December 1533.
Until now, and especially at the Imperial Diet in Augsburg, we have humbly offered to the pope and bishops that we would not tear up their church law and authority, but, if they do not force us into unchristian articles, 1) would gladly be consecrated and governed by them, and also help to administer such their law and authority: but we have not been able to raise it nor obtain it, but they want to force us from the truth to their lies and abominations, or want to have us dead.
If now (because they are such obdurate Pharaohs) it will happen to them with their power and consecration, as it happened to them with the indulgence, dear, what will be the blame then? For when I offered to keep silent about indulgences, as long as the others also kept silent about me, neither pope, cardinal nor bishop wanted to hear me, but I had to recant immediately and let the others cry out. What have they gained from this? There lies the indulgence, and letters and seals have been destroyed and flown away, 2) and there is nothing more despised in the world than the indulgence, so that even at Augsburg they asked the emperor to enable the pope to send no more indulgences in Germany, considering that he had come into apostasy and contempt.
3 This request was laughed at in Augsburg, as it is truly ridiculous, because the papists themselves are now asking against indulgences,
1) Erlanger: to force. In the old editions: zwängen.
2) Jenaer: fled.
Because of this, they have heretically condemned, cursed, banished 3) and persecuted me with all kinds of plagues. Who does not see here what they themselves think of indulgences? For if they thought it useful and good, they would not plead against it for the reason that it has come into apostasy and contempt. Otherwise they would have to ask against God's Word and Sacrament, which are despised daily. But they themselves consider it to be a loud deception and lie, and I must be called the worst heretic and be guilty of death, since I alone doubted about indulgences and did not (at the time) disagree that they should be done away with or abandoned altogether, but that they should be preached and held moderately and sensibly. Now, what did they gain by heresy and tormenting me for the sake of the indulgence?
First of all, they have the insurmountable great damage that their indulgences lie there in the muck, despised by themselves, and no longer carry money and goods, as before they carried great goods and money beyond all measure. They have this damage from me, and yet they cannot blame me, but must confess that it is the fault of their obstinate, stubborn defiance and insistence, since they would not accept my offer and silence, and it has served them right, and all the world laughs at them and mocks them for such damage.
5. secondly, they have the eternal disgrace of having destroyed the whole of Christendom and all the
3) Thus the Wittenbergers. Jena and Erlangen: burned. '
*This writing appeared, probably in December 1533 (because in a letter to Hausmann from December 17, Luther describes it as newly published), with Nickel Schirlentz in Wittenberg and was reprinted by the same in 1524. In the editions: Wittenberger (1554), vol. VII, p. 479; Jenaer (1568), vol. VI, p. 81 d; in the Altenburger, vol. VI p. 85; in the Leipziger, vol. XXI, p. 34 and in the Erlanger, vol. 31, p. 308. Justus Jonas translated this writing into Latin and gave the booklet the title: vs inissa privntu st nnotions suesrckoturn lidsllns, V. Aart. 4mtUsr, s Asrrnunieo in lutinurn trunslatns per ckustuin ckonarn. It appeared zv Wittenberg in 1534. Luther provided it with an attribution to Jonas. The translation is inaccurate and some things are omitted. This book is included in the Latin Wittenberg edition, Dorn. VII, toi. We give the text according to the Jena edition, comparing the Wittenberg and Erlangen editions.
The pope and his papists, as the devil's apostles and deceivers, have so shamefully deceived the poor souls with indulgences and defrauded them of such unspeakable money. And if the pope and his papists had practiced no other lies and deception in Christendom than the indulgence alone, they would have deserved to be called the greatest heretics and robbers the earth has ever borne. For, tell me, what robber ever robbed or stole so much as is robbed and stolen by the indulgence? What heresy has seduced and deceived so many souls, or run so far and wide, as the indulgence? Such honor they wanted to have. But when will they return such robbery and theft? When will they bring such deceived Christians to justice? Yes, they did not even sigh because of it, they would rather have such seduction and robbery forever, but they remained pious, faithful shepherds, who fed Christ's sheep.
How? if, in the course of time, their church power and consecration would one day also go in such a way that, just as the letters of indulgence have been destroyed and flown away, so also both Chresem and plates would be scattered, so that one would not know where bishop or priest would remain? God is marvelous, he has set aside indulgences, extinguished purgatory, dampened pilgrimages and put down many other 1) mammon worship and idolatry of the papists by his word; whether he would still have so much marrow in his hands that he could eradicate a nasty Chresem, introduced before his will by nothing but human poetry? Well, if it comes to that, dear pope and bishops, you must not blame me, but your obstinate, stiff-necked head, which does not want to do anything in time, but breaks through everything and tears. You can no longer help the indulgence, it has lasted too long: here you could still create something, because we are alive; after our death, then, find out what your screamers help you with their scolding and blasphemy, just as they helped you with the indulgence, purgatory and the like.
7. i will lift up on me, and before you
1) In the old editions: much different.
I want to make a small confession to the holy fathers, give me a good absolution, which will not be harmful to you. 2) I once woke up at midnight, when the devil began such a disputation with me in my heart (as he can make many a night bitter and sour enough for me): "Do you hear it, learned one, do you also regret that for fifteen years you have kept almost every day a corner mass: how if you had practiced vain idolatry with such a mass, and . not Christ's body and blood, but vain bread and wine there worshipped and held up to others? I answer: I am a consecrated psaff, I have received Chresem and consecration from the bishop, and I have done all this out of command and obedience; how should I not have consecrated, because I have spoken the words with earnestness and have said mass with all possible devotion, you know that for certain. Yes, he said, it is true, but the Turks and the Gentiles also do everything in their churches out of command and serious obedience; the priests Jeroboam in Dan and Berseba 3) did everything perhaps with greater devotion, neither the right priests in Jerusalem: how if your consecration, Chresem and consecrating were also unchristian and wrong, like the Turks and Samaritans?
Here I really broke out in a sweat, and my heart began to tremble and throb; the devil knows well how to start and continue his arguments, and has a heavy, strong language, and such disputations do not proceed with long and much deliberation, but one moment is one answer after another. And I have experienced how it happens that people are found dead in bed in the morning. He can strangle the body, that is one thing; but he can also make the soul so anxious with disputes that it falls out.
2) The papists base their blasphemy on the following story: Luther himself confessed that he had learned from the devil that the mass should be abolished. In the letter to Hausmann (Walch, old edition, Vol. XXI, 1412,? 3) of December 17, 1833, already mentioned in the first note to this writing, Luther reports that he had this fight with the devil only recently (rsesntsr).
3) This reading is in all editions, but there is an error in it. Either it should read: "to Dan and Bethel" according to 1 Kings 12, 29., or: "from Dan to Berseba" according to 2 Sam. 17, 11.; i.e. in all of Israel.
4) In the old editions: begonst.
I have to speak to him in a moment, as he has almost done to me many times. Now he had seized me in this disputation, and I did not want to leave such an innumerable heap of abominations on me before God, but to defend my innocence, and listened to him, what causes he had against my consecration and consecration.
9th First, he said, "You know that you did not believe rightly in Christ, and that for the sake of faith you were as good as a Turk, for the Turk, and I myself with all the devils, also believe all that is written of Christ, Jac. 2:19, that is, how he was born, died, and ascended into heaven; but none of us takes comfort in him or has confidence in him as a Savior, but we fear him as a severe judge. You also had such faith, and no other, when you were consecrated and said mass, and all the others, both consecrated bishops and their consecrated men, also believed so; therefore you also all held yourselves by Christ to Mary and the saints, who had to be your consolation and helpers in need against Christ. This you cannot deny, nor some pope; therefore you were consecrated and said mass as pagans and not as Christians; how then could you walk? For ye were not the persons that should walk.
(10) Secondly, you are consecrated and have gone against the order and mind of Christ, for Christ's mind is that the sacrament or mass should be administered in such a way that it is distributed to his Christians and served to others, for a priest should be a minister of the church, that he distributes the sacraments and preaches, as all this is clearly required by the words of Christ in the Lord's Supper and 1 Corinthians 11. 11. clearly require; therefore it is also called communion by the ancient fathers, that not the priest alone should take it, but the others in common also receive it. Now, contrary to Christ's opinion, you have received the sacrament alone for fifteen years and have given it to no one; indeed, it was forbidden to you, you did not have to give it to others; what kind of consecration and change is this? What kind of a priest have you been, who have been dedicated to yourself and not to the church?
Are you consecrated as a servant? Christ does not know about such consecration, that is certain.
(11) Thirdly, Christ's opinion is that at the sacrament one should preach about him and his death and publicly confess, as he says: "Do this in remembrance of me, that is, proclaim (as St. Paul says 1 Cor. 11:26) my death until I come. But thou protractor hast never preached a word, nor known Christ in all thy protractors; thou alone hast taken it, thou alone hast whispered with thyself. Is that keeping the mind of Christ? Is this what it means to be a true priest? Is this holy consecration? Is this how you received and used your ministry and ordination?
12. fourth, Christ's opinion is that it should be a common sacrament to communicate to other Christians; but you are consecrated to offer it to God, and are not consecrated to be a sacrament priest, but a sacrificial priest, as the words of the consecrating bishop are, when he put the chalice into your anointed hand and said: Accipite potestatem consecrandi et sacrificandi pro vivis et mortuis. i. Receive the power to consecrate and sacrifice for the living and the dead]. This may be called a perverse consecration to me, that you make of it a sacrifice to God for yourself individually, which nevertheless is to be a common food, ordained by God through the ministry of the priests to be offered to Christians; O abomination upon abomination!
Fifth, it is Christ's opinion (as stated) that the sacrament should be distributed to Christ's congregation to strengthen their faith and to praise Christ publicly; but you have made a work of your own out of it, which is yours and 1) have accomplished it without the help of others, and have shared this work with others and sold it for money; what can you deny here? Wherefore then art thou consecrated, who hast had no right faith, who hast been consecrated contrary to all order and opinion of Christ, to be a sacrificial priest of thine own, to be a work priest of thine own, not to be a common church priest, who hast administered the sacrament to no man, preached nothing in it, and done nothing at all, wherefore Christ hath instituted it, but to be a contrary priest?
1) Erlanger: and you.
And if thou hast been wickedly consecrated against Christ, to do all things that are against him. But if thou art consecrated against Christ, thy consecration is certainly false, contrary to Christ, and nothing at all. Therefore thou hast certainly not walked, but hast wickedly offered bread and wine, received and worshipped, and held it out to others to worship.
14 Here you see that in your mass, first of all, there is not the person who should and can walk, namely a person who believes in Christ.
Secondly, there is not the person to whom you are to administer and hand it, namely the Christian congregation or people, but you godless, unbelieving priest stand there alone and think that Christ has ordered it for your sake and that you alone should jump up and administer his body and blood, when you are not his member but his enemy.
Third, the final opinion and fruit or custom that Christ wants is not there, for it is appointed to feed and strengthen the Christian community and to preach and praise Christ. Now the Christian community knows nothing of your mass, hears nothing from you, receives nothing from you, but you remain silent there in the corner and eat it alone, you who are unbelieving and unworthy, and feed no one with it, but sell it as your remaining good work. Since you are not the person who should do it, and the person who should have it is not there, and the final opinion is wrong, which Christ has ordained and wants to have, and yet you are consecrated to no other than such a shameful, perverse priest, then both your consecration and change are nothing but blasphemy and temptation, and you are 1) neither priest, nor the bread the body of Christ in your mass.
(16) I will set thee a similitude. If one baptized, there being no person to be baptized, or if a puddle pond baptized a bell, which could not be the person to be baptized, dear, tell me, would it also be a baptism? Here you must say, No. For who can baptize that which is not, or the person to be baptized is not? What kind of baptism would it be if I were to be baptized into the wind?
1) "You" is missing in the Jena.
saying: I baptize you in the name of the Father etc. and throw water after it? Who receives here the forgiveness of sins and the Holy Spirit and other virtues of baptism? The air or the bell? Then you must understand that there can be no baptism here, even though the words of baptism are spoken and the water is poured, because there is no person who is capable of receiving baptism. What if you were to say the words and take the sacrament at your mass, but receive nothing but bread and wine? For the person, the church, is not there; so you unbeliever are sent to the sacrament just as the bell or stone is sent to baptism, yes, you are a mere nothing to the sacrament.
(17) Here you may say, If I do not give the sacrament to the church, I give or take it to myself. If some in the crowd receive the sacrament, even baptism, who are also unbelievers, and yet there is the right sacrament and baptism; why then should my mass not have the right sacrament etc.? Yes, dear journeyman, this is not the same, because in baptism there are always (even if it is a yacht baptism 2) at least two persons, the baptizer and the baptized, and often many more, and it is an office that is fully given in the congregation as another member, does not take to itself and gives nothing to others, as you do in the mass. And if all is lacking, the work goes out here and in the command of Christ; but your mass does not.
(18) Secondly, why do you not also teach that one should or may baptize himself? Why is this not baptism? Why is it not confirmation when one confirms himself? Why is it not consecration when one consecrates himself? Why is it not absolution, when one absolves himself? 3) Why is it not consecration, when one consecrates himself? Why isn't it a consecration, when one oils oneself? Why is it not marriage, if one wants to take himself in marriage? or wants to sleep with a prostitute by force and say: It must be a marriage without her thanks? For these are your seven 4) sacraments. So now
2) In the old editions: Jatauffe - Jäh- or Jachtaufe.
3) "self" is missing in the Erlanger.
4) Erlanger: seventh.
It is true that no sacrament can be made by yourself, so how can the only and highest sacrament be made for you alone and by yourself?
(19) It is true that Christ took Himself with the disciples in the sacrament, and a priest with the congregation also takes the sacrament himself; but he does not do it and take it for himself alone, but receives it with the congregation or with others, and everything is done in the order and command of Christ. But I speak now of walking and doing, whether any man may walk and do it unto himself. For where it is walked, I know well that with others every man may take and eat for himself, for it is common food. Just as I ask whether a man may consecrate or call himself? I know that if he is ordained or consecrated, he may need to be ordained or consecrated. If a man sleeps with a woman who is not yet his, nor is she pledged to him, will it be enough for him to marry her alone? Knows almost well, if she speaks yes and is, that then the sleeping is a marriage etc.
20 In this fear and distress I wanted to reject the devil from me, seized the old armor, which I had learned to put on and wear in the papacy, scilicet intentionem et fidem Ecclesiae, that is, I would have said such a mass in the faith and opinion of the church: because even if I did not believe nor think right, the church believes and means it right; therefore my mass and consecration should be right. Against this he pushed me: "Dear, tell me, where is it written? That a godless, faithless man may come and walk in the faith and opinion of the church? Where has God taught or commanded it? How do you prove that the church gives you such an opinion and lends it to your own evil work? But if men have said it without the word of God, it is all a lie; yea, then ye mew in darkness under the name of the church, and after that all your abominations shall be called the opinion of the church.
(21) Secondly, do not teach me what is the faith and opinion of the Church. The church believes and means nothing but Christ's opinion and order, much less contrary to it.
His opinion and order, of which I have said above. For St. Paul speaks 1 Cor. 2, 16: We have the mind, or opinion, of Christ.
(22) But how can you know what is the opinion of Christ and His church, except from His own words and those of the church? How do you know that the church's opinion is that adultery and murder are sins, that unbelief is condemnation and the like? Don't you have to learn it from the Word of God? If one must take the opinion of the church from the word of God concerning works, how much more must one take the opinion of the church from the word of God concerning doctrine! Why then do you here clearly in your corner mass against the bright words and order of Christ and then deny the church and want to color yourself with its opinion, as if its opinion were against Christ's word and order? Who is making you lie so shamefully to the church? Because you are not consecrated in any other way than to do the corner mass, that is, against the words and order of Christ, against the opinion and faith of the church, you are more consecrated than consecrated, and your consecration is much more void and worse than the consecration of bells, baptism and stones. Therefore you will certainly not have walked, but sacrificed vain bread and wine (like the pagans) and sold it to the pious Christians as a good work to feed your belly. Thou belly-pope and not God-pope, who ever heard greater abomination, deceit and harm in heaven and on earth etc.? That was the disputation almost in the sum.
23. Here the holy papists will mock me and say: Are you the great doctor and cannot answer the devil? Do you not know that he is a liar? Thank you, dear sirs, for your comforting absolution and answer, for I would not have known that the devil is a liar if you did not tell me now. If I were a pope and the devil let me live in peace, as he lets them live safely in the buzz, I would also know how to answer him, because I am also one of the bold heroes, who is not afraid of ten, where I am alone. But should they hear the devil disputing, they should not tell me long of church, of old custom and her-
1230 Erl. si, 3i8-[Lo. IX. Luther's writings Against the Mass. W. xrx. i4S8-isoo. 1231
come and chat. I can see, David in the Psalter and the dear prophets, how miserably they cry out about such disputation, and Christ himself must (although for our sake) let many a bitter sigh and anguish come out through the devil's lamenting and urging. And I consider that Emser and Oecolampadius and the like died so suddenly by such fiery darts and spears of the devil. For no man can endure them 1) without God's special help and strength: he is almost short-tempered when he disputes, he plays the short game and does not take long when he finds the man alone at home.
(24) He is a liar, it is true; but he can lie better than a bad liar, and more artificially than a man can understand, for he takes before him a truth that cannot be denied, and by it he sharpens his lies so that they cannot be resisted. It was the truth, when he thrust it into Judah's heart, that he had betrayed innocent blood; Judas could not deny it, it was the truth: but it was a lie, that he made him despair of God. Nor did he sharpen such despair by the truth so mightily, that Judas had to go and hang himself over it. [No, dear brother, the devil does not lie when he holds our public evil works and lives against us; he has two witnesses that no one can punish, namely God's commandment and our conscience. Here it is not possible for me To say no. If I should say yes when I have to, then I am of death and of the devil; but there he lies, if he drives me about it, I shall despair, as Cain said: My sin is greater than God's grace [Gen. 4, 13].
(25) And here then is time and need riding and helping up from heaven, that either a brother may be with thee with an outward word of God, or the Holy Ghost himself in the heart, with remembrance of such outward words, saying, Thou hast confessed and not denied, the devil hath won the word of consent, that thou hast sinned and been justly condemned like Judas; but now turn thyself about unto Christ, as St. Peter, and behold.
1) "they" is missing in the Wittenberg and the Jena.
what he has done for you; Christ has again condemned and nullified such your word by his blood and shall not harm you. Apart from Christ he would have been right with you, but because you are in Christ and call on him, your word has again become no, and you can defy and boast against the devil: "If I am a sinner, then I am not a sinner. A sinner am I in myself apart from Christ; not a sinner am I in Christ apart from myself; for he hath blotted out my sin by his holy blood, whereunto I doubt not: whereupon I have baptism, and absolution, and sacrament, as certain seals and letters.
26 Summa, we are rid of these angular masses and Chresem, and will let them defend their masters, the papists, who can now write many books, filled with vain lies and blasphemies from the beginning to the end; they will well defend their Chresem and mass. We want to instruct, warn and comfort our own, and those who desire it, in this matter, whether the papists receive it or not, that in their corner mass there is vain bread and wine, or the body and blood of Christ (we let them see to that). If there is vain bread and wine, as it is almost dangerous, everyone must say, and they themselves must confess, that they are the greatest deceivers and seducers on earth, who hold out to Christians vain bread and wine for Christ's body and blood, and next to it such their sacrifice and work, as the highest service on earth, to reconcile sinners before God, to redeem souls in purgatory, and to banish all misfortune temporally and eternally, as if Christ were nothing at all, and we were to become holy and blessed and redeemed from sins and death by vain bread and wine? Dear, how would we look at and call such a priest in his chasuble and over the altar, but a sorrowful devil even from the bottom of hell? And what then would his consecration be, since he is consecrated to such a mass, other than that he would be consecrated from a consecrated Christian in baptism, through his bishops and Chresem, to a devil?
27. here does not help that they cry: church, church, and much fathers, St. Gregory, Bern-.
hardus etc. have held such a mass etc. For we cannot trust or rely on the life and deeds of the fathers, but on God's word alone, because Christ Himself warned us very faithfully, Matth. 24, 24, that such error should come, into which even the elect might be deceived, and adds [v. 21]: "If such days were not shortened, no man would be saved. There he clearly indicates that among Christians the word and sacrament and baptism (by which we must be saved, and not otherwise) should become so dangerous that no one could be saved by it. Now we have experienced such a time under the papacy. For although we may have had baptism, sacrament and word, they have nevertheless (when we have become great and old) been so perverted and darkened by the teachings and abuses of men that we can no longer boast of them, but have had to take comfort in strange masses, our own works, monasticism, pilgrimages, saintly service and the like, no differently than how the Turks and Jews take comfort in their works and worship; and 1) on such the pabstry's perversion and abomination has been the good of all the world. Whether the elect were deceived in this, God was able to snatch them out at their end (like St. Bernard and others), just like Lot from Sodom [Gen. 19], and the seven thousand at the time of Elijah [1 Kings 19:18]. Therefore, without God's word, nothing is to be dared on their actions and words in such a high eternal matter.
(28) But if the body and blood of Christ be there, every man must say and confess that they are the greatest thieves of God and robbers of the church that ever came upon the earth. For the sacrament (as said above) is, in Christ's opinion, ordained and appointed to be given or communicated to other Christians as a communion and common food for the strength and consolation of their faith, which our angle-measurers do not do, but take it and keep it alone, and do not share it with some Christians. And so, if they have stolen it from Christendom and- stolen
1) Thus in the Wittenberg and in the Jena. Erlanger: "and they", which is perhaps reprinted from the old Walch edition, which has the same error.
they give and sell their opus operatum, their own sacrifice and work, just as they also, when we have grown up (for the children are safe from them through God), have lost, stolen and robbed the baptism, as now through the following sin, learn to do our own works, become monks and serve saints etc., as St. Peter 2 2) Petr. 2, 18. 19. says: To those who rightly escaped (through baptism and God's word) and now walk in error, they promise freedom, if they themselves are servants of perdition.
29. What kind of a fair is this, even theft and robbery? when they rob me of the body and blood of Christ, which is due to me free of charge, and give me the sacrifice and work of a godless, wretched man for my money and goods? This may be called robbing me of my food, and then selling dirt for money; yes, it is called robbing me of the kingdom of heaven, and then selling for my money the hellish fire, which I had unfortunately earned and owned before without money through my sin. Oh what a terrible great wrath of God this has been against the ungrateful world, as St. Paul prophesies [2 Thess. 2, 10. 11.]: "Because they do not accept the truth with love and thanksgiving for salvation, God will send them powerful errors", for the condemnation of the unbelievers. How rightly he calls such a time a terrible and dangerous time [2 Tim. 3:1]. Yes, indeed, horrible and dangerous, in which such a chief abomination has had the upper hand and has deceived almost all the world, and has taken money and the world's goods as wages for it.
(30) How is such a priest to be regarded and respected in his priestly office above his altar other than as a thief of God and a robber of the church, as well as an outrageous betrayer and deceiver who, for the good of the world, has stolen his own
2) Although the old editions correctly offer "2 Petr.", the Erlangen edition has reprinted Walch's incorrect Bible quotation "1 Petr. The Erlangen edition has escaped the many other erroneous Bible quotations that Walch's edition also contains in this scripture by exceptionally refraining from quoting the verse numbers as well as from introducing such Bible passages that were not in the original edition. Only once, in § 37 of this paper, a wrong citation is reprinted from Walch, namely Match. 15, 8. instead of Matth. 15, 9.
(2 Thessalonians 2:11) Is the Lord a cook and sold to hell, yes, an instrument of the terrible wrath of God, by which he sends strong error to those who have not received his word with love and thanksgiving, that they might be saved? (2 Thess. 2, 11.] And how should one interpret his ordination, by which he is consecrated to such a mass, otherwise than that his ordaining bishop has consecrated among the Christians a public thief of God and church robber, who should execute God's wrath and punishment on the unthankful and despisers? And so one thief of God sent out another, one robber of the church sent out another, until they filled the church with them, and devastated everything that is and is called God's, as Daniel proclaimed.
Here the papists should take themselves by the nose when they shout about monastery breakers and taking monastery goods. Such monasteries are stone and wood; the goods are temporal things (although the pope, cardinals, bishops and priests do this most of all, and have also possessed them before as thieves and robbers, as I will show further once). But here the Christian church is spiritually robbed and plundered, sacrament and word destroyed. They laugh at this, and it is called well-done; but God has begun to laugh at them again: it will bite worse than their laughter, amen.
32) Here it is of no use that they cry out: church and fathers, because, as I said, the actions and words of men apart from and without the word of God do not affect us in such high matters, even if it were an angel from heaven, because we know that not only the prophets, as David and Nathan, 1) sinned and erred, but also the apostles often, as also St. Peter, Gal. 2, 11. ff, sinned and erred, and the holy church itself must pray daily: Forgive us our sin. We must have the man of whom alone it is written, "He never sinned nor 2) spoke unrighteously" [1 Pet 2:22, Isa 53:9]. What he does and says, we hear according to his Father's commandment, Matth. 17, 5. Thus we judge both apostles, church and angels. We will obey the apostles and the
1) This may refer to the advice of Nathan (2 Sam. 7, 3) that David should build a house for the Lord.
2) Jenaer: or.
Church also, if they bring that man's sign, when he says to them [Luc. 16, 15.]: Ego mitto vos, ite et praedicate Evangelium (I send you; go and preach the gospel; and again, Docete eos, quae mandavi vobis (Teach them what I have commanded you^). Where they do not bring the sign, we hear them no further, for St. Paul, Gal. 2, 11. ff, Petrum heard; there no crying helps for, we do not do otherwise.
It does not help if they pretend that they do not steal the sacrament from anyone, because everyone in his parish can have it, especially one of the parishioners etc. We will deal with the parishes later; now we will talk about the corner masses, which are to have the same sacrament that the parishes have, and yet share it with no one. For it is not called the sacrament of the priests, but the sacrament of the church, and a priest should be a servant of the church and not his own master against the church. Now the church does not receive its sacrament in the corner mass, as it should; so the protractor does not serve or give it to it, as he is obliged to do, but keeps it alone, and thus deprives the church of its sacrament and gives it the husks for it, yes, the waste of his own sacrifice and work, for money and goods.
34 Here a layman, or one who hears such masses, might ask: What should I do, then, who has heard such angular masses much and still has to hear them? What have our ancestors done who have established such masses and given much to them? Answer: Our forefathers we have to entrust to God's judgment, who may well have preserved some, as he preserved the children of Korah when the earth swallowed up their father, and as is also said above about Lot and Elijah's times. For St. Peter says 2 Pet. 2, 9: "God knows how to deliver the righteous and godly from temptation, but to keep the unrighteous for judgment." Because in the. Since we have been tempted and burdened with such abominations of the angels' fairs and many others, and God now calls us out and wants to redeem us through His true Word, it is time for us to stop and follow and flee with Lot from this Sodom, God
Let there be a brother-in-law, a son-in-law or a wife, and whatever else is not willing, so that we may save our souls and not perish with them; for we can now get out of this by the word of God, as Lot did through the angels.
First of all, a priest or angle priest does well. For since he is certain that such angular masses, even if Christ's body and blood were there, are not commanded by God, but are a mere human fancy, he can easily and with a good conscience refrain from them. If you have many other works and services that you are sure God has commanded, do them, and leave the unsolicited and uncertain work. Who will force you to do it? because you know that God will not be angry with you if you desist from it. Yes, who will force you or me to believe that the Body and Blood of Christ are in the corner mass? I know no commandment of God concerning it, therefore I let the angle priest do what he does; his mass gives me nothing, so it takes nothing from me. If he makes the Body and Blood of Christ, then he steals it from the church as an archchurch thief, and he takes it alone and I do not; if he makes nothing, then it is none of my business, so his offering and sharing is also of no use to me. It also does not help that they slobber, we enjoy the body and blood of Christ in the corner mass spiritually through faith. Such spiritual enjoyment I want to find better in heaven, where Christ's body and blood sit at the right hand of God; this is commanded to me, certainly, and does not lack: the corner mass, however, is not commanded to me and is uncertain. Summa, as St. Augustine says: Tene certum, dimitte incertum, play thou the conscience, and let the uncertain depart.
(36) Yea, I say further, because it is uncertain whether the body and blood of Christ be in the corner mass, and whether it be certainly a pure man's blood, thou shalt not believe in life and limb that Christ's body and blood be there; for faith ought to be certain of its cause, and to have a certain ground, whereof it is not necessary nor ought to be doubted. For my own part, I cannot be sure, nor can I be sure of anything.
1) Erlanger: those.
Therefore, I will not dare to put my faith in it until I see that the papists will certainly do it. However, I am and will remain safe and let the corner mass go on, go on and go on, as it goes on and goes on, because God has not commanded me to hold it, to be there, or to do anything there, to speak or to think. But I will gladly hear how they want to make it certain. They will certainly come trolled with the words: church, church, custom, custom, so that they also answered me when I attacked the indulgence, and yet they themselves now find that neither church nor custom can receive the indulgence, as little as other more erroneous things, practiced under the church's name. But St. Peter says [1 Petr. 4, 11.]: He who speaks in the church should speak God's word; this they will bring to the angular mass when the devil now goes to heaven. If they do not do it for sure, tell me, what then is the Chresem and the consecration, by which such angle apostles are consecrated to such angle masses? Devil's dirt will be invented.
37. On the other hand, a layman or a common Christian, or one who hears the corner mass, has, above such causes as a corner priest has, still more causes that he must not believe that Christ's body and blood are in the corner mass, namely, that he does not know whether his corner priest consecrates, or (as it is called) walks, cannot know it either, and must not know it either; For he is not allowed to hear the words which the priest is to speak about the bread and wine; so he cannot see into the priest's heart what kind of faith there is, and must therefore buy in the sack. Yes, because it is a man's doctrine, he should not build anything on it, as Christ Matth. 15, 9. says: "In vain do they serve me with the doctrines of men." And even if the priest confesses or says that he believes and has spoken the words of consecration, no one must or may believe him, for God has commanded, even in worldly matters, where one acts between men, that nothing should be judged on the mouth of a man, as we also say in German: Ein Mann, kein Mann. How much less can or may a Christian believe a single person in such high divine matters concerning eternal life?
Do you? Therefore, he may stay away from such a mass, or if he has to be present for half of the service, then he lets the priest do it, and meanwhile he thinks of his Lord Christ in heaven and speaks his faith or psalms, just as Naaman the Syrian 2 Kings 5:18 stood with his king in the church, and let the priests sacrifice and serve their idol, but meanwhile he was with his heart at Jerusalem with the right God.
(38) It is also not valid whether one wants to argue here that an angle priest is a public person, publicly consecrated etc., whom one should believe, as one believes a notario or public clerk, because, as said, this matter is spiritual, and not worldly; moreover, one also believes worldly no notario alone, if he does not have witnesses to it, then also his things are obvious, which one sees and hears. Here, however, there are no witnesses, but a single person who mumbles in the dark and plays under the little hat, and then says that he did it this way and that way. Should we believe this and stake our happiness on it? No, that does not apply, dear brother-in-law, one will not believe it and also should not believe it. In addition, they call out their own name (like a cuckoo) and call it Missam privatam, that is, an individual's mass, so that they indicate that the Winkelpfaff is not publica, like a notary, but privata persona, as the ancients called it Communionem, a common mass, since many come together, and not one individual alone takes the sacrament, and the others go away alone.
And even if God had not commanded that we should not believe the word and work of a single man, experience and necessity 1) compel us to do so, even in these secret or corner masses. I have been to Rome (not long), have held many masses there, and also see many masses held, that I dread to think of it, when I heard, among other good coarse grudges, Curtisans laughing and boasting over tables, how some held mass and spoke these words over the bread and wine:
1) Erlanger: zwinge. In the Wittenberg and Jena: zwünge.
Panis es, Panis manebis, Vinum es, Vinum manebis [You are bread, bread you will remain; you are wine, wine you will remain^, and thus suspended. Now I was a young and quite serious, pious monk, to whom such words hurt; what should I think? What else could come to my mind but such thoughts: Do they speak freely and publicly about the table here in Rome, like this, when both the pope, the cardinals and the curtisans hold mass like this? How finely would I be deceived, who would have heard so much mass from them? And I was very disgusted that they could say mass so surely and finely, as if they were playing a jugglery. For before I came to the Gospel, my neighboring priest had said his mass, and cried out to me: Passa, Passa, always away, come away etc.
40 Now we know that the Curtisans' virtue and faith have been brought a lot from Rome and Welsh, and that both, monastery and parishes, have been well polluted with it, because we have seen many nefarious canons, vicars and altarists, who almost lived a wild, desolate life, with indulgence and fornication day and night, and still said mass in the morning. 2) Who will vouch for this and make us sure that they did not also celebrate mass in such a Roman and Curtisan way, and let us worship vain bread and wine? I will remain silent as to what they believed, meant and did, even if they had spoken the words of consecration. Dear, let us comfort one another here, and say with the papists that we should hear and see such mass in the opinion and faith of the holy church. Yes, my friend, you keep such faith and opinion; not for me. I want to have a faith and opinion that is called thus: I have been burned by such an example, I have been instructed and warned that I never want to be at such an angular mass, or if I have to be there, I will not pay any attention to it, nor will I think anything of it (as I am also guilty before God not to pay attention to it), so my faith remains undeceived, I am sure of it.
2) Luther wrote this to Spalatin under January 2, 1523, from the Wittenberg canons and vicars. Cf. Walch, old edition, vol. XV, appendix, no. 112.
Item 41: It is said that some papists are now Zwinglian, and also hold that there is bad bread and wine in the sacrament, and also boast that they will henceforth prefer to say mass, because the worry and danger with the body and blood of Christ is gone. In addition, there are now almost many Epicureans, skeptics and Lucians who keep mass for the sake of interest and hypocrites to the pope and bishops, in addition to almost scolding the Lutherans, who also swear that they want to be torn apart before they would believe otherwise than the church. Because they do not believe in God, they think that such an oath does them no harm, and yet they mock the entire Christian religion, and consider us great fools for believing such strange and whimsical articles, and among them there are also bishops and scholars who are proficient in three languages.
What did the poor man Thomas Muenzer do while he was wandering around the country and looking for a nest for his bad habits? He confessed to good people in Alstädt, how he had been chaplain in a monastery in Halle, and had to say the early mass to the nuns in the morning, where he had often been unwilling, and had left the words of the consecration outside, and had kept vain bread and wine, and wanted to have done well, and boasted to Alstädt and said: Yes, I have eaten such unconsecrated gods (that is what he called the wafers) by two hundred.
43 What did other sneaks and strings do around, who now and then begged for the first mass, and yet were unconsecrated bad boys, some of whom also said mass, and had plates in their sleeves; when they put the chalice back in, they stole the patena and put the plate in the place. What had the poor man dared, the Jew, who was burned in Halle in front of the Moritzburg? What more such abominations will have happened in all countries, since we know nothing about them? For it is to be assumed that we have learned the least, and such examples should warn us sufficiently, and hold all angle fairs suspicious, yes, respect nothing at all. But it is right for us to be wiser than God in the name of the devil, and to order the mass better than he ordered it.
and put our own conceit and opinion in God's place, that we had to fall into such an abyss of all abominations, and one blind man dragging another after him.
(44) If a layman or a hearer be sure that his priest speaketh the words, how knoweth he that he speaketh them in faith? For a priest can speak the words and at the same time think like this: I will speak such words by command; if it becomes the body and blood of Christ or not, I will let it happen, others may see to it. Who knows how many such priests have been and still are? Just as a good journeyman once asked whether it would not be enough for a Christian if he believed and almost granted Christ that he was God, whether he was or not? So this priest lets it happen whether the body and blood of Christ become through his words, without him wanting to believe such stiffly. What is the corner mass here, but a shameful abomination that blasphemously seduces the listener?
(45) But I suppose that the priest will believe at once that it is the body and blood; yet the layman cannot know it, and must doubt and worry that he is worshipping vain bread and wine. I am speaking now of the papal faith, that is, of the faith so that they believe that it is the body and blood of Christ in the sacrament; which faith the godless and false Christians and all devils also have, and is nothing but a human thought and delusion. For no pope has the true Christian faith, nor can he have it, since they do not believe that they have grace and life through Christ alone; nor do they need the sacrament in or for such faith, but as a sacrifice and work, which they also give and sell to others, and handle it contrary to all the order of Christ.
46 For he who has the right Christian faith cannot hear an angular mass, much less say it himself, for he cannot suffer the mass to be a sacrifice and a good work, so that even an ungodly man can reconcile both himself and others to God and acquire grace, but because he knows that in such a mass the priest neither has nor can have right faith, he is not guilty of such a mass.
To keep, that there be not bread and wine, and remain not, as I have said above. For where there is no faith, there is neither the Holy Spirit nor his work. So nothing of such a mass is given to the Christians or the church, so that 1) one could say: Although the body and blood of Christ are not there for the sake of the priest, they are there for the sake of those who receive the sacrament in the right faith.
Item, there are some who have such a weak memory that I have seen and heard that they do not remember when they speak the words, and often do not know whether they have spoken the words or not, yet they were not allowed to speak again. Here was fear and distress, here the theologians had to mend and rag per virtutem intentionis primae [with the power of the first intention], and thus comfort themselves: it would be enough that a priest, when he began to say mass, would have had the intention and will to speak and to change the words; therefore, whether he would forget it afterwards, or perhaps not speak it, it would still have been his will and opinion, and that should be enough, and so that the Body and Blood of Christ would nevertheless be there by virtue of the first will and intention. Oh, dear God, how many different aids the evil things must have, and seven lies always belong to one lie, so that it appears to be the same as the truth. But what is the use of much patching and plastering on the furs, since skin and hair are not good?
Who will make us certain here that such things are rightly said and that the power of the first will is so mighty? Where is God's word or the foundation of Scripture that strengthens and sustains the conscience? It is the words of men, and it is forbidden to put our faith in the words of men, as St. Paul teaches in 1 Cor. 2:5: "That your faith may not be in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God. So even if they comfort themselves that the priest does not walk and that they have worshipped vain bread and wine, this does not harm their faith. Yes, dear, you say that; who would have the seal and letters that it is true!
1) "so that", i.e., if the distribution would take place, one could say etc. - "whether" - if also.
49 Why do we not do otherwise, so that we may be delivered from such false, dangerous, erroneous, uncertain, harmful doctrine and work? We may well leave off the angular measurements, as they are not commanded us, but are a true, own, invented, even invented human doctrine and little book. For human doctrines tend to bear such fruit in the end that one does not know where conscience, faith or God remains; but they do not. For where the angular masses should fall, why, dear children, where should the papacy so soon lie in a heap with pens and altars and all that they are and have; just as Sodoma perished with all that they were and had [Gen. 19].
50 They have taken a saying, on which their actions are written, which is called: Intentio et fides ecclesiae [the intention and faith of the church^, that is, what one does in the faith and opinion of the church, that is right. That is why they believe it, they and their pope cannot be wrong. For what they do, they call done in the faith and opinion of the church, and the church cannot err, as they say. Well, now I let go of the question whether the church can err. For they do not differ and remain in error. To err does not harm the church; but to remain in error is impossible, as Christ says [Matt. 24:24]: "That even the elect might be led into error, if it were possible." For the church confesses in the Lord's Prayer that she sins and errs, but all is forgiven her. Therefore, it is not to be built on some deed or work, much less on its opinion or 2) faith (where it means or believes something apart from and without God's word), for it remains a subservient sinner before God until the last day, and is holy only in Christ, its Savior, through grace and forgiveness of sins. Such things, I say, I will leave now, of which I have touched other places, and will speak further hereafter, if God wills.
(51) But in this saying I will try here if I can paint the devil and show his color. Faith or opinion of the church is two different things; the one is called and is also
2) Jenaer: and.
the right true opinion of the church; this is evident and known to everyone, and stands and is founded in Scripture. As that baptism washes away sins, the church holds and believes this to be certain, and thus also administers baptism. The church also holds and believes that the body and blood of Christ are administered in the bread and wine, if they are used according to the institution and command of Christ. Summa, this opinion of the church cannot err; for it holds itself according to the word of God [and] the opinion of Christ Himself in salvation. According to such a manner and understanding it is rightly spoken: What one does in the opinion of the church, that is rightly done. For so much is said: What one does according to God and the opinion of Christ, that is rightly done.
The ancient fathers and teachers comforted the stupid and weak Christians with this, as St. Paul teaches Rom. 14:1 and Cap. 15:1: "that those who are weak in faith should be accepted, and we who are strong should carry those who are weak. As if I were to baptize, and my weak faith were to tempt me, would I also give the right baptism, in which my baptized would be freed from sins and become pure, because it is such a great thing about baptism, and I am a small, poor, sinful man? 1) Here my brother or I should admonish myself and say, "Although I am unworthy and hardly believe that such great things happen through my baptism, I know for certain that the church believes and means all these things about baptism; therefore I will cheerfully baptize in such an opinion of the church.
(53) And to speak briefly of it, such an opinion of the church is almost as much as the example of the church, that a weak Christian may be strengthened and improved. For as an evil example weakens and angers the faith, so again a good example builds and strengthens it. As if many Christians let themselves be martyred at once for the sake of Christ, someone who would otherwise perhaps be too stupid and deny Christ alone should become courageous to suffer with them. In the same way, a person who is weak in faith can receive baptism and the sacrament and all kinds of consolation when he sees, hears or thinks about how firm and certain the believers are.
1) "bin" is missing in the Wittenberg and the Erlanger.
who believe and do such things, and the whole church does not doubt or waver. But it is to be noted here (as said) that such an opinion of the church should be evident and well known to the weak who want to judge and strengthen themselves according to it. For it is to be an example of faith, which is not secretly hidden in the heart, but is outwardly shown and proven. I say this for the sake of the other opinion that follows, so that we do not go astray in the same darkness and gloom.
The other opinion of the church is that which makes itself apart from the first opinion and calls it by such a name, or says that it is the opinion of the church, and yet it is not, but is a vain conceit of men, invented apart from Scripture, adorned with the name of the church. As when a brother of the Wall says, "I will go to Rome or to St. James in the faith and opinion of the church. Item, when the pope and bishops give indulgences and say that they do it in the church's opinion, when they release souls from purgatory with masses, vigils, alms and soul baths, when they consecrate sanctuaries, when they consecrate chapels, bells, stones, when they consecrate or become monks and nuns, when they consecrate corner masses and corner monkeys, when they consecrate spices, wine, salt, bacon, pancakes, palms and the like. That such things (of which there are innumerable) have become articles of faith in the papacy is due to this saying, that one can say: I do it in the faith and opinion of the church. Whoever could have said or thought such words was right and could not have erred, for it is certain that the church cannot err. Here there was no need at all to inquire and ask what the church meant or did not mean in such matters, but it is enough even today for one to say these words: I do it in the opinion of the church; then it is all right and Christianly well done and cannot fail nor err.
55. Is this not the opinion of the church finely and well interpreted and understood? The right opinion of the church is an example, indeed, the foundation and pillar of truth in the word of God, by which every Christian, especially the weak and the stupid, should be guided and strengthened.
shall. This, however, is a free human conceit, apart from and without God's Word, according to which the church is to judge and keep itself, which may be called sus Minervam, here the 1) egg teaches the chicken and tile the potter. Church opinion is what it holds up and teaches us from God's word, which we should follow; but here it says: what you and I hold up and teach the church without God's word, it should follow, and so the chariot goes before the horses; how should such a carriage stray or miss the way to heaven? Seest thou the color of the devil and his mummery, who under the church name and opinion hath introduced all his abominations, and strengthened as a covenant sophist and master in all deceit and lying? Now listen further, we want to see him even more bass.
When they had thus interpreted such a saying, they found the right hole out of the church and came to the safe, free place that they liked. First of all, that they should not worry about how they would believe and become devout and live and do according to God's word for their persons, but could say, "What is the need for me to believe and do according to God's word or to become devout? It is just enough and right, if I do it in the church opinion, then I cannot lack it, I am free of worry, free and free, how I become faithful and holy; one must surely accept everything from me as right and holy, if I only give the word "church opinion".
(57) Secondly (which is even worse), they not only made themselves free and free from the necessary obedience of the divine word for their persons, but also took from it such power and right to enforce and compel all other Christians that everything they only wanted to think, say, teach and command had to be right and held as articles of faith by the church. For the church's title and its opinion frightened everyone, because no one wanted to do anything against the church's opinion. Here we became good companions and golden friends. For when the great dam broke and God's word, the right opinion of the church, was gone, how could the flood of all kinds of people not be destroyed?
1) "that" is missing in the Erlanger.
teach, that is, lies, error, idolatry, and abominations?
58) Here you see the end-Christ sitting in the temple of God and the abomination standing in the holy place, who by the effect of the devil has rejected the word of God (as St. Paul says [2 Thess. 2, 9]) and has erected his lies and abominations for it, that is, has put himself in the place of God and made himself a god and shows himself as if he were God. What does this false, lying, blasphemous opinion give to the church but this freedom, that they may live safely without God's word, as they wish, and teach and command in the church what they dream or think good? They are not allowed to do more than to use the name of the church and say: We do it all in the opinion of the church. Thus the great robbery and oppression, which was called indulgences, has broken down, for no other reason than that the holy fathers sold it and the people had to buy it in the opinion of the church; By that name it had to be called a true, salutary, great grace, so that souls could go up to heaven from their mouths, although the church knew nothing of such an opinion, but believed and thought by no work that it was done or bought from others (as the dear indulgence was), but through Jesus Christ, without merit, much more without money, to become blessed. Such unspoken, horrible, great deception of innumerable souls, besides the exuberant robbery and theft of goods, lies on the soul of the papists; and because they know such things and yet do not humble themselves nor repent, the few pieces well testify what kind of herbs they are, who still laugh and are cheerful at such harm to Christianity. But the end-Christian must keep himself end-Christian.
(59) In this opinion, pilgrimages, purgatory, holy services, monasteries, and other such infernal pits of murder have arisen and been endowed with indulgences, by which souls are miserably deceived and the world's goods are horribly devoured. They repent of none of these, but murder those who tell them the truth. And that I come back to our matter, in such opinion of the church are also the
2) Erlanger: like.
The church has been holding fairs in the corners, selling them for money, and sharing them as human works and sacrifices. But how shall they exist in that day, when the holy church will obviously let itself be heard that it never knew of such opinion, but was a blasphemous lie of the end-Christ, strengthened by the effect of the devil, for the seduction and punishment of the unbelieving, ungrateful world? for, praise God, such a lie is already beginning to be revealed, even here on earth with the right Christians, for the preparation of the last judgment, when it shall be completely exposed and condemned before all eyes, both of the saints and the damned.
60 Here he will reproach me and say: "In this way you will not let us keep any preacher, priest or parish, and you will even abolish the sacrament, which has been used until now under the pope, and make vain bread and wine out of it. For no priest is ordained otherwise by the bishops, except for the corner masses, that is, publicly during the day. If we have had neither proper priests nor sacraments, then no Christianity or church has remained. This is clearly against the article: "I believe a holy Christian church", and against the word of Christ: "I am with you until the end of the world" etc. [Matth. 28, 20.] To this I answer thus:
First of all, the church or Christianity remains and must remain, that is one thing and is certainly true.
62 Secondly, it is also true that under the papacy no priest has ever been ordained as a pastor or preacher, but only as an angle priest; no one can deny this. For whoever was to become a pastor or preacher, it was not enough that he had been ordained and received the Chrism, but had to be called or ordained anew, and had to be invested and instructed to receive and accept such a pastorate, or had to have it as a title before his ordination; For they would not ordain a corner priest, unless he had a title, that is, a parish, fief, or at least the table of a nobleman or burgher, to keep the same houses holy and pure against chastity, discipline and honor, as the proverb says:
If you want to keep your house clean, let the priests and monks leave it.
Here we will distinguish and see the temple of God, in which the end-Christ sits, and the holy place, where the abomination stands inside [Matth. 24, 15]. It is certain (as said before) that the bishop does not ordain a priest nor a preacher, but only a priest for the corner mass; yes, it remains forbidden to him just as hard after the ordination as before, that he may not refrain from public preaching in the church and the parish office without a special new order and appointment. And thus ordination or Chresem is quite distinct from ordination, or calling to the common Christian office of preaching and parish ministry. Although they have kept this, that they have not called any unordained person to be a pastor or preacher, but have only taken some from the ordained bunch.
64 Now their action and custom, that they ordain priests without a parish, and yet ordain no priest without ordination, makes no article of faith to us, that therefore it must be so. We now have enough that their ordination does not ordain a pastor nor a Christian office among the congregation of Christians, but only an angular priest. What kind of ordination or priesthood is this to me, since the common Christians have neither baptism, sacrament, consolation, absolution, preaching, nor any kind of pastoral care or office? To whom are they consecrated and ordained? to the church? Yes, they are consecrated to themselves and only to their belly, so that they may be an abomination in the holy place. The church never knows whether they are consecrated or how they are consecrated, for she gets nothing out of it without a blasphemous deceiver who wants to sell her his mass and work for salvation: but she does not like it and should not like it.
This holy church is now the holy place of abomination, for God has resounded there with power and miracles, that nevertheless under the pope, first of all, holy baptism has remained. Then, in the pulpit, the text of the Holy Gospel in the language of each country. Third, the holy forgiveness of sins and absolution, both in confession and publicly. Fourth, the sacred Sa-
crament of the altar, which was given to Christians at Easter and other times during the year; although they have stolen the one figure. Fifth, the calling or ordaining to the ministry, preaching, or pastoral care, to bind and loose sins, and to comfort in death and otherwise; for the custom has remained with many that the crucifix is held up to the dying, reminding them of Christ's suffering, on which they should rely etc. Lastly, the prayer, as Psalter, Our Father, the faith and ten commandments; item, many good songs and chants, both Latin and German. Where now such pieces still remained, there certainly remained the church and some saints, because they are all the order and fruits of Christ; except the robbery of the one 1) figure. Therefore Christ has certainly been with His own with His Holy Spirit, and has preserved the Christian faith in them.
(66) However, everything happened weakly, as in the time of Elijah, when seven baptized were received so weakly that Elijah himself thought that he alone was a Christian [1 Kings 19:10]. For as mightily as Christ had to preserve baptism against so many examples of works and sects, and the text of the Gospel and the other pieces mentioned above against so many secondary doctrines of saints, of indulgences etc., so mightily did he preserve the hearts that they neither lost nor forgot their baptism, gospel etc., in the midst of so much vexatiousness; he also had to forgive very strongly and see through the fingers where his Christians sometimes fell and were deceived, as he had to forgive St. Peter and the apostles for their denials.
In particular, he had to give credit to his poor church that it had to do without its will, as if it had been stolen by force, the one figure of the sacrament. And even if they had been deceived all their lives, in the end he snatched them out as from a fire, as St. Bernard, Gregory, Bonaventure; as before also the kings of Israel and Judah, who were evil in life. He himself confesses that
1) So put by us instead of "some", in the editions.
it would be a dangerous time, and the abomination would devastate everything, and his elect would be deceived [Matth. 24, 22.but because they are the elect, they are children of grace, and no sin need harm them, however great, much or lukewarm they may be; their Savior Christ is greater and more than all: he has remained holy for them, where they have become sinners.
68 In such a holy place stands the abomination of the devil, mixed in with all the things, so that without the Holy Spirit it is not possible to distinguish it from the holy place. But by their fruits the Spirit teaches us to recognize them. And that we might begin to understand, first of all, there is the horrible bunch of angle priests with their angle mass and those who are attached to them. These priests do not practice any of the above-mentioned things that Christ has ordained for the preservation of the church; They do not preach, they do not baptize, they do not administer the sacrament, they do not absolve, they do not pray (without listening to the words of the Psalter 2) and whispering), they are not in any ministry of pastoral care, nor do they do anything for the dying, but they are the useless, lazy, idle servants, who alone act the sacrament (as they think) and sell it for a sacrifice and work, devouring both the Christians' and the un-Christians' goods.
(69) After this, each group has its own bishop; these same bishops do none of the above: they do not preach, they do not baptize, they do not administer the sacrament to the church, they do not absolve, they do not pray, they do not care for souls, and they do not ordain a priest or preacher; only they consecrate their bishops. When they have done this, they are then vain secular princes and lords, but still call themselves bishops of the church. And as much as they are greater and higher than the corner priests, so much worse and more harmful are they in the holy place.
70 According to this, such angular bishops (called ordinarios loci) have each part their archbishop over them, and the archbishops have one archbishop over them.
2) "lören" - to refuse, to whine (Hos. 7, 14.). This reading is found in the Wittenberg and Jena editions. Erlanger: "teach," which seems to have been reprinted from the old Walch edition.
Primates above them, the primates a patriarch above them, finally on top the pope; there sits the rat king, that is the beautiful monarchy, or (as they like to hear it) hierarchy, the holy Christian church. They do not preach, they do not baptize, they do not administer the sacrament, they do not absolve, they do not pray, they do not pastor; for such bad offices, which the Son of God Himself and His highest saints have exercised, and which the angels also rejoice in, are too bad and low for such great lords. Nevertheless they are called fathers and servants of all servants of God. And to prove that many of them do not know what these things and offices are, some of them also do not know the Ten Commandments, nor the faith, as the children do. They are a people by themselves, who sit in the holy place, and yet do not do the church any service, as they are bound to do by office and name. These may be called "the idolatrous shepherds," "who forsake their flocks," as Zechariah Cap. 11:17 says.
71. But, O Lord God, how gladly we poor Christians would like to be satisfied and humbly thank God that they did not benefit or serve the church, if they only remained lords and princes and lazy bellies, lived and did for themselves, They lived and did for themselves what they wanted, kept angle masters, consecrated angle priests, remained angle bishops, according to all their liking, but did no harm to the church, did not disturb Christ's order and word, and yet let others teach and do what is necessary and useful for the church. But this will not be, they have to live up to their name, as St. Paul calls them Antikimenos [2 Thess. 2, 4] and St. John Antichri- stos, that is, the anti-Christian and the repugnant [1 Jn. 4, 3] and Daniel also prophesied before that the anti-Christian would set himself against everything [Dan. 11, 36. 37], so that they would not only be a useless bunch in the church, but also enemies and corrupters. This we will see by all the above-mentioned pieces, and we will look at their highest and best works, which are their corner mass and consecration, on which they stand and defy, as very special saints above all other Christians.
72 Firstly, against the Sacrament of Al
In the face of the sacrament that Christ ordained for his church and Christians, to strengthen their faith and knowledge, they have acted in such a way that the corner mass (which is, after all, a mere human act) should have been much more delicious than the reception of the sacrament in common (which is, after all, Christ's institution and order). For he who has gone to the sacrament cannot offer it, nor do it as a work for others, nor sell it, as an angular priest, but must receive it for himself alone. In this case, a great appearance and high honor has been given to the corner mass, while the sacrament and its reception are held in low esteem, and almost no esteem at all, without what Christ has miraculously (as said above) preserved in his elect. For the sake of the papists and the apostles, the sacrament has herewith been destroyed. For inasmuch as they have made it inferior to their masses, they have not taught the people how to receive it with faith, for the consolation and strength of conscience, but have troubled and urged them how they should receive it worthily, and so taught them to make a work of it, by which they render obedience to the church; but nowhere equal to the sacrifice and work of their corner masses, that they might give and sell them for the help of the poor people.
Thus the reception of the sacrament in the church (where Christ did not miraculously cooperate with His own) has become a small work of obedience, so that a layman of the church (as they boast) may do enough, which is, however, strictly contrary to Christ's order and opinion; but they, the lords of the corner mass, have become Christ, have been able to reconcile poor sinners to God with their sacrifice and work. This unfortunate abomination and devil is in the day and no one can deny it: churches and all customs testify to how gloriously and beautifully the corner masses are respected, and in contrast, how nothing at all the poor work of receiving the sacrament is held.
74 Thus the papists, the abominable crowd, not only did not give the sacrament to anyone, but also raged against the rich and the received and destroyed the faith of the people.
They prevented it and turned it into a despicable layman's work, and set themselves high above and against it with their sacrifice and work, so that the Sacrament was deprived of all its power and might (Christ has preserved His own!) and so that it would become a despicable, dark, lowly work, they robbed the one form of it, so that their angular abomination would float in the highest light and honor.
But if I suppose that the one form is right to receive (as it is not), where does the sacrilege come from that they also unjustly reproach and forbid both forms as heresy, chase the people away, burn and murder them for it? since it is clear and certain in the Gospel and St. Paul that it is Christ's word and order. What kind of people are these who publicly and brazenly forbid, condemn, call heretics, and thus disturb and destroy Christ Himself and His Word, along with all early Christianity, who unanimously held both forms to be right and Christian, according to Christ's order? Again, they allow such 1) by them condemned, cursed, persecuted article to the Bohemians and to whom they want, as right and Christian, and Christ must be at the same time an angel and devil, and what they want, with them. This piece alone is enough evidence that even stone and wood would feel how the papists are the real arch-abomination in the holy place, and the real church of the infernal Satan, to destroy Christ and his church. What should they not do in 2) other things, because they so brazenly rage and rage against Christ?
(76) Behold, this is the first fruit by which the desolate abomination is known in the holy place, namely, that they make the sacrament a corner mass and do not administer it to the church.
The second is that they make it a sacrifice and a work and sell it to the Christians for money.
78 Third, that they rob one of the two forms and condemn the Christians as heretics and persecute them, while admitting the other as right.
1) So set by us. In the editions: by them such.
2) "in" is missing in the Wittenberg and Erlanger.
79 Fourthly, that they make the one form also a work for the laity, and a little despised work, against their masses, and let them learn no faith thereby. This may mean destroying and destroying the holy sacrament. Behold, this is a little piece of the Antichrist, who has exalted himself above and against Christ and his Word, and sits in the temple of God as far as Christendom is.
80 Secondly, they have raged and raged against baptism in such a way that they have taken away almost all of its power and honor (now let it be said that they baptize no one in the church), even though they do not understand what baptism is to this day, nor can they. Whoever has been baptized and has been able to remain in it, or to come to it again, has been a miracle of Christ, as all his elect are; the rest of them, through the papal abomination, have again been deprived of baptism and made null and void. First of all, they not only concealed the faith and right custom or understanding of baptism (as the leaders of the blind did not understand anything about it), but also taught against it various doctrines of works, of newness, confession and repentance, on which the consciences had to rely and forget their baptism; After that, the corner masses, monastic baptisms, 3) pilgrimages, indulgences, saintly service, and such like innumerable human poems, taught to obtain forgiveness through them, to great dishonor and forgetfulness of baptism and the blood of Christ.
(81) In addition, some of them now began to preach the blasphemous doctrine again, that Christ alone had done enough for original sin and past sin; we must do enough for the following ones ourselves. This means that Christians have been made pure and clean from Turks and Gentiles, regardless of the fact that John 1 John 1:7 speaks clearly of all Christians and of himself, that "if we walk in the light, the blood of Jesus Christ his Son makes us clean from all sin," and 1 John 2:1, 2: "If anyone sins, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ, who is righteous. And the same
3) What the "baptism of monks" is, see in the appendix of this volume the 22nd paragraph of the scripture no. 30.
is the propitiation for our sin, not only for our sin alone, but for the whole world". And the epistle to the Hebrews gloriously emphasizes Christ's eternal priesthood, how he stands with God for us [Heb. 7:24]. And Paul Rom. 8, 34. says: "Christ represents us to the Father." But what should such blind leaders and baptismal abusers understand about these things!
The very best among them have taught and still teach that works or love give strength and form to faith, as they say Fides formata, and Caritas est forma fidei, and gloriously carry out the saying of St. Paul Gal. 5:6: "In Christ neither circumcision nor foreskin counts for anything, but faith working through love," understanding by this that faith does not acquire grace and salvation before works, but through works, although St. Paul does not speak here of what faith is or does in its own work (which he teaches abundantly before through the whole epistle), nor of what love is or does. Paul does not say here what faith is or does in its own work (which he teaches abundantly throughout the epistle), nor what love is or does, but summarizes briefly what a completely Christian life should be, namely faith and love: faith toward God, who takes hold of Christ and receives forgiveness of sin without any works; then love toward the neighbor, which as the fruit of faith proves that faith is right and not lazy or false, but active and living.
For this reason he does not say that love is active, but that faith is active; that faith exercises love and makes it active, and not love makes faith active, as the papists do and thus ascribe everything to love and nothing to faith, but St. Paul ascribes everything to faith, as it not only receives grace from God, but is also active toward the neighbor and gives birth to love or works from itself and works. Now all teaching that points us to works is contrary to baptism, in which we are to receive grace without works and retain it forever, as St. Paul does in all places.
84 But this is first of all the real abomination of one against love and blessed baptism, that they boast how they made priests in the holy church with their Chrism and consecration, that is, a far, far higher and holier one.
The state that baptism gives. For a consecrated priest anointed with Chrism is like the morning star to other baptized common Christians, to a smoldering wick, and the baptism in which we are washed with Christ's own blood and anointed with his Holy Spirit to eternal life, must shine like dirt in the lanterns to the sun, against the nasty Chrism or oil that comes from men without God's word and command; and yet are not anointed with such Chresem to eternal life, but to the corner mass. For this purpose, the plate and special clothing, the name Clericus, helps, as if they were Christ's property alone; item, as they invent, the character, the spiritual mark in the soul, which no common Christian should have, without only the ordained priests. Item, the pomp, so one has to degrade a priest, many bishops, sometimes seven, had to be present, although he is ordained by one alone; nor could they take away his character with such splendid degradation.
These are the right splendid words and powerful effect of the devil [2 Thess. 2, 9], so that the glory and power of holy baptism is weakened, so that its spiritual God-resurrection, which is the Holy Spirit Himself, has to be nothing at all compared to the bodily and temporal Chresem of the papists, invented by human devotion. Baptism with the blood of Christ and anointing of the Holy Spirit could not consecrate or make a priest, but a papal bishop could consecrate and make priests with his stinking, nasty chrism. You unholy, damned fools and blind leaders, how disgracefully you hereby blaspheme our holy baptism, the blood of Christ and the anointing of the Holy Spirit, and against it you throw us on your vain, harmful, abominable corner consecration, directed to the corner mass, with your bodily and temporal Chresem, which after all is a mere man's command and has neither command nor commandment of God.
86. the dear holy fathers I will excuse, and they should also be excused, where they are also consecrated or ordained with Chresem, and their consecrated ones the priests or
They did not call a priest a priest, because they did not ordain anyone to a priestly office, but when they called someone to a Christian priestly office or pastoral care, they wanted to decorate and paint such a profession before the congregation with such splendor, in distinction to the others who were not called, so that everyone would know which person should hold such an office and would have the command to baptize, preach etc. For the ordination should and can basically be nothing else than a profession or command of the parish office or preaching office.
The apostles, without Christ alone, laid their hands on their heads and prayed over those they called or sent to the ministry, as happened in Acts 13:3 to Paul and Barnaba, and St. Paul taught his Timothy not to lay hands on anyone soon. 13,1) 3. St. Paul and Barnaba and St. Paul teaches his Timothy not to lay hands on anyone soon. The dear fathers have increased such ceremonies with the Chresem and the like, they have meant well. But people's devotion and good opinion always turn out in such a way that afterwards it turns into trouble, error and idolatry, where the spirit of the fathers does not follow and remain, as has happened in many other places. So also this good opinion of the fathers and their consecration has come to the point that baptism and Christ are weakened and obscured by it, and has no longer remained a consecration to a vocation or parish office, but has become a consecration to a devil, to ordain angle priests to the angle mass, and now finally a real difference and characteristic between the right Christians and the devil's priests. For they do not serve the church, but are the abomination that destroys and devastates everything in the holy place.
88) On the other hand, you shall again exalt and praise your baptism as much as you are able to weaken and nullify the shameful abomination. For in Christianity there is no such thing as making a priest, nor consecrating a priest; the church (I say) and the bishop will not make us priests, nor do we want to become or have them. But I say again, where we are not before without
1) Here the Erlangen edition, as well as the Wittenberg, has erroneously: Act. 19.
Bishop and Chresem are real parsons, so the bishop and his Chresem will never make us parsons. He may well make larvae and carnival parsons out of us, just as he himself is a carnival bishop and larva, and as boys in a game make kings, virgins and other persons or larvae. We do not want to be and be called made, 2) but born priests, and have our priesthood hereditary by our birth from father and mother, because our father is the right priest and high priest, as it is written in the 110th Psalm: "God has sworn that He will not repent: You are a priest forever, after the manner of Melchizedek." This he also proved, and sacrificed himself on the cross for us etc. The same priest or bishop now has a bride, a priestess or bishopess, as it is written John 3:29: "He that hath the bride is the bridegroom."
From this Bridegroom and Bride we were born through Holy Baptism, and thus hereditarily became true priests in Christendom, sanctified by His blood and consecrated by His Holy Spirit, as St. Peter calls us, 1 Peter 2:5: "You are the royal priesthood to offer spiritual sacrifices"; and St. Paul Romans 12:1 also praises us as priests, for he calls us to "offer our bodies for a holy, living, acceptable sacrifice. Now sacrificing to God is the priest's office alone, as the Pope himself and all the world must confess. For this we are not only his children, but also his brothers, as he says [in the] 22nd Psalm, v. 23: "I will proclaim your name to my brothers"; and Matth. 12, 50: "He who does my Father's will is my mother, sister, brother" etc. That we are priests and ministers not only according to the law of kinship, but also according to the law of brotherhood.
(90) This our inherited and hereditary priesthood we want to take, unhindered and undimmed, but to have brought forth, proclaimed and praised with all honors, so that it may shine and shine like the dear sun, and to be able to resist the devil with his
2) Thus taken from the old edition of Walch. In the other editions: "unmade" instead of: "not made".
The Holy Spirit has diligently prevented the name Sacerdotal from being given to any apostle or any other office in the New Testament. Therefore the Holy Spirit has diligently prevented in the New Testament that the name Sacerdotus, priest or priest, is not given to an apostle nor to some other offices, but is only the name of the baptized or Christians, as an inherent, hereditary name from baptism, because in baptism none of us is born an apostle, preacher, teacher, pastor, but we are all born priests and priests; Then one takes from such born priests, and calls or appoints them to such offices, who are to perform such office for the sake of all of us.
This is the reason in this matter, which no one can overturn. And if the papal ordination wanted to do right, it should do nothing else than to call such born priests to the parish office, and not to make new, holier and better priests, neither the baptized Christians are. Behold, this is the other part (as said), that they have profaned, darkened and weakened our baptism, that they have so shamefully and blasphemously concealed and hidden from us our glorious, eternal, inherent, hereditary priestly honor, and instead have presented to us their dead, nasty Chresem so high and glorious, that we have not so highly feared and honored God Himself, as these their futile larvae and carnival games. But that the fathers called their consecrated ones Sacerdotes and thus came into custom, one (I say) should give them credit, as many other things more. And if it had remained with their consecration and ordination, the name would have done no harm, because they consecrated priests. But the abomination kept the name (because it was so glorious) and left the fathers' ordinations, erected his angle ordination instead, and thus horribly devastated and destroyed our right priesthood and baptism.
The third part, that is, the sermon, was done in this way. First of all, they said the text of the Gospel and the Passion of Christ in the pulpit. Herewith 'is left the name and knowledge of Christ in his elect, but by great God's power and miracles they are preserved,
as we shall hear from their abominations, which they have committed against it. And because the word of God is the greatest, most necessary and highest thing in Christianity (for the sacraments cannot be without the word, but the word can be without the sacraments, and if need be, one can be saved without the sacrament, but not without the word, as those who die before they receive the desired baptism), Christ has done even more and greater miracles in this, namely, that they had to preach the text of the Gospel freely in public, not only in Latin, but also in every country's language, so that it would be known to the elect before all the world and in all languages, since they did not administer the sacrament and baptism in any other language than Latin, with secret words that no one had to hear.
Against this they stormed, even with all their might. For according to the text of the Gospel, they went there into the land of the sleeping monkeys; one preached from Aristotle and the pagan books, another from the Decree, another brought questions from St. Thomas and Scholastern, another preached from the saints, another from his holy order, another from blue ducks, another from chicken milk. Who can tell it all, the vermin? That was the art, so that no one would stay with the text, so that the people would keep the Gospel, learn the Ten Commandments, the faith, the Lord's Prayer, and the works of their state, all of which had to be kept silent, but the people had to be pointed to their own work and merit by such gimmicky preaching, and Christ had to be suffocated and buried in their hearts (so barely grasped from the text of the Gospel).
Therefore all the world has become so full of monasteries, convents, churches and chapels, that with all the world's goods and power one could not now build half of what the false doctrine has built so easily and with pleasure; such a mighty, rich empress is the lie or false doctrine in the world, besides which the truth and gospel had not, since it would have to lay down its head and drink vinegar and bile from thirst and hunger, and finally have the cross and shame as a reward. All these things had the holy place from her desolate
Abomination. For the pope, bishops, and priests did not resist such things, but were glad to see them, and helped them to do and handle them. Tell me, who here has been able to stay with the Gospel, or come back to it, without a great miracle of Christ? For his elect are all of them.
95 Since this storming against the text of the gospel was not enough for the devil, 1) and could not destroy the text of the gospel, he went and set his abomination not only against but also over the gospel, as St. Paul [2 Thess. 2, 4] and before Daniel [Dan. 11, 36] proclaimed, that the end-Christ should sit in the temple of God against and over everything that is called God or is honored; which thus came to pass. For the commandments and teachings of the pope (so nothing at all of the faith of Christ, as the gospel does, but only his obedience in bodily, loose, easy things, as eating meat, celebrating, fasting, clothing etc. preaching) he has driven and praised much higher, neither all of God. Words, are also feared and held higher, have terrified and trapped consciences harder, made hell much hotter, than both God's Law and Gospel. For unbelief, blasphemy, adultery, murder, theft, and what is more against Christ and His commandment, they have held in low esteem, and have soon been atoned for and forgiven.
96. But where one of his commandments is touched, it must thunder and flash with bulls, and be called damned disobedience, and in the pope's ban; here heaven and earth must tremble and shake; But in the sins against God, in which they themselves were drowned, not an aspen leaf was stirred, but they held up their mockery and laughed at it with great certainty, as they still do today, persecuting and murdering in an abominable manner all those who keep God's commandment above their abomination's commandment. He wants to have God and his word under him, and he sits over it, that is his rule and nature, without which he could not be the end Christian.
97. have they succeeded in
1) "was" is missing in the Erlanger.
The devil's mouths, that they do not boast with blind words, but freely in public, that the pope and his church are over the holy scripture and that he has the power to change it, to annul it, to forbid it and to interpret it as he wishes. And this was his handiwork, that he, as a potter from clay, might make of the holy scripture a tile or a jug, or shards of urine, 2) and as he did it, it was an article of the Christian faith. As they still do today with the words and institution of Christ of both forms of the sacrament: over the same words and text of Christ he rules, as a potter over his clay; as he does, so it must be kept, or burned, murdered, or cast out without all mercy.
For they call him 3) an earthly god, who is not badly man, but mixed of God and man, and would like to say that he, like Christ himself, is truly God and man. But, praise be to God, 4) at such a frightening blasphemy the sun began to lose its light, the curtain in the temple was torn, the earth trembled, the graves of the dead opened up, and the rocks were torn apart, it wanted to become another, and that in a short time etc. By this fruit, as the pope has held against and above the text of the Gospel, one can well recognize the abomination in the holy place, and between the Gospel and its doctrine (blasphemy I would say) well have difference.
99) The fourth part, namely mistry, the office of the word, and vocation, the calling to the parish office or pastoral care (which they call ordination), they certainly mean, they have this alone and swear an oath to their rat king that no one without their ordination and Chresem can walk the sacrament, or, as they say, tir-.
2) Thus set by us. In the editions: "Harmscherben." The context shows that here "a vessel of dishonor" (Rom. 9, 21.) is to be understood. The reading we give is according to the expression Luther used in his table speeches: "Bruntzschirbel" - chamber pot. Cf. Walch, St. Louis edition, vol. XXII, 1700, no. 97. - Elsewhere: Brunzscherben, e.g. Wittb., vol. 7, p. 572.
3) Erlanger: them.
4) Erlanger: praised.
However holy or great he may be, he must not be consecrated. For as they boast, the angels in heaven, even Mary herself, do not have such power as an ordained priest has, nor any deceased apostle, bishop, martyr, nor all Christianity, if they are not priests, namely, to act or walk, even if he were unholy, even if he were the worst whoremonger, adulterer, murderer, thief, heretic, Simoniacus on earth; such great power has the Chresem. What do you think that good fresh May butter 1) should do, if such a nasty Chresem is able to do? Therefore they held the Chresem so holy and glorious (although the priest's person was with all his body and soul a nefarious knave), if a child or layman touched the sacrament in his mouth, and wanted to loosen it from the palate with a finger, they would scrape and peel off the finger and skin of the child (who was baptized and holy in body and soul) for the great sin that a holy Christian finger, anointed by the Holy Spirit, had not touched the sacrament.
100. And it is a wonder why they did not also forbid all laymen, as the unconsecrated, the whole Sacrament, or did not also flay and peel their tongues, palates and throats, so that they would have to touch the holy Sacrament, or did not first feed them with their holy Chresem and keep it safe, so that the unconsecrated tongues, palates and throats would not sin so deeply by touching the Sacrament, as the poor finger had to sin against its flayers and peelers. But the holy, stinking Chresem had to be pocketed with lies and deceitful appearances, to the shame and dishonor of the holy baptism, so that the abomination alone would become glorious in the holy place and take over the power, so that he could raise a wicked, loose boy to great honors, just as the Holy Spirit's ointment could not do to his right saint.
101 But above we have shown how the Chresem bishops with their consecration do not appoint a pastor nor a preacher, but only and vainly make protractors, to be used in the church.
1) In the old editions: meijssche butter - Malian butter or May butter.
disturb the institution and command of Christ in the holy sacrament. As it behooves the anti-Christian and the abominable to do in the holy place. From this it follows clearly that, as much as all the pope and his bishops have been, they have left the profession or the priesthood or the office of preaching in the papacy entirely, and have not had any; in addition, they have abolished and disturbed it. For no ordained priest was allowed to administer the sacrament to the congregation or to preach, as Christ's command and institution demanded, but had to stand there and act with abominable sins against Christ's command and order of the sacrament, otherwise they had the sacrament and not just bread and wine.
102 For I have also indicated above how it should be ensured that there is no sacrament in the corner masses, but only bread and wine; I would not know how to preserve it even if I wanted to do it gladly and were a pope. If there were nothing more in the 2) Holy Mass than abuse or sin, I would know how to preserve it, so that the Body and Blood of Christ would still be there, quia abusus non tollit substantiam, sed substantia fert abusum: abuse does not take the essence, but the essence suffers the abuse. As he who receives the sacrament unworthily, though he sins thereby and abuses the sacrament, yet he receives the true body and blood of Christ.
But in the corner mass, not only is the abuse or sin that the priest acts and receives unworthily, but even if the priest were holy and worthy, tamen ipsa substantia institutionis Christi sublata est, they take away the essential order and institution of Christ and make their own order. Namely, Christ's order and opinion is that one should administer the Sacrament and preach from it to strengthen the faith. They abolish this order and reverse it all; they keep the sacrament for themselves alone, and administer it to no one; so they keep silent and preach to no one; so they strengthen the faith of no Christian, but lead him away from the faith.
2) "the" is missing in the Erlanger.
ß"
the sacrifice and work of their masses, which they give or sell to them for money. Behold, this is not only to sin or to abuse the order of Christ, but to change and pervert the very order of Christ. Therefore no one can nor should believe that there is Christ's body and blood, because his order is not there. Just as if you baptize someone without water or with ashes, even though you speak the right words, and yet such baptism does not forgive sin, but is a sign of good company; see, that is not only sinning against baptism, but changing baptism itself and perverting Christ's opinion; therefore there is no baptism. Therefore there is also no sacrament to believe in in the angular masses, because the order and opinion of Christ is not there, but even a new and own human order.
In sum, just as the pontifical abomination disturbed baptism, the sacrament, and the preaching of the gospel, so he also disturbed the ministry, the vocatio, the profession, and the proper ordination to the office of preacher or parish by his shameful echresem. But here Christ has been with his power and miracles, and has nevertheless preserved the office and the vocation to the preaching office in his holy place against the grievous abomination; for the parishes or preaching office are always conferred apart from and above the Chresem, by princes, lords, cities, also by bishops, even abbots, abbesses and other estates, and by such conferring the vocation and the right consecration to the ministerio or office has remained. In addition, such appointed parish priests, who received such fiefs and offices, were also presented, that is, assigned to the angle bishops and had them invested or assigned; although this was not the profession nor the fief, but confirmation of such profession, and was not necessary. For the appointed priest could have carried out his ministry without such confirmation, just as the Maccabees, who were priests by birth and appointment, humbled themselves for the sake of peace and had themselves confirmed by Antiochis and Demetriis, kings of Syria (who were nevertheless vain pagans and their enemies).
(105) We have hitherto offered such humility to Antiochis and Demetriis, that they should have the power to confirm our priests, whether they were our enemies, so that they would not have to complain that we were proud and did not want to do anything or suffer for the sake of peace and unity. But because such humility is disdainful to them, but they have sworn and forced us badly to their Chresem and other abominations, and have killed and tormented us over it, it shall not be so good for them henceforth; they shall keep their abomination and Chresem, we shall see how we get pastors and preachers from baptism and God's word, without their Chresem, coordinated and confirmed by our election and calling. And even though we have hitherto tolerated the Angular Consecration, we will henceforth, in defiance of and against the papal, stiff-necked, impenitent, murderous, bloodthirsty abomination, work to the end that a pastor with us, as a distinction between his Angular Consecration and our profession, shall rub his anointed fingers with lye, salt and soap, and wash away the End Christ's character or mark, and let his plate grow. If the angle consecrators or bishops do not want to consecrate our appointed parish priests, they may well leave it, the devil ask them to do so, and go off the wall, so they do not bruise the butt.
The pope himself has commanded in his spiritual rights (although taken from the old fathers) that one should consider the consecration or ordination of heretics to be proper consecration, and not consecrate again those who were consecrated by heretics. Now we Lutherans are not heretics, the papists themselves must confess that; therefore they should let our ordination be right (also according to their own papal law and commandment), and should have no thanks for it. For we have (praise to God) the Word of God pure and certain, as the Pope does not have it. But where God's word is pure and certain, there it must be everything, God's kingdom, Christ's kingdom, Holy Spirit, baptism, sacrament, ministry, preaching, faith, love, cross, life and blessedness, and everything that the Church should have, as Christ says [John 14:23]: "We want to have the word of God.
And they shall come unto him, and make their abode with him," and [Matt. 28:20, "Behold, I am with you unto the end of the world. But if the pope does not want to take our word for the right word, that is not our concern; they may know differently in their conscience. We are nevertheless certain that we have God's word.
And even if they pretend that the heretics who consecrated were bishops, therefore the pope and the fathers allowed their consecration; it is true that they were bishops, but not princes nor lords, but, as St. Jerome from St. Paul proves, bishop and priest were one thing. Paulo proves, bishop and pastor were one thing, and such heretics, and other bishops also, did not have much so large parishes or (as it is called) bishoprics, as now a pastor of Torgau, Leipzig, or Grimme has; for every city had a bishop, as they now have pastors. And St. Augustine, who was ordained or coordinated as a preacher by his parish priest or bishop Valerio, and after his death became a bishop in his place, did not have a larger parish than our parish at Wittenberg is, even if it was so large. Nor is the same little bishop or parish priest at Hippon. St. Augustine, greater in Christendom, neither a pope, cardinal nor archbishop has ever become, nor can become. And the same small parish priest or bishop St. Augustine has ordained and coordinated many parish priests or bishops in his small parish (since there was neither an auxiliary bishop nor a prince-bishop, but only parish priests), who were desired and appointed by other cities, as we may ordain and send from our parish in Wittenberg to other cities that desire it and have none among themselves. For ordaining shall mean and be called and command the parish office, which has and must have Christ and his church without all Chresem and plates, where it is in the world, as well as it must have the word, baptism, sacrament, spirit and faith.
108 And here it is necessary to note the difference between the abomination and the holy place. For the lords of the angles go too high and too far with their consecration and Chresem, pretending that they are the people who are the
Sacrament, quasi ex opere operato, that is, they boast of such power that by virtue of their Chresem or consecration, through their speaking over the bread and wine, the body and blood of Christ (although by the effect of God) must be there immediately; therefore they also boast that no angel, nor the mother of God, nor some saints can walk on earth; the reason is that they are not consecrated with the Chresem and have no plates. But if one demands reason from them, with which they want to prove that God has thus bound his power to their Chresem (since God knows nothing about it) and to their opus operatum, then they point us to their land of sleeping monkeys, and say: It is the opinion of the church; that is enough, nothing more is allowed.
(109) Therefore notice and know that such a doctrine is the doctrine of abominations, that a priest by the power of the Chresem or consecration changes the bread into the body of Christ, as ex opere operato, by their speaking or doing; it is all as nasty a lie and a forgery as the Chresem itself is.
The holy place or church teaches, then, that neither priests nor Christians make a single sacrament, nor does the holy Christian church itself. Our ministry is not called and should not be making or walking, but only reaching or giving. So, a priest or preacher does not make the gospel, and by his preaching or ministry his word does not become the gospel; otherwise it would have to be all gospel that he could speak; but he alone reaches out and gives the gospel by his preaching. For the gospel is there beforehand, and must be there beforehand, which our Lord Christ made, brought, and left behind him, and first pressed into the apostles' hearts, and always pressed through the apostles' descendants into the Christians' hearts, and also let it be painted outwardly in the letters and images. So nothing remains in the pastorate or preaching office, except the one work, namely to give or present the gospel, commanded by Christ to preach. The pope and his abominations have made much doctrine out of their heads, but it is not called the Word of God nor the Gospel.
So the Baptist does not do baptism,
1270 Eri. 31, 360-36S. IX. Luther's writings against the mass. W. xix, isis-issi. 1271
but Christ made it before; the Baptist reaches out and gives it alone. For there is Christ's order, which is, as St. Augustine says: Accedit verbum ad elementum, et fit Sacramentum, if one takes water, and hath his word to it, it is a baptism; as he commands Matthew in the last, v. 19: "Go ye, teach all nations, and baptize them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." This command and institution do it, which make water and word a baptism; our work or doing ex opere operato does not do it. For it is not called a baptism because I baptize or do the work, even if I were holier than St. John or an angel. But my baptism is called a baptism because Christ's word, command, and institution have so ordained that water and his word shall be one baptism. Such his order (I say), and not our action or opus operatum, makes the baptism; but our action alone suffices and gives such baptism, ordered and made by Christ's command and appointment. Therefore he alone is and remains the only true, eternal baptizer, who daily dispenses his baptism through our actions or ministry until the last day, so that our baptism should be called a presentation or giving of the baptism of Christ, just as our preaching is a presentation of the word of God. But it may be called our preaching or baptism, but with the understanding that it is not by our doing that baptism or the word of God becomes, but that we receive it from Christ and give or distribute it to others, as a servant may call the bread he distributes his bread, but that he may understand his master's bread and give it to be understood.
112) So also that bread and wine become Christ's body and blood is not the fault of our doing, speaking, or working, much less of the Chresem or consecration, but it is the fault of Christ's order, command, and institution; who commanded (as St. Paul says 1 Cor. 11:23) that when we come together and speak His words over the bread and wine, it shall be His body and blood, that we here also do no more than pass and give bread and wine with His words, according to His command and institution. And such his
The command and institution is able and creates, that we present and receive not bad bread and wine, but his body and blood, as his words are: "This is my body, this is my blood", that not our work or speaking, but the command and order of Christ, makes the bread the body and the wine the blood, from the beginning of the first supper until the end of the world, and is served daily through our service or ministry. For we hear these words, "This is my body," not as spoken in the person of the minister or servant; but as from Christ's own mouth, who is present, and saith unto us, "Receive, eat; this is my body." We do not hear or understand it otherwise; we know that the body of the priest or servant is not in the bread, nor is it given. So we do not hear the command and order when he says, "Do this in remembrance of me," spoken in the person of the priest, but we hear Christ himself speaking to us through the priest's mouth and commanding us to take bread and wine with his word, "This is my body," etc. and, according to his command, to eat and drink his body and blood in it.
For this we must believe and be sure, that baptism is not ours but Christ's, the gospel is not ours but Christ's, the ministry is not ours but Christ's, the sacrament is not ours but Christ's, the keys or forgiveness and retention of sins are not ours but Christ's. Summa, the offices and sacraments are not ours but Christ's, for he has ordered all these things and left them behind him in the church to be practiced and used until the end of the world, and does not deny us or keep us; therefore we cannot do anything else with them, but must do and keep them according to his command. But if we change or improve it, it is nothing, and Christ is no longer there nor his order, and I do not want to say, as the papists do, that no angel nor Mary can walk etc., but so I say: Although the devil himself would come (if he were so pious that he wanted to or could do it), but I bet that I would find out afterwards that the devil would have crept into the office in this way, or would have
If we let ourselves be called to the parish office as a man, and publicly preached the gospel in the church, baptized, said mass, absolved, and practiced and administered such office and sacrament as a pastor, according to the command and order of Christ, we would still have to confess that the sacraments were right, that we received right baptism, heard right gospel, received right absolution, and took right sacrament of the body and blood of Christ.
For our faith and sacrament must not rest on the person, whether he be pious or wicked, consecrated or unconsecrated, called or insinuated, the devil or his mother, but on Christ, on his word, on his office, on his command and order. Where the same go, there it must go and stand right, the person be who and how he wants or can. And if the person should be considered, what is it about preaching, baptism and sacrament that Judas and all his descendants have done and administered according to Christ's command, and still do, other than the devil's preaching, baptism and sacrament, that is, administered and given to us through the devil's members? But because the ministry, word, sacrament is the order of Christ, and not Judas nor the devil, we let Judas and the devil be Judas and the devil, but nevertheless take the goods of Christ through them. For when Judas went to the devil, he did not take his apostleship with him, but left it behind, and gets Matthias in his place. The offices and sacraments remain in the church forever, the persons change daily. Only appoint and place three who can carry them out, and they will certainly go and happen. The horse is bridled and saddled; put a naked boy on it who can ride, and the horse will go as well as if the emperor or the pope were riding it.
When I was young, I heard a story about a preacher who suddenly fell ill when he was supposed to be preaching, and someone came to him and offered to preach for him, and hurriedly threw the leaves around in the book and fasted a sermon, but preached so deliciously and earnestly that the whole church had to weep. At the end, he said: "Do you want to know who is
Am I? I am the devil, and for this reason I have preached to you so earnestly, that I might accuse you the more cheaply and severely at the last judgment to your greater condemnation, if you have not kept it. Whether this history is true or not, I leave up to him; but this I know well, that it is not unlike the truth, and speaks rightly of the main thing, namely, that the devil can well have and give the word, office and sacrament of Christ, because he can disguise himself into an angel of light and into the majesty of God Himself. Matth. 4, 9 [2 Cor. 11, 14] And I do not want to be a guarantor that the devil has never been a pastor or preacher, because such terrible things have happened by some pastors and priests with sorceries and juggleries and such devilish business.
(116) Even in the creatures, our actions or works do not produce anything, but only God's command and order. As when we plow, sow and plant, we do our work, which is commanded us, Gen. 3, 19. But such our work does not bring forth a grain, but the command and order of God, when he speaks to the earth, Gen. 1, 11: "Let the earth bring forth grass, herbs and all kinds of trees," as also St. Paul 1 Cor. 3, 7 says: "He who plants is nothing, he who plants is also nothing, but God who gives it prosperity. Now whether a devil or a man, a prankster or a pious man, does such a work, planting, sowing or watering, the order and command of God nevertheless proceeds, and the earth bears its fruit. Item, man and woman naturally become one body, as God commanded us and created [Gen. 2, 24], but from the same work no fruit or child ever comes forth, but from the command and order, since God speaks: "Be fruitful and multiply" [Gen. 1, 28]. Even if the devil brings a man and a woman together, as happens in adultery and fornication, still God's order proceeds and a fruit or child comes out of it. If a prankster, fornicator, or thief comes into a foreign inheritance, then all property is just as valid as if it were the
1) Jenaer: large.
right inheritance. It is the same with the sacraments. We put water and word together, as he gives us, but such our doing does not make it baptism, but Christ's command and order. We do bread and wine according to his commandment for the word of Christ, but such our doing does not convert it, but Christ's word and order. Now if the devil or his member kept the order of Christ and acted according to it, it would still be the right baptism and sacrament. For Christ does not become a liar or a deceiver of his church for the sake of the devil or evil men, but baptizes it and gives it his body and blood, be it his hand, by which he does it, whoever and whosoever he pleases.
The papists themselves confess that baptism given in jest or play is a true baptism, as it is written in Historia Ecclesiastica of St. Athanasio that he played with his companions and children at the sea, and baptized them as he had seen in the church of the bishop, and the bishop Alexander considered it a true baptism and did not baptize the same children again. Likewise, one reads in the legends that some stick fools wanted to court the pagans in a game and mock the Christians with the baptism. Baptism, as if it were a foolish, ridiculous belief, want to become holy through water etc. But in the midst of the game a scripture appeared to one of them, which held before him these words of St. Paul Eph. 4, 5. 6: One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism, One God and Our Father of all" etc. From such a scripture he believed and accepted the play baptism for a real baptism, made it serious and confessed Christ freely. But when the heathen seized them all and thought that the jesters had made such a game in honor of the Christians and in defiance of the heathen, the others blasphemed this one of their companions and said that he had become mad; but he stuck to his baptism and faith and let himself be martyred over it, and thus went from the game to heaven.
But the papists are blind and blind guides, looking only at their person and work, just as if the sacrament must become or not because they are such persons and do such works, asking nothing about the order or institution of Christ, and it can be
But our person and work do nothing to it, the order of Christ alone must do it; Chresem, plate, casel and similar pomp do not help. Therefore, they themselves do not know and cannot know what they do in their masses.
119 And that I once answer the question I asked above, namely, how one should behave against the priests in the papacy, because they are all consecrated by angle bishops to the angle mass, here you should do so: his Chresem and angle consecration you should neither respect nor look at, as it is certainly nothing, neither benefits nor serves the church and you, but look at the fact that he holds the parish office, which is not his, but Christ's office. Do not be mistaken whether he has been duly called, or whether he has bought his way in, or whether he has forced his way in, as he has come in, head or foot, whether he is Judas or St. Peter, do not be concerned about this; separate the office from the person, and the sanctity from the abomination.
120 He is a priest, and Christ has thus received his holy and dear priesthood under the abomination in the priesthood. If he preaches the text of the Gospel purely, then say: This is the sanctuary of Christ. If he preaches other doctrine contrary to the gospel, say, "This is the abomination of the devil, who disturbs the word. If he baptizes and has the order of Christ in it (even though he does not have the right understanding of baptism), say, "Baptism is right for the sake of Christ's order, not for the sake of the priest or his work. If he absolves you in confession or publicly, or forgives sin, although there is no pope in the world who would understand rightly what forgiveness of sins is, they do not know (as all their books show) whether they forgive guilt or chastisement, you do not turn to anything. If he keeps the words and manner, and absolves you in Christ's name, then say: This holy, comforting absolution my Lord Christ himself gives me through his keys, which he has given to the church. If he also gives you repentance, so that you may repent of your sin, think: "Behold, this is the abomination that wants to destroy Christ's absolution for me, so that I may repent of my sin.
Christ sells me his grace for my merit. I want to do enough for my neighbor before the world, where I have been too close to him, but before God my satisfaction stands, Christ himself with his precious blood; I stick to that and rely on it.
121) When he says mass, note this difference diligently: If he keeps the order and institution of Christ, and also gives and administers the sacrament to others, know that there is certainly Christ's body and blood, for the sake of Christ's order, and not for the sake of the priest's work or holiness. But if he does not keep the order and mind of Christ, but changes and perverts it, there is no need for you to believe that it is Christ's body and blood. Yes, you should not believe it, just as it is said about the other angular masses above. For whether it be high mass, or early mass, or whatsoever they may be called, they are angled masses, because nothing of the sacrament is administered nor given to the church. For Christ's order and institution are clear: "Do this in remembrance of me. What shall we do? And what does it mean, "these things"? Namely, that he doeth, and signifieth by works and words what he doeth, saying, He took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave to his disciples, saying, Receive, eat; this is my body given for you: this do in remembrance of me. Likewise also he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it unto them, saying, Drink ye all of it; this is the cup of the new testament in my blood, which is poured out for you for remission of sins: as often as ye drink it, do this in remembrance of me." Now if Christ's order is to be kept (as he says, "do these things"), we must not only take the bread and wine with Christ's words, but give them and give them to others.
Therefore, if a priest at Easter or during the rest of the year has given the people from the altar one form, that is truly the sacrament, although it was only half; the other form, which he did not give, but only enjoyed for himself, I think, was not the sacrament (until they prove it), but bad wine. Have therefore not only robbed the laity of half the sacrament, and yet in such
They have not only robbed themselves as if it were not a sin, but have also robbed themselves, and in addition have shamefully deceived and cheated themselves, and have taken wine for the sacrament. Where is their lazy excuse, since they say that in the Lord's Supper Christ gave both forms to the priests alone, after which the church, apart from Christ's command, by its own mercy, gave the one form to the laity, so that it is found here that they also gave the priests and themselves no more than half the sacrament?
Even when the priests received the sacrament during the week of martyrdom, or during the rest of the year, and did not say mass themselves, they, as well as the laity, had to abstain from the other form, regardless of the fact that they themselves say that Christ commanded the priests to take both forms. Thus their own words and works rhyme together.
Summa, they may make of the corner Mass what they can, we want and should consider it not a sacrament, but an abomination and destruction of the sacrament, because it changes Christ's order and is not enough for both priests and laity, or only half once a year.
125. The church or common Christians, who cannot receive both forms, are to be excused, as they are deceived and seduced by the Antichrist, and have only one form given to them, because the faith has nevertheless remained firm and pure in the church, that Christ has instituted and commanded in the sacrament to receive his body and blood to all Christians, as all these things convince many songs and rhymes, especially the common song: "Praise and glory be to God, who Himself has fed us with His flesh and with His blood." And after that: "Lord, through your holy true body, which came from your mother Mary, and the holy blood, help us, Lord, out of all distress" etc. With this and similar songs, sung at the Sacrament, even in procession and in churches, the Church publicly cried out against the end-Christian and the robbery of the devil, because she publicly confessed her faith that Christ had given her both his Body and Blood as food.
and given to her, and it is her duty to receive according to Christ's command, as she believes, confesses and heartily desires in this hymn. Truly, by such right faith, desire and free confession against the church thieves and robbers in the papacy, Christ has preserved his elect and thereafter has not imputed their ignorance, that they must have the one form alone, by forgiveness of sins, as he imputed many infirmities to the apostles.
(126) And how must Christians do, who, caught in Turkey, cannot have the sacrament, and are content only with the faith and desire they have for the sacrament and order of Christ? like those who die before baptism, and yet are saved by their faith and desire for baptism. How did the children of Israel do at Babylon, when they could have no worship at Jerusalem, without faith alone, and hearty desire and longing? So, if the church had been deprived of the sacrament by the pope. Even if the church had been deprived of the sacrament by the pope, nor if the order of Christ had remained in its heart with faith and desire, it would still have been preserved by it. Just as there are many in our time who are physically deprived of the sacrament before they want to honor and strengthen the abomination of the pope in the One Form, because Christ's order and faith are two works of God that are able to do everything.
(127) But look at the above-mentioned hymn, whether it is not a Christian confession, pure and fine, and made by a right spirit? It testifies that the laity received both forms at the same time it was made, and says: "He Himself fed us with His flesh and with His blood. Who are they that say "us"? They are laymen who sang it in German and still sing it, and yet they confess that they have been fed not only with one form with his flesh (which they knew well that it could not be without blood [as the sharp papists point out to us today]), but also with the other form, with his blood. And this is spoken thoroughly and Christianly, since they say: Christ himself fed them, not the priest nor the priest, but Christ himself was the feeder, who fed them through his blood.
Order and not by the priest's work give us his body and blood. Item, that they praise it not a sacrifice nor good work, as the abomination holds it and sells it to others, but a food for their souls etc.
128. But I must stop praising this song, otherwise the abominable, obdurate blasphemers, when they hear it, should also forbid the song from now on, which they themselves and all their ancestors sang and which was certainly made many years before Luther; as they otherwise forbid many songs, since the Word of God and our faith is sung in them, so that they present themselves as the right abomination in the holy place, or will here (according to their new art) point flesh and blood to one figure, just as in the Lord's Supper they point one figure to both. For as they turn and make it, so it is right, but as God Himself makes and orders it, so it is wrong. Let them go, we sing it in our churches with joy and simple, certain 1) understanding of both the figure of flesh and blood, as the words clearly read and give.
For, praise be to God, in our churches we can show a Christian a proper Christian mass according to the order and institution of Christ, and also according to the right opinion of Christ and the Church. Our parish priest, bishop or minister in the parish office, rightly and honestly and publicly called, but previously consecrated in baptism, anointed and born to be a priest of Christ, steps before the altar, irrespective of the angle chresem; he publicly and clearly sings the order of Christ, instituted in the Lord's Supper, takes the bread and wine, gives thanks, distributes it and gives it in virtue of the words of Christ "this is my body, this is my blood, do these things" etc. The rest of us who are here and want to receive, and we especially who want to take the sacrament, kneel beside, behind and around him, man, woman, young, old, master, servant, wife, maid, parents, children, as God brings us all together there, all of us.
1) The Jena edition has a printing error here, which Walch has included, although it was improved in the "Correctur". The Erlangen edition reprinted the same from Walch: "einfältigem Gewissen und Verstande", despite the fact that its original had the correct reading.
saints, right holy fellow priests, sanctified by Christ's blood and anointed and consecrated by the Holy Spirit in baptism.
130 And in such our inherent, hereditary priestly honor and adornment we are there, having (as Revelation 4:4) our golden crowns on our heads, harps in our hands and golden censers in our hands. We have our golden crowns on our heads, harps in our hands and golden censers, and we do not let our priest speak the order of Christ for himself as for his person, but he is the mouth of us all, and we all speak it with him from the heart and with uplifted faith to the Lamb of God, who is there for us 1) and with us, and according to his order feeds us with his body and blood. This is our mass and the right mass, which we do not lack.
For here all things are first of all according to the order and commandment of Christ, that they also be given to the church in both forms, by the words of Christ, "Receive, eat; this is my body. etc. Do this in remembrance of me." The priest does not receive it for himself alone, as the abomination does; nor does he offer it to God for our sin and all kinds of misery, as the abomination does; he does not share it with us, nor does he offer it to us as a good work to propitiate God, as the abomination does and has made such a blasphemous fair out of it, but gives it to us for the comfort and strength of our faith. Here one proclaims and preaches about Christ, here there can be no avarice nor idolatry, here we have the opinion of Christ and the church for certain, here we must not worry whether the pastor speaks the words secretly, or whether he also walks, or whether he also believes, for we hear the words of institution publicly and speak them with him from the heart, and the institution of Christ (not our actions nor Chresem) transforms or gives us the body and blood of Christ. If the priest does not believe or doubts, we believe; if he stumbles in the words, or goes astray and forgets whether he has spoken the words, we are there, listen, hold fast, and are sure that they are spoken; therefore we cannot be deceived. And because the order and right faith is there, it must be certain.
1) "us" is missing in the Jena.
that we received the true Body and Blood of Christ. And praise and thanks be to God that I have had the time to see the true Christian Mass and the pure Christian custom of the Holy Sacrament; I see it with joy and gladness of my heart, after the horrible, terrible abuse, which I, unfortunately, have had to help to perpetrate under the abomination of the Pope for so many years.
For I am often frightened by it, when I think of how I and others at that time kept the corner mass so devoutly. But we did it out of ignorance, therefore the dear man Jesus Christ has forgiven us for it, because we never want to do it again. But now the papists know it, but do not want to know it, they persist wilfully in their abomination, they go there boldly and thievishly and pervert Christ's order, make a new, different order, hold mass not only in disobedience to God, but also in blasphemy of His order and command, do not offer the Sacrament to anyone, keep it alone, and cannot be sure whether they take vain bread and wine or the Body and Blood of Christ, because they do not do it according to Christ's order, but according to their own order, against Christ's order. Neither can anyone be sure whether they speak the words or not, therefore no one can be guilty of believing their secret whispers; nor do they preach anything to anyone, as Christ commanded. It is also impossible that they should believe rightly. For rightly believing and knowingly raving against God's word are not together in one heart. Therefore they cannot pray nor give thanks to please God. And finally, over such. And finally, over such abominations and sacrileges is their highest worship, that they offer such a sacrament (is it otherwise a sacrament), desecrated and blasphemed with so much abomination, to God and give and sell it to other Christians for money. Against such hearts no steel nor iron, no rock nor stone can be reckoned hard, who knowingly remain in such abomination.
However, this book has grown larger under my hands than I had thought, and it must be retracted a little until I or the others continue to write about it at another time. For because the papists, in their
1282 Erl, S1. 373-375. IX. Luther's Writings Against the Mass. W. XIX, IS64-ISS6. 1283
We must henceforth act this piece often and diligently, so that our people may have a clear and certain distinction between the right, holy church and the papacy, between the temple of God and the end-Christ who sits within, 2 Thess. 2, 4, between the holy place and the abomination within, as Christ Himself tells us to distinguish, Matth. 24, 15: "When you see the abomination of destruction standing in the holy place, of which the prophet Daniel says. Let him who reads it see that he understands it."
(134) For we do not and cannot let the abomination be the holy church, nor any part of it; but it is the desolate abomination and end-Christ, the enemy and the abominable one, who destroys the church, God's word and order, and sets himself against and over it, as a god above all gods, as Daniel and St. Paul prophesied. And because it is not possible for us or the holy church to separate or separate ourselves bodily from the abomination, Pabstium or end-Christ until the last day (for the abomination, as Christ teaches, should and must not stand outside but in the holy place, and the end-Christ should not sit outside but in the temple of God, and the papacy not outside but in the church), we must know how to separate ourselves from him spiritually and with right understanding, and guard and protect ourselves from his disturbance, so that we remain pure in the right faith of Christ and defend and defend ourselves against his filth and vermin.
So now I will save the fifth and sixth piece, namely the keys or forgiveness, and the prayer, as they have played with it and destroyed the right forgiveness and prayer, and yet Christ has preserved both of them wonderfully and with power; will have begun herewith to disturb again their Chresem and angular masses, and help gather such troubles out of the kingdom of Christ, and again grant and concede the profession or right ordination and ordination to the pastorate to the church, as it has had from the beginning, which the great bishops have taken to them.
torn alone, have taken away from the small bishops or parish lords.
For this is and must be our foundation and certain rock: where the gospel is preached rightly and purely, there must be a holy Christian church; and whoever doubts this, may as well doubt the gospel whether it is the word of God. But where there is a holy Christian church, there must be all the sacraments, Christ himself and his Holy Spirit. Should we then be a holy Christian church and have the greatest and most necessary things, as God's Word, Christ, Spirit, faith, prayer, baptism, sacrament, keys, ministry, and should we not also have the least thing, namely the power and right to call some to the ministry, who would give us the Word, baptism, sacrament, forgiveness (as they already exist) and serve in it, what kind of church would that be for me? Where would Christ's word remain here, since he says [Matth. 18, 20]: "Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I among them"? And again [v. 19.], "Where two are made one among you on earth, why it is that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven." If two or three have such power, how much more a whole church?
Listen to how badly St. Paul speaks of ordaining 2 Tim. 2:2: "What you have heard from me through many witnesses, command faithful men who are able to teach others also. Here is neither Chresem nor butter; it is only the command to teach God's word. Whoever has this, St. Paul considers [a] pastor, bishop and pope. For everything depends on the word of God, as on the highest office, which Christ Himself wanted to have as His own and the highest; for all sacraments must be through the word, as through the noblest part in all sacraments, as the papists themselves call Formam Sacramenti. And Christ has also shamefully forgotten the Chresem Matth. 28, 19. 20. where he says: "Go, teach all the Gentiles to observe all that I have commanded you." But what did he command them? Certainly, to preach the gospel, to walk, to administer the sacrament, to forgive sins etc. Shall all the Gentiles then keep these things?
they must of course have the power and right to preach, baptize, administer the sacrament, forgive sins etc. Yes, they are hereby commanded to do it, as St. Paul also writes in 1 Cor. 11, 23 1): "he received it from the Lord and gave it to the Corinthians", and remembers no Chresem, but only the office and command.
In the end, I beg and admonish the red spirits, even some nefarious papists, who do not trust their own God, to leave this book of mine unused. For that I excuse the holy church, as it has sinned in the One Form out of ignorance (although not the whole of Christendom has sinned in this), I have neither permitted nor confirmed the outrage of those who now knowingly condemn both forms, nor have I served a spirit of a sect in this, since I have spoken of the bread and wine of the angle mass, but I want to show my service to ours and have attacked the consecration of the angle and the angle mass, and have given a distinction between the church and the papacy. For I would like to help to destroy the consecration of the angle and the angle mass, as they have destroyed our Christian consecration and mass. Such a thing is not the business of the red spirits and wild papists, they do not understand it at all; therefore they should not adorn their cause with it.
139) When I return, I will further attack the entire consecration in the papacy, as they have seven consecrations before they make an angle priest, namely, Ostiarium, 2) Lectorem, Exorcistam, Acoluthum, Subdiaconum, Diaconum, Presbyterum, and after that the high consecrations, Episcopi and Papä. For Ostiarium they called him who was ordained, that is, who was to close the churches and ring the bells, which ordination has now long fallen with themselves, and yet such office without all ordination the sexton, his wife, maid, the servant perform, both in villages and towns. Lector was the name given to those who had to read the lection at mass, or sing vigils and psalms in church, which office is now also performed by students without any ordination; and thus the ordination has fallen and the office remains. Exorcista was the name of the one who
1) "schreibt" is missing in the Jena.
2) In the old editions: Hostiarium.
The name of Acoluthus was Admissus or Licentiatus, who was admitted around the altar to serve the priest, 3) when they prepared the altar, lit the lights and candles, and helped with the mass. Acoluthus was called Admissus or Licentiatus, who was admitted around the altar to serve the priest, 3) when they prepared the altar, lit lights and candles and helped to the mass, therefore they were called such Ceroserarios, did not know what Acoluthus is called; such ordination has also perished, and now do such office sexton, pupil, sexton's wife, daughter, maid, without all ordination, both in cities and villages. These had to be called also all Clerici, the clergymen.
140) Epistles and evangels were those who read the epistle and gospel at mass, and prepared the corporal and chalice, which offices the priests now perform themselves (except for some monasteries that needed such in high feasts and high masses), so that such ordinations and persons also fell themselves and the offices remained. So we also want the seventh ordination, which the papists themselves have separated from the parish office and made null and void with their angle ordinations, to be done away with and the office to be confirmed, 4) so that all seven ordinations should not mislead us with their glitter in the offices of Christ and the Church.
Our ordination is called ordaining, or calling to the ministry. And if the person's fingers are not lubricated with the Chresem, they should be anointed enough by it when they touch the sacrament, just as the chalices and corporals held the papists consecrated with it when mass was held with it, as some among them dare to do without the bishop's consecration. 5) For without the bishop's consecration (according to their strict canons), no unconsecrated corporal or chalice had to be consecrated. For without the bishop's consecration (according to their strict Canonibus) one had not to hold mass in any unconsecrated corporal or chalice, nor could such consecrated corporals wash any nun, however holy the dear Bride of Christ might be. But it is too much to say now about the innumerable abomination of consecration, another time more about it and, if God wills, well. Amen.
3) So in the Jena edition interpungirt. In the Wittenberg without punctuation; in the Erlangen: who was admitted to serve the priest around the altar.
4) This sentence is incorrectly punctuated in all editions available to us and is therefore incomprehensible.
S) d. i. to dare to take out.