Of the king's actions in England with the protesting estates.
1267 Philipp Melanchthon's letter to King Henry VIII in England, in which he makes himself known to him and admonishes him to reformation and to refrain from persecution. Wittenberg, March 13, 1535.
This letter is found in Melanchthon's epist. lid. I, p. 45, according to Peucer's edition, and in the 6orx. Lsk., vol. II, translated from the Latin by LL A. rittet.
1st Most Sublime King and Most Gracious Lord! Although I had many important reasons to write to your Royal Maj. and the good opinion of all scholars full of your kindness and grace was known to me, [I] would still have hesitated to do so out of stupidity, if Mr. D. Antonius, 1) my good friend, had not invited me to do so.
1) D. Robert Barnes (or Barns), who was called D. Antonius at Wittenberg. He is in the summer term
who, although having recognized their heroic virtues before, nevertheless inflamed me by telling of their praise in such a way that I hoped that Your Royal Majesty, according to their excellent wisdom and grace, would receive my letter in the best possible way. Maj., according to their excellent wisdom and grace, would receive my letter in the best possible way, especially if I wrote not only about my reverence, but also something about the common best.
I want to touch on a few things about myself. What can I do according to my little wit and ability, by which I would like to show my zeal against Your Royal Majesty? But I have always been of the opinion that, because nothing is more pleasant, more popular and more divine than a pious and salutary prince, Her Royal Majesty must be loved by all righteous people because of her excellent modesty in such high power and because of her justice. Our state, and all scholars, would also owe your Royal Majesty great gratitude that your Majesty has done more than all kings and princes of our time in reestablishing and promoting good sciences, in which I am accustomed to admire their happiness and wisdom. For since your royal majesty has considered that the care for scholarship is particularly appropriate for a great prince, she has certainly seen that it is a great adornment of the common being, and that studying contributes exceedingly much to keeping the human race in good harmony and to being unanimous in religion. And it has been a great fortune that your England has produced such splendid lights of learning that we can count among them many who are to be compared with the highest men who have ever distinguished themselves by praising learning.
And when I sometimes thought of your royal majesty, then it occurred to me that now in your Britain (or England) such a golden time is, as formerly was in Egypt, when Ptolemy Philadelphus reigned, who indeed surpassed in wealth all kings of his time and did excellent deeds in war, but nevertheless was especially popular and famous among all peoples and descendants, because he held the liberal arts so valuable and promoted. Therefore, as in former times the whole human race had much to thank Ptolemy and other kings, through whom good arts had been preserved, so
1533 under the Rector Caspar Cruciger in the album (p. 149 after Förstemann's edition) so entered: D. Antonius IksoIoAias Doctor oxonicusis 20 lunij. In 1835 he was again in Wittenberg as an envoy.
will also have Your Royal Majesty to thank for it. This is the opinion of all scholars in Germany. Because your Royal Majesty has such great sympathy for scholars, [I] have taken the trouble to write to Your Royal Majesty and to show how much I wish to be in the good graces of such a great king. I know that your Royal Majesty values people according to their honesty and scholarship; therefore I command your Royal Majesty as a high and almost unanimous patron (or protector) of scholarship, and offer myself for all the services and favors that I am able to render according to my little fortune. However, I did not want to write to Your Royal Majesty about my affairs as well as about the common cause of scholarship, and I sincerely ask Your Royal Majesty to consider its dangerous condition.
For those who study are despised and hated not only in other kingdoms, but also in Germany, because of the unjust judgments of the people, because of the disputes of religion. It will therefore be up to their wisdom to awaken good sciences with all the more grace and to grant shelter to the expelled muses. We know that even in the past, when the sciences were almost wiped out in the whole of Europe by the Goths' war, they came out again from their island into the whole world. In this way, Your Royal Majesty will be able to make a good contribution to all descendants and to the Church. I also have no doubt that even the religious disputes could be reduced if Your Royal Majesty used their high reputation to guide other kings to moderation (or leniency) and had them deal with learned people about doctrine. For it is well known that some abuses, which cannot be cloaked at all, have crept into the church, and yet the kings do not care at all that one has a certain and simple form of doctrine. Common (or public) discord sometimes gives scholars and the wicked an opportunity to provoke the wrath of kings. However, one should have prevented that at the same time good and useful things for the church would not be curbed, nor would cruelty be practiced against the pious. The poet says very well, when he acts, how to quench the movement (and the crowd) of the people: When one sees a godly and deserving man, they become quiet and all prick up their ears; he knows how to direct the minds by his speeches and to soothe their hearts. So he wants an honest and well-deserving man to come, like your royal majesty, who, since she is older than all the kings, is a good man,
If you have wisdom and erudition, you will see more of them in this matter than of anyone else.
(5) Your Royal Majesty does not need to say how praiseworthy it is for a king to render service to the whole church, to the whole human race, because Your Royal Majesty understands, according to her high insight, that not only this care is commanded by God to all kings, but also that such charity will bring about an eternal and true fame among all peoples.
(6) Therefore, for the sake of Christ, ask Your Royal Majesty to take this thought well and see to it that it inclines the minds of kings to prudence, so that the pious and the wicked are not killed without distinction in order to promote God's glory.
Finally, I also ask that Your Royal Majesty graciously acknowledge this letter, which was sent out of an honest heart and good zeal, D. Anton has acted faithfully with us on certain articles, and I have given him my judgment of it in writing. I hereby assure you that I am not so attached to my opinion that I would not, if some pious and learned men should find fault with it, and we should discuss it further together, prefer their judgment to mine. May Christ keep your Royal Majesty healthy, for the salvation of many nations. From the University of Wittenberg, March 13, 1535.
1268. D. Mart. Luther's letter to D. Barnes, in which he strongly objects to the divorce of King Henry the Eighth of England.
September 5, 1531.
There are two quite different texts of this letter: one in Luääeus (completely from a manuscript of Rörer), p. 289; in the Ooä. Ootüan. 451. 402, toi. 168. 4; in the Oock. 36". b, k. 105. oIoss.; in XL. 1756, p. 721 from Amsdorf's papers in Amsdorf's hand; in Rebenstoek, eoüoqnia, tom. I, col. 235 b; in Linä86Ü, eoHoHuia, tom. I, p. 445 (incomplete) and in De Wette, vol. IV, p. 295. German in Walch at this point after Luääeus. The other text is found in Luääsus, p. 325, but incomplete; in Schütze, vol. II, p. 235 from Aurifaber's unprinted collection; in Ooci. Ootkan. 168. 4. next to the other and in De Wette, vol. IV, p. 300. German in Walch's old edition, vol. XXI, 1386. Here, as Walch has done, we share only the former text.
Newly translated from Latin.
Grace and peace in the Lord! Well, there you have it at last, my dear Antony, because you insist so impetuously and persistently.
also my opinion in the matter of the King of England.
First of all, as I have said, I like the decision of the Louvain, especially in the latter question, and with a quite sure conscience the king can follow it, indeed, he must follow it if he wants to be sure, and in no way will he be at liberty to repudiate the married queen (the wife of the deceased brother), and to make both mother and daughter incestuous. It may be that he sinned by marrying his deceased brother's wife, and that the dispensation of the Roman pope was not valid (about which I do not dispute now): but it would be a far greater and more terrible sin to repudiate the married woman, especially for this reason that both the king and the queen and the young queen 1) are always reviled as incestuous and considered so. Therefore, in my opinion, those torture the conscience of the king in vain, who urge him to repudiate only for the sake of this cause. If he has sinned by marrying, this sin has become a past one, and may, like all other past sins, be atoned for by repentance; but the marriage is not to be broken up for this, and so great a future sin need not be allowed. For how many marriages are there in the world which have been contracted by sinning, and yet they shall not and cannot be broken.
So much of this one thing. The other, may you invent it or may it be true, that the king desires a son as heir of the kingdom, but the queen has born only female offspring etc.: who does not see that this has much less validity? Who can make the king certain that either this one (if not prevented by age) will not bear a son, or that the other one, who is to be married, will bear sons? And yet, even though it were certain that the other would bear sons
1) Instead of Lssinüla" at De Wette we have assumed with 6oä. 168, vine and binding rope rexinula. Likewise reads the other redaction.
it will not be permissible to repudiate the former, especially as a "blood shame," and likewise to brand the offspring with the stain of blood shame, that is, to inflict on them this exceedingly severe punishment without cause. Before I would approve such a violation, I would rather allow the king to marry another queen and, following the example of fathers and kings, to have two wives or queens at the same time.
But that they cite Deut. 18:16. that it is against the divine right to take the wife of the deceased brother, I answer first of all: If they want to follow the law of Moses and push us under this lawgiver, then they will bring about that in this case the king is not only required to keep the married queen, but if she had not yet been married, to marry her in any case and to raise his brother's seed, 1) since the deceased brother left no children by this woman, as is clearly and expressly written in Deut. 25, 5. ff. is written. If we are forced to keep the law of Moses, we will also have to be circumcised for the same reason and keep the whole law, as Paul concludes Gal. 5, 3. Now we are no longer under the law of Moses, but in such matters subject to the civil laws, just as Abraham and Nahor and Amram 2) were before Moses, who also took their brother's daughters as wives, to a degree that was later forbidden by Moses, and Jacob took two sisters, also against Moses, who later forbade his people such marriages. Therefore, that law, which was not before and ceased again after Christ, does not bind the king, nor does it require him to be cast out. But the law of God and divine right, which decrees that marriage continues until death, binds him. For the sake of this law, Christ also abolished the letter of divorce handed down by Moses, saying [Matth. 19, 8]: "From the beginning it was not so.
1) Before HllanäoHlliäem De Wette has a punctum.
2) "Amram" set by nns (after 2 Mos. 6,20.) instead of in the editions. Only Rtzktzustoelr offers: Xra. That "Aaron" must be wrong is obvious.
Therefore, it only remains that if the king has sinned by taking his deceased brother's wife, he has sinned against a human or civil law; but if he should violate her, he will sin against a purely divine commandment. Now if the law of God and the law of men contend against each other, the law of men must depart lest sin be committed against the law of God, and not must the law of God depart lest sin be committed against the law of men. But sin against a law of men can either be remitted or dispensed with, so that we are not compelled to sin against the law of God or to dissolve the law of God.
But in the divine law the matter stands in such a way that a higher law cancels the lower one. For example: it was a divine law to keep the Sabbath, but nevertheless another divine law abrogated this law, namely the law of circumcision, and it was permitted, yes, one had to perform circumcision on the Sabbath (as often as this was the eighth day after birth), as Christ himself Joh. 7, 3) 22. and so the law of the Sabbath gave way to the law of circumcision, it was sinned against the law of the Sabbath, or rather, the law of the Sabbath gave way and was abolished in this case. Yes, every Sabbath there was sacrifice early and evening, and all the works of the priests were done in the temple, and yet the priests were blameless, as Christ concludes Matt. 12:5. Yes, even circumcision gave way to the new commandment of God, by which the people were commanded to go out of Egypt; the whole forty years, as long as this new commandment lasted, they were not circumcised without sin. Likewise, it was a divine law that the shewbread should be eaten only by the priests, and yet David, a layman, ate it without sin, for another law of God commands that one should practice love toward one's neighbor who is in need. And there are many such examples where one divine law overrules another divine law. And
3) Incorrect in the editions: lokann. V.
What do the rulers and wielders of the sword and enforcers of the laws do by killing, by robbing and confiscating the goods of the guilty, other than to abrogate these divine laws: "Thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal"? namely, since they are commanded by another divine law to kill, to rob and to punish the guilty, which they would not be allowed to do without another law, since that law: "Thou shalt not kill" forbids it. How much more must here also this human law: Thou shalt not take the wife of the dead brother, give way to this earlier and greater law: A man shall not leave his wife, and they shall be one flesh. Yes, even if this were a divine law, Thou shalt not take thy dead brother's wife, yet it must give way and be abrogated because of the law of marriage as the higher; as is said above in the examples, how often a divine law has abrogated another divine law.
But we still want to assume (which is not true) that the law of Moses is still valid and connects us Gentiles, since it says 3 Mos. 18,16: "You shall not bare your brother's wife's shame": what do they want to make out of this text? Because the text speaks of the living brother, not of a dead one. But since the law Deut. 25, 5. ff. decrees the opposite, that the brother should take the wife of the deceased brother, it is obvious that this passage speaks of the living brother (who could have one or perhaps several wives), as John the Baptist from this passage (as is evident) chastises Herod that it was not proper for him to have his brother Philip's wife, namely, since he was still alive. Therefore, the vile teachers cannot make anything certain from this passage, even though the Law of Moses binds us Gentiles. How much less will they do anything, since it does not bind us Gentiles.
You will say: in this way you will teach that we are also not joined by any law of God, that we should not take daughters, sisters, mothers, since the law of Moses forbids them, and yet the law of Moses does not join the Gentiles now. I answer: that these marriages are forbidden by the natural law of God.
The law is forbidden and incestuous. This is sufficiently proven by the fact that no example is found in the Scriptures before, under and after the law, and without example and law one may not subject oneself to any thing. And with this, God has sufficiently indicated that He condemns such marriages. But to take the wife of the deceased brother, for this there are examples and laws. But they argue that from the law Deut. 25, 5. ff. it follows that someone can or even must marry his daughter, as if Athniel had left his wife Achsa, the daughter of his brother Caleb, 1) at his death, then Caleb would have been forced as the brother to marry the wife of Athniel, his daughter. Who does not see here the malicious striving to defend an evil cause? as if they indeed did not know or should not know that one law cancels the other, in case 2) they contradict each other, as said above. Therefore, even though Caleb would have been required by the law of Deut. 25 to marry his brother's wife, because his brother's wife is his daughter, this is forbidden by another, greater law, and he is required to refrain from it, and so the law of Deut. 25 gives way to the other law, namely the natural law with us, and at the same time to the Mosaic law of Deut. 18, 17. Therefore, it is nothing that they want to establish by this law of Deut. 25 that of Deut. 18, which speaks of the living brother or at least in a vague way, and to reject any marriage according to the law of Deut. 25, since they do not see that by this rejection they completely abolish the law about the marriage of the wife of the deceased brother, which, however, by the glorious example even of Ruth, who attracts this law [Ruth 4, 5. 10] (although Boaz was not the brother), and by the testimony of the Gospel [Matth. 22, 24. ff.] of the seven brothers who had been the husbands of one and the same wife. And one must not pretend sophistically that brother means a relative at this point, otherwise the same objection would also be
1) Athniel was not the brother of Caleb, but "the son of Kenaz, Caleb's brother," Jos. 15:17.
2) Here we read with the codices, vine and binding rope: yuo oasu instead of: quas oMu at De Wette.
3 Mos. 18 have validity. Then the text itself 5 Mos. 25 does not suffer it, since it repeats the word "brother" so often and gives commandments of brothers "who dwell with one another" [5 Mos. 25, 5.]. Also, the evasion is not enough to calm the consciences, so it must not be allowed to trouble them.
But here they say that the law Deut. 25 was a ceremonial one, which must give way to the law Deut. 18, which was a moral law. For the things concerning ceremonies would have ceased, the moral things would not have ceased: to this I answer: Those bribed 1) interpreters may say what they will without all sound judgment, so we say on the other hand: the law 5 Mos. 25 was in truth a moral law, because it served in fact the community for the preservation of the families and for the retention of the hereditary property, used to obtain heirs, that is, to increase and strengthen the community: just as it is truly useful to the community and a good custom (morale) that one cultivates the field at this or that time, in this or that way, so that it bears the more abundant fruit, because by this way goods are brought about. Under Moses there was not this opposition of the laws, since both laws had validity and were kept. Therefore, both are now abrogated. Therefore, they may refrain from insisting on Deut. 18, or let both remain unharmed.
Therefore, the king is obliged to keep the married queen at the risk of bliss and eternal damnation. This is proved thus. First, it is not certain that it is forbidden by natural or divine right to marry the wife of one's brother, but only by a given (positivo) right. For the lawgiver Moses, as I have said, is dead and nothing to us. But marriage is divine and natural right. Now where the divine and the given right dispute with each other, the given right must give way to the divine. That is why Christ also abolished the law of divorce in Moses, in order to establish the divine law of
1) According to the other relation, aorrupti is to be translated here by "bribed".
Marriage. Therefore, if the King of England has sinned by marrying the wife of his deceased brother, he has sinned against a human and civil law. If the emperor and the pope, where he reigns under civil authority, have relaxed their laws to him, he has not sinned at all, because the same God who approves of the civil law given by the emperor also approves of the law relaxed by the emperor, because he has given him the power to give and relax laws, and, I say, the binding and loosening key in the country that is subject to him. But if the king should reject the queen, he will most grievously sin against the divine law, which saith [Matt. 19:6], "What God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." Man, that is, no human laws can separate what God has joined together, whether by decree or by forbearance, because His joining together, whether by law or by human deed, is higher than a human decree. Therefore, if these laws now contend against each other, let it be provided that the King of England do not keep a human law and sin against the divine, but that he keep the divine law; let it be remitted to him if anything be sinned against the human law. Let it now be that the divorce takes place: she is the queen and will be the queen of England, and she is wronged before God and men.
1269 Protestant Envoys' Letter to King Henry VIII of England, Defending the Articles Rejected by the King and His Bishops. London, August 5, 1538.
This and the following document is found in des Gilb. Burnet trist, rek. eeel. Anglic. pari. I, aää. n. 7. 8,
p. 252.
Translated into German by M. Aug. Tittel.
1 Most Sublime, Most Great King, Most Gracious Lord! Whether we know well that Your Royal Majesty is occupied with many and heavy affairs, both on account of your own realm and on account of your own kingdom
and the provinces belonging to them, as well as important matters concerning foreign kings, princes and potentates, which reach Your Royal Majesty almost daily. Maj., and we, in accordance with the respect due to Your Royal Majesty, desire nothing less. Maj., we desire nothing less than to send Your Royal Maj. Maj. either with frequent letters or other things, and to interrupt her concerns for the common good: so we have nevertheless, for certain reasons, which we hope will shine in the eyes of your Royal Maj. Maj.'s eyes, we have found it good to write to Your Royal Majesty again. Maj. once again, in the certain hope that Your Royal Majesty will accept such a letter after its worldly publication. Maj. will receive such a letter for the best, according to their world-renowned kindness, wisdom and erudition.
For since we have long since presented to Your Majesty the messages commanded to us by Our Serene Highnesses. Since we have long since presented to Your Majesty the messages commanded to us by His Serene Highness the Princes, and have also, at Your Majesty's request, discussed the articles of the Christian religion with some of the most reverend and learned bishops and teachers of divine learning for almost two months, and, praise be to God, have come so far that we firmly believe that there will be an agreement between Your Royal Majesty and our Princes, and their adherents in the matter of religion, as well as between divine scholars and subjects on both sides, we have come to a conclusion. Maj. and our princes, and their associates in the matter of religion, as well as scholars and subjects of God on both sides, a firm and steady unity in the true doctrine of the Gospel, for the praise of God Almighty, the best of the Christian Church and the destruction of the Roman Antichrist, and we cannot wait for the further disputation of the abuses. Maj. (who, by the grace of God, seeks to promote the evangelical doctrine with untiring diligence and care) in our letter, and also to make known our opinion about certain articles of the abuses (about which, after our departure, Your Maj. will, no doubt, allow the same bishops and divine scholars to hold further discussions in order to examine the truth). We are thereby assured that Your Majesty, in the honor of Christ, will direct that she not only have a pure doctrine, but also finally put an end to the ungodly customs and ceremonies introduced by the Roman Church, and instead establish services and ceremonies that are in accordance with God's Word. For Your Royal Maj. Maj. will, according to their great wisdom, easily see that the pure doctrine will never be established or preserved, unless the abuses are also put aside, which go straight against God's word, and both the Roman antichrist's tyranny and idolatry have so far been set in motion,
than preserved. For as the weeds wither and die when the roots are cut out, so there is no doubt that when the ungodly abuses and idolatry of the Roman bishop, as the foundation, have been uprooted and eradicated, his tyranny will then fall completely and perish. If this does not happen, however, it is to be feared that it will soon sprout up again at the slightest opportunity.
3. But these three pieces are almost the reason and the main work of the papal tyranny and idolatry, which, as long as they exist, neither the doctrine of religion can remain pure and whole, nor the godless rule of the Roman bishop can be eradicated from the bottom up, namely, the prohibition of both forms of the sacrament in the holy night meal, The prohibition of both forms of the sacrament in the holy night meal, the silent mass, and the prohibition of priestly marriage, which are so contrary to God's commandment, and are also contrary to common respectability, that from this alone it can be assumed that the Roman pope is the true Antichrist, and the author and founder of all idolatry, godlessness, error, and disgrace that have been introduced into Christ's church. Of which articles I have sent a few to Your Royal Majesty. Maj. in good, honest zeal, and leave it to your Maj., as a most wise, perceptive and learned prince, to judge, in the certain confidence that your Most Serene Maj. Maj. of our princes and united estates will not disapprove of the advice and order in these articles or speak unjustly.
I. Of both shapes.
(4) First of all, we hold, most high and mighty King, that no one will deny that Christ's doctrine, commandments and ordinances take precedence over all other commandments, statutes and ceremonies of men. For since he is the life and the truth, he cannot err; but all human things, especially in divine matters, are uncertain and doubtful. But it is known that Christ Himself instituted both forms, saying, "Drink ye all of it," and that Paul taught the same, saying 1 Cor. 11:28: "Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread, and drink of the wine." In which passages not only priests, but the whole church is spoken of. For some to conclude that Christ alone spoke to the apostles, and that therefore both forms belong to the priests alone, is a bad and wretched conclusion. For in this way it would follow that the other form should not be administered to the laity either, for Christ has not commanded anything else,
It is not necessary to give the body to the laity, so that both forms remain instituted for the priests; but one must conclude that either such a command of Christ concerning the sacrament applies to all, both priests and laity, or that the laity must be completely excluded from the sacrament of the body, because nowhere else in the Gospel, except where he gave the body and blood to the apostles at the same time, is there an institution of the sacrament for the laity. And therefore Paul shows that it applies to all, because he adds: "And drink of the cup" etc. For the fact that they say that 2) the division of the sacrament was ordained by the church under one form for some urgent reason, and that there is as much under one form as under two forms, serves no purpose. For who does not see here that it is Christ's command and institution that is being acted upon, which far outweighs the power and opinion of all men. For the church reasonably abstains from such liberty as to make indifferent things out of Christ's order; and the reasons, either of the difference of estates, or of the priestly dignity, or of the danger of burial, and the like, can never be so strong that for this reason divine orders must be changed. And also 3) no custom or usage that arises against God's commandment can be approved. It is clear, however, that the use of both forms is not only a clear commandment of Christ, but also has the approval of the holy fathers and the use of the ancient church. For thus says St. Jerome: "The priests who officiate at the holy supper and administer the blood of Christ to the people. And Pope Gelasius denounces the distribution of the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of the Lord, calling it a great theft from the Church.
Moreover, the Greek church still has the use of both forms, which resisted the tyranny of the pope and never wanted to take his yoke upon itself. And the histories testify that both in Germany and in many other countries and provinces the true communion custom has been preserved, but finally overcome by the banishing rays of the Roman Antichrist, so that he frightened and conquered almost the whole world, as it seems, changed the right usage, But to which now, by God's special grace, our princes as well as others who confess the doctrine of the Gospel, having recognized the truth of it, have turned again, and have freed and saved themselves and theirs, in a cause so salutary to the whole church, from the tyrannical papal yoke which they threw off.
6 For whatever causes the pope has had, against Christ's commandment and appointment, against the mei
Your Most Serene Royal Majesty will easily see that the Holy Fathers' decision, against the habit of the whole Christian Church to mutilate the Sacrament and to deprive the laity of the Blood of Christ in an ungodly manner, is not the only one. Maj. will easily see. It is at least quite probable that he thereby wants to increase his and his clergy's majesty and prestige, and to make a great distinction between laity and priests. For the opponents still cry out: laymen must be satisfied with one form, as if they possessed a sovereignty (or kingdom), and thus they could command that Christ's good deeds also be withdrawn from men, for which they should rather, if they wanted to do their office, allure and invite everyone. But how do Christ and Belial agree? What does the pope have in common with Christ's institution, as whose outermost adversary he presents himself, and to whom he is thus contrary in this and other salutary articles of the Christian religion, and has had to depart from the Scriptures, yes, has had to condemn the doctrine conforming to the Gospel, so that one would obviously see that he is the Antichrist, of whom the Scriptures have proclaimed such things beforehand.
II [From the Breastfeeding Mass.
(7) In the other article, on the silent mass, it is fully seen that the Roman pope has completely suppressed and darkened the Christian religion, that Christ's good deed, who redeemed us with his death, and who alone is the sacrifice and atonement for our sins, has been completely taken away, and instead an idolatrous service, for the atonement of sins, has been introduced into the church, and that the church has thus been miserably blighted and disturbed with its errors and profanations. For since the mass is or should be nothing else than a communion and meeting, as Paul calls it, and since it was not used differently in the time of the apostles and the ancient church, as can be clearly seen from the holy fathers, it has finally become quite another work, which completely conflicts with the communion and proper use of the mass, of which they teach that it deserves grace for the sake of the mere act (or performance), and takes away the sins of the living and the dead.
(8) How much this opinion departs from Scripture and offends the honor of Christ's Passion, Your Most Serene Majesty will easily see. For if it is true that the mass can also be administered to others and kept for them, that it takes away sin and benefits both the living and the dead, then it follows that justification comes from the work of the mass, not from faith. But this is contrary to Scripture,
which teaches that we are justified freely by faith for Christ's sake, that our sins are forgiven us, and that we are received into grace; consequently, that no other work helps us to forgive our sins. This is nothing more than a vain dream and a human poem, which contradicts the evangelical doctrine. For only then do we benefit from grace through the word and the use of the sacraments, when we ourselves receive the sacraments; but they enjoy it for others, which is just as much as if they were baptized for others.
(9) But it is not necessary to say how much harm such an opinion of the Mass as conferring grace for the sake of the mere act, or if it were done for others, earning them forgiveness both of venial and mortal sins, of guilt and punishment. For that it is clearly contrary to Scripture and the ancient custom of the Mass is evident from the fact that the Mass or meeting was instituted so that the believer who partakes of the Sacrament may remember what benefits he receives through Christ, and comfort and straighten his stupid, timid conscience; and thus the Sacrament must be administered to those who need consolation, as Ambrose says: "Because I always sin, I must often take medicine.
(10) And so this custom of masses has been in the church until Gregory's time, and people did not know about the silent masses, which is clear from many other testimonies, but especially from that of Chrysostom, where he says: the priest stands by the altar and lets some to communion, but rejects others. And from the old Canons it is evident that one said Mass, from whom the other priests and deacons took the body of the Lord; for so the Nicene Canon says: The deacons are to receive Holy Communion after the priests from the bishop or priests. And Epiphanias writes: in Asia communion was held three times a week, and not always mass, and the same use was taught or instituted by the apostles. This custom of the mass is also said to last in the Greek parish churches, because only on Sundays and holidays a main mass is held there; nothing is known about silent masses. And in this, the Greek Church has been much more fortunate than the Latin Church in that it has kept a better use of the evening meal, communion, or mass, and has not divided the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, contrary to the clear teaching of the Gospel, as we said earlier, nor even the silent masses, which are so
very contrary to the sacred Scriptures. And I believe that this has been a major cause of why the Greek Church has not recognized the Roman bishop, as the author of the perverse and idolatrous doctrine, and almost all the abuses that have been introduced into the Church, as the supreme head of the universal or Catholic Church.
(11) Now some admit that one cannot approve of the dedications made in the mass for the living and the dead, and the opinions that it merits grace by mere deed, and argue that one should abolish such ungodly opinions, and on the other hand keep the silent masses in another way, namely, as thanksgivings that may be made by one or more. This citing seems to have some reason, and is a wise medicine, as Sophocles says, so that one must help weak or sick things, as he himself says. If the mass were only a thanksgiving, it could be glossed over with such a pretext. It is known, however, that it was instituted primarily to be a sacrament, to be administered by the minister to another, so that he who believes and receives it may obtain grace. And when this main purpose has been established, another follows, of thanksgiving. Therefore we must by no means depart from the institution of Christ, but retain and follow the manner of the same institution and the example of the ancient church. For nothing new, especially in sacraments, must be accepted contrary to the manner instituted by Christ and contrary to the examples of the ancient church.
12 It is also known that the silent masses are new and introduced by the Roman popes, and even today, as we have just said, are not customary in the Greek Church, except for those held in parish churches on feast days, where there is still a trace of communion. Since the silent Mass is contrary to the Word of God, and it is evident that it is only a human and fictitious service, who doubts that such a Mass can, and indeed should, be omitted without any danger, since it is contrary to the Gospel? And it is a holy and godly work to restore and bring up the true use of the mass or meeting in the church, which has been miserably deprived of it for many years by the Roman pope, that is, the Antichrist, who also still holds over the silent masses, argues for them and protects them. And that with all right. Because he sees well,
that when the still fair has been abolished, his kingdom and tyranny, which insists entirely on it, must also be abolished and perish. For, as in the seeds is the cause of the trees and trunks: so the seed of this miserable rule, empire, tyranny, stuff and idolatry of the pope is the superstition of the still masses. For these gave birth to the whole papacy and carried it like an atlas; everything has been charted and drawn on them, for there has been nothing that one did not think to reconcile by some mass. This is how the pope invented indulgences, how he gathered an unspeakable amount of money from all over the world; this is how the endless piles of monks came into being, since they would otherwise have been of no use except to chatter away at masses and would otherwise have been a useless burden on the earth. This is and has been the godliness to which the Roman pope professes. He knows of no other religion than that which consists in silent masses, for he not only has no doctrine of the Gospel, but also hates and persecutes it quite horribly; and in a word, the pope has completely eradicated the preaching of the divine word with these masses, so that in everything he acted quite as an antichrist. For instead of one preaching of the Word, more than a thousand silent masses have arisen, that is, human and fictitious services against the divine Word, since Christ did not call his apostles, whose successors they wanted to be, to say mass, but to preach the Gospel and to administer and distribute sacraments properly.
Therefore, our most noble princes and other Protestant princes and estates have completely abolished the silent masses and, on the other hand, have had the proper use of the mass, or the communion according to Christ's institution, the apostles' example and the old church and fathers' opinion, reintroduced and restored in the church. Which mass or communion shall be celebrated with the highest reverence, and at the same time all customary ceremonies, if not contrary to godliness, shall be retained, and also German chants (in the native language) shall be added to teach the people. For St. Paul commanded that a language be used in the church that the people could understand. And since the mass has been arranged for the communion, or use of the sacrament, those enjoy the sacrament who are competent and have been examined beforehand. And the high value and use of the Sacrament is advertised to the people from God's Word with the utmost diligence and care, so that the people know and recognize what comfort it brings to timid consciences, and that they may learn
Believe in God, and ask for and receive all good things from Him.
14 And that this custom of the sacrament and the mass, which agrees with Scripture, is pleasing to God and promotes godliness, is easily recognized by Your Royal Majesty. For nothing is permitted here contrary to God's commandment, but rather everything is done according to Christ's commandment and order, who instituted this holy Communion to such an end. No evil or ungodly opinion is interfered with here, as in the papal silent Mass, whose final purpose and institution conflict with the Gospel. Nor is anything done without the highest reverence, order, and propriety befitting the Church. And we may boldly say that this proper use of the masses is more devoutly presented here than ever before the silent masses were held under the papacy, and we refer to the testimonies of the most learned men who have been sent by your Majesty and have been in such places, who have witnessed and heard all this at present.
(15) For the adversaries cry out that ours have torn down all worship, all ceremonies and all religion (or devotion), in which they do injustice to our princes and others who profess the evangelical doctrine. And it is evident that they invent and bring up all this out of desperate poison and malice against us, because the opposite is clear from the teaching of our people, which they have had printed in unison according to God's word and spread throughout Christendom, and also from the examples of our churches, in which they must confess against their will that everything is much more holy and godly than with them. 1) Yes, our people, praise be to God, are not only more devout in churches, but also conduct themselves much more modestly in all common discipline, and have more reverence for worldly authority and church leaders than ever before. And this we have to thank for the true teaching of the Gospel, which shows each one his duty better than all papal statutes, and alone teaches and prescribes correctly what true godliness and worship are.
16 It is also known that masses used for profit, as under the papacy, are shamefully desecrated, and that this abuse is very prevalent in almost all churches. For Christ's good deed, who redeemed us with his precious blood, and for nothing at all, is to be sold so cheaply and cheaply, and also to make such a work out of his nature,
1) These last words are missing in Latin. (Walch.)
that is, to merit grace by the mere act (or for the sake of the work done), and to be imputed (or applied) for the sins of others, both living and dead: who does not see that such is great ungodliness? For what else would it be, to act and take the body of Christ unworthily, if it were not? Can anything be said that is more annoying and ungodly than what they have said about the masses, namely, that Christ with his suffering has done enough for original sin, and that the mass, on the other hand, is ordered to be sacrificed for the daily death and venial sins? Since Christ preached repentance and forgiveness of sins, but ordered the Mass and Communion to a different end, namely, to offer the Sacrament to those in need of consolation, and to grant grace to the faithful through Word and Sacrament, so that they may obtain forgiveness of sins, not that they themselves offer and present their work, which may otherwise be a human poem and a human service of God, contrary to the Scriptures. For this does not propitiate God, as Christ himself says that he is honored in vain by the commandments of men; For the fact that the mass is not such a work or sacrifice that merits grace and also helps others is evident from the fact that the mass or communion was ordained for this purpose, not that something is offered to God, but that the communicants draw comfort and receive, as it were, a pledge or certain sign of God's grace and benevolence toward them, and thus remember the death of Christ, that is, the benefits they received through Christ, who died for us and alone was sufficient for our sins. And this is given by the very words which Christ and Paul used of the Mass or Communion.
For 1) Christ saith, "This is my body which is given for you." These are the words of the divine promise, which require only faith, and by which grace and forgiveness of sins are offered to us; therefore it is not a sacrifice, that is, a work to be offered and sacrificed to God, and that is, for the remission of sins. Likewise Paul says: "Should you proclaim the death of the Lord." But proclaiming is not offering, that is, giving such a work to God that sins are blotted out. After that the evangelical text reads: "He broke it and gave it to the disciples, saying: Take and eat" etc. Likewise: "Drink from it, all of you" etc. But to take, to eat, and to drink, is not sacrifice; because these works do not for the mere act of taking away sins.
18. 2) Also in these words it is not commanded that we offer something to God, but rather that we take from Him, because it is added: "Given for you", and: "The blood that is shed for you", which words indicate that from those who enjoy the holy night meal, no sacrifice is given to God, but something is given to the people. After this, no one says that the laity, when they partake of the Sacrament, sacrifice. Now, as far as the Holy Communion, Mass, or partaking of the Lord's Supper is concerned, there is no difference here, since Christ instituted this sacrament at one time and moment, for one purpose and use, without distinction of those who partake of it, whether they are called laymen or priests. And just as the prohibition of both forms is only a human poem or commandment, so also that the sacrifice of the Mass should merit grace only for the sake of the deed, is a fair human opinion against the word of God, from which in important matters, namely those concerning the forgiveness of sins, salvation and eternal life, it is by no means to deviate. For Paul does not say in vain, nor does he repeat it in vain twice: "If we or an angel from heaven teach you or preach any other gospel than that which we have taught and preached to you, let him be accursed.
19) After that, 3) they can also say no reason for the difference, namely, they pretend that one sacrifices in the holy sacrament of the altar, why do they not also sacrifice who need another sacrament, for example, baptism, both of which are sacraments, which Christ, their founder and author, has completely ordered for something other than such sacrifices as they conceive. But the Roman Pontiff, in order to suppress the glory of Christ, of which he is the enemy, has had to raise the still masses, that he might draw the Christian people away from the evangelical truth and knowledge of Christ, and from the rightful use of the sacraments, and obscure Christ's grace and mercy. For those who think that the Mass is such a sacrifice, by which God is reconciled, cannot measure Christ's good deeds according to dignity, and in the terror and feeling of God's wrath and judgment will know no refuge or counsel, nor with a righteous heart (or conscience) will they be able to recognize the gifts and signs of divine love, if they believe that they are reconciled to God and their sins forgiven by a foreign work. For even those who strive to excuse the ungodly opinions of the Stillmeste, under
1) cum instead of: cujus. (Walch.)
Those who pretend that the mass is called a sacrifice because it is a thanksgiving and a sacrifice of praise, are convinced of the opposite from their own testimonies and writings, which went out from the mass, and such opinions of the people are still stuck in their heads today about the silent masses. For so says Thomas in the little work on the Sacrament of the Altar: Why is the Mass ordered? Answer: The body of Christ was sacrificed once on the cross for original sin, so it must be sacrificed daily without ceasing for the daily transgressions on the altar, so that the church may have a gift to reconcile God that is more delicious and pleasing than all the sacrifices of the law.
20 Pope Alexander says: "Nothing can be higher among the sacrifices of the Church than the Body and Blood of Christ, and no offering is greater and more glorious than that which surpasses all others. Likewise: Truth itself teaches us to offer the cup and the bread in the Sacrament when it says, Take, eat; for sins and iniquities are blotted out when such offerings are made to the Lord. And again he says: With such sacrifices God is pleased and reconciled, that he remits the greatest sins. Gabriel from the Canon of the Mass: The Sacrament of the Holy Supper, when offered as a sacrifice to the Supreme Father, takes away even mortal sins, let alone venial ones, not only of those who partake of it, but also of all those for whom it is offered, as well as guilt and punishment, more or less, according to the nature for which it is offered. Hence Thomas in IV. dist. I. 2. qu. 2. says: The holy night meal,
as a sacrifice, also has power in those for whom it is offered, in whom it does not require spiritual life in reality (or effective deed) beforehand; enough, if such may still come (in potentia, or is there in the will): and therefore, if it find them skillful, it obtains grace for them, in virtue of the same true sacrifice, from which all grace flowed to us, and consequently it blots out mortal sins in them, not as the proximate cause, but inasmuch as it obtains for them the grace of repentance (or contrition).
(21) Of this and of such other sayings are all the books of the school teachers full, teaching with one mouth that the mass is such a sacrifice, by which men deserve grace, for the sake of the mere act, because it can be used to forgive the sins of others. What doctrine, or rather perverse and ungodly poem, whether it is in conflict with sacred Scripture or not; likewise, whether it shows the right use of a mass or not; whether it does not more obscure Christ's good deeds?
We leave it up to your royal and imperial majesty to decide whether the doctrine of the Protestant Church is to be regarded as enlightening or glorifying, or even overthrowing. Majesty, who, according to her wisdom and great insight, will easily consider, not only in all worldly but also in all spiritual learning, that our and other princes professing the evangelical doctrine have had the most just cause to abolish the silent masses and to restore and establish the proper use of the mass or communion for Christ's glory and consolation of the whole Christian church, after they have recognized from God's Word how far the silent masses depart from evangelical truth and how ungodly and idolatrous they are. For there was only one propitiatory sacrifice in the world, namely the death of Christ, which, as Paul says, was once sacrificed for us and became a gift for our sins; which the other propitiatory sacrifices of the law 1) signified, which in like manner were atonements, which purchased the righteousness of the law, that sinners might not be cast out of civil society, but have now, after the revelation of the gospel, ceased. For in the New Testament the service must be only spiritual, that is, the righteousness of faith and fruits of faith, because it brings a spiritual and eternal righteousness and life, according to (the words): "I will put my law in their hearts", and Christ says: "The true worshipers will worship God in spirit and in truth", that is, in true heart service and worship. That is why the Levitical services were abolished, because spiritual services of the mind and their fruits and signs would have to follow, as is clearly taught in the letter to the Hebrews.
22 From all of which it follows that the mass is not a sacrifice, so that for the sake of the mere act it merits the forgiveness of sins of others, as they have taught. And they may try to embellish and make up the silent masses as they wish, but their own doctrine of the mass contradicts and contradicts them, since they have pretended that it can be administered to others and bring them forgiveness of sins. This opinion will not be eradicated from people's minds without the restoration of the right use of the Mass, but will necessarily always remain and recur, because such a service must be in the Church, so that God may be reconciled.
23. and set (as one after legal kind cases seals or sets), the fair could a Ge-
1) l6Ait for 16A8. (Walch.)
2) Read rsstituto for rsotituto in Latin.
(Walch.)
If the sacrifice is called a memorial sacrifice or a sacrifice of praise, it is not a sufficient sacrifice for those who do it, or for those who offer it to others, thereby earning forgiveness of sins. And what is the use, then, of leaving the proper custom and institution of the same, and introducing it into the church, where, after all, it is not necessary to depart from Christ's command and order for the sake of any human cause, poem, or opinion? For in the same way, Christmas and other feasts celebrated in remembrance of Christ could be called memorial and thanksgiving sacrifices. Yes, such sacrifices are rather the preaching of the Gospel, faith, prayer, thanksgiving, tribulations, or intercessions for others. And the main purpose of the Mass, as we have already said, is that it is a sacrament given by the minister to another, therefore it cannot be called a sacrifice, for everyone knows that there is a great difference between sacrifices and sacraments. For in the former we receive the gifts presented to us by God, but in the latter we give and offer to God what is ours.
24. But the silent masses originate from no one else than from the popes, who, from Gregory's time on, have added this, then another ceremony, chant or prayer, individually, according to their holiness or opinion, as the histories unanimously testify, until they finally built out of it the excellent work, which such founders well deserve, which is well worthy of such founders, namely, that they abandoned the proper use of the mass, threw the teachings of Christ behind their backs, and filled and flooded the whole church with stillmeffen, in which alone they sought all holiness.
(25) This, Most Sublime, Most Great King, has been explained to our princes and other Protestant estates of the empire by divine scholars and public teachers in great books, which we have deemed good to touch upon here only very briefly in this letter; not that we think that Your Most Sublime Royal Majesty does not know about it. Maj. does not know about it, rather we are completely assured that Your Majesty is aware of the Old and New Scriptures. Maj. is perfectly acquainted with the Old and New Scriptures, these and other scriptural doctrines, 1) of which also Your Royal Majesty has often spoken with the scholars. Maj. often converses with scholars in a very wise and learned manner, but for this reason we have merely done so, that we will inform Your Royal Maj. in the shortest possible time of the reasons for our decision. Maj. the cause and some of the reasons for the abolition of the stillmeffen in our country with due deference, and to point out the blasphemies of the adversaries, by which they have been criticized both by Your Majesty and by others. Maj. and otherwise with
1) "Scripture teachings" put by us instead of: "scriptures".
The people of the world would like to reject every opportunity they eagerly seek and seize to blacken the true doctrine by a thousand intrigues and poems, and to make it odious to all.
26 We also do not doubt that Your Majesty, as a learned king who loves the evangelical truth, will easily appreciate that the ordinances of silence were not instituted and carried out in an unfaithful manner, but for reasons of the utmost justice and urgency, which are based on the word of God, which alone cannot err, without all falsification and deceit, and have been abolished in our country for the glory of God and the advancement of the blessedness of mankind. And as many pranks and plots as can be devised against it, it will be seen that ours choose the safest by keeping the manner of Christ's institution. And most of the priests in our country have of their own free will ceased to celebrate the silent masses, having heard from the evangelical teaching how erroneous and ungodly they would be; and most and most learned people who have had priesthoods or parishes under other sovereignties and rulers who do not profess the true evangelical doctrine have departed from it, so that they would not have to act contrary to conscience, and have gone to the places where the doctrine of the Gospel is freely preached. For it is a very grave sin to force and drive one, especially in such a matter, which injures God's honor and runs contrary to God's word, as to a service of God.
However, so that we do not burden Your Serene Majesty with long letters, we do not want to say anything more about this article this time.
III. [Of the marriage of priests.]
28 There remains the third point of our intention, namely, the marriage of priests, which the Roman bishop has also forbidden against the Scriptures, against the laws of nature and all respectability, and has given occasion to many sins, defilements and vices. But so that one would not doubt that he was the very adversary of Christ, of whom Scripture clearly proclaims such a prohibition as well as other things that obviously rhyme with him, he had to give such a law of celibate priesthood, so that, as one would recognize the lion by its claws, so also the pope, that is, the Antichrist, by such a prohibition of the most holy and in everything so honest marriage. For this is what Paul says: "But the Spirit clearly says that in the last times some will depart from the faith and pay attention to the spirits of error.
thum and doctrines of the devils, who speak lies in glibness and have a branded conscience, who forbid to become married." If this does not rhyme with the Roman bishop, who else should it rhyme with? For no one but he has most unjustly snatched marriage from the priests, and introduced the impure celibate state in its place, as something holy, and, as Paul says, in hypocrisy and through lies.
(29) Scripture leaves both priests and other men free to marry, for they are all born of one flesh, which clothed and contained the whole human race: they cannot therefore change their nature, nor put off their flesh, nor remain unmarried without a special gift from God. For "not every one (says Christ) grasps this," and Paul says, "For the sake of fornication let every man have his own wife." And especially of priests he says: "Set elders (priests) in the cities, as I commanded you, if anyone is blameless, a wife's husband, having faithful children, and not a slave." Likewise, "A bishop shall be blameless, a woman's husband." Thus it is seen that this prohibition is not made out of divine right, but rather contrary to the holy Scriptures.
(30) But some of the papal advocates argue against this: that although priestly marriage does not seem to be forbidden in sacred Scripture, yet priests have always lived without marriage from ancient times; therefore they add that in this matter it is not necessary to depart from the ancient examples, nor to permit marriage to priests. This is obviously contradicted, most gracious King, both by church and other histories, from which it is clear that the bishops and priests were married or married in ancient times.
First, Spiridion, bishop of Cyprus, who was a prophet, as church history says, had a wife, by whom he begot a daughter named Irene. After that, almost all the bishops were successively elected, and many of their sons were even made Roman bishops, or bishops of others. Sylverius, pope, was the son of bishop Hormide. Pope Theodorus was the son of Bishop Theodori of Jerusalem. Pabst Adrianus II Talari, bishop. John XI, pope, of the pope Sergii. Gelasius of the Bishop Valerii. Pope John XV, Leo's, the priest's (or presbyter's), son. And to speak briefly, it is seen from the only history of Polycratis, whose parents had seven sons in order to bishops, among which he was the eighth. But it is not possible to believe that
they should all be born of unlawful marriage, since the Canons and Conclusions of the Conciliarities (or Synods) give that if anyone should say that the priest, under pretext of priestly sanctity, despises (or should despise) his own wife, it should be a ban or a curse.
32 We also have the excellent example of Paphnutio the Confessor, who contradicted the entire Council of Nicaea not to forbid marriage, and also brought it about that nothing was commanded in this, but it was left to one freely, but not a necessity or compulsion was made of it. This history is also cited in the Pontificio (or Papal Book of Orders). And one finds a conclusion of the sixth Concilii in which the prohibition of marriage is expressly condemned.
(33) However, it is again objected (2) that priests cannot be allowed to marry because of the vows of chastity made by priests. Answer: But what this vow is, and whether it is binding, since it cannot be kept without sin, Your Royal Majesty, according to her great wisdom and learning, will judge in a highly enlightened manner. For the gift of chastity is not given to all, and this is also testified by the celibate priesthood and daily experience. And what to think of such a vow has been sufficiently discovered by the opinion of the holy fathers. For thus Augustine says: "Some say that those who marry after a vow are adulterers. But I say to you that those who divorce them are hardly sinners. And Cyprian says of the virgins who have vowed chastity: If they will not or cannot remain so, it is better that they should go free than fall into the fire through their lustful heat.
34 The above-mentioned holy fathers therefore think that such a vow should not hinder marriage, as indeed there can be no obstacle to those who have not been given the gift of chastity not marrying, for it is better to marry than to be in heat, as St. Paul says. But what is more lewd and shameful than the papal celibate priesthood? How few are chaste in it? How many are involved in fornication, adultery and such like, yes, much greater sins and vices almost daily? And if they were punished properly, they would certainly not be allowed to spread much with their fictitious and hypocritical celibate priesthood.
35 The histories also report that the priests in Germany resisted for three years and even longer against Pope Hildebrand's commandment of the celibate state, which forcibly denied them wives, and gave the most cogent reasons for their resistance.
against such of the pope's decree and tyranny to defend the marriage. But when they did nothing, at last such a rebellion occurred against the bishop of Mainz, who had carried out the papal decree, that he had to desist from his intention, and at last the pope, after many curses, banishing rays and bulls, so that he himself sought to storm into heaven, brought it so far that the poor priests were deprived of the free power to marry, contrary to divine and human rights, and were given cause for all kinds of lechery and fornication. One also has the letter of St. Udalrich, bishop of Augsburg, 1) in which he refutes and rejects the prohibition of priestly marriage with important and emphatic reasons.
36. Because our and other evangelical princes, according to the truth revealed again by God's grace, saw what was to be held of the papal prohibition of priestly marriage, and experienced and clearly recognized everywhere that such a single state could not exist without sins and ailments, they also here 2) tore the papal bonds and gave the priests free marriage again, as the Holy Scriptures and the examples of the Holy Fathers and the ancient Church require and testify. For they believed that this also belonged to their duty, that they removed the occasion and cause of innumerable aggravations and abominations, which the single priesthood necessarily entails, and advised the common respectability in this, especially since they saw especially since they saw what abominable things happened both in the priesthood and in the monasteries of the monks and nuns, where one learns that children were often strangled, the fruits aborted, and other shameful deeds committed, which fruits only the common priesthood produced. And that is why there are now many priests in our country who have been married, and also many in the single state; and it is left to each man's conscience whether he wants to marry or not, if he only lives in such a way that he does not give offense to others. Otherwise, both the priests and the common people will be punished according to the common laws. And by the grace of God, so much has been accomplished that the consciences of those who have not been given the gift of chastity have been counselled, the occasion and cause of many abominations and misdeeds has ceased, and women and virgins, whom they often violently pursued under the pretense of piety, have been punished.
1) to Nicolaus I, Roman bishop. (Walch.)
2) Latin lacks "r"; sa ro. (Walch.)
can be sure of that. In short: that both secular and ecclesiastical offices are held in higher honor, and that priests are more respected and regarded everywhere than was ever the case in the past with the full of aversions unmarried state, we have to attribute in good part to the honorable marriage of priests.
Moreover, no one argues more vehemently and sharply against the Roman Pontiff, and teaches so much about the freedom of marriage as about the rightly asserted pure doctrine, against its suppression and obscuration, as those who have now been freed from the same yoke of the impure single state. They also take good care of their children, whom they beget by marriage, whom God will undoubtedly provide for after the death of their parents, if they have been brought up and nurtured in the fear of God. For it would be harsh to exclude priests from marriage because they have their offices and positions only for life and do not pass them on to their descendants. For in this way one would also have to forbid marriage to many others who hold public offices or otherwise serve. This, however, would do more harm than good to the common people, since it is known both from holy scripture and the sayings of the holy fathers, as well as from the testimony of the laws of nature and of the nations, and also from the judgment and applause of the wisest men, that marriage must be permitted and free for those who cannot remain single, in order to avoid greater danger.
(38) This, most noble and invincible king, we have recently wanted to present before your most noble royal majesty, in order to tell your majesty some reasons why our most noble princes and other evangelical princes and estates of the realm, in these three articles, so deviate from the Roman pope that, since they otherwise would not have deviated from the truth in other Christian doctrines, they have nevertheless decided to reject his tyranny in this. In these three articles, our most illustrious princes and other evangelical princes and estates deviate so much from the Roman Pontiff that, since in other Christian doctrines they would not have had the heart to deviate a single finger from the truth, they nevertheless decided in this to throw off his tyranny in it and, for the glory of God and the prevention of infinite shameful deeds, to persevere firmly in it. We do not want to say anything here about other abuses that the Roman pope has committed, among which the confession of the ears is to be counted first and foremost, by which he has not only turned the power of the keys to the most shameful profit and tyranny, but has also turned confession, which was otherwise so salutary for instructing and comforting the conscience, into a torture rack, and has thereby imprisoned all kings, princes and potentates under his yoke, yes, has also caused innumerable mischiefs, of which ours are aware.
printed writings testify to what they mean, and with what reverence they allow the same to take place in our churches.
39 And it is gratifying for us to have the opportunity to present this to Your Most Serene Majesty and to leave it to your judgment. For since your Royal Majesty is gifted with high erudition, wisdom and desire for truth, and has also (not without divine impulse, or divine sense, as the poet says) eradicated the Roman bishop's tyranny from her vast realms, nor, praise God! continues to be held captive by the same ungodly opinions, we are fully assured that your most Serene Royal Majesty will not be disturbed by these important matters, which are of great importance to the Roman Catholic Church. Majesty will be able to judge quite freely and impartially on these important matters, which concern the honor of God, the salvation of the Church and the complete elimination of the Roman Antichrist, which is otherwise not the case with those who either are not learned, or do not ask for the truth, or adhere to papal people, opinions and things, or are prevented from doing so by fear, or are drawn by affections (favor or disfavor) to one side more than the other; Just as many who hang their cloaks to the wind pretend that they are hastening the pope and are devoted to the truth, who in fact are seeking something quite different. But that 1) such people neither can nor should judge from such disputes is known to Your Royal Majesty from themselves.
40. We do not doubt, however, that everyone who is learned in something and loves the evangelical truth will soon consider our, and indeed Christ's and the churches', cause to be good, for no self-interest or advantage is sought, but it is only a matter of how to remove ungodly abuses that have been introduced into Christ's church by the Antichrist, and to promote Christ's honor and righteous services, so that the consciences may be freed from the papal yoke and servitude, The only thing that matters is how to remove ungodly abuses introduced into Christ's church by the Antichrist, and to promote Christ's glory and righteous worship, so that consciences may be freed from papal yoke and servitude, and public nuisances may be eradicated as much as possible. In these things zeal is not to be punished at all, but rather to be highly praised and followed. For since this must be the main purpose and end of all well-ordered states (or regiments), that God's honor be spread, and common salvation, respectability, discipline, peace and tranquility be preserved: who then doubts that those who have the rule, and thus, as it were, their whole manner of government and
1) Instead of Huurn, Huock should stand. (Walch.)
2) In Latin, wrong qno jnrs, for tantnoa adest ut. (Walch.)'
Are not the most praiseworthy things to do in the pursuit of this goal? And because your Royal Majesty, as a most wise and learned lord, has this purpose in mind also in the government of their extensive and praiseworthy kingdoms and countries, as is evidently seen, we, who, for the advancement of the honor of Christ and the common good, have been sent as envoys to your illustrious Royal Majesty in this so praiseworthy cause, can consider ourselves justly fortunate. Likewise, we can consider ourselves most fortunate the entire subjects of your Majesty, who through divine goodness have such a king and prince, who not only possesses other royal virtues, but also earns honor and admiration everywhere because of his zeal for true godliness and for evangelical truth.
(41) It is indeed a great thing to fast the common people in certain and just laws, to protect and protect the pious, to restrain the wicked by punishments, to control injustice and violence, and to maintain peace and unity among the subjects. For who would not love and honor such a prince as a god who executes such things? But there are even greater things when true godliness is added, when Christ's honor is spread, the word of God is held in high esteem, services that are in accordance with God's will are established, people's consciences are consulted, and public offenses are cleared away; For the former concerns only the worldly life, which everyone must give up and leave when his time comes; but the latter belongs to eternal life, which is in store for pious and godly people when this miserable human life has come to an end, and on which there are great rewards both in this world and in the next. That is why God honors kings with His name when He says: "I have said that you are gods," mainly so that they may fast godly things and preserve true religion in the world. To this end the Scripture especially exhorts when it says: "Be wise, ye kings, and be chastened, ye judges of the earth; serve the Lord" etc. The examples of the greatest kings in holy scripture, who promoted the true religion with the greatest diligence, care and effort, and on the other hand abolished false worship, give us guidance for this. This was done by David, Josiah, Jehoshaphat, Ezechias, and all the holy kings after them.
42 Since your royal majesty undoubtedly has just such a thing in mind, and has already taken great pains to promote the true evangelical religion, which was destroyed by the tyranny of the pope, the kingdom of God is now in the midst of a process of change.
We do not want to doubt that God will bless your royal majesty's deeds and actions in such holy and proper matters and will graciously give and provide according to his good will that God will bless your royal majesty's deeds and actions in such holy and proper matters and will graciously give and provide according to his good will that God will bless your royal majesty's deeds and actions in such holy and proper matters and will graciously give and provide according to his good will that God will graciously give and provide according to his good will that God will bless your royal majesty's deeds and actions in such holy and proper matters: We do not doubt that God will bless your royal majesty's actions and conduct in such sacred and proper matters, and will graciously give and provide according to His good pleasure, that such an agreement will be reached between your royal majesty and our princes, as well as other religiously related states, which will undoubtedly be to the praise of the Gospel and to the common salvation of all Christendom, but which will all the more overthrow the Roman Antichrist. But it will overthrow the Roman Antichrist all the more and throw him to the ground. And we live in the complete hope that, beloved God, several kings, princes and potentates will fall for this so holy cause and recognize and accept the doctrine of the evangelical truth, just as up to now, by God's grace, an impressive progress has been made, that great kings, princes and cities, both inside and outside Germany, have accepted the doctrine of the divine word.
43. And one can clearly see that the people, after the truth in the writings of those who confess and teach the doctrine of the Gospel has gone out almost into the whole world, shining into their eyes, are very eager for the pure doctrine, whose prayer God will one day hear according to His goodness, and spread His word far and wide by enlightening the hearts of kings and princes. kings and princes, far and wide, so that one shepherd, namely our Lord Jesus Christ, and one sheepfold, namely the Catholic Church, which confesses the pure Gospel of Christ and keeps the use of the sacraments in accordance with it, but not a papal or Roman one, which rejects, hates and views both.
44 For the rest, we wish and pray, Most Serene, Most Great King, Most Gracious Lord, that Your Majesty, by the grace of God, will bravely continue in the work of evangelical truth that has been begun, for the advancement of the glory of Christ and the common good, and we do not doubt that Your Majesty, as a king who loves true godliness and all virtue and scholarship, will willingly do so. And we also ask Your Most Serene Royal Majesty to let us go away with an early gracious answer to our Most Serene Princes, the most gracious as it can be done, so that the convenient time to sail away may not escape us now.
(and that Your Most Serene Majesty, against whom our owed services and veneration will never diminish, will note this letter of ours in the best way, according to her world-renowned kindness, grace and graciousness, and let it be commended to us in grace. May Your Most Serene Royal Majesty be well, and may the Almighty God, for the glorification and propagation of the honor of His name and common salvation, keep you healthy for many and long years to come. Given in London, August 5, 1538.
Your Royal Majesty
most devoted and obedient Francisc. Burkard, Vice Chancellor, / George von Boyneburg, D. / Envoy. Friederich Myconius, preacher at Gotha.
1270 King Henry VIII's reply to the Protestant envoys to the previous letter. Between August 5 and October 1, 1538.
See the previous number. The approximate time is determined from the data of the previous and the following document.
Translated into German by M. A. Tittel.
1. Your letter, excellent and respectable envoys, which you sent to me through your servant, so full of kindness and strange love towards me, we have well received and read with pleasure, in which you report that, according to the message deposited with us, with some of our appointed bishops and teachers of divine doctrine on various articles of the Christian religion for about two months, and did not doubt that between your princes and us and both bishops, divine scholars and subjects, there would be a firm and everlasting agreement in the evangelical doctrine, to the praise of God and harm of the Roman Antichrist. But since you cannot wait for the rest of the disputation or trade on the abuses, since the ships are already arriving that are to take you home again, you have considered it your duty to give us your opinion on some articles of the abuses beforehand, so that, after your departure, we may discuss them with our bishops and theologians. And since you consider these to be three main points that seem to support the cause of papal tyranny, namely, the prohibition of both forms in the Lord's Supper, the silent masses, and the prohibition of priestly ordinances.
Before doing so, you should clearly and honestly state your opinion and leave it to our judgment and discretion, even though it is poor and few.
(2) To whom, excellent envoys, should such your love and affection not be pleasing? Who should not highly admire your so great kindness? since you also seek to communicate such things to us, which serve not only to lead the present life righteously, but also to attain the future eternal. For if we regard as friends those who in worldly commerce bring us good and pleasant goods, so that we may not suffer from the necessities of temporal life, how much more must we regard as friends those who want to share with us those things that serve eternal life. For what one acquires in temporal food does not last long, but what promotes eternal life never perishes. Yes, even earthly friendship, no matter how great and lasting, ends when we leave the world; but love, which never ends, shines even brighter after this life.
And because it pleases you not to spurn our judgment, which we ourselves regard too badly for us to speak of such high things, and also at the same time to open up what seems best to you, in which you do not bear witness to a common love for us, I would not have incurred your great courtesy if we had not reopened what now seemed to us to be the matter, but had decided to touch upon something of these three articles as well, and to pour out our hearts to you sincerely. In this way it can happen that the love between us and your princes grows all the more and lasts all the longer, if nothing remains hidden between friends, but everything is done honestly, which we like to keep this way with all our friends. Which habit we do not want to change in the least, even now, towards such valuable friends whom we especially love. But let us now come to the articles themselves.
Of both shapes.
(4) That you think that the holy supper must always be served to the people under both forms, as Christ first instituted, we cannot believe, excellent and respectable messengers, that it was said by you in earnest, but that you only brought it forward to try us, to hear our opinion about it. For such an opinion is not at all in keeping with the right understanding of Scripture, and no one is likely to accept it.
which we want to show further in this letter.
5. And we cannot imagine, although there is reason to do so, that you should not believe with us that under the form of the bread there is truly and essentially the true and living body of Christ, and with the body the true blood; For otherwise it would have to be said that the body is empty and without blood, which would be most unreasonable to say, since such flesh of Christ is not only living but also life-giving, and under the form of wine there is not only the living and true blood of Christ, but also with the true blood the living and true flesh of the body. Since this is so, it necessarily follows that those who communicate under one form, and take the body of Christ only under the form of bread, nevertheless also enjoy the blood of Christ, and those who receive the form of wine nevertheless also enjoy the body of the Lord. If then both the body and the blood of Christ are found under one form, the people may be given whichever form it is of both, but they still receive both, namely both the blood and the body of Christ under it. For it is read of Christ himself in the Gospel of St. Luke that he gave only one form to the two disciples who were going to Emmaus, when he was recognized in the breaking of bread. For it is written that when he sat at table with them, he took the bread, blessed it, broke it, and handed it to them; then their eyes were opened, and they recognized him by the one who broke the bread. Which place the oldest authors, as Chrysostom, Theophylactus and Augustine, interpret of the holy supper, and yet no cup is thought of there. Therefore Christ, who administers the Lord's Supper in one form, seems to have left the church, his bride, free to follow her bridegroom in this, and to administer the same under one as well as both forms. For Christ, who instituted communion under both forms, has given an example of communion under one form, who disagrees with himself neither in doctrine nor in example.
Lucas also mentions something similar in the Acts of the Apostles, where after the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, when Peter was preaching, three thousand souls were added, "who remained in the apostles' teaching, fellowship, and the breaking of bread and prayer. Which place the ancients also understand by the holy supper, and yet no cup is thought of. If then the communion under one form, namely bread, is derived from Christ Himself, and the apostles, who from Him all
For the apostles, who were taught by the coming of the Spirit in all truth, would never have given communion at the breaking of bread, if communion under both forms, because of Christ's commandment, always had to be given, so that it would not seem as if they had forgotten Christ's institution and changed His commandment.
(7) After this, the words of Christ, which Paul, in recounting the whole of the holy supper according to the evangelists, seems to confirm that Christ spoke especially of one figure. For he says: "Our Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, gave thanks, broke it, and said, Take and eat; this is my body which is given for you; this do in remembrance of me." Behold! Christ spoke especially of his body, which is to be taken under the form of bread, saying, "This do," before he even thought of the cup. But afterwards Paul also says, "Likewise also he took the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do, as often as ye drink it, in remembrance of me." And he did not say plainly, as with the body, "This do," but he adds, "As often as ye do (or shall do) it, in remembrance of me." By this he means that it is not necessary to take the blood together with the body under the bread in the form of wine, but that as often as the blood is taken in the form of wine, it must be done in remembrance of Christ.
(8) Again, Christ, after he had distributed his body, after the supper, in which he had first given his body especially under the bread, again gives his blood especially under the form of the wine, and says: "This do, as often as ye drink it, in remembrance of me," by which he gives to understand that one can also sometimes give the one especially, and yet the power of both is given to the people completely. Otherwise it would have been enough to say of both only once: "This does"; and he would not have needed to add of the cup: "This does, as often as you drink it", since he had only said of bread in general: "This does"; where he did not mean that one could take both especially.
(9) Neither can anyone deny that in the Lord's Supper the disciples received the body of Christ in the form of bread. For when they had supper, he took the bread, gave thanks, broke it, and gave it to them.
to them, saying, "This is my body." But he did not give them the cup until a little while after the Lord's Supper. Would anyone be so foolish as to believe that, after they had received the bread, they had not received the body of Christ until after the Lord's Supper, as if Christ's words beforehand, when he said, "This is my body," had been in vain, or the distribution made to the disciples had been in vain until after the Lord's Supper, when they had drunk of the cup. Which to believe is not only ungodly, but also destroys and makes vain the word and deed of Christ, which is terrible. After this, although Paul first speaks of the two bodies together, he then deals with the bodies separately, saying, "Whosoever therefore shall eat of this bread unworthily, or drink of the cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord."
(10) Which words Erasmus thus translated into Latin: Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread unworthily, or drink of the cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. Since it is clear from Paul's words that whoever receives this bread unworthily is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord; and whoever drinks of the cup unworthily is also guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. Which would never be guilty, if under the form of the bread both the body and the blood of Christ were not special, and also under the wine the body and the blood were special. And Paul would not have spoken arbitrarily of the form of the bread, if it had not to be taken otherwise than always at the same time as the wine; nor would he again have spoken arbitrarily of the cup, if it had to be taken always at the same time as the form of the bread. For why would he have set them apart if they had to be together at all times? But one must consider all the individual words of Scripture. For the prophet says, "Incline your ear to the words of my mouth"; and Moses in the fifth book of Moses says, "Set (or lay) your hearts to all the words which I testify unto you this day, for they are not commanded you in vain." And again, "Ye shall not add unto the word which I speak unto you, neither do ye any thing of it." The words of the Lord and of Paul themselves, which are first set apart from both forms, and then, after both have been joined together, are again separated, seem to indicate that one form can also be given apart from the words of Christ.
(11) It also does not follow from what Christ said, "Drink from it, all of you," that Christ is to be given to each of the people at all times, under both
The same words have no other meaning than that of the Lord himself, Paul, his apostle, who testifies that he received everything from the Lord because of this sacrament. For it is clear that these words have no other meaning than that which the Lord himself taught Paul, his apostle, who testifies that he received everything from the Lord concerning this sacrament, namely, that whenever anyone drinks from this cup, he should do so in remembrance of Christ, as the disciples did who were present at that time and all drank from it. Therefore, whenever anyone wishes to drink the blood of Christ, he must remember the suffering of Christ, as he who wishes to partake of the body of Christ must do. 1) And we have already seen sufficiently from what was said above about the words and the example of Christ, that for this reason, according to Christ's commandment, one must not always drink from the cup as well, as often as one wants to partake of the body of Christ. We hold that what Christ commanded to be kept is not to be overturned or forbidden by any man, because a human law cannot displace or push away the divine law. We also hold that no habit or custom can apply among men in such a way that it destroys God's word and overturns Christ's commandment.
(12) But since we desire Christ freely, that we may enjoy him in three ways bodily (viz. 1. under both forms; 2. under bread alone; 3. under the wine alone) and fourthly spiritually, namely with the will and desire alone, if we are forced by necessity to take it in no other way, then we hold that, first, if a believer out of ardent love for God and special devotion desires to take the sacrament under both forms, he may be given the sacrament under both forms, if there is no other hindrance from illness or disease, if no other obstacle of illness or weakness prevents it, communion may be administered to him in both forms, provided that neither he who demands the sacrament nor he who administers it does so to the displeasure of the people or to the contempt of the Church, nor does he, by his right, seek to break the laws of the country in which he lives, be they spiritual or secular.
13. for the other and third, so that if any such obstacle intervenes, it cannot be taken under either guise without danger, as when, e.g., from gouty disease or
1) Here it must be briefly remembered, because otherwise everything is so probably presented, that Christ wanted to oppose the paschal lamb sacrament, whereby of course the cup was drunk especially last, with his new sacrament, and consequently eating and drinking must never be separated from each other. Christ's institution must precede all other things. (Walch.)
The fourth is that, if he were afflicted with nausea or other ailments of the body, his stomach would immediately give up everything he had eaten. Fourth, that if he were afflicted with sickness (disgust) or other bodily infirmities, that the stomach would immediately give up all that he had taken in, that when he asked for the Sacrament, it would only be shown to him, so that when he saw it, he would remember the death of Christ, his Redeemer, all the sooner, and in contrition of heart communicate spiritually.
I am therefore very surprised that those who want to be zealous protectors and defenders of Christian freedom, nevertheless want to take away this freedom of ours in this one sacrament of the body and blood of the Lord, over which Christ, when he departed, left nothing more glorious, more excellent and more comforting for the believing souls of his church. For what higher thing could Christ have given us to take in this sacrament than Himself? Then, since he left us free to receive communion under both forms, others under one, and even some, if they were hindered by need or sickness, to communicate spiritually with a broken heart when the body of the Lord was shown to them, what audacity and ruthlessness is it to deprive Christians of this freedom? that those to whom communion could not be given under both forms because of innumerable hindrances would not be given anything of the highest good under either form. For they do not yet admit that even if one does not enjoy it bodily, one can still enjoy it spiritually. What a hard servitude this should not be, that our Savior Christ's body, which he would have taken from the faithful, should be forcibly snatched from us, if we desired it most? What sincere Christian would not consider the liberty of this enjoyment, snatched from his hands, to be more grievous than death? Therefore, we must hold with all our might over the liberty bequeathed to us by Christ, by no means retreating from it, and rather, in my opinion, suspecting those themselves who want to deprive us of it.
(15) And how should it be with the northern peoples? likewise with those in Africa and those who live between the solstices (tropicos)? where so much wine is not to be had that the people can be given (communion) under the form of wine (for such peoples brew beer for their drink): will they, because they cannot partake of the sacrament under both forms, be given the sacrament in the form of beer?
Do they not want to enjoy Christ under one? Would they not enjoy Christ under one? O be far from that!
16 But when the people first began to abandon the old custom and to partake of the holy communion only under one form, we do not really know. But it is probable that our ancestors, because of the scriptural passages in which they read that Christ and the apostles sometimes administered only One Form, and also because of the danger of spilling some of the blood on the ground, since all wet things, if one's limbs tremble in the least, are easily spilled, out of holy devotion and reverence, and great fear of God, and that Christ, who promised to remain with his church until the end of the world, would not have left it so many hundred years in succession that, if he had made a necessary commandment for all to take both forms at all times, he would nevertheless have shamefully let them fall and err in so important a matter. On the contrary, he seems to have given his church the freedom that, since the whole Christ is contained in one form as in the other, he can also be taken under one of the two.
But what the Greek churches of today have for a custom with both forms, which have never given tyranny to the Roman church, that is not known to us so exactly, because all of Greece is under the Turkish empire and territory, and they do not have free power to confess Christ, as they should like, because they are neither allowed to preach the word of God publicly, nor to call the people with bells, nor to sing common litanies, with presentation of the flag of the cross.
18) It should also be noted in particular that in all churches on Holy Friday the priest and all the people communicate only under the form of bread, not at the same time under the form of wine; that because the same day represents the death of Christ, on which his precious blood was shed for our salvation and separated from the body, all communicate on it, whether priest or people, only under one form. This custom would not have been adopted by the whole church if the whole Christ were not under one form, and thus the sacrament could also be administered under it.
From the private mass.
19. remember the masses of silence, that they gave rise to many abuses, that they helped to support the papacy as an atlas, that they introduced the stuff of indulgences.
They plundered the world because they were used for profit, produced a bunch of monks, and destroyed God's word. That is why the German princes established communion in the old way, and had it held in the native language, with honorable and moral ceremonies; but the silent masses, which brought forth such evil fruits and abuses, were completely abolished.
20 We have now considered this from time to time, but we find that Christ never ordained anything in his church which the evil serpent does not always abuse; nevertheless, we must not therefore reject what is ordained holy, otherwise we would have to abolish all sacraments. Yes, we have considered it good that all abuses should be abolished, but that what has been instituted in the church in a holy and godly manner should remain firm and constant.
(21) For if for this reason the silent masses are to be abolished altogether, because Thomas Aquinas, Gabriel, and others have introduced ungodly doctrines from them, as you say, namely, that the masses merit grace by the mere act, and take away sins from the living and the dead, and that a foreign work can be given to another, they may say what they will, but they teach it of all masses, and not of the silent mass alone. If, then, in order to control such opinions, the silent mass had to be abolished, then for the same reason one would also have to abolish the common mass or communion, which you yourselves keep and do not consider useful to abolish, whatever others might think of it. The silent Mass, however, is, as it were, a silent (special) communion and supper, which, if it is done in the right way and properly, all the faithful who want to be present, if they come to it repentant, will repent of their sins and implore God's mercy, saying with the Prodigal Son: "Father, I have sinned in (or against) Heaven and before You," they will undoubtedly communicate with the priest in a timely manner, offering themselves and their souls as living sacrifices pleasing to God, even if they are few in number and do not receive the Sacrament in the flesh. Thus, the silent mass is not at all harmful to the church, but rather seems to be very helpful in improving life and strengthening faith in Christ. For in it Christians recognize themselves as sinners who are always lacking, and thus daily ask for mercy by falling daily in this uneven course of life, and thus also daily get up through repentance, become lively again, overcome the enemy, and go forth to the battle all the more courageously.
22. it is also equal in the inputs of all still-
The confession is a common confession of all sins, in which one asks God for forgiveness and the priest counts the lots according to God's word, just as in the common (public) mass.
(23) And if at a common mass, however solemn, there were no one else present but the priest who wanted to partake of the sacrament and communicate, then what will a common mass be but a silent mass? If on a feast day the people come to worship and no one else wants to communicate, will the priest refrain from celebrating Mass? Even among the Greeks, where a common mass is held every Sunday, as you say, there is seldom anyone of the people who communicates and enjoys the sacrament, as we have heard from credible people who were present at the Greek service.
24. But since you refer to Epiphany, that communion is held three times a week in Asia, as he says, and that the apostles instituted such a custom, since now in Greece (or Greek church) the people gather for worship only every Sunday, and thus the custom instituted by the apostles could have been changed, that the people do not gather as often as the apostles ordered: Why could it not also have been changed to assemble several times and more often, since the remembrance of Christ's death is thereby more repeated, as happens in the silent mass?
(25) For if Christ commanded that this should be used by the faithful in remembrance of his death, when he said, "Do this in remembrance of me," lest, if his death were remembered less frequently, it should be forgotten, this command will be kept the better, the more and often the remembrance of it is renewed in the sacrament. For as that which is seldom remembered is easily forgotten, so that which is often repeated is more deeply and firmly imprinted, so that it cannot be erased. For this reason, the silent Mass helps to renew the memory of Christ's death again and again.
(26) Paul at least calls all the individual houses in which there were a number of believers churches, members of the great church of the city (or congregation) in which they were, just as he also calls the larger churches of whole cities members of the catholic and general church when he writes to the Corinthians. But what church can be kept from the communion of the body of Christ? Christ also says, in instituting the sacrament of his body and blood, "Do these things, if you are a member of the church.
He has therefore not excluded any time or place where it could not be done. How, then, are we to keep anyone from the silent masses, and merely refer them to the common communion and feast days? since Christ freely allows everyone to do so when and where he wishes, saying, "As often as" etc. For if one had to pay attention to certain times, Christ would not have spoken in an unlimited way, who is the Word of God and the wisdom of the Father Himself.
27) From the beginning of the church, communion took place in every single house where there were believers, and that, as Lucas testifies in the Acts of the Apostles, daily, for he says: "They remained daily with one accord in the temple, and broke bread here and there in houses," which place also the ancients understand by communion; and yet not all days were holidays, but they communicated in silence in houses. And if 1) the servants of earthly kings and princes almost all do not like to let a day go by, since they do not want to enjoy the mere sight of their Lord, even if they do not come quite close to him: Who then would blame a believing Christian if he heartily desires that, since mortal eyes cannot see Christ, the King of kings and Lord of lords, reigning in the majesty of glory in this life, he may nevertheless see the King of honors by faith in the sacrament of the body of the Lord, which he bequeathed to the faithful to celebrate his memory?
28 Chrysostom writes that the priest stands at the altar and allows some to commune, while he rejects others; thus he describes the use of common communion, which was more common in the early days of the church than it is now, and which is now the custom of all churches at Easter, when the people communicate everywhere. Incidentally, he often reproaches the believers of his time for not communicating as often as they should or as was the old custom. By the way, he did not forbid silent masses anywhere.
29 The Nicene Canon assigns to the deacons their place after the priests in the common communion, but neither it nor any other abolishes the silent masses.
(30) You consider the sacrament of the Holy Supper to be no sacrifice, because there is only One Atonement, namely the death of Christ. And since he who was once sacrificed for us does not die, there is no sacrifice other than the spiritual service,
1) stsi for et Ä. (Walch.)
This is the righteousness of faith, and the fruits of faith. We know what the righteousness that is of faith is, as Paul contrasts it with the righteousness that is of the law; but what the fruits of faith are is not so clear to us from Scripture. But we know that faith itself, like love and many other virtues, are fruits of the Spirit. But we cannot wonder enough why it should be repugnant to anyone that the Mass should be called a sacrifice, since all the ancient Greeks and Latins were accustomed to call it such, inasmuch as in it the blessing (or consecration) of the body and blood of the Lord takes place in remembrance of Him who, as Paul says, offered Himself as a gift and sacrifice and sits eternally at the right hand of God; for with One Sacrifice He has perfected for eternity those who are being sanctified. Therefore, if Christ is both the priest and the gift and sacrifice, our sacrifice is also everywhere where Christ is. But if in the sacrament of the altar is the true body of Christ and the true blood of Christ, how then, if the truth of the body and blood of the Lord remain, should not our sacrifice be there?
31 And because Christ, our sacrifice, is in the mass, so that he does not die, and because we, as his members and body, offer ourselves as living sacrifices with our head, the Greeks together call this an "unbloody sacrifice". Thus the ancients all called the mass a sacrifice, because Christ, our sacrifice, was present in the sacrament.
Thus Basil, Chrysostom, Jerome, and Augustine had no hesitation in naming them. Therefore, what is to prevent the mass, in which the bread is consecrated (or blessed) to the body of Christ and the wine to the blood of Christ, who is truly our sacrifice and has commanded it to be celebrated in his memory, from being called a sacrifice? For otherwise, if we deny this, we must fear greatly lest it appear that we are in agreement with the Sacramentists, as they are called, who deny the truth of the body and blood in the Sacrament, or with the Anabaptists. From which suspicion we are not only far removed in our minds, but also want to deny the blasphemers every opportunity to interpret something of the sort. But now that in the Mass both the priest and the people, who suffer for their sins, present themselves, according to Paul's admonition, as a living, holy sacrifice pleasing to God, sing hymns of praise 1) to God and offer thanksgiving:
1) lauckes quas for lauckosyuo. (Walch.)
Who can doubt that also in this passage the Mass is rightly called a sacrifice, since the prophet calls it a sacrifice of praise, and Paul exhorts all to present themselves as living sacrifices, which is done in the Mass?
33) The prophet Malachias says: "From the going out of the sun until the going down, my name is great among the Gentiles, and offerings are made to me everywhere, and pure sacrifices are offered to my name, because my name is great among the Gentiles, says the Lord of hosts. But what else is 2) a pure sacrifice everywhere among the Gentiles, but Christ alone, and what other offering of the Christians than the mass, where the memorial of the death of Christ is celebrated? For surely it must be a sacrifice of the Christians among the Gentiles, or the prophet has lied. What then is a pure sacrifice, but Christ alone, our offering and sacrifice, who is in the sacrament of the altar under the species of bread and wine? For we may offer ourselves to God as we wish, but we do not deserve to be called a pure sacrifice, because all our righteousness is like the cloth of an unclean woman. So you see that the mass itself is called a sacrifice in the word of God, as we read in Malachia. And if this is so, why should the mass not be called a sacrifice, which the prophet proclaimed, and in which Christ, present in the sacrament, is the sacrifice of the world?
From the priestly marriage.
(34) You pretend that the single priesthood was instituted by the Roman Pontiff contrary to Scripture, contrary to the laws of nature, contrary to respectability, since Scripture leaves priests, like other men, free to marry, nor can they change their nature, nor remain single without a special gift, for "not all grasp the word," and Paul says, "For the sake of fornication, let every man have his own wife."
(35) Let us first begin by considering the place in the Gospel of the three kinds of the circumcised, according to which Christ says that some are circumcised by nature, but others are circumcised by men, neither of whom may be called chaste, because nature has made some of them incapable of generation, and force has made others. The third are those who could be used for earthly generation, but would rather remain chaste and be circumcised for the sake of the kingdom of heaven; of whom Christ immediately says: "Whoever can grasp it,
2) atyus should mean at (Mus . odlatio. (Walch.)
which cannot be understood of either the first or the second kind, who cannot attain the palms of victory of chastity because they cannot come to the battle. The third kind, however, is of those who make a point of chastity, and would rather shun lawful marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven, than not follow Christ freely and speedily, and be compelled by earthly marriage to provide for things which, as Paul says, "are of the world"; to which kind Christ, the founder of virginity, most wisely exhorts men when he says: "He that can lay hold of it, let him lay hold of it," for the word, "lay hold of it," impels men to take up the fight, that they may lay hold of the palm, namely, the kingdom of heaven, to which he would exhort no man, if he could not overcome the flesh. But when he says, "Whoever can grasp it," he indicates that the palm of victory can be grasped or seized; for otherwise, if it were impossible to overcome the flesh, what need had he to say, "Whoever can," if no one could?
(36) Nevertheless, by the very words, "those who can grasp," he indicates that there are some who cannot easily grasp. For if some can hardly grasp, why should he separate those who can? Therefore, he reminds us, we must test our strength of mind before entering the fray, lest we be too hasty in the matter, and thereafter be defeated. Nor would he have said that some would be cut off for the sake of the kingdom of heaven if the flesh were insurmountable and no one could be cut off. And there is no doubt that he who thus exhorts them to go into battle also means that his grace, without which they could do nothing, will help those who come under his knighthood. For he will certainly be their supreme commander, as one who never leaves his soldiers (or fighters) when called upon, but stands at the door and knocks, and is always ready to help when someone opens the door for him. For Paul teaches us that one can overcome temptations if one only calls upon God's assistance, when he says: "No temptation but human has yet entered you. But God is faithful, who will not let you be tempted beyond your ability, but will also provide fruit beside the temptation, so that you can bear it." Therefore, those who once vow chastity, and then shamefully depart from it, must diligently see to it that they do not appear to blaspheme the name of God, as if Christ had forsaken them with His help, since they themselves rather forsake the knighthood (or the battle).
and flee from the enemy at the very first attack. Therefore, what Paul leaves free for anyone to have his own wife because of fornication must be understood by those who have not vowed chastity, as he himself indicates when he speaks of the young widows: "When they have become lustful in (or against) Christ, they want to be free, and are condemned because they have broken the first faith (fidelity)." Augustine follows Paul in this, according to Ps. 83, and says: "Another vows, after God has given it to him, something higher, and also vows not to enter into a marriage, which would not be condemned, even if he had married, but afterwards, if he marries according to his vows promised to God, he will be condemned. Thus a nun who did not sin before when she married, is considered an adulteress when she marries after her vow against Christ, because she has looked back from the place where they came, like Lot's wife, and is considered like the dog that eats the spit again.
37 Thus Augustine, Ps. 75, also assures that once a vow has been pronounced, it must be kept. Jerome also speaks against Jovinianum: A virgin who has consecrated herself to God, if she 1) marries, is damned. And in another place against the same he says: Your virgins, whom you taught by a very wise counsel (which no one has ever read or heard from the apostle) that it is better to marry than to be in heat, have cast their adulterous eyes on open husbands; the apostle never advised this, nor the chosen armor; it is a counsel from Virgilio:
She (Dido) calls it a marriage, and with it she covers up her impure coitus. The word of God itself speaks absolutely no to it> and does not want the vow to be destroyed. The prophet says: "Vow and pay to the Lord your God". It is also written in the 5th Book of Moses: "If you vow something to the Lord your God, do not delay paying it, for the Lord your God will seek it, and if you leave it pending, it will be a sin to you. If thou promise nothing, thou shalt be without sin; but what hath proceeded out of thy lips, that shalt thou keep, and do, as thou hast promised the Lord thy God, and hast spoken out of thy will and out of thy mouth." The preacher also says: "When you have vowed something, do not delay to pay it, but what you vow, that
1) 8i datun should mean: 8i nndut. (Walch.)
2) oenlos must be read for oeeultos. (Walch.)
keep." And in the 4th book of Moses it says: "If a man vows something to the Lord and binds himself with an oath, he must not destroy his word, but fulfill everything he has promised." For this reason, the church at the beginning admitted priests and bishops, who were blameless and of one wife's husband, out of necessity, because at that time they could not have so many others, who would have been enough to teach the world: but Paul himself chose the unmarried Timothy. And if a man was chosen single to the priesthood, but afterwards took a wife, he was always deposed from the priesthood, according to the Canon of the Concilii of New Caesarea, which was before the Nicene. Similarly, in the Chalcedonian Conciliar, in the first chapter of which the previous Concilia are confirmed, it is taught that a servant (diaconissa), if she marries, shall remain under banishment, and monk and nun, if joined by marriage, shall remain banished.
39. it is also to be noted what is found in the canons of the apostles, that only the readers and song masters (lectores, cantores), who are not yet married, may marry, but the other persons admitted or received into the clergy are not free to marry.
40 But those who come to the priesthood married cannot, under the pretext of sanctity, put away their wives, as the apostolic canon teaches. And since in the Nicene Conciliar it was proposed that the priests should put away the wives already taken, Paphnutius argued that the right wives should not be put away, whose opinion, which agrees with the Apostolic Canon that the wives should not be put away, was followed by all.
By the way, there is never anything in the Nicene Conciliar that priests should marry after taking the priesthood, which was already forbidden before, so that if someone violated it and married afterwards, he would be deposed, as was said above. Therefore Paphnutius evidently said of such wives that they should not be cast out who were taken before the priesthood, but not that some should be taken after the priesthood.
42 Therefore, neither the apostolic canon nor the Nicene Concilium has anything to the effect that those who have been admitted to the priesthood should afterwards marry as you like.
43 The 6th Concilium also agrees with this, in which it was decided that if someone from the clergy wanted to marry, he should do so before he became a subdiaconate, but after that he would not be free to do so; and there, too, it is stated that he should marry before he became a subdiaconate.
Nowhere have priests been given the freedom to marry according to the priesthood, as you say.
44 Thus it was seen from the very beginning of the church that a priest was never allowed to marry after the priesthood. And where such a thing was done, it never went unpunished, for he who began such a thing was deposed from the priesthood. The apostle Paul, speaking of married couples, says: "Do not deprive one of another, except for a time, waiting for prayer." Jerome in his protective writing to Pammachium speaks, "Paul the Apostle says we cannot pray when we attend wives. If by coitus the lesser thing, namely to pray, is prevented, how much more is the greater thing forbidden, namely to take the body of Christ. And this he continues with the example of the shewbread, which was given only to the chaste David and his servants, as it is written in the Books of Kings (1 Samuel 22). For the shewbread, as it were the body of Christ, could not be eaten by those who ate from women's beds, as Jerome says, according to the example of the proclamation of the old law, before which the children of Israel had to abstain from women three days before.
Jerome also speaks against Jovinianum: If a layman or other believer cannot pray, if he does not leave the conjugal duty pending (or suspends it), then rather a priest, who must always make sacrifices for the people, must always pray, and consequently always abstain from marriage. This is also widely taught by Ambrose in the 1st Letter to Timothy, with which Augustine also agrees.
46 When Paul instructs Timothy the disciple in the priestly office, he says that one should avoid worldly affairs: "Work as a good fighter for Jesus Christ; no one who fights gets involved in worldly affairs to please the one to whom he has surrendered. And if priests took wives, they would necessarily be involved in worldly concerns; for, as Paul says, "He who has a wife takes care as he pleases the wife; but he who is without a wife takes care of what is the Lord's, as he pleases God." Therefore he also admonishes him to be single when he says, "Keep thyself chaste." For by chastity, where it is not spoken of married persons, is understood the single estate, for he willed that his disciple should be like him. And in one place to the Corinthians he exhorts all men to chastity, saying, "I will that all men be like me. And again I say, It is good for the unmarried and widows, if
they remain as I do." And in another place he writes to them, exhorting the ministers of the church of their office, saying that they should not receive the grace of God in vain; adding also: "Let us not give offense to anyone, lest the office be blasphemed; but in all things let us show ourselves to be God's servants, in watchfulness, fasting, chastity, scholarship, knowledge, in the word of truth," all of which pertains to the church ministers, who must be especially devoted to chastity, so that the impure do not approach the altar, of which the lecherous are to be rejected. Horny ones, however, are to be rejected. For this cannot be understood of anyone but priests, since the science of the divine law and the instruction of the people belong to them, as Malachias says: "The lips of the priest keep the science, and one should seek the law from his mouth." And Paul wants Timothy to show himself as a blameless worker, who rightly divides the word of truth, that is, in the teaching of the people; how then should priests of the Lord, who have long since consecrated themselves to God, who are cut off for the sake of the kingdom of heaven, who should always pray for their and the people's sins, forsake the founder of the single estate, Christ, and marry again, and get involved in worldly affairs and troubles, of which the married state is full? For what is it to put one's hand to the plow, and look back after the example of the woman [Lot], if it be not so? Of whom Christ says that they are not fit for the kingdom of God. For if no one can be in charge of the woman and the worldly wisdom at the same time, as worldly wisdom teaches, how much more will one who has devoted himself to God not be able to serve two masters, namely God and the world at the same time, each of which wants to have the whole man and not half a man.
47) Although at the beginning both married and single persons were admitted to the priesthood, this was not held so everywhere, as Jerome writes against Vigilantium, where he says: "What shall the churches in the East and in Egypt do to the apostolic see, who either accept single people as priests, or who keep themselves chaste, and, if they have had wives, cease to be men? And at Pammachium Jerome says: Christ a virgin, Mary a virgin, have consecrated virginity of both sexes; the apostles are either virgins or remained chaste after marriage. The bishops, priests and deacons are consecrated either as virgins, or as widowers, or after the priesthood eternally chaste.
The first church, whose originator is infallibly Paul and the Scriptures themselves, chooses the first church.
48 As for Augustine, whom you cite, who says: Some want those who marry after vows to be adulterers, from which I say that those who divorce them are very sinful, Augustine himself has said elsewhere that the fall and fall from holy chastity, which is vowed to God, is worse than adultery, and it is not all right what the church tolerates.
(49) Cyprian, to whom you refer, in the very letter about the virgins who have vowed chastity, where he says: If they do not want to or cannot persevere, it is better that they marry than fall into the fire through their lust, from which you conclude that a vow cannot prevent marriage, is also of a completely different opinion. For when the priest Pomponius asked him what he thought of virgins who, having first decided to keep their state chaste and firm, were then found to have lain on one bed with male persons, [he] brings the matter out from the bottom, and shows that the proximity and cohabitation of virgins and male persons is very dangerous, confirming also by Scripture that many have fallen terribly by it and perished; for which reason he says of all virgins in general: If they have dedicated themselves to Christ by faith, they may live chastely and demurely, without all evil gossip for themselves, and thus bravely and steadfastly expect the reward of virginity. But if they will not persevere, or cannot, it is better that they marry than that they fall into the fire through their lust; least of all, they should give no offense to their brothers and sisters, because it is written etc.. And a little later he concludes: "Christ, our Lord and Judge, when he sees a virgin dedicated and consecrated to holiness lying with another, O how jealous and angry he is, what punishment he threatens these mixtures! Then he answers the question, and commands the use of wives, that it may be known whether these virgins have been defiled, saying: "If any of them have been defiled, let them make full repentance; for she who has committed this iniquity is an adulteress, not of any man, but of Christ; therefore, when the proper time is over, and she has made public confession, let her come again to the church. But if they remain obdurate, and do not divorce one another, let them know that we cannot let them come to church again for this obdurate fornication, that they cannot be
become a stumbling block and an opportunity to trap others with their sins.
50 There you can see what Cyprianus thinks of broken vows. He calls such lecherous people fornicators (or incestuous) and adulterers of Christ; and where they do not part from each other, he does not admit them to the church (or congregation): how then should such vows not prevent marriage, or who would advise such a marriage, which cannot be contracted without breaking the vows and transgressing the divine commandment, consequently without the most wicked knavery?
(51) But when you write that the princes of Germany, seeing that many shameful deeds and vices had arisen from the priests' unmarried state, had given the priests the right to marry, I doubt very much that I would have given them the advice that your princes have taken, if they, your excellent advisors, had asked me for advice before the priests broke their bonds in such numbers and ran away to marriage. For if priests, who would not have abstained, had demanded to marry, how much better it would have been to depose them from the priesthood, following the example of the ancients, and leave them to their consciences, and then to promote chaste women to the altar, than to permit everything, and thereby to participate in other people's sins, and thereby to provoke them more. However, we, who in other dominions never want to take anything out of our arrogance or to judge it, gladly interpret your princes' intentions and actions to the best of our ability, and do not doubt that, although they have a sincere will to put an end to all abuses, they do not have enough skill to purify God's church. 1)
We, however, who have certainly taken special care to expel the tyranny of the Roman bishop and to honestly promote Christ's honor, will also, with God, strive in the future and see to it to the best of our human ability that all abuses introduced either by the Roman pope or by anyone else are stopped. And where we learn that some hang their mantle to the wind and act as if they hated the Roman Pontiff, boasting and pretending to truth in words that they do not respect in their hearts, we will not hold council with such people about holy things, nor will we seek their opinion in spiritual or worldly matters.
1) So by us put instead of: "to put down neither a sincere will, nor also the church of God to purify skill enough have", what seems to us to contradict the context completely.
But whatever will seem helpful to promote Christ's pure and righteous teaching, to spread Christ's gospel, to sweep out the vices of the English church, to put an end to all abuses and errors, and also to restore and adorn the church in its purity, this we will seek and do with all our strength; this we will, with God's help, strive after most eagerly.
(54) Of the articles we have now touched upon, we want to act next, as soon as it can be done, with our divine scholars, and set and decide what may be for the glory of God and the adornment of the Church, His bride.
55. But to you, honorable envoys, who have taken such pains and trouble to visit us by sea and land, and who have conversed with our divine scholars, who have been away from your homeland for so many months for the cause of the gospel, we thank you infinitely and innumerably, and are not at all surprised that, after your present long absence, you will be drawn home again by the sweet love of your homeland. Therefore, if you come to visit me after you have done the things your princes have ordered you to do and after you have finished your business, your visit will be very dear to us, and we will not only gladly let you return to your fatherland, but also send letters to your princes, which will testify to your diligence in directing your message. Farewell!
1271 King Henry VIII's letter to the Elector of Saxony, given to the envoys at the farewell audience. Oct. 1, 1538.
This letter is printed from the original in the Weimar archives in Seckendorf's llist. I^ntk., lib. Ill, x. 180, aää. I (b).
Translated into German.
1 Henry VIII, by the grace of God King in England and France, Protector of the Faith and Lord in Ireland, also the highest head in the lands of the English Church immediately under Christ: offers his greetings to the most noble and excellent Prince, Lord John Frederick, Duke of Saxony, Archmarshall and Elector of the Holy Roman Empire, Landgrave of Thuringia, Margrave of Meissen and Burgrave of Magdeburg, our dear cousin and friend.
2. the excellent men, Mr. Franciscus, have been staying with us for several months.
Burkard, 1) Vice Chancellor, Mr. Georg von Boyneburg, the Right Doctor, and Mr. Friedrich Myconius, your Serene Highness and the Serene Lord Landgrave of Hesse, our righteous friend, envoys, who have shown such splendid erudition, prudence, and great zeal for the Christian religion in everything they do and show, that, just as their dealings have been most pleasant and pleasing to us, so we have also derived from them, beloved God, the sure hope that the desired fruit and progress will one day be made on the counsels taken and actions begun. This business, which we have dealt with so far, is of course one of the most important of all, and which is more important to a Christian's heart than to others, because it concerns Christ's honor and his religion's discipline and tranquility: therefore it must of course be dealt with mature counsel and good consideration, without secondary intentions, so that one may see before all people how one has sought nothing but the honor of the Most High, the common good, and the salvation of all Christendom.
We have therefore consulted and discussed such matters with the aforementioned envoys. And as Your Serene Highness will hear from their oral report, we have so far directed everything that has been done and undertaken to be based on sound reasons and certain causes, and to promote and spread the true honor of Christ with benefit. When your Serene Highness will hear our mutual actions from her envoys, we do not doubt that they will be agreeable to her, according to her peculiar prudence and innate eagerness to promote all good efforts in the best possible way. And in order to happily continue and complete what has been happily begun, we ask that she send Philipp Melanchthon, from whose excellent scholarship and great insight all honest people expect much good, to us as soon as possible, along with other learned, righteous men: We want to use all our diligence so that your Serene Highness will see how so much effort and work has not been taken in vain now and then in those things which in some way belong to true godliness and are considered to be part of a Christian prince's office, and which can also preserve and increase our friendship among each other.
4 Your Serene Highness will have the rest done by the very envoys whose loyalty and prudence are the most important.
1) In the original: Vursrulus.
I wish that she may continue to live happily. From our royal seat near London, October 1, 1538.
Your grandfather and good friend
1272: Excerpt from a letter from the Elector of Saxony and the Landgrave of Hesse to King Henry of England, from an Anabaptist whom the Landgrave had captured and with whom correspondence with the Anabaptists in England had been discovered.
Sept. 1, 1538.
This document is found in Seckendorf's List. Imtk., lid. Ill, p. 181, in German Seckendorf, p. 1678, and in Corp. loc. vol. ill, 578.
Translated into German according to Seckendorf.
After we have found letters from an Anabaptist at this time, in which England is mentioned, and indicated that there the errors of the Anabaptists are being spread secretly, we have considered it good to report such danger immediately to Your Royal Dignity, enclosing a copy of this letter. For although we do not doubt that His Royal Highness already knows what kind of people the Anabaptists are, what they teach, and that they have completely departed from us, however, so that they can be distinguished from others and one can better guard against them, there are a few things to be reported.
(2) In places in Germany where the pure doctrine of the Gospel is not taught, especially in the Netherlands, much error arises because the common man has heard that the abuses of which he has an abhorrence are punished, but he does not hear any better doctrine. For where there is a lack of faithful teachers, one always invents different opinions than the other; for error, as they say, is a fertile mother. From these springs flowed Anabaptist folly, and from there it poured into neighboring Friesland and Westphalia. In the other places of Germany, where the pure doctrine of the Gospel is presented, the people, by God's grace, because they have been defended against such errors, flee of their own accord.
2) Seckendorf calls him Petrus lasokius. He was planning to go to England.
such plague. That is why our churches, praise God, are calmer than those in the Netherlands. However, there are certain false teachers, deceivers and enthusiasts creeping around secretly all over Germany, who mainly teach rebaptism.
3. and this is the sign of their sect, that they condemn infant baptism and have it rebaptized. This is the creed (symbolum) of this party. But to this error they add many other ravings. And because people are deceived by nothing sooner than by the appearance of great humility and patience, they teach that one should have goods in common; and in order to reject all revenge, they say that a Christian is not allowed to administer a magisterial office, to hold court, to take oaths, yes, they in fact abolish the secular state, which God has instituted and approves. At the beginning, they spread these falsities about worldly things, which easily catch people who are already inclined to superstition. Then they add an endless mixture of various opinions; for one always invents something different from the other about the Godhead, about Christ's nature, just like the Manichaeans. They pretend to enlightenment, rejecting the word of God, abolish original sin, do not teach rightly what sin is, and allow their enthusiasts obvious vices. For of justification they have false and unrighteous opinions. They disgracefully defile the sanctity of the marriage state by generally allowing many wives and divorcing at will. This barbaric mixture of various superstitions and opinions finally, where their number increases, breaks out in riots, as happened in Friesland and the city of Münster.
(4) But now they have no community or city, only a few such enthusiasts are running around in the country, spreading such poison in silence in different places. Where we get some of them, we have them taught by learned people, so that they may be brought to order; but if they stubbornly advocate the condemnation of infant baptism, or other ungodliness, or the condemnation of the worldly estate, which is in itself seditious, they will be punished.
We have reported this widely in good opinion, because the danger in this is manifold. We hope, however, that E. K. W. will understand from this letter that we do not take pleasure in false and abominable doctrines, but that the papal abuses are punished by us for their sake, so that we may continue to uphold the true and Catholic doctrine.
We hope that all pious princes, especially E. K. W., will be leaders and originators of this holy intention. We sincerely hope that all pious princes, especially E. K. W., will be leaders and originators of such holy intentions for the sake of the glory of Christ and the salvation of His Church.
1273 Melanchthon's letter to King Henry VIII, given to the envoys dispatched to England, in which he urges the king to make further improvements in matters of religion. Frankfurt, April 1, 1539.
This letter is found in Burnet's tust, rstorm. 6661st ^NZI., pari. I., aäck. n. 6, p. 249 and in the 6orp. Ket. vol. ill, 681.
Translated into German by M. Aug. Tittel.
To the most illustrious and illustrious King of England and France, Lord Henry the Eighth, Prince of Wales and Cornwallis, the supreme head of the English Church after Christ, his most gracious Prince.
Hail and greetings! Most Serene and Sublime King! Although we had heard that the Roman bishop, through all the arts of Emperor Carl and the King of France, was trying to incite the English and Germans, in the hope that God would avert these dangers and preserve your peace, I wrote in the previous letter about the church's improvement, which Your Majesty, when the time is right, will deign to undertake.
2 Afterwards I have enclosed this letter, not out of bold undertaking, but out of heartfelt zeal and love, both for the Church and for Your Majesty, therefore I beseech Your Royal Majesty, through Christ, to mark my liberty with grace.
I often think of the English church's origin and other praise; for from it the Christian doctrine has come in good part to many places in Germany and France. Yes, it is thanks to the English Church that the Roman provinces were first freed from persecution. For she first gave us the pious Emperor Constantinum, which is a great glory for your name (or people). Now your Majesty, out of great heroism, has already shown that she wants to protect the truth, has also shaken off the Roman bishop's tyranny; therefore, I sincerely wish that the old purity of your churches be completely restored. I realize, however, that there are still some in all of them who are still
to the old abuses, which either the Roman bishop has raised or confirmed. But it is to be wondered at that, since one has driven out the author of the abuses, one nevertheless still harbors the poison itself. It is to be feared, however, that such people or their successors will not even reinstate the Roman bishop's authority when the people have taken him for the master of the churches; for the ceremonies fall on the eyes and remind us of the founder, as Solon's memory has been perpetuated with his laws and has been very pleasant.
(4) I was therefore pleased when I saw in the last order omitted concerning religion that public consultation and correction were promised concerning church customs and laws, and such a refraining has softened the severity of the order. For although I praise godliness that errors are forbidden which are contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church, which we also confess, I am sorry that in addition to such things an article has been added commanding that all previous customs and the celibate priesthood be retained. Many will interpret such a command to mean that the abuses of the Mass will be reintroduced. After that, the stubborn who are hostile to our doctrine will be strengthened, while the pious will be beaten down in their zeal. Augustine already complained in his time that the servitude of the Christians was harder than that of the Jews; and how much harder will the servitude be if the superstitious antics, such as crawling to the cross, or other such things, should be enjoined under corporal punishment? Gerson writes that it is good for the pious, who observe the ceremonies too superstitiously, to be induced to break them, that they may escape superstition by use and example.
(5) But you will say, I am only strengthening the peace, and I do not want discord to arise from unequal customs. Answer: I am speaking, however, of the pious and modest, who transgress the statutes of men without tumult and disturbance, and not of those who, in public assemblies, stir up or disturb a quiet people. There are already laws concerning seditionists, and one need not immediately declare the transgression of a silly and unnecessary ceremony seditious; but in this one must look not only to outward tranquility, but also to pious consciences; for the conscience is a tender thing, and is easily struck down by the judgments of the mighty.
6. i also know well that some have created a new kind of
of wisdom, they excuse the abuses, and palliate them by all sorts of cunningly devised interpretations, in order to have a cause and appearance, why they remain so; as the author of the Kölnische Religionsbesserung nevertheless excuses terrible abuses, as, consecration of bells and other such deceptions. How much there is in the fabulous stories of the saints, as Christophori, Georgii, which as poems (poemata,) contain beautiful interpretations and parables, for whose sake, however, the churches are not nevertheless to be forced that they venerate such fictitious (poeticas) persons.
(7) It was a feast in Egypt when the figs were ripe, and the people, eating fresh figs in the temple, sang in these words: Sweet is the truth! One can soon add a good interpretation to this custom, and praise the word of God under it; but because of that, one does not have to reintroduce such a custom into the church. But we see this trick again emerging in the Church. In Italy, they say, Contarenus, Sadoletus and the Cardinal Polus would be responsible for the abuses; for they take special care to defend this Roman impiety, and consider it a great joke to color the shameful abuses, and think that by such antics of Dionysii they are renewing secret (mystical) theology. Such trickery, unless wise rulers of the Church resist, will make a terrible confusion of religions and ruin the truth again. As long as human ceremonies are required as something necessary, the wrong opinion of worship will be confirmed. That is why Paul was so zealous not only against opinion, but also against the Levitical customs themselves; for he foresaw that superstition could not be controlled if the customs remained, which is why he says very emphatically: "If you allow yourselves to be circumcised, Christ is of no use to you."
Accordingly, let the bad and clear opinion of freedom in indifferent things be maintained, and let the preachers teach what aversions must be avoided; but let the customs instituted by God and some statutes of men be kept, such as serve good order, as Paul says, and let it remain with ceremonies that are solemn and ornamental. On the other hand, all wildness (ignorance) must be kept away from the churches; other, useless and unrhymed ceremonies must not be demanded harshly at all.
(9) What danger does not the prohibition of marriage bring to the conscience? And your majesty know
that the law of the permanent celibate state was devised only in Rome. For one finds the letters of the bishop of Tarracona defending the marriage of the clergy in Spain against the Roman bishop. In Germany, the priests were still married 500 years ago, and were so reluctant to see this freedom taken away from them that they even revolted against the bishop of Mainz when he read the Roman commandment and fell upon him, so that he had to flee from it and refrain from reading it. Gregorius the Seventh had issued such a commandment, which in insolence and impiety yields nothing to any old tyrant. He not only involved our German emperors in a long and miserable internal war, but also tyrannically suppressed the churches.
(10) I also hear that the priests in England were married, and the histories are known, in which there are many examples; and therefore I am surprised that in the (royal) command the epistle to the Corinthians is referred to, since in the same epistle marriage is taught quite differently, and marriage is commanded to those who are incapable of chastity.
(11) And it is not necessary to be brought up with vows, which are contrary to divine commandment and carry with them much superstition and ungodliness. For we see what kind of life most clergymen lead without marriage; therefore I read with sadness in the command that those who take wives are considered dissolute people 1). For with such a slur our cause seems to be harmed, which the church needs, that the reputation or worthiness of marriage be better recognized, that the superstitious worship of vows be punished, and fornication be eradicated. For not impure state, apart from marriage, is a chastity pleasing to God, but an honest and godly society of the spouses; as Christ expressly calls marriage a divine union when he says: "What God has joined together" etc. Let us therefore highly respect God's order in nature and use it reverently; but not invent new services without God's word, of which kind Paul preaches by name when he writes to the Timothy, and severely punishes those who forbid marriage.
12) The prophet Daniel has attached two peculiar characteristics to the Antichrist, when he says: "He will worship the god Maosim with silver and gold.
1) Iisvistis stands for Isvitatis aeeusantur. (Walch.)
and pay no attention to his fathers' God, nor to their wives. This is very much in keeping with Roman customs.
The abuses of the masses and the worship of saints have brought about infinite wealth and royal power. New deities have been made. They worship gold and silver image pillars, which they also adorn with gold and silver. Then came the law of celibacy, which was followed by a fundamentally corrupt life. To what nation and kingdom are these signs better suited than to the mob of the Roman bishop? who, being the Antichrist, must be resisted with a godly and brave spirit against his power and laws.
(14) Your Majesty has also already happily begun to rectify some things. She had abolished several images that were worshipped in an ungodly manner. I therefore implore Your Majesty to eradicate the other Roman impiety from the churches as well. There are examples that kings have won glorious victories that have eradicated idolatry; and God often testifies how much He requires this service and promises great rewards for it. Therefore, God will also protect your majesty when she, like Hezekiah and other pious kings, abolishes godless customs. Your Majesty hears that in the Netherlands and other places terrible cruelty is being perpetrated against the pious. And this tyranny produces many other vices, reinforces idolatry, destroys true worship, exterminates true religion. And since there is a lack of good teachers, many among the people become deniers of God. For it is known that in the Netherlands almost pagan profanity is rampant, in that some are superstitious by nature, others adopt the enthusiastic opinions of the Anabaptists. This is the situation in the Netherlands, which otherwise has peace, tranquility and wealth. The rich revel in it and consider themselves blissful, but do not foresee the punishments hanging over them. God, however, will certainly punish such impiety and cruelty severely.
15) So I did not want that in your 2) kingdom the fierceness against the pious should start again, which your majesty will forbid, if it only alleviates its exuberant command and further establishes churches. And that also the descendants have a
2) According to the way of writing at that time, it was the highest honor in the form of address to call someone "you," which is why the emperor is still addressed in this way in enfeoffments. (Walch.) - Luther is always addressed by the Saxon princes with "Ihr" and "Euch", not with "Du", which was otherwise common against subjects.
If the Roman bishop's tyranny may be abhorrent to the people, it is very important that the laws be abolished which are the sinews (or tendons) of his power. Such supports of the power of the Roman bishops have been the abuses of the masses and the celibate state, which, if they continue in this way, can easily tempt those who are already of the wrong opinion of the Roman court to return to it. Your royal majesty will easily appreciate how important it is that this be prevented, if one wants to keep the doctrine pure. It is still true what Juvenalis says of the Roman court: Hic fiunt homines etc., Here the people are filled with nothing but evil arts and little things, so that they bring with them a rebellious and disgusting heart against the kings, as many examples testify. May Your Majesty note this letter with grace.
16 I pray to God and to our Lord Jesus Christ to keep your royal majesty healthy, to protect and to govern for the salvation of the Church. May Your Royal Majesty be well and live happily. From Frankfurt, April 1, 1539.
Your Royal Majesty's most humble Philipp Melanchthon.
Inscription:
To the most Sublime and Most Sublime King in England and France, Lord Henry the Eighth, Prince in Wales and Ireland, 1) next to Christ supreme Head of the English Church, my most gracious Lord etc.
1274 Contents of the edict promulgated in England on June 28, 1539, in which it is commanded to keep the main summa of the papal doctrine under life sentence.
This writing is found in Burnets bist, rskorm. "cd. Angl. i, ild. Ill, x. 144.
Germanized.
The decree of abolition of different opinions from the articles of Christian religion.
At the beginning it is said': The king, having considered the benefits of unity and the harm of discord, and having considered different opinions of both the
1) In the old edition: "in Wallen and Arnubien". The latter is probably read from lllbsrni",.
The king himself, according to his great erudition and scholarship, presented one and the other. Finally, both houses of parliament agreed on the following articles.
First, that in the sacrament of the altar, after the blessing, the essence of the bread and wine did not remain, but under the same forms the body and blood of Christ were present.
Secondly, that communion under both forms is not necessary for salvation for all by divine law, but that the flesh and blood of Christ is under each of them at the same time.
Thirdly, that the priests, according to accepted priestly order, cannot marry according to divine law.
Fourth, that the vows of chastity are to be kept according to divine law.
Fifth, that the use of the still masses is to be kept, because it is not only according to the divine law, but also very useful for the people.
Sixth, that auricular confession is useful and necessary, and therefore should be kept in the church.
The Parliament thanked the King for the trouble he had taken in drawing up such articles, and decided that whoever would speak, preach or write anything against the first article after July 12 should be banished as a heretic, without any hope of renouncing it, and all his goods should be confiscated by the King. But whoever preaches or persistently teaches anything against the other articles shall be punished by life as a robber (or traitor, latrocinii reum), regardless of spiritual status. Finally, those who do something against this with words or writings should first be thrown into prison and their goods and property confiscated; if they do it again, they should be punished as robbers. All priestly marriages should be declared invalid, and the priest who keeps his previously married wife with him, and who lives with her as a wife, should be punished as a robber (or thief); but he who mingles carnally with another wife should first, if he is convicted, be thrown into prison, and as long as it pleases the king, be deprived of his spiritual income (beneficii) and his goods, but if he is convicted the other time, be punished as a robber.
The women who sin in this way shall suffer the same punishment as the priests. But whoever despises or violates confession or the sacrament
If he fails to do so, the first time he will be deprived of his goods and sent to prison, and the second time he will suffer the punishment of a robber.
In order that this decree may be carried out and enforced, orders shall be issued to the archbishops, bishops and their chancellors and commissioners to assemble four or more times during the year in all counties and to proceed against the defendants according to the complaints or the examination of the sworn judges. The commissioners shall take an oath that they will execute the orders without respect of person and without fraud or malice. The church authorities shall read this ordinance once every quarter in the churches.
At the end of the vow of chastity, the reminder was added that it binds only those who vow it after the age of 21 and without coercion.
1275 The poem circulated in England about a change in doctrine that Luther and Melanchthon are said to have made in subsequent articles. Dated March 1539.
Already in 1535 similar articles were spread in Germany, against which Luther wrote: "Etliche Artikel von den Papisten jetzt neulich verfälscht, sammt einem Briefe D. Martin Luther to the preachers at Soest." In 1539, these were adapted to the taste of the King of England and transferred to England. At the beginning of November, the Protestant envoys brought a written copy, which is preserved in the Weimar Archives, lieZ- 0, col. 140, E. E. E., and at Seckendorf, nist. UutR., lib. Ill, p. 228 k. reprinted. Also in the Oorp. Lok., vol. Ill, 831. The above-mentioned first redaction of the articles is found in the St. Louis edition, vol. XIX, 640; and in the introduction therein, p. 32 f., detailed information is given about both redactions.
Germanized to Seckendorf.
Copy of what Martin Luther and Philipp Melanchthon admitted with the cities and princes adhering to them in Germany.
I. First of all, we confess that there should be such a regime in the church that there should be bishops who examine and ordain church ministers, who should also exercise the rights in it and look after it diligently, so that the church entrusted to them may be well instructed in Christian doctrine and godly conduct.
II. We admit that it is useful and good for the Church that the Roman bishop should give the rest of the bi
But we do not permit the pomp of the Roman pope, his wealth and arrogance, by virtue of which he seeks to subjugate even kingdoms, and which neither promotes nor helps the gospel. But the kings, who are concerned about this, can and should moderate this.
III. We confess that because of the difference in food, feasts and ceremonies, a comparison could easily be made, if in the church only the doctrine were agreed upon, and this were not so unequal as it is. For if we were united in doctrine, we would consider it unreasonable to separate from the church, since it is impossible for the world to exist without ceremonies and human statutes. For this reason it would not be necessary to separate ourselves from others, or to establish something new and unusual, avoiding all innovation that is not necessary; for there is no danger in keeping human statutes, if only the doctrine is presented purely.
IV. We consider it useful that confession and the recounting of sins should take place in the church, for if this were to be done away with, the doctrine of the forgiveness of sins and the power of the keys would be nullified and obscured, since in confession one must learn, among other things, where the forgiveness of sins comes from. However, in confession, confessors must be diligently instructed, and consciences must not be overly burdened with an excessively sharp and precise recounting of all sins.
V. We believe that justification is by faith, and that one cannot be justified by any works or obtain forgiveness of sins. However, justifying faith should not be idle, but adorned with Christian and good works.
VI. We confess that free will does something by the help of the Holy Spirit as often as we want to withdraw from a sin.
VII. We confess that man, having obtained forgiveness of sins, receives the Holy Spirit; which again departs from him when he commits a mortal sin.
VIII. We say mass in the usual way, for what would be the use of changing the ceremonies, especially where it is not necessary. However, we do not permit the angular masses, because they give rise to certain abuses. For the holding of masses has been turned into a huckster's trade.
IX. Of Holy Communion we hold that,
just as Christ in the last supper gave his disciples his true body to eat and his blood to drink, for spiritual food and drink, so he still today gives us, his disciples and believers, as often as we keep the said supper according to the prescribed manner: "Take and eat" etc., his true body and blood to eat and drink. This is also the opinion of three evangelists and St. Paul, and so their words are clear, and therefore all erroneous interpretation of these words must depart. We teach that Christ gave his body and blood to his disciples in both forms, and that this is how it must be kept with us, as it is kept. But since the bishop of Rome has forbidden the one form by human statute, the best remedy would be to give both forms to those who desire them, and to forbid one part to touch the other on that account.
X. Since it is known from the sacred teachers that the feast days of the saints were kept, for the sacred canons are still extant; but it is not evident from them that the invocation of the saints is reported therein, but only this is evident from the fact that they are presented to us as an example to guide our life and conduct according to them: however, if for the sake of a custom one should permit the intercession of the saints, then the prayer would be made to God, as far as he would hear it for the sake of the intercession of a saint. We consider it certain that the saints always intercede for the Church. However, Christians are to be carefully instructed that they do not turn the trust they have to place in God to the saints. Nor do we reject the images of Christ and the saints, but the veneration shown to them, from which idolatry has sprung.
XI. Nor do we condemn the lives of the monks and those who are placed in the monasteries, but only the confidence which some have placed in the observance of their religious rules. We also condemn their vows, which some have made, of such things as they cannot keep. However, we do not want the monasteries to be abolished for this reason, but that they be used as schools in which people can be instructed in respectable things, and that the pope dispense with the vows, so that everyone is free to keep them or not; in this way, the peace of mind would be advised, and the vows would not be evil.
XII. We hold that the marriage of priests is in the power of the pope, who can permit it because
thereby many would be prevented from whoring. For one sees few chaste women. But if the marriage ban were to take place, only venerable and aged men would have to be made dignitaries and prelates in order to avoid trouble.
XIII With regard to purgatory and indulgences, we hold that it is more useful to discuss them publicly and without benefit in schools than in the pulpits, but that the resulting haggling should first be stopped. For in this, as in all other matters now in dispute, we condemn the abuse more than the matter itself, which, however, can be investigated and corrected by an ordinarily assembled concilio.
The Zwinglians and Oecolampadians have not yet accepted these articles; but the common man is inclined to do so, and it is to be hoped that he will soon be guided by frequent sermons.
Those books which Martin Luther published and which are contrary to these articles are now revoked by his hand and found to be erroneous. Given in Germany in March 1539.
1276: Luther's joint concern with Jonas, Pomeranus and Melanchthon about how to behave against the king in England. Oct. 23, 1539.
The original of this prayer is in the Weimar Archives, Ü6A. 8, col. 260, but without the signatures. Printed in the Leipzig Supplement, no. 159, p. 87; in De Wette, vol. V, p. 213; in the Oorx. lief. Ill, 796 and in the Erlanger, vol. 55, p. 243.
God's grace through our Lord Jesus Christ beforehand. Most Serene, Highborn, Most Gracious Prince and Lord! We have read D. Buceri's writing, and note that it is strongly written, undoubtedly of good opinion, and attributed to the fugitives, as well as to the miserable complaint of some who are in Hamburg. However, they hope to obtain help from us. Although they hope to obtain help from us, just as all afflicted people in distress seek help in all places, we know no way to help them. For though we flee no danger and labor for our own persons, yet it is also true that enough has been done on this subject for the king's instruction and admonition, and for these reasons: St. Paul speaks,
The weak should be accepted, but the stiff-necked should be abandoned, who, as he speaks, is condemned by his own judgment, that is, who publicly acts against his conscience. On the other hand, he is called weak who wants to learn and does not pursue what he understands, but accepts, holds and promotes it. But that the King of England acts against his conscience is to be assumed from this: he knows that our doctrine and attitude concerning the use of the whole sacrament, confession and priestly marriage is right, or at least knows that our doctrine is not contrary to God's word. Now he says in his articles and in his edict that some of these points are against God's laws. He certainly says this against his own conscience, for many writings have come to him, written publicly and especially to him, which he has read; he has heard enough reports of his and this part's deeds, and he himself has had a booklet Sarcerii brought into his language and ordered it to be printed, which he uses for his prayer book, in which these matters are briefly summarized. We also hear that he himself spoke much differently of this doctrine, and among other things said of France that it was evil for him to follow this doctrine, for he understood it and knew that it was right. He also has many pious, learned preachers, the defrocked bishop Latimerum, Cromerum 1) and others, whom he has heard and tolerated for a time. About all this he condemns this doctrine more harshly than the pope, who has never said that priestly marriage is against divine law, that it is God's command to tell sins in confession, and otherwise punish, like Nabugdonosor of the Pillar [Dan. 3, 6.The persecution has also begun terribly, for many lie in prison awaiting punishment. He used this doctrine for a while to his advantage, like Herod, but now he persecutes it, and the devil begins to use a new trick. Because the papal power must fall, he now drives the great kings to use religion for their opportunity, for their benefit and for their advantage.
1) Archbishop Cranmer of Canterbury.
want to make. From this will follow cruel blindness; for there is no cause in which the kings in all countries, Hispania, France, England, Hungary, and Poland, hold the bishops and the priests, to whom the mass and other errors are attached, for only that they see that they have persons to send to the pulpit and to all kinds of evil things, that also these priests, without the kings' expense, receive a splendor. The kings see that the common people are attached to the mass and the usual ceremonies, and they do not like to be deprived of their idols; therefore they leave it at that, so that they and the priests retain the greater authority, but they keep what they desire and make orders to their advantage. So, we fear, this king is also of a mind that does not seek God's honor, but wants to do and make what he desires, as he said to the Lord Vicecancellario that he wanted to rule his kingdoms himself; so that he indicated that he did not respect this doctrine very much, and wanted to make his own religion, as Antiochus and others did.
Secondly, if the king now publicly acts against his conscience, we do not consider that we are obliged to instruct him anew, but may leave it at Paul's rule, which teaches that one should admonish the adversaries twice, and if this does not help, one should avoid them as those who act against their conscience. Such an admonition has now happened, because of which he rages against his conscience; with such no teaching helps.
Thus we hear that the king is a sophist and glossator, who wants to color all things with little bells and keep them with a semblance. He who has no desire for clear, certain truth can easily twist and affect himself, even if he has to tear his mouth open like a pike when it pulls itself from a fishing rod. Sirach 37 [v. 23. Vulg.] it is written: "Whoever needs sophistry, God does not give him grace and does not attain wisdom." For there is no end to brooding and distorting, therefore nothing lasting can be done with such, and especially how harmful such things are to masters is shown by experience. Because the king takes pleasure in such glossing over, as we have actually heard, so have
We have little hope that he will allow himself to be called and caught up in God's word. It can also be seen which people are powerful with him now, they also have no conscience. Wintoniensis 1) leads around the country two lewd women with him in men's clothes, after which he smuggles that the marriage of priests is against God's law; and is so proud that he publicly speaks that he wants to keep it against the whole world that the proposal is wrong: Fide justificamur. Is also the most noble tyrant, who before this year was driven to burn two, only because of transubstantiation, and is therefore the saying true, that the master and servant are of the same mind. From all this we conclude that enough has been done so far; so we know that it is Christian and faithfully spoken, and consider that we are not obliged to appeal to him any further, so that there is little hope for it, and perhaps God does not want his gospel to be discredited by this king, who has such an evil rumor. However, we place all of this at the disposal of Your Electoral and Princely Grace. Your Grace, whether to try it again. Nor shall it be lacking; we want to submit an expostulation to the king and admonish him again by means of a writing; we owe no more. For what D. Bucerus indicates: "Go into all the world, teach" etc., we do with writings. We are not commanded to leave our present profession.
And I Philip, though in all humility and reverence, have written to him about the previous edict and punished the same, and have also written similar opinions to Cromwellum 2) and Cantuariensem. But I was sent writings from England, that the king ungraciously accepted my letters, from which it is to be expected that if I were in England, the king would give me little audience, or send me to his proud, unlearned bishops, to quarrel with them, as he did with the previous one. How sharply the king disputes these matters can be seen from these two arguments of his. Of good works
1) Bishop Gardiner.
2) Cromwell, the king's chancellor.
he argues that since evil works deserve eternal wrath, it must follow that good works deserve eternal bliss; and this argument, I hear, he will not let him take away. The other, of the priestly marriage, is this: If he had power to make an order that one should not be free as long as he wished to be at court, he also had power to command that the priests should not marry. This is the great subtlety for which he mocks and condemns us. Whether it will be fruitful to argue with those who use these arguments, will be considered by Your Electoral and Princely Grace. Your electoral and princely graces will well consider. The book that Your Electoral Grace has sent to this place. Your Electoral Grace has ordered that it be printed in a favorable manner. The expostulation 3) is also to be produced in a favorable manner. God preserve your elector. Gn. at all times. Date Wittenberg, 23 Oct. 1539.
Your Elector. Gn.
servants Martinus Luther, D. Justus Jonas, D. Joh. Bugenhagen Pomer, D. Philippus Melanchthon.
Luther's special letter to the Elector, sent at the same time as the above-mentioned concerns, in which he urged him not to get further involved with the King in England. October 23, 1539.
The original of this letter is in the Weimar Archives, LsK. 8, toi. Printed in the Leipzig Supplement, No. 158, p. 87; in De Wette Vol. V, p. 217 and in the Erlangen edition, Vol. 55, p. 248.
Grace and peace in Christ and my poor Pater noster. Most Serene, Highborn Prince, Most Gracious Lord! Earlier, M. Bucerus also wrote to me in the same way as he wrote to my gracious lord the Landgrave, requesting that I help him with an embassy in England, especially for M. Philip's sake: to which I answered that he should abandon such good hopes, for there is nothing with the king. And accordingly, to Your Electoral. Grace my
3) Document No. 1278.
humble request that you do not let yourself be moved by the opinion you have begun to form. The king is a tempter, and means nothing in earnest; we have well experienced this from the angels who were with us, when we had to believe out of Christian love that it was serious, but in the end, when we were tired, at great expense to your Elector, it was all sealed with a sausage, and everything was at the king's pleasure. Gn., it was all sealed with a sausage, and everything stood at the king's pleasure; said himself: Rex noster est inconstans. And several times D. Antonius said: Our king respects religion and the Gospel nothing everywhere. Since that time I have been glad that the king has publicly apostatized from the Gospel 1) and has even revealed his hypocritical appearance; it would not have been well with him, because we would have had to burden ourselves with his sins, and yet have a false friend in him. Above this, it should be said, as the Anglicans have noted here, that we must let the king be and be called Caput and Defensor Evangelii, as he himself boasts Caput of the Anglican churches. Only away with the head and defensor! Gold and money make him so bold that he thinks he must be worshipped and that God cannot do without him. Let him bear his "unrepentant" sins himself, we have enough of our own. It happened more than too much; he did the same to the Emperor Maximilian, and soon after to King Ludwigen of France. He should be pope, as he is in England. Our dear Lord God protect your prince and all your relatives. Gn. and all your relatives from all evil, and especially from such cunning, mischievous attempts of the devil. Amen. Thursday after St. Lucia [23 October] 1539. Martin Luther.
1278 Melanchthon's letter to King Henry VIII of England, containing an expostulation to him. November 1, 1539.
This letter is found in Melanchthon's spist. lid. I, x>. 51 (according to Peucer's edition) and in his works in eollset., toin. IV, pari. I, x. 343. also in the 6orp. Rst, vol. ill, 805.
Translated from Latin by 24 Aug Tittel.
1) The words: "from the gospel" are inserted after Burkhardt, p. 333.
Hail and blessings, most noble and most illustrious king! Some Roman emperors, such as Adrian, Pius, and after them the brothers Verus and Marcus, received the protective writings of the Christians very graciously, and they were so highly esteemed by these kind emperors that their wrath against the Christians was assuaged, and they were no longer attributed such terrible misdeeds.
Because there (in England) a command has gone out against the godly doctrine and the necessary doctrine of the church, which we profess: I ask that your royal majesty read and consider this complaint of ours, especially since I am sending this writing to them not only for our sake, but rather for the good of the common church. For since those pagan princes not only accepted our defense, but also considered it good, how much more is it fitting for a Christian king who is so versed in the Scriptures to hear the lamentations and ideas of the pious! I write to you all the more gladly, however, because you have already received my letters with testimony of all grace. And in this matter this gives me hope, you will gladly read this, because I see from the phrasis that the bishops, but not you, undoubtedly wrote the articles issued there, whether they, as often happens to the best princes, by their cunning (sophisticum) persuasion obtained your applause and approval (suffragatio), just as Darius, a wise and just king, drove the princes and powers to throw Daniel to the lions. But it has never been a disgrace for pious princes to cease unreasonable severity, and (as they say) to think better of it.
The wise citizens (or community) of Athens, having regained Mitylene after it had fallen away, made a decision to kill all the citizens there and to destroy the city to the ground. A ship was sent to deliver this order to the army. The next day, however, after the matter had come up again before the judges, another decision was made that the punishment should not be inflicted on all, but only on the ringleader, while the city should be spared. So they sent another ship after it and ordered it to hurry so that it would arrive sooner than the first one. This was done; the citizens or Athens were not ashamed, although they ruled far and wide, to publicly change the first order.
4 There are many more examples of this kind, which are well known to you. There have also the
Princes often changed their orders concerning the church, as Nebuchadnezzar, Darius. An order to kill the Jews went out under Ahasuerus' name; it was revoked afterwards. So also Adrianus and the Antonini changed their orders. Although an order has gone out in England, threatening punishments that are against the custom of the true church and against the canons (spiritual laws), I thought it would be possible to forbid this severity, in which not only the danger of those who have the same doctrine with us goes to my heart, but also this woe, that you allow yourselves to be used for other's fury and cruelty. I also regret that Christ's teachings are expelled, unrighteous customs (or ceremonies) are strengthened, and lecherous lusts are cherished. For I hear that the excellent, learned and pious people, Latimer, Saxtonus, Cranmerus and others are in prison, whom I wish Christian courage and strength.
(5) Although nothing can be better and more praiseworthy for them than to die in the confession of such obvious truth, I would not like Your Royal Majesty to stain himself with the blood of such men. I would most unwillingly see such lights of the church extinguished, and the enemies of Christ's godlessness and poisonous, Pharisaic hatred followed in it. I did not want the Antichrist to be pleased, who is sincerely glad that you are now fighting for him against us, and hopes that he already wants to regain his former rule through the bishops, from which he was thrown by godly and well-considered counsel. He sees that the bishops yield to your will for a while, but that they are related to him (the Roman pope) by an eternal, everlasting covenant. The Roman bishops know these arts; they have often read their way out of the most terrible storms by patience or listening 1). They know that everything depends on the times; they think of the word: Multa this etc., 2) that is, much has brought the time and trouble with the mortal men again on a good foot.
Many godly and learned people in Germany hoped that your reputation would have such an effect on other kings that the German princes would finally give up their unjust cruelty and make it their business to put an end to the errors. They thought that in this holy and beautiful cause, you would be a
1) contando or eunotanclo.
2) Virg. Xkll. lid. XI, v. 425 8H.:
Hlnltu, äiss VArlusHus lakor mutakili8 Lsttullt in llislills.
We want you to be the predecessor and the originator. But since you do otherwise, we are most grieved to hear it. The wrath of other kings is strengthened, the defiance of the wicked is increased, and the old errors of the past are strengthened again.
(7) But the bishops will certainly pretend that they are not fighting for error, but for right opinion and divine law. And even if they know that they are really acting against divine law and the apostolic church, their cunning heads can devise all sorts of apparent interpretations and, as Euripides says, good makeup, which seem to cover up the errors and abuses. This cunning trade is now considered wisdom not only in England, but also prevails in Rome, where the Cardinals Contarenus, Sadoletus, Polus paint the abuses with a makeup. In Germany also many of nobility are infected with such cunning. Therefore I am not surprised that many let themselves be beguiled there. And even if you have enough understanding and scholarship, even the wise are sometimes driven mad by cunning persuasion from the truth. The saying of Simonidis is praised, who in former times was known to the most famous men of his time, namely Themistocle and others: Opinion often does violence to truth. A false opinion often glitters better than the truth. And this happens mostly in religious disputes, since the devil transforms himself into an angel of light, and dresses up false opinions as much as he can. How beautifully Pauli Samosateni lets himself hear false doctrine or interpretation of the saying of John: "In the beginning was the word", and yet is full of godlessness. I pass over other examples. In the command itself, 3) how much is so cunning and put on screws!
8 Confession (reads one article) is necessary and must be kept. Why does he not say clearly: the telling of sins is necessary by divine right? The bishops knew that such an opinion would be wrong, that is why the words are put in a common way, so that the rabble is made a blue haze. When he hears that confession is necessary, he thinks that the narrative is necessary by divine right.
9 There is just such a blue haze in the article about breastfeeding masses, since the very beginning is quite wrong: It is necessary to keep the breastfeeding masses. Who has had this opinion for more than 400 years after the apostles, since there were no still masses? After that, however, the cunning pranks follow, that
3) See Document No. 1274.
the people receive divine consolations and benefits through them. Why do they not say what consolations, what good deeds (or benefits)? The bishops do not think of the dedication (of the masses) for others, or of the merit, because they know that such things cannot be defended. They play with words, so that they can escape if they are punished. And yet they want the people to understand by this that the appropriation is meant for others. They want to reinforce the idolatrous delusion that this sacrifice earns others forgiveness of guilt and punishment, relief from all plagues, yes, profit in trade, and whatever else man's need and sorrow might suggest.
(10) Such mischievousness is also behind it when they say that the marriage of priests is against divine right. They know well what Paul says: "A bishop must be the husband of one wife. Therefore they know that marriage is granted to priests by divine right. But because they say that now the vows are added, they play with words. They do not say that the vows hinder marriage, but merely add the article that priestly marriage is in conflict with divine right. What insolence and cruelty do they then practice when they command that marriages be divorced and that those be put to death who do not wish to have such marriages divorced, since the vow of the priests, where such a thing existed or applied, bound them to nothing but that they would abandon the priesthood when they married. For it is evident that the Concilia and Canones require nothing more. O mischievous bishops! O impudent Wintonian, 1) who thinks that he wants to blind Christ's eyes and deceive the judgment of all pious people in the whole world.
(11) I have mentioned this so that when you see the bishops' mischievousness, you may judge their mind and spirit. For if they sought the truth seriously and honestly, they would not use this makeup and deceit. That is why the devil has the name of this art, because he snatches the word of God out of people's hands with such juggleries and distortions. Why do the bishops not openly admit that they do not want to allow any improvement of doctrine or worship, because it would destroy their reputation, wealth and pleasure? Why do their other followers not openly say that they want to keep the present form of the church for its benefit, splendor and tranquility? To confess this would be honest. But now
1) Bishop Gardiner.
They pretend to seek truth and godliness, but come up with bald excuses, and yet betray their opinion. Even such plasters and fig leaves do not help the errors. For there are false and ungodly articles in the same command, no matter how glaringly they have been presented. Therefore it would be desirable that the 2) bishops remember the divine threat in Isaiah: "Woe to you who make unrighteous laws! what will you do in the day of visitation and the future calamity?" etc. "Woe to you who approve of evil" etc.
I will now come to the matter itself. It cannot be denied that there has been long and terrible darkness in the church. Human statutes have not only been a torture of pious souls, but, what is even more terrible, have been held for worship, in which many things have been wrong. There were vows, gifts of temples, garments, food differences, cackled prayer, indulgences, veneration of images, invocation of saints by open idolatry, since one knew nothing about true worship and right works, and had great equality with pagan religions, the like of which can still be found in Rome.
The true doctrine of repentance, of the forgiveness of sins through faith in Christ, of the righteousness of faith, of the difference between the Law and the Gospel, of the use of the sacraments was unknown. The keys were misused to strengthen the papal tyranny, and the human ceremonies were preferred to the secular official duties, in magistracy (or household). To such errors was added a lewd, licentious life, because of the prohibition of priestly marriage. From this darkness, God saved the Church a little through the improved doctrine. For one must admit that such outdated errors were not brought to light and affected by human wit, but this evangelical light is God's gift, which shone again on the churches. For the Holy Spirit prophesies that in the last times the pious will have to contend most fiercely with the Antichrist, and that the Antichrist, with a great swarm and following of bishops, hypocrites, or princes, will set himself against the truth and kill the pious.
The fact that this is the case is evident from the matter itself. The Roman bishop's tyranny has partly introduced errors into the church, partly confirmed them, and still holds above them, as Daniel proclaimed. We were glad that you broke away from him.
2) Episcopo for Dxisoopos.
and hoped that the English Church would begin to flourish again. But your bishops have not divorced themselves from the Roman Antichrist, but hold above his idolatry, errors and mistakes. For the articles that are now issued have been so chosen with diligence. For they confirm all the doctrines of men by confirming the vows, the single priesthood and confession. They also confirm not only the power, but also all errors, by keeping the silent mass. Thus they cunningly averted that no improvement could take place, and that their power and greed would have free rein. That the bishops sought this is a matter of fact. But whom should it not grieve that the honor of Christ should be so dampened? For, as I have said, it is not only these articles that are reported, but also all the other articles of pure doctrine. If human services are necessary and must be kept, why then does Christ say, "In vain do they serve me with the commandments of men"? Why does Paul so often reject the statutes of men?
(15) It is no small sin to establish worship services without God's command or to defend them. God utterly abhors such insolence, and wants to be known in his word, and not to have religions invented according to the fancy of men; otherwise all religions would be approved by all heathens. "Rely not," saith he, "on thy understanding." Therefore he sent Christ, that we should hear him, and not the inventions and poems of crafty men, who turn religions to their own advantage.
16 Now, as is well known, the silent masses, vows, the priest's single status, the recounting of sins in confession, are divine services instituted by men. For although the Lord's Supper is instituted by Christ, the silent Mass is a real desecration of the Lord's Supper. For what evil is there in the canon of the Mass alone, which says: Christ is offered here, and this sacrifice redeems the living and the dead? This is not what Christ instituted; indeed, in many ways it contradicts the gospel. Christ does not want to be sacrificed by priests, and such a work of the sacrificer or taker can by no means be a sacrifice for others. It is a blatant idolatry, and dampens the doctrine of faith and true use of the sacraments. We are justified by faith in Christ, and not by the work of the priest; and the Lord's Supper is instituted that the preacher may administer it to others, so that those who repent may be reminded of the sacraments.
to believe that the promises of the Gospel really apply to them, because here the testimony is before our eyes that we become members of Christ and are washed away by the blood of Christ.
(17) This usage, which was instituted in the Gospel and has been maintained in the Church for more than 300 years, must not be departed from. For it is impiety to apply a divine custom or ceremony to other things, as the other commandment teaches. Therefore, still masses, since they have departed entirely from Christ's institution by sacrifice, offering (or elevation), dedication to others, and in many more ways, must not be retained, but abolished. "Flee," saith Paul, "idolatry." But there is manifold idolatry in the still masses, and no wonder that the popes hold about it, because the Scripture says that in the last times idolatry will reign in the church, as Christ indicates when he says, "When ye shall see the abomination of desolation standing in the holy place," then, "He that ran it, let him take heed." And Daniel Cap. 12 [11, 38.] says, "And shall honor the god Maosim in his place, and the god whom his fathers knew not shall he serve with gold, and silver, and precious stones." Both places are about the Mass. This service, this shameful desecration abhors God.
(18) For what manifestly sinful things are in this custom! They seek profit with it; even the unworthy must take it, even if they do not want to; they use it to serve the living and the dead; they promise some good navigation, others something else. These are obviously their abominations, but other things are just as criminal, even if the simple do not see them that way. It is not necessary to perform divine services according to man's discretion, without God's command. That is why people err when they offer sacrifices without God's command, and make a sacrifice out of this work, and imagine that silent masses must be held because God wants to be honored through them. We also see that the masses are bought with gold and silver, great expense and ostentation, and that the Sacrament is carried around in gold and silver, since the Sacrament was not instituted for such a custom.
19 Therefore, since God commanded to flee idolatry, it is not necessary to keep the stillbirths. And I wonder why they said that it was necessary to keep them, since they did not exist before. In the purer church, 300 years after the apostles, were there any necessary things missing from the service? What more foolish thing can be said!
(20) We see that people argue most zealously in favor of the still fairs, which is done more by some, because they are concerned about profit, and by others, because they want to take advantage of the pleasures of the mob, because they do not like to be deprived of such emergency helpers, as they think, than for a really sound reason. And yet the reason is certain and clear why it should be abolished. For there is no doubt that the bestowal (or giving of it) on others is ungodly, for the work of a priest does not merit grace for another, but each one is righteous by his faith. And God does not want man to build on some ceremony, but only on Christ's good deed. And the devotion even to the dead is certainly full of error. All the make-up is needed in vain to color and excuse such devotion. No one among the whole people disagrees that this work is useful for the whole Church. The Canon of the Mass also says it clearly. What, then, do the mischievous play and mock with words, since they deny that they impute the masses to others? since they know that by their action the error of the people is confirmed, even if they were of a different opinion. But who among them is of a different opinion?
(21) Let all falsehood and hypocrisy be removed from godly things and customs. Let us use them as the Scriptures would have us use them, and as the first church did for several centuries. Why has man's insolence departed from the old usage? Why is there now a defense of the error or guilt of others, which changed the institution of Christ?
(22) If someone were to say that he is not doing anything to others, then if he performs the ceremony in such a special way that he thinks that this sacrifice is a service that God wants, he must also reject it. For one must not perform the services without God's command in a human way and according to human conceit.
23 Therefore, for the sake of Christ's glory, I ask that you do not defend the article of the same command concerning the mass, but let the matter be better considered by pious and godly people. Our matters have the clear and firm testimony of the first church, which I oppose to all subsequent people's opinions and judgments, who have contaminated the old doctrine and customs with much error.
The other articles do not need a long argument. Unholy, fictitious and impossible vows are not to be kept.
25. there is no doubt that all have the opinion of the vows, they are those of
People ordered works of worship. This is also the opinion of those who speak in the most modest way. Others, however, add more error, as if these works were perfections and deserved eternal life. But all these opinions are often punished by God's word. Christ says, "In vain do they serve me with the commandments of men." And Paul says that these very statutes are a doctrine of devils, because they give false honor to human customs, that they are divine services, and obscure faith and true service. Likewise, he says to the Colossians, "Let no one deceive you with disguised humility, by the conclusions and teachings of men." Therefore, such errors of the doctrines of men are truly ungodly services.
There are many other infirmities. What superstitions the monastic state does not have, abuses of the masses, invocation of the saints, modes of dress, difference in food, superstitious prayers without measure! All these causes are enough why the vows are not valid. Yes, most people are married to this life for the sake of the kitchen, but afterwards the mantle of vows and devotion must be borrowed for this purpose.
27 Moreover, the vow of singleness is not possible for all, as Christ himself says: "Not all can take it. But vows that cannot be kept without sin must be torn apart, which we have already done elsewhere.
I was very surprised that in England the priest's vow is even more strictly enforced than the monk's vow, since the Canons themselves only want the priest to be bound when he is in office. And I am quite shocked when I read this article. It decries marriages, tears up those that have been contracted, and adds the penalty of life. Even though priests have been killed because of marriage, no one has ever dared to make such a law. For most of them saw that all sensible, wise and gentle people would abhor such cruelty, and they also feared that their descendants would speak ill of it. Who would believe that in the church, where one should be especially kind and gentle toward the pious, such cruelty could have a place, that because of marriage corporal punishment is inflicted on the pious?
29 But they break the vow. The bishops will object to this. Answer: But 1. such a vow, as said, is void and invalid, because it is a false service and impossible. 2. then, even if it were valid, it would still bind the bishops.
not those who leave the priesthood. Finally, if here the bishops wanted to look at conscience, they henceforth ordained priests without vows, as can be seen from the old canons, that before many were ordained without vows, and since they were married afterwards, remained in office, as the cap. Diaconi dist. 28. testifies.
30 I do not know what to complain about. I cannot accuse ignorance in this article. Everybody knows the command of God: "For the sake of fornication, let every man have his own wife. Everyone sees how the celibate live; the complaints of the pious are known; the shame of the wicked is evident. But perhaps the bishops there have epicurean opinions; they think that God is not angered by fornication. And if they believe this, we certainly have a hard time with such judges.
(31) I know well that the celibate state of priests rhymes better with the prestige, splendor, and fortune of bishops and chapters (or foundations). That is why they may be so disgusted by the marriage of priests. But o a wretched church, if the laws are not to serve the truth, nor the will of God, but unjust benefit and profit! Those are mistaken who think they can give laws that conflict with God's commandment, with the law of nature, if they only serve to obtain wealth.
(32) And I am certainly sorry, most blessed king, from the bottom of my heart, both for you and for the church of Christ. You testify that you reject the tyranny of the Roman bishop and call him an antichrist: nevertheless, you defend the laws of the Roman antichrist as the sinews of his power, namely, the silent masses, the single status of the priests and other superstitions. You threaten pious people and members of Christ with severe punishments, and suppress the truth of the Gospel that is emerging in your churches. This does not mean to abolish the Antichrist, but to elevate him.
33 I ask you, therefore, for the sake of our Lord Jesus Christ, not to defile your conscience by defending such articles that the bishops have made about silent masses, confession, vows, single priesthood, prohibition of the whole sacrament. It is no small sin to strengthen idolatry, falsehoods, cruelty and fornication of the Antichrist. If the Roman bishop should now hold a concilium, what other articles would he choose before others and impose on the world than those which your bishops indicate?
34 Know ye the wiles of the devil, which playeth upon the rulers, and tempteth them. For there
he is an enemy of Christ from the beginning of the world, so he seeks this with all malice, that he may desecrate Christ, and spread profane opinions, and establish idolatry. Then, that the human race may be filled with unrighteous murder and fornication. For this purpose he abuses the wit of hypocrites and the power of mighty men, as the histories of all times testify, that the great empires have raged against the church.
(35) But God drew some princes from such a great multitude to the Church and taught them the true doctrine and worship, as Abraham taught Abimelech, Joseph the Egyptian kings. After that David, Jehoshaphat, Hezekiah, Josiah shone forth in godliness. Daniel brought the Chaldean and Persian kings to the knowledge of God. Britain (or England) has also delivered to the world the godly prince Constantium. I would rather have you among this multitude than among the enemies of Christ, who defile themselves with idolatry and shed the blood of the pious, whom God will punish, as he often preached and many examples testify.
36 I therefore beseech you, for the sake of our Lord Jesus Christ, to moderate and change the command of the bishops, and in this to consider the glory of Christ and your own, and to promote the salvation of the church. Be moved by the wishes of so many pious people in the whole world, who plead and wish that some kings would use their power to correct the church, to abolish ungodly services, and to spread the gospel. Look also at the godly men who are imprisoned for the sake of the gospel and are true members of Christ, and have mercy on them.
For if the command is not changed, the wrath of the bishops will always rage in the church. For they are the constant servants of his [the devil's] fury and hatred against Christ; he drives them to kill the members of Christ. Do not prefer their ungodly and cruel counsel and mischievous ideas to our true and righteous request, as all pious people plead and ask for it. If they do, God will surely grant you great rewards for such godliness, and your virtue will be praised through the writings and mouths of godly people. For Christ will judge those who do good or evil to the church. And as long as writings last, people will also speak and say about such things. And since we seek Christ's glory, and our churches are Christ's churches, there will always be people who support the good cause, praise the well-deserving, but the cruelty of others will not be praised.
will rebuke and reprove. Christ goes about hungry, thirsty, naked, bound, complaining of the popes' rage, of many kings' most unjust wrath; and prays that his body's members may not be torn asunder, but that the true churches may be protected and the gospel adorned. This one must learn to recognize and receive, as it befits a godly king, and is a most pleasing service to God. Be well. Nov. 1, 1539.
1279. Luther's letter 1) to the vice-chancellor Burkhard, how far the king of England should be allowed to go in
Articles are to be omitted. April 20, 1536.
From a copy in the Weimar Archives in the Leipzig Supplement, p. 75, No. 131; in De Wette, Vol. IV, p. 688; in the Erlangen Edition, Vol. 55, p. 133 and in Walch. The Leipzig edition and Walch have this letter addressed to Brück and have the wrong date: "April 1, 1535." De Wette has improved the year and notes that the date may also be too late.
It is my opinion, dear Mr. Vice-Chancellor, after my most gracious lord has requested, how far the king in England should be allowed to slacken in articles, that this cannot be slackened any further than we have already done. If one wants to speak or put it in other words (so that we do not despise other people's understanding), I am well satisfied; but the other articles and the main thing cannot be believed or taught differently, otherwise we could have more easily become one with the pope and emperor at Augsburg, and perhaps still would; and it would be shameful that we should not concede to the emperor and pope what we now concede to the king. It is true that one should have patience, whether in England everything can be brought into being so suddenly according to the doctrine (as has not happened with us either). But still the main articles must not be changed nor abandoned. The ceremonies are temporal things, may well be arranged in time by reasonable rulers, so that one may not argue much about them this time, nor worry until the right foundation is laid. But whether the alliance with the king is to be accepted, in the event that he does not agree in all articles with
1) This and the following letter belong to No. 1267, the one following it to No. 1268. (Walch.)
I will let the dear gentlemen and my most gracious Lord think about it, because it is a worldly thing; but it seems dangerous to me, where hearts are not of one mind, to unite outwardly. But I will not let my judgment be anything, God knows well how to use pious and enemies and all people's thoughts for the best, if he wants to be merciful. Actum Wittenberg, Thursday after Easter [April 20] 1536. 2) Martin Luther.
1280 Luther's and his colleagues' intercession to the Elector John Frederick for D. Anthony, sent by the King of England, to give him a secret audience.
September 12, 1535.
From a copy in the Weimar Archives in the Leipzig Supplement, No. 134, p. 76; in De Wette, Vol. IV, p. 632 and in the Erlangen Edition, Vol. 55, p. 106.
To the most illustrious, highborn Prince and Lord, Lord John Frederick, Duke of Saxony and Elector, Archmarshall of the Holy Roman Empire 2c, Landgrave in Thuringia and Margrave of Meissen, my most gracious Lord.
Grace and peace in Christ, together with our poor Father-Our. Most Serene, Highborn Prince, Most Gracious Lord! We have been asked by the Briefs Zeiger, D. Antonius, kön. Maj. zu Engelland embassy, has asked us to entreat him to E. C. F. G. that he would like to have a secret or close interrogation at E. C. F. G., that he has reasons that his cause would not become extensive before one knew how or what. Since E. C. F. G. knows the man well beforehand, and brings good news to our attention, as much as is in his command, our humble request is that E. C. F. G. graciously grant him such interrogation.
On the other hand, he had previously acted well on M. Philip's promise to the king, and had done much to make the king highly desire M. Philip's, and had even resisted the journey to France (as D. Antonius further explained).
2) Also in the manuscript is the year 1535, but it was not until the winter of 1535-1536 that the negotiations on the doctrine were held with the English envoys. See the letters in De Wette, Vol. IV, p. 662 and p. 667.
etc.: our humble request, if E. C. F. G. could not do it before the journey in Austria, is not to be refused after the return journey (which God will blessedly grant with grace). Who knows what God wants to do. His wisdom is higher than ours, and His will better than ours. Thus M. Philippo, who is now so nobly called, wanted to make his absence much more difficult to think about, since he is otherwise overloaded with work, sadness and temptations, and almost always has been. E. C. F. G. will graciously take this into consideration and graciously show themselves accordingly. Christ, our Lord, be with E. C. F. G. forever, Amen. September 12, 1535.
E. C. F. G.
understated
Martin Luther, D. Justus Jonas, D. Caspar Cruciger, D. Joh. Bugenhagen, Pomer, D.
1281: Luther's letter to the Elector John Frederick, the English embassy under
and others. January 25, 1536.
From a copy in the Weimar Archives in the Leipzig Supplement, No. 137, p. 77; in De Wette, Vol. IV, p. 670 and in the Erlangen Edition, Vol. 55, p. 121.
To the most illustrious, highborn prince and lord, Lord John Frederick, Duke of Saxony and Elector, Archmarshall of the Holy Roman Empire, Landgrave of Thuringia and Margrave of Meissen, my most gracious lord.
Grace and peace in Christ our Lord, and my poor Pater noster. Most Serene, Highborn Prince, Most Gracious Lord! The Schweinitz castle owner has sent me a barrel of six buckets of wine from E. C. F. G., and I thank E. C. F. G. most humbly for it, and likewise for the wild pig, although I do not like to burden E. C. F. G. with it.
Otherwise there is so much giving, creating and carrying that I would and should spare E.C.F.G..
I had hoped that we would have gotten rid of the English messages in three days, but they are not thinking about it for a long time yet. I have probably arranged greater things and much in four weeks, and they have been bickering for 1) twelve years in this one matter, and when they face up to it, they will, whether God wills it, never get out of it. And E. C. F. G. is not sorry about such fare either, although they themselves say that it is too much, and desire nothing more than that they may consume their own money, and that they may therefore get what they would like; in this E. C. F. G. will well know how to take counsel.
I also humbly inform C.F.G. that those in Strasbourg and Augsburg have strongly requested that I should determine a time and place for us to meet, and that such a discussion would be necessary. However, I have first sent their request to E. C. F. G. and asked for advice, as I have to give them for an answer; for this concordia cannot finally be concluded, since we have spoken to each other verbally and thoroughly, and it is neither useful nor necessary (as you also write in response to my such notifications) that "a large crowd should come together, among them some restless, disruptive heads", and spoil things: I hereby ask E. C. F. G. to be so kind. C. F. G. graciously, which place or city E. C. F. G. would be most sorry for, because they do not propose any, without Coburg and the same area, that they would not have to pass through foreign dominion of the bishops, otherwise no place, neither in Hesse, nor in E. C. F. G. would be suitable for them. C. F. G. land should be too far away. Hereby be E. C. F. G. commanded to the dear God, Amen. On St. Paul's Day [Jan. 25] 1536.
E. C. F. G. Martin Luther.
1) Walch: "want"; in the original, which De Wette looked up: "wol".