council. This no one can do so well as the
temporal authorities, especially since they are fellow-Christians,
fellow-priests, sharing one spirit and one power in all things, and since they
should exercise the office that they have received from God without hindrance,
whenever it is necessary and useful that it should be exercised. Would it not
be most unnatural, if a fire were to break out in a city, and every one were to
keep still and let it burn on and on, whatever might be burnt, simply because
they had not the mayor's authority, or because the fire perchance broke out at
the mayor's house? Is not every citizen bound in this case to rouse and call in
the rest? How much more should this be done in the spiritual city of
But as for their
boasts of their authority, that no one must oppose it, this is idle talk. No
one in Christendom has any authority to do harm, or to forbid others to prevent
harm being done. There is no authority in the Church but for reformation.
Therefore if the Pope wished to use his power to prevent the calling of a free
council, so as to prevent the reformation of the Church, we must not respect
him or his power; and if he should begin to excommunicate and fulminate, we
must despise this as the doings of a madman, and, trusting in God,
excommunicate and repel him as best we may. For this his usurped power is
nothing; he does not possess it, and he is at once overthrown by a text from
the Scriptures. For
Therefore let us
hold fast to this: that Christian power can do nothing against Christ, as
And now I hope the
false, lying spectre will be laid with which the Romanists have long terrified
and stupefied our consciences. And it will be seen that, like all the rest of
us, they are subject to the temporal sword; that they have no authority to
interpret the Scriptures by force without skill; and that they have no power to
prevent a council, or to pledge it in accordance with their pleasure, or to
bind it beforehand, and deprive it of its freedom; and that if they do this,
they are verily of the fellowship of antichrist and the devil, and having
nothing of Christ but the name.
Of The Matters To
Be Considered In The Councils
Let us now
consider the matters which should be treated in the councils, and with which
popes, cardinals, bishops, and all learned men should occupy themselves day and
night, if they love Christ and His Church. But if they do not do so, the people
at large and the temporal powers must do so, without considering the thunders
of their excommunications. For an unjust excommunication is better than ten
just absolutions, and an unjust absolution is worse than ten just excommunications.
Therefore let us rouse ourselves, fellow-Germans, and fear God more than man,
that we be not answerable for all the poor souls that are so miserably lost
through the wicked, devilish government of the Romanists, and that the dominion
of the devil should not grow day by day, if indeed this hellish government can
grow any worse, which, for my part, I can neither conceive nor believe.
1. It is a
distressing and terrible thing to see that the head of Christendom, who boasts
of being the vicar of Christ and the successor of St. Peter, lives in a worldly
pomp that no king or emperor can equal, so that in him that calls himself most
holy and most spiritual there is more worldliness than in the world itself. He
wears a triple crown, whereas the mightiest kings only wear one crown. If this
resembles the poverty of Christ and St. Peter, it is a new sort of resemblance.
They prate of its being heretical to object to this; nay, they will not even
hear how unchristian and ungodly it is. But I think that if he should have to
pray to God with tears, he would have to lay down his crowns; for God will not
endure any arrogance. His office should be nothing else than to weep and pray
constantly for Christendom and to be an example of all humility.
However this may
be, this pomp is a stumbling-block, and the Pope, for the very salvation of his
soul, ought to put if off, for St. Paul says, "Abstain from all appearance
of evil" (1 Thess. v. 21), and again, "Provide things honest in the
sight of all men" (2 Cor. viii. 21). A simple mitre would be enough for
the pope: wisdom and sanctity should raise him above the rest; the crown of
pride he should leave to antichrist, as his predecessors did some hundreds of
years ago. They say, He is the ruler of the world. This is false; for Christ,
whose vicegerent and vicar he claims to be, said to Pilate, "My kingdom is
not of this world" (John xviii. 36). But no vicegerent can have a wider
dominion than this Lord, nor is he a vicegerent of Christ in His glory, but of
Christ crucified, as St. Paul says, "For I determined not to know anything
among you save Jesus Christ, and Him crucified" (2 Cor. ii. 2), and
"Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus, who made Himself
of no reputation, and took upon Himself the form of a servant" (Phil. ii.
5, 7). Again, "We preach Christ crucified" (1 Cor. i.). Now they make
the Pope a vicegerent of Christ exalted in heaven, and some have let the devil
rule them so thoroughly that they have maintained that the Pope is above the
angels in heaven and has power over them, which is precisely the true work of
the true antichrist.
2. What is the use
in Christendom of the people called "cardinals"? I will tell you. In
Now that
[Footnote 4: The
epithet "drunken" was formerly often applied by the Italians to the
Germans.]
After we have
gained this, we will create thirty or forty cardinals on one day, and give one
St. Michael's Mount, 5 near Bamberg, and likewise the see of Wurzburg, to which
belong some rich benefices, until the churches and the cities are desolated;
and then we shall say, We are the vicars of Christ, the shepherds of Christ's
flocks; those mad, drunken Germans must submit to it. I advise, however, that
there be made fewer cardinals, or that the Pope should have to support them out
of his own purse. It would be amply sufficient if there were twelve, and if
each of them had an annual income of one thousand guilders.
[Footnote 5:
Luther alludes here to the Benedictine convent standing on the Monchberg, or
St. Michael's Mount.]
What has brought
us Germans to such a pass that we have to suffer this robbery and this
destruction of our property by the Pope? If the
3. If we took away
ninety-nine parts of the Pope's Court and only left one hundredth, it would
still be large enough to answer questions on matters of belief. Now there is
such a swarm of vermin at
Now that we have
got well into our game, let us pause a while and show that the Germans are not
such fools as not to perceive or understand this Romish trickery. I do not here
complain that God's commandments and Christian justice are despised at
Long ago the
emperors and princes of
[Footnote 6: The
duty of paying annates to the Pope was established by John XXII. in 1319.]
Whenever there is
any pretence of fighting the Turks, they send out some commission for
collecting money, and often send out indulgences under the same pretext of
fighting the Turks. They think we Germans will always remain such great and
inveterate fools that we will go on giving money to satisfy their unspeakable
greed, though we see plainly that neither annates, nor absolution money, nor
any other-not one farthing-goes against the Turks, but all goes into the
bottomless sack. They lie and deceive, form and make covenants with us, of
which they do not mean to keep one jot. And all this is done in the holy name
of Christ and St. Peter.
This being so, the
German nation, the bishops and princes, should remember that they are
Christians, and should defend the people, who are committed to their government
and protection in temporal and spiritual affairs, from these ravenous wolves in
sheep's clothing that profess to be shepherds and rulers; and since the annates
are so shamefully abused, and the covenants concerning them not carried out,
they should not suffer their lands and people to be so piteously and
unrighteously flayed and ruined; but by an imperial or a national law they
should either retain the annates in the country, or abolish them altogether.
For since they do not keep to the covenants, they have no right to the annates;
therefore bishops and princes are bound to punish this thievery and robbery, or
prevent it, as justice demands. And herein should they assist and strengthen
the Pope, who is perchance too weak to prevent this scandal by himself, or, if
he wishes to protect or support it, restrain and oppose him as a wolf and
tyrant; for he has no authority to do evil or to protect evil-doers. Even if it
were proposed to collect any such treasure for use against the Turks, we should
be wise in future, and remember that the German nation is more fitted to take
charge of it than the Pope, seeing that the German nation by itself is able to
provide men enough, if the money is forthcoming. This matter of the annates is
like many other Romish pretexts.
Moreover, the year
has been divided among the Pope and the ruling bishops and foundations in such
wise that the Pope has taken every other month-six in all-to give away the
benefices that fall in his month; in this way almost all the benefices are
drawn into the hands of
[Footnote 7: At
the time when the above was written - June, 1520 - the Emperor Charles had been
elected, but not yet crowned.]
But the see of
avarice and robbery at
First, if the
incumbent of a free living dies at Rome or on his way thither, his living
remains for ever the property of the see of Rome, or I rather should say, the
see of robbers, though they will not let us call them robbers, although no one
has ever heard or read of such robbery.
Secondly, if a
"servant" of the Pope or of one of the cardinals takes a living, or
if, having a living, he becomes a "servant" of the Pope or of a
cardinal, the living remains with
[Footnote 8:
Luther alludes here to the Archbishop Albert of Mayence, who was, besides,
Archbishop of Magdeburg and administrator of the bishopric of Halberstadt. In
order to be able to defray the expense of the archiepiscopal tax due to
Thirdly, whenever
there is any dispute about a benefice; and this is, I think, well-nigh the
broadest and commonest road by which benefices are brought to
But these tricks
did not suffice, and bishoprics were too slow in falling into the power of
Roman avarice. Accordingly our good friend Avarice made the discovery that all
bishoprics are abroad in name only, but that their land and soil is at Rome;
from this it follows that no bishop may be confirmed until he has bought the
"Pall" 9 for a large sum, and has with a terrible oath bound himself
a servant of the Pope. That is why no bishop dare oppose the Pope. This was the
object of the oath, and this is how the wealthiest bishoprics have come to debt
and ruin. Mayence, I am told, pays twenty thousand guilders. These are true
Roman tricks, it seems to me. It is true that they once decreed in the canon
law that the Pall should be given free, the number of the Pope's servants
diminished, disputes made less frequent, that foundations and bishops should
enjoy their liberty; but all this brought them no money. They have therefore
reversed all this: bishops and foundations have lost all their power; they are
mere ciphers, without office, authority, or function; all things are regulated
by the chief knaves at
[Footnote 9: The
Pallium was since the fourth century the symbol of archiepiscopal power, and
had to be redeemed from the Pope by means of a large sum of money and a solemn
oath of obedience.]
What has happened
in this very year? The Bishop of Strasburg, wishing to regulate his see in a
proper way and reform it in the matter of Divine service, published some Divine
and Christian ordinances for that purpose. But our worthy Pope and the holy
chair at
So far we have
seen what they do with the livings that fall vacant. Now there are not enough
vacancies for this delicate greed; therefore it has also taken prudent account
of the benefices that are still held by their incumbents, so that they may
become vacant, though they are in fact not vacant, and this they effect in many
ways.
First, they lie in
wait for fat livings or sees which are held by an old or sick man, or even by
one afflicted by an imaginary incompetence; him the Roman see gives a
coadjutor, that is an assistant without his asking or wishing it, for the
benefit of the coadjutor, because he is a papal servant, or pays for the
office, or has otherwise earned it by some menial service rendered to Rome.
Thus there is an end of free election on the part of the chapter, or of the
right of him who had presented to the living; and all goes to
Secondly, there is
a little word: commendam, that is, when the Pope gives a rich and fat convent
or church into the charge of a cardinal or any other of his servants, just as I
might command you to take charge of one hundred guilders for me. In this way
the convent is neither given, nor lent, nor destroyed, nor is its Divine
service abolished, but only entrusted to a man's charge, not, however, for him
to protect and improve it, but to drive out the one he finds there, to take the
property and revenue, and to install some apostate 10 runaway monk, who is paid
five or six guilders a year, and sits in the church all day and sells symbols
and pictures to the pilgrims; so that neither chanting nor reading in the
church goes on there any more. Now if we were to call this the destruction of
convents and abolition of Divine service we should be obliged to accuse the
Pope of destroying Christianity and abolishing Divine service-for truly he is
doing this effectually-but this would be thought harsh language at
[Footnote 10:
Monks who forsook their order without any legal dispensation were called
"apostates."]
Thirdly, there are
certain benefices that are said to be incompatible; that is, they may not be
held together according to the canon law, such as two cures, two sees, and the
like. Now the Holy See and avarice twists itself out of the canon law by making
"glosses," or interpretations, called Unio, or Incorporatio; that is,
several incompatible benefices are incorporated, so that one is a member of the
other, and the whole is held to be one benefice: then they are no longer
incompatible, and we have got rid of the holy canon law, so that it is no
longer binding, except on those who do not buy those glosses of the Pope and
his Datarius. 11 Unio is of the same kind: a number of benefices are tied
together like a bundle of faggots, and on account of this coupling together
they are held to be one benefice. Thus there may be found many a
"courtling" at Rome who alone holds twenty-two cures, seven priories,
and forty-four prebends, all which is done in virtue of this masterly gloss, so
as not to be contrary to law. Any one can imagine what cardinals and other
prelates may hold. In this way the Germans are to have their purses emptied and
their conceit taken out of them.
[Footnote 11: The
papal office for the issue and registration of certain documents was called
Dataria, from the phrase appended to them, Datum apud S. Petrum. The chief of
that office, usually a cardinal, bore the title of Datarius, or Prodatarius.]
There is another
gloss called Administratio; that is, that besides his see a man holds an abbey
or other high benefice, and possesses all the property of it, without any other
title but administrator. For at
This precious
Roman avarice has also invented the practice of selling and lending prebends
and benefices on condition that the seller or lender has the reversion, so that
if the incumbent dies, the benefice falls to him that has sold it, lent it, or
abandoned it; in this way they have made benefices heritable property, so that
none can come to hold them unless the seller sells them to him, or leaves them
to him at his death. Then there are many that give a benefice to another in
name only, and on condition that he shall not receive a farthing. It is now,
too, an old practice for a man to give another a benefice and to receive a
certain annual sum, which proceeding was formerly called simony. And there are
many other such little things which I cannot recount; and so they deal worse
with the benefices than the heathens by the cross dealt with Christ's clothes.
But all this that
I have spoken of is old and common at
This wantonness
and lying reservation of the popes has brought about an unutterable state of
things at
Finally, the Pope
has built a special house for this fine traffic-that is, the house of the
Datarius at
If you bring money
to this house, you can arrive at all that I have mentioned; and more than this,
any sort of usury is made legitimate for money; property got by theft or
robbery is here made legal. Here vows are annulled; here a monk obtains leave
to quit his order; here priests can enter married life for money; here bastards
can become legitimate; and dishonour and shame may arrive at high honours; all
evil repute and disgrace is knighted and ennobled; here a marriage is suffered
that is in a forbidden degree, or has some other defect. Oh, what a trafficking
and plundering is there! one would think that the canon laws were only so many
money-snares, from which he must free himself who would become a Christian man.
Nay, here the devil becomes a saint, and a god besides. What heaven and earth
might not do may be done by this house. Their ordinances are called
compositions - compositions, forsooth! confusions rather. 12 Oh, what a poor
treasury is the toll on the
[Footnote 12:
Luther uses here the expressions compositiones and confusiones as a kind of
pun.]
[Footnote 13:
Tolls were levied at many places along the
Let no one think
that I say too much. It is all notorious, so that even at
I have still to
give a farewell greeting. These treasures, that would have satisfied three
mighty kings, were not enough for this unspeakable greed, and so they have made
over and sold their traffic to Fugger 14 at Augsburg, so that the lending and
buying and selling sees and benefices, and all this traffic in ecclesiastical
property, has in the end come into the right hands, and spiritual and temporal
matters have now become one business. Now I should like to know what the most
cunning would devise for Romish greed to do that it has not done, except that
Fugger might sell or pledge his two trades, that have now become one. I think
they must have come to the end of their devices. For what they have stolen and
yet steal in all countries by bulls of indulgences, letters of confession,
letters of dispensation, 15 and other confessionalia, all this I think mere
bungling work, and much like playing toss with a devil in hell. Not that they
produce little, for a mighty king could support himself by them; but they are
as nothing compared to the other streams of revenue mentioned above. I will not
now consider what has become of that indulgence money; I shall inquire into
this another time, for Campofiore 16 and Belvedere 17 and some other places
probably know something about it.
[Footnote 14: The
commercial house of Fugger was in those days the wealthiest in
[Footnote 15:
Luther uses the word Butterbriefe, i. e., letters of indulgence allowing the
enjoyment of butter, cheese, milk, etc., during Lent. They formed part only of
the confessionalia, which granted various other indulgences.]
[Footnote 16: A
public place at
[Footnote 17: Part
of the
Meanwhile, since
this devilish state of things is not only an open robbery, deceit, and tyranny
of the gates of hell, but also destroys Christianity body and soul, we are
bound to use all our diligence to prevent this misery and destruction of Christendom.
If we wish to fight the Turk, let us begin here, where they are worst. If we
justly hang thieves and behead robbers, why do we leave the greed of
Twenty-Seven
Articles
Respecting The
Reformation Of The Christian Estate
Part I
Now though I am
too lowly to submit articles that could serve for the reformation of these
fearful evils, I will yet sing out my fool's song, and will show, as well as my
wit will allow, what might and should be done by the temporal authorities or by
a general council.
1. Princes,
nobles, and cities should promptly forbid their subjects to pay the annates to
2. Since by means
of those Romish tricks, commendams, coadjutors, reservations, expectations,
pope's months, incorporations, unions, Palls, rules of chancellery, and other
such knaveries, the Pope takes unlawful possession of all German foundations,
to give and sell them to strangers at Rome, that profit Germany in no way, so
that the incumbents are robbed of their rights, and the bishops are made mere
ciphers and anointed idols; and thus, besides natural justice and reason, the
Pope's own canon law is violated; and things have come to such a pass that
prebends and benefices are sold at Rome to vulgar, ignorant asses and knaves,
out of sheer greed, while pious learned men have no profit by their merit and
skill, whereby the unfortunate German people must needs lack good, learned
prelates and suffer ruin-on account of these evils the Christian nobility
should rise up against the Pope as a common enemy and destroyer of
Christianity, for the sake of the salvation of the poor souls that such tyranny
must ruin. They should ordain, order, and decree that henceforth no benefice
shall be drawn away to Rome, and that no benefice shall be claimed there in any
fashion whatsoever; and after having once got these benefices out of the hands
of Romish tyranny, they must be kept from them, and their lawful incumbents
must be reinstated in them to administer them as best they may within the
German nation. And if a courtling came from
3. It should be
decreed by an imperial law that no episcopal cloak and no confirmation of any
appointment shall for the future be obtained from
But, that he have
no cause for complaint, as being deprived of his authority, it should be
decreed that in cases where the primates and archbishops are unable to settle
the matter, or where there is a dispute among them, the matters shall then be
submitted to the Pope, but not every little matter, as was done formerly, and
was ordered by the most renowned Nicene Council. His Holiness must not be
troubled with small matters, that can be settled without his help; so that he
may have leisure to devote himself to his prayers and study and to his care of
all Christendom, as he professes to do, as indeed the Apostles did, saying,
"It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve
tables.... But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the
ministry of the word" (Acts vi. 2, 4). But now we see at Rome nothing but
contempt of the Gospel and of prayer, and the service of tables, that is the
service of the goods of this world; and the government of the Pope agrees with
the government of the Apostles as well as Lucifer with Christ, hell with heaven,
night with day; and yet he calls himself Christ's vicar and the successor of
the Apostles.
4. Let it be
decreed that no temporal matter shall be submitted to
Still we might
allow matters respecting benefices or prebends to be treated before bishops,
archbishops, and primates. Therefore when it is necessary to decide quarrels
and strifes let the Primate of Germany hold a general consistory, with
assessors and chancellors, who would have the control over the signaturas
gratiae and justitiae 18 and to whom matters arising in
[Footnote 18: At
the time when the above was written the function of the signatura gratiae was
to superintend the conferring of grants, concessions, favours, etc., whilst the
signatura justitiae embraced the general administration of ecclesiastical
matters.]
5. Henceforth no
reservations shall be valid, and no benefices shall be appropriated by Rome,
whether the incumbent die there, or there be a dispute, or the incumbent be a
servant of the Pope or of a cardinal; and all courtiers shall be strictly
prohibited and prevented from causing a dispute about any benefice, so as to
cite the pious priests, to trouble them, and to drive them to pay compensation.
And if in consequence of this there comes an interdict from
6. The cases
reserved 19 (casus reservati) should be abolished, by which not only are the
people cheated out of much money, but besides many poor consciences are
confused and led into error by the ruthless tyrants, to the intolerable harm of
their faith in God, especially those foolish and childish cases that are made
important by the bull In Coena Domini, 20 and which do not deserve the name of
daily sins, not to mention those great cases for which the Pope gives no
absolution, such as preventing a pilgrim from going to Rome, furnishing the
Turks with arms, or forging the Pope's letters. They only fool us with these
gross, mad, and clumsy matters: Sodom and Gomorrah, and all sins that are
committed and that can be committed against God's commandments, are not
reserved cases; but what God never commanded and they themselves have invented
- these must be made reserved cases, solely in order that none may be prevented
from bringing money to Rome, that they may live in their lust without fear of
the Turk, and may keep the world in their bondage by their wicked useless bulls
and briefs.
[Footnote 19:
"Reserved cases" refer to those great sins for which the Pope or the
bishops only could give absolution.]
[Footnote 20: The
celebrated papal bull known under the name of In Coena Domini, containing
anathemas and excommunications against all those who dissented in any way from
the Roman Catholic creed, used until the year 1770 to be read publicly at Rome
on Maundy Thursday.]
Now all priests
ought to know, or rather it should be a public ordinance, that no secret sin
constitutes a reserved case, if there be no public accusation; and that every
priest has power to absolve from all sin, whatever its name, if it be secret,
and that no abbot, bishop, or pope has power to reserve any such case; and,
lastly, that if they do this, it is null and void, and they should, moreover,
be punished as interfering without authority in God's judgment and confusing
and troubling without cause our poor witless consciences. But in respect to any
great open sin, directly contrary to God's commandments, there is some reason
for a "reserved case"; but there should not be too many, nor should
they be reserved arbitrarily without due cause. For God has not ordained
tyrants, but shepherds, in His Church, as St. Peter says (1 Peter v. 2).
7. The Roman See
must abolish the papal offices, and diminish that crowd of crawling vermin at
Rome, so that the Pope's servants may be supported out of the Pope's own
pocket, and that his court may cease to surpass all royal courts in its pomp
and extravagance; seeing that all this pomp has not only been of no service to
the Christian faith, but has also kept them from study and prayer, so that they
themselves know hardly anything concerning matters of faith, as they proved
clumsily enough at the last Roman Council, 21 where, among many childishly
trifling matters, they decided "that the soul is immortal," and that
a priest is bound to pray once every month on pain of losing his benefice. 22
How are men to rule Christendom and to decide matters of faith who, callous and
blinded by their greed, wealth, and worldly pomp, have only just decided that
the soul is immortal? It is no slight shame to all Christendom that they should
deal thus scandalously with the faith at
[Footnote 21: The
council alluded to above was held at
[Footnote 22:
Luther's objection is not, of course, to the recognition of the immortality of
the soul; what he objects to is (1) that it was thought necessary for a council
to decree that the soul is immortal, and (2) that this question was put on a
level with trivial matters of discipline.]
8. The terrible
oaths must be abolished which bishops are forced, without any right, to swear
to the Pope, by which they are bound like servants, and which are arbitrarily
and foolishly decreed in the absurd and shallow chapter Significasti. 23 Is it
not enough that they oppress us in goods, body, and soul by all their mad laws,
by which they have weakened faith and destroyed Christianity; but must they now
take possession of the very persons of bishops, with their offices and
functions, and also claim the investiture 24 which used formerly to be the
right of the German emperors, and is still the right of the King in France and
other kingdoms? This matter caused many wars and disputes with the emperors
until the popes impudently took the power by force, since which time they have
retained it, just as if it were only right for the Germans, above all
Christians on earth, to be the fools of the Pope and the Holy See, and to do
and suffer what no one beside would suffer or do. Seeing then that this is mere
arbitrary power, robbery, and a hindrance to the exercise of the bishop's
ordinary power, and to the injury of poor souls, therefore it is the duty of
the Emperor and his nobles to prevent and punish this tyranny.
[Footnote 23: The
above is the title of a chapter in the Corpus Juris Canonici.]
[Footnote 24: The
right of investiture was the subject of the dispute between Gregory VII. and
Henry IV., which led to the Emperor's submission at
9. The Pope should
have no power over the Emperor, except to anoint and crown him at the altar, as
a bishop crowns a king; nor should that devilish pomp be allowed that the
Emperor should kiss the Pope's feet or sit at his feet, or, as it is said, hold
his stirrup or the reins of his mule, when he mounts to ride; much less should
he pay homage to the Pope, or swear allegiance, as is impudently demanded by
the popes, as if they had a right to it. The chapter Solite, 25 in which the
papal authority is exalted above the imperial, is not worth a farthing, and so
of all those that depend on it or fear it; for it does nothing but pervert
God's holy words from their true meaning, according to their own imaginations,
as I have proved in a Latin treatise.
[Footnote 25: The
chapter Solite is also contained in the Corpus Juris Canonici.]
All these
excessive, over-presumptuous, and most wicked claims of the Pope are the
invention of the devil, with the object of bringing in antichrist in due course
and of raising the Pope above God, as indeed many have done and are now doing.
It is not meet that the Pope should exalt himself above temporal authority,
except in spiritual matters, such as preaching and absolution; in other matters
he should be subject to it, according to the teaching of St. Paul (Rom. xiii.)
and St. Peter (I Peter iii.), as I have said above. He is not the vicar of
Christ in heaven, but only of Christ upon earth. For Christ in heaven, in the
form of a ruler, requires no vicar, but there sits, sees, does, knows, and
commands all things. But He requires him "in the form of a servant"
to represent Him as He walked upon earth, working, preaching, suffering, and
dying. But they reverse this: they take from Christ His power as a heavenly
Ruler, and give it to the Pope, and allow "the form of a servant" to
be entirely forgotten (Phil. ii. 7). He should properly be called the
counter-Christ, whom the Scriptures call antichrist; for his whole existence,
work, and proceedings are directed against Christ, to ruin and destroy the
existence and will of Christ.
It is also absurd
and puerile for the Pope to boast for such blind, foolish reasons, in his
decretal Pastoralis, that he is the rightful heir to the empire, if the throne
be vacant. Who gave it to him? Did Christ do so when He said, "The kings
of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them, but ye shall not do so" (Luke
xxii. 25, 26)? Did St. Peter bequeath it to him? It disgusts me that we have to
read and teach such impudent, clumsy, foolish lies in the canon law, and,
moreover, to take them for Christian doctrine, while in reality they are mere
devilish lies. Of this kind also is the unheard-of lie touching the
"donation of
[Footnote 26: In
order to legalize the secular power of the Pope, the fiction was invented
during the latter part of the eighth century, that Constantine the Great had
made over to the popes the dominion over
10. The Pope must
withdraw his hand from the dish, and on no pretence assume royal authority over
11. The custom of
kissing the Pope's feet must cease. It is an unchristian, or rather an
anti-Christian, example that a poor sinful man should suffer his feet to be kissed
by one who is a hundred times better than he. If it is done in honour of his
power, why does he not do it to others in honour of their holiness? Compare
them together: Christ and the Pope. Christ washed His disciples' feet and dried
them, and the disciples never washed His. The Pope, pretending to be higher
than Christ, inverts this, and considers it a great favour to let us kiss his
feet; whereas, if any one wished to do so, he ought to do his utmost to prevent
him, as St. Paul and Barnabas would not suffer themselves to be worshipped as
gods by the men at Lystra, saying, "We also are men of like passions with
you" (Acts xiv. 14 seq.). But our flatterers have brought things to such a
pitch that they have set up an idol for us, until no one regards God with such
fear or honours Him with such marks of reverence as he does the Pope. This they
can suffer, but not that the Pope's glory should be diminished a single
hair's-breadth. Now if they were Christians and preferred God's honour to their
own, the Pope would never be pleased to have God's honour despised and his own
exalted, nor would he allow any to honour him until he found that God's honour
was again exalted above his own.
It is of a piece
with this revolting pride that the Pope is not satisfied with riding on
horseback or in a carriage, but though he be hale and strong, is carried by
men, like an idol in unheard-of pomp. My friend, how does this Lucifer-like
pride agree with the example of Christ, who went on foot, as did also all His
Apostles? Where has there been a king who has ridden in such worldly pomp as he
does, who professes to be the head of all whose duty it is to despise and flee
from all worldly pomp-I mean, of all Christians? Not that this need concern us
for his own sake, but that we have good reason to fear God's wrath, if we
flatter such pride and do not show our discontent. It is enough that the Pope
should be so mad and foolish; but it is too much that we should sanction and
approve it.
For what Christian
heart can be pleased at seeing the Pope when he communicates, sit still like a
gracious lord and have the Sacrament handed to him on a golden reed by a
cardinal bending on his knees before him? Just as if the Holy Sacrament were
not worthy that a pope, a poor miserable sinner, should stand to do honour to
his God, although all other Christians, who are much more holy than the Most
Holy Father, receive it with all reverence! Could we be surprised if God
visited us all with a plague for that we suffer such dishonour to be done to
God by our prelates, and approve it, becoming partners of the Pope's damnable
pride by our silence or flattery? It is the same when he carries the Sacrament
in procession. He must be carried, but the Sacrament stands before him like a
cup of wine on a table. In short, at
12. Pilgrimages to
And even if this
were not so, there is something of more importance to be considered; namely,
that simple men are thus led into a false delusion and a wrong understanding of
God's commandments. For they think that these pilgrimages are precious and good
works; but this is not true. It is but a little good work, often a bad,
misleading work, for God has not commanded it. But He has commanded that each
man should care for his wife and children and whatever concerns the married
state, and should, besides, serve and help his neighbour. Now it often happens
that one goes on a pilgrimage to Rome, spends fifty or one hundred guilders
more or less, which no one has commanded him, while his wife and children, or
those dearest to him, are left at home in want and misery; and yet he thinks,
poor foolish man, to atone for this disobedience and contempt of God's
commandments by his self-willed pilgrimage, while he is in truth misled by idle
curiosity or the wiles of the devil. This the popes have encouraged with their
false and foolish invention of Golden Years, 27 by which they have incited the
people, have torn them away from God's commandments and turned them to their
own delusive proceedings, and set up the very thing that they ought to have
forbidden. But it brought them money and strengthened their false authority,
and therefore it was allowed to continue, though against God's will and the
salvation of souls.
[Footnote 27: The
Jubilees, during which plenary indulgences were granted to those who visited
the churches of St. Peter and
That this false,
misleading belief on the part of simple Christians may be destroyed, and a true
opinion of good works may again be introduced, all pilgrimages should be done
away with. For there is no good in them, no commandment, but countless causes
of sin and of contempt of God's commandments. These pilgrimages are the reason
for there being so many beggars, who commit numberless villainies, learn to beg
without need and get accustomed to it. Hence arises a vagabond life, besides
other miseries which I cannot dwell on now. If any one wishes to go on a
pilgrimage or to make a vow for a pilgrimage, he should first inform his priest
or the temporal authorities of the reason, and if it should turn out that he
wishes to do it for the sake of good works, let this vow and work be just
trampled upon by the priest or the temporal authority as an infernal delusion,
and let them tell him to spend his money and the labour a pilgrimage would cost
on God's commandments and on a thousandfold better work, namely, on his family and
his poor neighbours. But if he does it out of curiosity, to see cities and
countries, he may be allowed to do so. If he have vowed it in sickness, let
such vows be prohibited, and let God's commandments be insisted upon in
contrast to them; so that a man may be content with what he vowed in baptism,
namely, to keep God's commandments. Yet for this once he may be suffered, for a
quiet conscience' sake, to keep his silly vow. No one is content to walk on the
broad high-road of God's commandments; every one makes for himself new roads
and new vows, as if he had kept all God's commandments.
13. Now we come to
the great crowd that promises much and performs little. Be not angry, my good
sirs; I mean well. I have to tell you this bitter and sweet truth: Let no more
mendicant monasteries be built! God help us! there are too many as it is. Would
to God they were all abolished, or at least made over to two or three orders!
It has never done good, it will never do good, to go wandering about over the
country. Therefore my advice is that ten, or as many as may be required, be put
together and made into one, which one, sufficiently provided for, need not beg.
Oh! it is of much more importance to consider what is necessary for the
salvation of the common people, than what St. Francis, or St. Dominic, or
[Footnote 28: The
above-mentioned saints were the patrons of the well-known mendicant orders:
Franciscans, Dominicans, and Augustines.]
Besides this, one
should also do away with the sections and the divisions in the same order
which, caused for little reason and kept up for less, oppose each other with
unspeakable hatred and malice, the result being that the Christian faith, which
is very well able to stand without their divisions, is lost on both sides, and
that a true Christian life is sought and judged only by outward rules, works,
and practices, from which arise only hypocrisy and the destruction of souls, as
every one can see for himself. Moreover, the Pope should be forbidden to institute
or to confirm the institution of such new orders; nay, he should be commanded
to abolish several and to lessen their number. For the faith of Christ, which
alone is the important matter, and can stand without any particular order,
incurs no little danger lest men should be led away by these diverse works and
manners rather to live for such works and practices than to care for faith; and
unless there are wise prelates in the monasteries, who preach and urge faith
rather than the rule of the order, it is inevitable that the order should be
injurious and misleading to simple souls, who have regard to works alone.
Now, in our own
time all the prelates are dead that had faith and founded orders, just as it
was in old days with the children of Israel: when their fathers were dead, that
had seen God's works and miracles, their children, out of ignorance of God's
work and of faith, soon began to set up idolatry and their own human works. In
the same way, alas! these orders, not understanding God's works and faith,
grievously labour and torment themselves by their own laws and practices, and
yet never arrive at a true understanding of a spiritual and good life, as was
foretold by the Apostle, saying of them, "Having a form of godliness, but
denying the power thereof, . . . ever learning, and never able to come to the
knowledge" of what a true spiritual life is (2 Tim. iii. 2-7). Better to
have no convents which are governed by a spiritual prelate, having no
understanding of Christian faith to govern them; for such a prelate cannot but
rule with injury and harm, and the greater the apparent holiness of his life in
external works, the greater the harm.
It would be, I
think, necessary, especially in these perilous times, that foundations and
convents should again be organised as they were in the time of the Apostles and
a long time after, namely when they were all free for every man to remain there
as long as he wished. For what were they but Christian schools, in which the
Scriptures and Christian life were taught, and where folk were trained to
govern and to preach? as we read that St. Agnes went to school, and as we see
even now in some nunneries, as at Quedlinburg and other places. Truly all
foundations and convents ought to be free in this way: that they may serve God
of a free will, and not as slaves. But now they have been bound round with vows
and turned into eternal prisons, so that these vows are regarded even more than
the vows of baptism. But what fruit has come of this we daily see, hear, read,
and learn more and more.
I dare say that
this my counsel will be thought very foolish, but I care not for this. I advise
what I think best, reject it who will. I know how these vows are kept,
especially that of chastity, which is so general in all these convents. 29 and
yet was not ordered by Christ, and it is given to comparatively few to be able
to keep it, as He says, and
Part II
14. We see also
how the priesthood is fallen, and how many a poor priest is encumbered with a
woman and children and burdened in his conscience, and no one does anything to
help him, though he might very well be helped. Popes and bishops may let that
be lost that is being lost, and that be destroyed which is being destroyed, I
will save my conscience and open my mouth freely, let it vex popes and bishops
or whoever it may be; therefore I say, According to the ordinances of Christ
and His Apostles, every town should have a minister or bishop, as St. Paul
plainly says (Titus i.), and this minister should not be forced to live without
a lawful wife, but should be allowed to have one, as St. Paul writes, saying
that "a bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife,...having
his children in subjection with all gravity" (I Tim. iii.). For with
[Footnote 29:
Luther alludes here of course to the vow of celibacy, which was curiously
styled the 'vow of chastity'; thus indirectly condemning marriage in general.]
Therefore we learn
from the Apostle clearly, that every town should elect a pious learned citizen
from the congregation and charge him with the office of minister; the
congregation should support him, and he should be left at liberty to marry or
not. He should have as assistants several priests and deacons, married or not,
as they please, who should help him to govern the people and the congregation
with sermons and the ministration of the sacraments, as is still the case in
the Greek Church. Then afterwards, when there were so many persecutions and
contentions against heretics, there were many holy fathers who voluntarily
abstained from the marriage state, that they might study more, and might be
ready at all times for death and conflict. Now the Roman see has interfered of
its own perversity, and has made a general law by which priests are forbidden
to marry. This must have been at the instigation of the devil, as was foretold
by
My advice is to
restore liberty, and to leave every man free to marry or not to marry. But if
we did this we should have to introduce a very different rule and order for
property; the whole canon law would be overthrown, and but few benefices would
fall to
My advice further
is, whoever henceforth is ordained priest, he should in no wise take the vow of
chastity, but should protest to the bishop that he has no authority to demand
this vow, and that it is a devilish tyranny to demand it. But if one is forced,
or wishes to say, as some do, "so far as human frailty permits," let
every man interpret that phrase as a plain negative, that is, "I do not
promise chastity"; for "human frailty does not allow men to live an
unmarried life," but only "angelic fortitude and celestial
virtue." In this way he will have a clear conscience without any vow. I
offer no opinion, one way or the other, whether those who have at present no
wife should marry, or remain unmarried. This must be settled by the general
order of the Church and by each man's discretion. But I will not conceal my
honest counsel, nor withhold comfort from that unhappy crowd who now live in
trouble with wife and children, and remain in shame, with a heavy conscience,
hearing their wife called a priest's harlot, and the children bastards. And
this I say frankly, in virtue of my good right.
There is a many
poor priest free from blame in all other respects, except that he has succumbed
to human frailty and come to shame with a woman, both minded in their hearts to
live together always in conjugal fidelity, if only they could do so with a good
conscience, though as it is they live in public shame. I say, these two are
surely married before God. I say, moreover, that when two are so minded, and so
come to live together, they should save their conscience; let the man take the
woman as his lawful wife, and live with her faithfully as her husband, without
considering whether the Pope approve or not, or whether it is forbidden by
canon law, or temporal. The salvation of your soul is of more importance than
their tyrannous, arbitrary, wicked laws, which are not necessary for salvation,
nor ordained by God. You should do as the children of
Let him who has
faith enough to dare this only follow me courageously: I will not mislead him.
I may not have the Pope's authority, yet I have the authority of a Christian to
help my neighbour and to warn him against his sins and dangers. And here there
is good reason for doing so.
(a) It is not
every priest that can do without a woman, not only on account of human frailty,
but still more for his household. If therefore he takes a woman, and the Pope
allows this, but will not let them marry, what is this but expecting a man and
a woman to live together and not to fall? Just as if one were to set fire to
straw, and command it should neither smoke nor burn.
(b) The Pope
having no authority for such a command, any more than to forbid a man to eat
and drink, or to digest, or to grow fat, no one is bound to obey it, and the
Pope is answerable for every sin against it, for all the souls that it has brought
to destruction, and for all the consciences that have been troubled and
tormented by it. He has long deserved to be driven out of the world, so many
poor souls has he strangled with this devil's rope, though I hope that God has
shown many more mercy at their death than the Pope did in their life. No good
has ever come and can ever come from the papacy and its laws.
(c) Even though
the Pope's laws forbid it, still, after the married state has been entered, the
Pope's laws tre superseded, and are valid no longer, for God has commanded that
no man shall put asunder husband and wife, and this commandment is far above
the Pope's laws, and God's command must not be cancelled or neglected for the
papal commands. It is true that mad lawyers have helped the Pope to invent
impediments, or hindrances to marriage, and thus troubled, divided, and
perverted the married state, destroying the commandments of God. What need I
say further? In the whole body of the Pope's canon law, there are not two lines
that can instruct a pious Christian, and so many false and dangerous ones that
it were better to burn it.
But if you object
that this would give offence, and that one must first obtain the Pope's
dispensation, I answer that if there is any offence in it, it is the fault of
the see of
15. I must not
forget the poor convents. The evil spirit, who has troubled all estates of life
by human laws, and made them unendurable, has taken possession of some abbots,
abbesses, and prelates, and led them so to rule their brothers and sisters that
they do but go soon to hell, and live a wretched life even upon earth, as is
the case with all the devil's martyrs. For they have reserved in confession
all, or at least some, deadly sins, which are secret, and from these no brother
may on pain of excommunication and on his obedience absolve another. Now we do
not always find angels everywhere, but men of flesh and blood, who would rather
incur all excommunication and menace than confess their secret sins to a
prelate or the confessor appointed for them; consequently they receive the
Sacrament with these sins on their conscience, by which they become irregular
30 and suffer much misery. Oh blind shepherds! Oh foolish prelates! Oh ravenous
wolves! Now I say that in cases where a sin is public and notorious it is only
right that the prelate alone should punish it, and such sins, and no others, he
may reserve and except for himself; over private sins he has no authority, even
though they may be the worst that can be committed or imagined. And if the
prelate excepts these, he becomes a tyrant and interferes with God's judgment.
Accordingly I
advise these children, brothers and sisters: If your superiors will not allow
you to confess your secret sins to whomsoever you will, then take them
yourself, and confess them to your brother or sister, to whomsoever you will;
be absolved and comforted, and then go or do what your wish or duty commands;
only believe firmly that you have been absolved, and nothing more is necessary.
And let not their threats of excommunication, or irregularity, or what not,
trouble or disturb you; these only apply to public or notorious sins, if they
are not confessed: you are not touched by them. How canst thou take upon
thyself, thou blind prelate, to restrain private sins by thy threats? Give up
what thou canst not keep publicly; let God's judgment and mercy also have its
place with thy inferiors. He has not given them into thy hands so completely as
to have let them go out of His own; nay, thou hast received the smaller
portion. Consider thy statutes as nothing more than thy statutes, and do not
make them equal to God's judgment in heaven.
[Footnote 30:
Luther uses the expression irregulares, which was applied to those monks who
were guilty of heresy, apostacy, transgression of the vow of chastity, etc.]
16. It were also
right to abolish annual festivals, processions, and masses for the dead, or at
least to diminish their number; for we evidently see that they have become no
better than a mockery, exciting the anger of God and having no object but
money-getting, gluttony, and carousals. How should it please God to hear the
poor vigils and masses mumbled in this wretched way, neither read nor prayed?
Even when they are properly read, it is not done freely for the love of God,
but for the love of money and as payment of a debt. Now it is impossible that
anything should please God or win anything from Him that is not done freely,
out of love for Him. Therefore, as true Christians, we ought to abolish or
lessen a practice that we see is abused, and that angers God instead of
appeasing Him. I should prefer, and it would be more agreeable to God's will,
and far better for a foundation, church, or convent, to pull all the yearly
masses and vigils together into one mass, so that they would every year
celebrate, on one day, a true vigil and mass with hearty sincerity, devotion,
and faith for all their benefactors. This would be better than their thousand
upon thousand masses said every year, each for a particular benefactor, without
devotion and faith. My dear fellow-Christians, God cares not for much prayer,
but for good prayer. Nay, He condemns long and frequent prayers, saying,
"Verily I say unto you, they have their reward" (Matt. vi. 2, seq.).
But it is the greed that cannot trust God by which such practices are set up;
it is afraid it will die of starvation.
17. One should
also abolish certain punishments inflicted by the canon law, especially the
interdict, which is doubtless the invention of the evil one. Is it not the mark
of the devil to wish to better one sin by more and worse sins? It is surely a
greater sin to silence God's word, and service, than if we were to kill twenty
popes at once, not to speak of a single priest or of keeping back the goods of
the Church. This is one of those gentle virtues which are learnt in the
spiritual law; for the canon or spiritual law is so called because it comes
from a spirit, not, however, from the Holy Spirit, but from the evil spirit.
Excommunication
should not be used except where the Scriptures command it, that is, against
those that have not the right faith, or that live in open sin, and not in
matters of temporal goods. But now the case has been inverted: each man
believes and lives as he pleases, especially those that plunder and disgrace
others with excommunications; and all excommunications are now only in matters
of worldly goods, for which we have no one to thank but the holy canonical
injustice. But of all this I have spoken previously in a sermon.
The other
punishments and penalties-suspension, irregularity, aggravation, reaggravation,
deposition, 31 thundering, lightning, cursing, damning, and what not-all these
should be buried ten fathoms deep in the earth, that their very name and memory
may no longer live upon earth. The evil spirit, who was let loose by the
spiritual law, has brought all this terrible plague and misery into the
heavenly kingdom of the holy Church, and has thereby brought about nothing but
the harm and destruction of souls, that we may well apply to it the words of
Christ, "But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you shut
up the kingdom of heaven against men, for ye neither go in yourselves, neither
suffer ye them that are entering to go in" (Matt. xxiii. 13).
18. One should
abolish all saints' days, keeping only Sunday. But if it were desired to keep
the festivals of Our Lady and the greater saints, they should all be held on
Sundays, or only in the morning with the mass; the rest of the day being a
working day. My reason is this: with our present abuses of drinking, gambling,
idling, and all manner of sin, we vex God more on holy days than on others. And
the matter is just reversed; we have made holy days unholy, and working days
holy, and do no service; but great dishonour, to God and His saints will all
our holy days. There are some foolish prelates that think they have done a good
deed, if they establish a festival to St. Otilia or St. Barbara, and the like,
each in his own blind fashion, whilst he would be doing a much better work to
turn a saint's day into a working day in honour of a saint.
[Footnote 31:
Luther enumerates here the various grades of punishment inflicted on priests.
The aggravation consisted of a threat of excommunication after a
thrice-repeated admonition, whilst the consequence of reaggravation was
immediate excommunication.]
Besides these
spiritual evils, these saints' days inflict bodily injury on the common man in
two ways: he loses a day's work, and he spends more than usual, besides
weakening his body and making himself unfit for labour, as we see every day, and
yet no one tries to improve it. One should not consider whether the Pope
instituted these festivals, or whether we require his dispensation or
permission. If anything is contrary to God's will and harmful to men in body
and soul, not only has every community, council, or government authority to
prevent and abolish such wrong without the knowledge or consent of pope or
bishop, but it is their duty, as they value their soul's salvation, to prevent
it, even though pope and bishop (that should be the first to do so) are
unwilling to see it stopped. And first of all we should abolish church wakes,
since they are nothing but taverns, fairs, and gaming places, to the greater
dishonour of God and the damnation of souls. It is no good to make a talk about
their having had a good origin and being good works. Did not God set aside His
own law that He had given forth out of heaven when He saw it was abused, and
does He not now reverse every day what He has appointed, and destroy what He
has made, on account of the same perverse misuse, as it is written in Psalm
xviii. (ver. 26), "With the perverse Thou wilt show Thyself froward"?
19. The degrees of
relationship in which marriage is forbidden must be altered, such as so-called
spiritual relations. 32 in the third and fourth degrees; and where the Pope at
[Footnote 32:
Those, namely, between sponsors at baptism and their good-children.]
Besides this,
fasts must be made optional, and every kind of food made free, as is commanded
in the Gospels (Matt. xv.II). For whilst at Rome they laugh at fasts, they let
us abroad consume oil which they would not think fit for greasing their boots,
and then sell us the liberty of eating butter and other things, whereas the Apostle
says that the Gospel has given us freedom in all such matters (1 Cor. x. 25,
seq.). But they have caught us in their canon law and have robbed us of this
right, so that we have to buy it back from them; they have so terrified the
consciences of the people that one cannot preach this liberty without rousing
the anger of the people, who think the eating of butter to be a worse sin than
lying, swearing, and unchastity. We may make of it what we will; it is but the
work of man, and no good can ever come of it.
20. The country
chapels and churches must be destroyed, such as those to which the new
pilgrimages have been set on foot: Wilsnack, Sternberg,
The miracles
performed there prove nothing, for the evil one can show also wonders, as
Christ has taught us (Matt.xxiv. 24). If they took up the matter earnestly and
forbade such doings, the miracles would soon cease: or if they were done by
God, they would not be prevented by their commands. And if there were nothing
else to prove that these are not works of God, it would be enough that people
go about turbulently and irrationally like herds of cattle, which could not
possibly come from God. God has not commanded it; there is no obedience, and no
merit in it; and therefore it should be vigorously interfered with, and the
people warned against it. For what is not commanded by God and goes beyond
God's commandments is surely the devil's own work. In this way also the parish
churches suffer: in that they are less venerated. In fine, these pilgrimages
are signs of great want of faith in the people; for if they truly believed,
they would find all things in their own churches, where they are commanded to go.
But what is the
use of my speaking. Every man thinks only how he may get up such a pilgrimage
in his own district, not caring whether the people believe and live rightly.
The rulers are like the people: blind leaders of the blind. Where pilgrimages
are a failure, they begin to glorify their saints, not to honour the saints,
who are sufficiently honoured without them, but to cause a concourse, and to
bring in money. Herein pope and bishops help them; it rains indulgences, and
every one can afford to buy them: but what God has commanded no one cares for;
no one runs after it, no one can afford any money for it. Alas for our
blindness, that we not only suffer the devil to have his way with his phantoms,
but support him! I wish one would leave the good saints alone, and not lead the
poor people astray. What spirit gave the Pope authority to "glorify"
the saints? Who tells him whether they are holy or not holy? Are there not
enough sins on earth as it is but we must tempt God, interfere in His judgment,
and make money-bags of His saints? Therefore my advice is to let the saints
glorify themselves. Nay, God alone should be glorified, and every man should
keep to his own parish, where he will profit more than in all these shrines,
even if they were all put together into one shrine. Here a man finds baptism,
the Sacrament, preaching, and his neighbour, and these are more than all the
saints in heaven, for it is by God's word and sacrament that they have all been
hallowed.
Our contempt for
these great matters justifies God's anger in giving us over to the devil to
lead us astray, to get up pilgrimages, to found churches and chapels, to
glorify the saints, and to commit other like follies, by which we are led
astray from the true faith into new false beliefs, just as He did in old time
with the people of Israel, whom He led away from the Temple to countless other
places, all the while in God's name, and with the appearance of holiness,
against which all th prophets preached, suffering martyrdom for their words.
But now no one preaches against it; for if he did, bishops, popes, priests, and
monks would perchance combine to martyr him. In this way Antonius of Florence
and many others are made saints, so that their holiness may serve to produce
glory and wealth, which served before to the honour of God and as a good
example alone.
Even if this
glorification of the saints had been good once, it is not good now, just as
many other things were good once and are now occasion of offence and injurious,
such as holidays, ecclesiastical treasures and ornaments. For it is evident
that what is aimed at in the glorification of saints is not the glory of God
nor the bettering of Christendom, but money and fame alone; one Church wishes
to have an advantage over another, and would be sorry to see another Church
enjoying the same advantages. In this way they have in these latter days abused
the goods of the Church so as to gain the goods of the world; so that
everything, and even God Himself, must serve their avarice. Moreover, these privileges
cause nothing but dissensions and worldly pride; one Church being different
from the rest, they despise or magnify one another, whereas all goods that are
of God should be common to all, and should serve to produce unity. This, too,
is much liked by the Pope, who would be sorry to see all Christians equal and
at one with one another.
Here must be added
that one should abolish, or treat as of no account, or give to all Churches
alike, the licences, bulls, and whatever the Pope sells at his flaying-ground
at Rome. For if he sells or gives to
Therefore my
advice is this: If this folly is not done away with, let all pious Christians
open their eyes, and not be deceived by these Romish bulls and seals and all
their specious pretences; let them stop at home in their own churches, and be
satisfied with their baptism, Gospel, faith, Christ, and God (who is everywhere
the same), and let the Pope continue to be a blind leader of the blind. Neither
pope nor angel can give you as much as God gives you in your own parish; nay,
he only leads you away from God's gifts, which you have for nothing, to his own
gifts, which you must buy, giving you lead for gold, skin for meat, strings for
a purse, wax for honey, words for goods, the letter for the spirit, as you can
see for yourselves though you will not perceive it. If you try to ride to heaven
on the Pope's wax and parchment, your carriage will soon break down, and you
will fall into hell, not in God's name.
Let this be a
fixed rule for you: Whatever has to be bought of the Pope is neither good, nor
of God. For whatever comes from God is not only given freely, but all the world
is punished and condemned for not accepting it freely. So is it with the Gospel
and the works of God. We have deserved to be led into these errors, because we
have despised God's holy word and the grace of baptism; as St. Paul says,
"And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should
believe a lie, that they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but
had pleasure in unrighteousness" (2 Thess. ii. II, 12).
21. It is one of
the most urgent necessities to abolish all begging in Christendom. No one
should go about begging among Christians. It would not be hard to do this, if
we attempted it with good heart and courage: each town should support its own
poor and should not allow strange beggars to come in, whatever they may call
themselves, pilgrims or mendicant monks. Every town could feed its own poor;
and if it were too small, the people in the neighbouring villages should be
called upon to contribute. As it is, they have to support many knaves and
vagabonds under the name of beggars. If they did what I propose, they would at
least know who were really poor or not.
There should also
be an overseer or guardian who should know all the poor, and should inform the
town-council, or the priest, of their requirements; or some other similar
provision might be made. There is no occupation, in my opinion, in which there
is so much knavery and cheating as among beggars; which could easily be done
away with. This general, unrestricted begging is, besides, injurious for the
common people. I estimate that of the five or six orders of mendicant monks
each one visits every place more than six or seven times in the year; then
there are the common beggars, emissaries, and pilgrims; in this way I calculate
every city has a blackmail levied on it about sixty times a year, not counting
rates and taxes paid to the civil government and the useless robberies of the
Roman see; so that it is to my mind one of the greatest of God's miracles how
we manage to live and support ourselves.
Some may think
that in this way the poor would not be well cared for, and that such great
stone houses and convents would not be built, and not so plentifully, and I
think so too. Nor is it necessary. If a man will be poor he should not be rich;
if he will be rich, let him put his hand to the plough, and get wealth himself
out of the earth. It is enough to provide decently for the poor, that they may
not die of cold and hunger. It is not right that one should work that another
may be idle, and live ill that another may live well, as is now the perverse
abuse, for St. Paul says, "If any would not work, neither should he
eat" (2 Thess. iii. 10). God has not ordained that any one should live of
the goods of others, except priests and ministers alone, as
22. It is also to
be feared that the many masses that have been founded in convents and foundations,
instead of doing any good, arouse God's anger; wherefore it would be well to
endow no more masses and to abolish many of those that have been endowed; for
we see that they are only looked upon as sacrifices and good works, though in
truth they are sacraments like baptism and confession, and as such profit him
only that receives them. But now the custom obtains of saying masses for the
living and the dead, and everything is based upon them. This is the reason why
there are so many, and that they have come to be what we see.
But perhaps all
this is a new and unheard-of doctrine, especially in the eyes of those that
fear to lose their livelihood, if these masses were abolished. I must therefore
reserve what I have to say on this subject until men have arrived at a truer
understanding of the mass, its nature and use. The mass has, alas! for so many
years been turned into means of gaining a livelihood, that I should advise a
man to become a shepherd, a labourer, rather than a priest or monk, unless he
knows what the mass is.
All this, however,
does not apply to the old foundations and chapters, which were doubtless
founded in order that since, according to the custom of Germany, all the
children of nobles cannot be landowners and rulers, they should be provided for
in these foundations, and these serve God freely, study, and become learned
themselves, and help others to acquire learning. I am speaking only of the new
foundations, endowed for prayers and masses, by the example of which the old
foundations have become burdened with the like prayers and masses, making them
of very little, if of any, use. Through God's righteous punishment, they have
at last come down to the dregs, as they deserve-that is, to the noise of
singers and organs, and cold, spiritless masses, with no end but to gain and
spend the money due to them. Popes, bishops, and doctors should examine and
report on such things; as it is they are the guiltiest, allowing anything that
brings them money; the blind ever leading the blind. This comes of covetousness
and the canon law.
It must, moreover,
not be allowed in future that one man should have more than one endowment or
prebend. He should be content with a moderate position in life, so that others
may have something besides himself; and thus we must put a stop to the excuses
of those that say that they must have more than one office to enable them to
live in their proper station. It is possible to estimate one's "proper
station" in such a way that a whole kingdom would not suffice to maintain
it. So it is that covetousness and want of faith in God go hand in hand, and
often men take for the requirements of their "proper station" what is
mere covetousness and want of faith.
23. As for the
fraternities, together with indulgences, letters of indulgence, dispensations
for Lent, and masses, and all the rest of such things, let them all be drowned
and abolished; there is no good in them at all. If the Pope has the authority
to grant dispensation in the matter of eating butter and hearing masses, let him
allow priests to do the same; he has no right to take the power from them. I
speak also of the fraternities in which indulgences, masses, and good works are
distributed. My friend, in baptism you joined a fraternity of which Christ, the
angels, and saints, and all Christians are members; be true to this, and
satisfy it, and you will have fraternities enough. Let others make what show
they wish; they are as counters compared to coins. But if there were a
fraternity that subscribed money to feed the poor or to help others in any way,
this would be good, and it would have its indulgence and its deserts in heaven.
But now they are good for nothing but gluttony and drunkenness.
First of all we
should expel from all German lands the Pope's legates, with their faculties,
which they sell to us for much money, though it is all knavery-as, for
instance, their taking money for making goods unlawfully acquired to be good,
for freeing from oaths, vows, and bonds, thus destroying and teaching others to
destroy truth and faith mutually pledged, saying the Pope has authority to do
so. It is the evil spirit that bids them talk thus, and so they sell us the
devil's teaching, and take money for teaching us sins and leading us to hell.
If there were
nothing else to show that the Pope is antichrist, this would be enough. Dost
thou hear this, O Pope! not the most holy, but the most sinful? Would that God
would hurl thy chair headlong from heaven, and cast it down into the abyss of
hell! Who gave you the power to exalt yourself above your God; to break and to
loose what He has commanded; to teach Christians, more especially Germans, who
are of noble nature, and are famed in all histories for uprightness and truth,
to be false, unfaithful, perjured, treacherous, and wicked? God has commanded
to keep faith and observe oaths even with enemies; you dare to cancel this
command, laying it down in your heretical, anti-Christian decretals that you
have power to do so; and through your mouth and your pen Satan lies as he never
lied before, teaching you to twist and pervert the Scriptures according to your
own arbitrary will. O Lord Christ, look down upon this; let Thy day of judgment
come and destroy the devil's lair at
The children of
Israel in old times were obliged to keep the oath that they had sworn, in
ignorance and error, to the Gibeonites, their enemies; and King Zedekiah was
destroyed utterly, with his people, because he broke the oath that he had sworn
to the King of Babylon; and among us, a hundred years ago, the noble King
Ladislaus V. of Poland and Hungary, was slain by the Turk, with so many of his
people, because he allowed himself to be misled by papal legates and cardinals
and broke the good and useful treaty that he had made with the Turk. The pious
Emperor Sigismond had no good fortune after the Council of Constance, in which
he allowed the knaves to violate the safe-conduct that he had promised to John
Huss and Jerome; from this has followed all the miserable strife between
24. It is high
time to take up earnestly and truthfully the cause of the Bohemians, to unite
them with ourselves and ourselves with them, so that all mutual accusations,
envy, and hatred may cease. I will be the first, in my folly, to give my
opinion, with all due deference to those of better understanding.
First of all, we
must honestly confess the truth, without attempting self-justification, and own
one thing to the Bohemians, namely that John Huss and Jerome of Prague were
burnt at
It is not my
intention here to judge John Huss' belief and to defend his errors, although my
understanding has not been able to find any error in him, and I would willingly
believe that men who violated a safe-conduct and God's commandment (doubtless
possessed rather by the evil spirit than by the Spirit of God) were unable to
judge well or to condemn with truth. No one can imagine that the Holy Ghost can
break God's commandments; no one can deny that it is breaking God's
commandments to violate faith and a safe-conduct, even though it were promised
to the devil himself, much more then in the case of a heretic; it is also
notorious that a safe-conduct was promised to John Huss and the Bohemians, and
that the promise was broken and Huss was burnt. I have no wish to make a saint
or a martyr of John Huss (as some Bohemians do), though I own that he was
treated unjustly, and that his books and his doctrines were wrongfully
condemned; for God's judgments are inscrutable and terrible, and none but
Himself may reveal or explain them.
All I say is this:
Granting he was a heretic, however bad he may have been, yet he was burnt
unjustly and in violation of God's commandments, and we must not force the
Bohemians to approve this, if we wish ever to be at one with them. Plain truth
must unite us, not obstinacy. It is no use to say, as they said at the time,
that a safe-conduct need not be kept, if promised to a heretic; that is as much
as to say, one may break God's commandments in order to keep God's
commandments. They were infatuated and blinded by the devil, that they could
not see what they said or did. God has commanded us to observe a safe-conduct;
and this we must do though the world should perish: much more then where it is
only a question of a heretic being set free. We should overcome heretics with
books, not with fire, as the old Fathers did. If there were any skill in
overcoming heretics with fire, the executioner would be the most learned doctor
in the world; and there would be no need to study, but he that could get
another into his power could burn him.
Besides this, the
Emperor and the princes should send to Bohemia several pious, learned bishops
and doctors, but, for their life, no cardinal or legate or inquisitor, for such
people are far too unlearned in all Christian matters, and do not seek the
salvation of souls; but, like all the papal hypocrites, they seek only their
own glory, profit, and honour; they were also the leaders in that calamitous
affair at Constance. But those envoys should inquire into the faith of the
Bohemians, to ascertain whether it would be possible to unite all their sects
into one. Moreover, the Pope should (for their souls' sake) for a time abandon
his supremacy and, in accordance with the statutes of the Nicene Council, allow
the Bohemians to choose for themselves an archbishop of Prague, this choice to
be confirmed by the Bishop of Olmutz in Moravia or of Gran in Hungary, or the
Bishop of Gnesen in Poland, or the Bishop of Magdeburg in Germany. It is enough
that it be confirmed by one or two of these bishops, as in the time of St.
Cyprian. And the Pope has no authority to forbid it, if he forbids it, he acts
as a wolf and a tyrant, and no one should obey him, but answer his
excommunication by excommunicating him.
Yet if, for the
honour of the chair of St. Peter, any one prefers to do this with the Pope's
knowledge, I do not object, provided that the Bohemians do not pay a farthing
for it, and that the Pope do not bind them a single hair's-breadth, or subject
them to his tyranny by oath, as he does all other bishops, against God and
justice. If he is not satisfied with the honour of his assent being asked,
leave him alone, by all means, with his own rights, laws, and tyrannies; be
content with the election, and let the blood of all the souls that are in
danger be upon his head. For no man may countenance wrong, and it is enough to
show respect to tyranny. If we cannot do otherwise, we may consider the popular
election and consent as equal to a tyrannical confirmation; but I hope this
will not be necessary. Sooner or later some Romans, or pious bishops and
learned men, must perceive and avert the Pope's tyranny.
I do not advise that
they be forced to abandon the Sacrament in both kinds, for it is neither
unchristian nor heretical. They should be allowed to continue in their present
way; but the new bishop must see that there be no dissensions about this
matter, and they must learn that neither practice is actually wrong, just as
there need be no disputes about the priests not wearing the same dress as the
laity. In the same way, if they do not wish to submit to the canon laws of the
Roman Church, we must not force them, but we must content ourselves with seeing
that they live in faith and according to the Scriptures. For Christian life and
Christian faith may very well exist without the Pope's unbearable laws; nay,
they cannot well exist until there are fewer of those laws or none. Our baptism
has freed us and made us subject to God's word alone; why then should we suffer
a man to make us the slaves of his words? As
If I knew that the
only error of the Hussites 33 was that they believe that in the Sacrament of
the altar there is true bread and wine, though under it the body and the blood
of Christ-if, I say, this were their only error, I should not condemn them; but
let the Bishop of Prague see to this. For it is not an article of faith that in
the Sacrament there is no bread and wine in substance and nature, which is a
delusion of St. Thomas and the Pope; but it is an article of faith that in the
natural bread and wine there is Christ's true flesh and blood. We should
accordingly tolerate the views of both parties until they are at one; for there
is not much danger whether you believe there is or there is not bread in the
Sacrament. For we have to suffer many forms of belief and order that do not
injure the faith; but if they believe otherwise, it would be better not to
unite with them, and yet to instruct them in the truth.
[Footnote 33:
Luther uses here the word Pikarden, which is a corruption of Begharden, i.e.
"Beghards," a nickname frequently applied in those days to the
Hussites.]
All other errors
and dissensions to be found in
The temporal
possessions of the Church should not be too strictly claimed; but since we are
Christians and bound to help one another, we have the right to give them these
things for the sake of unity, and to let them keep them, before God and the
world; for Christ says, "Where two or three are gathered together in My
name, there am I in the midst of them." Would to God we helped on both
sides to bring about this unity, giving our hands one to the other in brotherly
humility, not insisting on our authority or our rights! Love is more, and more
necessary, than the papacy at
Part III
25. The
universities also require a good, sound reformation. I must say this, let it
vex whom it may. The fact is that whatever the papacy has ordered or instituted
is only designed for the propagation of sin and error. What are the universities,
as at present ordered, but, as the book of Maccabees says, "schools of
'Greek fashion' and 'heathenish manners" (2 Macc. iv. 12, 13), full of
dissolute living, where very little is taught of the Holy Scriptures of the
Christian faith, and the blind heathen teacher, Aristotle, rules even further
than Christ? Now, my advice would be that the books of Aristotle, the Physics,
the Metaphysics, Of the Soul, Ethics, which have hitherto been considered the
best, be altogether abolished, with all others that profess to treat of nature,
though nothing can be learned from them, either of natural or of spiritual
things. Besides, no one has been able to understand his meaning, and much time
has been wasted and many noble souls vexed with much useless labour, study, and
expense. I venture to say that any potter has more knowledge of natural things
than is to be found in these books. My heart is grieved to see how many of the
best Christians this accursed, proud, knavish heathen has fooled and led astray
with his false words. God sent him as a plague for our sins.
Does not the
wretched man in his best book, Of the Soul, teach that the soul dies with the
body, though many have tried to save him with vain words, as if we had not the
Holy Scriptures to teach us fully of all things of which Aristotle had not the
slightest perception? Yet this dead heathen has conquered, and has hindered and
almost suppressed the books of the living God; so that, when I see all this
misery I cannot but think that the evil spirit has introduced this study.
Then there is the
Ethics, which is accounted one of the best, though no book is more directly
contrary to God's will and the Christian virtues. Oh that such books could be
kept out of the reach of all Christians! Let no one object that I say too much,
or speak without knowledge. My friend, I know of what I speak. I know Aristotle
as well as you or men like you. I have read him with more understanding than
I would, however,
gladly consent that Aristotle's books of Logic, Rhetoric, and Poetry, should be
retained, or they might be usefully studied in a condensed form, to practise
young people in speaking and preaching; but the notes and comments should be
abolished, and, just as Cicero's Rhetoric is read without note or comment,
Aristotle's Logic should be read without such long commentaries. But now
neither speaking nor preaching is taught out of them, and they are used only
for disputation and toilsomeness. Besides this, there are languages-Latin,
Greek, and Hebrew-the mathematics, history; which I recommend to men of higher
understanding: and other matters, which will come of themselves, if they
seriously strive after reform. And truly it is an important matter, for it
concerns the teaching and training of Christian youths and of our noble people,
in whom Christianity still abides. Therefore I think that pope and emperor
could have no better task than the reformation of the universities, just as
there is nothing more devilishly mischievous than an unreformed university.
Physicians I would
have to reform their own faculty; lawyers and theologians I take under my
charge, and say firstly that it would be right to abolish the canon law
entirely, from beginning to end, more especially the decretals. We are taught
quite sufficiently in the Bible how we ought to act; all this study only
prevents the study of the Scriptures, and for the most part it is tainted with
covetousness and pride. And even though there were some good in it, it should
nevertheless be destroyed, for the Pope, having the canon law in scrinio
pectoris, 34 all further study is useless and deceitful. At the present time
the canon law is not to be found in the books, but in the whims of the Pope and
his sycophants. You may have settled a matter in the best possible way
according to the canon law, but the Pope has his scrinium pectoris, to which
all law must bow in all the world. Now this scrinium is oftentimes directed by
some knave and the devil himself, whilst it boasts that it is directed by the
Holy Ghost. This is the way they treat Christ's poor people, imposing many laws
and keeping none, forcing others to keep them or to free themselves by money.
[Footnote 34: In
the shrine of his heart.]
Therefore, since
the Pope and his followers have cancelled the whole canon law, despising it and
setting their own will above all the world, we should follow them and reject
the books. Why should we study them to no purpose? We should never be able to
know the Pope's caprice, which has now become the canon law. Let it fall then
in God's name, after having risen in the devil's name. Let there be henceforth
no doctor decretorum, but let them all be doctores scrinii papalis, that is,
the Pope's sycophants. They say that there is no better temporal government
than among the Turks, though they have no canon nor civil law, but only their
Koran; we must at least own that there is no worse government than ours, with
its canon and civil law, for no estate lives according to the Scriptures, or
even according to natural reason.
The civil law,
too, good God! what a wilderness it is become! It is, indeed, much better, more
skilful, and more honest than the canon law, of which nothing is good but the
name. Still there is far too much of it. Surely good governors, in addition to
the Holy Scriptures, would be law enough; as St. Paul says, "Is it so that
there is not a wise man among you, no, not one that shall be able to judge
between his brethren?" (I Cor. vi. 5). I think also that the common law
and the usage of the country should be preferred to the law of the empire and
that the law of the empire should only be used in cases of necessity. And would
to God, that, as each land has its own peculiar character and nature, they
could all be governed by their own simple laws, just as they were governed
before the law of the empire was devised, and as many are governed even now!
Elaborate and far-fetched laws are only burdensome to the people, and a hindrance
rather than a help to business. But I hope that others have thought of this,
and considered it to more purpose than I could.
[Footnote 35:
Luther refers here to the "Sentences" of Petrus Lombardus, the
so-called magister sententiarum, which formed the basis of all dogmatic
interpretation from about the middle of the twelfth century down to the
Reformation.]
Our worthy
theologians have saved themselves much trouble and labour by leaving the Bible
alone and only reading the Sentences. 35 I should have thought that young
theologians might begin by studying the Sentences, and that doctors should
study the Bible. Now they invert this: the Bible is the first thing they study;
this ceases with the Bachelor's degree; the Sentences are the last, and these
they keep forever with the Doctor's degree, and this, too, under such sacred
obligation that one that is not a priest may read the Bible, but a priest must
read the Sentences; so that, as far as I can see, a married man might be a
doctor in the Bible, but not in the Sentences. How should we prosper so long as
we act so perversely, and degrade the Bible, the holy word of God? Besides
this, the Pope orders with many stringent words that his laws be read and used
in schools and courts; while the law of the Gospel is but little considered.
The result is that in schools and courts the Gospel lies dusty underneath the
benches, so that the Pope's mischievous laws may alone be in force.
Since then we hold
the name and title of teachers of the Holy Scriptures, we should verily be
forced to act according to our title, and to teach the Holy Scriptures and
nothing else. Although, indeed, it is a proud, presumptuous title for a man to
proclaim himself teacher of the Scriptures, still it could be suffered, if the
works confirmed the title. But as it is, under the rule of the Sentences, we
find among theologians more human and heathenish fallacies than true holy
knowledge of the Scriptures. What then are we to do? I know not, except to pray
humbly to God to give us Doctors of Theology. Doctors of Arts, of Medicine, of
Law, of the Sentences, may be made by popes, emperors, and the universities;
but of this we may be certain: a Doctor of the Holy Scriptures can be made by
none but the Holy Ghost, as Christ says, "They shall all be taught of
God" (John vi. 45). Now the Holy Ghost does not consider red caps or
brown, or any other pomp, nor whether we are young or old, layman or priest,
monk or secular, virgin or married; nay, He once spoke by an ass against the
prophet that rode on it. Would to God we were worthy of having such doctors
given us, be they laymen or priests, married or unmarried! But now they try to
force the Holy Ghost to enter into popes, bishops, or doctors, though there is
no sign to show that He is in them.
We must also
lessen the number of theological books, and choose the best, for it is not the
number of books that makes the learned man, nor much reading, but good books
often read, however few, makes a man learned in the Scriptures and pious. Even
the Fathers should only be read for a short time as an introduction to the
Scriptures. As it is we read nothing else, and never get from them into the
Scriptures, as if one should be gazing at the signposts and never follow the
road. These good Fathers wished to lead us into the Scriptures by their
writings, whereas we lead ourselves out by them, though the Scriptures are our
vineyard, in which we should all work and exercise ourselves.
Above all, in
schools of all kinds the chief and most common lesson should be the Scriptures,
and for young boys the Gospel; and would to God each town had also a girls'
school, in which girls might be taught the Gospel for an hour daily, either in
German or Latin! In truth, schools, monasteries, and convents were founded for
this purpose, and with good Christian intentions, as we read concerning St.
Agnes and other saints 36; then were there holy virgins and martyrs; and in
those times it was well with Christendom; but now it has been turned into
nothing but praying and singing. Should not every Christian be expected by his
ninth or tenth year to know all the holy Gospels, containing as they do his
very name and life? A spinner or a seamstress teaches her daughter her trade
while she is young, but now even the most learned prelates and bishops do not
know the Gospel.
Oh, how badly we
treat all these poor young people that are entrusted to us for discipline and
instruction! and a heavy reckoning shall we have to give for it that we keep
them from the word of God; their fate is that described by Jeremiah: "Mine
eyes do fail with tears, my bowels are troubled, my liver is poured upon the
earth, for the destruction of the daughter of my people, because the children
and the sucklings swoon in the streets of the city. They say to their mothers,
Where is corn and wine? when they swooned as the wounded in the streets of the
city, when their soul was poured out into their mothers' bosom" (Lam. ii.
11,12). We do not perceive all this misery, how the young folk are being
pitifully corrupted in the midst of Christendom, all for want of the Gospel,
which we should always read and study with them.
[Footnote 36: See above, pp. 301, seq.]
However, even if
the high schools studied the Scriptures diligently we should not send every one
to them, as we do now, when nothing is considered but numbers, and every man
wishes to have a Doctor's title; we should only send the aptest pupils, well
prepared in the lower schools. This should be seen to by princes or the
magistrates of the towns, and they should take care none but apt pupils be
sent. But where the Holy Scriptures are not the rule, I advise no one to send
his child. Everything must perish where God's word is not studied unceasingly;
and so we see what manner of men there are now in the high schools, and all
this is the fault of no one but of the Pope, the bishops, and the prelates, to
whom the welfare of the young has been entrusted. For the high schools should
only train men of good understanding in the Scriptures, who wish to become
bishops and priests, and to stand at our head against heretics and the devil
and all the world. But where do we find this? I greatly fear the high schools
are nothing but great gates of hell, unless they diligently study the Holy
Scriptures and teach them to the young people.
26. I know well
the Romish mob will object and loudly pretend that the Pope took the holy Roman
empire from the Greek emperor and gave it to
There is no doubt
that the true Roman empire, of which the prophets (Num. xxiv. 24 and Daniel ii.
44) spoke, was long ago destroyed, as Balaam clearly foretold, saying,
"And ships shall come from the coast of Chittim, and shall afflict Asshur,
and shall afflict Eber, and he also shall perish for ever" (Num. xxiv.
24). 37 And this was done by the Goths, and more especially since the empire of
the Turks was formed, about one thousand years ago, and so gradually
[Footnote 37: Luther here follows the Vulgate, translating the above verse:
"Es werden die Romer kommen und die Juden verstoren: und hernach werden
sie auch untergehen."]
Since then the
Pope could not force the Greeks and the emperor at Constantinople, who is the
hereditary Roman emperor, to obey his will, he invented this device to rob him
of his empire and title, and to give it to the Germans, who were at that time
strong and of good repute, in order that they might take the power of the Roman
empire and hold it of the Pope; and this is what actually has happened. It was
taken from the emperor at
Thus the Roman see
has got what it wished:
Well, for our Lord
God it is a small thing to toss kingdoms and principalities hither and thither;
He is so free with them that He will sometimes take a kingdom from a good man
and give it to a knave, sometimes through the treachery of false, wicked men,
sometimes by inheritance, as we read concerning Persia, Greece, and nearly all
kingdoms; and Daniel says. "Wisdom and might are His; and He changes the
times and the seasons, and He removeth kings and setteth up kings" (Dan.
ii. 20, 21). Therefore no one need think it a grand matter if he has a kingdom
given to him, especially if he be a Christian; and so we Germans need not be
proud of having had a new
Now, although the
Pope has violently and unjustly robbed the true emperor of the Roman empire, or
its name, and has given it to us Germans, yet it is certain that God has used
the Pope's wickedness to give the German nation this empire and to raise up a
new Roman empire, that exists now, after the fall of the old empire. We gave
the Pope no cause for this action, nor did we understand his false aims and
schemes; but still, through the craft and knavery of the popes, we have, alas!
all too dearly, paid the price of this empire with incalculable bloodshed, with
the loss of our liberty, with the robbery of our wealth, especially of our
churches and benefices, and with unspeakable treachery and insult. We have the
empire in name, but the Pope has our wealth, our honour, our bodies, lives, and
souls and all that we have. This was the way to deceive the Germans, and to
deceive them by shuffling. What the popes wished was to become emperors; and as
they could not do this, they put themselves above the emperors.
Since, then, we
have received this empire through God's providence and the schemes of evil men,
without our fault, I would not advise that we should give it up, but that we
should govern it honestly, in the fear of God, so long as He is pleased to let
us hold it. For, as I have said, it is no matter to Him how a kingdom is come
by, but He will have it duly governed. If the popes took it from others
dishonestly, we at least did not come by it dishonestly. It was given to us
through evil men, under the will of God, to whom we have more regard than the
false intentions of the popes, who wished to be emperors and more than emperors
and to fool and mock us with the name.
The King of
Babylon obtained his kingdom by force and robbery; yet God would have it
governed by the holy princes Daniel, Ananias, Asarias, and Misael. Much more
then does He require this empire to be governed by the Christian princes of
Therefore the Pope
and his followers have no reason to boast that they did a great kindness to the
German nation in giving them this Roman empire; firstly, because they intended
no good to us, in the matter, but only abused our simplicity to strengthen
their own power against the Roman emperor at Constantinople, from whom, against
God and justice, the Pope has taken what he had no right to.
Secondly, the Pope
sought to give the empire, not to us, but to himself, and to become lord over
all our power, liberty, wealth, body and soul, and through us over all the
world, if God had not prevented it, as he plainly says in his decretals, and
has tried with many mischievous tricks in the case of many German emperors.
Thus we Germans have been taught in plain German: whilst we expected to become
lords, we have become the servants of the most crafty tyrants; we have the
name, title, and arms of the empire, but the Pope has the treasure, authority,
law, and freedom; thus, whilst the Pope eats the kernel, he leaves us the empty
shells to play with.
Now may God help
us (who, as I have said, assigned us this kingdom through crafty tyrants, and
charged us to govern it) to act according to our name, title, and arms, and to
secure our freedom, and thus let the Romans see at last what we have received
of God through them. If they boast that they have given us an empire, well, be
it so, by all means; then let the Pope give up Rome, all he has of the empire,
and free our country from his unbearable taxes and robberies, and give back to
us our liberty, authority, wealth, honour, body, and soul, rendering to the empire
those things that are the empire's, so as to act in accordance with his words
and pretences.
But if he will not
do this, what game is he playing with all his falsehoods and pretences? Was it
not enough to lead this great people by the nose for so many hundred years?
Because the Pope crowns or makes the Emperor, it does not follow that he is
above him; for the prophet, St. Samuel, anointed and crowned King Saul and
David, at God's command, and was yet subject to them. And the prophet Nathan
anointed King Solomon, and yet was not placed over him; moreover, St. Elisha
let one of his servants anoint King Jehu of
Now he is himself
crowned pope by three cardinals; yet they are subject to him, and he is above
them. Why, then, contrary to his own example and to the doctrine and practice
of the whole world and the Scriptures, should he exalt himself above the
temporal authorities, and the empire, for no other reason than that he crowns,
and consecrates the Emperor? It suffices that he is above him in all divine
matters-that is, in preaching, teaching, and the ministration of the Sacrament-in
which matters, however, every priest or bishop is above all other men, just as
St. Ambrose in his chair was above the Emperor Theodosius, and the prophet
Nathan above David, and Samuel above Saul. Therefore let the German emperor be
a true free emperor, and let not his authority or his sword be overborne by
these blind pretences of the Pope's sycophants, as if they were to be
exceptions, and be above the temporal sword in all things.
27. Let this be
enough about the faults of the spiritual estate, though many more might be
found, if the matter were properly considered; we must now consider the defects
of the temporal estates. In the first place, we require a general law and
consent of the German nation against profusion and extravagance in dress, which
is the cause of so much poverty among the nobles and the people. Surely God has
given to us, as to other nations, enough wool, fur, flax, and whatever else is
required for the decent clothing of every class; and it cannot be necessary to
spend such enormous sums for silk, velvet, cloth of gold, and all other kinds
of outlandish stuff. I think that even if the Pope did not rob us Germans with
his unbearable taxes, we should be robbed more than enough by these secret
thieves, the dealers in silk and velvet. As it is, we see that every man wishes
to be every other man's equal, and that this causes and increases pride and
envy among us, as we deserve, all which would cease, with many other
misfortunes, if our self-will would but let us be gratefully content with what
God has given us.
It is similarly
necessary to diminish the use of spices, which is one of the ships in which our
gold is sent away from
But without doubt
the greatest misfortune of the Germans is buying on usury. But for this, many a
man would have to leave unbought his silk, velvet, cloth of gold, spices, and
all other luxuries. The system has not been in force for more than one hundred
years, and has already brought poverty, misery, and destruction on almost all
princes, foundations, cities, nobles, and heirs. If it continues for another
hundred years
My request and my
cry therefore is this: Let each man consider the destruction of himself and his
family, which is no longer at the door, but has entered the house; and let
emperors, princes, lords, and corporations see to the condemnation and prohibition
of this kind of trade, without considering the opposition of the Pope and all
his justice and injustice, nor whether livings or endowments depend upon it.
Better a single fief in a city based on a freehold estate or honest interest,
than a hundred based on usury; yea, a single endowment on usury is worse and
more grievous than twenty based on freehold estate. Truly this usury is a sign
and warning that the world has been given over to the devil for its sins, and
that we are losing our spiritual and temporal welfare alike; yet we heed it
not.
Doubtless we
should also find some bridle for the Fuggers and similar companies. Is it
possible that in a single man's lifetime such great wealth should be collected
together, if all were done rightly and according to God's will? I am not
skilled in accounts, but I do not understand how it is possible for one hundred
guilders to gain twenty in a year, or how one guilder can gain another, and
that not out of the soil, or by cattle, seeing that possessions depend not on
the wit of men, but on the blessing of God. I commend this to those that are
skilled in worldly affairs. I as a theologian blame nothing but the evil
appearance, of which
Then there is the
excess in eating and drinking, for which we Germans have an ill reputation in
foreign countries, as our special vice, and which has become so common, and
gained so much the upper hand, that sermons avail nothing. The loss of money
caused by it is not the worst; but in its train come murder, adultery, theft,
blasphemy, and all vices. The temporal power should do something to prevent it;
otherwise it will come to pass, as Christ foretold, that the last day shall
come as a thief in the night, and shall find them eating and drinking, marrying
and giving in marriage, planting and building, buying and selling (Matt. xxiv.
38; Luke xvii. 26), just as things go on now, and that so strongly that I
apprehend lest the day of judgment be at hand, even now when we least expect
it.
Lastly, is it not
a terrible thing that we Christians should maintain public brothels, though we
all vow chastity in our baptism? I well know all that can be said on this
matter: that it is not peculiar to one nation, that it would be difficult to
demolish it, and that it is better thus than that virgins, or married women, or
honourable women should be dishonoured. But should not the spiritual and
temporal powers combine to find some means of meeting these difficulties
without any such heathen practice? If the people of
In all, however,
that I have said above, my object has been to show how much good temporal
authority might do, and what should be the duty of all authorities, so that
every man might learn what a terrible thing it is to rule and to have the chief
place. What boots it though a ruler be in his own person as holy as St. Peter,
if he be not diligent to help his subjects in these matters? His very authority
will be his condemnation; for it is the duty of those in authority to seek the
good of their subjects. But if those in authority considered how young people
might be brought together in marriage, the prospect of marriage would help
every man and protect him from temptations.
But as it is every
man is induced to become a priest or a monk; and of all these I am afraid not
one in a hundred has any other motive but the wish of getting a livelihood and
the uncertainty of maintaining a family. Therefore they begin by a dissolute
life and sow their wild oats, (as they say), but I fear they rather gather in a
store of wild oats. 38 I hold the proverb to be true, "Most men become monks
and priests in desperation." That is why things are as we see them.
[Footnote 38:
Luther uses the expression ausbuben in the sense of sich austoben, viz.,
"to storm out one's passions," and then coins the word sich einbuben,
viz., "to storm in one's passions."]
But in order that
many sins may be prevented that are becoming too common, I would honestly
advise that no boy or girl be allowed to take the vow of chastity or to enter a
religious life before the age of thirty years. For this requires a special
grace, as
Much might be said
concerning all this misery. Young people have no one to look after them, they
are left to go on just as they like, and those in authority are of no more use
to them than if they did not exist, though this should be the chief care of the
Pope, of bishops, lords, and councils. They wish to rule over everything,
everywhere, and yet they are of no use. Oh, what a rare sight, for these
reasons, will a lord or ruler be in heaven, though he might build a hundred
churches to God and raise all the dead!
But this may
suffice for the present. For of what concerns the temporal authority and the
nobles I have, I think, said enough in my tract on Good Works. For their lives
and governments leave room enough for improvement; but there is no comparison
between spiritual and temporal abuses, as I have there shown. I daresay I have
sung a lofty strain, that I have proposed many things that will be thought
impossible, and attacked many points too sharply. But what was I to do? I was
bound to say this: if I had the power, this is what I would do. I had rather
incur the world's anger than God's; they cannot take from me more than my life.
I have hitherto made many offers of peace to my adversaries; but, as I see, God
has forced me through them to open my mouth wider and wider, and, because they
do not keep quiet, to give them enough cause for speaking, barking, shouting,
and writing. Well, then, I have another song still to sing concerning them and
Rome; if they wish to hear it, I will sing it to them, and sing with all my
might. Do you understand, my friend
I have frequently
offered to submit my writings for inquiry and examination, but in vain, though
I know, if I am in the right, I must be condemned upon earth and justified by
Christ alone in heaven. For all the Scriptures teach us that the affairs of
Christians and Christendom must be judged by God alone; they have never yet
been justified by men in this world, but the opposition has always been too
strong. My greatest care and fear is lest my cause be not condemned by men, by
which I should know for certain that it does not please God. Therefore let them
go freely to work, pope, bishop, priest, monk, or doctor; they are the true
people to persecute the truth, as they have always done. May God grant us all a
Christian understanding, and especially to the Christian nobility of the German
nation true spiritual courage, to do what is best for our unhappy Church. Amen!
At
A PRELUDE BY
MARTIN LUTHER ON THE BABYLONIAN CAPTIVITY OF THE CHURCH
by Martin Luther,
1483-1546
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table of Contents
Translator's
Introduction
Luther's
Introduction
The Sacrament of
the Altar
John 6 Does Not
Refer to the Sacrament of the Altar
Arguments Against
Forbidding Communion in Both Kinds
The First
Captivity
The Second
Captivity
The Third
Captivity
The Mass is
Christ's Testament
The Proper Use of
the Mass
Our Misfortune:
The Promise of the Mass Hidden From Most People
The Promise of the
Mass and Faith
The Two Roadblocks
Against Gathering the Fruits of the Mass
Another
Stumbling-Block: The Mass as a Sacrifice
The Sacrament of
Baptism
First Part:
Baptism Promises Salvation to Believers
Remembering
Baptism like
The Peril of
Viewing Baptism as a Plank in a Shipwreak
Faith is a Work ¡X
the Work of God
Baptism is God's
Work Using Human Hands as His Tools
Second Part: The
Sign of Baptism
Faith in the
Promise, Not the Act of Baptizing, Justifies
Baptism is a Real
Death to Sin and Resurrection to Life.
The Captivity of
the True Meaning of Baptism
Objections to
Luther's Arguments, Using the Example of Infant Baptism
Vows Should be
Abolished
The Sacrament of
Penance
On Confirmation
The Sacrament of
Marriage
The Sacrament of
Ordination
The Sacrament of
Extreme Unction
Conclusion
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Introduction
In the Open Letter
to the Christian Nobility Luther overthrew the three walls behind which
The first of these
three great reformatory treatises of the year 1520, as they have been called,
closed with the words: "I know another little song about
The former came
from the pen of Augustin Alveld, that "celebrated Romanist of
Leipzig," whom Luther had loudly rebuked in The Papacy at
The other work was
the anonymous tract of a "certain Italian friar of
These two
treatises may be regarded as the immediate occasion for the writing of The
Babylonian Captivity, which is, however, in no sense a direct reply to either
of them. "I will not reply to Alveld," Luther writes on August 5 to
Spalatin,"but he will be the occasion of my publishing something by which
the vipers will be more irritated than ever." Indeed, he had promised some
such work more than half a year before, in a letter to Spalatin of December 18,
1519: "There is no reason why you or any one else should expect from me a
treatise on the other sacraments [besides Baptism, the Lord's Supper, and
Penance] until I am taught by what text I can prove that they are sacraments. I
regard none of the others as a sacrament, for there is no sacrament except
where there is a direct divine promise, exercising our faith. We can have no
intercourse with God except by the word of Him promising, and by the faith of
man receiving the promise. At another time you shall hear more about their
fables of the seven sacraments."
- iv -
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus The Prelude
grows under his hand and assumes the form of an elaborate examination of the
whole sacramental system of the Church. He makes short work of his two
opponents, and after a few pages of delicious irony, of which Erasmus was
suspected in some quarters of being the author, he turns his back on them and
addresses himself to a positive and constructive treatment of his larger theme.
He is lenient toward all non-essentials, but relentless with respect to
everything truly essential, that is, scriptural. The Captivity thus represents
the culmination of Luther's reformatory thinking on the theological side, as
The Nobility does on the national, and The Liberty on the religious side. It
sums up and carries forward all of his previous writings on the sacraments,
just as, nine years later, The Catechism gathered up and molded into classic
form his writings on catechetical subjects. Passage after passage, often whole
pages, from the Explanations of the Ninety-Five Theses, the Treatise on
Baptism, the A Discussion of Confession, the Treatise on the New Testament, the
Treatise on the Blessed Sacrament, are transferred bodily to this new and
definitive work, and find in it the goal toward which they had been consciously
or unconsciously tending. The reader is referred to a fine comparative study in
Köstlin's Theology of Luther (English trans.), I, 388-409. The title reminds us
of the Resolutiones Super Prop. xiii., of 1519, - " Absit Ista Plus Quam
Babylonica Captivitas!" The sense in which the work is called a
"prelude" is explained on page 176. The theologian in Luther could
not deny the musician, he goes into battle singing and comes back with the
stanza of a hymn upon his lips.
The Captivity
marks Luther's final and irreparable break with the Church of Rome, and it is
not without a peculiar significance that in the same letter to Spalatin, of
October 3rd, in which he mentions the arrival in Leipzig of Eck armed with the
papal bull, he announces the publication of his book on The Babylonian
Captivity of the Church for the following Saturday ¡X October 6th.
While The
Nobi1ity, addressed to the German nation as such, was written in the language
of the people, The Captivity, as is appropriate for a theological treatise, is
composed in Latin, just as later The Liberty, affecting the religious life of
the individual, whether layman or theologian, is sent out in both German and
Latin.
A translation into
German appeared in the following year ¡X the work of the Franciscan, Thomas
Murner. Luther calls the Franciscan his "venomous foe" and accuses
him of making the translation in order to bring him into disrepute. This charge
Luther makes in his answer to Henry VIII's Assertions on the Seven Sacraments
Against Martin Luther (1521), the royal theologian's reply to The Babylonian
Captivity, for which the King won from the pope the proud title of
"Defender of the Faith."
The translation
which follows is based on the Latin text as given in Clemen's "Student
Edition" ¡X Luthers Werke in Auswahl (Bonn, 1912-3), I, 426-512, which
reproduces, though by no means slavishly, the text of the Weimar Edition (Vol.
VI), which, together with the Erlangen Edition (opera var. arg., V), has been
compared. The German St. Louis Edition (Vol. XIX) has been consulted, and
especially the admirable German rendering of Kawerau in the Berlin Edition
(Vol. II) as well as the careful literal translation of Lemme, Die drei grossen
Reformationsschriften Luthers vom Jahre 1520, 2. ed. (
- v -
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The treatise is
here translated entirety into English, including those portions of the section
on marriage which are frequently omitted. The homeless paragraph on page 260,
whose proper location is not found even in the Weimar Edition nor in Clemen, we
have placed in a footnote, following the example of Kawerau.
ALBERT T. W.STEINHAEUSER.
ALLENTOWN, PA.
- vi -
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE BABYLONIAN
CAPTIVITY OF CHURCH
A PRELUDE
JESUS
Martin Luther,
Augustinian, to his friend, Herman Tulich,
Greeting
1.1Like it or not,
I am compelled to learn more every day, with so many and such able masters
vying with one another to improve my mind. Some two years ago I wrote a little
book on indulgences, which I now deeply regret having published. For at the
time I still clung to the Roman tyranny with great superstition and held that
indulgences should not be altogether rejected, seeing they were approved by the
common consent of men. Nor was this to be wondered at, for I was then engaged
single-handed in my Sisyphean task. Since then, however, through the kindness
of Sylvester and the friars,who so strenuously defended indulgences, I have
come to see that they are nothing but an fraud of the Roman flaterers by which
they rob people of their faith and fortunes. I wish I could convince the
booksellers and all my readers to burn up the whole of my writings on
indulgences and to substitute for them this proposition:
1.2INDULGENCES
are a Swindler's
Trick of the Roman flaterers.
1.3Next, Eck and
Emser, with their fellows, undertook to instruct me concerning the primacy of
the pope. Here too, not to be ungrateful to such learned folk,
-497-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I acknowledge how
greatly I have profited by their labors. For, while denying the divine
authority of the papacy, I still admitted its human authority. But after
hearing and reading the subtle subtleties of these pretentious and conceited
men, with which they skillfully prop their idol ¡X for in these matters my mind
is not altogether unteachable ¡X I now know of a certainty that the papacy is
the
1.4THE PAPACY IS
THE MIGHTY
prey of the Roman
Bishop.
This follows from
the arguments of Eck, Emser and the
1.5Now they send
me back to school again to teach me about communion in both kinds and other
weighty subjects. And I must begin to study with all my strength, so as not to
hear my teachers without profit. A certain Italian friar of
1.6Fool that I
was, I used to think it would be good if a general council decided that the
sacrament be administered to the laity in both kinds. The more than learned
friar wants to correct my opinion, and declares that neither Christ nor the
apostles commanded or commended the administration of both kinds to the laity.
It was, therefore, left to the judgment of the Church what to do or not to do
in this matter, and the Church must be obeyed. These are his words.
-498-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.7You will
perhaps ask, what madness has entered into the man, or against whom he is
writing, since I have not condemned the use of one kind, but have left the
decision about the use of both kinds to the judgment of the Church ¡X the very
thing he attempts to assert and which he turns against me. My answer is, that
this sort of argument is common to all those who write against Luther. They
assert the very things they assail, or they set up a man of straw whom they may
attack. Thus Sylvester, Eck and Emser! Thus the theologians of
1.8Yet in one
respect this man luckier than his fellows. For in undertaking to prove that the
use of both kinds is neither commanded nor commended, but left to the will of
the Church, he brings forward passages of Scripture to prove that by the
command of Christ one kind only was appointed for the laity. So that it is
true, according to this new interpreter of the Scriptures, that one kind was
not commanded, and at the same time was commanded by Christ! This novel sort of
argument is, as you know, the particular forte of the
1.9But listen to
our distinguished distinguisher of "kinds," for whom the will of the
Church and a command of Christ, and a command of Christ and no command of
Christ, are all one and the same! How ingeniously he proves that only one kind
is to be given to the laity, by the command of Christ, that is, by the will of
the Church. He puts it in capital letters, thus: THE INFALLIBLE FOUNDATION.
Thereupon he treats John 6 with incredible wisdom, in which passage Christ
speaks of the bread from heaven and the bread of life, which is He Himself. The
learned fellow not only refers these words to the Sacrament of the Altar, but
because Christ says: " I am the living bread" and not, "I am the
living cup" he actually concludes that we have in this passage the
institution of the sacrament in only one kind for the laity. But here follow
the words: " For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink
indeed," and, " Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink
his blood." When it dawned upon the good friar that these words speak
undeniably for both kinds and against one kind ¡X Poof! ¡X how happily and
learnedly he slips out of the quandary by asserting that in these words Christ
means to say only that whoever receives the one kind receives under it both
flesh and blood. This he puts for the "infallible foundation" of a
structure well worthy of the holy and heavenly Observance.
-499-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.10Now, I beg
you, learn with me from this passage that Christ, in John 6, enjoins the
sacrament in one kind, yet in such a way that His commanding it means leaving
it to the will of the Church. Further, that Christ is speaking in this chapter
only of the laity and not of the priests. For to the latter the living bread
from heaven does not pertain, but presumably the deadly bread from hell! And
how is it with the deacons and subdeacons, who are neither laymen nor priests?
According to this brilliant writer, they ought to use neither the one kind nor
both kinds! You see, dear Tulich, this novel and observant method of treating
Scripture.
1.11But learn
this, too ¡X that Christ is speaking in John 6 of the Sacrament of the Altar ¡X
although He Himself teaches that His words refer to faith in the Word made
flesh, for He says, " This is the work of God, that you believe on him
whom he has sent." But our
1.12The rest I
pass over, lest you should smother in the filth of this vile toilet. In
conclusion, he brings forward: 1 Corinthians 11:23, where Paul says he received
from the Lord, and delivered to the Corinthians, the use of both the bread and
the cup. Here again our distinguisher of kinds, treating the Scriptures with
his usual brilliance, teaches that Paul did not deliver, but permitted both
kinds. Do you ask where he gets his proof? Out of his own head, as he did in
the case of John 6: For it does not behoove this lecturer to give a reason for
his assertions. He belongs to the order of those who teach and prove all things
by their visions. Accordingly we are here taught that the Apostle, in this
passage, addressed not the whole Corinthian congregation, but the laity alone ¡X
but then he "permitted" nothing at all to the clergy, and they are
deprived of the sacrament altogether! ¡X and further, that, according to a new
kind of grammar, "I have received from the Lord" means "It is
permitted by the Lord," and "I have delivered it to you" means
"I have permitted it to you." I beg you, mark this well. For by this
method, not only the Church, but every passing swindler will be at liberty,
according to this master, to turn all the commands, institutions and ordinances
of Christ and the apostles into a mere "permission."
1.13I perceive,
therefore, that this man is driven by an angel of Satan, and that he and his
partners seek but to make a name for themselves through me, as men who were
worthy to cross swords with Luther. But their hopes shall be dashed. I shall
ignore them and not mention their names from now on ¡X not ever. This one reply
shall suffice me for all their books.
-500-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If they be worthy
of it, I pray Christ in His mercy to bring them to a sound mind. If not, I pray
that they may never leave off writing such books, and that the enemies of the
truth may never deserve to read any other. It is a popular and true saying:
1.14This I know is
true ¡X whenever I fought with filth,
whether I was a
Victor or was vanquished, I came away from the fight defiled.
1.15And, since I
perceive that they have an abundance of leisure and of writing paper, I shall
see to it that they may have ample opportunity for writing. I shall run on
before, and while they are celebrating a glorious victory over one of my
so-called heresies, I shall be meanwhile devising a new one. For I too am
desirous that these gallant leaders in battle should win to themselves many
titles and decorations. Therefore, while they complain that I laud communion in
both kinds, and are happily engrossed in this most important and worthy matter,
I will go yet one step farther and undertake to show that all those who deny
communion in both kinds to the laity are wicked men. And the more conveniently
to do this, I will compose a prelude on the captivity of the Roman Church. In
due time I shall have a great deal more to say, when the learned papists have
disposed of this book.
1.16I take this
course, lest any pious reader who may chance upon this book, should be offended
at my dealing with such filthy matters, and should justly complain of finding
in it nothing to cultivate and instruct his mind or even to furnish food for
learned thought. For you know how impatient my friends are because I waste my
time on the sordid fictions of these men, which, they say, are amply refuted in
the reading. They look for greater things from me, which Satan seeks in this
way to hinder. I have at length resolved to follow their counsel and to leave
to those hornets the pleasant business of wrangling and hurling violent
accusations.
1.17Of that friar
of
1.18AT THE OUTSET
I must deny that there are seven sacraments, and hold for the present to but
three ¡X baptism, penance and the bread. These three have been subjected to a
miserable captivity by the Roman curia, and the Church has been deprived of all
her liberty. To be sure, if I desired to use the term in its scriptural sense,
I should allow but a single sacrament, with three sacramental signs. But of
this I shall treat more fully at the proper time.
-501-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Sacrament of
the Altar
2.1Now, about the
Sacrament of the Bread, the most important of all sacraments:
2.2Let me tell you
what progress I have made in my studies on the administration of this
sacrament. For when I published my treatise on the Eucharist, I clung to the
common usage, being in no way concerned with the question whether the papacy
was right or wrong. But now, challenged and attacked, no, forcibly thrust into
the arena, I shall freely speak my mind, let all the papists laugh or weep
together.
2.3IN THE FIRST
PLACE, John 6 is to be entirely excluded from this discussion, since it does
not refer in a single syllable to the sacrament. For not only was the sacrament
not yet instituted, but the whole context plainly shows that Christ is speaking
of faith in the Word made flesh, as I have said above. For He says, " My
words are spirit, and they are life," which shows that He is speaking of a
spiritual eating, whereby whoever eats has life, while the Jews understood Him
to be speaking of bodily eating and therefore disputed with Him. But no eating
can give life save the eating which is by faith, for that is the truly
spiritual and living eating. As Augustine also says: "Why make ready teeth
and stomach? Believe, and you have eaten." For the sacramental eating does
not give life, since many eat unworthily. Therefore, He cannot be understood as
speaking of the sacrament in this passage.
2.4These words
have indeed been wrongly applied to the sacrament, as in the decretal Dudum and
often elsewhere. But it is one thing to misapply the Scriptures, it is quite
another to understand them in their proper meaning. But if Christ in this
passage enjoined the sacramental eating, then by saying, " Except you eat
my flesh and drink my blood, you have no life in you," He would condemn
all infants, invalids and those absent or in any way hindered from the
sacramental eating, however strong their faith might be. Thus Augustine, in the
second book of his Contra Julianum, proves from Innocent that even infants eat
the flesh and drink the blood of Christ, without the sacrament, that is, they
partake of them through the faith of the Church. Let this then be accepted as
proved ¡X John 6 does not belong here. For this reason I have elsewhere written
that the Bohemians have no right to rely on this passage in support of their
use of the sacrament in both kinds.
2.5Now there are
two passages that do clearly bear upon this matter ¡X the Gospel narratives of
the institution of the Lord's Supper,and Paul in 1 Corinthians 11. Let us
examine these. Matthew, Mark and Luke agree that Christ gave the whole
sacrament to all the disciples, and it is certain that Paul delivered both
kinds. No one has ever had the temerity to assert the contrary. Further,
Matthew reports that Christ did not say of the bread, "All of you, eat of
it," but of the cup, " Drink of it all of you." Mark likewise
does not say, "They all ate from it," but, " They all drank from
it."
-502-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Both Matthew and
Mark attach the note of universality to the cup, not to the bread, as though
the Spirit saw this schism coming, by which some would be forbidden to partake
of the cup, which Christ desired should be common to all. How furiously, do you
think, would they rave against us, if they had found the word "all"
attached to the bread instead of the cup! They would not leave us a loophole to
escape, they would cry out against us and set us down as heretics, they would
damn us for schismatics. But now, since it stands on our side and against them,
they will not be bound by any force of logic ¡X these men of the most free will,
who change and change again even the things that are God's, and throw
everything into confusion.
2.6But imagine me
standing over against them and interrogating my lords the papists. In the
Lord's Supper, I say, the whole sacrament, or communion in both kinds, is given
only to the priests or else it is given also to the laity. If it is given only
to the priests, as they would have it, then it is not right to give it to the
laity in either kind. It must not be rashly given to any to whom Christ did not
give it when He instituted it. For if we permit one institution of Christ to be
changed, we make all of His laws invalid, and every one will boldly claim that
he is not bound by any law or institution of His. For a single exception,
especially in the Scriptures, invalidates the whole. But if it is given also to
the laity, then it inevitably follows that it ought not to be withheld from
them in either form. And if any do withhold it from them when they desire it,
they act impiously and contrary to the work, example and institution of Christ.
2.7I confess that
I am conquered by this, to me, unanswerable argument, and that I have neither
read nor heard nor found anything to advance against it. For here the word and
example of Christ stand firm, when He says, not by way of permission but of
command, " All of you, drink from it." For if all are to drink, and
the words cannot be understood as addressed to the priests alone, then it is
certainly an impious act to withhold the cup from laymen who desire it, even
though an angel from heaven were to do it. For when they say that the
distribution of both kinds was left to the judgment of the Church, they make
this assertion without giving any reason for it and put it forth without any
authority. It is ignored just as readily as it is proved, and does not stand up
against an opponent who confronts us with the word and work of Christ. such a
one must be refuted with a word of Christ, but this we do not possess.
2.8But if one kind
may be withheld from the laity, then with equal right and reason a portion of
baptism and penance might also be taken from them by this same authority of the
Church. Therefore, just as baptism and absolution must be administered in their
entirety, so the Sacrament of the Bread must be given in its entirety to all laymen,
if they desire it. I am amazed to find them asserting that the priests may
never receive only the one kind, in the mass, on pain of committing a mortal
sin ¡X that for no other reason, as they unanimously say, than that both kinds
constitute the one complete sacrament, which may not be divided. I beg them to
tell me why it may be divided in the case of the laity, and why to them alone
the whole sacrament may not be given. Do they not acknowledge, by their own
testimony, either that both kinds are to be given to the laity, or that it is
not a valid sacrament when only one kind is given to them?
-503-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How can the one
kind be a complete sacrament for the laity and not a complete sacrament for the
priests? Why do they flaunt the authority of the Church and the power of the
pope in my face? These do not make void the Word of God and the testimony of
the truth.
2.9But further, if
the Church can withhold the wine from the laity, it can also withhold the bread
from them. It could, therefore, withhold the entire Sacrament of the Altar from
the laity and completely annul Christ's institution so far as they are
concerned. I ask, by what authority? But if the Church cannot withhold the
bread, or both kinds, neither can it withhold the wine. This cannot possibly be
contradicted. For the Church's power must be the same over either kind as over
both kinds, and if she has no power over both kinds, she has none over either
kind. I am curious to hear what the Roman flaterers will have to say to this.
2.10What carries
most weight with me, however, and quite decides the matter for me is this.
Christ says: " This is my blood, which is shed for you and for many for
the remission of sins." Here we see very plainly that the blood is given
to all those for whose sins it was shed. But who will dare to say it was not
shed for the laity? Do you not see whom He addresses when He gives the cup?
Doesn't He give it to all? Doesn't He say that it is shed for all? "For
you," He says ¡X Well, we will let these be the priests¡X "and for
many" ¡X these cannot be priests. Yet He says, " All of you, drink of
it." I too could easily trifle here and with my words make a mockery of
Christ's words, as my dear trifler does. But they who rely on the Scriptures in
opposing us, must be refuted by the Scriptures.
2.11This is what
has prevented me from condemning the Bohemians, who, whether they are wicked
men or good, certainly have the word and act of Christ on their side, while we
have neither, but only that hollow device of men ¡X "the Church has
appointed it." It was not the Church that appointed these things, but the
tyrants of the churches, without the consent of the Church, which is the people
of God.
2.12But where in all
the world is the necessity, where the religious duty, where the practical use,
of denying both kinds, i.e., the visible sign, to the laity, when every one
concedes to them the grace of the sacrament without the sign? If they concede
the grace, which is the greater, why not the sign, which is the lesser? For in
every sacrament the sign as such is of far less importance than the thing
signified.What then is to prevent them from conceding the lesser, when they
concede the greater? I can see but one reason. It has come about by the
permission of an angry God in order to give occasion for a schism in the
Church. It is to bring home to us how, having long ago lost the grace of the
sacrament, we contend for the sign, which is the lesser, against that which is the
most important and the chief thing, just as some men for the sake of ceremonies
contend against love. No, this monstrous perversion seems to date from the time
when we began for the sake of the riches of this world to rage against
Christian love. Thus God would show us, by this terrible sign, how we esteem
signs more than the things they signify.
-504-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How preposterous
would it be to admit that the faith of baptism is granted the candidate for
baptism, and yet to deny him the sign of this faith, namely, the water!
2.13Finally, Paul
stands invincible and stops every mouth, when he says in 1 Corinthians 11,
"I have received from the Lord what I also delivered to you." He does
not say, "I permitted to you," as that friar lyingly asserts. Nor is
it true that Paul delivered both kinds on account of the contention in the
Corinthian congregation. For, first, the text shows that their contention was
not about both kinds, but about the contempt and envy among rich and poor, as
it is clearly stated: " One is hungry, and another is drunken, and you put
to shame those that have nothing." Again, Paul is not speaking of the time
when he first delivered the sacrament to them, for he does not say, "I
receive from the Lord and give to you," but, " I received and
delivered" ¡X namely, when he first began to preach among them, a long
while before this contention. This shows that he delivered both kinds to them.
"Delivered" means the same as "commanded," for elsewhere he
uses the word in this sense. Consequently there is nothing in the friar's
fuming about permission. It is an assortment of arguments without Scripture,
reason or sense. His opponents do not ask what he has dreamed, but what the Scriptures
decree in this matter. Out of the Scriptures he cannot adduce one dot of an I
or cross of a T in support of his dreams, while they can bring forward mighty
thunderbolts in support of their faith.
2.14Come here
then, popish flatterers, one and all! Fall in line and defend yourselves
against the charge of godlessness, tyranny, treason against the Gospel, and the
crime of slandering your brethren. You decry as heretics those who will not be
wise after the vaporings of your own brains, in the face of such patent and
potent words of Scripture. If any are to be called heretics and schismatics, it
is not the Bohemians nor the Greeks, for they take their stand upon the Gospel.
But you Romans are the heretics and godless schismatics, for you presume upon your
own fictions and fly in the face of the clear Scriptures of God. Parry that
stroke, if you can!
2.15But what could
be more ridiculous, and more worthy of this friar's brain, than his saying that
the Apostle wrote these words and gave this permission, not to the Church
universal, but to a particular church, that is, the Corinthian? Where does he
get his proof? Out of his one storehouse, his own impious head. If the Church
universal receives, reads and follows this epistle in all points as written for
itself, why should it not do the same with this portion of it? If we admit that
any epistle, or any part of any epistle, of Paul does not apply to the Church
universal, then the whole authority of Paul falls to the ground. Then the
Corinthians will say that what he teaches about faith in the epistle to the
Romans does not apply to them. What greater blasphemy and madness can be
imagined than this!
-505-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
God forbid that
there should be one dot of an I or cross of a T in all of Paul which the whole
Church universal is not bound to follow and keep! Not so did the Fathers hold,
down to these perilous times, in which Paul foretold there should be
blasphemers and blind and foolish men, of whom this friar is one, no, the chief
of them.
2.16However,
suppose we grant the truth of this intolerable madness. If Paul gave his
permisson to a particular church, then, even from your own point of view, the
Greeks and Bohemians are in the right, for they are particular churches. Hence
it is sufficient that they do not act contrary to Paul, who at least gave
permission. Moreover, Paul could not permit anything contrary to Christ's
institution. Therefore I throw in your face, O Rome, and in the face of all you
flaterers, these sayings of Christ and Paul, on behalf of the Greeks and the
Bohemians. You cannot prove that you have received any authority to change
them, much less to accuse others of heresy for disregarding your arrogance.
Rather you deserve to be charged with the crime of godlessness and despotism.
2.17Furthermore,
Cyprian, who alone is strong enough to hold all the Romanists at bay, bears
witness, in the fifth book of his treatise On the Lapsed, that it was a
wide-spread custom in his church to administer both kinds to the laity, and
even to children, yes, to give the body of the Lord into their hands, of which
he cites many instances. He condemns, for example, certain members of the
congregation as follows: "The sacrilegious man is angered at the priests
because he does not receive the body of the Lord right away with unclean hands,
or drink the blood of the Lord with defiled lips." He is speaking, as you
see, of laymen, and irreverent laymen, who desired to receive the body and the
blood from the priests. Do you find anything to snarl at here, wretched
flatterer? Say that even this holy martyr, a Church Father preeminent for his
apostolic spirit, was a heretic and used that permission in a particular
church.
2.18In the same
place, Cyprian narrates an incident that came under his own observation. He
describes at length how a deacon was administering the cup to a little girl,
who drew away from him, whereupon he poured the blood of the Lord into her
mouth. We read the same of St.Donatus, whose broken chalice this wretched
flatterer so lightly disposes of. "I read of a broken chalice," he
says, "but I do not read that the blood was given." It is no wonder!
He who finds what he pleases in the Scriptures will also read what he pleases
in histories. But will the authority of the Church be established, or will
heretics be refuted, in this way?
2.19 Enough of
this! I did not undertake this work to reply to him who is not worth replying
to, but to bring the truth of the matter to light.
2.20I conclude,
then, that it is wicked and despotic to deny both kinds to the laity, and that
this is not in the power of any angel, much less of any pope or council.
-506-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nor does the
Council of Constance give me pause, for if its authority carries weight, why
does not that of the Council of Basel also carry weight? For the latter council
decided, on the contrary, after much disputing, that the Bohemians might use
both kinds, as the extant records and documents of the council prove. And to
that council this ignorant flatterer refers in support of his dream. In such
wisdom does his whole treatise abound.
2.21The first
captivity of this sacrament, therefore, concerns its substance or completeness,
of which we have been deprived by the despotism of
2.22Therefore I do
not urge that both kinds be seized by force, as though we were bound to this
form by a rigorous command. But I instruct men's consciences that they may
endure the Roman tyranny, knowing well they have been deprived of their
rightful share in the sacrament because of their own sin. This only do I desire
¡X that no one justify the tyranny of
-507-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.23The second
captivity of this sacrament is less grievous so far as the conscience is
concerned, yet the very gravest danger threatens the man who would attack it,
to say nothing of condemning it. Here I shall be called a Wycliffite and a
heretic a thousand times over. But what of that? Since the Roman bishop has
ceased to be a bishop and become a tyrant, I fear none of his decrees, for I
know that it is not in his power, nor even in that of a general council, to
make new articles of faith. Years ago, when I was delving into scholastic
theology, the Cardinal of Cambrai gave me food for thought, in his comments on
the fourth Book of the Sentences, where he argues with great acumen that to
hold that real bread and real wine, and not their accidents only, are present
on the altar, is much more probable and requires fewer unnecessary miracles ¡X
if only the Church had not decreed otherwise. When I learned later what church
it was that had decreed this ¡X namely, the Church of Thomas, i.e., of Aristotle
¡X I waxed bolder, and after floating in a sea of doubt, at last found rest for
my conscience in the above view ¡X namely, that it is real bread and real wine,
in which Christ's real flesh and blood are present, not otherwise and not less
really than they assume to be the case under their accidents. I reached this conclusion
because I saw that the opinions of the Thomists, though approved by pope and
council, remain but opinions and do not become articles of faith, even though
an angel from heaven were to decree otherwise. For what is asserted without
Scripture or an approved revelation, may be held as an opinion, but need not be
believed. But this opinion of Thomas hangs so completely in the air, devoid of
Scripture and reason, that he seems here to have forgotten both his philosophy
and his logic. For Aristotle writes about subject and accidents so very
differently from St. Thomas, that I think this great man is to be pitied, not
only for drawing his opinions in matters of faith from Aristotle, but for
attempting to base them on him without understanding his meaning ¡X an
unfortunate superstructure upon an unfortunate foundation.
2.24I therefore
permit every man to hold either of these views, as he chooses. My one concern
at present is to remove all scruples of conscience, so that no one may fear to
become guilty of heresy if he should believe in the presence of real bread and
real wine on the altar, and that every one may feel at liberty to ponder, hold
and believe either one view or the other, without endangering his salvation.
However, I shall now more fully set forth my own view. In the first place, I do
not intend to listen or attach the least importance to those who will cry out
that this teaching of mine is Wycliffite, Hussite, heretical, and contrary to
the decision of the Church, for they are the very persons whom I have convicted
of manifold heresies in the matter of indulgences, the freedom of the will and
the grace of God, good works and sin, etc. If Wycliffe was once a heretic, they
are heretics ten times over, and it is a pleasure to be suspected and accused by
such heretics and perverse sophists,
-508-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
whom to please is
the height of godlessness. Besides, the only way in which they can prove their
opinions and disprove those of others, is by saying, "That is Wycliffite,
Hussite, heretical!" They have this feeble retort always on their tongue,
and they have nothing else. If you demand a Scripture passage, they say,
"This is our opinion, and the decision of the Church ¡X that is, of
ourselves!" Thus these men, " reprobate concerning the faith"
and untrustworthy, have the audacity to set their own fancies before us in the
name of the Church as articles of faith.
2.25But there are
good grounds for my view, and this above all ¡X no violence is to be done to the
words of God, whether by man or angel. But they are to be retained in their
simplest meaning wherever possible, and to be understood in their grammatical
and literal sense unless the context plainly forbids, lest we give our adversaries
occasion to make a mockery of all the Scriptures. Thus Origen was repudiated,
in ancient times, because he despised the grammatical sense and turned the
trees, and all things else written concerning
2.26Therefore it
is an absurd and unheard-of juggling with words, to understand
"bread" to mean "the form, or accidents of bread," and
"wine" to mean "the form, or accidents of wine." Why do
they not also understand all other things to mean their forms, or accidents?
Even if this might be done with all other things, it would yet not be right
thus to emasculate the words of God and arbitrarily to empty them of their
meaning.
2.27Moreover, the
Church had the true faith for more than twelve hundred years, during which time
the holy Fathers never once mentioned this transubstantiation ¡X certainly, a
monstrous word for a monstrous idea ¡X until the pseudo-philosophy of Aristotle
became rampant in the Church these last three hundred years. During these
centuries many other things have been wrongly defined, for example, that the
Divine essence neither is begotten nor begets, that the soul is the substantial
form of the human body, and the like assertions, which are made without reason
or sense, as the Cardinal of Cambray himself admits.
2.28Perhaps they
will say that the danger of idolatry demands that bread and wine be not really
present. How ridiculous! The laymen have never become familiar with their
subtle philosophy of substance and accidents, and could not grasp it if it were
taught them.
-509-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Besides, there is
the same danger in the case of the accidents which remain and which they see,
as in the case of the substance which they do not see. For if they do not adore
the accidents, but Christ hidden under them, why should they adore the bread,
which they do not see?
2.29But why could
not Christ include His body in the substance of the bread just as well as in
the accidents? The two substances of fire and iron are so mingled in the heated
iron that every part is both iron and fire. Why could not much rather Christ's
body be thus contained in every part of the substance of the bread?
2.30What will they
say? We believe that in His birth Christ came forth out of the unopened womb of
His mother. Let them say here too that the flesh of the Virgin was meanwhile
annihilated, or as they would more aptly say, transubstantiated, so that
Christ, after being enfolded in its accidents, finally came forth through the
accidents! The same thing will have to be said of the shut door and of the
closed opening of the tomb, through which He went in and out without disturbing
them. Hence has risen that Babylonian philosophy of constant quantity distinct
from the substance, until it has come to such a pass that they themselves no
longer know what are accidents and what is substance. For who has ever proved
beyond the shadow of a doubt that heat, color, cold, light, weight or shape are
mere accidents? Finally, they have been driven to the fancy that a new
substance is created by God for their accidents on the altar ¡X all on account
of Aristotle, who says, "It is the essence of an accident to be in
something," and endless other monstrosities, all of which they would be
rid if they simply permitted real bread to be present. And I rejoice greatly
that the simple faith of this sacrament is still to be found at least among the
common people. They do not understand, so they do not dispute, whether
accidents are present or substance, but believe with a simple faith that
Christ's body and blood are truly contained in whatever is there, and leave to
those who have nothing else to do the business of disputing about that which
contains them.
2.31But perhaps
they will say: From Aristotle we learn that in an affirmative proposition
subject and predicate must be identical, or, to set down the beast's own words,
in the sixth book of his Metaphysics: "An affirmative proposition demands
the agreement of subject and predicate," which they interpret as above.
Hence, when it is said, "This is my body," the subject cannot be
identical with the bread, but must be identical with the body of Christ.
2.32What shall we
say when Aristotle and the doctrines of men are made to be the arbiters of
these lofty and divine matters? Why do we not put aside such curiosity, and
cling simply to the word of Christ, willing to remain in ignorance of what here
takes place, and content with this, that the real body of Christ is present by
virtue of the words? Or is it necessary to comprehend the manner of the divine
working in every detail?
2.33But what do
they say to Aristotle's assigning a subject to whatever is predicated of the
attributes, although he holds that the substance is the chief subject? Hence
for him, "this white," "this large," etc., are subjects
-510-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
of which something
is predicated. If that is correct, I ask: If a transubstantiation must be
assumed in order that Christ's body is not predicated of the bread, why not
also a transaccidentation in order that it be not predicated of the accidents?
For the same danger remains if one understands the subject to be "this
white" or "this round" is my body, and for the same reason that
a transubstantiation is assumed, a transaccidentation must also be assumed,
because of this identity of subject and predicate.
2.34[Si autem, intellectu excedens, eximis accidens, ut non velis subjectum
pro eo supponere, cum dicis, "Hoc est corpus meum," Cur non eadem
facilitate transcendis substantiam panis, ut et illam velis non accipi per
subiectum, ut non minus in substantia quam accidente sit, "hoc corpus
meum?" Praesertim, cum divinum illud sit opus, virtutis omnipotentis, quae
tantum et taliter in substantia, quantum et qualiter in accidente potest
operari.]
2.35Let us not,
however, dabble too much in philosophy. Does not Christ appear to have
admirably anticipated such curiosity by saying of the wine, not, " Hoc est
sanguis meus," but " Hic est sanguis meus"? And yet more
clearly, by bringing in the word "cup," when He said, " This cup
is the new testament in my blood." Does it not seem as though He desired
to keep us in a simple faith, so that we might but believe His blood to be in
the cup? For my part, if I cannot fathom how the bread is the body of Christ, I
will take my reason captive to the obedience of Christ, and clinging simply to
His word, firmly believe not only that the body of Christ is in the bread, but
that the bread is the body of Christ. For this is proved by the words, "
He took bread, and giving thanks, He broke it and said, Take, eat; this [i.e.,
this bread which He took and broke] is my body." And Paul says: " The
bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?" He
says not, in the bread, but the bread itself, is the communion of the body of
Christ. What does it matter if philosophy cannot fathom this? The Holy Spirit
is greater than Aristotle. Does philosophy fathom their transubstantiation, of
which they themselves admit that here all philosophy breaks down? But the
agreement of the pronoun "this" with "body," in Greek and
Latin, is owing to the fact that in these languages the two words are of the
same gender. But in the Hebrew language, which has no neuter gender,
"this" agrees with "bread," so that it would be proper to
say, "Hic est corpus meum." This is proved also by the use of
language and by common sense. The subject, certainly, points to the bread, not
to the body, when He says, "Hoc est corpus meum," "Das ist mein
Leib," ¡X i.e., This bread is my body.
2.36Therefore it
is with the sacrament even as it is with Christ. In order that divinity may
dwell in Him, it is not necessary that the human nature be transubstantiated
and divinity be contained under its accidents. But both natures are there in
their entirety, and it is truly said, "This man is God," and
"This God is man." Even though philosophy cannot grasp this, faith
grasps it, and the authority of God's Word is greater than the grasp of our
intellect. Even so, in order that the real body and the real blood of Christ
may be present in the sacrament, it is not necessary that the bread and wine be
transubstantiated and Christ be contained under their accidents. But both
remain there together,
-511-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and it is truly
said, " This bread is my body, this wine is my blood," and vice
versa. Thus I will for now understand it, for the honor of the holy words of
God, which I will not allow any petty human argument to override or give to
them meanings foreign to them. At the same time, I permit other men to follow
the other opinion, which is laid down in the decree Firmiter. Only let them not
press us to accept their opinions as articles of faith, as I said above.
2.37The third
captivity of this sacrament is that most wicked abuse of all, in consequence of
which there is today no more generally accepted and firmly believed opinion in
the Church than this ¡X that the mass is a good work and a sacrifice. This abuse
has brought an endless host of others in its wake, so that the faith of this
sacrament has become utterly extinct and the holy sacrament has truly been
turned into a fair, tavern, and place of merchandise. Hence participations,
brotherhoods, intercessions, merits, anniversaries, memorial days, and the like
wares are bought and sold, traded and bartered in the Church, and from this
priests and monks derive their whole living.
2.38I am attacking
a difficult matter, and one perhaps impossible to abate, since it has become so
firmly entrenched through century-long custom and the common consent of men
that it would be necessary to abolish most of the books now in vogue, to alter almost
the whole external form of the churches, and to introduce, or rather
re-introduce, a totally different kind of ceremony. But my Christ lives, and we
must be careful to give more heed to the Word of God than to all the thoughts
of men and of angels. I will perform the duties of my office, and uncover the
facts in the case. I will give the truth as I have received it, freely and
without malice. For the rest let every man look to his own salvation. I will
faithfully do my part that none may cast on me the blame for his lack of faith
and knowledge of the truth, when we appear before the judgment seat of Christ.
2.39IN THE FIRST
PLACE, in order to grasp safely and fortunately a true and unbiased knowledge
of this sacrament, we must above all else be careful to put aside whatever has
been added by the zeal and devotion of men to the original, simple institution
of this sacrament ¡X such things as vestments, ornaments, chants, prayers,
organs, candles, and the whole pageantry of outward things. We must turn our
eyes and hearts simply to the institution of Christ and to this alone, and put
nothing before us but the very word of Christ by which He instituted this
sacrament, made it perfect, and committed it to us. For in that word, and in
that word alone, reside the power, the nature, and the whole substance of the
mass. All else is the work of man, added to the word of Christ. And the mass
can be held and remain a mass just as well without it. Now the words of Christ,
in which He instituted this sacrament, are these:
2.40" And
while they were at supper, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke it: and
gave to His disciples, and said: "Take it and eat.
-512-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is my body,
which shall be given for you." And taking the chalice, He gave thanks, and
gave to them, saying: "All of you, drink of this. This is the chalice, the
new testament in my blood, which shall be shed for you and for many the
remission of sins. This do to commemorate me.""
2.41These words
the Apostle also delivers and more fully expounds in 1 Corinthians 11. On them
we must lean and build as on a firm foundation, if we would not be carried
about with every wind of doctrine, even as we have until now been carried about
by the wicked doctrines of men, who turn aside the truth. For in these words
nothing is omitted that concerns the completeness, the use and the blessing of
this sacrament and nothing is included that is superfluous and not necessary
for us to know. Whoever sets them aside and meditates or teaches concerning the
mass, will teach monstrous and wicked doctrines, as they have done who made of
the sacrament an opus operatum and a sacrifice.
2.42Therefore let
this stand at the outset as our infallibly certain proposition ¡X the mass, or
Sacrament of the Altar, is Christ's testament which He left behind Him at His
death, to be distributed among His believers. For that is the meaning of His
word ¡X " This is the chalice,
the new testament in my blood." Let this truth stand, I say, as the
immovable foundation on which we shall base all that we have to say, for we are
going to overthrow, as you will see, all the godless opinions of men imported
into this most precious sacrament. Christ, Who is the Truth, said truly that
this is the new testament in His blood, which is shed for us. Not without
reason do I dwell on this sentence. The matter is not at all trivial, and must
be most deeply impressed upon us.
2.43Let us
inquire, therefore, what a testament is, and we shall learn at the same time
what the mass is, what its use is,what its blessing is, and what its abuse is.
2.44A testament,
as every one knows, is a promise made by one about to die, in which he
designates his bequest and appoints his heirs. Therefore a testament involves,
first, the death of the testator, and secondly, the promise of the bequest and
the naming of the heir. Thus
2.45You see,
therefore, that what we call the mass is the promise of remission of sins made
to us by God ¡X the kind of promise that has been confirmed by the death of the
Son of God. For the one difference between a promise and a testament is that a
testament is a promise which implies the death of him who makes it. A testator
is a man who is about to die making a promise.
-513-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
While he that
makes a promise is, if I may so put it, a testator who is not about to die.
This testament of Christ was forshadowed in all the promises of God from the
beginning of the world. Yes, whatever value those ancient promises possessed
was altogether derived from this new promise that was to come in Christ. This
is why the words "covenant" and "testament of the Lord"
occur so frequently in the Scriptures, which words signified that God would one
day die. For where there is a testament, the death of the testator must follow
( Hebrews 9). Now God made a testament. Therefore it was necessary that He
should die. But God could not die unless He became man. Thus both the
incarnation and the death of Christ are briefly understood in this one word
"testament."
2.46From the above
it will at once be seen what is the right and what is the wrong use of the
mass, what is the worthy and what is the unworthy preparation for it. If the
mass is a promise, as has been said, it is to be approached, not with any work,
strength or merit, but with faith alone. For where there is the word of God Who
makes the promise, there must be the faith of man who takes it. It is plain,
therefore, that the first step in our salvation is faith, which clings to the
word of the promise made by God, Who without any effort on our part, in free
and unmerited mercy makes a beginning and offers us the word of His promise. For
He sent His Word, and by it healed them. He did not accept our work and thus
heal us. God's Word is the beginning of all. Faith follows it, and love follows
faith. Then love works every good work, for it does cause harm, no, it is the
fulfilling of the law. In no other way can man come to God and deal with Him
than through faith. That is, not man, by any work of his, but God, by His
promise, is the author of salvation, so that all things depend on the word of
His power, and are upheld and preserved by it, with which word He conceived us,
that we should be a kind of firstfruits of His creatures.
2.47Thus, in order
to raise up Adam after the fall, God gave him this promise, addressing the
serpent: " I will put hostility between you and the woman, and you seed
and her seed. She shall crush your head, and you will lie in wait for her
heel." In this word of promise Adam, with his descendants, was carried as
it were in God's arms, and by faith in it he was preserved, patiently waiting
for the woman who should crush the serpent's head, as God had promised. And in
that faith and expectation he died, not knowing when or in what form she would
come, yet never doubting that she would come. For such a promise, being the
truth of God, preserves, even in hell, those who believe it and wait for it.
After this came another promise, made to Noah ¡X to last until the time of
Abraham ¡X when a rainbow was set as a sign in the clouds, by faith in which
Noah and his descendants found a gracious God. After that He promised Abraham that
all nations should be blessed
-514-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
in his seed. This
is Abraham's arms, in which his posterity was carried. Then to Moses and the
children of
2.48So it came
finally to the most complete promise of the new testament, in which with plain
words life and salvation are freely promised, and granted to such as believe
the promise. He distinguished this testament by a particular mark from the old,
calling it the " new testament." For the old testament, which He gave
by Moses, was a promise not of remission of sins or of eternal things, but of
temporal things ¡X namely, the land of Canaan ¡X by which no man was renewed in
his spirit, to lay hold of the heavenly inheritance. Therefore it was also
necessary that irrational beasts should be slain, as types of Christ, that by
their blood the testament might be confirmed. So the testament was like the
blood, and the promise like the sacrifice. But here He says: " The new
testament in my blood" ¡X not in another's, but in His own. By this blood
grace is promised, through the Spirit, for the remission of sins, that we may
obtain the inheritance.
2.49The mass,
according to its substance, is, therefore, nothing else than the words of
Christ mentioned above ¡X " Take and eat." It is as if He said:
"Behold, condemned, sinful man, in the pure and unmerited love with which
I love you, and by the will of the Father of all mercies, I promise you in
these words, even though you do not desire or deserve them, the forgiveness of
all your sins and life everlasting. And, so that you may be most certainly assured
of this my irrevocable promise, I give my body and shed my blood, thus by my
very death confirming this promise, and leaving my body and blood to you as a
sign and memorial of this same promise. As often, therefore, as you partake of
them, remember me, and praise, magnify, and give thanks for my love and bounty
for you."
2.50From this you
will see that nothing else is needed to have a worthy mass than a faith that
confidently relies on this promise, believes these words of Christ are true,
and does not doubt that these infinite blessings have been bestowed upon it.
Following closely behind this faith there follows, by itself, a most sweet
stirring of the heart, by which the spirit of man is enlarged and grows fat
¡Xthat is love, given by the Holy Spirit through faith in Christ ¡X so that he is
drawn to Christ, that gracious and good Testator, and made quite another and a
new man. Who would not shed tears of gladness, no, nearly faint for the joy he
has for Christ, if he believed with unshaken faith that this inestimable
promise of Christ belonged to him!
-515-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How could one help
loving so great a Benefactor, who offers, promises and grants, all unasked,
such great riches, and this eternal inheritance, to someone unworthy and
deserving of something far different?
2.51Therefore, it
is our one misfortune, that we have many masses in the world, and yet none or
but the fewest of us recognize, consider and receive these promises and riches
that are offered, although truly we should do nothing else in the mass with
greater zeal (yes, it demands all our zeal) than set before our eyes, meditate,
and ponder these words, these promises of Christ, which truly are the mass
itself, in order to exercise, nourish, increase, and strengthen our faith by
such daily remembrance. For this is what He commands, saying, " This do in
remembrance of me." This should be done by the preachers of the Gospel, in
order that this promise might be faithfully impressed upon the people and
commended to them, to the awakening of faith in the same.
2.52But how many
are there now who know that the mass is the promise of Christ? I will say
nothing of those godless preachers of fables, who teach human traditions instead
of this promise. And even if they teach these words of Christ, they do not
teach them as a promise or testament, and, therefore, not to the awakening of
faith.
2.53O the pity of
it! Under this captivity, they take every precaution that no layman should hear
these words of Christ, as if they were too sacred to be delivered to the common
people. So mad are we priests that we arrogantly claim that the so-called words
of consecration may be said by ourselves alone, as secret words, yet so that
they do not profit even us, for we too fail to regard them as promises or as a
testament, for the strengthening of faith. Instead of believing them, we
reverence them with I know not what superstitious and godless fancies. This
misery of ours, what is it but a device of Satan to remove every trace of the
mass out of the Church? although he is meanwhile at work filling every nook and
corner on earth with masses, that is, abuses and mockeries of God's testament,
and burdening the world more and more heavily with grievous sins of idolatry,
to its deeper condemnation. For what worse idolatry can there be than to abuse
God's promises with perverse opinions and to neglect or extinguish faith in
them?
2.54For God does
not deal, nor has He ever dealt, with man otherwise than through a word of
promise, as I have said. Again, we cannot deal with God otherwise than through
faith in the word of His promise. He does not desire works, nor has He need of
them. We deal with men and with ourselves on the basis of works. But He has need
of this ¡X that we deem Him true to His promises, wait patiently for Him, and
thus worship Him with faith, hope and love. Thus He obtains His glory among us,
since it is not of ourselves who run, but of God who shows mercy, promises and
gives, that we have and hold every blessing. That is the
-516-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
true worship and
service of God which we must perform in the mass. But if the words of promise
are not proclaimed, what exercise of faith can there be? And without faith, who
can have hope or love? Without faith, hope and love, what service can there be?
There is no doubt, therefore, that in our day all priests and monks, together
with all their bishops and superiors, are idolaters and in a most perilous
state, by reason of this ignorance, abuse and mockery of the mass, or
sacrament, or testament of God.
2.55For any one
can easily see that these two ¡X the promise and faith ¡X must go together. For
without the promise there is nothing to believe, while without faith the
promise remains without effect, for it is established and fullfiled through
faith. From this every one will readily gather that the mass, which is nothing
else than the promise, is approached and observed only in this faith, without
which whatever prayers, preparations, works, signs of the cross, or
genuflections are brought to it, are incitements to impiety rather than
exercises of piety. For they who come thus prepared are likely to imagine
themselves on that account justly entitled to approach the altar, when in
reality they are less prepared than at any other time and in any other work, by
reason of the unbelief which they bring with them. How many priests will you
find every day offering the sacrifice of the mass, who accuse themselves of a
horrible crime if they ¡X wretched men! ¡X commit a trifling blunder ¡X such as
putting on the wrong robe or forgetting to wash their hands or stumbling over
their prayers ¡X but that they neither regard nor believe the mass itself, namely,
the divine promise. This causes them not the slightest qualms of conscience. O
worthless religion of this our age, the most godless and thankless of all ages!
2.56Hence the only
worthy preparation and proper use of the mass is faith in the mass, that is to
say, in the divine promise. Whoever, therefore, is minded to approach the altar
and to receive the sacrament, let him beware of appearing empty before the Lord
God. But he will appear empty unless he has faith in the mass, or this new
testament. What godless work that he could commit would be a more grievous
crime against the truth of God, than this unbelief of his, by which, as much as
in him lies, he convicts God of being a liar and a maker of empty promises? The
safest course, therefore, will be to go to mass in the same spirit in which you
would go to hear any other promise of God, that is, not to be ready to perform
and bring many works, but to believe and receive all that is there promised, or
proclaimed by the priest as having been promised to you. If you do not go in
this spirit, beware of going at all. You will surely go to your condemnation.
2.57I was right,
then, in saying that the whole power of the mass consists in the words of
Christ, in which He testifies that the remission of sins is bestowed on all
those who believe that His body is given and His blood shed for them. For this
reason nothing is more important for those who go to hear mass than diligently
and in full faith to ponder these words. Unless they do this, all else that
they do is in vain. But while the mass is the word of Christ, it is also true
that God usually adds to nearly every one of His promises a certain sign
-517-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
as a mark or
memorial of His promise, so that we may thereby the more faithfully hold to His
promise and be the more forcibly admonished by it. Thus, to his promise to Noah
that He would not again destroy the world by a flood, He added His rainbow in
the clouds, to show that He would be mindful of His covenant. And after
promising Abraham the inheritance in his seed, He gave him the sign of
circumcision as the seal of his righteousness by faith. Thus, to Gideon He
granted the sign of the dry and the wet fleece, to confirm His promise of
victory over the Midianites. And to Ahaz He offered a sign through Isaiah
concerning his victory over the kings of
2.58Thus also to
the mass, that crown of all His promises, He adds His body and blood in the
bread and wine, as a memorial sign of this great promise, as He says, "
This do in remembrance of me." Even so in baptism He adds to the words of
the promise, the sign of immersion in water. We learn from this that in every
promise of God two things are presented to us ¡X the word and the sign ¡X so that
we are to understand the word to be the testament, but the sign to be the
sacrament. Thus, in the mass, the word of Christ is the testament, and the
bread and wine are the sacrament. And as there is greater power in the word
than in the sign, so there is greater power in the testament than in the
sacrament. For a man can have and use the word, or testament, apart from the
sign, or sacrament. "Believe," says Augustine, "and you have
eaten." But what does one believe save the word of promise? Therefore I
can hold mass every day, yes, every hour, for I can set the words of Christ
before me, and with them refresh and strengthen my faith, as often as I choose.
That is a truly spiritual eating and drinking.
2.59Here you may
see what great things our theologians of the Sentences have produced. That
which is the principal and chief thing, namely, the testament and word of promise,
is not treated by one of them. Thus they have obliterated faith and the whole
power of the mass. But the second part of the mass ¡X the sign, or sacrament ¡X
this alone do they discuss, yet in such a manner that here too they teach not
faith but their preparations and opera operata, participations and fruits, as
though these were the mass, until they have fallen to babbling of
transubstantiation and endless other metaphysical quibbles, and have destroyed
the proper understanding and use of both sacrament and testament, altogether
abolished faith, and caused Christ's people to forget their God, as the prophet
says, days without number. Let the others count the manifold fruits of hearing
mass. Focus your attention on this: say and believe with the prophet, that God
prepares a table before you in the presence of your enemies, at which your soul
may eat and grow fat. But your faith is fed only with the word of divine
promise, for " not by bread alone does man live, but by every word that
proceeds from the mouth of God." Hence, in the mass you must above all
things pay closest heed to the word of promise,
-518-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
as to your rich
banquet, green pasture, and sacred refreshment. You must esteem this word
higher than all else, trust in it above all things, and cling firmly to it even
through the midst of death and all sins. By thus doing you will attain not
merely to those tiny drops and crumbs of "fruits of the mass," which
some have superstitiously imagined, but to the very fountainhead of life, which
is faith in the word, from which every blessing flows. As it is said in John 4:
"He who believes in me, out of his heart will flow rivers of living
water" and again: " He who will drink of the water that I will give
him, it shall become in him a fountain of living water, springing up to life
everlasting."
2.60Now there are
two roadblocks that commonly prevent us from gathering the fruits of the mass.
First, the fact that we are sinners and unworthy of such great things because
of our exceeding vileness. Secondly, the fact that, even if we were worthy,
these things are so high that our faint-hearted nature dare not aspire to them
or ever hope to attain to them. For to have God for our Father, to be His sons
and heirs of all His goods ¡X these are the great blessings that come to us
through the forgiveness of sins and life everlasting. If you see these things
clearly, aren't you more likely to stand in awe before them than to desire to
possess them? Against this twofold faintness of ours we must lay hold on the
word of Christ and fix our gaze on it much more firmly than on those thoughts
of our weakness. For " great are the works of the Lord; all who enjoy them
study them," " who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that
we ask or think." If they did not surpass our worthiness, our grasp and
all our thoughts, they would not be divine. Thus Christ also encourages us when
He says: " Fear not, little flock, for your Father is pleased to give you
a kingdom." For it is just this overflowing goodness of the
incomprehensible God, lavished upon us through Christ, that moves us to love
Him again with our whole heart above all things, to be drawn to Him with all
confidence, to despise all things else, and be ready to suffer all things for
Him. For this reason, this sacrament is correctly called "a fount of
love."
2.61Let us take an
illustration of this from human experience. If a thousand gold coins were
bequeathed by a rich lord to a beggar or an unworthy and wicked servant, it is
certain that he would boldly claim and take them regardless of his unworthiness
and the greatness of the bequest. And if any one should seek to oppose him by
pointing out his unworthiness and the large amount of the legacy, what do you
suppose he would say? Certainly, he would say: "What is that to you? What
I accept, I accept not on my merits or by any right that I may personally have
to it. I know that I am unworthy and receive more than I have deserved, no, I
have deserved the very opposite. But I claim it because it is so written in the
will, and on the account of another's goodness. If it was not an unworthy thing
for him to bequeath so great a sum to an unworthy person, why should I refuse
to accept this other man's gracious gift?" With such thoughts we need to
fortify the consciences of men against all qualms
-519-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and scruples, that
they may lay hold of the promise of Christ with unwavering faith, and take the
greatest care to approach the sacrament, not trusting in their confession,
prayer and preparation, but rather despairing of these and with a proud
confidence in Christ Who gives the promise. For, as we have said again and again,
the word of promise must here reign supreme in a pure and unalloyed faith, and
such faith is the one and all-sufficient preparation.
2.62Hence we see
how angry God is with us, in that he has permitted godless teachers to conceal
the words of this testament from us, and thereby, as much as in them lay, to
extinguish faith. And the inevitable result of this extinguishing of faith is
even now plainly to be seen ¡X namely, the most godless superstition of works.
For when faith dies and the word of faith is silent, works and the traditions
of works immediately crowd into their place. By them we have been carried away
out of our own land, as in a Babylonian captivity, and despoiled of all our
precious possessions. This has been the fate of the mass. It has been converted
by the teaching of godless men into a good work, which they themselves call an
opus operatum and by which they presumptuously imagine themselves all-powerful
with God. Thereupon they proceeded to the very height of madness, and having
invented the lie that the mass works ex opere operato, they asserted further
that it is none the less profitable to others, even if it be harmful to the
wicked priest celebrating it. On such a foundation of sand they base their
applications, participations, sodalities, anniversaries and numberless other
money-making schemes.
2.63These lures
are so powerful, widespread and firmly entrenched that you will scarcely be
able to prevail against them unless you keep before you with unremitting care
the real meaning of the mass, and bear well in mind what has been said above.
We have seen that the mass is nothing else than the divine promise or testament
of Christ, sealed with the sacrament of His body and blood. If that is true,
you will understand that it cannot possibly be a work, and that there is
nothing to do in it, nor can it be dealt within any other way than by faith
alone. And faith is not a work, but the mistress and the life of all works.
Where in all the world is there a man so foolish as to regard a promise made to
him, or a testament given to him, as a good work which by his acceptance of it
he renders to the testator? What heir will imagine he is doing his departed
father a kindness by accepting the terms of the will and the inheritance
bequeathed to him? What godless audacity is it, therefore, when we who are to
receive the testament of God come as those who would perform a good work for
Him! This ignorance of the testament, this captivity of the sacrament ¡X are
they not too sad for tears? When we ought to be grateful for benefits received,
we come in our pride to give that which we ought to take, mocking with
unheard-of perversity the mercy of the Giver by giving as a work the thing we
receive as a gift. So the testator, instead of being the dispenser of His own goods,
becomes the recipient of ours. What sacrilege!
2.64Who has ever
been so mad as to regard baptism as a good work, or to believe that by being
baptised he was performing a work which he might offer to God for himself
-520-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and communicate to
others? If, therefore, there is no good work that can be communicated to others
in this one sacrament or testament, neither will there be any in the mass,
since it too is nothing else than a testament and sacrament. Hence it is a
manifest and wicked error to offer or apply masses for sins, for satisfactions,
for the dead, or for any necessity whatsoever of one's own or of others. You
will readily see the obvious truth of this if you but hold firmly that the mass
is a divine promise, which can profit no one, be applied to no one, intercede
for no one, and be communicated to no one, save him alone who believes with a
faith of his own. Who can receive or apply, in behalf of another, the promise
of God, which demands the personal faith of every individual? Can I give to
another what God has promised, even if he does not believe? Can I believe for
another, or cause another to believe? But this is what I must do if I am able
to apply and communicate the mass to others. For there are but two things in
the mass ¡X the promise of God, and the faith of man which takes that which the
promise offers. But if it is true that I can do this, then I can also hear and
believe the Gospel for others, I can be baptised for another, I can be absolved
from sins for another, I can also partake of the Sacrament of the Altar for
another, and ¡X to run the gamut of their sacraments also ¡X I can marry a wife
for another, be ordained for another, receive confirmation and extreme unction
for another!
2.65So, then, why
didn't Abraham believe for all the Jews? Why was faith in the promise made to
Abraham demanded of every individual Jew? Therefore, let this irrefutable truth
stand fast. Where there is a divine promise every one must stand upon his own
feet, every one's personal faith is demanded, every one will give an account
for himself and will bear his own burden, as it is said in the last chapter of
Mark: "He that believes and is baptised, shall be saved. But he that does
not believe, shall be damned." Even so everyone may derive a blessing from
the mass for himself alone and only by his own faith, and no one can commune
for any other. Just as the priest cannot administer the sacrament to any one in
another's place, but administers the same sacrament to each individual by
himself. For in consecrating and administering, the priests are our ministers,
through whom we do not offer a good work or commune (in the active), but
receive the promises and the sign and are communed (in the passive). That has
remained to this day the custom among the laity, for they are not said to do
good, but to receive it. But the priests have departed into godless ways. Out
of the sacrament and testament of God, the source of blessings to be received,
they have made a good work which they may communicate and offer to others.
2.66But you will
say: "How is this? Will you not overturn the practice and teaching of all
the churches and monasteries, by virtue of which they have flourished these many
centuries? For the mass is the foundation of their anniversaries,
intercessions, applications, communications, etc. ¡X that is to say, of their
fat income." I answer: This is the very thing that has constrained me to
write of the captivity of the Church, for in this manner the adorable testament
of God has been subjected to the bondage of a godless traffic, through the
opinions
-521-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and traditions of
wicked men, who, passing over the Word of God, have put forth the thoughts of
their own hearts and misled the whole world. What do I care for the number and
influence of those who are in this error? The truth is mightier than they all.
If you are able to refute Christ, according to Whom the mass is a testament and
sacrament, then I will admit that they are right. Or if you can bring yourself
to say that you are doing a good work, when you receive the benefit of the
testament, or when you use this sacrament of promise in order to receive it,
then I will gladly condemn my teachings. But since you can do neither, why do
you hesitate to turn your back on the multitude who go after evil, and to give
God the glory and confess His truth? Which is, indeed, that all priests today
are perversely mistaken, who regard the mass as a work whereby they may relieve
their own necessities and those of others, dead or alive. I am uttering
unheard-of and startling things. But if you will consider the meaning of the
mass, you will realize that I have spoken the truth. The fault lies with our
false sense of security, in which we have become blind to the wrath of God that
is raging against us.
2.67I am ready,
however, to admit that the prayers which we pour out before God when we are
gathered together to partake of the mass, are good works or benefits, which we
impart, apply and communicate to one another, and which we offer for one
another. As James teaches us to pray for one another that we may be saved, and
as Paul, in 1 Timothy 2, commands that supplications, prayers and intercessions
be made for all men, for kings, and for all that are in high station. These are
not the mass, but works of the mass ¡X if the prayers of heart and lips may be
called works ¡X for they flow from the faith that is kindled or increased in the
sacrament. For the mass, being the promise of God, is not fulfilled by praying,
but only by believing. But when we believe, we shall also pray and perform
every good work. But what priest offers the sacrifice of the mass in this sense
and believes that he is offering up nothing but the prayers? They all imagine
themselves to be offering up Christ Himself, as all-sufficient sacrifice, to
God the Father, and to be performing a good work for all whom they have the
intention to benefit. For they put their trust in the work which the mass
accomplishes, and they do not ascribe this work to prayer. Thus, gradually, the
error has grown, until they have come to ascribe to the sacrament what belongs
to the prayers, and to offer to God what should be received as a benefit.
2.68It is
necessary, therefore, to make a sharp distinction between the testament or
sacrament itself and the prayers which are there offered. And it is no less
necessary to bear in mind that the prayers avail nothing, either for him who
offers them or for those for whom they are offered, unless the sacrament be
first received in faith, so that it is faith that offers the prayers, for it
alone is heard, as James teaches in his first chapter. So great is the
difference between prayer and the mass. The prayer may be extended to as many
persons as one desires. But the mass is received by none but the person who
believes for himself, and only in proportion to his faith. It cannot be given
either to God or to men, but God alone gives it, by the ministration of the
priest,
-522-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
to such men as
receive it by faith alone, without any works or merits. For no one would dare
to make the mad assertion that a ragged beggar does a good work when he comes
to receive a gift from a rich man. But the mass is, as has been said, the gift
and promise of God, offered to all men by the hand of the priest.
2.69 It is
certain, therefore, that the mass is not a work which may be communicated to
others, but it is the object, as it is called, of faith, for the strengthening
and nourishing of the personal faith of each individual. But there is yet
another stumbling-block that must be removed, and this is much greater and the
most dangerous of all. It is the common belief that the mass is a sacrifice,
which is offered to God. Even the words of the canon tend in this direction,
when they speak of "these gifts," "these offerings,"
"this holy sacrifice," and farther on, of "this offering."
Prayer also is made, in so many words, "that the sacrifice may be accepted
even as the sacrifice of Abel," etc., and hence Christ is termed the
"Sacrifice of the altar." In addition to this there are the sayings
of the holy Fathers, the great number of examples, and the constant usage and
custom of all the world.
2.70We must
resolutely oppose all of this, firmly entrenched as it is, with the words and
example of Christ. For unless we hold fast to the truth, that the mass is the
promise or testament of Christ, as the words clearly say, we shall lose the
whole Gospel and all our comfort. Let us permit nothing to prevail against
these words, even though an angel from heaven should teach otherwise. For there
is nothing said in them of a work or a sacrifice. Moreover, we have also the
example of Christ on our side. For at the Last Supper, when He instituted this
sacrament and established this testament, Christ did not offer Himself to God
the Father, nor did He perform a good work on behalf of others, but He set this
testament before each of them that sat at table with Him and offered him the
sign. Now, the more closely our mass resembles that first mass of all, which
Christ performed at the Last Supper, the more Christian will it be. But
Christ's mass was most simple, without the pageantry of vestments,
genuflections, chants and other ceremonies. Indeed, if it were necessary to
offer the mass as a sacrifice, then Christ's institution of it was not
complete.
2.71Not that any
one should condemn the Church universal for embellishing and amplifying the
mass with many additional rites and ceremonies. But this is what we contend
for: no one should be deceived by the glamour of the ceremonies and entangled
in the multitude of pompous forms, and thus lose the simplicity of the mass
itself, and indeed practice a sort of transubstantiation ¡X losing sight of the
simple substance of the mass and clinging to the manifold accidents of outward
pomp. For whatever has been added to the word and example of Christ, is an
accident of the mass, and ought to be regarded just as we regard the so-called
monstrances and corporal cloths in which the host itself is contained.
Therefore, as distributing a testament, or accepting a promise, differs
diametrically from offering a sacrifice,
-523-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
so it is a
contradiction in terms to call the mass a sacrifice. The former is something
that we receive, while the latter is something that we offer. The same thing cannot
be received and offered at the same time, nor can it be both given and taken by
the same person. Just as little as our prayer can be the same as that which our
prayer obtains, or the act of praying the same as the act of receiving the
answer to our prayer.
2.72What shall we
say, then, about the canon of the mass and the sayings of the Fathers? First of
all, if there were nothing at all to be said against them, it would yet be the
safer course to reject them all rather than admit that the mass is a work or a
sacrifice, lest we deny the word of Christ and overthrow faith together with
the mass. Nevertheless, not to reject altogether the canons and the Fathers, we
shall say the following: The Apostle instructs us in 1 Corinthians 11 that it
was customary for Christ's believers, when they came together to mass, to bring
with them meat and drink, which they called "collections" and
distributed among all who were in need, after the example of the apostles in
Acts 4. From this store was taken the portion of bread and wine that was
consecrated for use in the sacrament. And since all this store of meat and
drink was sanctified by the word and by prayer, being "lifted up"
according to the Hebrew rite of which we read in Moses, the words and the rite
of this lifting up, or offering, have come down to us, although the custom of
collecting that which was offered, or lifted up, has fallen long since into
disuse. Thus, in Isaiah 37, Hezekiah commanded Isaiah to lift up his prayer in
the sight of God for the remnant. The Psalmist sings: "Lift up your hands
to the holy places" and "To you will I lift up my hands." And in
1 Timothy 2 we read: "Lifting up pure hands in every place." For this
reason the words "sacrifice" and "offering" must be taken
to refer, not to the sacrament and testament, but to these collections, from
this also the word "collect" has come down to us, as meaning the
prayers said in the mass.
2.73The same thing
is indicated when the priest elevates the bread and the chalice immediately
after the consecration, whereby he shows that he is not offering anything to
God, for he does not say a single word here about a victim or an offering. But
this elevation is either a survival of that Hebrew rite of lifting up what was
received with thanksgiving and returned to God, or else it is an admonition to
us, to provoke us to faith in this testament which the priest has set forth and
exhibited in the words of Christ, so that now he shows us also the sign of the
testament. Thus the offering of the bread properly accompanies the
demonstrative this in the words, "This is my body," by which sign the
priest addresses us gathered about him. In like manner the offering of the
chalice accompanies the demonstrative this in the words, "This chalice is
the new testament, etc." For it is faith that the priest ought to awaken
in us by this act of elevation. I wish that, as he elevates the sign, or
sacrament, openly before our eyes, he might also sound in our ears the words of
the testament with a loud, clear voice, and in the language of the people,
whatever it may be, in order that faith may be the more effectively awakened.
For why may mass be said in Greek and Latin and Hebrew, and not also in German
or in any other language?
2.74Let the
priests, therefore, who in these corrupt and perilous times offer the sacrifice
of the mass, take heed, first, that the words of the greater and the lesser
canon together with the collects, which smack too strongly of sacrifice, be not
referred by them to the sacrament, but to the bread and wine which they
consecrate, or to the prayers which they say.
-524-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the bread and
wine are offered at the first, in order that they may be blessed and thus
sanctified by the Word and by prayer. But after they have been blessed and
consecrated, they are no longer offered, but received as a gift from God. And
let the priest bear in mind that the Gospel is to be set above all canons and
collects devised by men. The Gospel does not sanction the calling of the mass a
sacrifice, as has been shown.
2.75Further, when
a priest celebrates a public mass, he should determine to do nothing else
through the mass than to commune himself and others. Yet he may at the same
time offer prayers for himself and for others, but he must beware lest he
presume to offer the mass. But let him determine to commune himself, if he
holds a private mass. The private mass does not differ in the least from the
ordinary communion which any layman receives at the hand of the priest, and has
no greater effect, apart from the special prayers and the fact that the priest
consecrates the elements for himself and administers them to himself. So far as
the blessing of the mass and sacrament is concerned, we are all of us on an
equal footing, whether we be priests or laymen.
2.76If a priest be
requested by others to celebrate so-called "votive" masses, let him
beware of accepting a reward for the mass, or of presuming to offer a votive
sacrifice. He should be careful to refer all to the prayers which he offers for
the dead or the living, saying within himself, "I will go and partake of
the sacrament for myself alone, and while partaking I will say a prayer for
this one and that." Thus he will take his reward ¡X to buy him food and
clothing ¡X not for the mass, but for the prayers. And let him not be disturbed
because all the world holds and practices the contrary. You have the most sure
Gospel, and relying on this you may well despise the opinions of men. But if
you despise me and insist upon offering the mass and not the prayers alone,
know that I have faithfully warned you and will be without blame on the day of
judgment. You will have to bear your sin alone. I have said what I was bound to
say as brother to brother for his soul's salvation. Yours will be the gain if
you observe it, yours the loss if you neglect it. And if some should even
condemn what I have said, I reply in the words of Paul: " But evil men and
seducers shall grow worse and worse: erring and driving into error."
2.77From the above
every one will readily understand what there is in that often quoted saying of
Gregory's: "A mass celebrated by a wicked priest is not to be considered
of less effect than one celebrated by any godly priest. St. Peter's mass would
not have been better than Judas the traitor's, if they had offered the
sacrifice of the mass." This saying has served many as a cloak to cover
their godless doings, and because of it they have invented the distinction
between opus operati and opus operantis, so as to be free to lead wicked lives
themselves and yet to benefit other men. Gregory speaks truth, but they
misunderstand and pervert his words. For it is true beyond a question, that the
testament or sacrament is given and received through the ministration of wicked
priests no less completely than through the ministration of the most saintly.
For who has any doubt that the Gospel is preached by the ungodly? Now the mass
is part of the Gospel, no, its sum and substance. For what is the whole Gospel
but the good tidings of the forgiveness of sins? But whatever can be said of
the forgiveness of sins and the mercy of God, is all briefly comprehended in
the word of this testament.
-525-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So popular sermons
ought to be nothing else than expositions of the mass, that is, a setting forth
of the divine promise of this testament. Doing this teaches faith and truly
edifies the Church. But in our day the expounders of the mass play with the
allegories of human rites and make it a joke to people.
2.78Therefore,
just as a wicked priest may baptise, that is, apply the word of promise and the
sign of the water to a candidate for baptism, so he may also set forth the
promise of this sacrament and administer it to those who partake, and even
himself partake, like Judas the traitor, at the Lord's Supper. It still remains
always the same sacrament and testament, which works in the believer its own
work, in the unbeliever a "strange work." But when it comes to
offering a sacrifice the case is quite different. For not the mass but the
prayers are offered to God, and therefore it is as plain as day that the
offerings of a wicked priest avail nothing, but, as Gregory says again, when an
unworthy intercessor is chosen, the heart of the judge is moved to greater
displeasure. We must, therefore, not confound these two ¡X the mass and the
prayers, the sacrament and the work, the testament and the sacrifice. For the
one comes from God to us, through the ministration of the priest, and demands
our faith, the other proceeds from our faith to God, through the priest, and
demands His answer. The former descends, the latter ascends. Therefore the
former does not necessarily require a worthy and godly minister, but the latter
does indeed require such a priest, because " God does not hear
sinners." He knows how to send down blessings through evildoers, but He
does not accept the work of any evildoer, as He showed in the case of Cain, and
as it is said in Proverbs 15, "The victims of the wicked are abominable to
the Lord" and in Romans 14, "All that is not of faith is sin."
2.79But in order
to make an end of this first part, we must take up one remaining point against
which an opponent might arise. From all that has been said we conclude that the
mass was provided only for such as have a sad, afflicted, disturbed, perplexed
and erring conscience, and that they alone commune worthily. For, since the
word of divine promise in this sacrament sets forth the remission of sins, that
man may fearlessly draw near, whoever he be, whose sins distress him, either
with remorse for past or with temptation to future wrongdoing. For this
testament of Christ is the one remedy against sins, past, present and future,
if you but cling to it with unwavering faith and believe that what the words of
the testament declare is freely granted to you. But if you do not believe this,
you will never, nowhere, and by no works or efforts of your own, find peace of
conscience. For faith alone sets the conscience at peace, and unbelief alone
keeps the conscience troubled.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[To Table of
Contents]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE SACRAMENT OF
BAPTISM
3.1 Blessed be the
God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Who according to the riches of His
mercy has preserved in His Church this sacrament at least, untouched and
untainted by the ordinances of men, and has made it free to all nations and
every estate of mankind, nor suffered it to be oppressed by the filthy and
godless monsters of greed and superstition. For He desired that by it little
children, incapable of greed and superstition,
-526-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
might be initiated
and sanctified in the simple faith of His Word. Even today baptism's chief
blessing is for them. But if this sacrament were to be given to adults and
older people, I think it could not possibly have retained its power and its
glory against the tyranny of greed and superstition which has everywhere laid
waste to divine things. Doubtless the wisdom of the flesh would here too have
devised its preparations and worthinesses, its reservations, restrictions, and
I know not what other snares for taking money, until water fetched as high a
price as parchment does now.
3.2 But Satan,
though he could not quench the power of baptism in little children,
nevertheless succeeded in quenching it in all adults, so that scarcely anyone
calls to mind their baptism and still fewer glory in it. So many other ways
have they discovered of ridding themselves of their sins and of reaching
heaven. The source of these false opinions is that dangerous saying of
3.3It was the duty
of the pontiffs to abate this evil, and with all diligence to lead Christians
to the true understanding of baptism, so that they might know what manner of
men they are and how Christians ought to live. But instead of this, their work
is now to lead the people as far astray as possible from their baptism, to
immerse all men in the flood of their oppression, and to cause the people of
Christ, as the prophet says, to forget Him days without number. ( Jeremiah
2:32) How unfortunate are all who bear the name of pope today! Not only do they
not know or do what popes should do, but they are ignorant of what they ought
to know and do. They fulfill the saying in Isaiah 56: "His watchmen are
all blind, they are all ignorant. The shepherds themselves knew no
understanding. All have declined into their own way, every one after his own
gain."
3.4Now, the first
thing in baptism to be considered is the divine promise, which says: " He
that believes and is baptised shall be saved." This promise must be set
far above all the glitter of works, vows, religious orders, and whatever man
has added to it. For on it all our salvation depends. We must consider this
promise, exercise our faith in it and never doubt that we are saved when we are
baptised. For unless this faith be present or be conferred in baptism, we gain
nothing from baptism. No, it becomes a hindrance to us,
-527-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
not only in the
moment of its reception, but all the days of our life. For such lack of faith
calls God's promise a lie, and this is the blackest of all sins. When we try to
exercise this faith, we shall at once perceive how difficult it is to believe
this promise of God. For our human weakness, conscious of its sins, finds
nothing more difficult to believe than that it is saved or will be saved. Yet
unless it does believe this, it cannot be saved, because it does not believe
the truth of God that promises salvation.
3.5This message
should have been persistently impressed upon the people and this promise
diligently repeated to them. Their baptism should have been called again and
again to their mind, and faith constantly awakened and nourished. Just as the
truth of this divine promise, once pronounced over us, continues to death, so our
faith in the same ought never to cease, but to be nourished and strengthened
until death, by the continual remembrance of this promise made to us in
baptism. Therefore, when we rise from sins, or repent, we are only returning to
the power and the faith of baptism from from this we fell, and find our way
back to the promise then made to us, from which we departed when we sinned. For
the truth of the promise once made remains steadfast, ever ready to receive us
back with open arms when we return. This, if I am not mistaken, is the real
meaning of the obscure saying, that baptism is the beginning and foundation of
all the sacraments, without which none of the others may be received.
3.6Therefore a
penitent will gain much by laying hold of the memory of his baptism above all
else, confidently calling to mind the promise of God, which he has forsaken. He
should plead it with His Lord, rejoicing that he is baptised and therefore is
yet within the fortress of salvation. He should detest his wicked ingratitude in
falling away from its faith and truth. His soul will find wondrous comfort, and
will be encouraged to hope for mercy, when he considers that the divine promise
which God made to him and which cannot possibly lie, still stands unbroken and
unchanged, yes, unchangeable by any sins, as Paul says in 2 Timothy 2. "If
we do not believe, He continues to be faithful, He cannot deny Himself."
Yes, this truth of God will sustain him, so that if all else should sink in
ruins, this truth, if he believes it, will not fail him. For in it he has a
shield against all assaults of the enemy, an answer to the sins that disturb
his conscience, an antidote for the dread of death and judgment, and a comfort
in every temptation ¡X namely, this one truth, ¡X he can say, " God is faithful
that promised, Whose sign I have received in my baptism. If God be for me, who
is against me?"
3.7The children of
-528-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and afterward
repeated by David. How much rather ought we to call to mind our exodus from
Egypt, and, remembering, turn back again to Him Who led us forth through the
washing of regeneration, which we are bidden remember for this very purpose.
And this we can do most fittingly in the sacrament of bread and wine. Indeed,
in ancient times these three sacraments ¡Xpenance, baptism and the bread ¡X were
all celebrated at the same service, and one supplemented and assisted the
other. We read also of a certain holy virgin who in every time of temptation
made baptism her sole defense, saying simply, "I am a Christian."
Immediately the adversary fled from her, for he knew the power of her baptism
and of her faith which clung to the truth of God's promise.
3.8See, how rich
therefore is a Christian, the one who is baptised! Even if he wants to, he
cannot lose his salvation, however much he sin, unless he will not believe. For
no sin can condemn him save unbelief alone. All other sins ¡X so long as the
faith in God's promise made in baptism returns or remains ¡Xall other sins, I
say, are immediately blotted out through that same faith, or rather through the
truth of God, because He cannot deny Himself. If only you confess Him and cling
believing to Him that promises. But as for contrition, confession of sins, and
satisfaction ¡X along with all those carefully thought out exercises of men ¡X if
you turn your attention to them and neglect this truth of God, they will
suddenly fail you and leave you more wretched than before. For whatever is done
without faith in the truth of God, is vanity of vanities and vexation of
spirit.
3.9Again, how
perilous, no, how false it is to suppose that penance is the second plank after
the shipwreck! How harmful an error it is to believe that the power of baptism
is broken, and the ship has foundered, because we have sinned! No! That one,
solid and unsinkable ship remains, and is never broken up into floating
timbers. It carries all those who are brought to the harbor of salvation. It is
the truth of God giving us its promise in the sacraments. Many, indeed, rashly
leap overboard and perish in the waves. These are they who depart from faith in
the promise and plunge into sin. But the ship herself remains intact and holds
her steady course. If one be able somehow to return to the ship, it is not on any
plank but in the good ship herself that he is carried to life. Such a one is he
who through faith returns to the sure promise of God that lasts forever.
Therefore Peter, in 1 Peter 1, rebukes those who sin, because they have
forgotten that they were purged from their old sins, in which words he
doubtless chides their ingratitude for the baptism they had received and their
wicked unbelief.
3.10What is the
good, then, of writing much on baptism and yet not teaching this faith in the
promise? All the sacraments were instituted for the purpose of nourishing
faith, but these godless men so completely pass over this faith
-529-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
that they even
assert a man dare not be certain of the forgiveness of sins, that is, of the
grace of the sacraments. With such wicked teachings they delude the world, and
not only take captive but altogether destroy the sacrament of baptism, in which
the chief glory of our conscience consists. Meanwhile they madly rage against
the miserable souls of men with their contritions, anxious confessions,
circumstances, satisfactions, works and endless other absurdities. Read,
therefore, with great caution the Master of the Sentences in his fourth book,
or, better yet, despise him together with all his commentators, who at their
best write only of the material and form of the sacraments, that is, they
discuss the dead and death-dealing letter of the sacraments, but pass over in
utter silence the spirit, life and use, that is, the truth of the divine
promise and our faith.
3.11So be careful,
thqt the external pomp of works and the deceits of human traditions mislead
you, so that you may not wrong the divine truth and your faith. If you would be
saved, you must begin with the faith of the sacraments, without any works
whatever. But on faith the works will follow. Only do not think lightly of
faith, which is a work, and of all works the most excellent and the most
difficult to do. Through it alone you will be saved, even if you should be
compelled to do without any other works. For it is a work of God, not of man,
as Paul teaches. The other works He works through us and with our help, but
this one He works in us and without our help.
3.12From this we
can clearly see the difference, in baptism, between man the minister and God
the Doer. For man baptises and does not baptise. He baptises, for he performs
the work, immersing the person to be baptised. He does not baptise, for in that
act he officiates not by his own authority, but as God's representative. Hence,
we ought to receive baptism at the hands of a man just as if Christ Himself,
no, God Himself, were baptising us with His own hands. For it is not man's
baptism, but Christ's and God's baptism, which we receive by the hand of a man,
just as every other created thing that we make use of by the hand of another,
is God's alone. Therefore beware of dividing baptism in such a way as to
ascribe the outward part to man and the inward part to God. Ascribe both to God
alone, and look upon the person administering it as the instrument in God's
hands, by which the Lord sitting in heaven thrusts you under the water with His
own hands, and speaking by the mouth of His minister promises you, on earth
with a human voice, the forgiveness of your sins.
3.13This the words
themselves indicate, when the priest says: " I baptise you in the Name of
the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen," and not: "I
baptise you in my own name." It is as though he said: " What I do, I
do not by my own authority, but in the name and as God's representative, so
that you should regard it just as if our Lord Himself had done it in a visible
manner. The Doer and the minister are different persons, but the work of both
is the same work, or, rather,
-530-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
it is the work of
the Doer alone, through my ministry." For I hold that "in the name
of" refers to the person of the Doer, so that the name of the Lord is not
only to be uttered and invoked while the work is being done, but the work
itself is to be done not as one's own work, but in the name and as another's
representative. In this sense, in Matthew 24, Christ says, "Many shall
come in my name," and in Romans 1 it is said, "By whom we have
received grace and apostleship for obedience to the faith, in all nations, for
His name."
3.14This view I
freely endorse. It is very comforting and greatly aids faith to know that one
has been baptised not by man, but by the Triune God Himself through a man
acting among us in His name. This will dispose of that fruitless quarrel about
the "form" of baptism, as these words are called. The Greeks say:
"May the servant of Christ be baptised," while the Latins say: "I
baptise." Others again, pedantic triflers, condemn the use of the words,
"I baptise you in the name of Jesus Christ" ¡X although it is certain
that the Apostles used this formula in baptising, as we read in the Acts of the
Apostles ¡X they would allow no other form to be valid than this: " I
baptise you in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
Ghost." But their contention is in vain, for they bring no proof, but
merely assert their own dreams. Baptism truly saves in whatever way it is
administered, as long as it is not administered in the name of man but in the
name of God. No, I have no doubt that if one received baptism in the name of
the Lord, even though the wicked minister should not give it in the name of the
Lord, he would yet be truly baptised in the name of the Lord. For the effect of
baptism depends not so much on the faith or practice of him that confers it as
on the faith or practice of the one who receives it ¡X of which we have an
illustration in the case of the play-actor who was baptised as a joke. Such
anxious disputings and questionings are aroused in us by those who ascribe
nothing to faith and everything to works and forms, while we owe everything to
faith alone and nothing to forms, and faith makes us free in spirit from all
those scruples and fancies.
3.15The second
part of baptism is the sign, or sacrament, which is that immersion into water
from this also it derives its name. For the Greek baptizw means "I
immerse," and baptisma means "immersion." For, as has been said,
signs are added to the divine promises to represent that which the words
signify, or, as they now say, that which the sacrament "effectively
signifies." We shall see how much of truth there is in this.
3.16The great
majority have supposed that there is some hidden spiritual power in the word or
in the water, which works the grace of God in the soul of the recipient. Others
deny this and hold that there is no power in the sacraments, but that grace is
given by God alone, Who according to His covenant aids the sacraments He has
instituted. Yet all are agreed that the sacraments are effective signs of
grace, and they reach this conclusion by this one argument: If the sacraments
of the New Law merely "signified," it would not be apparent in what
respect they surpassed the sacraments of the Old Law. Hence they have been
driven to attribute such great power to the sacraments of the New Law that in
their opinion they benefit even such men
-531-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
as are in mortal
sins, and that they do not require faith or grace. It is sufficient not to
oppose a "bar," that is, an actual intention to sin again.
3.17But these
views must be carefully avoided and shunned, because they are godless and
faithless, being contrary to faith and to the nature of the sacraments. For it
is an error to hold that the sacraments of the New Law differ from those of the
Old Law in the effectiveness of their "signifying." The
"signifying" of both is equally effective. The same God Who now saves
me by baptism saved Abel by his sacrifice, Noah by the rainbow, Abraham by
circumcision, and all the others by their respective signs. So far as the
"signifying" is concerned, there is no difference between a sacrament
of the Old Law and one of the New ¡X provided that by the Old Law you mean that
which God did among the patriarchs and other fathers in the days of the law.
But those signs which were given to the patriarchs and fathers must be sharply
distinguished from the legal types which Moses instituted in his law, such as
the priestly rites concerning robes, vessels, meats, dwellings, and the like.
Between these and the sacraments of the New Law there is a vast difference, but
no less between them and those signs that God from time to time gave to the
fathers living under the law, such as the sign of Gideon's fleece, Manoah's
sacrifice,or the sign which Isaiah offered to Ahaz, in Isaiah 7. for to these
signs God attached a certain promise which required faith in Him.
3.18This, then, is
the difference between the legal types and the new and old signs is that the
types do not have attached to them any word of promise requiring faith. Hence
they are not signs of justification, for they are not sacraments of the faith
that alone justifies, but only sacraments of works. Their whole power and
nature consisted in works, not in faith, and he that observed them fulfilled
them, even if he did it without faith. But our signs, or sacraments, as well as
those of the fathers, have attached to them a word of promise, which requires
faith, and they cannot be fulfilled by any other work. Hence they are signs or
sacraments of justification, for they are the sacraments of justifying faith
and not of works. Their whole efficacy, therefore, consists in faith itself, not
in the doing of a work. For whoever believes them fulfils them, even if he
should not do a single work. From this has arisen the saying, "Not the
sacrament but the faith of the sacrament justifies." Thus circumcision did
not justify Abraham and his seed, and yet the Apostle calls it the seal of the
righteousness of faith, because faith in the promise, to which circumcision was
added, justified him and fulfilled that which circumcision signified. For faith
was the spiritual circumcision of the foreskin of the heart, which was
symbolised by the literal circumcision of the flesh. And in the same manner it
was obviously not Abel's sacrifice that justified him, but it was his faith, by
which he offered himself wholly to God and which was symbolised by the outward
sacrifice.
3.19Even so it is
not baptism that justifies or benefits anyone, but it is faith in the word of
promise, to which baptism is added. This faith justifies,
-532-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and fulfils that
which baptism signifies. For faith is the submersion of the old man and the
emerging of the new. Therefore it cannot be that the new sacraments differ from
the old, for both have the divine promise and the same spirit of faith. But
they do differ vastly from the ancient types on account of the word of promise,
which is the one decisive point of difference. Even so, today, the outward show
of vestments, holy places, meats and of all the endless ceremonies has
doubtless a fine symbolical meaning, which is to be spiritually fulfilled. Yet
because there is no word of divine promise attached to these things, they can
never be compared with the signs of baptism and of the bread, nor do they in
any way justify or benefit one, since they are fulfilled in the very
observance, apart from faith. For while they are taking place or are being
performed, they are being fulfilled. The Apostle says of them, in Colossians
2,"Which are all to perish with the using, after the commandments and
doctrines of men." The sacraments, on the contrary, are not fulfilled when
they are observed, but when they are believed.
3.20It cannot be
true, therefore, that there is in the sacraments a power efficacious for
justification, or that they are effective signs of grace. All such assertions
tend to destroy faith, and arise from ignorance of the divine promise. Unless
you should call them effective in the sense that they certainly and
efficaciously impart grace, where faith is unmistakably present. But it is not
in this sense that efficacy is now ascribed to them. Witness the fact that they
are said to benefit all men, even the godless and unbelieving, provided they do
not put an "obstacle" in the path of grace ¡X as if such unbelief were
not in itself the most obstinate and hostile of all obstacles to grace. That is
how firmly they are bent on turning the sacrament into a command, and faith
into a work. For if the sacrament confers grace on me because I receive it,
then indeed I obtain grace by virtue of my work and not of faith. I lay hold
not on the promise in the sacrament, but on the sign instituted and commanded
by God. Do you not see, then, how completely the sacraments have been
misunderstood by our theologians of the Sentences? They do not account for
either faith or the promise, in their discussions on the sacraments. They only
cling to the sign and the use of the sign, and draw us away from faith to the
work, from the word to the sign. Thus they have not only carried the sacraments
captive (as I have said), but have completely destroyed them, as far as they
were able.
3.21Therefore, let
us open our eyes and learn to give more heed to the word than to the sign, and
to faith than to the work, or the use of the sign, remembering that wherever
there is a divine promise there faith is required, and that these two are so
necessary to each other that neither can be efficacious apart from the other.
For it is not possible to believe unless there be a promise, and the promise is
not established unless it be believed. But where these two meet, they give a
real and most certain efficacy to the sacraments. Hence, to seek the efficacy
of the sacrament apart from the promise and apart from faith, is to labor in
vain and to find damnation. Thus Christ says: "He that believe and is
baptised, shall be saved. He that does not believe shall be damned." He
shows us in this word that faith
-533-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
is so necessary a
part of the sacrament that it can save even without the sacrament. For which
reason He did not see fit to say: "He that does not believe, and is not
baptised..."
3.22Baptism, then,
signifies two things ¡Xdeath and resurrection ¡X that is, full and complete
justification. When the minister immerses the child in the water, baptism
signifies death. When he draws the child forth again, baptism signifies life.
Thus Paul expounds on this in Romans 6, "We are buried together with
Christ by baptism into death. As Christ is risen from the dead by the glory of
the Father, so we also may walk in newness of life." This death and
resurrection we call the new creation, regeneration, and the spiritual birth.
And this must not be understood only in a figurative sense, of the death of sin
and the life of grace, as many understand it, but of actual death and
resurrection. The significance of baptism is not an imaginary significance, and
sin does not completely die, nor does grace completely rise, until the body of
sin that we carry about in this life is destroyed. This the Apostle teaches in
the same chapter. For as long as we are in the flesh, the desires of the flesh
stir and are stirred. When we begin to believe, we also begin to die to this
world and to live to God in the life to come. Faith is truly a death and a
resurrection, that is, it is that spiritual baptism in which we are submerged
and from which we rise.
3.23Hence it is
indeed correct to say that baptism washes sins away, but that expression is too
weak and mild to bring out the full significance of baptism, which is rather a
symbol of death and resurrection. For this reason I would have the candidates
for baptism completely immersed in the water, as the word says and as the
sacrament signifies. Not that I deem this necessary, but it would be well to
give to so perfect and complete a thing a perfect and complete sign. Thus it
was also doubtless instituted by Christ. The sinner does not so much need to be
washed as he needs to die, in order to be wholly renewed and made another
creature, and to be conformed to the death and resurrection of Christ, with
Whom, through baptism, he dies and rises again. Although you may properly say
that Christ was washed clean of mortality when He died and rose again, yet that
is a weaker way of putting it than if you said He was completely changed and
renewed. In the same way it is far more forceful to say that baptism signifies
that we die completely and rising to eternal life, than to say that it
signifies merely our being washed clean from sins.
3.24Here, again,
you see that the sacrament of baptism, even in respect to its sign, does not
last only for a moment, but continues on forever. Although its administration
is soon over, yet the thing it signifies continues until we die, no, until we
rise at the last day. For as long as we live we are continually doing that
which our baptism signifies,that is, we die and rise again. We die, that is,
not only spiritually and in our affections, by renouncing the sins and vanities
of this world, but in reality we die. We begin to leave this bodily life and to
lay hold on the life to come. So there is, as they say, a real and even a
bodily leaving of this world to go to the Father.
-534-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.25We must,
therefore, beware of those who have reduced the power of baptism, making it
something thin and small. While they do say that baptism indeed pours the grace
of God into us, but afterwards sin pours it out again. So, they say, one must
reach heaven by another way. As if baptism had then become entirely useless! Do
not hold such a viewpoint, but know that baptism signifies that you die and
live again. Therefore, whether it is by penance or by any other way, you can
only return to the power of your baptism, and once again do what you were
baptised to do and what your baptism signified. Never does baptism lose its
power, unless you despair and refuse to return to its salvation. You may,
indeed, for a time wander away from the sign, but that does not mean that the
sign is powerless. You have, thus, been baptised once in the sacrament, but you
must be constantly baptised again through faith, you must constantly die, you
must constantly live again. Baptisms absorbs your whole body, and gives it back
again. Even so that which baptism signifies should absorb your whole life in
body and soul, and give it back again at the last day, clothed in robes of
glory and immortality. We are, therefore, never without the sign of baptism nor
yet without the thing it signifies. No, we must be baptised ever more and more
completely, until we perfectly fulfill the sign, at the last day.
3.26Therefore,
whatever we do in this life that promotes the mortifying of the flesh and the
giving life to the spirit, belongs to baptism. The sooner we depart this life
the sooner we fulfill our baptism. The greater our sufferings the more closely
do we conform to our baptism. Hence those were the Church's happiest days, when
the martyrs were being killed everyday and accounted as sheep for the
slaughter. For then the power of baptism reigned supreme in the Church, which
power we have today lost sight of in the midst of the multitude of works and
doctrines of men. For all our life should be baptism, and the fulfilling of the
sign, or sacrament, of baptism. We have been set free from all else and wholly
given over to baptism alone, that is, to death and resurrection.
3.27This glorious
liberty of ours, and this understanding of baptism have been carried captive in
our day. And whom have we to thank for this but the Roman pontiff with his
despotism? More than all others, it was his first duty, as chief shepherd, to
preach and defend this liberty and this knowledge, as Paul says in 1
Corinthians 4 "Let a man so account of us as of the ministers of Christ,
and the dispensers of the mysteries, or sacraments, of God." Instead of
this, he seeks only to oppress us with his decrees and his laws, and to enslave
and ensnare us in the tyranny of his power. By what right, in God's name, does
the pope impose his laws upon us ¡X to say nothing of his wicked and damnable
neglect to teach these mysteries?
-535-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Who gave him power
to despoil us of this liberty, granted us in baptism? One thing only (as I have
said) has been enjoined upon us all the days of our life ¡X be baptised ¡X That
is, to be put to death and to live again, through faith in Christ. This faith
alone should have been taught, especially by the chief shepherd. But now there
is not a word said about faith, and the Church is laid waste with endless laws
concerning works and ceremonies So the power and right understanding of baptism
are put aside, and faith in Christ is prevented.
3.28Therefore I
say: neither the pope nor a bishop nor any other man has the right to impose a
single syllable of law upon a Christian man without his consent. If he does, it
is done in the spirit of tyranny. Therefore the prayers, fasts, donations, and
whatever else the pope decrees and demands in all of his decretals, as numerous
as they are evil, he demands and decrees without any right whatever. He sins
against the liberty of the Church whenever he attempts any such thing. In fact,
today's churchmen are indeed such vigorous defenders of the liberty of the
Church, that is, of wood and stone, of land and rents ¡X for
"churchly" is nowadays the same as "spiritual" ¡X yet with
such fictions they not only take captive but utterly destroy the true liberty
of the Church, and deal with us far worse than the Turk, in opposition tothe
word of the Apostle, "Do not be enslaved by men." Yes, to be
subjected to their statutes and tyrannical laws is to be enslaved by men.
3.29This impious
and sinful tyranny is fostered by the pope's disciples, who here drag in and
pervert that saying of Christ, "He that hears you hears me." With
puffed cheeks they blow up this saying to a great size in support of their
traditions. Though Christ said this to the apostles when they went forth to
preach the Gospel, and though it applies solely to the Gospel, they pass over
the Gospel and apply it only to their fables. He says in John 10 "My sheep
hear my voice, but the voice of a stranger they do not hear." To this end
He left us the Gospel, that His voice might be uttered by the pontiffs. But they
utter their own voice, and themselves desire to be heard. Moreover, the Apostle
says that he was not sent to baptise but to preach the Gospel. Therefore, no
one is bound to the traditions of the pope, nor does he need to give ear to him
unless he teaches the Gospel and Christ, and the pope should teach nothing but
faith without any restrictions. But since Christ says, "He that hears you
hears me," and does not say to Peter only, "He that hears you,"
why doesn't the pope also hear others? Finally, where there is true faith,
there must also be the word of faith. Why then does not an unbelieving pope now
and then hear a believing servant of his, who has the word of faith? It is
blindness, sheer blindness, that holds the popes in their power.
3.30But others,
more shameless still, arrogantly ascribe to the pope the power to make laws, on
the basis of Matthew 16, "Whatever you shall bind," etc., though
Christ treats in this passage of binding and loosing sins, not of taking the
whole Church captive and oppressing it with laws. So this tyranny treats
everything with its own lying words and violently wrests and perverts the words
of God. I admit indeed that Christians ought to bear this accursed tyranny
-536-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
just as they would
bear any other violence of this world, according to Christ's word: " If
someone strikes you on your right cheek, turn to him also the other
cheek." But this is my complaint ¡Xനat the godless pontiffs boastfully claim the
right to do this, that they pretend to be seeking the Church's welfare with
this
3.31I only lift my
voice to defend this freedom of conscience. I confidently cry out: No one ¡X not
men ¡X not angels ¡X may justly impose laws upon Christians without their
consent, for we are free from all things. If any laws are laid on us, we must
bear them in such a way as to preserve the consciousness of our liberty. We
must know and stongly affirm that the making of such laws is unjust, that we
will bear and rejoice in this injustice. We will be careful neither to justify
the tyrant nor complain against his tyranny. "For who is he," says
Peter, "that will harm you, if you are followers of that which is
good?" " All things work together for good to the elect."
Nevertheless, since few know this glory of baptism and the blessedness of
Christian liberty, and cannot know them because of the tyranny of the pope, I
for one will walk away from it all and redeem my conscience by bringing this
charge against the pope and all his papists: Unless they will abolish their
laws and traditions, and restore to Christ's churches their liberty and have it
taught among them, they are guilty of all the souls that perish under this
miserable captivity, and the papacy is truely the kingdom of Babylon, yes, the
kingdom of the real Antichrist! For who is " the man of sin" and
"the son of perdition" but he that with his doctrines and his laws
increases sins and the perdition of souls in the Church, while he sits in the
Church as if he were God? All this the papal tyranny has fulfilled, and more
than fulfilled, these many centuries. It has extinguished faith, obscured the
sacraments and oppressed the Gospel. But its own laws, which are not only
impious and sacrilegious, but even barbarous and foolish, it has enjoined and
multiplied world without end.
3.32Behold, then,
our miserable captivity. How empty is the city that was full of people! The
mistress of the Gentiles has become like a widow. The princess of provinces has
been made a client nation! There is none to comfort her. All her friends
despise her. There are so many orders, so many rites, so many sects, so many
vows, exertions and works, in which Christians are engaged, that they lose
sight of their baptism. This swarm of locusts, cankerworms and caterpillars ¡X
not one of them is able to remember that he is baptised or what blessings his
baptism brought him.
-537-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
are engaged in no
efforts and no works, but are free in every way, secure and saved only through
the glory of their baptism. For we are indeed little children, continually
baptised anew in Christ.
3.33Perhaps
someone will oppose what I have said by pointing to the baptism of infants.
Infants do not understand God's promise and cannot have baptismal faith. So
either faith is not necessary or else infant baptism is useless. Here I say
what everyone says: the faith of others, namely, the faith of those who bring
them to baptism aids infants. For the Word of God is powerful, when it is
uttered. It can change even a godless heart, which is no less unresponsive and
helpless than any infant. Even so the infant is changed, cleansed and renewed
by faith poured into it, through the prayer of the Church that presents it for
baptism and believes. All things are possible for this prayer. Nor should I
doubt that even a godless adult might be changed, in any of the sacraments, if
the same Church prayed and presented him. We read in the Gospel of the
paralytic, who was healed through the faith of others. I should be ready to
admit that in this sense the sacraments of the New Law confer grace
effectively, not only to those who do not resist, but even to those who do
resist it very obstinately. Is there any obstacle that the faith of the Church
and the prayer of faith cannot remove? We believe that Stephen by this powerful
means converted Paul the Apostle, don't we? But then the sacraments accomplish
what they do not by their own power, but by the power of faith, without which
they accomplish nothing at all, as has been said.
3.34The question
remains, whether it is proper to baptise an infant not yet born, with only a
hand or a foot outside the womb. Here I will decide nothing hastily, and
confess my ignorance. I am not sure whether the reason given by some is
sufficient ¡X that the soul resides in its entirety in every part of the body.
After all, it is not the soul but the body that is externally baptised with
water. Nor do I share the view of others, that he who is not yet born cannot be
born again, even though it has considerable force. I leave these matters to the
teaching of the Spirit. For the moment I permit every one to be convinced by
his own opinion.
3.35One thing I
will add ¡X and I wish I could persuade everyone to do it! ¡X namely, to
completely abolish or avoid all the making of vows,whether they are vows to
enter religious orders, to make pilgrimages or to do any works whatsoever. Then
we could remain in the freedom of our baptism, which is the most religious,
rich in works, state of all. It is impossible to say how greatly that
widespread delusion of vows weakens baptism and obscures the knowledge of
Christian liberty. This is to say nothing now of the unspeakable and infinite
peril to souls which that mania for making vows and that ill-advised rashness
daily increase. Godless pontiffs and unhappy pastors! You slumber on without
heeding, and indulge your evil lusts, without pity for this " affliction
of Joseph," so dreadful and fraught with peril!
3.36Vows should be
abolished by a general edict, especially life-long vows, and all men diligently
recalled to the vows of baptism.
-538-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If this is not
possible, everyone should be warned not to take a vow rashly. No one should be
encouraged to do so. Permission to make vows should be given only with
difficulty and reluctance. For we have vowed enough in baptism ¡X more than we
can ever fulfill. If we devote ourselves to the keeping of this one vow, we
shall have all we can do. But now we travel over earth and sea to make many
converts. We fill the world with priests, monks and nuns, and imprison them all
in life-long vows. You will find those who argue and decree that a work done in
fulfilment of a vow ranks higher than one done without a vow. They claim such
works are rewarded with I know not what great rewards in heaven. Blind and
godless Pharisees, who measure righteousness and holiness by the greatness,
number or other quality of the works! But God measures them by faith alone, and
with Him there is no difference between works except in the faith which
performs them.
3.37These wicked
men inflate with bombast their own opinions and human works. They do this to
lure the unthinking populace, who are almost always led by the glitter of works
to make shipwreck of their faith, to forget their baptism and to harm their
Christian liberty. For a vow is a kind of law or requirement. Therefore, when
vows are multiplied, laws and works are necessarily multiplied. When this is
done, faith is extinguished and the liberty of baptism taken captive. Others,
not content with these wicked allurements, go on to say that entrance into a
religious order is like a new baptism which may be repeated later and as often
as the committment to live the religious life is renewed. Thus these "votaries"
have taken for themselves alone all righteousness, salvation and glory, and
left to those who are merely baptised nothing to compare with them. No, the
Pope of Rome, that fountain and source of all superstitions, confirms, approves
and adorns this mode of life with high-sounding bulls and dispensations, while
no one deems baptism worthy of even a thought. And with such glittering pomp
(as we have said) they drive the easily led people of Christ into certain
disaster, so that lose their gratitude for baptism and presume to achieve
greater things by their works than others achieve by their faith.
3.38Therefore, God
again shows Himself perverse to the perverse. He repays the makers of vows for
their ingratitude and pride, causes them to break their vows or to keep them
only with prodigious labor. He compels them to remain sunk in these vows, never
coming to the knowledge of the grace of faith and baptism. He makes them
continue in their hypocrisy to the end ¡X since God does not approve their
spirit ¡Xand that at last makes them a laughing-stock to the whole world, always
persuing righteousness, yet never achieving righteousness. God ordains all this
so that they fulfill the word of Isaiah: " The land is full of
idols."
3.39I am indeed
far from forbidding or discouraging any one who may desire to take a vow
privately and of his own free choice; for I would not altogether despise and
condemn vows. But I would most strongly advise against setting up and
sanctioning the making of vows as a public mode of life. It is enough that
every one should have the private right to take a vow at his peril; but to
commend the vowing of vows as a public mode of life ¡X this I hold to be most
harmful to the Church and to simple souls.
-539-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And I hold this,
first, because it runs directly counter to the Christian life; for a vow is a
certain ceremonial law and a human tradition or presumption, and from these the
Christian has been set free through baptism. For a Christian is subject to no
laws but the law of God. Again, there is no instance in Scripture of such a
vow, especially of life-long chastity, obedience and poverty. But whatever is
without warrant of Scripture is hazardous and should by no means be commended
to any one, much less established as a common and public mode of life, although
whoever will must be permitted to make the venture at his own peril. For
certain works are wrought by the Spirit in a few men, but they must not be made
an example or a mode of life for all.
3.40Moreover, I
greatly fear that these modes of life of the religious orders belong to those
things which the Apostle foretold: " They shall teach a lie in hypocrisy,
forbidding to marry, to abstain from meats, which God has created to be
received with thanksgiving." Let no one retort by pointing to Sts.
Bernard, Francis, Dominic and others, who founded or fostered monastic orders.
Terrible and marvelous is God in His counsels toward the sons of men. He could
keep Daniel, Ananias, Azarias and Misael holy at the court of the king of
Babylon, that is, in the midst of godlessness; why could He not sanctify those
men also in their perilous mode of living or guide them by the special
operation of His Spirit, yet without desiring it to be an example to others?
Besides, it is certain that none of them was saved through his vows and his
"religious" life; they were saved through faith alone, by which all
men are saved, and with which that splendid slavery of vows is more than
anything else in conflict.
3.41 But every one
may hold to his own view of this. I will return to my argument. Speaking now in
behalf of the Church's liberty and the glory of baptism, I feel myself in duty
bound publicly to set forth the counsel I have learned under the Spirit's
guidance. I therefore counsel the magnates of the churches, first of all, to
abolish all those vows, or at least not to approve and extol them. If they will
not do this, then I counsel all men who would be assured of their salvation, to
abstain from all vows, above all from the great and life-long vows; I give this
counsel especially to all growing boys and youths. This I do, first, because
this manner of life has no witness or warrant in the Scriptures, as I have
said, but is puffed up solely by the bulls (and they truly are
"bulls") of human popes. And, secondly, because it greatly tends to
hypocrisy, by reason of its outward show and its unusual character, which
engender conceit and a contempt of the common Christian life. And if there were
no other reason for abolishing these vows, this one were reason enough, namely,
that through them faith and baptism are slighted and works are exalted, which
cannot be done without harmful results. For in the religious orders there is
scarce one in many thousands, who is not more concerned about works than about
faith, and on the basis of this madness they have even made distinctions among
themselves, such as "the more strict" and "the more lax,"
as they call them.
-540-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.42Therefore I
advise no one to enter any religious order or the priesthood ¡X no, I dissuade
everyone ¡X unless he be forearmed with this knowledge and understand that the
works of monks and priests, be they never so holy and arduous, differ no whit
in the sight of God from the works of the rustic toiling in the field or the
woman going about her household tasks, but that all works are measured before
Him by faith alone; as Jeremiah says: " O Lord, thine eyes are upon
faith"; and Ecclesiasticus: " In every work of thine regard your soul
in faith: for this is the keeping of the commandments." no, he should know
that the menial housework of a maidservant or manservant is ofttimes more
acceptable to God than all the fastings and other works of a monk or a priest,
because the latter lacks faith. Since, therefore, vows seem to tend nowadays
only to the glorification of works and to pride, it is to be feared that there
is nowhere less of faith and of the Church than among the priests, monks and
bishops, and that these men are in truth heathen or hypocrites, who imagine
themselves to be the Church or the heart of the Church, and
"spiritual," and the Church's leaders, when they are everything else
but that. And it is to be feared that this is indeed " the people of the
captivity," among whom all things freely given us in baptism are held
captive, while "the people of the earth" are left behind in poverty
and in small numbers, and, as is the lot of married folk, appear vile in their
eyes.
3.43From what has
been said we learn that the Roman pontiff is guilty of two glaring errors.
3.44In the first
place, he grants dispensations from vows, and does it as though he alone of all
Christians possessed this authority; such is the temerity and audacity of
wicked men. If it be possible to grant a dispensation from a vow, then any
brother may grant one to his neighbor or even to himself. But if one's neighbor
cannot grant a dispensation, neither can the pope by any right. For from this
has he his authority? From the power of the keys? But the keys belong to all,
and avail only for sins (Matthew
3.45The other
error is this. The pope decrees, on the other hand, that marriage is dissolved
if one party enter a monastery even without the consent of the other, provided
the marriage be not yet consummated. Grammercy, what devil puts such monstrous
things into the pope's mind! God commands men to keep faith and not break their
word to one another, and again, to do good with that which is their own;
-541-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
for He hates
"robbery in a holocaust," as he says by the mouth of Isaiah. (Isaiah
61:8) But one spouse is bound by the marriage contract to keep faith with the
other, and he is not his own. He cannot break his faith by any right, and
whatever he does with himself is robbery if it be without the other's consent.
Why does not one who is burdened with debts follow this same rule and obtain
admission to an order, so as to be released from his debts and be free to break
his word? O more than blind! Which is greater; the faith commanded by God or a
vow devised and chosen by man? you art a shepherd of souls, O pope? And ye that
teach such things are doctors of sacred theology? Why then do ye teach them?
Because, forsooth, ye have decked out your vow as a better work than marriage,
and do not exalt faith, which alone exalts all things, but ye exalt works,
which are nothing in the sight of God, or which are all alike so far as any
merit is concerned.
3.46I have no
doubt, therefore, that neither men nor angels can grant a dispensation from
vows, if they be proper vows. But I am not fully clear in my own mind whether all
the things that men nowadays vow come under the head of vows. For instance, it
is simply foolish and stupid for parents to dedicate their children, before
birth or in early infancy , to "the religious life," or to perpetual
chastity; no, it is certain that this can by no means be termed a vow. It seems
a mockery of God to vow things which it is not at all in one's power to keep.
As to the triple vow of the monastic orders, the longer I consider it, the less
I comprehend it, and I marvel from this the custom of exacting this vow has
arisen. Still less do I understand at what age vows may be taken in order to be
legal and valid. I am pleased to find them unanimously agreed that vows taken
before the age of puberty are not valid. Nevertheless, they deceive many young
children who are ignorant both of their age and of what they are vowing; they
do not observe the age of puberty in receiving such children, who after making
their profession are held captive and devoured by a troubled conscience, as
though they had afterward given their consent. As if a vow which was invalid
could afterward become valid with the lapse of time.
3.47It seems
absurd to me that the terms of a legal vow should be prescribed to others by
those who cannot prescribe them for themselves. Nor do I see why a vow taken at
eighteen years of age should be valid, and not one taken at ten or twelve
years. It will not do to say that at eighteen a man feels his carnal desires.
How is it when he scarcely feels them at twenty or thirty, or when he feels
them more keenly at thirty than at twenty? Why do they not also set a certain
age-limit for the vows of poverty and obedience? But at what age will you say a
man should feel his greed and pride? Even the most spiritual hardly become
aware of these emotions. Therefore, no vow will ever become binding and valid
until we have become spiritual, and no longer have any need of vows. You see,
these are uncertain and perilous matters, and it would therefore be a wholesome
counsel to leave such lofty modes of living, unhampered by vows, to the Spirit
alone, as they were of old, and by no means to change them into a rule binding
for life.
-542-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.48But let this
suffice for the present concerning baptism and its liberty; in due time I may
discuss the vows at greater length. Of a truth they stand sorely in need of it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[To Table of
Contents]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE SACRAMENT OF
PENANCE
4.1 We come in the
third place to the sacrament of penance. On this subject I have already given
no little offense by my published treatise and disputations, in which I have
amply set forth my views. These I must now briefly rehearse, in order to unmask
the tyranny that is rampant here no less than in the sacrament of the bread.
For because these two sacraments furnish opportunity for gain and profit, the
greed of the shepherds rages in them with incredible zeal against the flock of
Christ; although baptism, too, has sadly declined among adults and become the
servant of avarice, as we have just seen in our discussion of vows.
4.2 This is the
first and chief abuse of this sacrament: They have utterly abolished the
sacrament itself, so that there is not a vestige of it left. For they have
overthrown both the word of divine promise and our faith, in which this as well
as other sacraments consists. They have applied to their tyranny the word of
promise which Christ spake in Matthew 16:19, "Whatsoever you shall
bind," etc., in Matthew
4.3 For Christ has
not ordained principalities or powers or lordships, but ministries, in the
Church; as we learn from the Apostle, who says.: " Let a man so account of
us as of the ministers of Christ, and the dispensers of the mysteries of
God." (1 Corinthians 4:1) Now when He said: " He that believe and is
baptised shall be saved," (Mark 16:16) He called forth the faith of those
to be baptised, so that by this word of promise a man might be certain of being
saved if he believed and was baptised. In that word there is no impartation of
any power whatever, but only the institution of the ministry of those who
baptise. Similarly, when He says here: "Whatsoever you shall bind," etc.,
(Matthew
-543-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
missed the
opportunity of arrogating a despotic power to themselves from the promise of
baptism. But if they do not do this in the case of baptism, why should they
have presumed to do it in the case of the promise of penance? For in both there
is a like ministry, a similar promise, and the same kind of sacrament. So that,
if baptism does not belong to Peter alone, it is undeniably a wicked usurpation
of power to claim the keys for the pope alone. Again, when Christ says:
"Take, eat; this is my body, which is given for you. Take, drink; this is
the chalice in my blood," ( 1 Corinthians 11:24 f.) etc., He calls forth
the faith of those who eat, so that through these words their conscience may be
strengthened by faith and they may rest assured of receiving the forgiveness of
sins, if they have eaten. Here, too, He says nothing of power, but only of a
ministry.
4.3a[Note]
4.4Thus the
promise of baptism remains in some sort, at least to infants; the promise of
bread and the cup has been destroyed and made subservient to greed, faith
becoming a work and the testament a sacrifice; while the promise of penance has
fallen prey to the most oppressive despotism of all and serves to establish a
more than temporal rule.
4.5Not content
with these things, this
4.6Now let us see
what they have put in the place of the promise and the faith which they have
blotted out and overthrown. Three parts have they made of penance,
¡X?contrition, confession, and satisfaction; yet so as to destroy whatever of
good there might be in any of them and to establish here also their
covetousness and tyranny.
4.7In the first
place, they teach that contrition precedes faith in the promise; they hold it,
much too cheap,making it not a work of faith, but a merit; no, they do not
mention it at all. So deep are they sunk in works and in those instances of
Scripture that show how many obtained grace by reason of their contrition and
humility of heart; but they take no account of the faith which wrought such
contrition and sorrow of heart, as it is written of the men of Nineveh in Jonah
3:5, "And the men of Nineveh believed in God: and they proclaimed a
fast," etc. Others, again, more bold and wicked, have invented a so-called
"attrition," which is, converted into contrition by virtue of the
power of the keys, of which they know nothing. This attrition they grant to the
wicked and unbelieving and thus abolish contrition altogether. O the intolerable
wrath of God, that such things should be taught in the
-544-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
¡X yes, we go on to our destruction. A
contrite heart is a precious thing, but it is found only where there is a
lively faith in the promises and the threats of God. Such faith, intent on the
immutable truth of God, startles and terrifies the conscience and thus renders
it contrite, and afterwards, when it is contrite, raises it up, consoles and
preserves it; so that the truth of God's threatening is the cause of
contrition, and the truth of His, promise the cause of consolation, if it be
believed. By such faith a man merits the forgiveness of sins. Therefore faith
should be taught and aroused before all else; and when faith is obtained,
contrition and consolation will follow inevitably and of themselves.
4.8Therefore,
although there is something of truth in their teaching that contrition is to be
attained by what they call the recollection and contemplation of sins, yet
their teaching is perilous and perverse so long as they do not teach first of
all the beginning and cause of contrition, ¡X?the immutable truth of God's
threatening and promise, to the awakening of faith,¡X?so that men may learn to
pay more heed to the truth of God, whereby they are cast down and lifted up,
than to the multitude of their sins, which will rather irritate and increase the
sinful desires than lead to contrition, if they be regarded apart from the
truth of God. I will say nothing now of the intolerable burden they have bound
upon us with their demand that we should frame a contrition for every sin. That
is impossible; we can know only the smaller part of our sins, and even our good
works are found to be sins, according to Psalm 143:2, "Enter not into
judgement with your servant; for in your sight shall noman living be
justified." It is enough to lament the sins which at the present moment
distress our conscience, as well as those which we can readily call to mind.
Whoever is in this frame of mind is without doubt ready to grieve and fear for
all his sins, and will do so whenever they are brought to his knowledge in the
future.
4.9Beware, then,
of putting your trust, in your own contrition and of ascribing the forgiveness
of sins to your own sorrow. God does not have respect to you because of that,
but because of the faith by which you have believed His threatenings and
promises, and which wrought such sorrow within you. Thus we owe whatever of
good there may be in our penance, not to our scrupulous enumeration of sins,
but to the truth of God and to our faith. All other things are the works and
fruits of this, which follow of their own accord, and do not make a man good,
but are done by a man already made good through faith in the truth of God. Even
so, "a smoke goeth up in His wrath, because He is angry and troubleth the
mountains and kindleth them," as it is said in Psalm 18:8. First comes the
terror of His threatening, which burns; up the wicked, then faith, accepting
this, sends up the cloud of contrition, etc.
4.10Contrition,
however, is less exposed to tyranny and gain than wholly given over to
wickedness and pestilent teaching. But confession and satisfaction have become
the chief workshop of greed and violence.
4.11Let us first
take up confession.
-545-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4.12There is no
doubt that confession is necessary and commanded of God. Thus we read in
Matthew (Matthew 3:6) "They were baptised of John in
4.13Of private confession,
which is now observed, I am hearty in favor, even though, it cannot be proved
from the Scriptures; it is useful and necessary, nor would I have it abolished
¡X?no, I rejoice that it exists in the Church of Christ, for it is a cure
without an equal for distressed consciences. For when we have laid bare our
conscience to our brother and privately made known to him the evil that lurked
within, we receive from our brother's lips the word of comfort spoken by God
Himself; and, if we accept it in faith, we find peace in the mercy of God
speaking to us through our brother. This alone do I abominate, ¡X?that this
confession has been subjected to the despotism and extortion of the pontiffs.
They reserve to themselves, even hidden sins, and command that they be made
known to confessors named by them, only to trouble the consciences of men. They
merely play the pontiff, while they utterly despise the true duties of
pontiffs, which are to preach the Gospel and to care for the poor. yes, the
godless despots leave the great sins to the plain priests, and reserve to
themselves those sins only which are of less consequence, such as those
ridiculous and fictitious things in the bull Coenadoinini. no, to make the
wickedness of their error the more apparent, they not only do not reserve, but
actually teach and approve, the sins, against the service of God,against faith
and the chief commandments; such as their running on pilgrimages, the perverse
worship of the saints, the lying saints'?legends, the various forms of trust in
works and ceremonies, and the practicing of them, by all of which faith in God
is extinguished and idolatry encouraged, as we see in our day. We have the same
kind of priests today as Jereboam ordained of old in Dan and Beersheba,(1 Kings
12:26 ff.) ministers of the golden calves, men who are ignorant of the law of
God, of faith and of whatever pertains to the feeding of Christ's sheep, and
who inculcate in the people nothing but their own inventions with terror and
violence.
4.14Although my
advice is that we bear this outrage of reserved cases, even as Christ bids us
bear all the tyranny of men, and teaches us that we must obey these
extortioners; nevertheless I deny that they have the right to make such
reservations, nor do I believe
-546-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
they can bring one
dot of an I or cross of a T of proof that they have it. But I am going to prove
the contrary. In the first place, Christ, speaking in Matthew 18:15 of open
sins, says that if our brother shall hear us when we rebuke him, we have saved
the soul of our brother, and that he is to be brought before the Church only if
he refuse to hear us; so that his sin may be corrected among brethren. How much
more will it be true of hidden sins, that they are forgiven if one brother
freely makes confession to another? So that it is not necessary to tell it to
the Church, that is, as these babblers interpret it, the prelate or priest. We
have another proof of this in Christ's words in the same chapter:
"Whatsoever you shall bind on earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and
whatsoever you shall loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven." (Matthew
18:18) For this is said to each and every Christian. Again, He says in the same
place: "Again I say to you, that if two of you shall consent upon earth,
concerning anything whatsoever that they shall ask, it shall be done to them by
my Father who is in heaven." ( Matthew 18:19) Now, the brother who lays
his hidden sins before his brother and craves pardon, certainly consents with
his brother upon earth in the truth, which is Christ. Of which Christ says yet
more clearly, confirming His preceding words: "Verily I say to you, where
two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of
them." (Matthew18:20)
4.15Hence. I have
no doubt but that every one is absolved from his hidden sins when he has made
confession, either of his own accord or after being rebuked, has sought pardon
and amended his ways, privately before any brother, however much the violence
of the pontiffs may rage against it; for Christ has given to every one of His
believers the power to absolve even open sins. Add yet this little point: If
any reservation of hidden. sins were valid, so that one could not be saved unless
they were forgiven, then a man's salvation would be prevented most of all by
those aforementioned good works and idolatries, which are nowadays taught by
the popes. But if these most grievous sins do not prevent one's salvation, how
foolish it is to reserve those lighter sins! Verily, it is the foolishness and
blindness of the pastors that produce these monstrous things in the Church.
Therefore I would admonish these princes of
4.16To these evils
they have added the " circumstances," and also the mothers,
daughters, sisters, brothers-and sisters-in-law, branches and fruits of sins;
since, forsooth, astute and idle men have worked out a kind of family tree of
relationships and affinities even among sins
-547-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
so prolific is
wickedness coupled with ignorance. For this conceit, whatever rogue be its
author, has like many another become a public law. Thus do the shepherds keep
watch over the Church of Christ; whatever new work or superstition those stupid
devotees may have dreamed of, they immediately drag to the light of day, deck
out with indulgences and safeguard with bulls; so far are they from suppressing
it and preserving to God's people the true faith and liberty. For what has our
liberty to do with the tyranny of
4.17My advice
would be to ignore all circumstances utterly. With Christians there is only one
circumstance, ¡X?that a brother has sinned. For there is no person to be
compared with a Christian brother. And the observance of places, times, days,
persons, and all other superstitious moonshine, only magnifies the things that
are nothing, to the injury of those which are everything; as if aught could be
greater or of more importance than the glory of Christian brotherhood! Thus
they bind us to places, days and persons, that the name of brother may be
lightly esteemed, and we may serve in bondage instead of being free ¡X?we to
whom all days, places, persons, and all external things are one and the same.
4.18How unworthily
they have dealt with satisfaction, I have abundantly shown in the controversies
concerning indulgences. They have grossly abused it, to the ruin of Christians
in body and soul. To begin with, they taught it in such a manner that the
people never learned what satisfaction really is, namely, the renewal of a
man's life. Then, they so continually harp on it and emphasize its necessity,
that they leave no room for faith in Christ. With these scruples they torture
poor consciences to death, and one runs to Rome, one to this place, another to
that, this one to Chartreuse, that one to some other place, one scourges
himself with rods, another ruins his body with fasts and vigils, and all cry
with the same mad zeal, "Lo here is Christ! lo there!" (Luke
4.19Some have gone
even farther and have constructed those instruments for driving souls to
despair, ¡X?their decrees that the penitent must rehearse all sins anew for
which he neglected to make the imposed satisfaction. yes, what would not they
venture to do, who were born for the sole purpose of carrying all things into a
tenfold captivity? Moreover, how many are
-548-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
possessed with the
notion that they are in a saved state and are making satisfaction for their
sins, if they but mumble over, word for word, the prayers the priest has
imposed, even though they give never a thought meanwhile to amending their
life! They believe that their life is changed in the one moment of contrition
and confession, and it remains only to make satisfaction for their past sins.
How should they know better, when they are not taught otherwise? No thought is
given here to the mortifying of the flesh, no value is attached to the example
of Christ, Who absolved the woman taken in adultery and said to her, "Go,
and sin no more!" (John 8:11) thereby laying upon her the cross ¡X?the
mortifying of her flesh. This perverse error is greatly encouraged by our absolving
sinners before the satisfaction has been completed, so that they are more
concerned about completing the satisfaction which lies before them, than they
are about contrition, which they suppose to be past and over when they have
made confession. Absolution ought rather to follow on the completion of
satisfaction, as it did in the ancient Church, with the result that, after
completing the work, penitents gave themselves with greater diligence to faith
and the living of a new life.
4.20But this must
suffice in repetition of what I have more fully said on indulgences, and in
general this must suffice for the present concerning the three sacraments,
which have been treated, and yet not treated, in so many harmful books,
theological as well as juristic. It remains to attempt some discussion of the
other sacraments also, lest I seem to have rejected them without cause.
CONFIRMATION
5.1 I wonder what
could have possessed them to make a sacrament of confirmation out of the laying
on of hands, (Mark 16:18; Acts 6:6, Acts 8:17, Acts 19:6) which Christ employed
when He blessed young children, (Mark 10:16) and the apostles when they
imparted the Holy Spirit, ordained elders and cured the sick, as the Apostle
writes to Timothy, "Lay hands suddenly on no man." (1 Timothy 5:22)
Why have they not also turned the sacrament of the bread into confirmation? For
it is written in Acts
5.2I do not say
this because I condemn the seven sacraments, but because I deny that they can
be proved from the Scriptures. Would to God we had in the Church such a laying
on of hands as there was in apostolic times, whether we called it confirmation
or healing! But there is nothing left of it now but what we ourselves have
invented to adorn the office of the bishops, that they may have at least
something to do in the Church. For after they relinquished to their inferiors
those arduous sacraments together with the Word, as being too common for
themselves, ¡X?since, forsooth, whatever the divine Majesty has instituted
-549-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
has to be despised
of men ¡X? it was no more than right that we should discover something easy and
not too burdensome for such delicate and great heroes to do, and should by no
means entrust it to the lower clergy as something common ¡X?for whatever human
wisdom has decreed has to be held in honor among men! Therefore, as are the
priests, so let their ministry and duty be. For a bishop who does not preach
the Gospel or care for souls, what is he but an idol in the world, having but
the name and appearance of a bishop? (1 Corinthians 8:4) But we seek, instead
of this, sacraments that have been divinely instituted, among which we see no
reason for numbering confirmation. For, in order that there be a sacrament,
there is required above all things a word of divine promise, whereby faith, may
be trained. But we read nowhere that hrist ever gave a promise concerning
confirmation, although He laid hands on many and included the laying on of
hands among the signs in Mark 16:18 "They shall lay their hands on the
sick, and they shall recover." Yet no one referred this to a sacrament,
nor can this be done.
5.3Hence it is
sufficient to regard confirmation as a certain churchly rite or sacramental
ceremony, similar to other ceremonies, such as the blessing of holy water and
the like. For if every other creature is sanctified by the word and by prayer,
(1 Timothy 4:4 f.) why should not much rather man be sanctified by the same
means? Still, these things cannot be called sacraments of faith, because there
is no divine promise connected with them, neither do they save; but sacraments
do save those who believe the divine promise.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MARRIAGE
6.1Not only is
marriage regarded as a sacrament without the least warrant of Scripture, but
the very traditions which extol it as a sacrament have turned it into a farce.
Let me explain.
6.2We said that
there is in every sacrament a word of divine promise, to be believed by whoever
receives the sign, and that the sign alone cannot be a sacrament. Now we read
nowhere that the man who marries a wife receives any grace of God. no, there is
not even a divinely instituted sign in marriage, or nowhere do we read that
marriage was instituted by God to be a sign of anything. To be sure, whatever
takes place in a visible manner may be regarded as a type or figure of
something invisible; but types and figures are not sacraments in the sense in
which we use this term.
6.3Furthermore,
since marriage existed from the beginning of the world and is still found among
unbelievers, it cannot possibly be called a sacrament of the New Law and the
exclusive possession of the Church. The marriages of the ancients were no less
sacred than are ours, nor are those of unbelievers less true marriages than
those of believers, and yet they are not regarded, as sacraments. Besides,
there are even among believers married folk who are wicked and worse than any
heathen;
-550-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
why should
marriage be called a sacrament in their case and not among the heathen? Or are
we going to rant so foolishly of baptism and the Church as to hold that
marriage is a sacrament only in the Church, just as some make the mad claim
that temporal power exists only in the Church? That is childish and foolish
talk, by which we expose our ignorance and our arrogance to the ridicule of
unbelievers.
6.4 But they will
say: The Apostle writes in Ephesians 5:31, "They shall be two in one
flesh. This is a great sacrament." Surely you are not going to contradict
so plain a statement of the Apostle! I reply: This argument, like the others,
betrays great shallowness and a negligent and thoughtless reading of Scripture.
Nowhere in Holy Scripture is this word sacrament employed in the meaning to
which we are accustomed; it has an entirely different meaning. For wherever it
occurs it signifies not the sign of a sacred thing, but a sacred, secret,
hidden thing. Thus Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 4:1, "Let a man so account
of us as the ministers of Christ, and dispensers of the mysteries ¡X?i.e.,
sacraments ¡X?of God." Where we have the word sacrament the Greek text
reads mystery, which word our version sometimes translates and sometimes
retains in its Greek form. Thus our verse reads in the Greek: "They Shall
be two in one flesh; this is a great mystery." ( Ephesians
6.5 Thus Christ
Himself is called a sacrament in 1 Timothy
6.6Therefore,
sacrament, or mystery, in Paul's writings, is that wisdom of the Spirit, hidden
in a mystery, as he says in
-551-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Corinthians 2,
which is Christ,Who is for this very reason not known to the princes of this
world, wherefore they also crucified Him, and Who still is to them foolishness,
an offense, a stone of stumbling, and a sign which is spoken against. (1
Corinthians 1:23; Romans 9:33; Luke 2:34; 1 Corinthians
6.7Christ and the
Church are, therefore, a mystery, that is, a great and secret thing, which it
was possible and proper to represent by marriage as by a certain outward
allegory, but that was no reason for their calling marriage a sacrament. The
heavens are a type of the apostles, as Psalm 19:1 declares; the sun is a type
of Christ; the waters, of the peoples; but that does not make those things
sacraments, for in every case there are lacking both the divine institution and
the divine promise, which constitute a sacrament. Hence Paul, in Ephesians 5,
following his own mind, applies to Christ these words in Genesis 2 about
marriage, or else, following the general view, he teaches that the spiritual
marriage of Christ is also contained therein, saying: "As Christ
cherisheth the Church: because we are members, of his body, of his flesh and of
his bones. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall
cleave to his wife, and they shall be two in one flesh. This is a great
sacrament; I speak in Christ and in the Church." You see, he would have the
whole passage apply to Christ, and is at pains to admonish the reader to find
the sacrament in Christ and the Church, and not in marriage.
6.8[Note]
-552-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6.9Therefore we
grant that marriage is a type of Christ and the Church, and a sacrament, yet
not divinely instituted but invented by men in the Church, carried away by
their ignorance both of the word and of the thing. Which ignorance, since it
does not conflict with the faith, is to be charitably borne with, just as many
other practices of human weakness and ignorance are borne with in the Church,
so long as they do not conflict with the faith and with the Word of God. But we
are now dealing with the certainty and purity of the faith and the Scriptures;
so that our faith be not exposed to ridicule, when after affirming that a
certain thing is contained in the Sacred Scriptures and in the articles of our
faith, we are refuted and shown that it is not contained therein, and, being
found ignorant of our own affairs, become a stumbling block to our opponents
and to the weak; no, that we destroy not the authority of the Holy Scriptures.
For those things which have been delivered to us by God in the Sacred
Scriptures must be sharply distinguished from those that have been invented by
men in the Church, it matters not how eminent they be for saintliness and
scholarship.
6.10Thus far
concerning marriage itself.
6.11But what shall
we say of the wicked laws of men by which this divinely ordained manner of life
is ensnared and tossed back and forth? Good God! it is dreadful, to contemplate
the audacity of the Roman despots, who want only tear marriages asunder and
again force them together. I ask you, is mankind given over to the wantonness
of these men, for them to mock and in every way abuse and make of them whatever
they please, for filthy lucre's sake?
6.12There is
circulating far and wide and enjoying a great reputation, a book whose contents
have been poured together out of the cesspool of all human traditions, and
whose title is, "The Angelic Sum," though it ought rather to be
"The More than Devilish Sum." Among endless other monstrosities,
which are supposed to instruct the confessors, while they most mischievously
confuse them, there are enumerated in this book eighteen hindrances to
marriage. you will examine these with the just and unprejudiced eye of faith,
you will see that they belong to those things
-553-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
which the Apostle
foretold: "There shall be those that give heed to spirits of devils,
speaking lies in hypocrisy, forbidding to marry." ( 1 Timothy 4:1 ff.)
What is forbidding to marry if it is not this ¡X? to invent all those hindrances
and set those snares, in order to prevent men from marrying or, if they be
married, to annul their marriage? Who gave this power to men? Granted that they
were holy men and impelled by godly zeal, why should another's holiness disturb
my liberty? why should another's zeal take me captive? Let whoever will, be a
saint and a zealot, and to his heart's content; only let him not bring harm
upon another, and let him not rob me of my liberty!
6.13Yet I am glad
that those shameful laws have at length attained to their full measure of
glory, which is this: the Romanists of our day have through them become
merchants. What is it they sell? The shame of men and women ¡X?merchandise,
forsooth, most worthy of such merchants grown altogether filthy and obscene
through greed and godlessness. For there is nowadays no hindrance that may not
be legalised upon the intercession of mammon, so that these laws of men seem to
have sprung into existence for the sole purpose of serving those grasping and
robbing Nimrods as snares for taking money and as nets for catching souls, and
in order that that "abomination" might stand "in the holy
place," (Matthew 24:15) the Church of God, and openly sell to men the
shame of either sex, or as the Scriptures say, "shame and nakedness,"
(Leviticus 18:6) of which they had previously robbed them by means of their
laws. O worthy trade for our pontiffs to ply, instead of the ministry of the
Gospel, which in their greed and pride they despise, being delivered up to a
reprobate sense with utter shame and infamy. (Romans 1:28)
6.14But what shall
I say or do? If I enter into details, the treatise will grow to inordinate
length, for everything is in such dire confusion one does not know where to
begin, whither to go on, or where to leave off. I know that no state is well
governed by means of laws. If the magistrate be wise, he will rule more
prosperously by natural bent than by laws. If he be not wise, he will but
further the evil by means of laws; for he will not know what use to make of the
laws nor how to adapt them to the individual case. More stress ought,
therefore, to be laid, in civil affairs, on putting good and wise men in office
than on making laws; for such men will themselves be the very best laws, and
will judge every variety of case with lively justice. And if there be knowledge
of the divine law combined with natural wisdom, then written laws will be
entirely superfluous and harmful. Above all, love needs no laws whatever.
6.15Nevertheless I
will say and do what I can. I admonish and pray all priests and brethren, when
they encounter any hindrance from which the pope can grant dispensation and
which is not expressly contained in the Scriptures, by all means to confirm any
marriage that may have been contracted in any way contrary to the ecclesiastical
or pontifical laws.
-554-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But let them arm
themselves with the divine law, which says, "What God has joined together,
let no man put asunder." (Matthew 19:6) For the joining together of a man
and a woman is of divine law and is binding, however it may conflict with the
laws of men; the laws of men must give way before it without hesitation. For if
a man leaves father and mother and cleaves to his wife, how much more will he
tread underfoot the silly and wicked laws of men, in order to cleave to his
wife! And if pope, bishop or official annul any marriage because it was
contracted contrary to the laws of men, he is antichrist, he does violence to
nature, and is guilty of lese-majesty toward God, because this word stands,
¡X?"What God has joined together, let no man put asunder." (Matthew
19:6)
6.16Besides this,
no man had the right to frame such laws, and Christ has granted to Christians a
liberty which is above all laws of men, especially where a law of God conflicts
with them. Thus it is said in Mark 2, "The Son of man is lord also of the
sabbath," and, "The sabbath was made for man, not man for the
sabbath." (Mark
6.17That nonsense
about conpaternities, conmaternities, confraternities, consororities, and
confilieties must therefore be altogether abolished, when a marriage has been
contracted. What was it but the superstition of men that invented those
spiritual relationships? If one may not marry the person one has baptised or
stood sponsor for, what right has any Christian to marry any other Christian?
Is the relationship that grows out of the external rite,
-555-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
or the sign, of
the sacrament more intimate that that which grows out of the blessing of the
sacrament itself? Is not a Christian man brother to a Christian woman, and is
not she his sister? Is not a baptised man the spiritual brother of a baptised
woman? How foolish we are! If a man instruct his wife in the Gospel and in
faith in Christ. and thus become truly her father in Christ, would it not be
right for her to remain his wife? Would not Paul have had the right to marry a
maiden out of the Corinthian congregation, of whom he boasts that he has
begotten them all in Christ? (1 Corinthians 4:15) See, thus has Christian liberty
been suppressed through the blindness of human superstition.
6.18There is even
less in the legal relationship, and yet they have set it above the divine right
of marriage. Nor would I recognize that hindrance which they term
"disparity of religion," and which forbids one to marry any
unbaptised person, even on condition that she become converted to the faith.
Who made this prohibition? God or man? Who gave to men the power to prohibit
such a marriage? The spirits, forsooth, that speak lies in hypocrisy, as Paul
says. (1 Timothy 4:1) Of them it must be said: "The wicked have told me
fables; but not as your law." (Psalm 119:85) The heathen Patricius married
the Christian Monica, the mother of
6.19Another
hindrance is that which they call "the hindrance of a tie," ¡X when a
man is bound by being befaithfulnessed to another woman. Here they decide that,
if he has had carnal knowledge of the second, the betrothal with the first
becomes null and void. This I do not understand at all I hold that he who has
befaithfulnessed himself to one woman belongs no longer to himself, and because
of this fact, by the prohibition of the divine law, he belongs to the first,
though he has not known her, even if he has known the second. For it was not in
his power to give the latter what was no longer his own; he deceived her and
actually committed adultery. But they regard the matter differently because
they pay more heed to the carnal union than to the divine command, according to
which the man, having pledged his faithfulness to the first, is bound to keep
it for ever. For whoever would give anything must give of that which is his
own. And God forbids a man to overreach or circumvent his brother in any
matter. (1 Thessalonians 4:6) This prohibition must be kept, over and above all
the traditions of all men. Therefore, the man in the above case cannot with a
good conscience live in marriage with the second woman, and this hindrance
should be completely overthrown. For if a monastic vow make a man to be no
longer his own, why does not a promise, of betrothal given and received
-556-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
do the same?
¡X?since this is one of the precepts and fruits of the Spirit (Galatians
6.20The
"hindrance of ordination" also is a lying invention of men,
especially since they rant that even a contracted marriage is annulled by it.
Thus they constantly exalt their traditions above the commands of God. I do not
indeed sit in judgment on the present state of the priestly order, but I
observe that Paul charges a bishop to be the husband of one wife; (1 Timothy
3:2) hence no marriage of deacon, priest, bishop or any other order can be
annulled, ¡X?although it is true that Paul knew nothing of this species of
priests, and of the orders that we have today. Perish those cursed human
traditions, which have crept into the Church only to multiply perils, sins and
evils! There exists, therefore, between a priest and his wife a true and
indissoluble marriage, approved by the divine commandment. But what if wicked
men in sheer despotism prohibit or annul it? So be it! Let it be wrong among
men; it is nevertheless right before God, Whose command has to take precedence
if it conficts with the commands of men.
6.21An equally
lying invention is that "hindrance of public decency," by which
contracted marriages are annulled. I am incensed at that barefaced wickedness
which is so ready to put asunder what God has joined together that one may well
scent antichrist in it, for it opposes all that Christ has done and taught.
What earthly reason is there for holding that no relative of a deceased
husband, even to the fourth degree, may marry the latter's widow? That is not a
judgment of public decency, but ignorance of public decency. Why was not this
judgment of public decency found among the people of
-557-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Still, concerning
the last, I am to this. day so far from certain that I do not know at what age
such a vow is to be regarded as binding; as I also said above in discussing the
sacrament of baptism. Thus you may learn, from this one question of marriage,
how wretchedly and desperately all the activities of the Church have been
confused, hindered, ensnared, and subjected to danger through the pestilent,
ignorant and wicked traditions of men, so that there is no hope of betterment
unless, we abolish at one stroke all the laws of all men, restore the Gospel of
liberty, and by it judge and rule all things. Amen.
6.22We have to
speak, then, of sexual impotence, that we may the more readily advise the souls
that are in peril. But first I wish to state that what I have said of
hindrances is intended to apply after a marriage has been contracted; no
marriage should be annulled by any such hindrance. But as to marriages which
are to be contracted, I would briefly repeat what I said above. Under the
stress of youthful passion or of any other necessity for which the pope grants
dispensation, any brother may grant a dispensation to another or even to
himself, and following that counsel snatch his wife out of the power of the
tyrannical laws as best he can. For with what right am I deprived of my liberty
by another's superstition and ignorance? If the pope grants a dispensation, for
money, why should not I, for my soul's salvation, grant a dispensation to
myself or to my brother? Does the pope set up laws? Let him set them up for
himself, and keep hands off my liberty; else I will take it by stealth!
6.23 Now let us
discuss the matter of impotence.
6.24Take the
following case. A woman, wed to an impotent man, is unable to prove her
husband's impotence before court, or perhaps she is unwilling to do so with the
mass of evidence and all the notoriety which the law demands; yet she is
desirous of having children or is unable to remain continent. Now suppose I had
counseled her to demand a divorce from her husband in order to marry another,
satisfied that her own and her husband's conscience and their experience were
ample testimony of his impotence; but the husband refused his consent to this.
Then suppose I should further counsel her, with the consent of the man (who is
not really her husband, but merely a dweller under the same roof with her), to
give herself to another, say her husband's brother, but to keep this marriage
secret and to ascribe the children to the so-called putative father. The
question is: Is such a woman in a saved state? I answer, Certainly. Because in
this case the error and ignorance of the man's impotence are a hindrance to the
marriage; the tyranny of the laws permits no divorce; the woman is free through
the divine law, and cannot be compelled to remain, continent. Therefore the man
ought to yield her this right, and let another man have her as wife whom he has
only in outward appearance.
6.25Moreover, if
the man will not give his consent, or agree to this. division, ¡X rather than
allow the woman to burn or to commit adultery, I should counsel her to contract
a marriage with another and flee to distant parts unknown. What other counsel
could be given to one constantly in danger from lust? Now I know that some are
troubled by the fact that then the children of this secret marriage are not the
rightful heirs of their putative father.
-558-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But if it was done
with the consent of the husband, then the children will be the rightful heirs.
If, however, it was done without his knowledge or against his will, then let
unbiased Christian reason, no, let Christian charity, decide which of the two
has done the greater injury to the other. The wife alienates the inheritance,
but the husband has deceived his wife and is completely defrauding her of her
body and her life. Is not the sin of the man who wastes his wife's body and
life a greater sin than that of the woman who merely alienates the temporal
goods of her husband? Let him, therefore, agree to a divorce, or else be
satisfied with strange heirs; for by his own fault he deceived the innocence of
a maiden and defrauded her of the proper use of her body, besides giving her a
wellnigh irresistible opportunity to commit adultery. Let both be weighed in
the same scales. Certainly, by every right, deceit should fall back on the
deceiver, and whoever has done an injury must make it good. What is the
difference between such a husband and the man who holds another's wife captive
together with her husband? Is not such a tyrant compelled to support wife and
children and husband, or else to set them free? Why should not the same hold
here? Therefore I maintain that the man should be compelled either to submit to
a divorce or to support the other man's child as his heir. Doubtless this would
be the judgment of charity. In that case, the impotent man, who is not really
the husband, should support the heirs of his wife in the same spirit in which
he would at great cost wait on his wife if she fell sick or suffered some other
ill; for it is by his fault and not by his wife's that she suffers this ill.
This have I set forth to the best of my ability, for the strengthening of
anxious consciences, being desirous to bring my afflicted brethren in this
captivity what little comfort I can.
6.26As to divorce,
it is still a moot question whether it be allowable. For my part I so greatly
detest divorce that I should prefer bigamy to it, but whether it be allowable,
I do not venture to decide. Christ Himself, the Chief Pastor, says in Matthew
5:32, "Whosoever shall put away his wife, Matthew excepting for the cause
of fornication, maketh her commit adultery; and he that shall marry her that is
put away, committeth adultery." Christ, then, permits divorce, but for the
cause of fornication only. The pope must, therefore, be in error whenever he
grants a divorce for any other cause, and no one should feel safe who has
obtained a dispensation by this temerity (not authority) of the pope. Yet it is
a still greater wonder to me, why they compel a man to remain, unmarried after
bring separated from his wife, and why they will not permit him to remarry. For
if Christ pennies divorce for the cause, of fornication and compels no one to
remain unmarried, and if Paul would rather have one marry than burn, (1
Corinthians 7:9) then He certainly seems to permit a man to marry another woman
in the stead of the one who has been put away. Would to God this matter were
thoroughly threshed out and derided, so that counsel might be given in the
infinite perils of those who, without any fault of their own, are nowadays
compelled to remain unmarried, that is, of those whose wives or husbands have
run away and deserted them, to come back perhaps after ten years, perhaps
never. This matter troubles and distresses me;
-559-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I meet cases of it
every day, whether it happen by the special malice of Satan or because of our
neglect of the word of God.
6.27 I, indeed,
who, alone against all, can decide nothing in this matter, would yet greatly
desire at least the passage in 1 Corinthians 7 to be applied here, ¡X?"But if
the unbeliever depart, let him depart. For a brother or sister is not under
servitude in such cases." Here the Apostle gives permission to put away
the unbeliever who departs and to set the believing spouse free to marry again.
Why should not the same hold true when a believer ¡X?that is, a believer in
name, but in truth as much an unbeliever as the one Paul speaks of ¡X ?deserts
his wife, especially if he never intends to return? I certainly can see no
difference between the two. But I believe that if in the Apostle's day an
unbelieving deserter had returned and had become a believer or had promised to
live again with his believing wife, he would not have been taken back, but he
too would have been given the right to marry again. Nevertheless, in these matters
I decide nothing, as I have said, although there is nothing I would rather see
decided, since nothing at present more grievously perplexes me and many more
with me. I would have nothing decided here on the mere authority of the pope or
the bishops; but if two learned and pious men agreed in the name of Christ
(Matthew 18:19 f.) and published their opinion in the spirit of Christ, I
should prefer their judgment even to such councils as are nowadays assembled,
famous only for numbers and authority, not for scholarship and saintliness.
Herewith I hang up my harp, until another and a better man shall take up this
matter with me. (Psalm 137:2)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDINATION
7.1Of this
sacrament the
-560-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and in this Word
the Church, being a creature, has nothing to decree, ordain or make, but only
to be decreed, ordained and made. For who begets his own parent? Who first
brings forth his own maker? This one thing indeed the Church can do ¡X?it can
distinguish the Word of God from the words of men; as Augustine confesses that
he believed the Gospel, moved thereto by the authority of the Church, which
proclaimed, this is the Gospel.
7.3Not that the
Church is, therefore, above the Gospel; if that were true, she would also be
above God, in Whom we believe because she proclaims that He is God. But, as
Augustine elsewhere says, the truth itself lays hold on the soul and thus
renders it able to judge most certainly of all things; but the truth it cannot
judge, but is forced to say with unerring certainty that it is the truth. For
example, our reason declares with unerring certainty that three and seven are
ten, and yet it cannot give a reason why this is true, although it cannot deny
that it is true; it is taken captive by the truth and does not so much judge
the truth as it is judged by the truth. Thus it is also with the mind of the
Church, when under the enlightenment of the Spirit she judges and approves
doctrines; she is unable to prove it, and yet is most certain of having it. (1
Corinthians 2:16) For as in philosophy no one judges general conceptions, but
all are judged by them, so it is in the Church with the mind of the Spirit,
that judges all things and is judged by none, as the Apostle says. (1
Corinthians 2:15) But of this another time.
7.3Let this then
stand fast, ¡X?the Church can give no promises of grace; that is the work of God
alone. Therefore she cannot institute a sacrament. But even if she could, it
yet would not follow that ordination is a sacrament. For who knows which is the
Church that has the Spirit? since when such decisions are made there are usually
only a few bishops or scholars present; it is possible that these may not be
really of the Church, and that all may err, as councils have repeatedly erred,
particularly the Council of Constance, which fell into the most wicked error of
all. Only that which has the approval of the Church universal, and not of the
Roman church alone, rests on a trustworthy foundation. I therefore admit that
ordination is a certain churchly rite, on a par with many others introduced by
the Church Fathers, such as the blessing of vases, houses, vestments, water,
salt, candles, herbs, wine, and the like. No one calls any of these a
sacrament, nor is there in them any promise. In the same manner, to anoint a
man's hands with oil, or to shave his head, and the like, is not to administer
a sacrament, since there is no promise given to those things; he is simply
prepared, like a vessel or an instrument, for a certain work.
7.4But you will
reply: "What do you say to Dionysius, who in his Ecclesiastical Hierarchy
enumerates six sacraments, among which he also includes orders?" I answer:
I am well aware that this is the one writer of antiquity who is cited in
support of the seven sacraments, although he omits marriage and thus has only
six.
-561-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We read simply
nothing about these "sacraments" in the other Fathers, nor do they
ever refer to them as sacraments; for the invention of sacraments is of recent
date. Indeed, to speak more boldly, the setting so great store by this
Dionysius, whoever he may have been, greatly displeases me, for there is scarce
a line of sound scholarship in him. I ask you, by what authority and with what
reasons does he establish his assortment of arguments about the angels, in his
Celestial Hierarchy? ¡X a book over which many curious and superstitious spirits
have cudgeled their brains. If one were to read and judge fairly, is not all
Shaken out of his sleeve and very like a dream? But in his Mystic Theology,
which certain most ignorant theologians greatly puff, he is downright
dangerous, being more of a Platonist than a Christian; so that, if I had my
way, no believing mind would give the least attention to these books. So far
from learning Christ in them, you will lose even what you know of Him. I know
whereof I speak. Let us rather hear Paul, that we may learn Jesus Christ and
Him crucified. (1 Corinthians 2:2) He is the way, the life and the truth; He is
the ladder by which we come to the Father, as He said: "No man cometh to
the Father but by me." (John 14:6)
7.5And in the
Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, what does this Dionysius do but describe certain
churchly rites and play round them with his allegories without proving them?
just as among us the author of the book entitled Rationale divinorum. Such
allegorical studies are the work of idle men. do you think I should find it
difficult to play with allegories round anything in creation? Did not
Bonaventure by allegory draw the liberal arts into theology? And Gerson even
converted the smaller Donatus into a mystic theologian. It would not be a
difficult task for me to compose a better hierarchy than that of Dionysius, for
he knew nothing of pope, cardinals and archbishops, and put the bishop at the
top. no, who has so weak a mind as not to be able to launch into allegories? I
would not have a theologian give himself to allegorizing until he has perfected
himself in the grammatical and literal interpretation of the Scriptures;
otherwise his theology will bring him into danger, as Origen discovered.
7.6Therefore a
thing does not need to be a sacrament simply because Dionysius describes it.
Otherwise, why not also make a sacrament of the processions, which he describes
in his book, and which continue to this day? There will then be as many sacraments
as there have been rites and ceremonies multiplied in the Church. Standing on
so unsteady a foundation, they have nevertheless invented
"characters" which they attribute to this sacrament of theirs and
which are indelibly impressed on those who are ordained. from this do such
ideas come?
-562-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By what authority,
with what reasons, are they established? We do not object to their being free
to invent, say and give out whatever they please; but we also insist on our
liberty and demand that they shall not arrogate to themselves the right to turn
their ideas into articles of faith, as they have hitherto presumed to do. It is
enough that we accommodate ourselves to their rites and ceremonies for the sake
of peace; but we refuse to be bound by such things as though they were
necessary to salvation, when they are not. Let them put by their despotic
demands, and we shall yield free obedience to their opinions, and thus live at
peace with them. It is a shameful and wicked slavery for a Christian man, who
is free, to be subject to any but heavenly and divine traditions.
7.7We come now to
their strongest argument. It is this: Christ said at the Last Supper: "Do
this in remembrance of me." (1 Corinthians 11:24) Here, they say, Christ
ordained the apostles to the priesthood. From this passage they also concluded,
among other things, that both kinds are to be administered to the priests
alone. In fine, they have drawn out of this passage whatever they pleased, as
men who might arrogate to themselves the free will to prove anything whatever
from any words of Christ, no matter where found. But is that interpreting the
words of God? Pray, answer me! Christ gives us no promise here, but only
commands that this be done in remembrance of Him. Why do they not conclude that
He also ordained priests when He laid upon them the office of the Word and of
baptism, saying, "Go ye into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every
creature, baptising them in the name," etc.? (Mark
7.8But which of
the ancient Fathers claimed that in this passage priests were ordained? from
this comes this novel interpretation? I will tell you. They have sought by this
device to set up a nursery of implacable discord, whereby clerics and laymen
should be separated from each other farther than heaven from earth, to the
incredible injury of the grace of baptism and the confusion of our fellowship
in the Gospel. Here, indeed, are the roots of that detestable tyranny of the
clergy over the laity; trusting in the external anointing by which their hands
are consecrated, in the tonsure and in vestments, they not only exalt
themselves above lay Christians, who are only anointed with the Holy Spirit,
but regard them almost as dogs and unworthy to be included with them in the
Church.
-563-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hence they are
bold to demand, to exact, to threaten, to urge, to oppress, as much as they
please. In short, the sacrament of ordination has been and is a most approved
device for the establishing of all the horrible things that have been wrought
hitherto and will yet be wrought in the Church. Here Christian brotherhood has
perished, here shepherds have been turned into wolves, servants into tyrants,
churchmen into worse than worldlings.
7.9 If they were
forced to grant that as many of us as have been baptised are all priests
without distinction, as indeed we are, and that to them was committed the
ministry only, yet with our consent, they would presently learn that they have
no right to rule over us except in so far as we freely concede it. For thus it
is written in 1 Peter 2:9, "Ye are a chosen generation, a royal
priesthood, and a priestly kingdom." Therefore we are all priests, as many
of us as are Christians.But the priests, as we call them, are ministers chosen
from among us, who do all that they do in our name. And the priesthood is
nothing but a ministry, as we learn from 1 Corinthians 4:1, "Let a man so
account of us as of the ministers of Christ, and the dispensers of the mysteries
of God."
7.10It follows
from this that whoever does not preach the Word, called by the Church to this
very thing, is no priest at all. And further, that the sacrament of ordination
can be nothing else than a certain rite of choosing preachers in the Church.
For thus is a priest defined in Malachi 2:7, "The lips of the priest shall
keep knowledge, and they shall seek the law at his mouth: because he is the
angel of the Lord of hosts" You may be certain, then, that whoever is not
an angel of the Lord of hosts, or whoever is called to anything else than such
angelic service ¡X?if I may so term it ¡X?is never a priest; as Hosea says,
"Because you hast rejected knowledge, I will reject you, that you shall
not do the office of priesthood to me." (Hosea 4:6) They are also called
pastors because they are to pasture, that is, to teach. Therefore, they who are
ordained only to read the canonical hours and to offer masses are indeed
papist, but not Christian, priests, because they not only do not preach, but
are not called to preach; no, it comes to this, that such a priesthood is a
different estate altogether from the office of preaching. Thus they are
hour-priests and mass-priests, that is, a sort of living idol, having the name
of priest, while they are in reality such priests as Jeroboam ordained, in
Bethaven, of the off-scouring of the people, and not of the tribe of Levi. (1
Kings
7.11See, whither
has the glory of the Church departed! The whole earth is filled with priests,
bishops, cardinals and clerics,
-564-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and yet not one of
them preaches by virtue of his office, unless he be called to do so by another
and a different call besides his sacramental ordination. Every one thinks he is
doing full justice to his sacrament by mumbling the vain repetitions of his
prescribed prayers and by celebrating masses; moreover, by never really praying
those hours, or if he does pray them, by praying them for himself, and by
offering his masses as a sacrifice ¡X?which is the height of perversity! ¡X?while
the mass consists in the use of the sacrament. It is clear, therefore, that the
ordination which, as a sacrament, makes clerics of this sort of men, is in
truth nothing but a mere fiction, devised by men who understand nothing about
the Church, the priesthood, the ministry of the Word, or the sacraments. And as
is the sacrament, so are the priests it makes. To such errors and such
blindness has come a still worse captivity; in order to separate themselves
still farther from other Christians, whom they deem profane, they have unmanned
themselves, like the priests of Cybele, and taken upon them the burden of a
pretended celibacy.
7.12It was not
enough for this hypocrisy and error to forbid bigamy, viz., the having of two
wives at the same time, as it was forbidden in the law, and as is the accepted
meaning of the term; but they have called it bigamy if a man married two
virgins, one after the other, or if he married a widow. no, so holly is the
holiness of this most holy sacrament, that no married man can become a priest
as long as his wife lives. And ¡X?here we reach the very summit of holiness
¡X?even, he is prevented from entering the priesthood, who without his knowledge
or by an unfortunate chance married a fallen woman. But if one have defiled a
thousand harlots, or ravished countless matrons and virgins, or even kept
numerous Ganymedes, that would be no hindrance to his becoming bishop or
cardinal or pope. Moreover, the Apostle's word, "the husband of one
wife," (1 Timothy 3:2) must be interpreted to mean, "the prelate of
one church," and this has given rise to the incompatible benefices."
At the same time the pope, that munificent dispenser, may join to one man three,
twenty, one hundred wives ¡X?I should say churches ¡X?if he be bribed with money
or power ¡X?I should say, moved by godly charity and constrained by the care of
the churches.
7.13O pontiffs
worthy of this holy sacrament of ordination! O princes, not of the catholic
churches, but of the synagogues, no, the black dens, of Satan! (Revelation 2:9)
I would cry out with Isaiah: (Isaiah 28:14) "Ye scornful men, who rule
over my people that is in Jerusalem"; and with Amos: (Amos 6:1) "Woe
to you that are wealthy in Sion, and to you that have confidence in the
mountain of Samaria: ye great men, heads of the people, that go in with state
into the house of Israel." O the reproach that such monstrous priests
bring upon the
-565-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where are there
any bishops or priests who know the Gospel, not to speak of preaching it? Why
then do they boast of being priests? Why do they desire to be regarded as
holier and better and mightier than other Christians, who are merely laymen? To
read the hours ¡X?what unlearned men, or, as the Apostle says, what men speaking
with tongues, cannot do that? (1 Corinthians 14:23) But to pray the hours
¡X?that belongs to monks, hermits, and men in private life, all of them laymen.
he duty of the priest is to preach, and if he does not preach he is as much a
priest as a painted man is a man. Does ordaining such babbling priests make one
a bishop? Or blessing churches and bells? Or confirming boys? Certainly not.
Any> deacon or layman could do as much. The ministry of the Word makes the
priest and the bishop.
7.14Therefore my
advice is: Flee, all ye that would live in safety; begone, young men, and do
not enter upon this holy estate, unless you are determined to preach the Gospel,
and are able to believe that you are not made one whit better than the laity
through this sacrament of ordination! For to read the hours is nothing, and to
offer mass is to receive the sacrament. What then is there left to you that
every layman does not have? Tonsure and vestments? A sorry priest, forsooth,
who consists of tonsure and vestment! Or the oil poured on your fingers? But
every Christian is anointed and sanctified with the oil of the Holy Spirit,
both in body and soul, and in ancient times touched the sacrament with his
hands no less than the priests do now. But today our superstition counts it a
great crime if the laity touch either the bare chalice or the corporale; not
even a nun who is a pure virgin would be permitted to wash the palls and sacred
linens of the altar. O God! how the sacrosanct sanctity of this sacrament of
ordination has grown and grown. I anticipate that ere long the laity will not
be permitted to touch the altar except when they offer their money. I can
scarce, contain myself when I contemplate the wicked tyrannies of these
desperate men, who with their farcical and childish fancies mock and overthrow
the liberty and the glory of the Christian religion.
7.15Let every one,
therefore, who knows himself to be a Christian be assured of this, and apply it
to himself, ¡X?that we are all priests, and there is no difference between, us;
that is to say, we have the same power in respect to the Word and all the
sacraments. (Ordination, the Rite of Choosing Preachers) However, no one may
make use of this power except by the consent of the community or by the call of
a superior. For what is the common property of all, no individual may arrogate
to himself, unless he be called. And therefore this sacrament of ordination, if
it have any meaning at all, is nothing else than a certain rite whereby one is
called to the ministry of the Church. Furthermore, the priesthood is property
nothing but the ministry of the Word, mark you, of the Word ¡X?not of the law,
but of the> Gospel. And the diaconate is not the ministry of reading the
Gospel or the Epistle, as is the present practice, but the ministry of
distributing the Church's alms to the poor, so that the priests may be relieved
of the burden of temporal matters and may give themselves more freely to prayer
and the Word.
-566-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For this was the
purpose of the institution of the diaconate, as we read in Acts 6:4. Whoever,
therefore, does not know or preach the Gospel, is not only not a priest or
bishop, but he is a plague of the Church, who under the false title of priest
or bishop ¡X?in sheep's clothing, forsooth ¡X?oppresses the Gospel and plays the
wolf in the Church.
7.16 Therefore,
unless those priests and bishops with whom the Church is now filled work out
their salvation, in some other way, that is, realize that they are not priests
or bishops and bemoan the fact that they bear the name of an office whose
duties they either do not know or cannot fulfill, and thus with prayers and
tears lament their wretched hypocritical life ¡X?unless they do this, they are
truly the people of eternal perdition, and the words of Isaiah are fulfilled in
them: Isaiah 5 "Therefore is my people led away captive, because they had
not knowledge, and their nobles have perished with famine, and their multitude
were dried up with thirst. Therefore has hell enlarged her soul and opened her
mouth without any bounds, and their strong ones, and their people, and their
high and generous ones shall go down into it." What a dreadful word for
our age, in which Christians are sucked down into so deep an abyss!
7.17Since,
therefore, what we call the priesthood is a ministry, so far as we can learn
from the Scriptures, I cannot understand why one who has been made a priest
cannot again become a layman; for the sole difference between him and a layman
is his ministry. But to depose a man from the ministry is so far from
impossible that it is even now the usual penalty imposed upon guilty priests;
they are either suspended for a season or permanently deprived of their office.
For that lying "indelible character" has long since become a
laughing-stock. I admit that the pope imparts this character, but Christ knows
nothing of it; and a priest who is consecrated with it becomes thereby the
life-long servant and captive, not of Christ, but of the pope; as it is in our
day. Moreover, unless I am greatly mistaken, if this sacrament and this lie
fall, the papacy itself with its characters will scarcely survive; our joyous
liberty will be restored to us; we shall realize that we are all equal by every
right, and having cast off the yoke of tyranny, shall know that he who is a
Christian has Christ, and that he who has Christ has all things that are
Christ's and is able to do all things. (Philippians 4:13) Of this I will write
more, and more tellingly, as soon as I perceive that the above has displeased
my friends the papists.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE SACRAMENT OF
EXTREME UNCTION
8.1To the rite of
anointing the sick our theologians have made two additions which are worthy of
them; first, they call it a sacrament, and secondly, they make it the last
sacrament. So that it is now the sacrament of extreme unction, which may be
administered only to such as are at the point of death. Being such subtle
dialecticians, perchance they have done this in order to relate it to the first
unction of baptism
-567-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and the two
succeeding unctions of confirmation and ordination. But here they are able to
cast in my teeth, that in the case of this sacrament there are, on the
authority of James the Apostle, both promise and sign, which, as I have all
along maintained, constitute a sacrament. For does not James say: (James
8.2But I reply: If
ever there was a mad conceit, here is one indeed. I will say nothing of the
fact that many assert with much probability that this Epistle is not by James
the Apostle, nor worthy of an apostolic spirit, although, whoever be its
author, it has come to be esteemed as authoritative. But even if the Apostle
James did write it, I yet should say, no Apostle has the right on his own
authority to institute a sacrament, that is, to give a divine promise with a
sign attached; for this belongs to Christ alone. Thus Paul says that he
received from the Lord the sacrament of the Eucharist, (1 Corinthians
8.3In the first
place, then, if they believe the Apostle's words to be true and binding, by
what right do they change and contradict them? Why do they make an extreme and
a particular kind of unction of that which the Apostle wished to be general?
For he did not desire it to be an extreme unction or administered only to the
dying; but he says quite generally: "If any man be sick" ¡X?not,
"If any man be dying." I care not what learned discussions Dionysius
has on this point in his Ecclesiastical Hierarchy; the Apostle's words are
clear enough, on which words he as well as they rely, without, however,
following them. It is evident, therefore, that they have arbitrarily and
without any authority made a sacrament and an extreme unction out of the
misunderstood words of the Apostle, to the detriment of all other sick persons,
whom they have deprived of the benefit of the unction which the Apostle
enjoined.
8.4But what
follows is still better. The Apostle's promise expressly declares that the
prayer of faith shall save the sick man, and the Lord shall raise him up. The
Apostle commands us to anoint the sick man and to pray, in order that he may be
healed and raised up; that is, that he may not die, and that it may not be an
extreme unction. This is proved also by the prayers which are said, during the
anointing, for the recovery of the one who is sick. But they say, on the
contrary, that the unction must be administered to none but the dying; that is,
that they may not be healed and raised up. If it were not so serious a matter,
who could help laughing at this beautiful, apt and sound exposition of the
Apostle's words?
-568-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is not the folly
of the sophists, here shown in its true colors? As here, so in many other
places, they affirm what the Scriptures deny, and deny what they affirm. Why
should we not give thanks to these excellent magisters of ours? I therefore
spoke truth when I said they never conceived a crazier notion than this?
8.5Furthermore, if
this unction is a sacrament it must necessarily be, as they say, an effective
sign of that which it signifies and promises. Now it promises health and
recovery to the sick, as the words plainly say: "The prayer of faith shall
save the sick man, and the Lord shall raise him up." But who does not see
that this promise is seldom if ever fulfilled? Scarce one in a thousand is
restored to health, and when one is restored nobody believes that it came about
through the sacrament, but through the working of nature or the medicine; for
to the sacrament they ascribe the opposite power. What shall we say then?
Either the Apostle lies in making this promise or else this unction is no
sacrament. For the sacramental promise is certain; but this promise deceives in
the majority of cases. Indeed ¡X?and here again we recognize the shrewdness and
foresight of these theologians ¡X?for this very reason they would have it to be
extreme unction, that the promise should not stand; in other words, that the
sacrament should be no sacrament. For if it is extreme unction, it does not
heal, but gives way to the disease; but if it heals, it cannot be extreme
unction. Thus, by the interpretation of these magisters, James is shown to have
contradicted himself, and to have instituted a sacrament in order not to
institute one; for they must have an extreme unction just to make untrue what
the Apostle intends, namely, the healing of the sick. If that is not madness,
pray what is?
8.6These people
exemplify the word of the Apostle in 1 Timothy 1:7, "Desiring to be
teachers of the law, understanding neither the things they say, nor whereof
they affirm." Thus they read and follow all things without judgment. With
the same thoughtlessness they have also found auricular confession in our
Apostle's words, ¡X?"Confess your sins one to another." (James 5:16)
But they do not observe the command of the Apostle, that the priests of the
church be called, and prayer be made for the sick. Scarce a single priestling
is sent nowadays, although the Apostle would have many present, not because of
the unction but of the prayer. Wherefore he says: "The prayer of faith shall
save the sick man," etc. I have my doubts, however, whether he would have
us understand priests when he says presbyters, that is, elders. For one who is
an elder is not therefore a priest or minister; so that the suspicion is
justified that the Apostle desired the older and graver men in the Church to
visit the sick; these should perform a work of mercy and pray in faith and thus
heal him. Still it cannot be denied that the ancient churches were ruled by
elders, chosen for this purpose, without these ordinations and consecrations,
solely on account of their age and their long experience.
8.7Therefore, I
take it, this unction is the same as that which the Apostles practiced, in
-569-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark
8.8For this very
contingency James provided with care and foresight by attaching the promise of
healing and the forgiveness of sins not to the unction, but to the prayer of
faith. For he says: "And the prayer of faith shall save the sick man, and
the Lord shall raise him up: and if he be in sins, they shall be forgiven
him." A sacrament does not demand prayer or faith on the part of the
minister, since even a wicked person may baptise and consecrate without prayer;
a, sacrament depends solely on the promise and institution of God, and requires
faith on the part of him who receives it. But where is the prayer of faith in
our present use of extreme unction? Who prays over the sick one in such faith
as not to doubt that he will recover? Such a prayer of faith James here
describes, of which he said in the beginning of his Epistle: ( James 1:6)
"But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering." And Christ says of it:
"Whatsoever you ask, believe that you shall receive and it shall be done
to you." (Mark
8.9If such prayer
were made, even today, over a sick man ¡X?that is, prayer made in full faith by
older, grave and saintly men ¡X?it is beyond all doubt that we could heal as
many sick as we would. For what could not faith do? But we neglect, this faith,
which the authority of the Apostle demands above all else. By presbyters ¡X?that
is, men preeminent by reason of their age and their faith ¡X?we understand the
common herd of priests. Moreover, we turn the daily or voluntary unction into
an extreme unction, and finally, we not only do not effect the result promised
by the Apostle, namely, the healing of the sick, but we make it of none effect
by striving after the very opposite. And yet we boast that our sacrament, no,
our figment, is established and proved by this saying of the Apostle, which is
diametrically opposed to it. What theologians we are!
8.10Now I do not
condemn this our sacrament of extreme unction, but I firmly deny that it is
what the Apostle James prescribes; for his unction agrees with ours neither in
form, use, power nor purpose. Nevertheless; we shall number it among those
sacraments which we have instituted, such as the blessing and sprinkling of
salt and holy water. For we cannot deny that every creature is sanctified by
the word and by prayer, (1 Timothy 4:4 f.) as the Apostle Paul teaches us. We
do not deny, therefore, that forgiveness of sins and peace are granted through
extreme unction;
-570-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
not because it is
a sacrament divinely instituted, but because he who receives it believes that
these blessings are granted to him. For the faith of the recipient does not
err, however much the minister may err. For one who baptises or absolves in
jest, that is, does not absolve so far as the minister is concerned, does yet
truly absolve and baptise if the person he baptises or absolves believe. How
much more will one who administers extreme unction confer peace, even though he
does not really confer peace, so far as his ministry is concerned, since there
is no sacrament there. The faith of the one anointed receives even that which
the minister either could not or did not intend to give; it is sufficient for
him to hear and believe the Word. For whatever we believe we shall receive,
that we do really receive, it >matters not what the minister may do or not
do, or whether he dissemble or jest. The saying of Christ stands fast,
¡X?"All things are possible to him that believe," (Mark
8.11Still it was a
good thing that this unction was made extreme unction, for, thanks to that, it
has been disturbed and subjected least of all the sacraments by tyranny and
greed. This one last mercy, forsooth, has been left to the dying, ¡X?they may
freely be anointed, even without confession and communion. If it had remained a
practice of daily occurrence, especially if it had conferred health on the
sick, even without taking away sins, how many worlds would not the pontiffs
have under their control today? For through the one sacrament of penance and
through the power of the keys, as well as through the sacrament of ordination,
they have become such mighty emperors and princes. But now it is a fortunate
thing that they despise the prayer of faith, and therefore do not heal any
sick, and that they have made for themselves, out of an ancient ceremony, a
brand-new sacrament.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9.1Let this
suffice now for these four sacraments. I know how it will displease those who
believe that the number and use of the sacraments are to be learned not from
the sacred Scriptures, but from the Roman See. As though the Roman See had
given those sacraments and had not rather got them from the lecture halls of
the universities, to which it is unquestionably indebted for whatever it has.
The papal despotism would not have attained its present position, had it not
taken over so many things from the universities. For there was scarce another
of the celebrated bishoprics that had so few learned pontiffs; only in
violence, intrigue, and superstition has it hitherto surpassed the rest. For
the men who occupied the Roman See a thousand years ago differ so vastly from
those who have since come into power, that one is compelled to refuse the name
of Roman pontiff either to the former or to the latter.
9.2There are yet a
few other things it might seem possible to regard as sacraments; namely, all
those to which a divine promise has been given,
-571-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
such as prayer,
the Word, and the cross. Christ promised, in many places, that those who pray
should be heard; especially in Luke 11, where He invites us in many parables to
pray. Of the Word He says: "Blessed are they that hear the word of God,
and keep it." (Luke 11.28) And who will tell how often He promises aid and
glory to such as are afflicted, suffer, and are cast down? no, who will recount
all the promises of God? The whole Scripture is concerned with provoking us to
faith; now driving us with precepts and threats, now drawing us with promises
and consolations. Indeed, whatever things are written are either precepts or
promises; the precepts humble the proud with their demands, the promises exalt
the humble with. their forgiveness.
9.3Nevertheless,
it has seemed best to restrict the name of sacrament to such promises as have
signs attached to them. The remainder, not being bound to signs, are bare
promises. Hence there are, strictly speaking, but two sacraments in the
9.4Baptism,
however, which we have applied to the whole of life, will truly be a sufficient
substitute for all the sacraments we might need as long as we live. And the
bread is truly the sacrament of the dying; for in it we commemorate the passing
of Christ out of this world, that we may imitate Him. Thus we may apportion
these two sacraments as follows: baptism belongs to the beginning and the
entire course of life, the bread belongs to the end and to death. And the
Christian should use them both as long as he is in this poor body, until, fully
baptised and strengthened, he passes out of this world and is born to the new
life of eternity, to eat with Christ in the Kingdom of His Father, as He
promised at the Last Supper, ¡X?"Amen I say to you, I will not drink from
henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until it is fulfilled in the
9.5Herewith I
conclude this prelude, and freely and gladly offer it to all pious souls who
desire to know the genuine sense of the Scriptures and the proper use of the
sacraments.
-572-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For it is a gift
of no mean importance, to know the things that are given us, as it is said in 1
Corinthians 2, and what use we ought to make of them. Endowed with this
spiritual judgment, we shall not mistakenly rely on that which does not belong
here. These two things our theologians never taught us, no, I think they took
particular pains to conceal them from us. If I have not taught them, I
certainly did not conceal them, and have given occasion to others to think out
something better. It has at least been my endeavor to set forth these two
things. Nevertheless, not all can do all things.To the godless, on the other
hand, and those who in obstinate tyranny force on us their own teachings inas
God's representative's, I confidently and freely oppose these pages, utterly
indifferent to their senseless fury. Yet I wish even them a sound mind, and do
not despise their efforts, but only distinguish them from such as are sound and
truly Christian.
9.6I hear a rumor
of new bulls and papal curses sent out against me, in which I am urged to
recant or be declared a heretic. If that is true, I desire this book to be a
portion of the recantation I shall make; so that these tyrants may not complain
of having had their pains for nothing. The remainder I will publish ere long,
and it will, please Christ, be such as the Roman See has hitherto neither seen
nor heard. I shall give ample proof of my obedience. In the name of our Lord
Jesus Christ. Amen.
9.7 Why doth that
impious Herod fear
When told that
Christ the King is near?
He takes not
earthly realms away,
Who gives the
realms that ne'er decay.
-573-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Martin Luther's
Definition of Faith: An excerpt from"An Introduction to
Translated by Rev. Robert E. Smithfrom DR. MARTIN LUTHER'S VERMISCHTE
DEUTSCHE SCHRIFTEN. Johann K. Irmischer, ed. Vol. 63
(Erlangen: Heyder and Zimmer, 1854), pp.124-125. [EA 63:124-125] August
1994
Faith is not what
some people think it is. Their human dream is a delusion. Because they observe
that faith is not followed by good works or a better life, they fall into
error, even though theyspeak and hear much about faith. ``Faith is not
enough,'' they say, ``You must do
good works, you must be pious to be saved.'' They think that, when you hear the
gospel, you start working, creating by your own strength a thankful heart which
says, ``I
believe.'' That is
what they think true faith is. But, because this is a human idea, a dream, the
heart never learns anything from it, so it does nothing and reform doesn't come
from this`faith,' either.
Instead, faith is
God's work in us, that changes us and gives new birth from God. (John 1:13). It
kills the Old Adam and makes us completely different people. It changes our
hearts, our spirits, our thoughts and all our powers. It brings the Holy Spirit
with it. Yes, it is a living, creative, active and powerful thing, this faith.
Faith cannot help doing good works constantly. It doesn't stop to ask if good
works ought to be done, but before anyone
asks, it already
has done them and continues to do them without ceasing. Anyone who unbeliever. He stumbles around and looks for faith
and good works, even though he does not know what faith or good works are. Yet
he gossips and chatters about faith and good works with many words.
Faith is a living,
bold trust in God's grace, so certain of God's favor that it would risk death a
thousand times trusting in it. Such confidence and knowledge of God's grace
makes you happy, joyful and bold in your relationship to God and all creatures.
The
Holy Spirit makes
this happen through faith. Because of it, youfreely, willingly and joyfully do
good to everyone, serveev eryone, suffer all kinds of things, love and praise
the God who has shown you such grace. Thus, it is just as impossible to
separate faith and works as it is to separate heat and light from fire!
Therefore, watch out for your own false ideas and guard against
good-for-nothing gossips, who think they're smart enough
to define faith
and works, but really are the greatest of fools. Ask God to work faith in you,
or you will remain forever without
faith, no matter what you wish, say or can do.
The Last Written
Words of Luther: Holy Ponderings of the Reverend Father Doctor Martin Luther
Dr. Martin Luthers Werke_, (Weimar: Hermann Boehlaus Nachfolger, 1909),
Band 85 (TR 5),
pp. 317-318. Translated by James A. Kellerman
1. No one can
understand Vergil's Bucolics unless he has been a shepherd for five years. No
one can understand Vergil's Georgics, unless he has been a farmer for five
years.
2. No one can
understand
3. Know that no
one can have indulged in the Holy Writers sufficiently, unless he has governed
churches for a hundred years with the prophets, such as Elijah and Elisha, John
the Baptist, Christ and the apostles.
Do not assail this
divine Aeneid; nay, rather prostrate revere the ground that it treads.
We are beggars:
this is true.
Notes:
1. This is a
translation of WA, TR 5:168 (no. 5468) of a scrap of paper that Johannes
Aurifaber (a.k.a. Johann Goldschmied) found when Luther died. Aurifaber wrote:
"Luther ... wrote these words in Latin on a slip of paper and put them on
his table. I, Johannes Aurifaber, wrote them down and Dr. Justus Jonas,
Superintendent of Halle, who was at
2. I have followed
the account of the document as told by Aurifaber. There are, however, divergent
accounts of what was on that scrap of paper. Since the original slip of paper
has been lost, it is impossibletoascertain what Luther actually wrote. For
other accounts, see
WA 48:241 and TR
5:317 (no.5677). Although the wording differs slightly,the sentiment is the
same.
3. The line in
praise of Vergil's A
Sed Ionge sequere et vestigia semper adora.
Luther wrote: Hanc
tu ne divinam Aeneida tenta, Sed vestigia pronus adora.
4. "We are
beggars" is written in German; the rest of the document, in Latin.
.