Translated from Latin.
Prelude 1) D. Martin Luther's of the Babylonian Captivity of the Church.
Jesus.
Martin Luther, Augustinian, wishes his Hermann Tulich 2) Heil.
I may want to or not, so I am forced to become more learned day by day,
1) What is meant by this word "prelude" can be seen from the last paragraph of the present writing: He [Luther] hears that papist bulls of excommunication are ready against him, by which he should be urged to recant or otherwise be declared a heretic. If this were true, this book should form the first part of his future recantation; but he would soon have a second such part follow, such as the papal chair had never seen or heard before, in order to abundantly testify to his obedience, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.
2) Hermann Tulich, born in Steinheim near Paderborn, corrector in Melchior Lotther's print shop in Leipzig,
as so many and so great magisters are competing with each other to press me and practice me. Two years ago I wrote about indulgences, but in such a way that now I am immensely pleased to have published the booklet 3).
With his eldest son, he moved to Wittenberg in 1519. In 1525, he and Agricola were appointed to the newly founded school in Eisleben, which he soon left again and then stayed in Wittenberg until 1532, when he became Rector in Lüneburg, where he died in 1540. (Erl. Briefwechsel, vol. 2, 490.) - The letter must be dated October 6, 1520, because Luther wrote to Spalatin on October 3: "The book of the Babylonian captivity will go out Saturday and be sent to you." Cf. Walch, old edition, vol. XV, appendix, no. 40, § 4.
3) This refers to Luther's explanations of the "Disputation on the Power of Indulgences," which were completed on May 30, 1518, and went out in mid-August. Cf. Walch, St. Louis Edition, vol. XVIII, 100. Similarly, the introduction to the XVIII. Bande sud No. XI. Therefore, de Wette's note, vol. 1, 493: "Almost three years had passed," is not entirely accurate.
*) The oldest edition of this book appeared in Wittenberg in Latin, without indication of the time, but in all probability in 1520, with the printer's mark of Melchior Lotther, under the title: De captivitate Babylonica ecclesiae Praeludium Martini Lutheri. At the end: Hostis Herodes impie, Christum venire quid times? Non arripit mortalia, Qui regna dat coelestia, pernet. Further, probably still err dem"
gave. For at that time I was caught up in a great superstition concerning Roman tyranny, so I did not think that it [indulgences] should be rejected altogether, seeing that it was approved by such a great consensus of the people. This is also not to be wondered at, because I alone rolled this rock at that time. But afterwards, supported by the kindness of Silvester and the brothers who zealously defended him, I came to understand that he was nothing but a mere fraud of the Roman flatterers, in order to corrupt the faith of God and the money of the people. And would God that I could obtain it from the booksellers and persuade all who read it to burn all my books on indulgences and accept this sentence instead of everything I wrote about it:
The indulgence is a knavery of the Roman sycophants.
After that Eck and Emser with their co-conspirators began to teach me about the supremacy of the pope. And here, too, I confess, not to be ungrateful to such learned people, that I was greatly encouraged by their efforts; namely, although I denied that the papacy was by divine right, I admitted that it was by human right. But after I have heard and read the most sophistical sophistry of these Junkers 1) wherewith they have
1) DroMidorum; this was the name of the Roman knights because of the conquest of the city of Trossulum. Later in a contemptuous sense: a dandy, someone who plays the great lord.
I know now and I am sure that the Pabstthum is the kingdom of Babylon and the power of Nimrod, the mighty hunter. Therefore, so that everything is for the best for my friends, I ask the booksellers, I ask the readers, that they would like to burn what I have published about this matter and hold on to this sentence:
The Pabstthum is the mighty hunt of the Roman bishop.
This is proven by the justifications of Eck, Emser and the Lector of the Bible 2) at Leipzig.
Now one plays school with me about the Communion under both forms and some other very important things. Here it has now trouble that I also do not hear these my teachers 3) in vain. A certain monk (frater) in Cremona, a Welshman (Italus), has written "a revocation (revocationem) of Martin Luther to the Holy See". That is, a revocation by which not I revoke (as the words read), but a revocation by which he calls me again (revocat) (for this is how the Welsh begin to speak Latin nowadays). About both forms of the Sacrament, against me has
6us called.
3) Oratippus. Cratippus was the most outstanding peripatetic philosopher in Athens at the time of Cicero. Therefore, Cicero had sent his son Marcus to Athens to be instructed by him. 6io. äs oL 6up. I.
The same year, an edition by Ulrich von Hütten under the same title, without indication of time and place. On the back of the title page Luther's picture with the following verses:
Numina coelestem nobis peperere Lutherani:
Nostra diu majus^aecla videre nihil.
Quem si pontificum crudelis deprimit error: Non feret iratos impia terra deos.
Then another edition, without indication of place and time and without page numbers, with the same title, which has at the end these words: bdnls praoiudio, c^od doooro pot68t, iootor, ouaii8 reg tota tutura Ät. In 1524 this Schrrft appeared in two different collections of Luther's writings, together with the Reply to the Book of Ambrosius Catharinus and vo Udortato oiirigtiLoL to Wenceslaus Link, with no indication of the place. In German, we know of three old individual editions, one of which bears the year 1520, but none of which gives the place, under the title: Von der babylonischen Gefängniß der Kirchen, D. Martin Luther. This translation is, as can be seen with certainty from the first paragraph of the text No. 73 in this volume, not by Luther. In Latin, the text is found in the Wittenberg edition, Dom. II, toi. 63;- in the Jena edition (1566), Dom. II, toi. 259; in the Erlanaer, opp. var. arx., vol. V, page 13. German in the Altenburger, vol. 6, page 1371 and in the Leipziger, Wo: iK page 511. Our translation is according to the Erlanger edition.
another monk at Leipzig, a German, wrote, that lector (as you know) of the whole biblical canon, who (as I hear) will do even greater and wonderfully miraculous things. Admittedly, the cautious German has concealed his name, perhaps because he was afraid that it would happen to him as it did to Cajetan and Silvester. On the other hand, the Leipziger, as befits a brave and irrepressible German, has glorified his name, his life, his fame, his honor, yes, almost even his clogs with many verses on the title. Here I will no doubt learn quite extraordinary things, since a dedicatory letter is also addressed to the Son of God Himself: so familiar are these saints with Christ who reigns in heaven. After that, it seems to me that three magpies are speaking here, one well in Latin, the other better in Greek, the third best in Hebrew. What do you think, dear Hermann, that I should do here other than prick up my ears? The matter is conducted in Leipzig by the Observance of the Holy Cross.
Up to now, I have thought that it would be nice if a general council would determine that the sacrament should be administered to the laity in both forms. The more than overlearned monk, wanting to improve this opinion, says that it is neither commanded nor advised, neither by Christ nor by the apostles, that the laity should be served both ways, and therefore it is left to the judgment of the church what should be done or omitted here, and it must be obeyed. So much for that. You may ask what madness (intsmpsrius) moves the man, or against whom he writes, since I have not condemned the use of one form and have left it to the judgment of the church to establish the use of both forms. This is exactly what he is trying to assert and wants to argue against me with it. I answer: This way of disputing is common among all who write against Luther, that they assert what they dispute, or invent something they would like to dispute. So did Silvester, so Eck, so Emser, so also the Cologne and Löwener; if this brother had deviated from their way, he would not have written against Luther.
But this man has encountered something especially fortunate before others; for since he wanted to prove that the use of both forms is neither commanded nor advised, but left to the arbitrariness of the church, he introduces Scripture, by which he proves that by the commandment of Christ one form is ordered for the laity, so that, according to this new interpreter of Scripture, it must be true that one form is not commanded and at the same time commanded by Christ. You know that these Leipzig dialecticians may make special use of this new way of disputing. Does not Emser, although he testified in his first booklet that he speaks of me in a sincere manner, and was convicted by me of the most shameful envy and vile lies, in his later book, in that he wants to refute me, confess both quite clearly: he wrote with an insincere and with a sincere (et nigro et candido) mind? He is, of course, a good man, as you know.
But listen to our beautiful orator, 1) for whom the arbitrariness of the church and the commandment of Christ are one and the same, again a commandment of Christ and not-a-commandment of Christ the same. With what skill can he prove that only one form should be given to the laity, according to the commandment of Christ, that is, according to the arbitrariness of the church! For he designates it with large letters in this way: Infallible foundation. Then he treats the sixth chapter of John with incredible wisdom, where Christ speaks of the bread from heaven and of the bread of life, which is himself. The very learned man not only applies these words to the sacrament of the altar, but he also does this so that, since Christ had said: "I am the living bread" [John 6:51], and not: "I am the living cup", he could conclude that at this point only one form of the sacrament was instituted for the laity. But that it follows: "My flesh is the right food, and my blood is the right food.
the right drink" [Joh. 6, 55.]; likewise [v. 53.]: "Will you not eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood"; since this seemed to the monkish (fraterno) brain irrefutably to argue for both forms against one - hui! how happily and learnedly he escapes in this way: That Christ, by these words, meant nothing else than that he who received one form should receive under it both the flesh and the blood/ This forms his infallible basis for the construction so worthy of a holy and heavenly observance.
. From this, I ask you to learn with me that Christ commands one form in the sixth chapter of John, but in such a way that this very territory is the same, as it is left to the arbitrariness of the church; moreover, that Christ speaks in this chapter of course of the laity, not of the clergy (presbyteris). For the living bread from heaven is of no concern to them, that is. A figure of the sacrament, but perhaps the bread of death from hell. But what is to happen to the deacons and subdeacons who are neither laymen nor priests? According to this excellent writer, they do not have to use either one or both forms. You understand, dear Tulich, the conventional 1) and new ways of treating Scripture: But you must also learn that Christ John 6 speaks of the sacrament of the altar, although he himself teaches that he speaks of faith in the Word made man, saying [v. 29]: "This is God's work, that you believe in him whom he has sent." But this professor of the Bible from Leipzig must be allowed to prove anything he likes from any passage of Scripture. For he is a theologian after the manner of Anaxagoras, 2) rather of Aristotle, for whom names and transposed (transposita,) words mean the same and everything. For he applies the testimonies of Scripture, throughout the whole book, in such a way that when he proves
1) odservarNieum. Perhaps Luther meant to say: as it is the custom of the Observant Brethren.
2) A Greek philosopher who proved that snow is black: snow is water, but water is black, so snow is black.
Christ is in the Sacrament, he would dare to begin in this way: A Lection of the Book of Revelation of St. John the Apostle. For just as appropriately as this word could be said, everything is said that is his, and yet the clever man thinks that he can dress up his folly by the amount of what is said.
I pass over the other, lest I torment you almost to death with the dung of this awful stinking cesspool. Finally, he cites Paul, 1 Cor. 11, who says [v. 23] that he received it from the Lord and gave the Corinthians the use of both the bread and the cup. By treating the Scripture excellently here again, as everywhere, our vaporizer (speciator) teaches that Paul there admitted, not gave, both kinds. Do you ask how he proves this? From his head, as also in John 6, for it is not proper for this lector to give an account of what he says, since he belongs to the order of those who prove and teach everything from their dreams (visionibus). So we are also taught here that the apostle did not write to all the Corinthians in this passage, but only to the laity, therefore he did not allow anything to the priests there, but they were deprived of the whole sacrament; then, that according to the new grammar: "I have received it from the Lord" is the same as: It has been admitted by the Lord, and, "I have given it to you," that is, I have admitted it to you. This, I pray thee, mark thee especially. For after this, it will not only be up to the church, but also to every boy everywhere, according to this teacher, to make a permission out of all the commandments, institutions and ordinances of Christ and the apostles.
I therefore see that this man is driven by the angel of Satan, and that those who are in the game (oolluäunt) seek that they might gain a name in the world through me, as if they had been worthy to contend with Luther. But their hope shall deceive them and they, as despised people, shall never be called by name by me. I will argue with this one
I will be satisfied with your answer to all your books as a whole. If they are worthy of Christ bringing them back to reason (ad sanam mentem), I ask that he do so according to his mercy. If they are not worthy, I pray that they may not cease to write such books, nor, as enemies of the truth, may they be granted to read others. It is said in general and with truth: Hoc scio pro certo, quod, si cum stercore certo, vinco vel vincor, semper ego maculor. [This I know for certain, that if I fight with dirt, may I win or be defeated, I will always be defiled]. Furthermore, because I see that they have an abundance of time and paper, I will take pains that they have ample occasion to write. I want to anticipate, so that while they triumph as glorious victors over any of my heresies (as it seems to them), I meanwhile bring about a new one. For I, too, wish that these excellent leaders in the war be adorned with many titles. Therefore, while they grumble that I vow communion under both forms, and they are most prosperously occupied with this very great cause, which is quite worthy of them, I will go on and now endeavor to show that all those are ungodly who deny the laity communion under both forms. In order to be able to do this all the more conveniently, I will make a prelude of the imprisonment of the Roman church and will provide a great deal more in its time, as soon as the very learned papists will have overcome this book.
I do this, however, so that when a godly reader meets me, he will not be annoyed by the filth I treat, and he will rightly complain that he does not read anything that either exercises and instructs the mind, or at least gives opportunity for learned thoughts. For you know how unwillingly my friends bear it, that I am taken up by the dirty intrigues of these people, which, as they [my friends] say, are amply refuted by reading itself; but better things are expected of me, which the devil can do through
try to hinder them. Now, finally, it has been decided to follow their advice and leave the business of bickering and quarreling to these hornets.
I do not want to say anything about that French brother at Cremona, because he is a simple-minded and dull-witted man who tries to call me back to the Holy See with a few oratorical blows (loris), from which I am not aware of having departed; no one has yet proved it to me. For he mainly deals with those ridiculous reasons that I should let myself be moved by the grace of my Order and the Empire, which had been transferred to the Germans. And it seems as if he wanted to write, not only to call me back, but to praise the French and the Pope. One can allow him to testify his willing obedience in this booklet, be it as it may. And he does not deserve to be treated harshly, since he does not seem to be moved by malice; but neither does he deserve to be refuted in an erudite manner, since he waffles everything out of mere ignorance and stupidity.
First I must deny that there are seven sacraments, and at present only three, baptism, penance, and bread, and [must say] that these have all been led into a miserable captivity by the Roman court, and the church has been deprived of all its freedom. But if I wanted to speak according to the usage of Scripture, I would have only one sacrament and three sacramental signs, of which I will speak in more detail in due time; now, of all of them, first the sacrament of bread.
Therefore, I will say how I have increased by also thinking about the administration of this sacrament. For at the time when I published the Sermon on the Lord's Supper 1) I was still attached to the common usage and did not care about the pope's right or wrong. But now that I have been challenged and exercised, yes, torn by force to this battlefield, I want to be free.
1) This refers to the scripture No. 137 in this volume: Sermon of the New Testament, that is, the Mass.
out what my opinion is, let the papists all laugh or cry in a heap.
First of all, the sixth chapter of John must be set aside completely, because it does not even speak of the sacrament with a syllable, not only because the sacrament had not yet been instituted, but rather because the sequence of the speech and the thoughts clearly show that Christ speaks of faith in the Word made man (as I have said). For he saith [John 6:63.], "My words are spirit and life," showing that he speaketh of spiritual nourishment, by which he that eateth liveth, whereas the Jews understood him of carnal eating, and therefore quarreled [v. 52.]. But no eating makes alive than that in faith, for this is the truly spiritual and living eating; as Augustine also says, What hast thou prepared the belly and the teeth? believe; so hast thou eaten. For sacramental eating does not make alive, since many eat unworthily, so that what he spoke of in this passage cannot be understood of the sacrament.
Admittedly, there are some who have misused these words to teach the Sacrament, as well as the Decretale Dudum and many others. But it is another to misuse the Scripture, another to understand it rightly. Otherwise, since he says [v. 53.], "If ye eat not my flesh, and drink my blood, ye have no life in you," he would condemn all children, all weak, all absent, or who were otherwise in any way hindered from sacramental enjoyment, however glorious their faith, if he had commanded sacramental enjoyment there. Thus Augustine proves in the second book against Julian of Innocence that even children eat the flesh and drink the blood of Christ without the sacrament, that is, they are in communion with the church through the same faith. This opinion shall therefore be established that the sixth chapter of John serves nothing for the matter. Therefore I have written elsewhere that the Bohemians, in order to protect both forms, cannot honestly base themselves on this passage.
Of the Lord's Supper. 1)
There are therefore two passages which deal with this matter quite clearly: the Scriptures in the Gospels concerning the Lord's Supper, and Paul 1 Cor. 11; these we will examine. For Matthew, Marcus and Lucas agree that Christ gave the whole Sacrament to all the disciples; and that Paul gave both parts is certain, so that no one ever had such an impudent forehead as to say otherwise. Add to this that Matthew records that Christ did not say of the bread, eat ye all of it, but of the cup, "drink ye all of it." And Marcus likewise does not say, they all ate, but, "they all drank of it." Both place the designation of generality to the cup, not to the bread, as if the Spirit had foreseen this separation, which would deny to some the communion of the cup, which yet Christ willed to be common to all. With how great a fury, do you think, they would rush against us if they had found the word "all" put to the bread and not to the cup; they would by all means leave us no evasion, they would cry out, they would declare us heretics, they would condemn us as apostates. But since it is now on our side, against them, they do not allow themselves to be bound by any conclusion, as people who have the freest will to change, to change again and to throw everything into confusion, even in the things that are of God.
But imagine that I stood opposite them and asked my lords papists: Is the whole sacrament or both forms in the Lord's Supper given only to the clergy or also at the same time to the laity? If it is only given to the clergy (for that is what they want), then it is no longer permitted to give any form to the laity, for it must not be given freely to those to whom Christ did not give it in the first institution. Otherwise, if we allow one institution of Christ to be changed, we will have already invalidated all his laws, and anyone will dare to say that he is not being baptized.
1) This caption is not in the original, but in the Jena edition.
by any of its laws or institutions. For a law or institution [given to a single person] cancels in Scripture even the most general. If it [the sacrament] is given at the same time also to the laity, it follows immediately and inevitably that the laity must not be denied both. If then one refuses to give it to those who ask for it, one acts ungodly and against Christ's deed, example, and institution.
I confess that, overcome by this reason, which is insuperable to me, I have neither read, nor heard, nor found anything to say against it, since here Christ's word and example stands exceedingly firm, where he speaks not permissively but commandingly, "Drink ye all of it." For if all are to drink, and it cannot be understood that it is said only to the clergy, it is surely ungodly that the laity who desire it should be kept from it, though an angel from heaven would do so. For that they say that it is left to the arbitrariness of the church to distribute one of the two forms, 'this is said without reason, brought forward without Scripture, and can be despised as easily as accepted, also proves nothing against the opponent who holds Christ's word and deed against us. Therefore, he must be repulsed with a word of Christ; but we do not have such a word.
But if the laity can be denied both, they could also be deprived of a part of baptism and penance by the same arbitrariness of the church, because there is the same reason and the same power everywhere. Therefore, just as the whole of baptism and the whole of absolution, so also the whole sacrament of bread must be given to the laity, if they desire it. But I am very surprised that they maintain that the clergy are under no circumstances permitted to receive one form in the Mass, otherwise they commit a mortal sin, for no other reason than that (as all unanimously say) both forms are the one complete Sacrament, which may not be divided. They may tell me, I beg you, why it may be divided among the laity, and why the whole Sacrament is not given to them alone? Do they confess
by their own testimony, that the laity must either be given both forms, or under one form they are not given the sacrament that is valid? How is one form not a complete sacrament with the clergy and a complete one with the laity? Why do they praise the arbitrariness of the church and the power of the pope? By these the words of God and the testimonies of truth are not dissolved.
Furthermore, it follows: If the Church can take away from the laity the form of wine, she can also take away the form of bread, consequently she can take away from the laity the whole Sacrament of the Altar and cancel the institution of Christ for them entirely. But, I ask you, by what power? But if she cannot take away the bread, or both, neither can she take away the wine. Here, too, there can be nothing to say to an opponent, since it must be the same power over One figure as over both figures; but if not over both, then not even over One. I wish to hear what the Roman flatterers wanted to say here.
But what penetrates me most of all, and completely convicts me (concludit), is that Christ says: "This is my blood, which is shed for you and for many, for the remission of sins." Here you see quite clearly that the blood is given to all for whose sins it is shed. But who should presume to say that it was not shed for the laity? Do you not see whom he is addressing by giving the cup? Does he not give it to all? Does he not say it was poured out for all? "For you," he says. After all, these may be priests; "and for many," these may not be priests, and yet he says, "Drink ye all of it." I, too, would easily make a buffoonery here and mock Christ's words with my words, as my buffoon does. But those who base themselves against us on the Scriptures must be refuted with the Scriptures. This is what has prevented me from condemning the Bohemians; be they evil or good, they certainly have Christ's word and deed for themselves, but we have neither, but only that vain little bundle of men: The church has ordered it so.
Although not the church, but the tyrants of the churches have ordered this without the consent of the church (that is, the people of God).
But I ask you, what need, what devotion, what benefit is there to deny the laity both forms, that is, the visible sign, since everyone grants them the essence (rem) of the sacrament without the sign? If they concede the essence, which is the greater, why do they not concede to them the sign, which is the lesser? For in every sacrament the sign, in so far as it is a sign, is incomparably inferior to the essence itself. What, then, I say, prevents the lesser from being given, since the greater is given? This seems to me to have occurred only by permission of God in His wrath, so that there would be an occasion for division in the Church, thereby indicating that, since the essence of the Sacrament is already lost, we are contending for the sake of the sign and for the sake of what is the lesser, against what is the greatest and only, the essence; as some contend for the ceremonies against love. Yes, this monstrosity seems to have begun at the time when we began to rage against Christian love because of the riches of the world, so that God wanted to show by this frightening sign that we esteem the signs greater than the essence itself. What folly, if you would admit that through baptism the faith of baptism is given, but would deny the sign of this faith, that is, the water!
At last there stands the invincible Paul, who plugs the mouth of all, 1 Cor. 11:23: "I have received it of the Lord, which I gave you." He does not say, as the brother lies from his brain, I have allowed it to you. Nor is it true that for the sake of their disputes he indulged them in both. First of all, because the text itself indicates that there was no dispute about both, but because of the contempt and envy of those who had abundance and those who feasted, as the text clearly says, saying [v. 21 ff.
He is drunk, and you put to shame those who have nothing. Next, that he does not speak of his first giving. For he does not say, "I receive it from the Lord and give it to you," but "I have received and given," namely, in the beginning of the sermon, long before this argument, by giving to understand that he has given them both forms; this "given" (tradidisse) is as much as "commanded," as he elsewhere uses the same word. So it is nothing that the monkish vapors here wrap in from admission, without scripture, without reason, without cause. The opponents do not ask what he dreams, but what the Scriptures say about it, from which he cannot bring forward a single tittle for his dream, while those bring such great thunderbolts for their faith.
Therefore, all of you, flatterers of the pope, make an effort to defend yourselves against the accusation of impiety, of tyranny, of insulting the majesty of the gospel, of the injustice of reviling the brethren, since you call heretics those who do not form their opinion according to the mere dream of your head, against such obvious and powerful scriptural passages. If a part of both must be called heretics and schismatics, it is not the Bohemians, not the Greeks (because they base themselves on the Gospels), but you Romans are heretics and godless schismatics, since you rely on your imagination alone, against the clear Scriptures of God. Purify yourselves from this, you men!
But what could be said more ridiculous and more worthy of this monkish head than that the apostle of a special (particulari) church, namely that of the Corinthians, wrote and allowed this, but not the general? Whence does he prove this? From his usual storehouse, namely from his own and godless head. Since the general church accepts this letter for itself, reads it and follows it in everything, why not also in this part? If we admit that any letter of Paul, or any passage of any letter, does not concern the general church, then the whole reputation of Paul is already destroyed. For the Corinthians will say that what he wrote in the
Letters to the Romans teaches about faith, do not approach them. What could be more blasphemous and nonsensical than this foolishness? Far be it, far be it, that there should be any sham in the whole of Paul, whom the whole general church should not follow and hold. The fathers did not have such an opinion until these perilous times, in which, as Paul foretold, there would be blasphemers and blind men and men of disordered minds; of which this brother is one, and probably the most distinguished.
But 'we want to admit this intolerable frenzy. If Paul allowed it to a special church, so the Greeks do right, right also the Bohemians, also according to your statement, because they are special churches. Therefore it is enough that they do not act against Paul, who at least allows it. Furthermore, Paul could not allow anything against Christ's institution. I therefore oppose to you, O Rome, and to all your flatterers, these sayings of Christ and Paul for the Greeks and the Bohemians, and you will not be able to prove by a hair's breadth that you have power to change this, much less to accuse others of heresy for disregarding your presumption. But you are worthy to be accused of the crime of impiety and tyranny.
-In reference to this we read in Cyprian, who alone is powerful enough against all Romanists, that he testifies in the 5th book in the sermon of the fallen, that in that church it was the custom to give many laymen, even children, both forms, yes, even the body of the Lord in the hand, as he teaches with many examples. Among others, he scolds some of the people in this way: And that he take not immediately with defiled hands the body of the Lord, or with a defiled mouth drink the blood of the Lord; he is angry with the profane priests. You see here that he is talking about the laity, about godless people who wanted to receive the body and the blood from the priests. Do you have something here, you wretched flatterer, to lie about? Say that also this holy martyr, a teacher without equal (unum) in the church with apostolic spirit, is a heretic and in a
particular (particulari) church had made use of the admission.
There he tells a story, which he witnessed and which happened in his presence, where he writes quite clearly that a deacon 1) gave the chalice to a little 2) girl; indeed, since she refused, he poured the blood of the Lord into her. The same is read of St. Donatus. Whose broken chalice, O on the wretched flatterer! how miserably (frigide) he seeks to remove (eludit) that! I read (he says) that the chalice is broken, I do not read that the blood has been given. What is the miracle? Whoever understands what he wants in the holy scriptures can also read what he wants in the histories. But does this confirm the arbitrariness of the church or refute the heretics? But this is superfluous enough; for I have not begun this to answer him who is not worthy of an answer, but to reveal the truth of the matter.
I conclude, then, that to deny the laity both forms is ungodly and tyrannical, not even in the power of any angel, let alone in that of the pope or any council. Nor do I ask anything about the Council of Constance; if its prestige is valid, why is not also that of Basle, which has decreed that the Bohemians are free to receive both forms? This has been maintained there with much dispute, as the existing history books (annales) and the writings of the Council prove. This is what this ignorant flatterer cites for his dream; so wisely does he treat everything.
The first imprisonment of this Sacrament is in regard to its continuance 3) or its completeness (integritatem), which the Roman tyranny has taken away from us; not that those sin against Christ who use one form, since Christ has not commanded to use any, but has left it to the will of each one, saying: "As often as you do this, do it.
1) Instead of äiueonus, diueonuill will be read.
2) inlanti, meaning a child under seven years of age.
3) Kukstantiurll, i.e. what it consists of, namely two figures.
in remembrance of me"; but that those sin who refuse to give both forms to those who want to use this will. The fault is not with the laity, but with the priests. The sacrament does not belong to the priests, but to all; neither are the priests masters, but servants, who must give both forms to those who desire it, as often as they desire it. Since they have stolen this right from the laity and denied it by force, they are tyrants; the laity, without fault, are deprived of both one and both forms, and in the meantime must be preserved by faith and by the desire for the whole Sacrament. Similarly, the ministers are obliged to give baptism and absolution to the one who desires them, as he has a right to them; if they do not give them, the desirer has the full merit of his faith, but they will be accused before Christ as ungodly servants. In the same way, the holy fathers of old did not communicate under any form of the sacrament in the wilderness for many years.
Therefore I do not deal with the fact that one should take both forms quickly by force (rapiatur), as if we were forced to do so by necessity of the commandment, but I instruct the conscience that everyone should suffer the Roman tyranny, knowing that his right in the sacrament has been robbed from him by force because of his sin. Only this I want, that no one justify the Roman tyranny, as if it had done right by denying the laity the one form, but let us abhor it and not give it our consent; yet let us bear it no differently than if we were prisoners with the Turk, where we were not allowed to use either form. That is why I have said that it seems to me beautiful if by the decision of a general council this captivity were lifted, and that Christian liberty were restored to us from the hands of the Roman tyrant, and each one were left his free will to desire and use as he is left in baptism and repentance. But now, with the same tyranny, he compels that one form be taken every year; so entirely
lthough the freedom given to us by Christ is extinguished, our ungodly ingratitude deserves it.
The second imprisonment of the same sacrament is milder as far as conscience is concerned, but it is by far the most dangerous of all to inflict it, let alone condemn it. Here I will be a Wiklefit and by a thousand names a heretic. How now? Since the Roman bishop has ceased to be a bishop and has become a tyrant, I do not fear all his decrees, knowing that it is not in his power to make new articles of faith, not even in that of a general council.
Once, when I was learning scholastic theology, the Cardinal of Cambray 1) gave me food for thought, since he very astutely disputes in the 4th book of the Sentenzey: It would be much more probable and fewer superfluous miracles would be performed, if it were taught that there is true bread and true wine on the altar, but not only the accidental properties (accidentia 22) ), if the church had not established the opposite. When I saw afterwards what kind of church had established this, namely the Thomistic, that is, the Aristotelian, I became bolder, and since I was hovering between saxum et sacrum, I finally fortified my conscience by the opinion just stated: that it is true bread and true wine, in which Christ's true flesh and true blood are no different nor less than those assume them to be among their accidental qualities. I did this because I saw that the opinions of the Thomists, whether approved by the pope or by a council, remain opinions and do not become articles of faith, even if an angel from heaven determined otherwise. For what is asserted without Scripture or proven revelation may well be assumed to be a conjecture; that it is believed is
1) Pierre d'Ailly, died around 1425.
2) i.e. the shape, color, smell and taste of the bread and wine, which through the blessing of the priest, as through a magic spell, are to be essentially transformed into the body and blood of Christ.
not necessary. But this opinion of Thomas is so completely uncertain (fluctuat) without writing and reasoning that it seems to me that he has understood neither his philosophy nor his dialectics. Demi Aristotle speaks far differently of accidental things and of the thing itself (subjecto) than St. Thomas, so that it seems to me regrettable for such a great man that he has not only handed down opinions in matters of faith from Aristotle, but has also tried to base them on him, whom he did not understand: a quite unfortunate construction on a quite unfortunate foundation!
I therefore allow it if someone wants to hold both opinions; now I deal only with leaving out the doubts (scrupulös) of conscience, so that no one may fear that he is guilty of heresy if he should believe that there is true bread and true because on the altar. But he should know that he is free to imagine, assume and believe one or the other of these two without danger to his salvation, since there is no necessity of faith here. But I now want to state my opinion further. First of all, I do not want to hear or disrespect those who will cry out that this is Viklefitian, Hussite, heretical and contrary to the determination of the church, since this is only done by those whom I have convicted in many ways that they are heretics in the trade of indulgences, of free will and the grace of God, of good works and sins etc., so that if Wiklefs was once a heretic, they themselves are ten times heretics, and it would be nice to be accused and suspected by heretics and perverse sophists, whom it is the greatest impiety to please, especially since they cannot prove their opinions by anything else, nor refute the opposite by any other reason than by saying: This is Wiklefitian, Hussite, heretical. For this lame speech (elumbe) always floats on top of their hostage, and nothing else, that when you desire Scripture, they say: Thus we hold, and the church (that is, we ourselves) has established it so; so much do these men, unworthy and untrustworthy in regard to the faith, dare to show us their brains.
The Church is entitled to interpret the articles of faith under the authority (autoritate) of the Church.
In my opinion, however, this is a particularly strong reason, that no violence should be done to the divine words, neither by a man nor by an angel, but, as far as possible, they should be left in their simplest meaning, and, unless an obvious circumstance compels, they must be taken not otherwise than in the grammatical and proper sense, lest the opponents be given occasion to make a mockery of the whole Scripture. For this reason Origen was rejected in the past, because he had turned the trees and everything that is written about paradise into figurative speeches, leaving aside the grammatical way of speaking, since from this it could be concluded that the trees were not created by God. So also here; since the evangelists clearly write that Christ took the bread and blessed it, and the book of Acts and Paul also call it bread afterwards, true bread must be understood and true wine, just as a true cup. For even they themselves do not say that the cup is changed. But since it is not necessary to establish that the essential transformation took place by divine power, it is to be taken for a little human reasoning, because it is not based on any scriptural passage, on any reasonable ground, as we will see.
It is therefore an inconsistent and new edition of words that bread is taken for the outward appearance (specie) or the accidental qualities of bread, and wine for the outward appearance and the accidental qualities of wine. Why do they not take everything else for external appearance and accidental qualities? Even though everything else is certain, God's words should not be so weakened and emptied of their meaning with such great harm.
But also the church has believed right for more than twelve hundred years. The holy fathers have nowhere ever thought of this transubstantiation (this is, of course, a monstrous word and a dream), until Aristotle's
false (simulata) philosophy began to prevail in the Church in these last three hundred years, in which also many other things have been falsely established, such as: the divine being is neither begotten nor does it procreate; the soul is the essential form (formam substantialem) of the human body, and the like, which is absolutely asserted without any justification or cause, as the Cardinal of Cambray himself confesses.
They will perhaps say that the danger of idolatry enforces that bread and wine do not remain true. This is very ridiculous, since the laity have never known the subtle philosophy of substance and accidental qualities, nor could they grasp it if they were instructed about it, and the same danger is there where the accidental qualities remain, which they see, as with the substance, which they do not see. For if they do not worship the accidental qualities, but the Christ hidden there, why should they worship the bread which they do not see?
But why should Christ not be able to have his body contained (continere) in the substance of the bread as well as in the accidental properties? Behold, fire and iron, two substances, are so mixed together in a red-hot iron that each part is iron and fire. Why could not much more the transfigured body of Christ be in each part of the substance of the bread?
What will they do? They believe that Christ was born of his mother without violation of her virginity (utero illaeso). They also want to say here that the flesh of the virgin was destroyed in the meantime (annihilatam fuisse), or, as they want to express it more appropriately, transubstantiated, so that Christ, wrapped in its accidental qualities, finally came to light through the accidental qualities. The same will have to be said of the closed door and the closed entrance to the tomb, through which he went in and out without violating them. But from this has arisen that Babylon of this philosophy, of the constant quantity, which is different from the essence (sub
stantia), until it has come to the point that they themselves do not know what accidental properties (accidentia) and what the essence (substantia) is. For who has ever shown with certainty that heat, color, cold, light, gravity, shape are accidental properties? Finally, they have been forced by those accidental qualities on the altar to invent that a new being (esse) is added by God, for the sake of Aristotle, who says: the being of the accidental quality is that it is in the being, and innumerable monstrosities, from all of which they would be free, if they simply admitted that there is true bread. And I am really glad that at least among the common people the simple belief in this sacrament has remained. For as they do not grasp it, so they do not dispute whether the accidental qualities are there without the essence, but believe with simple faith that Christ's body and blood are contained in it, and leave to those idle people the trouble of disputing what [it is that] it contains.
But they will perhaps say: On the basis of Aristotle it is taught that the object of which something is said (subjectum) and the statement (praedicatum) of an affirmative proposition must stand for the same thing (supponere), or (that I add to the beast's own words from the 6th book of Metaphysics): To an affirmative proposition the summarizing of the outermost parts (of the proposition) is required (ad affirmativam requiritur extremorum comp. (That I put to the beast own words from the 6th book of the Metaphysics): To an affirmative proposition is required (ad affirmativam requiritur extremorum compositio) the summarizing of the outermost parts (of the proposition), what those interpret as a putting (of each of these parts for the same thing (pro eodem suppositionem). Therefore, if I say: This is my body, the subject [Das] cannot stand for the bread, but for the body of Christ.
What shall we say here, since we make Aristotle and human doctrines judges in such sublime and divine matters? Why don't we discard this pretension and just stick to the words of Christ, willing not to know what is happening, and be satisfied that the true body of Christ is there through the power of words? Or is it necessary to fully comprehend the modes of divine operation?
But what do they say to Aristotle, which
2b L. V." V, S3-ZL. 69. of the babylonian captivity of the church. M. XIX, 31-34. M
What is the meaning of the words "this white", "this great", "this something", "this something", "this something", "this something"? Therefore, with him "this white," "this great," "this something," are subjects of which something is said. If this is true, I ask: If for this reason transubstantiation 2) is to be set, so that the body of Christ is not testified of the bread with truth, why is not also transaccidentation 3) set, so that the body of Christ is not affirmatively testified of the accidental qualities? For the same danger remains if someone understands by the subject "this white" or "this round" [and says of it: This] is my body; and for the reason for which the transubstantiation is set, the transaccidentation is also to be set, because of the standing of the outermost parts [of the sentence] for the same thing.
But if you want to go up with the understanding and exclude the accidental qualities, so that you do not want to set a subject for them, when you say: This is my body, why do you not pass over the substance of the bread with the same ease? so that you also do not want the same to be understood by the subject, so that "this is my body" is not less in the substance than in the accidental qualities? especially since that [the being of the body in the substance] is not in the substance but in the accidental qualities.
of bread] is a divine work of omnipotent power, which can act just as much and in just such a way in the substance as in the accidental qualities.
But, so that we do not philosophize too much, Christ does not seem to have resisted in a beautiful way to this forwardness, since he said of the wine mixed: This is my blood, but: this is my blood. And still more clearly, since he mixes in the name of the cup, saying [1 Cor. 11, 25.]: This cup of the new testament in my blood. Does it not seem that he has wanted to preserve us in simple faith, only that
1) Cf. Walch, St. Louis Edition, vol. XVIII, Evl. 1132, note 1.
2) i.e. transformation of the substance, the essence.
3) Transformation of the accidental properties.
we should believe that it is his blood in the cup? Truly, if I cannot learn how the bread can be the body of Christ, I will take my mind captive to the obedience of Christ, and, simply hanging on his words, I will firmly believe, not only that the body of Christ is in the bread, but that the bread is the body of Christ. For thus the words will protect me, when he says, "Take, eat; this (that is, this bread, which he had taken and broken) is my body" [1 Cor. 11:24]. And Paul [1 Cor. 10, 16. "The bread which we break, is it not the fellowship of the body of Christ?" He does not say, in the bread, but, the bread itself is the fellowship of the body of Christ. What is the matter if philosophy does not grasp this? The Holy Spirit is greater than Aristotle. Does it understand the transformation of substance (trans-substantiationem) which they teach, since they themselves confess that the whole of philosophy falls here? But that in Greek and Latin the pronoun "that" is referred to "body" (oorpuo), makes the equality of gender, but in Hebrew, where there is no neuter gender, it is referred to "bread," so that one might say thus: This [bread] is my body, that also the usage of language and the common sense proves the subject, namely, that it is that which points to the bread, and not to the body, since it says: Hoc est corpus meum, this is my body, that is, this bread is my body.
As in the case of Christ, so also in the case of the sacrament, for the bodily indwelling of the Godhead does not require that human nature be transformed in its essence (transsubstantiari), so that the Godhead be kept under the accidental qualities (accidentibus) of human nature (teneatur). But, as each of the two natures remains complete (integra), it is rightly said: this man is God, this God is man. Although philosophy does not grasp this, faith does. And the prestige of the Word of God is greater than the capacity of our intellect. Thus, in the Sacrament, in order that the true body and blood of Christ may be
There is no need for bread and wine to be transformed according to their essence, so that Christ is kept among the accidental qualities (teneatur), but since both remain at the same time, it is said with truth: This bread is my body, this wine is my blood, and vice versa. Meanwhile, I will hold this opinion in honor of the holy words of God, and will not suffer them to be violated by human wretched reasoning, and to be twisted to an understanding that is not in them. However, I allow others to follow the other opinion, which is firmly asserted in the Decretals, only that they should not insist that their opinions (as I have said) be accepted by us as articles of faith.
The third imprisonment of the same sacrament is by far the most impious abuse, by which it has happened that today in the church almost nothing is more firmly accepted and held with greater conviction than that the mass is a good work and a sacrifice. This abuse has swept along as with a flood innumerable other abuses, until, after the faith of the Sacrament has been completely extinguished, they have made of the divine Sacrament a mere fair, hucksterism, and certain profitable contracts. Therefore, communities, brotherhoods, intercessions, merits, annual feasts, memorial days, and such articles of commerce are sold, bought, established and arranged by contracts in the church, and on this rests the whole sustenance of the priests and monks.
I am attacking a difficult thing that is perhaps impossible to overthrow, since it is so ingrained, fixed by the custom of so many centuries and approved by the consensus of all, that it is necessary to eliminate and change most of the books that govern today, and almost the whole external appearance of the churches, and to introduce, or rather reintroduce, a different kind of ceremonies altogether. But my Christ lives, and one must heed the Word of God with greater care than the minds of all men and angels.
I will wait for my office and bring the matter to light myself, and for nothing, as I have received the truth, I will communicate it without disfavor. By the way, let each one consider his own salvation. I will faithfully make an effort so that no one can roll the guilt of his unbelief, and that he does not know the truth, onto me before the judgment seat of Christ.
Of the Sacrament of the Altar. 1)
First of all, in order to arrive at the true and free knowledge (scientiam) of this sacrament safely and happily, we must first of all take care to set aside everything that has been added to the original and simple institution of this sacrament by human efforts and zeal, as there are garments, ornaments, chants, prayers, organs, lights, and all the splendor of visible things, and fix our eyes and hearts on the mere and pure institution of Christ Himself, nor take anything else before us but the word of Christ Himself, by which He instituted, accomplished, and commanded the Sacrament to us. For in this word, and in nothing else, lies the power, nature, and whole essence of the Mass. All other things are human devices added to the words of Christ, without which the Mass can very well be said and exist. But the words of Christ, with which he instituted this sacrament, are these:
"And as they were eating, JESUS took the bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave to his disciples, saying, Take, eat: this is my body which is broken for you. In the same way he took the cup, gave thanks and gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you. This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is poured out for you and for many for the remission of sins. Do this in remembrance of me."
These words are also handed down by the apostle 1 Cor. 11. and explain them more extensively; we must base ourselves on the same and on them
1) This caption is missing in the original, but is in the Jena edition.
We must be built as on a solid rock, if we do not want to be driven about by every wind of doctrine, as we have been led about by ungodly teachings of men who opposed the truth. For in these words nothing is omitted that belongs to the completeness, use and fruit of this sacrament, and nothing is set forth that is superfluous and not necessary for us to know. For whoever either contemplates or teaches about the mass with the omission of these words will teach tremendous ungodliness, as has been done by those who have made a good work (opus operatum) and a sacrifice out of it.
This, then, must first and infallibly be established, that the mass or sacrament of the altar is the testament of Christ, which he left behind him when he died, that it should be distributed to his faithful. For thus his words are, "This cup is the new testament in my blood." This truth, I say, must stand firm as an immovable foundation upon which we will build all that must be said. For this you will see, how we shall overthrow all ungodliness of men, which has been brought into this most lovely Sacrament. So Christ, who speaks the truth, says with truth that this is the new testament in his blood, which was shed for us. This I do not inculcate in vain; it is no small thing and must be taken deeply to heart.
So we ask what the will is, and at the same time we will recognize what the mass is, what its use, what its fruit, what its abuse. A will is undoubtedly the promise of a dying man, in which he names his inheritance and appoints heirs. A will therefore includes first the death of the one who makes the will (testatoris), then the promise of the inheritance and the naming of the heir. For this is how Paul deals with wills in Romans 4, Galatians 3 and 4, and Hebrews 9. We also see this clearly in these words of Christ. Christ testifies to his death by saying, "This is my body which is given, this is my blood which is shed."
He names and designates the inheritance, since he says, "For the remission of sins." But the heirs he sets up, saying, "For you and for many," that is, who accept it and believe the promise of him who makes the will; for faith makes heirs here, as we shall see.
You see, then, that the Mass (as we call it) is the promise of the forgiveness of sins made to us by God, and such a promise confirmed by the death of the Son of God. For a promise and a testament do not differ in any other way than that the testament includes at the same time the death of the promisee, and a testator is the same as a promisee who will die, but a promisee is (that I say so) a testator who will live. This testament of Christ is prefigured in all the promises of God, from the beginning of the world, indeed, all- old promises have been valid in this new future promise, what they have been valid, and have been based on it. Therefore these words are very common in Scripture: contract (pactum), covenant (foedus 1), testament of the Lord, by which it was signified that God would die one day. For where there is a testament, the death of the one who makes the testament must necessarily happen, Hebr. 9, 16. But God made a testament, therefore he had to die; but he could not die if he was not man. Thus, in the same word "testament" both the incarnation and the death of Christ are included in the shortest possible way.
From this it is quite obvious what is the use and misuse of the mass, what is a worthy and an unworthy preparation. For if it is a promise, as has been said, one comes to it by no works, by no powers, by no merits, but only by faith. For where there is the word of the promising God, there the faith of the person accessing it is necessary, so that it is clear that faith is the beginning of our blessedness, which is based on the word of the promising God, who, without all our effort, is the only one who is able to attain it.
1) For example, Isa. 28, 15, both words koeäug and xuotum occur. Luther translated the latter with understanding, i.e. agreement, contract.
34 L. V. L. V, 38-40. xIII Luther's dispute with Henry VIII. W. XIX, 39-41. 35
by grace, gratuitous (gratuita.) with undeserved mercy, and offers us the word of his promise. For he sent his word and so made them whole [Luc. 9, 11.]. But he did not accept our work and so made us whole. The word of God is the first of all; faith follows it, and love follows faith. After this, love does every good work, for it does no evil; indeed, it is the fulfillment of the law. And man can have no other agreement with God or act in any other way than through faith, that is, that not man through any works that are his, but God through His promise is the author of salvation, so that everything is founded, supported and sustained by His powerful word, "through which He begat us, that we might be the firstfruits of His creatures" [Jac. 1, 18.].
Thus, to raise Adam up after the fall, he made this promise, saying to the serpent [Gen. 3:15], "I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed. The same shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel." In this word of promise, Adam was carried with his own, as it were, into God's bosom and sustained by faith in it, waiting with patience for the woman's seed to 1) crush the serpent's head, as God had promised. In this faith and expectation he also died, not knowing when and what kind he would be, but not doubting that he would come. For since such a promise is the truth of God, it also sustains in hell those who believe in it and wait for it. After this, another promise followed, which happened to Noah, until Abraham, when the rainbow was given to him as a sign of the covenant; through faith in this promise, he and his descendants received a gracious God. After the rainbow, He promised Abraham that all nations would be blessed through his seed. And this is the bosom of Abraham, into which
1) In the Vulgate: rQuUsrsra - yuas.
His descendants were taken up. After that, he gave a very clear promise of Christ to Moses and the children of Israel, especially to David, by which he finally revealed what kind of promise would have happened to the ancients.
Thus, in the end, the most perfect promise of the New Testament was made, in which life and blessedness by grace are promised in clear words and given to those who believe the promise. He also distinguishes this testament from the old with a clear sign, saying, "The new testament. For the old testament, given through Moses, was a promise, not of the forgiveness of sins, or of eternal goods, but of temporal goods, that is, of the land of Canaan, by which no one was renewed in the spirit to enter the heavenly inheritance Therefore also an unreasonable animal had to be killed in the likeness of Christ, by whose blood this testament was confirmed, so that what the blood was, such also was the testament; what the sacrifice was, such also was the promise. But here he speaks, "the new testament in my blood," not in someone else's blood, but in his own, through which grace is promised through the Spirit for the forgiveness of sins, to receive the inheritance.
Accordingly, the nature of the mass is really nothing other than the aforementioned words of Christ "Take and eat" etc., as if he said: "Behold, O sinful and damned man! out of pure and undeserved love with which I love you, since the Father of all mercy wills it so, I promise you with these words, before you have earned and asked for anything, forgiveness of all your sins and eternal life. And so that you may be absolutely certain of this irrevocable promise of mine, I will give my body and shed my blood, confirm this promise with death itself, and leave both to you as a sign and memorial of the promise. As often as you use it, you shall remember me and praise, praise and give thanks for this my love and mercy toward you.
From this you see that if a Mass is to be worthy of being said, nothing else can be done.
The faith that faithfully relies on this promise, believes Christ to be true in these words of his, and does not doubt that these exceedingly great goods have been given to him. This faith will soon be followed by a lovely movement of the heart, by which the spirit of man will be enlarged and made fat (this is love, given by the Holy Spirit in faith in Christ), so that he will be carried away to Christ, such a mild and kind Testator, and become completely a different and new man. For who would not weep softly (dulciter), indeed, almost die of joy in Christ, if he believed with undoubted confidence that this inestimable promise of Christ belonged to him? How could he not love such a great benefactor, who offers, promises and gives him, as an unworthy person and who deserves it far differently, such riches and this eternal inheritance in obliging grace?
Therefore this is our only misery, that we have many masses in the world, and no one, or only a few, recognize, contemplate and accept these promises and this riches presented, since in the mass nothing else should truly be acted upon with greater diligence, indeed only and only, than that we keep before our eyes, contemplate and repeat these words, these promises of Christ, which are truly the mass itself, so that in it we practice, nourish, increase and strengthen faith by this daily remembrance. For this is what he commands when he says: "Do this in remembrance of me. This is also what an evangelical preacher (evangelista) should do, that he faithfully inculcates this promise to the people and extols it to awaken their faith in it. But how many are there now who know that the Mass is a promise of Christ (not to mention the godless chatterers who preach human statutes instead of such a glorious promise)? And though they teach these words of Christ, yet do they not do it with the name of a promise or a testament, and do not teach it for the sake of it, that faith may be obtained.
Yes, this is what we weep for in this captivity: nowadays, all diligence is spent on
Take care that no layman hears these words of Christ, as if they were far too sacred to be recited to the common man. For so furious are we, and it is only for us priests to speak the words of the Consecration (as they are called) secretly; but in such a way that they are not even useful to us, because we ourselves do not consider them promises or a testament to feed our faith with. But I do not know out of what superstition and godless delusion we honor these words more than we believe them? What else does the devil work in us through such our misery, but that he leaves nothing of the mass in the church, and yet in the meantime sees to it that all corners of the world are full of masses, that is, of abuses and mockeries of God's testament and of very grave sins of idolatry, so that the world may be weighed down more and more without ceasing, and damnation may become the greater. For what can be more grave than the sin of idolatry, than to misuse the promises of God with perverse delusion, and either disregard or extinguish faith in them?
For God (as I have said) has never acted differently with men, nor does he yet act differently with them, except through the word of promise; again, we can never act differently with God except through faith in the word of his promise. He does not respect our works, nor does he need them, since through them we rather act against men, and with men, and with ourselves; but this he needs, that he may be considered true by us in his promises, and as such be awaited with patience, and honored with faith, hope and love. This is how he receives his glory from us, in that we receive and have all good things, not by our running, but by his mercy, promise, and giving. Behold, this is the right worship and true service which we are to perform at Mass. But if the words of promise are not brought forward, what exercise of faith can we have? After all, without faith, who hopes, who holds God dear? What kind of service of God is there without faith, without
Hope, without love? Therefore, there is no doubt that today all priests and monks, together with the bishops and all their superiors, are idolaters and live in a highly dangerous state because of such ignorance, abuse and mockery of the Mass, or the Sacrament, or the promise of God.
For everyone easily understands that these two things are necessary at the same time, the promise and faith. For without promise nothing can be believed, and without faith the promise is of no use, because it is established and fulfilled by faith. From this it is easy for everyone to understand that one goes to mass, because it is nothing other than a promise, with faith alone, and takes part in it. What is added without faith in the way of prayers, preparations, works, signs, and offerings, are all more incentives to ungodliness than acts of godliness. For it may well happen that, when such things are done, they think that they go worthily to the altar, and yet they have never been more unskilful at any time or in any work, because of the unbelief which they bring with them. O how many priests do you see every day and everywhere, who, if they are either not properly dressed, or have not washed their hands, or have missed in prayer and have only missed a little, think, as wretched people, that they have hardly sinned. But that they neither respect nor believe in the mass itself, that is, in the divine promise, they have absolutely no conscience about it. O the shameful religion of our time, which is the most godless and ungrateful!
Therefore, a worthy preparation and proper use 1) is nothing but faith alone, with which the mass, that is, the divine promise, is believed. Therefore, whoever wants to go to the altar or receive this sacrament, take care that he does not appear empty before the face of God, his Lord. But he will come empty who does not have faith in the Mass or in this New Testament. With what kind of godlessness could he be more difficult
1) Instead of IsKiürriö we read IsZitimus.
For by such his unbelief he makes him, as much as there is in him, a liar, and who promises something in vain. It would therefore be safest not to go to mass with any other mind than if you were going to hear another promise of God, that is, that you would be willing to do and bring nothing much, but to believe and accept everything that is promised to you or proclaimed as promised by the priest's ministry. If you do not come with such a mind, stay away, for you are undoubtedly going there for the sake of suffering.
Therefore I have rightly said that the whole power of the mass consists in the words of Christ, by which he testifies that the forgiveness of sins is given to all those who believe, that his body is given and his blood is poured out for them. And therefore nothing is more necessary to those who want to hear the Mass than that they consider these words diligently and with full faith; if they do not do this, everything else is in vain. It is true that God tends to put a sign in almost every promise, as a reminder or memorial of His promise, so that it will be kept all the more faithfully and remembered all the more effectively. Likewise, when the promise was made to Noah that the earth would not be destroyed by another flood, he gave his rainbow in the clouds as a sign, saying that he wanted to remember his covenant. And to Abraham, after the promise of inheritance in his seed, he gave circumcision as a sign of the righteousness of faith. In such a way he gave to Gideon the dry and wet skin to confirm his promise that he should overcome the Midianites. Likewise he offered a sign to Ahaz through Isaiah, that he should overcome the king of Syria and Samaria, by which he would confirm faith concerning his promise in him. And such signs of the promises of God we read many in the Scriptures.
Likewise, God has also in the Mass, which is the most excellent among all promises,
He added a memorial sign of such a great promise, his own body and blood in the bread and wine, as he said, "This do in remembrance of me. Likewise, in baptism, He adds to the words of the promise the sign of immersion in water. From this we understand that in every promise of God two things are presented, the word and the sign, so that we know that the word is the testament and the sign the sacrament, just as in the Mass the word of Christ is the testament and the bread and wine are the sacrament. And as there is more in the word than in the sign, so there is more in the testament than in the sacrament. For a man can have the word or the testament and use it without the sign or without the sacrament. Believe, says Augustine, and you have eaten; but who is believed but the word of him who promised it? So I can have mass daily, even every hour, holding the words of Christ before me as often as I wish; and by them feed and strengthen my faith, that is, eat and drink truly spiritually.
Here you see what and how much the theologians who wrote the Sententiae (sententiarii) have done in this. First of all, what is the highest and the main part, namely, the testament and the word of promise, none of them takes into account, and thus they have obscured for us the faith and the whole power of the mass. Then they deal with the other part of it, namely, the sign or sacrament alone; but in such a way that they do not teach faith in this either, but that their preparations and good works (opera operato), communications and fruits are the mass; 1) until at last they have come to the abyss, and have pretended silly things of the change of substances and other many innumerable metaphysical crickets of Aristotle, and have done away with the science and right use, both of the testament and of the sacrament, together with the whole faith, and have made that the people of Christ (as the prophet speaks), of their GOt.
1) We have drawn irlissanci-to the previous, depending on äoeeant. The Erlanger has a semicolon before missum.
I have always forgotten it. But let others list the various fruits of hearing the Mass, and turn your mind to this, that you say and believe with the prophet that God has "prepared a table before you against all those who fear you" [Ps. 23:5], at which your faith shall be fed and increase. But your faith is not fed in any other way than by the word of the divine promise. For "man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that passes through the mouth of God" [Matt. 4:4]. Therefore, above all things in the mass, you must be very diligently attentive to the divine promise, as to a very rich food, all kinds of pasture, and your holy refreshment, that you may esteem this above all, rely on it most, and cling to it steadfastly, even through death and all sins. If you do this, you will not only get the little drops and extremely small fruits of the mass, which some have superstitiously invented, but the main fountain of life itself, namely faith in the word, from which all good flows. As he says John 7:38: "He that believeth on me, out of his body shall flow rivers of living water." Likewise Cap. 4, 14: "Whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give, it shall become in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life."
Now there are two things which tend to make us object to not receiving the fruits of the Mass: one is that we are sinners and unworthy of such great things because of our poor condition; the other is that even if we were worthy, the things are so great that our fainthearted nature must not dare to desire or hope for them. For who should not rather be astonished at the forgiveness of sins and eternal life, than "desire the same, when after dignities the greatness of the goods that come thereby is considered, namely, to have God as your Father, to be a son and an heir of all God's goods? Against this twofold pusillanimity you must take hold of the word of Christ and consider it much stronger than these thoughts of your weakness. For "great are the works of
The Lord, whoever respects them, delights in them" [Ps. 111:2], "who is able to do exceedingly abundantly above all that we ask or understand" [Eph. 3:20]. For if they did not surpass our worthiness, our understanding, and all our senses, they would not be divine things. So also Christ makes us of heart, saying, "Fear not, little host: for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom" [Luc. I2, 32.]. For this incomprehensible abundance of God, which has been poured out upon us through Christ, makes us love Him again most fervently above all things, approach Him with the highest confidence, regard everything in a lowly way, and are ready to suffer everything for His sake. Therefore, this sacrament is also rightly called a fountain of love.
Make an example of this to yourself in the case of men'. For if a rich lord bequeathed a thousand gold florins to a poor beggar or to an unworthy and wicked servant, truly he would demand and take them with confidence," and would pay no attention to his unworthiness or to the great bequest. If someone disliked him and reproached him for his unworthiness or the great bequest, what do you think he would say? Other than nothing: What is it to you? What I get, I do not get according to my merits, or any right of my own. I know that I am unworthy, and that I receive more than I deserve, yes, I deserve the opposite; but according to the right of the will, and the good will of another, I desire what I desire. If he did not consider it unworthy of him to bequeath such great gifts to an unworthy man, why should I, because of my unworthiness, despise to accept it? Yes, rather, for this very reason, the more unworthy I am, the more I reach for such undeserved and foreign grace. With the same thoughts every conscience must be armed to obtain this promise of Christ with undoubted faith, against all its doubts and remorse, and must take great care that it does not go to the Sacrament out of confidence in its confession, prayer, or preparation; but forsakes all these, and goes to it in a proud way.""
Trust in Christ who promises. For, as enough has been said, the word of promise alone shall prevail here ii" a pure faith, which alone and all is a sufficient preparation.
From this we see what a great wrath of God it was that the "godless" teachers hid the words of this testament from us until now and thereby, as much as there was in them, eradicated faith. Now it is easy to see what must inevitably follow such eradicated faith, namely the most "ungodly" superstitious works. For where faith perishes and the word of faith is silenced, human works and essays of works soon arise in its place. Through these, as through a Babylonian captivity, we are displaced from our larrde, and all our heart's joy has been captured. This is what has happened to the Mass, which has been changed by the teachings of nefarious men into a good work, which they call a work done (opus operatum), by which they presume to be able to do anything with God". After that, it has come to the extreme nonsense that, because they believed that the Mass had its power from the "done" work, they added that it would be no less useful to others, even though it would be harmful to the godless Mass priest. And on this sand they have based their donations, donations, brotherhoods, anniversaries, and such like innumerable profit and commercial dealings.
You will hardly be able to stand up to these empty pretenses (larvas), because they are strong and many, and deeply rooted, if you do not pay attention to what the mass is with very persistent care, and strongly remember my previous speeches. You have heard that the Mass is nothing other than a divine promise or bequest of Christ, confirmed with the Sacrament of His Body and Blood. If this is true, you understand that it cannot be a work in any way, and that nothing happens in it, nor can be done by any effort of anyone, but by faith alone. Now faith is not a work, but the teacher and life of works. For who is ever so nonsensical that
he should call a promise received, or a bequest given, a good work, which he does to his testator by accepting it? Who is the heir who thinks he is doing good to his father, who bequeathed him something, by receiving the letter of testament with the bequeathed inheritance? How are we so godless and sacrilegious that when we want to receive the divine bequest, we come as if we wanted to do a good work for God? Is not this ignorance of the will and this captivity of such a high sacrament to be highly lamented? Where we should be grateful for the gifts we have received, we come in hopefulness, and want to give what we should take, mocking the mercy of the giver with unheard-of nefariousness, by giving as a work what we receive as a gift; so that the testator now does not distribute his goods, but receives ours. Woe to this impiety!
But who has ever been so foolish as to think that baptism is a good work, or that he who was to be baptized believed that he was doing a work which he offered and communicated to God for himself and others? If then in a sacrament and testament there is no good work that could be communicated to others, there will be none in the mass either, because the latter is nothing but a testament and sacrament. Therefore, it is a public and ungodly error to offer or assign the mass for sin, for satisfaction, for the dead, or otherwise for any need of one's own or of others. It is easy to understand that this is obviously true, if one stubbornly holds that the Mass is a divine promise that is of no use to anyone, cannot be assigned to anyone, cannot be given to anyone, and cannot be communicated to anyone but only to those who believe with their own faith. For who can receive or bestow God's promise, which requires the special faith of everyone, on behalf of another? Can I give God's promise to another even if he does not believe? Or can I believe for another? Or can I make another believe? This is what would have to happen if I were to give the Mass to another person.
because there is nothing in the mass but the two things: God's promise and man's faith, who receives what it promises. If this is true, then I can also hear the gospel for others and believe, I will be able to be baptized for another, to be absolved of sins for another, I will also be able to receive the sacrament of the altar for another; I will also be able to marry for another, to become a priest for another, to receive confirmation for another, to receive the last rites for another.
Why then did Abraham not believe for all Jews? Why is faith required of every Jew for the very same promise that was believed by Abraham? Thus, the insurmountable truth must stand: Where God's promise is, each one stands for himself, his own faith is required, each one will also give account for himself and carry his burden, as he says Marci at the last, v. 16: "He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned." Thus each one can also make use of the mass by his own faith, and by all means participate in it for no one else, just as the priest cannot administer the sacrament to anyone for anyone else, but administers it to each one in particular. For the priests, in consecrating and administering the Sacrament, are our ministers, through whom we do not offer a good work or communicate in an active way, but through whom we receive the promises and the sign, and are communicated in a passive way. This has hitherto remained with the laity, for the laity are not said to do anything good by it, but to receive it. But the priests have turned to their nefarious ways and have made of the sacrament and testament of God a good work, which they communicate and offer, whereas the good should have been received.
But you want to speak: What, then, wilt thou reverse the custom and opinion of all churches and monasteries, where such things are so many?
What is the reason why the church has been valid for centuries, since annual festivals, intercessions, donations, notices, that is, all the richest pensions and incomes are donated to the mass? To this I answer: This is precisely what has driven me to write about the imprisonment of the Church. For thus the most reverend testament of God has been forced into the bondage of the most ungodly profit by the opinions and traditions of nefarious people, who have set aside the word of God, have presented us with the thoughts of their hearts, and have deceived the whole world. What do I care about the multiplicity and majesty of the erring? The truth is stronger than all of them. If you can deny Christ, who teaches that the mass is a testament or sacrament, I will agree with them. Then, if you can say that he does a good work who receives what is bequeathed in the testament, or uses the sacrament of promise for this very purpose, I will gladly condemn my opinion. But since you can do neither of these, why do you have misgivings about despising the great multitude that is running to damnation, about giving glory to God, and about confessing his truth? Namely, that nowadays all priests are in a wrong opinion, who consider the mass a work by which they help their needs or those of others, living or dead. I speak outrageous and astonishing things. But if you look at what the mass is, you will see that I have spoken truly. All this has made the all too great certainty before which we have not noticed the wrath of God upon us.
But this I easily admit, that the prayers which we pour out before God when we are gathered to receive the Mass are good works, or good deeds, which we distribute, bestow, share, and offer for one another. As Jacob teaches us: "Pray for one another, that you may be healed" [Jac. 5, 16]. And Paul, 1 Tim. 2:1, 2, commanded to "make supplication, prayer, and intercession for all men, for kings, and for all authorities." These things, however, are not the Mass, but works of the Mass, if the prayers of the Lord are to be understood differently.
The works of God may be called the works of the heart and the works of the mouth, for they come about through faith, which was received and increased in the sacrament. For the Mass or God's promise is not fulfilled by praying, but only by faith. But if we believe, we pray and do all kinds of good works. But which priest says mass for this reason, thinking that he is offering the prayers alone? They all imagine that they offer Christ Himself to the Father as a full sacrifice, and do a good work for all those in relation to whom they imagine that it will be useful to them. For they trust that they have accomplished by the work what they do not ascribe to prayer. Since in this way error has gradually grown, they have assigned to the sacrament what is due to prayer, and have sacrificed to God the good they are to receive.
Therefore, we must distinguish between the testament and sacrament themselves and the prayers that we pray at the same time. Not only that, but one must also know that the prayers are of no use at all, neither to the one who prays them, nor to those for whom they are prayed, unless the testament is first received with faith, so that faith alone prays, which alone is heard, as Jacob teaches in the first chapter. Prayer is so different from the mass. I can extend my prayer to as many as I want, but the mass is received by no one but he who believes for himself, and as much as he believes; nor can it be given, either to God or to men, but God alone gives it through the ministry of the priest to those men who receive it with faith alone, without any works or merits. For let no one dare to be so foolish as to say that he does a good work who comes poor and meager to receive a benefit from the hand of the rich. Now the Mass (as I have said) is a benefit of the divine promise, offered to all men by the hand of the priests. So it is certain that the mass is not a work that can be given to another, but an object (as it is called) of faith, in order to nourish and strengthen each one's own faith.
Now there is a second offense to be removed, which is much greater and very apparent, that is that everywhere it is believed that the Mass is a sacrifice offered to God. The words of the Canon also seem to be in favor of this opinion, since it is said: These gifts, these presents, these holy sacrifices. And afterwards: This sacrifice. Similarly, it is clearly desired that this sacrifice be acceptable, like the sacrifice of Abel etc. Therefore Christ is called the sacrificial lamb (hostia) of the altar. To this also come the sayings of the holy fathers, so many examples, and such a strong use, which has been constantly observed throughout the world.
To all this, because it is so firmly rooted, one must steadfastly oppose the words and example of Christ. For if we do not receive that the Mass is a promise of Christ or a testament, as the words clearly read, we lose the whole Gospel and all comfort. We should not accept anything against these words, even if an angel from heaven would teach otherwise. For in these words there is nothing about works or sacrifice. After this, the example of Christ is also on our side. For Christ, in the last supper, when he instituted this sacrament and made the testament, did not offer it to his Father, or perform it as a good work for others; but sat at the table, and laid the same testament before each one, and gave them the sign. Now the Mass, the nearer and more conformable it is to the very first Mass which Christ said after the supper, the more Christian it is. But Christ's mass was simple, without all the pomp of vestments, vows, songs, and other ceremonies, whereas if it had been offered as a sacrifice, Christ would not have used it perfectly.
Not that anyone should blaspheme against the whole Christian Church, which has adorned and enlarged the Mass with many customs and ceremonies; but this I want, that no one, deceived by such outward appearances of ceremonies and hindered by the manifold pomp, should lose the simplicity of the Mass, and indeed assume a kind of alteration of the substances, if he.
after having lost the simple essence of the mass, is attached to the manifold side things of the splendor. For what has been added to the word and example of Christ is an accessory to the Mass, each of which we should not esteem more highly than we now esteem the monstrances (as they are called) and the altar cloths in which the host itself is kept. Therefore, as it is contrary to one another to distribute the testament or to receive the promise and to offer a sacrifice, so it is contrary to one another that the Mass should be a sacrifice, because we receive the promise but give the sacrifice. Now the same thing cannot be taken and given at the same time, nor can it be given and received at the same time, certainly just as prayer and the thing received cannot be the same thing, neither is it the same thing to pray and to receive what is prayed for.
Now what shall we say to the Canon of the Mass, and to the sayings of the Fathers? First, I answer that if one has nothing to say, it is much safer to deny everything than to allow the Mass to be a work or a sacrifice, lest we deny the word of Christ and destroy faith at the same time as the Mass. However, in order to save the fathers, let us answer that from Paul, 1 Cor. 11, it cannot be taught [that the Mass is a work or sacrifice, but] 1) that the faithful Christians, gathered for Mass, were accustomed to bring food and drink, which they called collections, which was distributed to the needy, according to the use of the apostles, Apost. 4, 34. 4:34. Out of this collection, wine and bread were taken for the sacrament and consecrated. And because all this was sanctified with words and prayers, according to Jewish usage, that it was waved or lifted up, as we read in Genesis, the words and the action (rite) of lifting up or offering remained, after the usage of gathering something together and collecting that which had been brought.
1) It seems to us that there is a gap here in the Latin, which would like to be completed in the way we have done in the bracketed words. - Another way to lift the difficulty of this place would be that instead of non tloeeri - nos ckooeri would be read.
was to be set forth and abolished, had long since been abolished. Thus Hezekiah commands Isa. 37, 4, Isaiah to lift up his prayer before God's face for the others. And the Psalm says: "Lift up your hands in the sanctuary" [Ps 134, 2]. Likewise: "I will lift up my hands" [Ps. 28, 2]. Lift up holy hands in all places", 1 Tim. 2, 8. Therefore the words sacrificium, or oblatio, sacrifice or lifting, must not be applied to the sacrament and testament, but to the collected things (collectas). Therefore, the word Collecte has also remained for the prayers said at Mass.
This also makes it so that the priest, as soon as he has blessed the bread and the cup, lifts them up, by which he does not indicate that he is offering something to God, because he then does not commemorate the host or the sacrifice with any words; but this also has either remained from the use of the Hebrews, according to which that was set aside which was designated as having been received from God with acts of thanksgiving; or it is an exhortation to us, by which we are to be provoked to believe in this testament, which he brought forward and presented in the words of Christ, so that he also at the same time may point out its signs, and the lifting up (oblatio) of the bread actually correspond to this pointing speech: This is my body, and addresses us, the bystanders, as it were, with this sign. Thus, the lifting up of the cup is actually to correspond to these indicative words: This is the cup of the New Testament etc. For the priest is to awaken faith in us with such use of lifting up. And would God, as He publicly lifts up the sign or sacrament before our eyes, that He would also at the same time proclaim the word or testament to our ears with a clear and bright voice, and that in every people's language, so that faith would be awakened all the more effectively. For why should we be allowed to say Mass in Greek, Latin and Hebrew, and not also in German, or in any other language?
Therefore, let the priests who say mass at this corrupt and very dangerous time beware. First, that they
The words of the greater and lesser canons, with the collections that are too clearly about the sacrifice, are not directed to the sacrament, but either to the bread and wine that is to be consecrated, or to their prayers. For the bread and wine are first set forth to be blessed, that they may be sanctified by the word and prayer. But after it is blessed and consecrated, it is not offered, but accepted as a gift from God. And in this trade a priest should remember that the Gospel must be preferred to all canons and collects made by men. But the Gospel, as you have heard, does not allow the Mass to be a sacrifice.
Then let him who says mass in public take care to do nothing but communicate himself and others through the mass, and at the same time beware of offering his prayers for himself and others, lest he be presumptuous and think that he is offering the mass. But he who says mass in private, let him take care to offer himself the Lord's Supper. For a private mass is no different and does no more than if a layman simply receives the sacrament from the hands of the priest, except for the prayers and that he consecrates and administers it to himself. In the matter of the Mass and the Sacrament itself, we are all equal, priest and layman.
Now, if a priest is asked by others to say vowed masses (as they are called), he should be careful not to take any reward for the mass, or to refrain from offering any vowed mass, but to draw all this to the prayers he is saying, whether for the living or for the dead, and to think thus: Behold, I will go and take the sacrament for myself alone; but in taking it, I will pray for this or for that. So that he takes the reward because of the prayer, and not because of the mass, for his food and sustenance. Nor should he respect that the whole world has a different opinion and use. You have the gospel, which is exceedingly sure; if you trust in it, you will easily despise all men's opinions and conceits. But if you despise me and continue to offer the mass, and not only the mass, but also the mass, then you will not despise me.
the prayers, you shall know that I have faithfully warned you and am pardoned on the last day; but you will have to bear your sin yourself. I have told you what I owe to you as a brother to a brother for your salvation. If you accept it, it will be your benefit; if you disregard it, it will be your harm. If anyone would condemn these teachings of mine, I answer him in the words of Paul, 2 Tim. 3:13: "But with wicked men and seducers the longer it is, the more grievous is it, and they are seduced."
From this, everyone can easily understand what is often said from Gregory: The mass of an evil priest is not to be held in lower esteem than that of a good priest, and St. Peter's mass would not have been better than Jude the Betrayer's, if they had both said mass. For with this cloak many want to cover their godlessness, and therefore have invented the difference between the work done and the work of him who works it (operis operati et operis operantis), so that they could presume to live for themselves in security and wickedness, and yet do good to others. But Gregory says right, and they understand him wrong. For it is quite true that as much of the testament and sacrament is given and received by ungodly priests as by the most holy. For who would doubt that the gospel is preached by the ungodly? Now the mass is a part of the gospel, yes, a summa and short concept of the gospel. For what is the whole gospel but the good news of the forgiveness of sins? But what can be widely and abundantly said of the remission of sins and of the grace of God is recently comprehended in the word of the testament. Therefore, even the common sermons should be nothing else than interpretations of the mass, that is, explanations of the divine promise of this testament. For this would be teaching the faith and building the church properly. But those who now interpret the mass are deceiving and deceiving with allegories of human ceremonies.
Therefore, as an ungodly man may baptize, that is, bring the word of promise and the sign of the water upon him whom he baptizes
He can also pronounce the promise of this sacrament and present it to the eaters, and take it with them, as Judas the betrayer did at the Lord's supper. And yet it always remains the same sacrament and testament, which works its work in the believer and a foreign work in the unbeliever. But in the sacrifice things are far different. For since it is not the mass but the prayers that are offered to God, it is clear that the sacrifices of an unholy priest are of no value, but (as the same Gregory says) if an unworthy man is sent to intercede, the mind of the judge is moved to greater punishment. Therefore these two are not to be mixed, the mass and the prayer; the sacrament and the work; the testament and' the sacrifice. For the one comes to us from God through the service of the priest, and requires faith; the other comes from our faith to God through the priest, and asks to be heard. The former descends; the latter ascends. Therefore, the former does not necessarily require a worthy and godly servant; but the latter does, for God does not hear sinners; He can do good through evil, but He does not accept any evil work, as He showed in Cain. And in Proverbs 15:8 it is said, "The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination to the Lord," and Romans 14:23, "Whatever is not of faith is sin."
But so that I may come to an end with this first part, for I will bring up the rest if anyone who would dispute it should appear, I will decide from all this to whom the mass is appointed for the benefit of, and who may worthily communicate: namely, only those who have sad, grieved, distressed, confused, and erroneous consciences. For since the word of the divine promise of this sacrament offers remission of sins, anyone who is distressed by remorse of conscience about sins or by the tickling of them goes without danger. For this testament of Christ is the only remedy for past, present and future sins, if only you adhere to it with undoubted faith and believe that you have been given remission of sins by grace and in vain.
as the words of the testament read. If you do not believe this, you cannot satisfy your conscience anywhere, ever, with any works, with any efforts. For faith alone is the peace of the conscience; but unbelief alone is the trouble of the conscience.
Of the Sacrament of Baptism.
Glory be to God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who, according to the riches of His mercy, has preserved at least this one Sacrament in His Church undefiled and unpoisoned by the ordinances of men, and has made it free to all peoples and all classes of men, and has not allowed it to be suppressed even with the most shameful profits and monstrous godless superstitions. He used this counsel to initiate children, in whom avarice and superstition could not yet be found, and to sanctify them with the simplest faith of his word, to whom baptism is most useful at the present time. For if this sacrament had been given to the ancients and the great, it seems that its power and glory could not have remained before the tyranny of avarice and superstition, which has brought down all divine things upon us. There is no doubt that the human arrogance would have invented also here its preparations and dignities, then also the reservations, conditions, and what are such money nets more, by which the water would not be sold more cheaply than now the parchment 1).
But since the devil could not extinguish the power of baptism in infants, he got the upper hand and destroyed it in all adults, so that now there is almost no one who remembers that he is baptized, much less that he boasts of it, after so many other ways have been invented to remit sins and go to heaven. To these opinions has given rise that dangerous speech of St. Jerome, which is either evil spoken, or
1) membranae, meaning the Roman letters and bulls.
The first is the one that has been misunderstood, since he calls repentance the second board (tabula) after the shipwreck, as if baptism were not a repentance. For this is why, when they have fallen into sins, they despair of the first plank or ship, as if they had lost it, and begin to lean and rely on the second plank alone, namely repentance. Hence have sprung the innumerable burdens of vows, spiritualities, works, penances, pilgrimages, indulgences and sects, and from these such a flood (maria) of books, questions, opinions and human statutes that the whole world can no longer contain, so that this tyranny plagues the Church of God much worse than it ever plagued the synagogue or any other nation under heaven.
But the bishops should have done away with all this and simply brought the Christians back to baptism with all diligence, so that they would understand what they were and what Christians had to do. But this is the only thing they do now, to lead the people away from baptism as far as possible and to sink them all into the flood of their tyranny and to make the people of Christ (as the prophet says) forget him forever. Oh how wretched are all those who are called bishops at this time, who not only do not know nor do anything that is due to bishops, but also do not know what they should know and do. And they fulfill the saying Isa. 56, 10. f. "All their watchmen are blind, they all know nothing: for the shepherds know no understanding; every one looketh to his way, every one is stingy to himself in his station."
Now the first thing that must be taken into account in baptism is the divine promise, which says: "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved." This promise is incomparably preferable to all the splendor of works, vows, spiritualities, and all that has been instituted by men. For on this promise hangs all our blessedness. But it must be taken into account in such a way that we exercise faith in it and do not doubt that we are blessed after we have been baptized. For where there is no such faith, or where it is not attained, there is no such faith.
Baptism is of no use to us, indeed it is harmful, not only at the time when we accept it, but also afterwards for the rest of our lives. For such unbelief belies the divine promise, which is the greatest sin of all. If we make this exercise of faith, we will soon understand how difficult it is to believe this divine promise. For human weakness, conscious of its sins, has the greatest difficulty in believing that it is blessed, or that it should be blessed; and yet, if it does not believe this, it cannot be blessed, because it does not believe the divine truth that promises blessedness.
This sermon should be diligently impressed upon the people, this promise should be recited without interruption, baptism should be taught again and again, and faith should be awakened and nourished in them for and for. For just as this divine promise was once pronounced upon us and remains true until death, so also our faith, which is based on it, should never be interrupted, but should be preserved and strengthened until death by the constant remembrance of this promise, which was made to us in baptism. Therefore, when we rise from sins or repent, we do nothing but return to the baptismal power and faith from which we fell, and come again to the promise made to us then [in baptism], which we had forsaken through sin. For there remains always the truth of the promise once made, . which will receive us with outstretched hands if we repent. And this opinion, if I am not mistaken, is held by those who say somewhat obscurely that baptism is the first and foundation of all sacraments, without which none of the others can be overcome.
Therefore it will serve no small purpose if he who repents remembers first of all his baptism and the divine promise he left, remembers it with confidence, holds it up to the Lord, and rejoices that he still has so much help for his salvation that he has been baptized, cursing his ungodly ingratitude for departing from the faith and truth of it.
has fallen. For his heart will be unbelievably strengthened and revived to the hope of mercy, if he considers the divine promise made to him, which cannot lie, that it is still perfect and unchanged, nor can be changed by any sin, as Paul says 2 Tim. 2, 13: "If we believe not, he abideth faithful; he cannot deny himself." This truth of God, I say, will sustain him in such a way that, if all else were to fall away, yet this promise, which he has believed, will not leave him. For through it he has that with which he can oppose the evil enemy who is rushing toward him; he has that with which he can meet the sins that trouble his conscience; he has that with which he can answer the terrifying death and judgment; he has finally that which can be a comfort to him in all temptations, namely this One Truth, that he says: "God is true in His promises, the sign of which I received in baptism: "If God is for me, who can be against me?" Rom. 8, 31.
For if the children of Israel, when they wanted to repent, remembered first of all their exit from Egypt, and thus turned to God, who had carried them out - this remembrance and this very help is so often inculcated in them by Moses, and repeated by David - how much more should we remember our departure from our Egypt, and by its remembrance return to Him who carried us out through the bath of the new birth, whose remembrance has been commanded to us for this very purpose, which can happen most perfectly in the sacrament of bread and wine. For these three sacraments, penance, baptism and bread, were performed in one office in the past, and one helped the other. Thus we read of a holy virgin who, as often as she was challenged, defended herself with baptism alone, saying in brief: I am a Christian. For the enemy soon noticed the power of baptism and of the faith that clung to the truth of the promising God, and fled from her.
So you see how rich a Christian man or a baptized man is, who, even if he wants to, does not lose his blessedness.
even with the greatest sins, unless he does not want to believe. For no sins can condemn him but unbelief alone. All other sins, when faith returns, or insists on the divine promise made to him in baptism, are swallowed up in an instant by the same faith, yes, by the truth of God. For God cannot deny Himself if you confess Him and cling to Him who promises with firm trust. But repentance and confession of sins, and after that satisfaction, as well as all other humanly devised efforts, will soon leave you in the lurch and make you more miserable if you forget the divine truth and occupy yourself with them. For it is all vain and an affliction of the Holy Spirit, everything that is done apart from your faith in the true God.
There you see at the same time how dangerous, yes, how wrong it is, if one assumes that repentance is the second plank after the shipwreck, and how it is such a shameful error, if one thinks that because of sins the power of baptism is completely gone, and this ship is shattered. There remains this One, firm and unconquerable ship, and will never be torn to pieces, in which all those are led who seek to be brought to the harbor of blessedness, that is, the truth of God, which promises something in the sacraments. It is true that many jump from the ship into the sea and perish; these are the ones who abandon faith in the promise and plunge into sin. But the ship itself remains and passes through unharmed in its course. If he can come to the ship again by grace, he will not be brought to life by any pieces, but by the whole ship. This is the one who returns to the firm and lasting promise of God through faith. Therefore Peter 2. Ep. 1, 9. punishes those who sin, that "they forget the cleansing of their former sins", where he undoubtedly punishes the ingratitude concerning the received baptism and their godless unbelief.
What is the use of writing so much about baptism and not teaching this faith in the promise? All sacraments are intended to strengthen faith, and they do not touch this faith at all, so much so that godless people even claim that a person cannot be sure of the remission of his sins or of the grace of the sacraments. By this godlessness they deceive the whole world, and not only take the sacrament of baptism, on which the most distinguished glory of our conscience stands, captive, but also eradicate it completely. In the meantime, however, they are furious against the poor souls with their repentances, anxious confessions, circumstances, amends, works and such innumerable unworthiness. Now you must read carefully, even despise the Magister of Sentences in his fourth book with all those who have written about him, who write only about the essence (materia) and the form (forma) of the sacraments, when they write best, that is, treat the dead and killing letter of the sacraments, but leave the spirit, life and benefit, that is, the truth of the divine promise and our faith completely untouched.
Therefore, see to it that the splendid works and deceptions of the statutes of men do not deceive you, so that you do not do injustice to the divine truth and your faith. From faith in the sacraments you must begin without any works, if you want to be saved. But faith is followed by works; only that you must not disregard faith, which is the most excellent and highest work among all others, through which alone you will be preserved, even if you have to renounce all others. For it is a work of God, not of man, as Paul teaches. All other works God works with us and through us; this alone He works in us and without us.
From this we can clearly see what difference there is in baptizing between the minister, who is a man, and the founder, who is God. For man baptizes and does not baptize. He baptizes, because he performs the work and immerses the baptized; he also does not baptize, because in this work he does not act on his own authority, but on the authority of God.
Instead. Therefore, we must accept baptism from the hands of a man no differently than if Christ himself, even God himself, baptized us with his own hands. For the baptism we receive at the hands of a man is not of man, but of Christ and of God. Otherwise, every other creature that we use by another's hand is God's alone. Beware, therefore, that you do not distinguish baptism in such a way that you assign the outward to man and the inward to God. Assign both to God, and consider the person of the Baptist only as an instrument in God's stead, through which the Lord, who sits in heaven, immerses you in water with his own hands and promises you forgiveness of sins on earth, and speaks to you with the voice of a man through the mouth of his servant.
This is also indicated by the words themselves, when he says: I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, Amen. He does not say, I baptize you in my name. As if he wanted to say: What I do, I do not do by my own authority, but in place of and in the name of God, so that you do not hold it differently than if God Himself had visibly done it. The founder and the servant are distinguished, but both perform one work; yes, only the founder through my service. For I believe that "in the name of" refers to the person of the founder, so that it does not only mean to invoke the name of the Lord or to call upon it in the work; but to perform the work itself, as a foreign one, in the place and in the name of another. With the same speech Christ says Matth. 24, 5: "Many will come under my name"; and Rom. 1, 5: "Through whom we have received grace and apostleship to establish the obedience of faith among all the Gentiles under his name."
I am very happy to follow this opinion, because it is very comforting and helps to strengthen the faith that we know that we are baptized, not by a man, but by the Trinity itself through a man who does the work for us in the name of the Trinity. This puts an end to the useless quarrels, since they are about the form of baptism.
(so they call the words themselves) quarrel, the Greeks saying, Let a servant of Christ be baptized, the Latins, I baptize. Likewise others, who talk with right earnestness and zeal, condemn it to be said thus: I baptize you in the name of Jesus Christ, of which it is certain that the apostles baptized according to this usage, as we read in the histories of the apostles, and want that henceforth no manner or form should apply but this: I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, Amen. But they quarrel in vain, for they prove nothing, and assert only their dreams. Baptism may be done this way or that, but if it is not done in the name of a man, but in the name of the Lord, it will surely make you blessed. Yes, I would not doubt that if someone received it in the name of the Lord, even though an ungodly servant did not give it in the name of the Lord, that he would still be truly baptized in the name of the Lord. For the power of baptism is not so much in the baptizer as in the faith and use of the baptized. As one reads an example of a buffoon who was baptized in jest. These and such fearful disputations and questions have been made by those who have attributed nothing to faith and everything to works and ceremonies, since we have nothing to thank for ceremonies, but everything to thank for faith alone, which makes us free in spirit from all these doubts and opinions.
The other thing that belongs to baptism is the sign or sacrament, that is, immersion in water, from which it gets its name. For baptizo Greek, mergo Latin, and baptisma means an immersion. For it is said that, according to the divine promises, signs are also given which signify that which the words indicate, or, as the more recent say, that the sacrament signifies powerfully. But let us see how it is. Many have thought that there is a hidden spiritual power in the words and water that works the grace of God in the soul of the one who receives them. Others contradict them and say that there is no power in the sacraments, but rather
that grace is given by God alone, who is present in the sacraments that he has instituted, according to the contract made. However, all agree that the sacraments are powerful signs of grace. They are moved to this with this single reason: Otherwise one does not see how the sacraments of the New Testament would be better than the sacraments of the Old Testament, if they only signify; and therefore they have been induced to ascribe so much to the sacraments of the New Testament, that they have pretended that they minister even to those who are in mortal sin, and that neither faith nor grace is required, but that it is enough that they do not put up a bar, that is, that they have no real intention of sinning again.
But because this is ungodly and contrary to the faith and nature of the sacraments, it must be diligently guarded against and avoided. For it is an error that the sacraments of the New Testament are distinguished from the sacraments of the Old Testament according to the power of the meaning. Both signified in the same way, for the same God who now makes us blessed through baptism and bread also made Abel blessed through the sacrifice, Noah through the rainbow, Abraham through circumcision, and the others all through his signs. Therefore, there is no difference between the sacrament of the old and new law as far as the meaning is concerned; only that which God wrought in the patriarchs and other fathers at the time of the law is called the old law. For the signs that happened in the patriarchs and fathers are very different from the examples in the Old Testament that Moses ordered in his law, as there are the priestly customs in clothes, vessels, food, houses and the like. For not only are the sacraments of the New Law very different from these, but also the signs themselves, which God ever gave to the fathers who lived under the law. The sign of Gideon on the skin [Judges 6, 37], of Manoah on the sacrifice, Cap. 13, 20, and such a sign was offered by Isaiah to Ahaz, Is. 7, 11. For in these were
At the same time something was promised, by which the faith in God was required.
In this way, then, the examples in the law are distinguished from the old and new signs, in that the latter do not have a word of promise attached to them that requires faith. Therefore they are not signs of justification, because they are not sacraments of faith that alone justify, but are only sacraments of works. For all their power and nature was works, not faith. For he who did them fulfilled them, even if he did them without faith. But ours and the fathers' signs or sacraments have a word of promise attached to them, which requires faith and cannot otherwise be fulfilled by any other work. Therefore they are signs or sacraments of justification, because they are sacraments of faith that justifies, and not of works. Therefore their whole efficacy is faith itself, and not the accomplishment [of the deed]. For he who believes them fulfills them, though he works nothing. Hence comes the saying, Not the sacrament, but the faith of the sacrament justifies. Thus circumcision did not justify Abraham and his seed, and yet the apostle calls it "a seal of the righteousness of faith." [Rom. 4:11.] For faith in the promise, to which circumcision was annexed, justified and fulfilled that which circumcision signified. For faith was a circumcision of the foreskin of the heart in the spirit, which signified the circumcision of the flesh in the letter. So the sacrifice of Abel did not justify him at all, but the faith by which he offered himself completely to God, which the outward sacrifice signified.
So also baptism justifies no one and is of no use to anyone, but faith in the word of promise, to which baptism is added. For this faith justifies and fulfills that which baptism signifies. For faith is an immersion of the old man and a coming forth of the new man. For this reason it cannot be said that the new sacraments are distinct from the old sacraments, for they have both the divine and the new sacraments.
The same promises and the same spirit of faith, although they are incomparably different from the ancient figures because of the word of promise, which is the only and powerful means of distinction. For even as at this time the splendor of the garments, the places, the food, and innumerable ceremonies undoubtedly signify excellent things to be fulfilled in the spirit, nevertheless, because no word of divine promise is involved, they can in no way be compared to the signs of baptism and bread, neither do they justify, nor are they of any use, because their fulfillment is the custom or performance (opus) of them without faith, for in being done or performed they are fulfilled. The apostle also speaks of them in this way Col. 2, 22: "which is all consumed under hands, and is the commandment and doctrine of men" etc. But the sacraments are not fulfilled when they are performed, but when they are believed.
So it cannot be true that in the sacraments there is a powerful power of justification, or that they are powerful signs of grace. For all this is said to the detriment of faith, out of ignorance of the divine promise, unless they were called powerful in such a way that, when there is undoubted faith, they then certainly and powerfully give grace. But they do not prove that they are considered powerful in this way, because they say that they are also useful to all ungodly and unbelievers, as long as they themselves do not put up a bar, just as if unbelief itself were not the most stubborn, hostile bar against the grace of God. That is how much they have tried to make a commandment out of the Sacrament and a work out of faith. For if the Sacrament gives me grace because I receive it, then in truth I receive grace from my work, and not from faith, nor do I take hold of the promise in the Sacrament, but only of the sign which is instituted and commanded by God. There you see clearly how the sacraments were not understood at all by the theologians who wrote the sentences (sententionariis), because they did not understand faith or the promise in the sacraments.
They did not take into account the meaning of the sacraments at all, but only hung on the sign and the use of the sign, and drew us from faith to the work, and from the word to the sign. For this reason (as I have said) they have not only taken the sacraments captive, but have completely taken away as much as was in them.
We should therefore open our eyes and learn to pay more attention to the word than to the sign, more to faith than to the work or the use of the sign, and know that where God's promise is, faith is required, and that both are so necessary that neither can be strong without the other. For nothing can be believed unless there is a promise, and neither is the promise strengthened unless it is believed: but when both are mutually present, it gives the sacraments a true and very certain power. Therefore, to seek the power of the sacrament without the promise and faith is to labor in vain and to find damnation. Thus Christ says Marc. 16, 16: "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." He thus indicates that faith in the sacrament is so necessary that it can also make one blessed without the sacrament. Therefore, he did not want to add whoever does not believe and is not baptized.
Therefore, baptism means two things, death and resurrection, that is, a perfect and complete justification. For the fact that the minister dips the child into the water means death, but that he takes it out again means life. Thus Paul interprets it Rom. 6:4: "We are buried with Christ through baptism into death, that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life." This death and resurrection we call a new creature, a rebirth, and a spiritual birth, which must not be understood merely in a vague way from the death of sin and from the life of grace, as many tend to do, but from the true death and from the true resurrection. For baptism is not a fictitious meaning. So dies
Neither does sin, nor does grace fully arise until the body of sin that we carry in this life is destroyed, as St. Paul speaks there. For as long as we are in the flesh, the desires of the flesh move and are moved. Therefore, as we begin to believe, we begin at the same time to die to this world and live to God in the life to come, so that faith is properly and truly a death and resurrection, that is, that spiritual baptism in which we are immersed and come forth again.
Now that the washing away of sins is attributed to baptism, it is indeed attributed to it, but the meaning is altogether too dull and weak that it does not properly express baptism, which is rather a symbol of death and resurrection. For this reason I am moved to want those who are to be baptized to be completely immersed in the water, as the word means, and the mystery. Not that I consider it necessary, but that it would be nice if such a perfect thing were also given a perfect sign, as it was undoubtedly instituted by Christ. For the sinner is not both to be washed away and to die, that he may be wholly regenerated into another creature, and that he may be conformed to the death and resurrection of Christ, with whom he dies and rises again by baptism. For though Christ may be said to have been washed away from mortality by dying and rising again, yet it would not be so freshly spoken as to say, He is wholly changed and renewed. Thus it is said more strongly that by baptism we are meant to die completely and rise again to eternal life, than when it is said that we are washed away from sins.
Here again you see that the sacrament of baptism, even if it is a sign, is not a passing trade, but a lasting one. For though its use soon passeth away, yet that which is signified thereby remaineth unto death, yea, unto the resurrection at the last day. For as long as we are alive, we are always doing the
That which baptism means is that we die and rise. We die, I say, not only in the mind and spiritually, renouncing the sins and vanities of the world, but in fact we begin to leave this bodily life and take hold of the life to come: so that it is therefore a real (realis, as they say) and also bodily transition from this world to the Father.
Therefore, we should beware of those who have made the power of baptism so small and insignificant that they say that grace is indeed poured out in baptism, but afterwards it is poured out through sin, and then one must go to heaven by another way, just as if baptism had already been completely destroyed. You must not accept this opinion, but understand the meaning of baptism in such a way that you die and live by it, and therefore cannot come back by repentance or any other way, but only by the power of baptism and do anew what you were baptized to do and what your baptism means. Your baptism will never be destroyed, unless you desperately do not want to come back to your salvation. You can go away from the sign for a while, but the sign is not destroyed. Thus you are once baptized sacramentally, but you must always be baptized by faith, always die and always live. Baptism swallowed up the whole body and gave it out again, so also the power of baptism (res baptismi) should swallow up your whole life with body and soul and give it out again on the last day, clothed with the robe of clarity and immortality. Thus we are never without the power and without the sign of baptism, but rather must always be baptized more and more, until we fully fulfill the sign on the last day.
So you see that everything we do in this life that serves to kill the flesh and make the spirit alive belongs to baptism and that the shorter we live, the more quickly we fulfill our baptism, and the more difficult we suffer, the more blissfully we are conformed to our baptism. That is why the church is the most blissful church at that time.
The most blessed, when the martyrs were killed daily and respected like sheep for slaughter. For at that time the power of baptism reigned in the church with full force, which we now do not recognize at all before the multitude of works and doctrines of men. For everything we live should be baptism and fulfill the sign or sacrament of baptism, because, freed from everything else, we are devoted to baptism alone, that is, to death and resurrection.
Now that this glory of our freedom and this science of baptism is caught at this time, to whom can we thank it but to the tyranny of the Roman bishop alone? While he, as it seems to the chief shepherd, should have been above all others a preacher and assertor of this freedom and science, as Paul says, 1 Cor. 4:1: "For this every man hold us, that is, for Christ's ministers and stewards of God's mysteries," he alone deals with it, that by his decrees and rights he oppresses and entraps captives under his tyrannical power. I ask you, by what right (that I do not say how ungodly and damningly he refrains from teaching these mysteries) does the pope legislate over us? Who has given him the power to take away this freedom of ours, which has been given to us through baptism? One thing, as I have said, is made our duty, that we should perform it in our whole life, that we should be baptized, that is, killed, and live by faith in Christ, which [faith] also should have been taught alone, especially by the chief shepherd. But now that faith has been concealed, by innumerable laws of works and ceremonies the church has been destroyed, the power and knowledge of baptism taken away, and faith in Christ prevented.
Therefore I say, neither the pope, nor a bishop, nor any man, has power to order a syllable over a Christian man, unless it be by his will; and what is done otherwise is done by a tyrannical spirit. Therefore the prayers, fasts, gifts, and everything that the pope has set and demanded in all his many and unjust decrees, he has demanded and set and demanded without any right.
so often sins against the freedom of the church, as often as he subverts one of them. Hence it has come about that today's clergy are indeed busy protectors of the freedom of the church, that is, of the stones, the wood, the fields and interest, for in such a way the church goods (ecclesiastica) are now being haggled for spiritual goods (spiritualia), but with the very same fictitious words they not only take captive the true freedom of the church, but they subvert it completely, even more than the Turk, against the apostle who says: "Do not become servants of men" [1 Cor. 7, 23.]. For that is rightly called becoming the servants of men, when one allows himself to be subjected to their tyrannical statutes and laws.
The disciples of the pope help and strengthen this godless and cursed tyranny, and turn and pervert the words of Christ: "He who hears you hears me" [Luc. 10, 16]. For this word they puff up with full cheeks for the support of their traditions, since Christ said this to the apostles when they went to preach the gospel, and it is to be drawn on the gospel alone. But they leave the gospel alone and apply it only to their fables. For Christ says John 10:27, 5: "My sheep hear my voice, but the voice of the stranger they hear not." Therefore the gospel was left, that the bishops might make the voice of Christ sound; but they make their voices sound, and they only wish to be heard. The apostle also says, 1 Cor. 1, 17: "He was not sent to baptize, but to preach the gospel", therefore no one is bound to the statutes of the pope, nor is he to be heard except when he teaches the gospel and Christ. He should not teach anything else than completely free faith. But since Christ says, "He who hears you hears me," why does not the pope also hear others? For he does not say to Peter alone, "He who hears you. Finally, where there is true faith, there must also necessarily be the word of faith. Why then does an unbelieving pope not at times hear his believing servant who has the word of faith? Blindness, blindness reigns in the popes.
Others, however, who are even more insolent, attribute to the pope the power to give laws out of what is written in Matth. 16, 19: "All that you will bind" etc., since Christ is there talking about sins, to bind and loose them, not how to imprison the whole church and suppress it with laws. So this tyranny does everything with its fictitious words, twisting and perverting God's word by force. This I admit, that the Christians should tolerate this cursed tyranny, like any other coercion of this world, according to what Christ says: "If someone gives you a stroke from your right cheek, offer him also the left one" [Matth. 5, 39.]. But this I deplore, that the godless popes boast that they can do this rightly, and presume to advise Christianity with this Babylon of theirs, and also teach this opinion to everyone. If they did this in the knowledge that it was ungodly and tyrannical, or that we suffered their violence, we could safely count it among the things that are useful to us to kill this life and fulfill our baptism, and our consciences would remain clear for us to boast that we had been wronged. But now they want the conscience of our freedom to be so entangled that we should believe that what they do is well done, and that it should not be punished, or complain that wrong has been done. And since they are wolves, they still want to be considered shepherds; since they are antichrists, they want to be honored in Christ's stead. Only for this freedom and conscience do I cry out, and cry out confidently:
By no right can any law be laid upon Christians, either by men or by angels, except as much as they will; for we are free from all. If something is imposed, it must be carried in such a way that the conscience of freedom remains unharmed, which knows and may say with certainty that violence is done to it, which it tolerates with glory, and is careful not to speak right to the tyrant, nor to murmur against tyranny. "For who is" (says St. Peter) "that could harm you, if you follow what is good?" [1 Pet. 3, 13.] "To the elect all things must be for the best" [Rom. 8, 28.]. The
but because few know this glory of baptism and Christian liberty bliss, nor can know it before the tyranny of the pope, I will here unchain myself and free my conscience, and accuse the pope and all papists: That unless they do away with their laws and statutes, and restore and procure for the churches of Christ their liberty to be taught, they are guilty of all the souls that perish through this miserable captivity, and that the papacy is truly nothing but the kingdom of Babylon and of the true Antichrist. For who is "the man of sins, and the child of perdition" [2 Thess. 2, 3.], but he who by his doctrines and shameful statutes increases the sins and perdition of souls in the church, and yet sits in the church as a god? But all these things have been superfluously fulfilled for many centuries by the papal tyranny, which has eradicated the faith, darkened the sacraments, suppressed the gospel, but has commanded its laws, which are not only godless and unspiritual, but also barbarous and very unlearned, and has increased them without end.
Therefore, behold the misery of our captivity, "How lies the city so desolate, which was full of people? She is a widow. She who was a princess among the nations and a queen in the lands must now serve. There is no one among all her friends to comfort her; all her neighbors despise her" [Klagel. 1, 1. 2.]. There are so many orders, so many customs, so many sects and so many spiritual professions, so many efforts, so many works, with which today's Christians strive, that they forget their baptism, and before so many locusts, caterpillars and beetles no one can remember that he was baptized, or what he obtained in baptism. For we should be like the little baptized children, who handle with no efforts and with no works, but are free in all things, secure and blessed through glorious baptism alone. For we too are children in Christ, always being baptized.
Perhaps my above words would like to be contrasted with the baptism of little children, who do not understand the promise of God, nor can they have the faith of baptism.
72 L- v-V, 7i f- 69. Of the Babylonian captivity of the church. W. xix, 87-90. 73
Therefore, either faith would not be required, or the children would be baptized in vain. Here I say what all say, that the little children are helped by the strange faith of those who bring them to baptism. For just as the word of God, when it is heard, is powerful, so that it can change even the heart of an ungodly man, who is no less deaf and incapable than any little child: so also through the prayer of the church, which the child presents and believes, to whom all things are possible, the little child is changed, cleansed and renewed by the infused faith. I would not doubt that not even an adult godless, if the Church prayed and presented him to God, could be changed in any sacrament; as we read of the gout-ridden man in the Gospel, who was made well by other people's faith [Matth. 9, 2.]. And for this reason I would gladly allow the sacraments of the New Testament to be powerful in giving grace, not only to those who do not put up a bar, but also to those who quite obstinately put up a bar. For what should the faith of the church and a believing prayer not take away, since it is held that St. Stephen converted Paul the Apostle by this power? But then the sacraments do not do this by their own power, but by the power of faith, which they do, without which, as I have said, they do nothing at all.
It is also asked whether a child that has not yet been born can be baptized if it stretches out a hand or foot from the mother's womb? Here I judge nothing imprudently and confess my ignorance. And I do not know whether that is enough, what they have as a basis, namely, that the soul would be completely in each part of the body. For it is not the soul but the body that is baptized with water by heart. I also do not want to judge that they say he cannot be born again who has not yet been born, although this is a very strong reason. Therefore I leave this to the teaching (magisterio) of the Spirit, and in the meantime leave each one to his own thoughts.
One thing I add here, and would to God that I could persuade everyone of it, namely,
That all vows be entirely abolished or avoided, whether they be vows to become spiritual, or to make a pilgrimage, or to perform other works, and that we remain in the most spiritual and operatic freedom of baptism. It cannot be said how much is taken away from baptism and how much the right knowledge of Christian freedom is obscured by the conceit of vows, which is now all too widespread to be silent about the unspeakable, innumerable dangers to souls, which the desire to vow and rash imprudence daily increase. O you nefarious popes and unholy shepherds, who surely snore and lust in your lusts, and care nothing for the great and very dangerous harm of Joseph! [Amos 6:6.]
Here, all vows should either be annulled with a common prohibition, especially the perpetual ones, and everyone should be directed back to the vows of baptism, or diligently admonished that no one would want to vow something rashly, that no one should be tempted to vow, and that one should be hard and slow to admit the vows. For we have vowed superfluously enough in baptism, and more than we can fulfill, and will have enough to do if we were intent only on this One Vow. But now we "move about water and land to make many fellow Jews" [Matth. 23, 15.], we fill the world with priests, monks and nuns, and these all we imprison with perpetual vows. Here we find people disputing and pretending that a work done in vows is more excellent than a work done apart from and without a vow, and I do not know with what greater rewards in heaven it should be preferred to others. O the blind and godless Pharisees, who measure righteousness and holiness by the greatness and quantity of works and other qualities, which with God are measured by faith alone, in which there is no difference of works, except in so far as there is a difference of faith.
With these pompous words of theirs, these godless people provide an appendix to their inventions, and make the works of
of men great, in order to attract the ignorant rabble, who are led only by the appearance of works, to the great detriment of the faith, to the forgetfulness of baptism and to the harm of Christian freedom. For since a vow is a kind of law and a compulsion, when the vows are increased, the laws and works are necessarily also increased; but when these are increased, faith is destroyed and the freedom of baptism is taken captive. Not content with this ungodly flattery, some add that entrance into a religious order is, as it were, a new baptism, which may be renewed as often as the resolution to enter the order is repeated anew. 1) Thus these people who deal in vows have appropriated to themselves alone righteousness, blessedness, and glory; to the baptized they have left nothing at all by which they can be compared with them. The Roman bishop, the source and originator of all superstition, now confirms, approves, and adorns these ways of life with splendid bulls and liberties, but no one dignifies baptism with even a mention. And with this apparent pomp, as I have said, they drive the willing people of Christ wherever they please, so that, as ingrates against their baptism, they presume to do better with their works than others do with their faith.
That is why God, who is again wicked with the wicked [Ps. 18, 27.], and wants to avenge the ingratitude and arrogance of those who deal with vows, that they do not keep their vows, or keep them with great difficulty, and remain engrossed in their vows and never recognize the grace of faith and baptism, and because their spirit does not trust in God, constantly persist in their gilding, and in the end are a mockery to the whole world, always pursuing righteousness and yet never coming to righteousness, so that they fulfill the words Isa. 2, 8: "The land is full of idols.
1) I.e., if one repents of having entered the monastery, he should renew the resolution and accept it, and the new resolution would be as good for him as if he had been baptized anew. Cf. Walch, St. Louis Edition, Vol. XII, 1137 f" § 19.
However, I do not want to forbid or resist if someone secretly wants to vow something of his own free will, so that I do not even despise or condemn the vows. But that a public way of life should be made and confirmed out of it, I completely deny. It is enough that everyone is allowed to make vows for himself, at his own risk; but that a public way of living in vows to be made should be praised, I think it is harmful to the church and to simple people. First of all, because it is not a little contrary to the Christian life, because a vow is, so to speak, an external law and a human statute and presumption, from which the church is freed by baptism. For a Christian is not bound by any law except the divine. Furthermore, because the vow especially of chastity, obedience and constant poverty has no example in Scripture. But what has no example in Scripture is dangerous, and should by no means be advised to anyone, much less be considered a common and public way of life, although each one may be left to do as he pleases at his own peril. For some works the Spirit works in a few, who are by no means to be attracted to an example or to a common way of life.
But I am also very concerned that such ways of putting life under monastic vows will be among the number of those prophesied by the apostle: There will be false speakers in the gypsophone, who forbid to become married and to avoid the food that God has created to take with thanksgiving [1 Tim. 4, 2. f.]. Let no one hold St. Bernard, Franciscus, Dominic and similar religious founders or multipliers against me. For God is terrifying and wonderful in His counsels over the children of men. He could have preserved Daniel, Ananias, Azariah and Mishael in the administration of the Babylonian kingdom (that is, in the midst of ungodliness); why could He not have sanctified them in a dangerous way of life or governed them with a special work of the spirit, which He did not want to be an example to others? And it is certain that their
no one is saved by his vows or spiritual orders, but only by faith, through which we are all saved. This seemingly beautiful bondage of vows is the most vehement argument against it.
But let each one of you indulge in his own thoughts here; I will continue with what I have begun with. Because I now want to speak for the freedom of the church and for the price of baptism, I must share the advice I have learned through the instruction of the Holy Spirit. Therefore I counsel first of all the rulers (magnatibus) of the churches that they annul all these vows or ways of life of those who have made vows, or neither approve nor exalt them, or, if they would not do so, I counsel all who wish to be the more surely saved, that they abstain from all vows, and most of all from the great and constant ones, especially young men and youths. This I advise first, because such a life, as I have said, has no testimony nor example in Scripture, but has been blown up only by men, popes, bulls, even real bulls or water bladders. After that, because it is inclined to glitter because of its beautiful appearance and peculiarity, hopefulness and contempt for the common Christian life grows out of it. And if there were no other reason for abolishing such vows, this alone would have weight enough, that by them much is taken away from faith and baptism, and works are made great, which cannot be made great without harm, for among many thousands there is hardly one who does not hold works in the orders in higher esteem than faith. Through this frenzy, one wants to be better than the other, as if some had to live harder, the others not so hard (strictiores et laxiores), as they speak.
Therefore, I do not advise anyone, indeed I discourage anyone, to enter a religious order or priesthood unless he is equipped with such knowledge that he understands that the works of religious and priests, however holy and high they may be, are not at all different in the sight of God from the works of a peasant who works on the land.
or of a woman who waits on her household; but that all things be esteemed before God according to faith, as it is said in Jer. 5:3: "O Lord, thine eyes do see according to faith." And Sirach 33:27: "What you undertake, trust in God with all your heart, for this is God's commandment kept." Yes, it often happens that a domestic and minor work of a servant or a maid is more pleasing than all the fasting and all the works of a religious and the priests, for lack of faith. Since it is therefore probable that nowadays the vows only serve to make the works praiseworthy and to make one more presumptuous, it is to be feared that nowhere is there less of the faith and of the church than precisely in the priests, monks and bishops, and that they are the true pagans and hypocrites who consider themselves to be the church or the heart of the church, likewise spiritual people and regents of the church, since they are nothing less than that; and [it is to be supposed that] the common Christian people are the right people, who have been led into Babylonian captivity, where all that was freely given to us in baptism has been taken captive; and a few and poor country people have been left, who, as it happens to the married people, appear very little in their sight.
From this we see two outstanding errors of the Roman bishop. The first is that he dispenses with the vows and acts as if he alone had this authority over all Christians. So great is the wickedness and boldness of the wicked. For if a vow can be dispensed with, every brother can also make this dispensation with his neighbor, and he with himself. But if the neighbor cannot dispense, then the pope cannot dispense with any right. For from where does he have this power? From the keys? But these are common to all, and apply only to sins, Matt. 18. But since they themselves confess that the vows are divine right, what then does the pope deceive and corrupt the wretched souls by dispensing in divine right, in which he does not allow himself to be dispensed? In the title of the vows and the dissolution of the vows, he cackles that he does not want the vows to be dissolved.
The first birth of an ass could be solved with a sheep, just as in the old law of old. Just as if the first birth of an ass and a vow were one and the same, of which he so constantly requires that it must be performed, or if the Lord decrees in his law that a sheep can be given for an ass, so also a man, the pope, would like to have the same power in the law, which is not his but God's. The same is true for the vow. If the Lord decrees in his law that a sheep can be given for a donkey, then a man, the pope, would have the same authority in the law, which is not his but God's. This decree was not made by the pope, but by an ass substituted for the pope; so extraordinarily foolish and godless is he.
The other error is that he decrees to break up the marriage if one [of the spouses] enters a monastery, even without the will of the other, if the marriage has not yet been consummated by conjugal cohabitation. Dear, what devil blows such monstrous things into the head of the pope? God commands man to keep the pledge, and one to take care of the truth against the other. After that, God commands that each one of his own should do good, for "he hates predatory burnt offerings," as he speaks through Isaiah [Cap. 61, 8]. Now a husband owes the other a promise to keep because of the contract, and is not his own. He cannot cancel such a promise with any right, and what he does of his own, he does of the robbery, against the will of the other. Or why does not someone who is overburdened with debts, according to this rule, enter a religious order and be admitted, so that he may be relieved of his debts, and thus be allowed to deny faithfulness and good faith (fidem)? O blind men! you blind men! Which is greater: to keep the fidelity commanded by God, or the vow invented and chosen by a man? You Pabst are a shepherd of souls? and you are teachers of the holy teachings of God, who teach this? But for what reasons do you teach this way? Because you honor vows more than marriage. But not faith, which alone makes everything great, but works, which are nothing before God, or are all equal as far as merit is concerned.
Therefore, I do not doubt, there can be in the
I am not sure yet whether all the things that are vowed nowadays belong to the vows. But I am not yet quite sure myself whether all these things belong to the vows that are vowed nowadays. Such is the strangely ridiculous and foolish vow that parents pledge their unborn or even young child to a religious order or to constant chastity, since it is certain that this does not belong under any vows. And it seems to be a mockery of God, in that they vow things that are not in their power at all. I come to the religious, whose three vows I understand all the less the more I look at them, and I wonder where this sharp requirement of vows came from. And I understand that even less, in which year of age such vows can happen, so that they are lawful and valid. I like that they all agree that before the years of manhood their vows are invalid, although they deceive a large part of the children here, who do not know their age as well as the thing they vow. For in the case of those who are to be admitted, they do not take into account the years of manhood, imprisoning and devouring those who have taken the vow (professos) with a terrible conscience, as if the consent had been given later, as if the vow, which in itself was void, would finally become valid with time.
But this seems foolish to me, that a certain time should be set by others for the lawful vow of another, who cannot set the time for himself. Nor do I see why a vow made in the eighteenth year should be valid, but not that made in the tenth or twelfth. Nor does he satisfy me [who would say] that in the eighteenth year man feels his carnal desire. How if he hardly felt it in the twentieth or thirtieth year, or perhaps felt it more strongly in the thirtieth than in the twentieth? Or why don't you set a certain time for poverty and obedience? But what time will you determine, in which he should become aware that he is miserly or hopeful? For even the most spiritual notice
these impulses hardly in themselves. Therefore, no vow will be certain and legitimate until we have become spiritual and no longer need vows. So you see that these things are uncertain and very dangerous. Therefore it would be a salutary counsel if such high kinds of life, freed from vows, were left to the spirit alone, as they have been for ages, and not at all changed into the kind of a steady life. And this be enough of baptism and its freedom for the time being. In due time, I will perhaps speak more extensively of the vows, as it would be very necessary to treat them in detail.
Of the Sacrament of Penance.
Thirdly, the sacrament of penance is to be discussed here. In this matter, I have already enraged many through several tracts and disputations that I have published, and I have amply explained what my opinion of it is. Now I want to repeat recently in order to reveal the tyranny that has become no less prevalent here than in the Sacrament of Bread. For in these two sacraments, since profit and greed for money prevail, the avarice of the shepherds has raged unbelievably against the sheep of Christ. However, as we have already seen in the case of the vows, baptism, too, in order that avarice might be served, has miserably perished in adults.
The first and the main evil in this sacrament is that this sacrament has been completely taken away by them, so that nothing of it has remained. For since it also, like the other two sacraments, consists of the word of the divine promise and our faith, they have thrown both overboard. For the word of promise, when Christ says Matth. 16, 19: "All that you will bind" etc. and Cap. 18, 18: "All that you will bind" and Joh. 20, 23: "Whose soever sins you remit, they are remitted to them" etc., by which words the faith of those who repent is awakened to obtain the remission of sins, they have used for the purpose of their tyranny. For in all their books, doctrines
In their sermons and lectures they did not try to teach what was promised to the Christians in these words, what they should believe and what comfort they had, but how wide, how far, how deep they could drive their tyranny with their power and authority, until finally some began to command even the angels in heaven, and boast with unbelievable and furious godlessness that with these words they had received the authority to rule in heaven and on earth, also the authority to bind in heaven. So they teach nothing at all about the salvific faith of the people, but they talk all about the tyrannical power of the popes, since Christ deals nothing with power, but everything with faith.
For Christ has not ordained kingdoms, not powers, not dominions, but ministries in His Church. As we have learned from the apostle, who says: "For this purpose let us all be servants and stewards of the mysteries of God for Christ" [1 Cor. 4:1]. Therefore, just as in the place where he says, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved," he has awakened the faith of those who are to be baptized, so that by this word of promise a man may be sure, when he is baptized and believes, that he will be saved, where no authority has been given at all, but only a ministry has been ordained for those who baptize; so also here, where he says, "All that thou shalt bind," 2c, he awakens the faith of the penitent, so that by this word he may be sure of the promise when he is delivered, and may believe that he is also truly delivered in heaven, where nothing at all is spoken of violence, but of the ministry of him who redeems. And it is to be wondered at what must have happened to blind and trusting men that they did not also draw tyranny to themselves from the promise of baptism, or, because they did not arrogate the same to themselves from baptism, why they might have undertaken it in the promise of repentance, since in both places there is the same service, the same promise, and the same nature of the sacrament, so that it cannot be denied that, if baptism is not solely for the
Peter, even the keys with godless tyranny are assigned to the pope alone.
Likewise, when he breaks: "Take, this is my body, which is given for you; this is the cup in my blood," etc., he awakens the faith of those who eat, so that, with these words their consciences being fortified by faith, they may be sure that they will receive forgiveness of sins when they eat. And here no violence is thought of, but only of service. But the promise of baptism has at least remained for the underage children; the promise of the bread and the cup has expired and changed into a servitude of avarice, and faith has become a work and the testament a sacrifice. The promise of atonement has been transformed into a very cruel tyranny, and it must be considered more than a worldly rule.
Our Babylon was not satisfied with this. She also eradicated faith so completely that she insolently denied that faith was necessary in this sacrament; indeed, out of anti-Christian godlessness, she declared it a heresy if anyone claimed that faith was necessary in this sacrament. What more has this tyranny done, and has it not done? "We sit right by the waters of Babel, and weep when we remember Zion. Our harps we hang upon the willows that are within" [Ps. 137:1, 2]. God curse these barren pastures of these rivers, Amen. Now that the promise and faith have been darkened and overturned, let us see what they have put in their place. They have given three parts to repentance: repentance, confession, and atonement; but they have taken away from each what was good in it, and have put their will and tyranny into it.
First of all, they taught repentance in such a way that they preferred it far above faith in the promise and considered it far better 1) because it was not a work of faith but a work of faith.
1) We have adopted the reading of the Jena edition, meliorsm, instead of viliorsm in the Erlangen edition.
merit. Yes, they do not even remember faith. For so they have been attached to works and to the examples of the Scriptures, in which it is read that many have obtained forgiveness because of their heart's repentance and humiliation. But they did not pay attention to the faith that worked such repentance and pain of heart, as it is written about the Ninevites, Jonah 3, 5: "The people of Nineveh believed in God, and preached that one should fast" etc. Those who are even bolder and angrier than these have invented a kind of half repentance (attritionem), which by the power of the keys (which they do not know) becomes a true repentance. This half repentance (attritionem) they give to the wicked and unbelievers, so that the whole repentance may be taken away. O of the unbearable wrath of God! Should this be taught in the Church of God? Now that faith and its work is done, we walk safely in the teachings and opinions of men, and we perish in them. It is a great thing about a broken heart, and this comes only from the faith that is kindled against the promise and the threat of God. [It is this faith that looks at the immovable truth of God, trembles, frightens, and so contriteizes the conscience, and again elevates and comforts, and sustains the contrite [conscience], so that the truth of the threat of God is the cause of the new, and the truth of the promise is the cause of comfort, if one believes, and man obtains forgiveness of sins through this faith. For this reason, faith should be taught and awakened above all things. But when faith has been obtained, repentance and consolation will infallibly follow of their own accord.
Therefore, although these teach something that (as they call it) from the collection (collectu) and contemplation of their sins they teach to procure a repentance, yet they teach dangerously and unjustly, in that they do not first teach the causes and the beginning of repentance, namely, the immovable truth of the divine threat and promise, in order to awaken faith, so that they may understand how they can with greater difficulty accept the divine truth, by which they are humbled and exalted.
than the multitude of their sins, which, if they are considered without the truth of God, will rather stimulate and increase the desire to sin than to cause repentance. I mention here the insurmountable amount of burdens they have laid upon us, namely, that we should bring forth repentance for all sins, since this is impossible, and we can know the least part of the sins, yes, even the good works are found to be sins, as Ps. 143, 2. is written: "Lord, do not enter into judgment with your servant, for before you no living man is righteous." For it is enough that we repent of the sins which trouble us in our conscience, and which are easily recalled in our memory. For he who is thus frightened is undoubtedly ready to repent and fear all sins, and will repent and fear them where they will be revealed to him in the future.
Therefore, beware that you do not trust in your repentance or attribute the remission of sins to your pain. For God does not look upon you for this, but for your faith, by which you believed His threatenings and promises, which wrought in you such sorrow; and therefore that which is good in repentance shall not be imputed to your diligence in gathering up your sins, but to the truth of God and to our faith. All other things are works and fruits that follow of themselves, and do not make a good man, but happen to one who has already become good through faith in the truth of God. "Vapor went up from his nose, and consuming fire from his mouth; the foundations of the mountains stirred, and trembled, because he was angry," as it is said Ps. 18, 9. 8. The former is the terror of the threat that sets the wicked on fire; now when faith receives this terror, repentance goes up from it like a vapor etc.
But repentance has been exposed not so much to tyranny and greed for gain as to godlessness and pernicious doctrines. Confession and atonement, however, are excellent workshops of profit.
and violence. First of all, confession. There is no doubt that confession of sins is necessary and commanded by God Matth. 3, 6: "They were baptized by John in the Jordan and confessed their sins. 1 John 1:9, 10: "If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins. If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us." For if it is not fitting for the saints to deny their sins, how much more should those confess their sins who are afflicted with public and great sins! But the confession made is most powerfully proved in Matt. 18:15 ff, where Christ teaches to punish the brother who sins against you, to denounce and accuse him to the congregation; and if he will not hear, to cast him out of the congregation. For then he will hear, if he will acknowledge and confess his sins and willingly submit to the punishment.
But the secret confession, which is now in use, although it cannot be proved from Scripture, is wonderfully pleasing to me, and is also useful, indeed, necessary; and I would not wish it not to be, but rejoice that it is in the church of Christ, since it is an immense help to troubled consciences. For when our conscience is thus exposed to our brother and the evil that lay hidden is secretly revealed, we receive a word of comfort from the mouth of our brother, spoken by God; if we accept this with faith, we obtain peace in the mercy of God, who speaks to us through the brother. But I detest the fact that such confession has been turned into a tyranny and money-grubbing of the popes. For they also reserve secret sins for themselves and then command them to be revealed to some confessors whom they have appointed for this purpose, namely, to torment the consciences of men; they only want to be bishops; the true works that are due to bishops, such as preaching the gospel and caring for the poor, are completely despised by them. Yes, these godless tyrants reserve for themselves mainly the sins that have less on them, but the great sins-
86 L. v. L. v, W-84. xIII Luther's dispute with Henry VIII. W. xix, ios-iv8. 87
They leave it to the common priests everywhere. Such are the ridiculous and fictitious pieces in the Bull of the Lord's Supper (coenae Domini). Yes, in order that the ungodliness of their perverse nature may become all the more evident, they not only do not reserve, but also teach and approve what goes against the honor of God, against the faith and the first commandments. These are pilgrimages, perverse veneration of the saints, false legends of the saints, and various reliance on and practice of works and ceremonies. Through all this, the faith of God is eradicated and idolatry is cultivated, as is happening today, so that we now have no other bishops than Jeroboam of old appointed in Dau and Bersaba, servants of the golden calves, who do not know the law of God, the faith and what belongs to the pasture of Christ's sheep, but only impose their imaginary works on the people with fear and violence.
Although I advise that one should suffer this power of reserved cases, just as Christ also commanded to suffer all tyranny, and taught us to be obedient to these money grubbers: nevertheless I do not admit that they have such power of reservation, nor do I believe that they can prove it with a bag or a letter. But I will prove the opposite. First, when Christ says Matth. 18, 15. says of public sins that we have won our brother's soul when he is punished and hears us, and that it is not necessary to report him to the church, because he does not want to hear us, and so the sin among the brothers can be corrected, how much more will this be true of secret sins, that they are taken away when one brother has willingly confessed the sin to another, that it is not necessary to tell the church, that is, the prelates or priests (as they talk and interpret). About this opinion we have another proven saying of Christ, who says Matth. 18, 18: "What you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and what you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." This is true for all and for every single Christian-
He also speaks again in reference to the same thing, v. 19: "Further I say unto you: If two of you become one on earth, why it is that they desire to ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven." But a brother who opens his secrecy to another and desires forgiveness truly becomes one on earth with his brother in the truth that is Christ. Christ speaks of this even more clearly, confirming his words v. 20: "Verily, verily, I say unto you, where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them."
Therefore I do not doubt that he is absolved from his secret sins who either confesses them voluntarily or, if he has been punished for them, has sought forgiveness and has reformed, before every brother in particular (privately), regardless of what the popes rage against with their power, because Christ has clearly given every believer the power to absolve. Add another small reason: if any reservation should apply to hidden sins, that without their remission no one would be saved, then most of all the things I mentioned above, yes, even the good works and idolatry that the popes teach us today, would hinder salvation. If the most difficult ones do not hinder, how much less should the easier ones be reserved in such an exceedingly foolish way? But the ignorant and blind shepherds cause these adventurous things in the church. Therefore I would exhort these princes of Babylon and bishops of Bethaven to restrain themselves in reserving any cases of sins, and then to freely allow all brothers and sisters to hear the confession of secret sins, so that the sinner may reveal his sin to whom he wishes, if he desires forgiveness and consolation, that is, the word of Christ from the mouth of his neighbor. For they aim at nothing else by such an outrage than to entrap the consciences of the weak without cause, to confirm their nefarious tyranny and to satisfy their avarice from the sins and the ruin of their brethren.
For in this way they stain their hands with the blood of souls, and the children are swallowed up by their parents, and Ephraim swallows up Judah, and Syria Israel with an open mouth, as Isaiah says.
To these evil things they have added circumstances, as well as mothers, sisters, daughters, brothers-in-law, branches and fruits of sins; for all this is invented by shrewd and idle people, who have also made in sins a kind of tree of kinship and affinity; so fruitful is godlessness and ignorance. For this their fiction (be it what it will) has become a common law, as well as many others. For so the shepherds watch over the church of Christ, that they adorn with indulgences and confirm with bulls all that which these most foolish holy people (devotariis) have dreamed of superstition or new works, as soon as it has come to light. So much is lacking that they should instill the right faith in the people of God and preserve their freedom, for what kind of fellowship does freedom have with Babylonian tyranny?
But I advise to completely despise all circumstances of sins. With Christians, there is only One circumstance, which is that the brother has sinned. For no person can be compared to the Christian brotherhood, and the observation of the circumstances of the place, time, days, persons, or any other such pompous superstition, does nothing but magnify the things that are nothing, to the detriment of those that are everything, as if something more excellent and greater would be than the dignity of the Christian brotherhood. Thus they bind us to places, days, and persons, that thereby the esteem (opinio) of the fraternal name may be destroyed, and that we may serve captivity instead of liberty, we to whom all days, places, persons, and what is external, are alike.
I have said more than necessary in the trade of indulgences, which they have greatly abused to corrupt the Christians in body and soul, about how clumsily they have taught about it. First of all, they have so
that the people could never understand true satisfaction, which is a renewal of life. After this they continue and make it so necessary that they leave no room for faith in Christ, and with doubt they torture the consciences of the people quite miserably, so that one runs to Rome, one here, another there, this one to the Carthusian, that one to another place; one scourges himself with ruts, another kills his body with fasting and vigil; but with one and the same nonsense they all speak: Behold, here is Christ, there is Christ, and the kingdom of God, which is within us, and suppose that it shall come by their observances (observationibus). What monstrosities, O Roman See, we owe to you and your murderous laws and customs, with which you have so corrupted the whole world that they think they can do enough for their sins with their works of God, which alone is enough through the faith of a contrite heart. Not only do you keep faith quiet by making such noise, but you also suppress it, only so that your insatiable hedgehog may have such people to whom he says: Bring here, bring here, and sell sin.
Among these, some have come forth who have devised all the cunning to bring men's souls to despair, and have therefore established that a confessor must recount all the sins for which he has not yet made the atonement laid upon him. But what should not those be subject to who are born to bring everything into tenfold captivity? Furthermore, how many think that they are in a state of blessedness and that they have made amends for their sins, when they merely mouth the little prayers laid on them by the priest, even though in the meantime they do not intend to amend their lives? For they believe that in the one moment of their repentance and confession their whole life is improved; but only this is left, that they do enough for the past sins. But how could they understand otherwise, since they are not taught otherwise? Here, nothing is thought of the death of the flesh; here, nothing is thought of the death of the flesh.
90 D. V. a. V, 86-88. xIII Luther's dispute with Henry VIII. W. XIX, II0-II3. 91
even the example of Christ is not valid, when he absolves the adulteress and says to her: "Go and sin no more", Joh. 8, 11. and thereby lays out the cross for her to kill her flesh. A not insignificant cause of this erroneous opinion has been given by the fact that we absolve sinners before the satisfaction has been fulfilled, by which means they are more concerned about fulfilling the satisfaction that lasts than about repentance, which, as they believe, passes away under confession; since, on the other hand, absolution, as it was in the first church, should follow when satisfaction was fulfilled, so that afterwards, when the work ceases, they might exercise themselves the more in faith and renewal of life. This may now be repeated enough of what I have said more extensively in the booklet on indulgences, and herewith enough should be said of these three sacraments in general, which are taught and not taught in so many harmful books dealing with the sentences and rights. It remains to write something about the other sacraments as well, so that I am not considered to have rejected them without cause.
From the firming.
I wonder what occurred to them that they made a sacrament of confirmation out of the laying on of hands, since we read of this [laying on of hands] that Christ touched the little children, that the apostles gave the Holy Spirit, ordained priests, and healed the sick, as St. Paul writes to Timothy: "Let no one lay on hands soon" [1 Tim. 5:22]. Why did they not also make a confirmation out of the Sacrament of Bread, since it is written Apost. 9, 19: "When he had taken the food, he was strengthened", and in the 104th Psalm, v. 15: "And the bread of man's heart strengthened", so that the confirmation understands three sacraments, the bread, the ordination and the confirmation itself? But if what the apostles did is a sacrament, why did they not make the sermon much more of a sacrament?
I'm not talking about that because I have the seven Sacra
I do not reject the idea of the laying on of hands, but because I do not admit that it can be proven from the Holy Scriptures. And if God wanted such an imposition of hands to be in the Church as it was in the time of the apostles, we might call it a confirmation or a healing. But nothing is left of it now, except as much as we ourselves have devised, to appoint the offices of the bishops, so that they may not be entirely without performance in the church. For after they had ordered the burdensome sacraments at the same time as the lesser ones to the subordinates (namely, because everything that the divine majesty has ordered must be despised), it was also reasonable that we should invent something easy that would not be burdensome to such tender and great heroes, and by no means entrust it as a lesser thing to the subordinates. For what human wisdom ordains, it is right that it should be held in honor among men. Therefore, whatever the priests are, they should have such service and office. For a bishop who does not preach the gospel and care for souls, what is he but an idol in the world, who alone has the name and form of a bishop?
For our part, we desire the sacraments instituted by God. But that we should count Confirmation among them, we have no reason to do so. For to the institution of a sacrament belongs first of all the word of the divine promise, by which faith is to be exercised. Now nowhere do we find that Christ promised anything about confirmation, although he laid his hands on many, and in the last v. 18, among other signs, Marci says: "They will lay their hands on the sick, and it will be better for them. But no one has made this a sacrament, nor could he. Therefore it is enough that Confirmation be considered a custom of the Church or a sacramental ceremony, like the other ceremonies of consecrated water and other things. For since all other creatures are sanctified by the word and prayer, why should not man much more be sanctified by them, even though, since they have no divine promise, they are not sacraments of faith?
can be called? For they do not work salvation. But the sacraments are given to those who believe God's promise.
From marriage.
Marriage is not only held to be a sacrament without any Scripture, but by the same human statutes according to which it is praised as a sacrament, a mere mockery has been made of it; let us see something of this. We have said that in every sacrament there is a word of divine promise which is to be believed by him who receives the sign, and that a sign alone cannot be a sacrament. Now, nowhere does one find that he who takes a wife obtains some grace from God, indeed, not even a sign is instituted in marriage by God Himself. For it is nowhere read that it was instituted by God for this reason, so that it should mean something; although everything that is visibly acted upon can be understood as figures and allegories of invisible things. Nevertheless, the figures and allegories are not sacraments, as we speak of the sacraments.
Therefore, since marriage has been from the beginning of the world and still remains with unbelievers, there are no reasons why marriage can be called a sacrament of the new law and of the church alone. For the marriage of the ancient fathers was no less holy than ours, and the marriage of unbelievers is just as proper a marriage as that of believers; and yet they do not consider it a sacrament among them. Moreover, among believers there are many ungodly husbands and wives, who are even more wicked than any pagans; why then should marriage be called a sacrament among us and not among the pagans? Shall we speak of baptism and the church as foolishly as some do: that as the temporal kingdom is only in the church, so marriage is nowhere a sacrament but in the church? These are childish and ridiculous things, by which we expose our ignorance and iniquity to the ridicule of unbelievers.
But they want to speak: the apostle says Eph. 5, 31: "There will be two One flesh.
this is a great sacrament." Do you then want to contradict such a clear word of the apostle? I answer that this argument also indicates a sleepy, industrious, and careless reader. For this word "sacrament" is found in all the Scriptures, not in the sense in which we use it, but in the opposite one. For it means everywhere, not a sign of a sacred thing, but a sacred, secret and hidden thing. So Paul writes in 1 Cor. 4:1: "For this let every man count us, that is, Christ's ministers, and stewards of God's mysteries," 1) that is, of the sacraments. For where we have [in Latin] "sacrament," in the Greek language it is "mystery" (μυστήριον), which is the
Interpreter sometimes translates, but sometimes he leaves out the Greek word; therefore also here in the Greek it is said: There shall be two One flesh, which is a great mystery (mysterium). This has caused them to understand marriage for a sacrament of the new law, which would not have happened if they had read "mystery" (xxxxxxxxx), as in the Greek
stands.
St. Paul calls Christ Himself a sacrament in 1 Tim. 3, 16, saying: "Great is the holy sacrament (that is mystery), which was revealed in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, appeared to the angels, preached to the Gentiles, believed on by the world, and received up into glory. Why then did they not also take from this the eighth sacrament of the new law, since they have such clear testimony of Paul? Or if they abstained here, where they could have most easily invented many sacraments, why are they so wasteful there? Yes, they have been deceived both by ignorance of things and of words; indeed, they have stuck to their own opinions. For once they had taken the sacrament for a sign according to human opinion, they immediately made a sign out of the word sacrament without any judgment and without hesitation (scrupulo).
1) In the Erlangen edition: ministeriorum instead of m^stsriorurn, which the Jena one offers.
94 L. v. ". v, 89-si. XIII Luther's dispute with Henry VIII. W. xix,n6-ii8. 95
all, where they have read it in the holy scripture. These interpretations of the words, human habits, and others, they have brought into the holy scripture, and have perverted the same to their dreams, and have made everything out of everything. Thus they are always nonsensical in these words: a good work, an evil work, sin, grace, righteousness, virtue, and almost all, which are the noblest words and things. For they use all these words according to their liking, as they have taken it from the writings of men, to the ruin of the truth of God and our salvation.
Therefore, the sacrament and the mystery of St. Paul is the wisdom of the spirit itself, which is hidden in the mystery, as he says in 1 Cor. 2:7: "This [wisdom] is Christ, who also for this reason is not known by the rulers of this world; therefore they have also crucified him, and he still remains to them a foolishness, an offense, a stumbling block and the sign that is contradicted. The stewards of these mysteries are called preachers, because they preach Christ, the power and wisdom of God, but in such a way that if you do not believe it, you will not understand it. Therefore Sacramentum is a mystery and hidden thing, which is indicated with words, but understood with the faith of the heart. Such a sacrament is also this, of which we speak here: There shall be two in one flesh, which is a great mystery [Eph. 5:31]. This, they think, is spoken of marriage, whereas Paul introduced these words of Christ and the church, and explains himself by saying, But I say of Christ and the church [v. 32]. See then how they and St. Paul agree with each other. St. Paul says he preaches a great mystery of Christ and the church; so they preach it of the man and the woman. If in such a way they are free to interpret the holy scriptures as they please, it is no wonder that they make a hundred more sacraments out of the whole holy scripture.
So Christ and the Church is a mystery, that is, a great and hidden thing, which can well be represented by marriage,
than in an intelligible interpretation; but therefore marriage should not be called a sacrament. The heavens are a figure of the apostles, as it is said in the 19th Psalm v. 1; and the sun a figure of Christ, v. 5, the waters a figure of the nations, but therefore they are not sacraments. For there the institution and promise of God is lacking, which make a sacrament complete (integrant). For this reason, Paul in Eph. 5, 30. 31. applies the words that are spoken of marriage in Gen. 2, 23. 24. either from his own spirit to Christ, or he teaches in a general sentence (sententia generali) that the spiritual marriage of Christ is also understood by this, saying: "Just as Christ cares for the church, for we are members of his body, of his flesh and of his bones. Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife, and two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery [sacramentum]. I say of Christ and the church." You see that he wants all these words to be said of Christ and diligently warns the reader to understand this mystery of Christ and the church, not of marriage.
I admit that the sacrament of repentance was also in the old law, even from the beginning of the world; but the new promise of repentance, and the gift of the keys, is peculiar to the new law. For as for circumcision we have baptism, so for sacrifices or other signs of repentance we now have the keys. We have said before that God also gave different promises and signs at different times to forgive sins and to make men blessed, since they have all received One grace, as Paul 2 Cor. 4, 13. 14. says: "We have the same spirit of faith, and we believe, therefore we speak." And 1 Cor. 10:3, 4: "Our fathers all ate the same kind of spiritual food, and all drank the same kind of spiritual drink. But they drank of the spiritual rock which followed, which was Christ." So also Heb. 11:39, 40: These all died, and "received not the promise, because that God had provided some better thing for us first, that they should not be made perfect without us." For "Jesus Chri-
stus yesterday, today and forever" [Heb 13:8]. He is the head of his church from the beginning to the end of the world. The signs are therefore different, but all have the same faith; for, "without faith it is impossible to please God" [Heb. 11:6], by which also Abel pleased God [v. 4].
Therefore, let marriage be a model of Christ and the church, not a sacrament instituted by God, but invented by men in the church, because they are misled by ignorance both of the things themselves and of the Word. And if it does not harm the faith, it is to be tolerated in love; just as many other human statutes that stem from weakness and ignorance are tolerated in the church, as long as they are not contrary to faith and the divine Scriptures. But we now defend the pure faith and the true sacred Scriptures, lest, by asserting that something is comprehended in the sacred Scriptures and in the articles of our faith, and being afterwards convicted that it is not comprehended therein, we expose our faith to ridicule, and by ignorance in our own self-discovered matters cause offense to the adversaries and weak believers, nay, burden the sacred Scriptures with something improper. For the things that are founded by God in the holy Scriptures must be very widely distinguished from the things that are invented in the church by men, no matter how holy and learned they may have been.
Let this be said of marriage in and of itself. But what shall we say of the ungodly laws of men, by which this way of life instituted by God is entangled and the supreme is turned to the lower? O kind God, I am afraid to look at the outrage of the Roman tyrants, who only tear up and force marriage again according to their liking. My dear, is it then up to their arbitrariness to mock the human race and to abuse it in every way, and to exercise all courage on them for the sake of filthy money?
It is in many people's hands and is very highly respected a book that is made of all the filth of human teachings as a dung pit.
The title of this book is: Summa angeIica 1) its angelic epitome, which in truth is a more than diabolical summa, in which eighteen obstacles to marriage are listed among innumerable abominable things, by which the confessors are supposed to be instructed, while they are disgracefully confused. If one looks at these with a free eye of faith, one will see that they are from the number of those of whom Paul prophesied [1 Tim. 4:1, 2], "They shall cleave to the seducing spirits and doctrines of devils, through them that speak lies in glibness, and forbid to be married." What is forbidding marriage, if it is not forbidding to invent so many obstacles, and to lay ropes, so that one does not take up marriage, or so that those who are already married are divorced from each other again? Who gave man this power? After all, they may have been holy and guided by pious zeal, but how can an alien holiness harm my freedom? How can another's zeal take me captive? Let him be a saint and a zealot, whoever he wants and as long as he wants; only that he harms no one else and does not take away my freedom.
However, I am glad that the shameful laws have finally received their rightful honor, because through them the Romans have become merchants today. But what do they sell? Female and male private parts. A commodity quite worthy of such merchants, who are nothing but stink and impurity because of avarice and impiety. And nowadays there is no obstacle that does not become a lawful thing through the mediation of mammon, so that these laws of men seem to have arisen for no other reason than that they should be nets of money and snares of souls to such miserly men and predatory nimrods, and this abomination should stand in the church of God in the holy place, which is open to men.
1) The author of this book is Angelus Carletus.
98 L. V. a. V, p3-95. XIII Luther's dispute with Henry VIII. W. XIX, 121 f. 99
The shame of both sexes, or (as the Scripture calls it) shame and abomination, which they had previously taken to themselves by the power of their laws. O! a beautiful merchant class worthy of our popes, which they use instead of the service of the gospel, which they despise because of avarice and hopefulness, and therefore are given away with great shame and disgrace in a perverse sense.
But what should I say or do? If I were to explain each of them in detail, it would be too much to talk about. For everything is so confused that one does not know where to begin, continue or end. [I know that no matter for the common good can be salutary governed by laws. For if there is a wise authority, it will govern more blissfully under the guidance of nature than by laws. But if it is not wise, it will bring about only evil by laws, because it does not know how to use them, nor how to adapt them to the conditions of the times. Therefore, it is necessary to take more care in a community that good and understanding people are at the top than that laws are given. For they themselves will be the best laws and will judge all different cases with right (vivaci) equity. Now if there is a right knowledge of divine things, combined with natural prudence, it is entirely superfluous and harmful to have written laws; but above all, love needs no laws at all. 1) But I say, and do as much as is in me, request and admonish all priests and brothers, where they see an obstacle in which the pope can slacken something, although it would not be expressed in Scripture, that they absolutely confirm all such marriages, which may have been concluded contrary to the church or the popes' laws. They should thus protect themselves with the divine law, which says Matth. 19, 6: "What God has joined together, let not man put asunder." For the union of man and woman takes place according to the divine right; the same remains, even if human laws are violated in every possible way, and there shall be
1) What is enclosed here in square brackets is found in the original edition, but not in the Wittenberg and Jena editions.
to whom all human laws give way without any hesitation. For if a man forsake his father and mother, and cleave to his wife, how much more shall he set aside the foolish and unjust laws of men, that he may cleave to his wife? And the pope, bishop or official, who breaks any marriage that is made against the papal laws, is an antichrist, violator of nature, and guilty of insulting the divine majesty, because the saying remains: "What God has joined together, let not man put asunder.
Add that man has no power nor right to make such laws, and that Christians have been given liberty by Christ over all the laws of men, especially where the divine law intervenes, as he says, Marci 2:28, 27: "The Son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath"; and, "Man was not made for the Sabbath's sake, but the Sabbath for man's sake." Further, such laws are previously condemned by Paul, since he predicted that some would forbid marriage in the future. Therefore, the severity of such hindrances shall be relaxed here, which originate from spiritual kinship, from affinity (ex legali cognutione) and from consanguinity, as far as the holy Scriptures allow, in which only the second degree of consanguinity is forbidden, as written in the 3rd Book of Moses, Cap. 18, where twelve persons are forbidden, namely, the mother, the stepmother, the natural sister, the stepsister from father or mother, the granddaughter, the father's sister, the mother's sister, the daughter-in-law, the brother's wife, the wife's sister, the stepdaughter, the uncle's wife. Here only the first degree of affinity and the second of consanguinity are forbidden, but not in general, as is clear if one looks at it correctly, because the brother's or sister's daughter or granddaughter is not listed as forbidden, although it is in the second degree. Therefore, should any marriage have been contracted outside of these degrees, since one does not read that any other [degrees] have been forbidden by God anywhere, it must not be based on any
The marriage itself, which is instituted by God, is incomparably higher than the laws, so that it is not because of the laws that they must be torn apart, but the laws for their sake. 1)
So also these antics of co-fatherhoods, co-motherhoods, co-brotherhoods, co-sisterhoods, co-daughterships are supposed to be completely extinguished when a marriage is concluded. Who else invented this spiritual kinship than human superstition alone? Is it not proper for the baptizer, or the one who raises from baptism, to take the baptized woman, or the one he raised from baptism, in marriage; why is it proper for a Christian man to take a Christian woman in marriage? Or is the kinship which arises from the ceremonies or sign of the Sacrament greater than that which arises from the nature of the Sacrament itself? Is not a Christian the brother of the Christian sister? Or is not a baptized person the spiritual brother of a baptized person? What are we racing for? How, if one instructed his wife in the Gospel and the faith of Christ, he would have become truly her father in Christ thereby; should she not therefore remain his wife? Or would it not have been proper for Paul to marry a daughter of the Corinthians, of whom he famously said that he had begotten them all in Christ? See how Christian freedom is suppressed by the blindness of human superstition.
[Much more important is the legal relationship, and yet they have also elevated this above the divine right of marriage]. 2) Nor will I consent to the obstacle which they call the inequality of religion, that neither simply, nor on condition that she be converted to the faith, is she permitted to take an unbaptized woman in marriage. Who has forbidden this? God, or a human being? Who gave man the power to forbid such marriage? Of course, the spirits who are in
1) What is enclosed here in parentheses is found in the original edition, but not in the Wittenberg and Jena editions.
2) This sentence is in the original edition, but not in the Wittenberg and Jena editions.
Gleisnerei Lügenredner are, as Paul says [1 Tim. 4, 2.], of which this must be said: The wicked have told me fables, but not as thy law. Patricias the Gentile took Monica, the mother of St. Augustine, a Christian, in marriage; why should this not be permitted today? Such severity out of foolishness, yes, out of impiety, is the hindrance of the crime, namely, if someone would marry such a one who is previously tainted with adultery, or if he would have made attempts to kill the previous husband, so that he could marry the surviving wife. I ask you, where does this strict law of men against men come from, which God has never required? Or do they want to pretend that they do not know that Bathsheba, the wife of Uriah, had both crimes on her, that is: she was stained with adultery, and after murdering her husband she was nevertheless married by David, the most holy man? Did the divine law permit this? What do tyrannical men do against their fellow servants?
[Also this is counted as an obstacle, what they call the obstacle of the union (ligaminis), that is, because someone is connected with another by betrothal. Here they conclude that if someone then recognizes another, the engagement ceases with the first. I do not believe this at all; I think that he who has betrothed himself to another has already lost his power over himself, and that for this reason, since divine law forbids divorce, he is due to the first, whom he did not recognize, although he recognized the other afterwards; for he could not give what he did not have, but he deceived her and committed a real adultery. But the fact that something else seemed good to them is due to the fact that they paid more attention to the carnal connection than to the commandment of God, according to which he must always be faithful to the first, which he promised. For he who wants to give must give of his own, and God forbid that no one should betray his brother in any matter whatsoever, which is to be done apart from and above the statutes of all
The first one has to hold on to the second one. Thus I believe that such a one cannot dwell together with the second with a good conscience, and that this obstacle must be removed by all means. For if the vow to become a monk or nun (religionis) makes one free from family ties (alienum), why not also the vowed and received fidelity, since the latter is commanded and a fruit of the spirit, Gal. 5, 22, but the latter comes from human arbitrariness? And if the wife is free to reclaim her husband, and it is not opposed to this that the monastic vow has been made, why should not the bride be free to reclaim her bridegroom, even if the carnal union has taken place with another? But let us say further that he who has promised fidelity to a girl must not take a monastic vow, but he is the debtor of the person whom he wants to marry, because he owes to keep the fidelity, which he may not put behind by any statute of men, because it is commanded by God. Rather, it should happen here that he keeps faith with the former, since he could only give to the latter with a lying heart, and for that reason he did not give, but betrayed his neighbor (proximam) against God. Therefore, the obstacle of error has taken place here, which causes the marriage with the later one to be void. ] 1)
The obstacle of consecration is also a mere human fetish, especially since they talk that by consecration also a consummated marriage is broken, by always raising their statutes above God's commandment. I do not judge the priestly ordination as it is held today, but I know that Paul commands that "a bishop shall be the husband of one wife" [1 Tim. 3:2], and therefore the marriage of a deacon, priest, bishop, or whoever has any other ordination cannot be broken, even though Paul did not know these kinds of priests and such ordinations as we have now. Therefore, let us abandon all these cursed statutes of men, which are my means of increasing the number of the faithful.
1) This paragraph is in the original edition, but not in the Wittenberg and Jena editions.
The priest and his wife are married in a true and inseparable way, based on God's commandment. Therefore, between a priest and his wife is a true and inseparable marriage, based on God's command. But how if ungodly men forbid or break up such marriages only by their tyranny? Granted that it is not permitted by men, it is nevertheless permitted by God; if His commandment is contrary to the commandment of men, it shall be justly preferred.
[Similarly, the obstacle of public respectability is also a small fence by which the concluded marriages are torn apart. It torments (urit) me this brazen godlessness, which is so quickly ready to separate what God has joined together, so that you can recognize the Antichrist in it, who sets himself against everything that Christ has done and taught. I ask you, what is the cause that no blood relative of a previously dead bridegroom to the fourth generation could marry the bride? This is not a justice owed to public respectability, but an ignorance. 2) Why was not this justice of public respectability in the people of Israel, which was composed with the best and divine laws? rather, even by God's commandment, the nearest [relative] was forced to marry the next of kin's surviving wife. Or is it necessary to burden the people of Christian freedom with stricter laws than the people of legal servitude? And in order to put an end to these things, which are more inventions than obstacles, I say that I do not yet see any obstacle that could justifiably dissolve a marriage, except the inability to recognize the wife, the ignorance of a marriage already entered into, and the vow of chastity. About the vow, however, I am uncertain to this day, that I do not know at what time it should be considered valid, as I said above about the sacrament of baptism. Learn, then, from this marriage alone, how unfortunate and in the extreme everything has been confused, hindered, entangled and subjected to dangers by the corrupt ones,
2) justitig - inseitig,, a play on words.
104 L- a. v, 98 f. 69. Of the Babylonian captivity of the church. W. xix, 124 f. 105
unlearned and ungodly statutes of men, everything that is even done in the church, so that there is no hope of healing unless we bring back the gospel of freedom and judge and govern everything according to it, after all the laws of all men have been done away with. Amen. ] 1)
Therefore, it is necessary to speak of the incapacity of the sex, so that the souls who are in danger can be advised all the more easily, but with the condition that what I have said about the obstacle is spoken of what happens after the marriage that has already taken place, so that by such a thing no marriage is broken up. But about the marriage that is to be concluded first, let it be said recently what has been said above, that if the love of youth or any other need should press one, in which the pope dispenses, also every brother can make this dispensation with his brother, or every one with himself, he thus, according to this advice, takes a wife out of the hands of the tyrannical laws, in whatever way he can. For why should my freedom be taken from me by a foreign superstition or ignorance? Or if the pope dispenses for the sake of money, why would I not make the dispensation with myself for the benefit of my salvation or with my brother? Has the pope given laws? Let him give them to himself, without harm to my freedom or deprivation of it secretly.
[So let us look at the matter from the point of view of incapacity. I pose such a case as a question, if a woman, who is married to an incapable man, is either unable, or perhaps also unwilling, with as much testimony and noise as the rights require, to prove the incapacity of the husband by way of law, but would nevertheless like to have offspring, or could not abstain, and I had given the advice that she obtain a divorce from the husband in order to marry another, she is also convinced that her own and her husband's
1) This paragraph is in the original edition, but not in the Wittenberg and Jena editions.
If the husband's conscience and experience are superfluous enough witnesses of his incapacity, but the husband does not want it, then I would further advise that she, with the husband's consent (since he is no longer a husband, but only one who lives with her), go with another, for example the brother of the husband, but in secret marriage, and the offspring be attributed to the alleged (putativo) father (as he is called). Can then such a woman be blessed and be in the state of blessedness? I answer: certainly, for error and ignorance of the man's incapacity prevent marriage here, and the tyranny of the laws does not permit divorce, and the woman is free by divine law and cannot be forced to abstinence. Therefore, the man must make a concession to her right and allow another to have the wife he appears to have.
Furthermore, if the husband would not agree to be separated, I would advise her to marry someone else and flee to an unknown and distant place before allowing her to be in heat or commit adultery. For what else could be advised to one who is in constant danger of lust? I know, however, that some are moved by the fact that the offspring of this secret marriage is not rightfully (iniquus) the heir of his supposed father. But if it is done with the husband's consent, he will not be unjustly; but if it is done without his knowledge and will, a Christian and free mind, indeed, love, will be able to judge which of the two does the greatest harm to the other. The wife brings the inheritance to a stranger (alienat), but the husband has deceived the wife and cheats her out of her whole body, and that all her life long: does not the husband sin more, who ruins the wife's body and life, than the wife, who only brings the husband's temporal goods to a stranger? He therefore either suffers divorce or tolerates foreign heirs, since he has deceived an innocent girl through his fault and has equally deprived her of her life and property.
The person who has defrauded her of the entire use of her body has given an almost unbearable cause for adultery; both must be put on an equal footing. Certainly the deception must with all rights fall back on the deceiver, and he is obliged to compensate for the damage that caused it. For in what way is such a husband different from the one who holds someone's wife captive with her husband? Is not such a tyrant obliged to feed the wife and children and husband, or to let them go free? So why should it not be the same here? Thus, I believe that the husband must be forced, either to divorce, or to feed someone else's heir. Love will undoubtedly judge in this way. In this case, the one who is not wealthy and is no longer a husband will not support the wife's heir with any other attitude (affectu) than if he received a sick wife or a wife afflicted with some other evil with full and heavy expenses. For by his, not by the wife's fault, the wife suffers this fretfulness (incommodo). To the best of my ability, I have wanted to present this for the instruction of challenged consciences, in that I wish to come to the aid of my afflicted brothers in this captivity with every possible consolation]. 1)
About the divorce, it is also asked whether it is allowed? Truly, I hate divorce so much that I would rather have a double marriage (digamiam) than divorce; but whether it is permissible, I do not dare to say. Christ himself, the chief shepherd, says Matth. 5, 32: "Whoever divorces his wife (except for adultery) makes her commit adultery. And he that divorceth a separated woman committeth adultery." So Christ allows divorce, but only in the case of adultery. Therefore the priest must err as often as he divorces for other reasons. No one should be safe who has received a dispensation much more by such papal sacrilege than by ordinary power. But this surprises me most of all, why they have a
1) The two preceding paragraphs, which are enclosed in square brackets, are found in the original edition, but not in the Wittenberg and Jena editions.
If a man is divorced from his wife, he should be forced into celibacy and not be allowed to marry another woman. For if Christ permits divorce in the case of adultery and does not force anyone to live a celibate life, and Paul expresses his opinion [1 Cor. 7:9] that "it is better to be free than to be in heat," then he certainly seems to permit that another woman be married instead of the divorced one. Would God that such things were fully discussed and decided, so that innumerable danger might befall those who, at this time, through no fault of their own, are forced to live an unmarried life, that is, whose wives or husbands run away and leave their spouses, and return for more than ten years, or never. This case penetrates and distresses me by the daily examples, be it out of special mischievousness of the devil, or by contempt of the word of God.
I, who alone cannot determine anything in this case, would very much like that what is written in 1 Cor. 7:15 be applied here: "If the unbeliever divorces, let him divorce. The brother or sister is not caught in such cases." Here St. Paul allows the divorcing unbeliever to be set free, and gives the believer the freedom to take another. Why should this not also apply when a believer, that is, one who is a believer in name only but an unbeliever in fact, leaves his spouse, especially if he is willing never to return? I truly could not find any difference on both sides. But I think that if in St. Paul's time an unbeliever who had left his wife had come back or had become a believer and promised to live with the believer again, he would not have been admitted, but would also have been allowed to marry another. But I do not set anything in this, as I have said; although I wish nothing more than that it should be set, because nothing grieves me and many others with me more intensely nowadays. However, I do not want anything to be established here solely by the authority of the pope or the bishops, but if two learned and pious men were to agree in the name of Christ and speak out such things in the spirit of Christ, I would give their consent.
I would also prefer this judgment to the conciliums that are now used to assemble, which are praised only because of their number and power, but are without scholarship and sanctity. Therefore, I will hang up my harp here until someone else who understands will talk to me about it.
Of the consecration.
This sacrament is not known to the Church of Christ, and it is invented by the Church of the Pope, because it not only has no promise of grace written anywhere, but the whole New Testament does not even remember it with a word. But it is ridiculous to claim of something that it is a sacrament of God, of which it can nowhere be proven that it was instituted by God. It is not that I want such a custom to be rejected, which has been held for so many centuries, but that I do not want people to make up human lies in divine matters, nor is it proper to present something as ordained by God that is not ordained by God, so that we may not be a mockery to the adversaries. Rather, we should strive to make sure that everything we boast about as an article of faith, which we cannot in the least demonstrate in this sacrament, is certain and pure and based on clear sayings of Scripture.
The church also has no power to order new divine promises of grace; as some people say that what is established by the church is no less important than what is established by God, because it is governed by the Holy Spirit. For the church springs from the word of promise through faith and is nourished and sustained by the same word of promise, that is, it is established by the promise of God, and not the promise through it. For the Word of God is incomparably over the church, over which the church has no power to establish, order or do anything, but it is to be established, ordered and made as a creature. For who can give birth to its father or mother? Who has made its author beforehand?
But the church has the power to separate the word of God from the words of men.
Augustine confesses that he believed the gospel, moved by the prestige of the church, which testified that this was the right gospel: Not that the church is therefore above the gospel, for otherwise it would also be above God, whom we believe, because the church teaches this as the right God; but, as Augustine says elsewhere, the soul is so caught by the truth that it can judge all things according to it with the utmost certainty, but it cannot judge the truth, but is forced to say with unmistakable certainty that this is the truth. For example: our mind certainly says with unmistakable certainty that three and seven are ten, and yet it can show no reason why this is true, since it cannot deny that it is true: namely, it is itself imprisoned, in that it is judged more by truth than that it should judge it. Such a mind is also in the church, to judge and confirm the doctrines by enlightenment of the spirit, which it cannot prove, although it certainly has the same. For as with the philosophers no one judges from common notions, but all others are judged by them: so it is with us concerning the mind of the Spirit, which judges all things, and yet is judged by no one, as the apostle says [1 Cor. 2:15].
But of it elsewhere. Therefore, it is certain that the church cannot promise grace, because this belongs to God alone, and therefore cannot institute a sacrament. And even though it might be able to do so, it does not immediately follow that consecration is a sacrament. For who knows which church has the Holy Spirit, since, when such things are decided, only a few bishops or scholars tend to be present? In the case of these, it is quite possible that they are not of the church and that they can all err; just as the conciliarities have often erred, especially that at Costnitz, which among all has erred most ungodly. For only that is credibly proven which is approved by the general church, and not only by the Roman. Therefore, I allow that the consecration
110 L. V. L. V. 103 f. XIII Luther's dispute with Henry VIII. W. XIX, 129-132. 111
is a kind of custom of the church, as well as many others instituted by the ancient church fathers, such as consecrating vessels, houses, chasubles, water, salt, candles, herbs, wine, and the like, all of which no one considers a sacrament, nor is there any promise in them. Likewise, anointing the hands of men, having plates shaved, and other such things done is not called giving a sacrament, because nothing is promised in it, but they are only prepared for some offices, as vessels and instruments.
But you will say: What wilt thou say to Dionysius, who enumerates six sacraments, among which in the "ecclesiastical hierarchy" 1) he also places ordination? I answer: I know that this one alone among the ancients is considered the author of the seven number of sacraments, although he omitted marriage and indicated only six sacraments. For we read in all the other Fathers absolutely nothing of these sacraments; nor did they give it the name of a sacrament as often as they spoke of these things. For the invention of the sacraments is new. But this displeases me altogether (that I may speak more boldly), that so much credence is given to this Dionysius, whoever he may be, since he has almost nothing of thorough scholarship. For what he writes in the "celestial hierarchy" of the angels, with which book the rash and superstitious heads have so worked themselves off, of this I only ask: With what saying or with what reasonable causes can he prove it? Are they not all his own thoughts and almost like dreams, where you read them freely and judge impartially? In the book of his "mystical theology," which some of the most unlearned theologians exalt so highly, he is also quite harmful and follows Plato more than Christ in it, so that I would like a believer not to read it at all or at least rarely. For you do not learn Christ at all in it.
1) This is a writing attributed to Dionysius Areopagita (Apost. 17, 34.) probably in the fifth century; likewise the following mentioned writings on the heavenly hierarchy and on mystical theology. Cf. Guericke's Kirchengeschichte, 7th edition, vol. I, p. 218.
that if you already know it, you will lose it completely. I speak from experience. Let us rather hear Paul, that we may learn Christ crucified [1 Cor. 2:2]. For "he is the way, the life, and the truth" [John 14:6], he is the ladder by which we ascend to the Father. As he says, "No one comes to the Father except through me."
So also in the "ecclesiastical hierarchy", what does Dionysius do other than that he describes some customs of the church and jokes with his allegories, which he does not prove? The same thing has been done in our country by the one who made the book called Rationale divinorum. Such studies of allegories belong only to idle people. Or do you think that it would be difficult for me to play with allegories in every created thing? Did not Bonaventure interpret the liberal arts allegorically to the divine teachings? And Gerson made a mystical theologian out of the little Donati. It would not be difficult for me to write a better hierarchy than the one that Dionysius wrote, since he did not know anything about the pope, cardinals and archbishops, and placed the bishop as the highest. And who, after all, is of so little intellect that he could not dabble in secret interpretations? I would that no theologian should resort to allegories until he is fully established in the right and simple understanding of Scripture. Otherwise, it will happen to him, as it did to Origen, that he will not do theology without danger.
Therefore it should not be called a sacrament immediately, because Dionysius describes something. Otherwise, why do they not also make a sacrament out of the procession that he describes there, which still lasts until this day? Otherwise, their sacraments would be as many as the customs and external ceremonies have increased in the church. Based on such a weak foundation, they have invented characteres, which they have assigned to this sacrament of theirs, which would be indelibly imprinted on the consecrated. Eh, dear, where do these thoughts come from? With
2) Donatus, the Latin grammar in general use at that time.
112 D. V. a. V, 104-106. 69. Of the Babylonian captivity of the church. W. XIX, 132-134. 113
what scripture or reasonable causes are they founded on? Not that we do not want them to have freedom to write, to say, to assert what they like, but we also assert our freedom, so that they may not arrogate to themselves the right to make articles of faith out of their thoughts, as they have hitherto subjected themselves to. It is enough that we consent to their customs and practices for the sake of harmony; but we do not want to be forced to do so, as if that were necessary for our souls' salvation, which is not. They themselves may refrain from the coercion of their tyranny, and we will freely obey their opinion, so that we may live in peace with one another. For it is a shameful and unjust service that a Christian man, who is free, should be subject to other than heavenly and divine teachings.
After this they put their strongest reason on it, namely that Christ said in his supper: "This do in remembrance of me" [Luc. 22, 19.]. Then they say, Behold, Christ has ordained them priests. Therefore they said, among other things, that the sacrament should be administered only to priests under both forms. After that, they have also drawn from it what they wanted, since they have arrogated to themselves the arbitrariness of asserting anything they want from the words of Christ that are said in any place. But does this mean to interpret the word of God? Well, dear one, answer this. Christ promises nothing here, but only commands that such things be done in his memory. Why do they not also conclude that priests were also ordained when he laid out for them the ministry of preaching and baptism, saying [Marc. 16:15], "Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature, baptizing them in the name," etc. since preaching and baptizing are the proper works of priests? In addition, since today the most important work of a priest, and of which (as they say) cannot be dispensed at all, is to read the daily times (horas canonicas1) ); why did they not include the Sacra-
1) Luther calls these prayers to be read daily at certain times "the tides" or "the seven tides".
What is the meaning of the word of consecration taken from it, since Christ commanded to pray, as in many other places, so also especially in the garden, so that they would not fall into temptation [Matth. 26, 41]? They then wanted to seek this excuse, that praying was not commanded; but it was enough to read the times of the day, so that this priestly work could nowhere be proven from the Scriptures, and for this reason such priestly office of praying was not of God, as it truly is not of God.
But which of the ancient fathers thought that with these words the priests were ordained? Where does this new mind come from, namely, which is invented with such cunning, in order to have a plantation of irreconcilable discord, by which the priests and the laity would be more distinguished than heaven and earth, to an incredible dishonor of the baptismal grace and to a confusion of the evangelical community; For this is the origin of the abominable tyranny of the clergy against the laity, that, trusting in the bodily anointing with which their hands are consecrated, and then in the scissors and clothing, they not only prefer themselves to the other Christian laity anointed with the Holy Spirit, but consider them almost unworthy dogs, not worthy to be numbered with them in the church. Therefore, they are not afraid to command them anything they want, to demand by force, to threaten, to drive and to oppress them. Summa, the sacrament of consecration has been an exceedingly fine elevator, and still is, to confirm all the monstrosities that have happened and are still happening in the church. Here the Christian brotherhood has completely come to an end, here the shepherds have become wolves, the servants have become tyrants, and the clergy have become more than worldly.
Now if they were forced to confess that all of us, as much as we are baptized, are also priests, as we are in truth; and that they alone have been commanded to preach, but with our permission: then they would also know at the same time that they have no right to rule over us, except as follows
much we ourselves allowed them to do out of our own good will. It is written in 1 Peter 2:9: "You are the chosen generation, the royal priesthood" and the priestly kingdom. Therefore we are all priests, as much as we are Christians. But those whom we call priests are servants, chosen from among us, who are to do all things in our name. And the priesthood is nothing other than a service. Thus it is said in 1 Cor. 4:1: "To this end let everyone hold us, that is, as Christ's servants and stewards of God's mysteries."
From this it follows that he who does not preach the word, to which he is nevertheless called by the Christian church, is by no means a priest, and the sacrament of ordination can be nothing else than a certain use to elect preachers into the church. For thus God describes a priest through the prophet Malachi Cap. 2, 7: "The lips of the priest shall keep the doctrine, that the law may be sought out of his mouth: for he is an angel of the Lord of hosts." Therefore be sure that whoever is not an angel of the Lord of hosts, or otherwise called to the service of angels (that I say so), is by no means a priest. As it is also said in Hosea 4:6, "Because thou rejectest the word of God, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt not be my priest." Therefore they are also called shepherds, that they should feed, that is, teach. Therefore, those who are ordained only to read the days and offer the masses are papal priests, but not Christian priests, because they not only do not preach, but also are not called to preach. Yes, it is precisely with this that it is a priesthood of this kind, namely, a different state than the office of preaching. Therefore they are daytime priests and mass priests, that is, living idols who have the priestly name, and yet are nothing less. Jeroboam ordained such priests at Bethaven from the very least yeast of the people, not from the Levitical generation.
See, then, how far the glory and honor of the Church has come. The whole world is full of priests, bishops, cardinals and clergymen, among whom (as far as their office is concerned) none preach, he
is called anew by another vocation, which takes place through sacramental consecration, but thinks that he fulfills his sacrament when he mumbles the chatter of the prayers to be read and says mass; Then he never prays these very times of the day, or where he does pray, he prays for himself, and (which is the greatest perversity) offers his masses as a sacrifice (whereas the mass is a use of the sacrament), so that it is evident that the consecration, which, as a sacrament, ordains this kind of people to the clergy, is certainly, purely, and entirely a fiction, originating from men who understand nothing of church affairs, of the priesthood, of the ministry of the Word of God, and of the sacraments: so that as the sacrament is, so may the priests be. To these errors and blindnesses was added this greater captivity, that they further separated themselves from the other Christians, as worldly, just as the Gauls cut the priests to the goddess Cybele and burdened them with a completely pretended celibate life.
It was not yet enough for the glitter and the effect of this error to forbid double marriage (digamiam), that is, that no one have two wives at the same time, as it was done before in the law (because we know that digamie means this). But they have interpreted the little word digamie in such a way, if one had not taken two virgins in marriage at the same time, but one after the other, or once a widow. Yes, the holiest sanctity of this most holy sacrament is of such value that he who has married a virgin cannot become a priest as long as this woman is still alive. And in order that it may attain the highest level of sanctity, even he is kept from the priesthood who, ignorantly and by mere chance of misfortune, has taken a weakened virgin in marriage. But if he had defiled six hundred harlots, or defiled as many women and virgins, or even kept many boys for his fornication, this shall not prevent him from becoming either a bishop, or a cardinal, or a pope. Furthermore, the word of the apostle [1 Tim. 3, 2.], "that a
Bishop of a woman's husband", they interpret that he should be a prelate of a church. Hence it has flowed that one cannot hold many benefices at the same time, unless the glorious pope dispenses that one be entrusted with three, twenty or a hundred wives, that is, churches, if he has been bribed with money or favor, that is, has been drawn to it out of Christian love and diligent care for the churches.
O you popes, who are worthy of this sacrament of consecration! O princes! Not of the Christian churches, but of the schools of Satan, even of darkness. I must cry out here with Isaiah [28, 14.]: you mockers, who rule over my people, who are at Jerusalem"; and Amos 6, 1.: "Woe to the proud of Zion, and to those who rely on the mountain of Samaria, who boast the noblest over the Gentiles, and walk in the house of Israel" etc. O the disgrace of the Church of God that befalls it from these abominations of priests! Where are the bishops or priests who know the Gospel, let alone preach it? What do they boast that they are priests? Why do they want to be considered holier, better, more powerful than other Christians who are only laymen? Any unlearned person can read the days, or (as the apostle says [1 Cor. 14:4]) those who speak with tongues. But the praying of the days is for monks, hermits and private persons, and they should be laymen. The priest's office is to preach, but if he does not preach, he is a priest in the same way that a painted man is a man. Does this then make a bishop to consecrate such babbling priests? or to consecrate churches or bells? or to confirm children? No. A deacon and any layman can do that. The service of the Word of God makes a priest and a bishop.
Therefore I advise you to flee, all of you who want to live safely; flee, you young people, and do not let yourselves be consecrated with these holy things, because you either want to preach or believe that you have become no better than the laity through such a sacrament of consecration. For to read the days is nothing. Then to offer the mass is nothing but the sacrament.
receive. So what remains in you that would not be in every layman? The shorn plates and the clothes? It is a miserable priest who consists of a plate and clothes. Or does the oil poured on your fingers make you priests? But every Christian is anointed with the oil of the Holy Spirit and sanctified in soul and body, and in the past he took the Sacrament with his own hands, no less than the priests do now, although our superstition now ascribes great guilt to the laity where they touch a mere chalice or corporal 1) and it is also not permitted for a holy cloister virgin to wash the altar or other holy cloths. See for God's sake how this holy sanctity of consecration has increased. I hope that in the future it will no longer be proper for the laity to touch the altar unless they first offer money. I almost burst when I think of this godless tyranny of the most sacrilegious people, who mock and corrupt the freedom and honor of the Christian faith with such petty and childish antics.
Therefore, everyone who wants to be a Christian should be sure and consider carefully that we are all priests in the same way, that is, that we have equal authority over the word of God and each sacrament, but that it is not proper for anyone to use them, unless by permission of the congregation or by appointment of the superiors. For what is common to all, no one can take to himself in particular until he is called to it. And if therefore the sacrament of ordination is something, it can be nothing else than a certain custom of calling someone into the service of the church. Then, the priesthood can be nothing else than a ministry of the Word; of the Word, I say, not of the Law, but of the Gospel. The office of deacon, however, is a ministry not of reading the Gospel or the epistle, as is customary nowadays, but rather of reading the Gospel or the epistle.
The priests, relieved of the burden of temporal goods, may continue to pray and speak the word of God more freely. For in this intention, as we read in Apost. 6:3, the deacons were appointed; that he who either does not know the gospel or does not preach it is not only not a priest or bishop, but a poisonous pestilence of the church, who under the false title of a priest or a bishop, as it were under a sheep's clothing, suppresses the gospel and acts as a wolf in the church.
Therefore, those priests and bishops of whom the church is now full, if they do not work their salvation in another way, that is, if they do not recognize that they are neither priests nor bishops, and mourn that they bear this name, whose work they either do not know or cannot fulfill, and thus weep with prayer and tears over the miserable state of their gilding, are truly a people of eternal damnation. And so it comes true what is written about them in Isa. 5:13, 14: "Therefore my people will be taken away suddenly, and their rulers will suffer hunger and their people thirst. Therefore hell hath opened wide her soul, and opened her mouth without measure, that both her lords and her rulers, both her rich and her happy, may go down. O a frightening word for our times, when Christians are swallowed up by such a great maw!
But as much as we are taught from Scripture, since the ministry is precisely what we call the priesthood, I do not at all see how he who has once become a priest cannot again become a layman, since he is distinguished from the laity only by the ministry. But it cannot be impossible to be deposed from the ministry, just as guilty priests are punished everywhere now, either by being forbidden their ministry for a time or by being deprived of it forever. For the fiction of the indelible signs has long since been ridiculed. I allow that the pope imprints such marks, and that Christ knows nothing about it, and that just through this
an ordained priest is not both Christ's and Pabst's constant servant and prisoner; as it is at this time. But, if I am not mistaken, when this sacrament and seal fall again, the papacy itself will hardly remain with its marks, and the joyful freedom will come to us again, in which we will all recognize ourselves as equal in all rights, and after the tyrannical yoke has been shaken off, we will only understand that everyone who is a Christian has Christ. But he that hath Christ hath also all things that are Christ's, and hath all power; of which there is more, and more strength, which I should hear that my friends the papists dislike.
The sacrament of the last rites.
To this custom of oiling the sick our theologians have made two additions worthy of them. One, that they call it a sacrament; the other, that they call it "the last", and it is now said to be the sacrament of the last oiling, which is not to be given to anyone unless he is in the last stages. Perhaps (as they are subtle dialecticians) they have called it the last anointing in regard to the first anointing of baptism and the following two sacraments, confirmation and consecration. But here they have something with which they can counter me, namely, that according to the testimony of the apostle James, here is a promise and a sign by which, as I have said so far, a sacrament is instituted. For it is written in Jac 5:14, 15: "If any man be sick, let him call unto him the elders of the congregation, and let them pray over him, and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer of faith will help the sick person, and the Lord will raise him up, and if he has committed sins, they will be forgiven him." Behold, they say, a promise of forgiveness of sins and the sign of the oil.
But I say: if somewhere it has been spoken audibly, then it has been done here in particular. And I do not want to think now that many very credibly claim that this epistle is not of the apostle Jacobus, also not worthy of
of the apostolic spirit, although it has acquired a reputation by habit, it now comes from whomsoever it may. However, even though it was from the apostle James, I still wanted to say that it is not proper for the apostles to institute a sacrament by their own authority, that is, to give God's promises with a sign attached. For this belonged to Christ alone. Thus Paul says [1 Cor. 11, 23] that he received the sacrament of the Lord's Supper from the Lord and was sent not to baptize but to preach the gospel, [1 Cor. 1, 17] but nowhere in the gospel is the sacrament of this last offering mentioned. But let us leave that aside and look at these words of the apostle, or who else is the author of the epistle, ourselves, and we will find at the same time how those who increased the sacraments did not pay attention to anything.
First of all, if they think that what the apostle says is true and must be kept, by what force do they change it and resist it? Why do they make it a final and special ointment, since the apostle intended it to be general? For the apostle did not intend that it should be the last and be given to the dying alone, but he says par excellence (absolute), "If any man be sick." He does not say, "If anyone is dying. 'Here I also do not respect what "the ecclesiastical hierarchy" of Dionysius pretends. The words of the apostle are evident, on which both he and they base themselves, and yet they do not follow them, so that it may be evident that they have not established the sacrament and the last rites by any scripture, but by their own will, from the misunderstood words of the apostle, to the detriment of the other sick people, from whom they have taken away by their own power the benefit of the rites instituted by the apostle.
But this is even better, that the promise of the apostle explicitly says: "The prayer of faith will help the sick person, and the Lord will raise him up" etc. Behold, the apostle commands that therefore oiling and prayer should be made, that the sick person may be healed and raised up, that is, that he may not die, and
that such oiling is not the last. This is also proved by the prayers that are said under the oil, which ask for the sick person to be healed. On the other hand, they say that the oiling should be given to the dying, that is, so that they will not be healed and raised. If this matter were not a serious one, who could refrain from laughing at such beautiful, skillful and intelligent glosses of the apostolic words? Is not their sophistical foolishness publicly recognized here, which, as here, so also in many other places affirms what Scripture denies, and in turn denies what Scripture affirms? Yes, do we not therefore have to thank our so highly learned masters? So I have rightly said that nowhere have they been spoken of more thorougly than in this place.
Further, if this blessedness is a sacrament, it must undoubtedly be (as they say) an effective sign that signifies and promises. Now it promises health and restoration of the sick, as the words clearly read, "The prayer of faith shall help the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up." But who does not see that the promise of the apostle James is fulfilled in few, nay, in none? For among thousands, hardly anyone is restored to health; and no one believes that it is by the power of the sacrament, but by the help of nature or of medicine. For they attribute the opposite to the sacrament. So what do they want to say? Either the apostle must lie in this promise; or the blessedness must be no sacrament, for the promise of the sacraments is certain; but this fails with most. Yes, in order that we may recognize the wisdom and diligence of these theologians, they want the oelung to be the last, so that the promise does not exist, that is, so that the sacrament is not a sacrament. For if it is the last, it does not make healthy, but gives way to sickness; but if it makes healthy, it cannot be the last. Thus, according to the interpretation of these masters, it follows that Jacobus must be understood to have spoken against himself; and so that he did not institute a sacrament, he instituted a sacrament: because they want the blessedness to be the last, so that it is not true that the sacrament is the last.
122 D. V. L. V, IIL-IIS. XIII Luther's dispute with Henry VIII. W. XIX, 145-147. 123
that the sick person may be healed through them, as St. James stated. If this is not foolishness, I ask what is foolishness?
The words of Paul 1 Tim. 1, 7. happen to them: "They want to be masters of the Scriptures, and do not understand what they say or what they set." So they read everything and follow the same. With the same carelessness they have drawn secret confession from the words of the apostle, who says: "Confess your sins one to another" Jac. 5, [16.]. But they do not keep even that, when the apostle commands that the elders of the church be called and pray over the sick. Now hardly a poor pawn is sent, while the apostle wants many of them to be present, not for the sake of blessedness, but for the sake of prayer. Therefore he also says: "The prayer of faith will help the sick" etc. Although I do not know for sure whether he means priests, since he says presbyters, that is, the elders. For he is not a priest, or a servant of the church, who is an elder. Therefore, you might suppose that the apostle intended that the elders and most noble in the church should visit the sick, who, doing a work of mercy and praying in faith, made him well. However, it cannot be denied that the churches were governed by the elders in the past, without such ordinance and consecration, since they were chosen for it because of their age and long experience.
I think that this order is the same, of which Marci 6, 13. is written: "And they anointed many sick with oil and made them well", namely, that it was a use of the first church, by which they worked miraculous signs over the sick, but which has now long ceased; as also Marci at the last Christ endowed the faithful with the ability to drive out the serpents, and to lay their hands on the sick etc. I am surprised that they did not also make sacraments out of these words, since they have the same effect and promise with these words of St. Jacob. That is why this last, that is, this he
Oelung, not a sacrament, but a council of St. Jacob, which may be followed by whoever wants to, taken from the Evangelio Marci in the sixth chapter, as I have said. For I do not believe that this counsel is given to all the sick, since sickness is the glory of the Church and death our gain, but only to those who impatiently and weakly believed bore their sickness, whom God therefore forsook, that in them the miraculous signs and works of faith might appear glorious.
And this Jacobus has carefully and diligently provided for, by assigning the promise of health and the forgiveness of sins not to oelung, but to the prayer of faith. For thus he saith, "And the prayer of faith shall help the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him." For a sacrament does not require prayer or the faith of the minister, because even an ungodly man baptizes and consecrates without prayer, but it is based solely on the promise and institution of God, and requires the faith of the one who receives it. But where is the prayer of faith in the use of our last rites today? Who prays in such faith over a sick person that he may not doubt that he will be healed? For James here describes such a prayer, of which he also said in the beginning, Cap. 1:6: "But he prayeth in faith, and doubteth not." And Christ speaks: [Marc. 11, 24.], "Whatsoever ye shall ask in your prayer, believe only that ye shall receive it, and it shall be done unto you."
There is no doubt that if this day such a prayer were to be made over a sick person, namely by the oldest, respectable and holy men, that through perfect faith as many would be healed as we wanted. For what is faith not able to do? But we leave faith (which is mostly required by these words of the apostle James), and understand by elders the whole rabble of the common priests; while the elders are supposed to be old and excellent men by faith. After this, we make a daily or free blessedness into a final one, and do not thereby obtain
124 v. a. v, ii5 f. 69. vsn of the Babylonian captivity of the church. W. xix, 147-iso. 125
We do not believe that our sacrament can be justified by the words of the apostle, which are in the strongest opposition to it. Nevertheless, we boast that our sacrament, yes, our fiction, can be justified and proven by the words of the apostle, which are most strongly 1) opposed to it. Oh, about the theologians!
I do not therefore condemn this our sacrament of the last rites; but that it is that which is described by the apostle James, I constantly deny, because neither its form, nor its custom, nor its power, nor its purpose is the same as ours. But let us count it among the sacraments which we have instituted, such as the consecration and sprinkling of salt and water. For we cannot deny "that every creature is sanctified by word and prayer," as the apostle Paul teaches us [1 Tim. 4:5]. And in this way we do not deny that peace and forgiveness of sins are given through the last rites: not because it is a sacrament instituted by God, but because the one who receives it believes that it will happen to him. For the faith of him who receives it does not err, however much the minister of the church may err. For if one baptizes in jest, or absolves, that is, does not absolve (as far as the minister is concerned); yet he really and truly absolves and baptizes, if he who is to be baptized or absolved believes. How much more does he give peace to the sick, who oils with the last oil, although in truth he does not give him peace, if one looks at the service, because there is no sacrament; for the faith of the anointed also receives what the minister either could not give or did not want to give. For it is enough for the anointed to hear the word and believe. For what we believe that we will receive, that we also receive in truth; the servant acts or does not act, he heeps or plays his game. For the saying of Christ stands firm: "All things are possible to him who believes.
1) plus quam per kis äluposou - more than a double octave away from it.
[Marc. 9, 23.], and again: "Be it done to you as you have believed". [Matth. 8, 13.]. But our sophists say nothing about faith in these sacraments, but play with the power of the sacraments with all their might: for they are always learning, and yet never come to the knowledge of the truth.
But it has been useful that this ointment has been made the last, because by this good deed it has been made the least of all a mockery and subjected to tyranny and avarice, in that this only mercy has been left for the dying, that they could be oiled freely, even if they had not confessed nor even communicated. If this oiling had remained in daily use, especially if it had also made the sick healthy, even though it had not taken away the sin: ei, dear, which of the world's elders today would not hold the popes who have become such great emperors and princes from One Sacrament of Penance and Keys and the Sacrament of Consecration? But now, fortunately, just as they despise the prayer of faith, so they do not heal the sick, and have invented a new sacrament out of an old custom.
So much be said of the four sacraments for this time, which, as I well know, will displease those who think that they must take the number and the custom of the sacraments not from the Holy Scriptures, but from the Roman See: as if the Roman See had given these sacraments, and had not rather received them from the high schools of the universities, to which the Roman See undoubtedly owes all that it has. For the papal tyranny, which is so great, would not exist if it had not received so much help from the high schools, because among many famous bishoprics there has hardly been any other that has had so few learned bishops [as the Roman]. For so far it has surpassed the others only by violence, fraud and superstition: for those who sat on this chair a thousand years ago are so far different from those who have arisen in the meantime that
it must be said that either the old or the present ones are not Roman bishops.
There are also some others that could be counted among the sacraments, namely all that in relation to which a promise of God has been made, as there are the prayer, the word and the cross. For Christ has promised answer to those who pray in many places, especially Luc. 11, 1. ff., where he incites us to pray with many parables; and [which comes] from the word [v. 28.]: "Blessed are those who hear God's word and keep it." But who will tell here how often he promises help and honor to the afflicted, the patient, and the humble? Yes, who can tell all of God's promises? Since He does nothing else in all of Scripture than to provoke us to faith, sometimes compelling us with commands and threats, sometimes enticing us to Himself with promises and comforts. For all that is written is either commandments or promises; the commandments humble the hopeful by their demands, but the promises exalt the humble by their forbearance.
But we have seen that actually only those sacraments are called which are promised with attached signs. But the others, because they do not have attached signs, are mere promises. From this it follows, if we want to speak of it in the strongest terms, that in the Church of God there are only two sacraments, baptism and bread, because in these two alone we also see the sign instituted by God and the promise of the forgiveness of sins. For the Sacrament of Penance, which I have added to these two, lacks a visible sign instituted by God; and I have said that it is nothing other than a way and return to baptism. But even the scholastici cannot say that their description fits penance, because they themselves ascribe to a sacrament a visible sign that gives a sensually perceptible form (formam ingerat sensibus) of the thing that it invisibly works. But penance or absolution does not have such a sign; therefore, by their own description they are forced either to say that penance is not a sacrament, and to say that it is not a sacrament.
that is, to diminish the sacraments, or to give another description of the sacraments.
But baptism, which we appropriate to the whole life, will be completely sufficient (recte satis erit) for all the sacraments we are to use in our life. But the bread is truly a sacrament of the dying and departing, because in it we proclaim Christ's departure from this world, so that we may follow him, and distribute these two sacraments in such a way that baptism is appropriated to the beginning and the whole course of life, but the bread to the end and death. And a Christian should use both in this life, until he leaves this world fully baptized and strengthened, born to a new eternal life, when he will eat with Christ in the kingdom of his Father, as he promised in the supper, saying: "Truly I say to you, that I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the day I drink it anew in the kingdom of God" Marc. 14, 25]; so that it is clearly recognized that Christ instituted the Sacrament of Bread to receive eternal life. For then, when the essence of both sacraments is fulfilled, baptism and bread will cease.
Herewith I will put an end to this prelude, which I gladly and joyfully hand over to all pious Christians who desire to know the right understanding of the Scriptures and the right use of the sacraments. For it is not a small gift to know "that which is given to us by God," as it says in 1 Cor. 2:12, and how to use the gifts. If we are instructed with such understanding of the Spirit, we will not rely deceitfully on those who think otherwise. But because our theologians have nowhere given us these two things, but have, as it were, deliberately obscured them, I have, though I have not given them, made it clear that I have not obscured them, and have given others cause to think better things. This has only been my intention to present both, because we cannot all do everything. But to the ungodly, and to those who take us for the divine things
I confidently and freely oppose them and do not respect their unlearned anger at all, although I wish them a good mind and do not despise their efforts, but only want them to be separated from the true righteous Christians.
I also hear that new bulls have been issued against me, and papal curses (diras), by which I am forced to recant or am declared a heretic. If this is true, I want this booklet to be a part of my future recantation,
so that they cannot complain that their tyranny has risen in vain. The remaining part I will shortly deliver with the help of Christ in such a way as the Roman See has neither seen nor heard, and thus sufficiently testify to my obedience, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, Amen.
What do you fear enemy Herod very much,
That Christ the Lord may be born to us, He seeks no mortal kingdom, Who brings to us His kingdom of heaven.