After June 14, 1528.
To the careful N., my dear Lord and friend in Christo.
Grace and peace in Christ our Lord. I have long delayed, my dear Lord and friend, to answer your request, but I come at last, God grant that I may abundantly strengthen your faith through Christ's grace, and together with you, blessedly comfort many others, amen.
2 For although so many books have come to light about this matter, both from others and from me, that anyone can well inform himself by them, I will nevertheless, for your and others' comfort, add a
I have written about it once, so that even the great bishops and writers on the papist side do not stop blaspheming, and always encourage them to hear new songs about their great art and virtue. Not that I want to lay myself against the papists, for I have resolved not to write against any papists henceforth, but only to comfort and strengthen ours, and that primarily for the following reasons:
(3) First, that they have been such impudent liars from the beginning to this day, writing against their own conscience such a thing of us as they and all the world know it to be.
*This writing appeared in a single edition under the title given by us in Wittenberg in 1528 with Joseph Klug and was published again by the same in 1529. In the collections it is found: in the Wittenberg (1553), vol. IV, p. 3776; in the Jena (1556), vol. Ill, p. 558; in the Altenburg, vol. Ill-, p. 893; in the Leipzig, vol. XIX, p. 600 and in the Erlangen, vol. 30, p. 374. We have reproduced the text according to the Jena edition, comparing the Wittenberg and the Erlangen. The date is taken from De Wette, vol. VI, p. 630, where it is said that this writing "might be expected to be dated a few months later.
is a lie, as D. Schmid and Doctor Rubenlöffel 1) together with their company have proven so far with many letters, and also a poor smoking fire, which is overlooked by the fire at Bern, 2) seeks its tinder in a corner with us. I would have thought that the noble virtue that the preaching monks at Bern have committed with the sacrament should humble them, that when they look at a man (let alone when they preach for princes and write lies to the world), they should put down their heads and remember the sacrament and the fire at Bern, and become a little red before it, as he might be sure that his listeners would say: Behold, this is one of the lying monks who committed such vices with your Sacrament at Bern and poisoned Emperor Henry in the Sacrament.
4 And although they write and preach a lot, no one has ever been found among such proud boys who wants to confess their vice and disgrace, or let him suffer or atone for it, but go through with an insolent forehead and seek honor as if they had done well. What good should such sacrament violators write about the sacrament? Here they should first write against their own companions and punish them, and humbly confess that they would be sorry for such vice, then it would behoove them to pull the splinter out of the other's eyes, if they had first pulled the beam out of their eyes. But they do not do so; perhaps because they like it when their Bernese virtue is always being praised. For as long as they do not repent, they must hear such shame forever, as the Jews must hear their shame as long as they do not convert.
(5) But Luther is the one in whom everyone can be honored and attain all blessedness. For no donkey's head is so unlearned, if he only writes against Luther, he is learned. No frivolous knave has ever been so wicked or despised, if he writes against Luther, then he is pious and the
1) Cochläus.
2) According to Cochlaeus, this refers to the Dominican D. Mensing, and Luther alludes to May 31, 1509. (Seidemann in De Wette, vol. VI, p. 630, note 2.)
dear child. No one has ever been so highly disgraced, if he writes against Luther, he is a crown of honors. There are now kings, princes, bishops, in great property and honor, which, if Luther were not, would perhaps have to eat with the sows Trüber. Is Luther not a strange man to me, I mean that he is God, how else could his writing and name be so powerful that he made lords out of beggars, doctors out of donkeys, saints out of boys, pearls out of dirt, glorious people out of stains? It is much to his credit that Luther made Adrian VI pope; perhaps he will also make Doctor Schmid a cardinal, for the dove is already hovering around him.
6 So here too, because all the world cannot extinguish the fire in Bern, Luther, the poor cover of shame, has to stand up and make the preachers honorable, because they are holy and have never disturbed any water, and not a speck of splinter in their eye; Luther is such a shameful, cursed, damned thing that one can no longer recognize a knave or villain before it. Well, let lie and deceive, one says in the proverb: Obvious lie is not worth an answer. I will leave it at that; but whoever wants to have a short answer to all the papists' present writing, and also to know what they are writing, let him look at the pabstle 3) printed and laid out, and the dragon's head coming out of its butt will show him what kind of scribes and preachers the wretched pabstry has in its last days.
7 Secondly, I have already made too many and strong Lutherans with my writing, so that I must stop, otherwise the papists might become too Lutheran. For they are already more and better Lutheran than I am, and they also need the gospel more for their benefit than we do. Yes, we have great harm and disadvantage, but they have benefit and honor from it. As the canons, priests and monks have learned very well to slacken their horas canonicas, they have strong consciences,
3) A horrible picture of the papacy, which the old editions bring, best interpretation in the writing No. 36 in the appendix of this volume is given.
They are not allowed to leave their own statutes and laws, and are not allowed to get a dispensation from the pope; however, they pray nothing and do nothing, as they have never done anything good before. And in many respects great freedom has come to them through me; but we alone are free in conscience, and must pray and otherwise do and suffer much against it.
Item 8: When the pope was captured by the emperor, the church certainly had no head, and if it had happened in the past, what kind of a thing would the clergy have done against the emperor (as has happened); then no one would have been able to say mass, all sacraments and spiritual offices would have lain low, as they would have been ineffective, because the head would have lain and could not flow into its members. But now, even though the pope has fallen horribly and is imprisoned, they still say mass and take care of all spiritual offices and sacraments. Why? Because Luther is the pope, without giving their thanks, from which they have learned, to the pope, as much as they desire, and in this they are quite Lutheran, stand by their lord and head, like the rogues, nor are they against Luther.
But the angry little disciples, the princes, are still the very best Lutherans, take gifts and bailiwicks from monasteries and foundations in quantity, take the treasures to themselves (without doubt in good faith to preserve them) and thereby lie in wait for the underlying reasons. For this purpose, they also encroach upon the papal rights and liberties, value and weigh down the ecclesiastical estates and persons as they wish. But where do they learn all this? In Pabst's books? Yes, beware of that; Luther has thus made them free, and yet they must have neither thanks nor name for it. But in the meantime, they are very serious, as they are good papists, they force the people to the same form of the sacrament, the priests to plates and chasubles. O holy papists! How great earnestness is there! See what the bishop of Mainz and his court henchmen are doing to the monastery of St. Mary and the New Work 1) in Halle.
1) "Neuenwerk" a monastery before Halle. Cf. Seidemann in De Wette, Vol. VI, 573.
10) Summa, the nobles, who should not have revolted against a lay brother, and had to stoop before the bishops, and especially before the pope, 2) have now come into such power and freedom that they have reversed the game, namely, that the clergy must stoop before them. And in spite of the pope himself, that he looks sourly at one, with all his clergy, or calls them differently, because: Dear son, you Christian prince, you protector of the faith; give and suffer for it from them all that they want.
Such honor and power would truly tickle and move a prince, especially if he is an aristocrat, so that he would become an enemy of the heretic Luther. But our Lutheran princes do not have to come to such honor; indeed, everyone must be hostile to them and, for this purpose, seek treacherous plots and alliances against them, of which they must be ashamed themselves afterwards, as the plot at Mainz also happened. So it almost comes to this that those who are scolded as Lutheran are the least Lutheran, and those who want to be praised as papist are and are found to be the most Lutheran.
(12) Because the way of the papists is to deal in vain lies, and all their play is false hypocrisy and deceit, as all this is in the day, I will leave them henceforth to their god, since they will not otherwise, that they lie and deceive until they are weary. For as far as the main articles of our faith are concerned, I have brought to light enough Scripture and confession for everyone to be able to help and protect himself so that he will remain undeceived by such false, careless people. Whoever is deceived by this, wants to be deceived; I am excused before God and the world, that I truly know. For the papists, even if they wrote a thousand little books, they are still the same old rotten tales that I published seven years ago, and I still see nothing that they bring against them from the Scriptures, except the power of their church; so I cough up and let them go.
2) "duck" - duck.
3) i.e. haughty, proud, combined with a coarse nature. Grimm: "stoliäs ksrox." This refers to Duke George of Saxony, as the allusion to the Pack alliance that follows shows.
z
But that I may come to the point and, as I have undertaken, strengthen the consciences against the bishop of Meissen and his overlord's tyranny, I will relate several pieces one after the other, in which you may consider and comfort and strengthen yourself.
(13) First of all, you shall signify the papists' own confession. For they publicly confess that it is true and founded in Scripture to receive both forms of the sacrament according to the institution of Christ our Lord. They must confess that Christianity has used it in the past, as is found in Cyprian and other holy fathers' books. About this they must confess that no one knows when and by whom the one figure custom was broken. About this they confess that if there were a concilium, they would faithfully help that both forms should be given to the laity, that priests should be allowed to marry, and other things more. Such confession (I say) thou shalt well remember: for there is no better way to drive in the devil, and to strengthen our hearts against him, than by his own word and confession, as Christ saith [Matt. 12:37], "Out of thine own words thou shalt be justified, and out of thine own words thou shalt be condemned." O how should they throb and defy, if they had such a confession of our own!
(14) From this confession, then, you have to strengthen your heart in this way: If the former Christians and holy fathers have kept it, and used, practiced, and left both forms of Scripture behind them, then either they must have erred and done 1) wrong, or the papists must be loose, reckless liars, that they make us wrong, which they themselves profess to be right and well done by the holy fathers. So they must also be full of devils, that they confess and promise that they will order it in the Concilio. For by this they indicate that it is right, but because they do not yet say yes to it, it is said to be wrong. Who has ever heard more that the devil so openly and insolently sets himself above the truth, which he himself confesses to be truth, and yet shall not be truth until he permits it?
1) Jenaer: or.
Dear, who should not grow courageous here when he sees and hears such public devilishness in the papists?
(15) Yea, sayest thou, they ask not, and hear not? Answer, why do you ask about the devil and his known disciples? I do not speak to them now to teach them; I speak to you, let them hear the devil and follow him. You have read that some of them, with many sayings of the Gospel, want to prove that one figure is right to use, as where Christ or the disciples broke bread. Hold now their art and mouth together, and see what manner of men they are; they say that it is written in the Gospel that one form is to be used, and yet promise again to order both forms in the Conciliar.
(16) Dear, what else is this said but this: We want to order something else in the Concilio than we find and prove in the Gospel; or thus: What God teaches us in the Gospel, we want to condemn and change in the Concilio? Rather, who wants to be with such people, who have no other reason for their faith than this, and who unashamedly confess thus: We humans may do with God's word what we want and how we want. Where is Christ's saying [Matth. 24, 35]: "Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words shall never pass away"? Be the sorrowful devil with such Christians, who is certainly also with them, and speaks such things.
(17) But if the future order of the Concilii is to be right, then Christ must be wrong, since he uses one form of custom in the Gospel, as they say; but if he is not wrong, then it is God's supreme blasphemers who promise to change it in the Concilio. Behold, thus do liars always persevere with their lies; let this strengthen thee, and comfort thyself with the same.
18 Secondly, take before you the deed of the pope; he leaves and gives both forms to the Bohemians. Is this right, why should it not be right for us? They say that the pope is full of the Holy Spirit and may not err: how does it add up, then, that Christ, who cannot err, teaches in the Gospel One Form (as they say), and the pope, who also cannot err, gives
of both figures? How finely do such liars rhyme Christ and the pope together, yes, how finely does their faith stand on fur sleeves? There you see and grasp that there is a public conspiracy with D. Schmid and his companions, since they prove from the Gospel one and the same figure, and lie so that the beams crack. But these are the ways to become rich, great lords and cardinals. So you have the companions all together; some confess that both forms are founded in the gospel, but promise to order it in a concilio; some say that one form is founded in the gospel, so they run against each other with lies as the nonsensical, who neither see nor hear what they themselves speak or write.
(19) Yes, they say, the church is above the gospel and has the power to change it, as it has often done. Answer, this is a true word, and you should not only believe it, but also grasp it; yes, such a church is not only above the gospel, but also above God Himself. For whoever is above God's word and commandment must of course also be above God Himself, since God Himself is the word and the truth. And they prove all this, not only with doctrine, but also with life, for God speaks thus: "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my word shall not pass away" [Matth. 24, 35. Luc. 21, 33J. Against this and against it the church speaks: Yes, your words shall and must pass away, as often and as much as we desire. Christ says [Matth. 5, 19]: "Whoever abolishes one of the least commandments and teaches the people in this way will be the least in the kingdom of heaven; for not one iota nor one tittle of the law shall pass away, but all must be done." Against this the church says: "Not only a jot or a tittle, but the whole text commanded by the cup in the Lord's Supper, shall and must pass away, as we will. Should we not dissolve the smallest commandment, if we have the power to dissolve the great ones as well?
20. For whoever may change and abrogate one commandment or word of God, he may also abrogate them all. If he does not change or abrogate all of them, he may not change or abrogate any of them, because they are all of equal honor, both the word of God and the other.
Therefore, they may also abrogate the word when the Father spoke from heaven [Matth. 3, 17]: "Behold, this is my beloved Son, whom you must obey"; item, they may also abrogate the word: "Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners", 1 Tim. 1, 15. Thus also the ten commandments, the Lord's Prayer and faith. Summa, all of God's commandments and words may be changed as they wish, because there is no difference among the words of God, but each one is the same word of God that the other is.
(21) And indeed (as has been said) they do it confidently, for they teach men to be saved by works; so that Christ's suffering and blood are annulled, that he came not into the world to save sinners. But they can, without Christ, save themselves by their own works. Item, since Christ teaches, Matth. 5, 39. ff.: "One should not resist evil, but let the coat go after the cloak, pray for the enemies, do good to the unpleasant, bless the blasphemers, and give and lend to everyone", all this they are not called commanded, but rather advised and left free; whoever does not want to do it, may well leave it alone, and is nevertheless a Christian. So also to love God with all one's heart and to love one's neighbor as oneself are no longer commandments, but free counsels and superfluous unnecessary teaching. Since their doctrine applies to them, what can you doubt that the church is filled with doctrines both about God and about Christ, both about the gospel and laws and about everything in general? how can they not also take away the cup in the Lord's Supper and abolish such an order of God?
22 And, what is even more, they are also above themselves. For (as said) the pope allows the Bohemians, and whom he wills, both forms of the sacrament, and they approve of the same, although it is against their own order, since they teach to give and take only one form above God's order. Yes, what do you think? Is it not a great power in the church that they are above God and everything, and above themselves? So also, by their super-divine and super-Christian order, they have forbidden the priests to marry against and above the Word of God; but the
The pope takes money or favors and once again rides roughshod over himself, and over such supergodly order of the church, and gives nuns and monks freedom to marry, as he has often done.
(23) So also with life they are all things above all God's words and commandments in all ways. First of all, at the right hand, they have spiritual, perfect estate, so that they are far, far, high, high, far, far above the common estate of the Christian faith and all the estates of the Holy Spirit, for their poverty, obedience, chastity, girdles, pistons 1), caps, are vain suns and moons in heaven, so while filial obedience, conjugal discipline, divine authority, willing service of subjects and all order of God are nothing else against it, but dirt in the lantern. On the left also, for there the bishops and clergy are commanded to preach and to govern the Christians by the word of God; but this is nothing, but much higher, that the bishops are princes and govern worldly goods, but the priests are gluttons, swindlers, whoremongers, and the most wicked boys on earth; thus one comes upon the gospel and God's commandment.
(24) I must tell the bishop of Meissen, in honor of the same supernatural holiness, an example, so that they may grasp how strongly we believe that they are above the gospel. At Würzen 2) a cathedral provost recently died of old age, who took a man's wife and held her against him with sacrilege and violence; the poor man ran and ran, complaining to the bishop as his overlord. But that did not help, he had to do without his wife and leave her to the provost as a whore for fourteen years. And summa, he could not get any other answer from the bishop than this: the provost was a strange prelate, the bishop had no power.
1) Pistons - heads probably stands for plates here.
2) Probably this is the same incident that is narrated in the Tischreden, Cap. 27, § 130 (Walch, St. Louis edition, vol. XXII, 915). There the culprit is called "a Würzburg Canonicus". This was a foreign provost living in Würzen. Cochläus says that the provost had stayed in a foreign diocese; no one had ever sued him at the bishop. Compare Seidemann in De Wette, vol. VI, 630, note 2.
about him. Where do you think that such episcopal answer should come from, but from the church authority, which is over the gospel and over itself? A bishop, of course, is over a provost, according to the church order, again, he is also over such order, if it desires to defend whoremongers and knaves, to plague poor people.
(25) Now the provost has his judge, but the bishop is a supergodly man, who cannot punish the priests who are wife-stealers, adulterers and whore-hunters. Why is that? Because God has forbidden such things and they are above God's word and commandment; but to teach and take both forms, he can punish and rebuke and make heresy and blasphemy out of it. Why? Because it is against the order of the church, and it desires to keep it this time. I have heard many examples of this supergodly order from Fabian Feilitz, of blessed memory, who had experienced it at the court of the bishop of Naumburg in Zeitz and called it a praiseworthy, spiritual order when a man complains about a bullfinch that reproached him with his wife, that the same man had to be wrong, keep silent and suffer penance and punishment, as if he had maliciously accused a member of the supergodly church. I will now keep silent about the right whorehouses of Mainz, Würzburg, Bamberg, Halberstadt 2c.
(26) Well then, you see and understand that the church is above the gospel, the commandment, God, Christ and itself; how much more are they above us poor heretics and erring people! This is also what St. Paul confesses when he says in 2 Thess. 2 that in the future the church should set itself against and rise above everything that is called God and is honored. Which is now strongly fulfilled, that they themselves confess that they are above God, and not only confess, but also praise as the highest virtue; and not only praise, but also hold above it, and press and compel it, as the highest article above all articles. I mean, they are paid with God's wrath and plague; how could the devil himself act worse in this, that they not only fulfill such a horrible, terrible saying of St. Paul, but also
boast of the same, and do above all God's words and works?
But what kind of church is it that boasts that it is above God's word? Of course, it is also a church, yes, the church of the wicked devil and Satan's bride, who also wanted to set himself above God in the beginning, of which the 26th Psalm speaks v. 5: "I hate the church of the wicked, and will not dwell with the wicked. We know that the Christian church is subject to Christ, Eph. 5, 24. and does not go over Christ and is obedient to the word of God and does not master or change his word, but allows itself to be changed and mastered by the word; this is the true bride of Christ and our church, of which stands in faith: I believe a holy Christian church 2c., therefore we remain with and in the same, and let that apostate devil-whore depart with her idol. And just with this they scare us away from themselves, so that they want to bring us to themselves. For this very reason we flee and avoid them, so that they pass over God and His Word, thereby thinking that they can take us to themselves in the most powerful way; let the devil remain in such a church.
28 For if it were true that the church is above the Word of God, and there is discord between them, as happened before the Concilio at Costnitz, tell me, to which part should a devout Christian adhere? For each part would want to be the right church and pretend to be above the other part. They could not be united with God's word, nor could they be reconciled, because each part wanted to be above God's word, as the right church; indeed, how could one Christian always be reconciled with the other, if each wanted to be a member of the church and have power over God's word? Oh, a beautiful and praiseworthy church that wanted to become! With what would the papacy confirm itself, or its council have power, if anyone wanted to say that he, as a true Christian, had power over God's word? that is what the pope and the council insist on. This is what the murderer and liar, the devil, seeks; he would like to have such a church, such Christians would be dear to him.
29. because they themselves cannot deny that the church is to be governed by the word of God.
If the church, the pope and the concilia must hold together and unite, and if the pope himself wants to confirm and maintain his papacy, and the concilia also want to confirm and maintain their power through God's word: then it is obvious and clear enough that both, church, pope and concilia are/should be under God's word 1), also according to their own doctrine and law. And those who say that the church is above God's word, lie as disciples of the devil, not only against God, but also against themselves, against their own deeds and teachings, only that they may blaspheme against us and against God's word. They gain so much from this that, as public liars, they bite their own tongues and teach and do against themselves, and at the same time must keep their church under God's word, without their thanks, and yet want to exalt themselves above God's word with wanton lies.
30. But if you say, "Let us read that the apostles gave to the church statutes and commandments concerning the things which they received from Christ, as, Acts 15:20, they commanded by the power of the Holy Spirit to avoid "things sacrificed to idols, and things strangled, and things fornicated. 15, 20. they command by the power of the Holy Spirit to avoid "sacrifices to idols, blood, and things strangled, and fornication", while St. Paul in his epistles especially exempts the sacrifice to idols, 1 Cor. 8, 7. and Cap. 10, 27. and now the whole of Christianity does not avoid blood sacrifices, nor does it pray. From this it is found that the church has the power to change God's order and the order of the Holy Spirit, and also to add new commandments, as the apostles did at that time 2c. What shall we say to this? This is not a blacksmith's hammer, but a thunderbolt of Scripture.
If my dear nobles did not despise my writings so miserably and would have read them, they would have found so much from the two sermons, 2) which I have done and let go out about the same 15th chapter, that they would not bring such objections to the market. But they read nothing, but only look for vain gaps, where they may blaspheme and lie. I would have them swear an oath, and they would have to keep it,
1) Thus the Jenaers. Wittenberg and Erlangen: under the Word of God.
2) This refers to the writing: "Two Sermons on the 16th and 16th Chapters of the Acts of the Apostles." Walch, old edition, vol. VIII, 1024 ff.
that they must follow the example of the apostles, Apost. 15, and do nothing else. But they are above the apostles and God and cannot be kept, neither with their own text nor with any other. For if it were against them, they could soon say: The church is above God's commandment, and yet lead such a text to appear as if they wanted to follow it and be subject to it, to strengthen their thing with it, the fine dear liars and false hypocrites.
32) First of all, you know that we are not talking about the church, which has set some order above and beyond what Christ and the apostles have set in the Gospel, but about such a church, which sets and raises itself above and against God and His commandment, namely from the infernal Lutzeber 1) Archwhore, where the current whore hosts, the Niclas bishops, reign. For how often have we offered and still offer ourselves daily, when the pope and they all only want to admit that they do not teach us anything against God's word and force us to live, then we would gladly and willingly accept and keep everything that they could only impose and command. We have never desired anything else, nor do we desire anything else, except that we may freely have God's Word and the Holy Scriptures to teach and keep; of this my little books in many places are certain and strong enough witnesses for me.
For by the grace of God we still have such strong skulls that we could carry a plate on them; our stomachs and bellies are also so healthy that we could fast and eat and digest fish on Fridays and Saturdays, especially because they allow good wine to be drunk (no doubt to great mortification of the body). We also have such strong shoulders and bones that we would endure chasubles, surplices, caps and long skirts, and summa, all such their excellent, great, dear holiness we trust to hold by natural forces, even without the special grace of the Holy Spirit, so that they do not become too almost
1) d. i. Lucifer's.
2) Niclas bishops - children's play bishops. Cf. the note to Col. 675 of this volume and Walch, St. Louis Edition, Vol. XXII, No. 1241.
may boast highly of their holy lives. Above this, with God's help and grace, we would also do and leave well that which they neither do nor leave, namely, fornication, adultery, covetousness, racketeering, splurging, flaunting and all their evil deeds, and on the other hand give allmoses and do good to our neighbors, from which they guard themselves as the devil does from the cross.
(34) But this is the strife, that they will not let us have the Word of God and the Scriptures freely, but compel and urge us to teach and do contrary to the Word of God. This is why we step on our feet and put on our horns. And because they will not let us keep God's word, we will not keep a hair's breadth of all that they set and command; which otherwise we would gladly keep, if they would let us keep God's word. Hence it follows that we do not want to suffer or keep any plates, caps, fasts, or anything of theirs, nor have anything to do with them, nor be like them, but only do and leave in the most cheerful and defiant manner what annoys them, is contrary to them, and will not have, as they do contrary to God's word; Lest we be found guilty with them before God, as having consented with them to do and teach contrary to the word of God, when we are sure "it is necessary to be obedient to God rather than to men", Acts 5:29. 5, 29.
Now let us see such a plea of the Niclas bishops and their hypocrites from the 15th chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, so you will see how the Pabst is a fine fellow to act in the Scriptures. The question in the 15th chapter rises above this: Whether the Gentiles, having believed, should also be circumcised and keep the law of Moses? The Jews agreed and said, yes, it should be true. Paul and Barnabas stand firm and say, "No, it is enough for the Gentiles to believe and not to keep the Law of Moses." They prove this very powerfully: "When they had preached the gospel among the Gentiles, the Holy Spirit fell upon the Gentiles who listened and believed, and yet had nothing of the Law of Moses.
If the Holy Spirit is given to the Gentiles without the Law of Moses, it is not to be interpreted to the Gentiles, but it is enough that they believe; for where the Law is necessary over faith, God would not give His Spirit to the Gentiles without the Law of Moses.
36 Peter confirmed this in the Jerusalem Conciliar, when Paul and Barnabas brought this from Antioch, because he had also experienced it with the Gentile Cornelio, Acts 15, ff. 15, 7. ff. And he speaks publicly before all: "Dear brethren, you miss the fact that God has mentioned that the Gentiles heard the gospel through my mouth: and God, the Proclaimer of hearts, testified of them, and gave them the Holy Spirit, just as he did to us, and made no distinction between us and them. Why then do you tempt God, and put upon the neck of the disciples the yoke which neither we nor our fathers were able to bear? but by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ we believe to be saved, even as they," that is, the Gentiles. Here you see that the deal is that one should be saved by faith without the law, which is thus decided in the Council and sent to Antioch to be told to the disciples, as you may further read there. This little piece (I say) mark well, for herein lies it altogether. The decision (I say one more) and traditiones of this first Concilii are these: Not to lay the law of Moses upon the disciples of the Gentiles, but to teach them to be saved by faith without the law of Moses; this Paul and Barnabas bear now and then, and command to keep it, and Lucas calls it decreta and traditiones seniorum, etc.
(37) Then see if in this they set the doctrine of men, or exalt themselves above the word of God; yea, beware, they set nothing else, but the right principal of Christian doctrine, namely, faith and Christian liberty, and with great earnestness they forbid that anything more should be laid upon the disciples, nor that they should be weighed down, but that they should abide in the faith as Christ taught, and as confirmed from heaven by the Holy Ghost. And so the first Concilium goes against the laws of men, even against Moses and all the laws.
38) Then look at our Niclas bishops, who, to confirm this sentence, lead their essays and call them the decreta and traditiones Apostolorum, which the apostles are said to have laid down about the gospel, when 1) the text compels with all force, such were the commandments of the apostles, which resist the essays, and forbid to interpret anything about the gospel, but command to remain in the faith without essays, are they not fine fellows in the Scriptures? They say yes when the Scripture says no, they make areas out of it when the Scripture speaks of prohibition. Why? Well, they are above God's word, so they may well make a yes out of the Scripture, since it teaches no. But the pope is an ass, is called an ass, and remains an ass, therefore he must also act with the Scripture in such a way that everyone must publicly see that they are asses.
(39) Yea, thou sayest, yet it is also set forth and laid up, that they should avoid things sacrificed unto idols, and blood, and things strangled, and fornication, as there St. James saith. Yes, the Niclas bishops and Pabstles can see this part, but the other part, which is now mentioned, around which the Concilium is also held as the main thing, they cannot see, because they are hyper-vigilant and always go beyond God's word. That is why I have said above: You should take good note of this piece, because it is entirely there.
40 What shall we say to this? Thus we say: Since the main thing and the main article of this Concilii is that one should not impose anything on the Gentiles, as the Holy Spirit, given to the Gentiles without such imposition, assigns such things, the four pieces that Jacobus sets must not be contrary to such an article. Therefore we hold that they are not put on conscience, but on love; for these four pieces were repugnant to the Jews, and disgusted with the Gentiles because of their idolatrous sacrifices, and eating of blood and carrion, and fornication. Therefore it is laid upon the Gentiles to avoid such things for the service and love of the Jews: for such things were necessary, not for salvation, but for the Jews' sakes: otherwise they might have done other things.
1) "doch" is missing in the Erlangen edition.
more, or the whole law, beaten on them.
For this reason, such things fell away with time, and St. Paul did not keep them even among the Gentiles, because it was not necessary there; but among the Jews he kept them, because it was necessary there. Therefore, in the Concilio and Epistles, they call these four things necessary, not for salvation or before God (for they had already decided this in the main article, that we must be saved not by works or law, but by faith and the grace of Christ), but for the sake of the Jews, because the Gentiles did not consider fornication, eating blood, 2c. to be sin, although fornication is also forbidden in the Gospel without this. But here the issue is not what to do or not to do, but how to be saved, which they conclude must be by faith alone, without all works. When they had received this, they did not inquire much about what else was put upon the disciples, as outward things to be borne for a time.
(42) Now, if our Pontiff would follow this Conciliar and leave us the same article, namely, that we must be saved by grace alone in faith without works, and put no law upon our conscience, we would gladly bear what they put upon our love, and again let it fall as they would. But now they force our consciences, and want to weigh them down with laws as necessary for salvation: we do not want to suffer this. And because they do not want to slacken a bit in God's name, they should and must leave it altogether. For though the apostles here lay up these things, yet they lay up nothing to the conscience as necessary to salvation, but rather resist the laying up of the same; therefore they teach nothing contrary to faith. In addition, they teach such things as should fall away with time and not be valid forever; without what is the fruit of faith, as chastity against fornication, which is otherwise commanded enough and is not actually this Concilii article, like the other three, which have long since fallen, as then all orders and articles of love should be temporal and changeable.
43 So you have that the Pabstle and the devil's church from this 15th chapter do not bring
The Lord is not able to give them the power and the right to make statements about the consciences, but that it may be a powerful argument against their tyranny, that they should leave faith and conscience free. But if they will impose that they impose love, which bears, endures and suffers all things [1 Cor. 11:7]. But in 1) such essays, God the devil is not satisfied; he wants to capture the consciences and distort faith, falsely trust in works, and thus dampen the gospel, blaspheme God's grace and defile the Holy Spirit, or, as Saint Peter calls it in the Concilio, tempt God. Now read the chapter, and pay attention to the trade and the main article, and you will find that I have told you right.
(44) From this you can easily answer all the other sayings that they might introduce. For even if the apostles or the fathers have said that it is custom or usage, it has all happened in such a way that the disciples or the Christian church have not been burdened with it, that is, their consciences have not been burdened with it, but it has been a pure service of love and favor to do the will of the neighbor. For there is the main article: The Holy Spirit is given without law, through the gospel alone, to all who believe; therefore let no law or work be set up to obtain the Holy Spirit or His grace. But whoever does this acts against the main article of the apostles, decided in this first Concilio, as you have heard.
45 After that they also make do with the piece that Christ was called to baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, while St. Paul in the Acts of the Apostles baptizes badly in the name of Jesus Christ 2c. From this they want to force that the church not only has the power to set against and above God's word, but also GOt-
1) In the old editions: "But on such Aufsetzen hat" and so on. We believe that "on" is a typographical error instead of "an", which could occur all the more easily because "an" was also used in the sense of "without". The context here requires "on"; the devil does not have enough of such essays, which are imposed on love. A similar error seems to be in the writing "vom Pabstthum zu Rom" 8108, Walch, St. Louis edition; vol. XVIII, 1047. Cf. there note 2.
The church is the only member of the church; therefore, they may well forbid one form of the sacrament, 1) and change Christ's order.
46. then you shall say: although there is a great difference between St. Paul and the priest and his church, yes, even the right church, for St. Paul was commanded by God to teach and to lay foundations, but the priest is guilty. St. Paul's teaching to be accepted, because the Pabst is to be a disciple, and not a master, has also not the authority, so St. Paul had, because he has not authority to make another gospel, yes, also no angel from heaven, Gal. 1, 8. but he has command to do, practice and keep that, so he has received from St. Paul. The bishops will not be made equal to the apostles in ministry for a long time, even though they are equal in all the goods of Christ; for the apostles lay the foundation, the bishops build on it, and cannot lay a foundation, 1 Cor. 3:10, 11, 12.
(47) But I also assume that the priest is St. Paul himself, nor does he have the power to change Christ's order; St. Paul did not do it, but the lying priest would like to impose it on him to strengthen his tyranny. For if St. Paul had taught that no one should baptize according to the teachings of Christ in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and that whoever does so should be banished as disobedient to the church, then St. Paul would be like Pabst, who teaches that no one should take both forms according to the teachings of Christ; whoever does so should be banished as a heretic 2c. Now St. Paul does not do so, but leaves Christ's order in baptism; so Christ did not forbid that one should not baptize in the name of Jesus Christ; therefore the same baptism remains, it is given in the name of Christ, or in the name of the Holy Trinity, because neither of the two alone is commanded, or the other is forbidden, therefore there is no change in the words or order of Christ, as
1) So all issues. It should probably read "command", as Walch has already noted.
the blind pope looks at the Scriptures, but two ways of baptizing, neither of which is contrary to the other, and each of which gives the right, whole, one baptism.
48 St. Augustine must also come here, since he speaks against the Manichaeans: Evangelio non crederem, nisi me commoveret autoritas Ecclesiae etc.. That is: I did not believe the Gospel, where I was not moved by the prestige of the Church. Here, Pabstsel presents himself as if he had never read or heard this saying from us before, and must be a vain new art, since I have written so abundantly and powerfully about it against D. Ecken. But Pabstesel's ears itch, and wants to have his ika and rudeness tickled.
First of all, ask a child about it. When St. Augustine says: "I would not believe the gospel if I were not moved by the reputation of the church," could it also follow and be concluded that the church is above the gospel? Does it also follow well if I say, "I am moved by the reputation of David and the prophets, that I believe in Jesus Christ; therefore David and the prophets must be above Jesus Christ? A lord or prince is moved by the reputation of the witnesses or messengers to believe that the emperor or king is his gracious lord; therefore the witnesses or messengers are over the emperor. Who has ever heard such doltish consequence and donkey logic? But the pabstle is above God's word, shouldn't he also be above all reason, language and art?
50 Secondly, I suppose that St. Augustine, the most honest teacher, would have been such an ass as they are, and with such words would have used their ass's art, and would have meant that the church is above the gospel, when he neither does nor means it, so we set St. Paul against him, Gal. 1:8: "If we ourselves, or an angel from heaven, preach unto you any other thing than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. Tell me, which one should give way to the other? Should Augustine give way to Paulo, or Paul to Augustino? Paul says, "Cursed be he that would be over the gospel, or change it, if he were himself, or even if he were an angel from heaven, and would bring all the world, angels and saints, under the gospel.
gelio, or wants to have it cursed. Augustine says (according to Pabst's brain) that the church is above the gospel and may well change it, and yet is not cursed but blessed. But in the supergodly church one must hold that St. Paul is a fool here. For since the church is above God, it is also above the angels in heaven, and above St. Paul, and above the curse as well. But we, if we would like to have the truth, say with the right church that the despairing Pabstle leaches from giving up his God, blasphemes and defiles St. Paul. And further, that St. Paul should be considered more valid than St. Augustine, even if he holds the opinion of Pabst.
Thirdly, they do violence and injustice to the pious holy father and teacher St. Augustine, and lie and deceive on him, as is their way. For whoever reads St. Augustine will find that the deal went like this: St. Augustine does not want to believe the Manichaeans. Why? Because, he says, I see how the church teaches nothing of you, when it teaches the gospel so unanimously throughout the world. Because she teaches the gospel so unanimously, and in it she speaks nothing of the Manichees, he is moved to believe the gospel and not the Manichees. That the opinion of his saying must be this: I could not have believed the gospel, nor did I believe it yet, unless I heard it preached by the church, which has such a reputation with me, since it teaches so unanimously, that I believe it. For he himself interprets this opinion, since he says: "For I believe the Gospel, through the preaching of the Christians, Evangelio (inquit), Catholicis praedicantibus, credidi. But this is what the Pope must do, so that he can steal St. Augustine's opinion from the people and make him a nose of his own liking.
52 As if I said, "I truly could not believe in Jesus Christ, nor did I believe when I was not moved by Paul, that he preaches it so well and with such earnestness that I have great respect for him, and I believe him more than the pope, of whom he teaches nothing. Dear, would you also conclude from this that I meant that Paul should be about Jesus Christ and
Do you have the power to change and turn the same as he wanted? Now St. Augustine talks about his faith in the gospel in this way, and the asses' heads want to conclude that the church is above the gospel. Truly, if anyone is to believe in God, someone must preach about Him; but should the preacher be greater than that which is preached, because no one can believe or does believe the same without his preaching? So God must be the very lowest among all creatures, for all creatures preach and speak of Him; so all masters must be among their servants, for the servants must praise and preach their masters.
Behold, so it is that the saying of Augustine, which teaches that God and His gospel are to be above all things, is taken by the Pabstles to mean that He must be among all creatures. O fine learned fellows! Should you not be comforted and strengthened when you see that such false liars, such unintelligent asses, are such blind circulators of the Scriptures and of all the fathers' sayings; that they do not know the children's grammar and logic, nor understand common sense or languages? It is also of the same art that they lead St. Paul, 2 Thess. 2, 15: "Hold to the statutes which you have learned" 2c. And where they find the word statutes or traditiones, they refer it to their foolish human doctrine, when St. Paul uses such words straightforwardly and immediately against the doctrine of men, and wants to keep the Christians by the doctrine of faith and love, which he calls "statutes which they had learned from him". For he had not taught them the doctrine of men, but the gospel. You have plenty of this in the other chapter of Colossians. For if St. Paul did not want to suffer the circumcision and other laws of Moses, which were set by God Himself, how should he suffer or confirm the law of our foolish ones, if they strive against faith and love, as has been said?
54 But the pope is right to interpret the Scriptures in this way, and to make traditionibus Apostoli traditiones hominum, because he is above God's word, and yet he presents himself as if he wanted to have such words of Paul as his overlord and master; not that he wants to make the-
He wants to be a free tyrant, who forces everyone, and yet he himself does what he wants.
55. and Summa Summarum, if they bring up as many as a hundred sayings, patching and bursting themselves with the same, interpreting and drawing them as they will or can, so we take the epistle of St. Paul alone before us, and push them all with a single saying, as he says [Gal 1:8], "If any man preach unto you otherwise than we preach unto you. Paul alone before us, and we shall strike them all with a single sentence, so that they tumble, for he says [Gal. 1:8]: "If any man preach unto you other things than we preach unto you, or other things than ye have heard, let him be accursed, whether it be an angel from heaven, or we ourselves." Here we stand, here we are, here we remain, here we defy and want to see what the Pabst can do against it. They flee from this saying, and, like Satan, fall from heaven; nor will anyone bite him or touch him, rushing by as if their heads were on fire, so that they break out in a sweat. St. Paul speaks diligently of both teaching and hearing, saying, "What he has taught or given, and they have heard and received, let them keep to that, and not accept anything else, lest anyone should come along and say, 'Although the Galatians should teach no differently from what they have received, yet they would like to hear other things and continue to learn from others. Nay, saith St. Paul, Ye shall learn nothing else, but that which I have taught you; neither shall ye teach anything else, but that ye have learned of me: that he may run and stop up every breach of the doctrine of men.
(56) Such sayings and thunderbolts are many more in the same epistle; indeed, the whole epistle goes against such tyranny of the pope, as when he says, Cap. 2: "That Christ died in vain, if any man will be saved by the law"; item, that it is as much as "to cast away the grace of God"; item, that "Christ must be a minister of sin"; item, Cap. 6, 17, that Christ is of no use and is lost, if one will amend his conscience by works. But the pope does not read such epistles, or say: He is above
St. Paul. But we take another saying from the same epistle to strengthen us, where he says Gal. 3, 15: "Do not despise a man's testament when it is confirmed, and do nothing to it" 2c. See, here he wants that one should much less do something about or to God's words, because one neither adds nor changes anything to men's testaments; where then does the Pabst with his additions want to go against this? But let it be enough with these two sayings this time, for I have otherwise written this piece abundantly enough everywhere.
57 Then they are trolled with examples and with fact, namely, that the church believes de facto, and must believe, many things that are not written, as John chapter 21 says, v. 25. 21, v. 25: "That Jesus did many signs which are not written in this book, and that the world could not understand the books if they were written" 2c. Now you go and say that Pabst is not a Christian; I mean, he believes enough. What does he believe? Well, you hear that, he believes all the books that are not written, that he has not heard nor seen, yes, he believes the books that the world cannot comprehend; that may be called faith to me. So now the faith of the pope is this: the books that are written, that one should believe, as John Cap. 21. says, such books (I say) he does not believe, but is high above them, and may change them. For such books teach us to be godly by faith, without law and works; but the books which are not written, because no man can know what is written in them, these he believes boldly and manfully, as a hero and a giant; such he will not change, nor be above them, but will gladly be subject to them, as to that which is nothing.
(58) Tell me, what shall I think of such a priest, whether he be blind, mad, or senseless, who boasts that he believes things which are not, nor ever written, and is not satisfied to believe this saying, that Christ wrought more signs than are written? For such a saying is written, and is believed; but the signs which are not written, who can believe them? Oh, let it go!
They also believe that in Christ there are two natures and one person, that Mary remains a virgin and is the mother of God, and that Christ is the true God; but this is not in the Scriptures, but the Church has decided it against the heretics Sabellius, Arius, Helvidius, 1) Nestorius and the like. Oha! dear donkey, what will happen here? Should not such pieces be in the Scriptures? Where did the holy fathers and doctors get them from? If they have invented them or received them from their heads, then they are still unpreserved today. Scripture says that Mary is the mother of God and a virgin, and this is sufficiently proven. But since no one can prove from the Scriptures that she was subsequently insane, no one should believe it either, but consider her a virgin, as the Scriptures call her; so far did St. Jerome answer Helvidio, and has answered enough.
60) Above these are several more articles, such as: that the pope is emperor, lord of the whole world, lord of purgatory, lord of paradise, that he may war and shed blood, that he may not preach nor pray, nor hold or prove any apostleship, but be borne and put on the robes of the pope, and the abominations of many more, such. Articles belong to the supergodly church, which masters and changes God's word. For that they pretend that Christ said to the apostles, "I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now" 2c. [John 16:12.], is abundantly accounted for elsewhere, that he says of the gospel, cross, and consolation in suffering. For it is evident that the apostles could well have borne what now this supergodly church bears, as: Plates, caps, of the year a little fast 2c. They have probably worn heavier things. Therefore, Christ cannot be understood by the articles and statutes of the papacy, which teach to use vain dominion, honor, power, pleasure, peace, riches, and all that is worldly.
(61) And I would gladly hear what other heavy pieces the apostle would have to carry over those whom the apostles had
1) In the old editions: Helbidius.
and we carry them now. Methinks we bear the greatest, who preach, teach, and care for souls and the poor, suffering all shame and great need and poverty, having good, idle, idle days, collecting money, and neither studying nor preaching.
62 Let this be the decision. The pope or his own have no power to interpret laws on the basis of conscience, but only on the basis of love, which is so strong that it bears all injustice and keeps even the tyrannical, unjust laws, provided they do not go against God. As, a Christian suffers that a robber takes his skirt and money, yes, he lets him take his life; but he suffers such injustice, does it, but still does not consent to it. So also that some tyrants force to one form or forbid the whole sacrament is violence and injustice. Therefore no one should consent to three things, nor follow them, but it is enough that one should suffer such robbery of the whole sacrament.
D. Mart. Luther's concerns about what one should think of ceremonies in general, and of middle things in particular. 2)
Now a new game is beginning. Some authorities, hearing our teaching and knowing that we are ready to do everything the pope sets, provided it is demanded according to love and not out of necessity of conscience, approach us and want to see us with lists, requesting of ours that they want to keep the holy celebration to their will and favor, avoid eating meat, use one form of the sacrament, and other such things: because such things are external, one may, indeed one should, be obedient to the authorities in them, and is obliged to do so. Thus the devil always seeks loopholes and lays ropes for the poor conscience. This is how it is to be done:
64. some pieces are completely and strictly contrary to the expressed Scripture and God's Word, such as: that of one form of the sacrament father and mother be obedient, lords and wives be obedient.
2) This caption is only in the Jena edition.
1) item, the impossible chastity; item, the mass sacrifice and fair. For there God's words stand bright and clear: "It is better to free than to burn"; and: "Let every man have his wife for the sake of fornication", 1 Cor. 7, 9. 2) Item, of the cup: "Drink from it, all of you" [Matth. 26, 27], and 1 Cor. 10, 17: "We are all partakers of one cup", and what is similar. Here no love or service applies, but it is said: "One must be more obedient to God than to men" [Acts 5:29]. For one should not do contrary to God's commandment and word for the sake of love; but if one does contrary to it, then one should neither approve nor allow it.
I say this so that Doctor Rubenlöffel and Bern Brand do not open their lying mouths and say that I am speaking against myself, because it says in our visitation 2) that the weak and ignorant should be allowed to have one form; for it also says there that one should not approve or permit it, but tolerate and suffer such injustice as Christ does to us. The liars let this stand, and cry out that our sovereign has permitted one form, and are not ashamed that such a book exists, punishing their impudent, knowing lie. But they are teachers of the supergodly church and have power and right also over the public truth, therefore they may well change the same [God's commandment and word] and lie publicly and shamefully for it.
Some pieces are not contrary to the revealed Word of God, nor contrary to clear Scripture in themselves, as, of the Holy Celebration.
1) Meaning: "It is absolutely against God's word, out of obedience to father and mother, or lords and wives to serve, to take the Sacrament under one form", as is evident from the immediately following execution. In all editions is the sense-distorting punctuation: "as that: of one form of the Sacrament, father and mother to be obedient, lords and women to serve" 2c. - The Erlangen edition, like Walch's old one, has: "Der Messenopfer." - From such corrupted text, of course, the papists can make the claim, with great semblance of truth, that Luther is saying here: To be obedient to father and mother, to serve masters and wives, are pieces that go completely and directly against the expressed Scripture and God's Word.
2) Marginal gloss of the Jena edition: "Anno 1527 ausgangen." The passage quoted here from the "Lessons of the Visitators" is found in Walch, St. Louis Edition, Vol. X, 1653, last paragraph.
Fasting on certain days, avoiding meat on fast days, and what is more. Here such a distinction is necessary. First of all, if it is demanded out of pure love, not to make any sin or trouble of conscience out of it, then one may well keep it and leave it, not only as the authorities want, but also as each of our neighbors wants, for love is obliged to serve and please everyone, even the enemies. Just as if I were with the Jews and trusted to create fruit among them, I would almost certainly keep all their laws and ways with a free conscience, as they desired.
(67) But see to it that such authorities or neighbors do not use cunning. But you may notice the cunning, if your authorities at the same time compel and force, punish and torment others, who do not keep it; they want to fence with one or two, as if they wanted it out of love, and at the same time use your example for the strength of tyranny, to press and dampen the others the more, so that you, by your good will and free service, help to press and dampen the others before you turn around. With such a nose the devil not only wants to lead you away from freedom, but also to make you a fellow tyrant against freedom. In the same way, you should stand up to the authorities: If it will serve you voluntarily, let all the others go unchallenged and unpunished, but demand it of all of the same mind: those who keep it, keep it; those who do not keep it, let them go, as if they had no commandment to do without a tyrannical commandment, to which they would drive you as an ass, but you cannot grant it.
Therefore, you must see where freedom and your love stretch, and again, where necessity forces you to master love and preserve freedom, for the devil knows how to embroider it. 4) First of all, between God and you alone is freedom.
3) So the Wittenbergers. Jenaer and Erlanger: "like".
4) "zum Sticken" - most precisely, to the hair's breadth. The old Walch edition and after it the Erlangen edition have dissolved this with "zum Stücken" and have drawn the sentence: "Denn der Teufel weiß es zum Stücken" by wrong punctuation to the following, so that something completely senseless comes out.
quite round and perfect, that thou mayest not keep before him any of these things which he hath not commanded; here is heaven and earth full of thy liberty, yea, heaven and earth cannot comprehend it. But between thee and thy neighbor, or thy authority, it is no further than that it be harmless to thy neighbor; yea, where it may be useful and beneficial, it shall not desire to be free, but shall yield and serve. As, if you celebrate or fast at the will of your authorities, they must praise you and say: "Well, this man could and would do otherwise, and for my sake let it be, because I feel that he must be pious from the heart, who does not seek his courage nor his fervour in freedom, and because he is so willing in the free, unnecessary things, how much more will he be willing, obedient and submissive in necessary and commanded things!
69 I may not, of course, be concerned about rebellion, strife, or discontent in my country, but I may rely on him as a faithful, pious member of my dominion, who will much rather help and advise me to maintain peace, unity, obedience, and tranquility, and to prevent rebellion. Summa, she must say and confess that you are a pious Christian, a quiet, faithful, peaceful, useful, comforting man in the country, if she wants to speak otherwise. Behold, you have done no small good with your free service and have almost improved your authority.
70. Again, if an authority wanted to scold, and not to demand such service from you in simple opinion, but to have such service of opinion from you with false kind words, that by your example and service it might press and dampen the others all the more, to strengthen the pope's tyranny and man's commandment, to entrap the consciences, or to keep them in fetters: behold, here thy liberty is required, not for the benefit or betterment of thy authorities, but for the will of courage, and for the harm and destruction of thy neighbors, and to strengthen the pope in his abominations, and, in short, to serve the devil. Therefore, you cannot be obedient here without denying Christian liberty, which is an article of faith acquired through the blood of Christ.
and confirmed. For though you would not sin with such unchristian obedience (if it were possible), yet you would help all the sins that have happened in the whole country, the suppressed freedom, the entangled consciences, the confirmed tyranny of the pope and the devil.
71 And if the authorities would pretend that it would be useful and necessary for you to keep such unchristian obedience, to press the others the harder, because in this way they would prevent the search for rebellion, and have peace in the country the quieter: this is nothing but a false trick and a wicked grip, and so you should say to it: It is impossible that rebellion should come, where secular authorities have obedience in the matters where they have to command, as over body and goods. For he who is subject with fist and foot, even with body and goods, and teaches to do so, wherewith will he cause sedition? And what more can or will the authorities have or demand from him?
72. Yes, you shall say that the contradiction is true, that it is not the subjects, but the authorities who seek and cause rebellion, so that they may not be satisfied, if the subjects are obedient with body and goods, and does not remain in the goal and measure set for it on earth by God, but goes against God, yes, rages against God, and wants to have obedience and power in heaven, that is, in the conscience, wants to be like God, and rule, since God alone has to rule.
(73) Behold, this is the right cause for rebellion; indeed, because they so freely disobey not only God Himself, but fight against God and want to rule further than they are commanded, what wonder is it that God not only decrees rebellion, but sends all calamity upon them? It is not tolerable in the world, nor is it to be tolerated, that a prince or lord should want to rule or invade another lord's land, and those who do so make war and murder and all kinds of misfortune, and are called tyrants and robbers, iatrones et piratae.
74. how much more will they be tyrants and robbers, if they fall into God's me and take hold of his regiment, namely the
And is also certainly present, because now the authorities rage so and in the kingdom of God drive such terrible turmoil, fall into his country and take hold of his regiment, he will again send vain ones over them, who give them enough turmoil in their country, and thus take hold of their regiment and fall, that they must go to ruin; I have said it, they want to know, they shall not believe.
75 And to make sure that they see and grasp how we do not want anything ruthless, but rather seek their best interests, we have offered and still offer that if the secular authorities would order the fasts before Easter in a secular way, then we would also keep them. I call it a secular way if the emperor or a prince puts forward a secular reason for his command, namely: we want the fasts to be kept so that our country and people who trade in fish may have their trade and sell their goods and not come to harm, or so that the meat in the country may be saved and not all be eaten up in a vain time; see, that would be a right imperial and secular command, which we would be obliged to live by, and no conscience would be burdened with the meat avoidance before God. Thus, if a prince commanded that we fast one or two days in a week, so that the servants and maids might be chastened the more, and the housekeepers might be fed the more, and so that gluttony and drunkenness might be controlled; behold, this is also a fine worldly commandment, in which it is not sought how one may become pious before God or be freed from sins, but how things may go well in the world and in the home.
(76) Yes, we would want to keep all the commandments of the pope finely in such free pieces, if God has not commanded them, where they are now said to be worldly, or would still be made worldly, that is, where they have a worldly cause and not spiritual causes. For the commandments themselves should not be too difficult for us, but the cause or final opinion of the commandments is unpleasant to us, for there is a great difference between worldly and spiritual commandments. The worldly commandment only looks to the fact that well to-
But the pope makes spiritual use of it, and gives fasting, feasting, clothing 2c., not caring whether it is of use to the world or pious, but it is to benefit and pious before God, to make people pious and blessed, which is due only to divine commandments and not to the things that God leaves unbidden.
(77) Therefore, from this you can easily see what we call conscience in the commandments, namely, the opinion and causes of the commandments, just as it is now said. Worldly commandments have the opinion and see to it that land and people stand well in peace, and increase in goods, house, farm, wife, child, servants, and what is more worldly; that is the end of such commandments, they see and go no further. So that a worldly commandment certainly has a worldly, temporal, bodily, perishable thing, on which it stands and which it seeks, therefore it makes no conscience before God, but has enough of temporal use. But the spiritual commandment has the opinion and looks to it that the spirit or soul may stand well and increase in piety, truth, righteousness, holiness before God, and what is more spiritual, that is the end of such commandments, that is where they go and look. So that a spiritual commandment certainly has a spiritual, eternal, divine thing on which it stands and which it seeks, therefore it makes conscience before God, and has not enough temporal benefit.
78. because the pope wants to make consciences through fasting, eating fish, feasting and clothing and the like, as if they were not to create worldly use on earth, but eternal use before God, therefore we do not want to keep them, because God does not want that, and has forbidden to make consciences in eating, drinking and other worldly things, Col. 2, 16. 1) Rom. 14, 2. 3. for whoever makes consciences here, he makes faith crazy, relies on food and drink and clothing 2c, when he should rely on Christ alone. So he becomes a tyrant or a traitor in the kingdom of Christ, that he disturbs the faith,
1) The Erlangen edition has reprinted "Col. 2, 6." from Walch's old edition. In addition to this passage, Walch has two other incorrect biblical quotations in this manuscript, which the Erlangen edition has reprinted, as usual.
or helps with advice and action to such disturbance.
79 Thus we remain with God's order, who has made such a distinction that his commandments are to create spiritual benefit in the conscience before God, but human commandments are to remain here and create temporal benefit on earth. He who seeks benefit before God through the commandments of men wants to be like God, and to esteem his commandments as great as God's commandments, and to make eternal and spiritual things out of temporal and worldly things. That is, all of God's order is reversed and mixed into one another, which God does not want to suffer, for he himself has measured out and distinguished such two commandments. Even though worldly commandments do not create any benefit in heaven, His commandment and command is still there, that worldly commandments should be measured out in this way and not create any benefit in heaven; therefore, they should also be left out of heaven, as God commands and wills, so that His kingdom may remain pure in His commandment.
Now tell me, what more shall we do? we teach and give the secular authorities all their rights and powers, which the pope has never done with his own and does not yet want to do. We also carry heavier things than the papacy, because they neither preach nor pastor. And summa, I do not see anything that they have heavier than we have (without them keeping house with whores), which one should credit us with, because even the apostles did not have such a burden, nor did they teach it, and Christ certainly did not mean it when he said: "You cannot bear it" [John 16:12].
(81) We are willing to do this, and would also keep all papal laws if they were commanded in a secular way; but we refuse to have them struck on the conscience in a spiritual way, and thereby want to drive us to sedition and rebellion or to exercise violence in God's kingdom. I think that this is enough to show how we do not seek carnal freedom or courage, since we do much more and are more sluggish than they are. And if it were a matter of alternation, it should probably be found who would bear the heaviest burden: for we would probably want to
1) Jenaer: Wise men.
but of course they would not like to touch ours. But enough of that; it is commanded to the one who is to judge it; they do not hear.
Of the One Form of the Sacrament. 2)
We now want to deal in particular with the one form of the sacrament and look at the commandment of your bishop in Meissen. So far, we have shown and presented the Scriptures from the Gospels in both forms. But they go beyond what is due to the supra-Christian church, changing, improving and mastering the text, namely: "We know well (they say) what authority and sayings you have for yourselves, which give no more than that the priests should enjoy both forms, and not the laity. Such glosses must suffer the bright words; but of this we shall see further hereafter.
83 So now I say: I would like all bishops and priests to believe their own glosses and consider them to be true, that the texts in the Gospels should be glossed in this way. But they truly do not believe it themselves, they only say that it is the gloss, and yet they do not consider it to be truth. What should I do with them? They do not stand and confess what they say, the shameful liars. For if they would stand and confess that they consider such their gloss to be certain, and if the opinion of the Gospel should be that Christ alone has appointed the priests to enjoy both forms, then I would ask why the pope has given the Bohemians, who are not priests, both forms, and yet the bishop of Meissen with his own must approve of this, as if the pope were doing right, or must say that the pope is acting against their gloss, that is, against the text and right understanding of the Gospel, as they say; unless the Bohemians were vain priests and not laymen.
How is it going? If I say: the pope acts against the gospel, I must be a heretic. If a bishop or a papal man says so, he is a righteous Christian. The same must be true of the holy fathers and the first Christian fathers.
2) This caption is missing in the Erlanger.
They must confess that the same holy fathers have administered and used both forms in general to all Christians, in which they have done right and well, and have never yet been called heretics. But now, when this new understanding of the Gospel has come to light, that Christ meant only the priests by both forms and not the laity as well, then they must certainly be heretics, as they are strictly against Christ's word and right understanding. But in the super-Christian church it is right to be two-faced, to blow cold and hot from one mouth, to say no and yes are one thing, to agree on lies and truth, because they are above God's word; therefore they are also above truth and lies.
I will talk to you now. They boast almost highly: church, church. Tell me, which of these two do you consider to be the right church? Will you consider the present church in our time, or the former and first church to be a true church? Look at the fruit, you can recognize it. The former, first church had excellent teachers, who not only taught the Scriptures, studied day and night, preached, and cared for souls, but also led a chaste, holy, and chaste life in poverty and hardship, as Hilarius, Augustine, Ambrose, and their like, all of whom have attained both forms.
86. This fat church does not have a bishop (I know this for a fact) who knows how to pray the Catechismum, as: The Lord's Prayer, the Ten Commandments, the faith, for his own person, let alone that they should be able to preach it to others; for this they do not study, do not take care of souls, do not ask anything about conscience or poor people, but are squires on earth; and I should hold them equal to the previous fathers, yes, much holier and more learned than them, and should accept it as the church articles, the one figure against the holy fathers articles, and call the same heretics. Dear, what conscience can be persuaded of this, even if it were a log and a stick? But, as has been said, they have gone astray and fallen into lies, therefore they are not serious, they speak of Christ, of the church, or of themselves.
Here the blasphemer, the poor fire, smokes: there can be no greater dishonor on earth to the blood of Christ than if it is spilled; which has often happened and would happen if the sacrament were given to the laity in both forms; therefore the church should justly forbid the one form. I would that such a blasphemer and his companions should consider such alfences to be right and true, but they are not serious. They knowingly set themselves against the public truth to write, therefore they can speak nothing from great malice, which they themselves considered to be truth. For, beloved, let us dream that they are quite serious that such dishonor to the blood of Christ is a cheap cause to forbid the one figure, so I say that it is much cheaper to forbid the one figure to the priests than to the laity, for the priests have always done more and more often such dishonor to the blood of Christ than the laity.
How many times have I alone seen, heard and experienced that the priests have spilled the chalice, some on the plates, some on the chasuble, some on the corporal and altar cloth! How often has a chalice been knocked over or shaken! How often they have spilled vinegar or water in the chalice, sometimes they have lifted up the chalice and let it be worshipped! This is a hundred times greater dishonor if it happens once, than if the laymen spill the chalice every day, since no sin can be compared to idolatry. If the laity spill a drop, well, they do not set up an idol, as the priests do with their water or empty chalice. Summa, such terrible dishonor has been so common among the priests, and still is, that they have had to write many books about it, how one should ward it off and advise.
89) If it is fair and necessary for the whole Christian community to forbid the one figure for the sake of a few laymen and for the sake of a spilled droplet, it would be ten times cheaper to forbid the priests the same figure, even to take away the sacrament and to put them all out of office, because they often and more cruelly spill the whole chalice and commit idolatry, that water is worshipped for the blood of Christ.
of themselves and others. But may they keep the one figure beside such blasphemous dishonor, the laity are a hundred times more worthy to keep it. Therefore I say: The liars are not serious what they say, without wanting to speak against God's word and yet they cannot find anything, therefore they must say such things, that they smash themselves in the cheeks up to the ears, so that their lies and deception become obvious to everyone.
90. But I also say that all that they lie is true, namely, that the greatest dishonor is when a layman spills a drop of Christ's blood; should therefore God's word and Christ's order be to be broken and changed? Behold the blindness above all blindness, to knowingly condemn and change God's word, to wilfully deny and forbid Christ's order and commandment by the whole church everywhere, this is no dishonor to the blood of Christ, but the very highest honor and holiest service of God. But for a layman to spill a drop of blood in one place without his will and perhaps with great fear and trembling (that is, with right heartfelt repentance and honor), that is the greatest dishonor. The whole of Christendom would smoke and burn, heaven and earth would fall, if these holy people, 1) who spill whole chalices, sell Christ's body and blood through the masses worse than Judas, did not run to help quench and keep God's word and commandment by changing, tearing, condemning and blaspheming.
91. According to such holiness and art, they should also do away with and forbid all other commandments of God, considering that great dishonor and abuse is done to them. For if the dishonor done by men to God's Word is cause enough that it must and should be changed, then the Ten Commandments must also be changed first. For so many people dishonor the name of God with lies, swearing and false teachings; so the adulterers, murderers, thieves also desecrate the other commandments. After this, baptism should also be done away with, for the greatest dishonor occurs in this, namely, that one baptizes in German on
1) The comma before "so" i.e. "which" is missing in the Erlanger, which is probably taken from the old edition of Walch.
some places, which such holy people (whether or not the pope allows it) consider the greatest dishonor that can happen to baptism on earth, that they are forced to baptize otherwise in Latin. 2)
(92) Yes, and that is even more, their plates, caps, chasubles, surplices, and all their great sanctity should be taken away and forbidden, for such pieces do too much dishonor, so that it cannot be said, first of all, that many great whoremongers, adulterers, boys, and peelers wear and put on such sanctity, even in church and above the altar; that is a great dishonor. But this is even greater, that nowadays in the world such pieces are mocked, laughed at, destroyed, perhaps even cut, torn, sold and almost taken for mere jugglery (so that perhaps not so great boys and peelers wear it as in church). Because the dishonor is so great, it would be time to change it and forbid it, as the one figure is forbidden for dishonor's sake. But I still think there is a difference to be made here. Both forms of the sacrament are instituted by Christ and are a divine order; therefore they must be changed and forbidden to avoid dishonor. But plates, chasubles, and the like are human; therefore they must be kept and neither changed nor forbidden for the sake of dishonor, for it is a bad thing for God and Christ against these holy people.
But how finely they have perverted my text, the dear holy people! when I introduced to them in Halle, among others, from the spiritual law of the Pope, the saying about the brazen serpent, which King Ezekiel broke [2 Rom 18:4] for the sake of abuse, which God had previously established and ordered through Moses. Yes, they say, so Christianity also has the power to change the one form, established by God, for the sake of abuse. I mean yes, they have trodden me with my own sword. I led such an example, as the Pope also did, to abolish human doctrines that are in abuse, so they lead it on God's
2) Thus the Wittenbergers. Jenaer and Erlanger: to baptize in Latin.
Commandment, so it is forbidden to break them. Is it not rhymed? Ezekiel did not break the bronze serpent, because it was ordered by God in its use and work in the desert. For God did not call that serpent to be brought to Jerusalem and placed in the temple, but hung it on a pole in the wilderness; therefore, when they came out of the wilderness, its custom and God's word and order were finished, and it was kept as a sign of God's former word and work.
But the sacrament is still in the word, and is ordered by God to continue in custom and work until the end of the world, as Paul says; therefore it is no longer like the brazen serpent, without it (as the pope says) being ordered by God in the wilderness at that time, but now coming into abuse in the temple with human doctrine and idolatry. Therefore Ezekiel did not change or break any order or commandment of God, but only the order of men. For God's order on the serpent was already loose on it, because God had only set it in the wilderness of Phinon. That is why Ezekiel disgracefully calls it Nehystan, 1) that is, Aeneolus, honorable, as if he should say: It is only a pure ore like other ore, without God's word and order, even though God had ordered it to be erected in the desert; but that is now over, there is no more God's word on it, but it is a Nehystan.
If they prove to me that the sacrament is bad bread and wine without God's word and order, then I will gladly allow them not only to do away with the abuse of bread and wine, even if God had instituted it, but also to forbid both bread and wine. I always insist on God's word that one should not change these things, so they always pretend to me something that is not God's word, and only conclude: Because such things have been changed, God's word should also be changed. With my text I want that one should change the doctrine of men for the sake of abuse; so they conclude from it that one should keep the doctrine of men, it
1) In Hebrew; xxxxxx; in the German Bible: Nehusthan.
Whether it be abuse against God's word, dishonor or blasphemy. But such art and holiness belongs to such teachers.
Now let us see the mandate of the bishop of Meissen. He boasts how he has protected his own from the wolves and heretics, who are divided among themselves and teach against themselves 2c. You hear that they are not divided among themselves, and that the bishop teaches nothing against himself. For the fact that the pope allows both forms to the Bohemians as right and Christian, and the bishop forbids and condemns the same as heretical and contrary to the gospel, is not contrary to each other, but very fine, equal, in harmony. 2) So that he hereby judges the pope a heretic and a true Christian at the same time is also not contrary to each other, as you have heard above. For how can such learned holy people disagree against themselves and among themselves, if they have the power not only to make God's commandment into God's prohibition, and yes into no, but also that commandment and prohibition, no and yes, heretic and Christian must be one thing at the same time? The Holy Spirit in the supergodly church is able to do much more than the Holy Spirit in the old church and holy fathers, yes, than in Christ himself.
97. Let no one take it for a disagreement that in their supergodly church there are so many sects and bickering parties of monks, priests and nuns, since none teaches nor lives like the other, even bites and eats like wild animals among themselves, but many a head, so many minds, that they walk along in their united order no differently than how the flies and bumblebees of summer keep their beautiful order in the tabernacles, or how the lice and fleas creep, run and hop in the beggar's fur in fine order. All in all, there is uniformity and unity through and through; yes, to rage and rage against God's word. Otherwise, just look at the barefooted in their unified rule, which has been a riot so far among themselves against all other monks, so you will see the
2) Thus, this sentence is correctly punctuated in the Wittenberg edition. In the Jena edition, the comma before einträchtig is missing; in the Erlangen edition (according to Walch's old edition), the comma before and after "gleich" is missing.
beautiful order and unity of the papal church in their faith, like the vermin that Moses brought into Egypt: nor do they adorn and boast of their unity against us, just as if Christ and the apostles had not themselves had to suffer and have Judas and apostates with them.
98) But your bishop first of all goes out of his way, admonishing and commanding that the sacrament should not be administered by false and apostate priests, nor by apostates, lest the faithful receive it for judgment and condemnation. Oha, dear Lord, how does it happen to you? Christ has instituted the sacrament of both forms, therefore he must be a schismatic or apostate, and he who is otherwise our Savior must here be a master of damnation; the holy old fathers who followed Christ's institution must also be apostates; and the Christians who received both forms from them must be damned. The pope has become an apostate, and the Bohemians are all condemned for having received both forms from the pope; you can hear this from the bishop of Meissen, who judges and concludes so, therefore it must not be lacking, it will have to be so.
Now I also want to be a heretic and apostate, because with these people not only our Lord Jesus Christ, but also their own lord, the pope, must be called a heretic and seducer to hell. Whom (sic) should such blasphemers spare, if they do not spare their own lord, the pope, but reproach his doings and order a heretical and damnable thing? I pity the poor pope, who now needs to be defended against his own disciples and followers. But all this makes the beautiful united doctrine that they have among themselves, of which the bishop boasts so gloriously.
100 Therefore, blaspheme and curse confidently, dear sirs, and if God would keep you and let you know your public lies by the bright truth, you shall stop your eyes and ears and fight tooth and nail not to accept them, lest you perish without all mercy. Rather, you will have the trouble
cannot darken nor embellish in such a way that the pope allows the Bohemians both forms and forbids you the same. It is also well known that [it] tortures you and shuts your mouth that you cannot answer anything right. It does not help to chatter: Church, church, unity, unity. Here we see your church divided and against each other, and what you build on one figure on this side, the pope tears apart on the other side with both figures, and eats up your unity itself. And other heresies become disunited in such a way that they retain different heads and not one, and the church retains one head, even though it has many heretics among it. But the papacy has one head, and yet several, and not one body; this may be an abomination to me; so does no heresy, nor the spirit of the heresy.
The finest thing in the bishop's note is that the parish priests should teach the people how the whole Jesus Christ, Son of God, God and Man, and His Body and Blood are eaten and drunk by the laity under the One Form. There I learn something that I did not know before. For of the concomitants 1) I have heard and read more before (of which hereafter). But this is a new piece to me, that the laity both eat and drink under one form. Eating, I say, and drinking is one thing; who has ever heard that? He speaks of oral bodily eating, as one eats the sacrament; such bodily eating is also bodily drinking. Oh, that the cook and waiter at Stolpen would also have to become one thing, and give the bishop bad food without drink, so that he could try his own art on himself, whether he would have food and drink for one thing, and could drink without drink. But I consider that these are the miraculous signs in the papal church, saved and restrained until this time. For since they do neither miracles nor anything else good, they become jugglers, making such noses at people with clever words, that they will not give Estonians and
1) On concomitance, compare the immediately following § 103; then also the introduction to this volume, section IX, 6.
Drinking should be considered as one, and thus also see miraculous signs once.
Without a doubt, in every mass they eat twice and drink twice, for in the bread they eat the body and drink its blood, because the body cannot be without the blood. Again, in the cup they drink the blood and eat the body, because blood cannot be without body. This means that the Christian church has improved and made two masses out of one. Now I recant that I said the bishops are unlearned, for this bishop truly shuts me up and teaches me that in the church there are vain double masses, and Christ is sacrificed, eaten and drunk twice at all masses. It will be good for the sacrificial priests, who may now sell a mass for two pennies, because for double goods one gives cheaply double money. Thus the service has now become twice as large throughout Christendom, and the priests will also become twice as rich in time as before; O blessed time! this will be a golden year.
103 The concomitants, that is, the corollary, strike to this. Because Christ's body is not without blood, it follows that his blood is not without a soul; it follows that his soul is not without the Godhead; it follows that his Godhead is not without the Father and the Holy Spirit; it follows that in the sacrament, even under one form, Christ's soul, the holy Trinity, is eaten and drunk, together with his body and blood; it follows that a sacrificer offers and sells the holy Trinity twice in each mass; It follows that because the Godhead is not without the creature, heaven and earth must also be in the Sacrament; it follows that the devils and hell are also in the Sacrament; it follows that whoever eats the Sacrament (even in one form or another) eats the bishop of Meissen, with his mandate and his slips of paper; It follows that a priest of Meissen eats and drinks his bishop twice in every mass; it follows that the bishop of Meissen must have a greater body than heaven and earth; and who will tell all the consequences more and more? But in the end it also follows that all such episodes
Asses, fools, blind, mad, nonsensical, furious, foolish and raving are; this consequence is certain.
104. What devil has caused us to invent such things out of our heads, or to handle such foolish thoughts in the holy sacrament? Satan did it, and still does it, to mock and ridicule our sanctuary and to tear us away from the simple words of Christ. Who has commanded us to draw more into the Sacrament than the clear, bright words of Christ give? Who made you sure whether this consequence is true? How do you know what God is able to do? How can you measure his wisdom and power, that he could not have his body and blood in the sacrament alone, that nevertheless his soul and divinity would not be in it, although his soul and divinity cannot be without body and blood? Who will refrain from finding and fathoming something in such His miracles apart from and above His words? Who wants to make it certain that because Christ's body is not without his soul, therefore his soul must also be in the sacrament? If such a conclusion is valid, I will also say: Since God the Father has one Godhead with the Son, He must also have become man and the Son of Mary; for where the Godhead of the Son is, there the Father and the Holy Spirit are also.
105. stop the inference and the jugglery. You shall therefore say to your bishop: Dear Lord, my Christ has not commanded me to infer and deceive in his sacrament, but to grasp his words and keep them, to do according to them. But you, as a murderer of souls, take from me my Lord's word and forbid me to obey it, giving me your jealousy and inference for it, which you yourselves do not understand nor know what it is. You may keep them with you, and make a murmur 1) of them to your sows and dogs, as well as you can. I am to know that I receive Christ's body and blood in the sacrament, as his words read. But how the body is without the blood or with the blood, and again how the blood is without the body or with the body, I am not to know nor to inquire, he will know it well; the words are commanded me and will be certain enough for me. For what such conclusions
1) Ströde - flushing light; Saugeströde = pig potion.
Now it has been said that in the end I must also eat and drink the devil and his mother in the sacrament by following them.
The beginning, the means and the end of all error is that one steps out of the simple words of God and wants to act with reason in divine miracles and improve the matter, just as Paul says of Eve in 2 Cor. 11, 3 that the devil also led her from the simplicity of divine words into his cleverness, then she went 1) there with Adam and all of us afterwards. Dear God, how is it such a great effort and work for a Christian to remain, if he has the same bright, dry, certain word of God before him! What shall it become, then, if one lets go of the words and gives in to reasoning and cleverness? And how will he boast of being in the united Christian churches, who goes out from the Word of God, in which the right church is and remains? That is why your bishop of Meissen falsely boasts that he is in the church, according to the fine saying of St. Cypriani, which he introduces. He is a wolf outside the church, because he is not only the word, but also lures out and preaches to all of you who are under him. He is well in the church, that is, he has the episcopal office, and there are undoubtedly many Christians in his district and church, like the wolf in the sheepfold, to strangle and kill them.
107. Now therefore, behold before thee, it is so, that wolves are shepherds, and shepherds have become wolves. If thou believest thy seducing bishop that in the bread thou eatest and drinkest the body and blood of Christ, the bright and strong words of Christ stand there, and bid thee drink also of the cup. Meanwhile, who keeps and does according to these words, while you eat and drink in the bread? Are they not also Christ's words? Do you not think that he is as wise as your bishop and could have told you to eat and drink in the bread? What will you say to your conscience when it comes to you that you have not obeyed Christ's words about drinking in the cup?
1) So in all editions. We suspect that here is corrupted text. The meaning is: She went the way of error and sin and brought it to the same place with Adam and all of us after (1 Tim. 2, 14.). Perhaps either "she" or "it" is to be deleted.
and so despise and transgress his order and word? If you say that your bishop and the church have taught you to infer and deceive that eating and drinking should be one thing, he will also tell you that your bishop will help you into heaven. Dear one, the conscience cannot be satisfied by reasoning and jiggery-pokery when it feels God's word against it.
(108) Therefore prepare thyself, and read well the evangelists, when they describe Christ giving the cup to all the disciples to drink, and saying, "Drink ye all of it; this do in remembrance of me. If they say to you, "Did Christ often give bread alone, as Doctor Schmid writes?" then say, "Doctor Schmid did not prove that such bread was the body of Christ. But without proof you shall not believe his inference and his jugglery. And if he could prove that it was the bread of the Lord's Supper, then you shall say: Christ has not commanded or commanded in any of these places to do so henceforth, and it is a bad work without commandment and further commandment, but in the Lord's Supper his word and command is there: "Take, eat, do this" 2c. "Drink of it, all of you, do this" 2c.
109 Therefore, if D. Schmid would say a thousand times and a thousand times that Christ alone had given the bread, it would be of no use against this one place, for the conscience would always say: Dear, here, when the Lord sets it and orders it, there is commandment and commandment with it and means to do it; this penetrates, this compels, this bites through, far, far beyond the sayings, since he does not set it, nor order it, nor give it, nor command it, but does it alone; for indeed his mere doing must be according to his command and appointment, not again his command and appointment according to his mere doing, for he revokes not his word, neither will he give himself the lie.
They will tell you: Yes, such a command concerns only the apostles and is to be understood by the priests. First, ask them for God's sake to prove such gloss with Scripture, and you will see that they will stand cold, or will infer something to you. After that you shall say that such things are contrary to the
The Pope and against them is, who admits such things to the Bohemians as right and Christian; in addition, against the old holy fathers, who, according to this text, have given the laity both forms, and it is not to be suffered that they should be called heretics.
Thirdly, ask them to believe in earnest this gloss of theirs. But you will not get it from them, they are not serious, so they lie. Note that if they were to take such a command of Christ seriously and apply it only to the priests, they would not have to give the laity a single form, but would have to keep the whole sacrament with the priests alone. For the same Christ speaks to the same disciples the same command about the bread that he speaks about the cup: the same disciples hear it and take it both. If then it is priests and not laymen who take the cup, it is also priests and not laymen who take the bread, and therefore, after the institution of Christ, the whole Sacrament must remain with the laity, with the priests alone. What do they want to conclude? Again, if it was laymen who took the bread, 1) it was also laymen who took the cup, for the whole sacrament in both forms is commanded to the same disciples with the same command for one time. Therefore, to whom one part belongs, the other also belongs.
For this reason I say: There is no seriousness nor truth in all things that the papists hold against us. They believe it as little as we do, only that they keep a little and do not keep quiet. This also moved the fine prince, our Duke Frederick, Elector of Saxony, of blessed memory, that he had himself reported 2) before his end according to Christ's order and command. For he had spoken of it before, and, as a man of low but high understanding, he said: "If they have power to take the cup from us, they may well take the bread from us, and leave nothing of the Sacrament, because they say: Christ has made priests with the word "do these things" (which he also says about the bread and the whole Sacrament); so we laymen do not belong to the Sacrament at all.
1) In the issues: take.
2) report - communicate.
I would that all the papists had to stand in a heap before such a man and answer to this, how their pants should stink and their consequential art become so red! But now they teach among themselves and are not ashamed of their books, they are insolent and bold, shouting and writing vain lies, inference and jugglery, which they themselves do not believe to be true, and they would even be sorry that it had to be true. I would truly wish no greater harm on the papists, nor avenge myself greatly, than that they would be forced to sincerely believe and take for truth all that they teach and write; help God, what a wretched people this should become for me! I wanted to show them finely how all their reasons and articles are more against them than against us, as I have done in this.
But if they have deceived you with all the evangelists and have drawn the cup to themselves, they will not deceive you with St. Paul, who is much too powerful and strong for them in 1 Cor. 10 and 11, because he does not write to the priests, but to the whole church in Corinthus, and among others says 1 Cor. 11, 23: "I received it from the Lord and gave it to you. Who are these "you"? Are they only the priests? They are also the Corinthians. And then v. 28: "Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of this bread, and drink of this cup." Are these people also the priests alone? Are they priests alone whom he reproves for having eaten of this bread and drunk of this cup in an unworthy manner, and for having died and become sick as a result? Since St. Paul himself interprets the word of Christ, "These things do," 2c., as being said of all, it will certainly have the same meaning among the evangelists, and will not be understood by the priests alone, since they are the same words of Christ that St. Paul received from the Lord, as he testifies here.
If they do not get anywhere, they must go there again, that the church is above St. Paul and God's word, and has the power to change it, as was said above. So we say again: Whoever takes away or changes a tittle or a letter shall be of the devil, as Christ testifies Matth. 5, 19. And if they are above God's word, then we will
also go over their word and do not consider them to be the church. We are to be the church more cheaply than those who are under God's word, because they are without and above God's word, until they do miracles with their own word, as the apostles and fathers did with our word, since we find no church testified to in Scripture that is against and above God's word, but only the one that is subject to Christ, Eph. 5:23 ff, and holds itself under God's word. But those who want to be against and above the word of God, we must consider them to be the church of the Antichrist, as St. Paul teaches us. We are justly frightened by the saying of Heb. 2:2, 3: "If the word spoken by angels has been established, and every transgression and disobedience has received its just reward, how shall we escape if we despise such blessedness?
And it is truly abominable to hear that they oppose it, that 1) they themselves confess that it is God's word and Christ's order. It would not be so atrocious if it happened in the Proverbs, since they have different meanings, as it happens with the heretics, since they stretch the same Proverbs here and there. But here they confess the text as it stands, and say that they are masters of changing and abolishing it, and that they should not apply it before, unless they desire to do so. No heretic should do such a thing; it should be reserved for the Antichrist, that he recklessly, insolently and sacrilegiously suppresses the known truth and acts according to his will; and that is even worse, they shed innocent blood for the sake of such a truth known by themselves. It is too much for them, to kill the soul with obvious disobedience to God, and to strangle the body with fire and horrible death. I would like to have mercy on them and beg them, but they want to be bad of the devil. The wrath of God has come upon them, and no pleading or exhortation will help.
(117) Therefore, dear friends, I urge you to be firm in your faith. And if you have no other cause
1) Erlanger: that.
should move you from their heap, then this alone should drive you all too sufficiently, that you see and hear how they shed innocent blood, and burden themselves and all who hold it with them with debts, which cry out to heaven without ceasing, as the blood of Abel and all innocent blood did and still does, that certainly the wrath will not long tarry over them. And they do such murder not only against God's commandment, but also against their own papal law, for the pope has nowhere decreed that one should burn or kill those who use both forms of the sacrament. Indeed, if they wanted to keep their law, they would not have to kill any heretic, if he were a fanatic or an Anabaptist, unless he were an insurrectionist. But now they also kill and burn the clergy for the sake of marriage, when papal laws do not punish them otherwise than with removal from office. But they are viri sanguinum, bloodhounds, of whom Solomon and Isaiah say: Their feet are ready to shed blood.
Such a few pieces shall, if God wills, keep me outside the papacy, and if I had been inside until now and could not punish nor overcome their teachings, I would still, for the sake of such bloodshed, separate myself from them as from the devil's murder pits, so that I would not be found partaking with them in blood.
Now, however, their doctrine has also been overcome in many respects, which they themselves know and confess. For before Luther came, almost everyone was hostile to the clergy because of their abominable nature and abuse of both doctrine and life, and cried out for a reformation and concilium. Now, however, they do not want to let anything go or improve, neither confess nor change any injustice, but strengthen and increase it, and do so by murdering, burning, hunting, robbing, and persecuting the innocent. Let us see a judge who will deal with them as they deserve and want. God protect us from their part, and be merciful to us in Christ Jesus, amen.