73 a. Luther's German response from King Henry of England's book. *)

Answer German Dr. Mart. Luther to King Henry of England's Book. Anno 1522.

I don't mind lies, I don't mind truth.

Jesus.

Martinus Luther, by the grace of God Ecclesiastes at Wittenberg, to all who read or hear this booklet, grace and peace in Christ, Amen.

1. two years ago I let go out a booklet in 1) Latin, called "the

1) In the old editions: to.

Babylonian prison" made the papists nonsensical, and they lied about it and hated that I had mercy on them. Everyone would have liked to devour it, but the eagle was too hard and too sharp for them. And although I do not shy away from the light, I did not like it that it is Germanized, for the reason that my poisonous enemy has done it to disgrace me, and is rarely hit, which I myself do not interpret.

2 Most recently, Henricus, King of England by the Grace of God, wrote against it in Latin. This is now also Germanized in

*This writing first appeared in Latin in August 1522 (cf. No. 73 b. in this volume) and was translated into German by Luther himself quite freely, with some omissions. Here we give Luther's own translation and then, because of the many deviations, also the translation from Latin. Luther's German translation was published in Wittenberg in 1522 by Nickel Schirlentz under the title we have given in the title. In the same year again at Wittenberg without indication of printer and time; then still in a single edition without indication of the printer, the place and the time. In the collective editions it is found: in the Wittenberg (1553), vol. VI, toi. 434b; in the Jenaer (1585), vol. II, col. 130; in the Ältenburger, vol. II, p. 189; in the Leipziger, vol. XVIII, p. 193 and in the Erlanger, vol. 28, p. 343. We have followed the text of the Jenaer edition, comparing the Wittenberger.

Meissen 1): and there they think that Luther is advised. And indeed, if it were not a sin, I would well grant the angry spirits the blindness as punishment for their deception and lies, that they considered such a book to be a good and right book, and according to their merit would only always have to have such error, lies and jugglery instead of truth. But for the sake of the pious Christians, I must answer them also in Latin and German, so that they know how to protect themselves.

3rd I also hear that in Rome they have given the King of England a title of reward, that he should be called Defensor Ecclesiae, a patron of the church, and that indulgences are granted to those who read his book. And I also confirm the title and indulgence, and consider myself worthy of the booklet. But I do not give indulgences to my readers, and ask God not to let me be in church, since the King of England is the patron. For if I am in Wittenberg, and he is in England, or if he is asleep, or creates something else, where would my soul stay in the meantime? The papist church, which despairs of God and denies Christ, should have such a patron. The Christian church does not suffer such dishonor and blasphemy that it should have a man as its patron, but it sings: Dominus mihi Adjutor, non timebo [Ps. 118, 6]. 2) Et iterum: Bonum est confidere in Domino, quam confidere in Principibus [Ps. 118, 8. 9.]. Et: Nolite confidere in Principibus [Ps. 146, 3.].

4 Many think that King Henry did not make this booklet himself. I don't care, King Heinz or Kunz, the devil or hell have made it themselves. He who lies is a liar, therefore I do not fear him. Methinks that King Henry has a cubit.

1) By order of Duke George of Saxony, Hieronymus Emser had this writing of the King of England translated from Latin into German and issued under the title: "Schutz und Handhabung der sieben Sacramenten wider Martinum Luther, von dem allerunüberwindlichsten König in Engelland und Frankreich und Herrn in Hibernia, Herrn Heinrichen der Achten dieses Namens ausgegangen".

2) Here the Erlangen edition has again reprinted the passages misquoted by Walch. Cf. Walch, St. Louis Edition, vol. XVIII, 885, note 2 and vol. XXII, Introduction, p. 38 f. There are seven such passages in this manuscript.

The poisonous boy Leus, 3) who wrote against Erasmum, or the like of him, cut the cap and lined it. But I will cut it out for them, and I will put cuffs on it, if God wills.

Now let this be the preface's conclusion, that if I should be frightened that a king writes against me, I should rather have been frightened that the pope, "who wants to be master of all kings, princes, schools, churches", has written against me. But I guard my doctrine, by the grace of God, not only obtained from heaven, but also received from one 4) who is able to do more in his little finger than a thousand popes, kings, princes and doctors. They shall also leave them to me forever, that I will offer them all defiance, in God's name.

I also wished that this book of the king would be so delicious that I would praise it, to the shame of all popes, bishops, high schools, that a layman, in addition to a king, should know more than all of them, and that the pupil should surpass his masters so abruptly. Oh, dear papists, stop it, you cannot do anything with the dear God. May God's mercy be with us, amen.

(7) First of all, before I begin to write, I want everyone to know that I have done two things in my writings.

The first is:

Of faith.

From love.

Of good works.

From hope.

Of suffering and the cross.

From dying.

From baptism.

Of repentance.

Of the Sacrament of the Altar.

From the Law of God.

Of sins.

By the grace of God.

From the free will.

3) This refers to Edward Lee, chaplain and almoner of Henry VIII. He made him Chancellor of the Church of Salisbury and Archbishop of Dort. He also wrote against Erasmus and died in 1544.

4) i.e. received against the devil.

From Christo.

From God.

Of the Last Judgment.

From the heaven and hell.

From the Christian Church.

From the spell. And likewise.

These are the right things that are necessary for a Christian to know, in which our salvation also lies. This is also what I call my doctrine, when I say of my doctrine that the high schools and monasteries have never taught anything on the right. For such a thing is the content of the holy scripture and the word of God. And with such things as I have taught, I will remain forever, and say: Whoever teaches differently than I have taught in this, or condemns me in this, condemns God, and must remain a child of hell. For I know that this doctrine is not mine: in spite of all devils and men, that they repent.

(9) So I say here that in such matters I have always been of one mind from the beginning of my writing, have never taught otherwise, nor written against myself, nor recanted any; of which I refer to my books and all who have read them. Therefore it is a great wonder to me that the King of England is not ashamed in his heart of the impudent lie that he blames me for having taught the faith in such a way that good works should be nothing. And does not the liar think that there are still people on earth, and my books exist, especially that of the good works and of Christian freedom, in which anyone can grab his poisonous malicious lie, and he well indicates that he has read my books almost 1). Oh how shameful and evil it is when a king and prince lies so publicly; but even more shameful when he does it to protect the Christian faith. Who wants to believe that he is telling the truth in a place, who is so publicly lying in this place? It is an advertisement that he started the booklet for the sake of lies.

10. but I see God's power; not only pope, bishops, and sophists, but also kings and

1) i.e., good at all.

Princes 2) Become liars and defile themselves. For so do more princes, my dear neighbors, who have lied to me with their lying mouths, I am said to have taught in my little book: "If a man cannot do enough for his wife's tickling and courage, she should run to an outside man. And they also think that there is no man left on earth who reads my book and may notice their poisonous lies. O dear papists, it really does not do to argue with lies against Luther. O the wretched church, which is defended by liars. Do you not know, you papist knights, that you should be armed in this way, so that all your words are truthful, and none may not be punished by lies? As St. Paul Titus 1:9 says, "Let your word be wholesome and blameless." And you wretched liars want to arm yourselves with lies against the heretics! Thus you strengthen my cause and show what kind of spirit is speaking out of you.

(11) It is true that to act against God and with God, especially to receive in the sacraments, only faith is necessary, and no work is useful. For God does not give us by our works, but requires faith in His promise, which receives His goods by grace. Nevertheless, love should also be practiced toward one's neighbor, with all kinds of good works, as I have almost in all the little books well founded with writings; which the king of England skips over and conceals, after the manner of all liars, and like the spider sucks vain poison from the beautiful rose. However, if he had already read it, how could a liar understand it? since all papists piled together know less what faith and good works are, than the goose, what the Psalter is. With this, let the king answer the piece of faith and works; for he has not touched any more among these pieces.

The other is:

From the Pabstthum.

From the Concilien article.

From the teachers.

From indulgences.

From Purgatory.

2) Marginal gloss of the Jena edition: H. G., i.e. Duke George of Saxony.

From fairs.

From Hohenschnlen.

Of spiritual vows.

From bishops, so now are.

From laws of man.

From the Holy Service.

Of new sacraments, and the like.

(12) These things are sown apart from Scripture, like weeds in the Christian field, by the devil and his idol at Rome. For Christianity can well do without them, and it would be well if nothing were known of them today. The papists have forced the Scriptures to be based on these things, and have dealt with lies, so that whatever Scripture says about faith, they have had to make the pope, who is without faith, until they have driven the whole Scripture to vain lies. So they did the main saying Matth. 16, 18.: "You are Peter, on this rock I will build my church, that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." They have turned the rock of the unconquerable gospel and faith into an outward Pabstacy, which has not only been overcome by the gates of hell, but has also drowned in avarice, unchastity and all public sins.

(13) Now that the foolish liars had thus intruded and disgraced all the Scriptures, God could not bear it any longer, and brought me, without all my counsel and sense, into the game, that I tore off some sayings of the Scriptures concerning indulgences to the devil, and brought them back to the right mind of faith. Then he was angry and could not stand it that I plucked out the peacock feathers of his crow, in which he had adorned himself and dressed up as a vicar of Christ.

14 Now I went with the cursed abomination at first almost gently and quietly and beautifully, would have liked to leave the papacy and help it to be something; only I wanted to have the Scripture pure, clear and certain; I did not yet know that it was against the Scripture, but only thought that it was without Scripture, like other secular authorities exalted by men. But the relinquishment 1) was lost to the papists.

1) Here the Jena edition offers "Ehrbietung," which Dietz, Wörterbuch zu D. M. Luther's German Writings,

eight; they wanted to put their idol in God's chair, and thought: O the pope has subdued kings, princes and bishops, should he not also subdue a fainting monk?

15. Now God had given me a cheerful spirit, which let itself be despised and stormed, and gave nothing to their lies and outrages: So they pressed me in, that the longer I found more and more lies; and the more they wrote, the more foolish, impudent they lied, until it was found, by the grace of God, that the papacy, bishopric, monasteries, high schools, with all their clericalism, monasticism, nunnery, masses, services, are vain damned sects of the devil, of which Peter, 2 Pet. 2, 1. says: "They advertise beside them damned sects, and deny the Lord that bought them." For this people stands on the fact that they want to act before God with works and not with mere faith. Thus Christ is denied, and faith is out. The hopeless damned people perverts all things. They should practice works against men; they leave that, and practice them against God. Again, they should practice faith against God; they leave that and practice it against men, believe all the teachings of men, and yet do no good to anyone.

(16) Hence it came about that I had to punish and revoke my first books by the last ones in such matters that are outside the Scriptures, that I had given too much honor to the papacy, and I still revoke them. And if it should displease the King of England, together with all the papists, I say that I am sorry for all the good things I have ever said or written about the pope and the whole ecclesiastical state that now stands.

17 Further, I say that I have also done too little in the book that the King of Lies challenges, and should not have said that the papacy is a strong robbery of Nimrod; which His ungracious Majesty almost too reverently reproduces for our passage (which is quoted there according to the original edition). In the Wittb. Ausg.: "Erbietung", which seems to be more appropriate. In Latin at the corresponding place (Rrl. vur. urA., VI, 395) moNestiuin is written. The meaning of our passage is therefore: the "offer" that Luther wanted to let the papacy be something, if they would let the Scripture remain pure and unadulterated, was despised by them.

seems a lot. For almost all kingdoms of the kind are, from God's order, like Nimrods; without the present lying king of England, who holds his kingdom (as one knows) almost as honestly as the pope holds the papacy. But so I should have said: The papacy is the most poisonous abomination of the supreme devil that has come on earth.

18 I say further: I am sorry that I refrained so far before the emperor at Worms that I wanted to be a judge of my doctrine and hear where someone proved me wrong. For I should not have shown such foolish humility, because I was sure of it, and before the tyrants nothing helped. One must therefore be sure of the matter, that even if all the world would be against it, nevertheless everyone would remain on it. That fei before! enough. Now let us answer the king's lies and falsehoods 1). And summarize the whole king's book in three articles, on which his reason stands against me.

The first reason of the king.

19 He blames me as I have written against myself; therefore my doctrine may not be right, as it is not one with itself. He almost pushes this piece to the limit, is always pushing it, and makes himself useless enough that it seems to me that he would have liked to make a big book and lacks art and words; therefore he is always drooling with a kind of slobber, so that the paper does not remain empty. But I answer:

20 First of all, if the king wills that I have written against myself in the matters concerning a Christian life and the holy Scriptures, as I have indicated above, he will not deny it as a pious, honest man, let alone as a prince or king. Neither shall he teach me, that I offer him defiance and justice; but I will teach him these lies with all my books and readers in the world. If a king of England spews out his lies brazenly, I may cheerfully shove them down his throat again. For thereby he blasphemes all my Christian doctrine and smears his filth on the crown of my King of Honors, viz.

1) i.e. jugglery, jester's antics.

Christ, whose doctrine I have. Therefore he shall not be surprised if I smear the filth of my Lord's crown upon his crown, and say before all the world that the King of England is a liar and an infidel.

21 On the other hand, he thinks that I have written against myself in those things that are outside of Scripture, as if I had previously considered the pope, indulgences, the doctrine of men, masses, etc. to be something and then rejected them, as I have just said; so I am surprised at his great, gross foolishness and presumption that he does not even think that there are still reasonable people on earth who will laugh at such stale antics and lame jokes. And he does not yet know what unruly doctrine means, or what he is lamenting, the coarse Thomistic head.

(22) For it is not called contrary teaching, if a man afterwards holds something different from what he held before, and even confesses it, as I do. Otherwise, St. Paul's epistles would all be condemned, because he teaches the same contradiction after his baptism that he held before, when he persecuted the church. In the same way, St. Augustine's book Retractationum should be condemned with all his best books: for he revokes many of his previous books and teaches differently than he had taught before. Item, no Christians would have to mend their ways or repent; otherwise the king of England would say, "Behold, these confess for sin and error that which they before thought good and right.

(23) But he thinks that if he does some bad things and does not improve or realize that he is not contrary to himself, then all the world should follow him, and no one should teach, learn, or do anything else that he has done from the beginning. So I am surprised that such a wise king does not also mention children's shoes, which do not rhyme with men's shoes. Or why does he now drink wine that sucks the teats? That is, I mean, rained fools. It annoys me that I have to lose time and paper with such insane brains.

(24) This is called contrary doctrine, when a man at the same time sets up, confesses, or admits contrary things, and therefore holds that both are true. As the pope does with his own when they speak, Matth. 16, 18:

The rock is called Christ and the pope; but Christ is pious, the pope is often a sinner, and piety cannot be one with sins, nor be signified by one word. Thus Pabstism, as is the nature of all lies, is contrary to its doctrine and eats itself, as I have often proved.

25 Let the wise king prove that if I had ever praised and punished the papacy, indulgences, mass etc. at the same time, it would have been a right scribe. But what does he do? He says: Luther now writes differently about the pontiff and indulgences than he did before. Go on, my lord! If the king of England had not taught me and the world this, we would not know it; yet I have confessed it myself and everyone has read it; and therefore he alienates, this is called unruly doctrine. How good it would be for a king to rule his country, and let this thing be done that they could do? What is it that an ass will read the Psalter, which is made only to carry sackcloth? But why does not the wise man follow his own teaching and remain in One Mind for and for? He praises me for having honored the pope first, and then scolds me for rejecting him. Dear nobleman, let me here use your judgment and say: The king of England speaks against himself, reproaches what he has praised before; therefore his writing must not be right.

He may have thought, "Luther is now banished, so that he cannot answer me; his books are burned, so that no one can punish me for lying; I am a great king, and people will believe that what I say is true; therefore I will confidently load lies onto the monk and say what I want to say, and hunt for glory in the open field. Yes, dear squire, you say what you desire, but you shall also hear again what you do not desire; I will well drive away the thrill of lies.

(27) With this I will have laid all the useless slobber and poisonous stings of the king of England, his first cause.

The second reason of the king.

28. he scolds me for writing against the pope out of hatred and envy, and be biting and scolding, and be hopeful, and only want to be wise.

and that much. Nevertheless, he does not fill a small piece of his delicate book with this, and is not to be blamed. How should a poor man do who would like to write and could do nothing? He must ever be so firlefanzen and ramble with words that people think he wants to write a book.

29 If I now asked, "My dear nobleman, what is the point of my being spiteful, spiteful, spiteful? Is the pope therefore right that I am evil and scold it? So the king of England should also be a wise man, because I consider him a fool. And if the world wanted, it could still make the devil holy, if it only hated and peeled him confidently. Again, if the thing becomes good and right because of that, that one spares the Pope and praises him, then it will certainly not be allowed to use God's help, but it is enough that the King of England praises him and is his patron.

(30) But this is still more excellent, that the dear king, who is so hostile to biting and scolding, scolds me more and more venomously in this one book than I have scolded in all my books. It also pleases the papists most of all because of his venomous scolding. For they themselves confess that there is nothing of art in it. But perhaps one must reckon the matter according to the persons. A king may well scold a poor monk; but to the pope one should only pretend. So I hope that my cause will be right also because the king scolds so venomously, otherwise the king of England is right.

(31) The tender king charged him to punish my doctrine: and the deceiving spirit led him to punish my life, which I myself have never professed to sanctify, and have always punished myself. Although I respect, if the king should also look at his life, he would run out to the temple before he would stone me. The great lords are so accustomed to being hypocritical and flattered that they even pretend that the Christian faith is over when they are told the truth and salt their nasty miracles and maggots.

32 But the king should have proved beforehand that the pope was just and would be punished innocently by me. Only: do

But he, like the wistful women, complains that I do not spare the most holy pope, and yet the blind head sees well that I consider the pope to be the end-Christ, whom everyone should punish and rebuke, and he should first prove how he is not the end-Christ.

But I would like to know when the tender king saw my heart, that he scolded me so thirstily, ugly and hopeful I thought my heart knew no one but God. My scolding has never been as venomous as that of the king of England. But I have shown cause in my writings, and I have spoken joyfully and freely, as the prophets, Christ and the apostles do. That no one may recognize my hatred by the fruit, so that he may also reproach the prophets, Christ and the apostles. For this I have ever abstained from lies, that I have not so shamefully and publicly lied to anyone as the King of Lies of England has lied to me. This booklet is so poisonous and full of lies that it would be enough if Emser or the like had written it. But let him lie who lies. The papacy stands on lies; it is clothed with lies; it teaches lies; it must also be protected with lies, so that there are only lies. This answers the other reason, that evil lives do not make good doctrine false; in addition, the king cannot prove my evil life, and again lies to me that he does not know.

The third reason of the king.

(34) This is his main thing, that is, the long spear, that he does not lead to the whole thing, through the whole book, more than a single saying from the Scriptures; yet falsely, as we shall see; but all his proof is in this: I believe it to be true. Item, so long has it been held. Item, so many people may not err. Item, some holy fathers have said this and that. There you have the art of the king of England, altogether; just as if I had never known of any of these, and he had to teach me first of all what has been held so far by so many people; or as if it should therefore be right that the king of England should believe thus.

There is not so much brain in this king's head that he would think and think that Luther knows well that it has been kept so long. In addition, he challenges the same thing, so that I do not need to tell him that it has been kept for a long time and by many, but I must show him the reason that it is right and well kept for such a long time and by many. I cannot with any writing bring the furious papists to the point that they know what they are talking about, or what I am arguing with them about. I do not ask them how long and how much they have kept, but whether they have kept it right. So they answer, it is kept so long and by so many. I ask them to drink, and they say, "The donkey carries the sack. Are not the people blind?

(36) But I ask every reason, if this be enough, that our faith be right, that it be held so long, and by so many: wherewith shall we put the Jews' faith, or the Turk's? Let us say: So many people have held our faith for so long; so both Jews and Turks have won. For the Turkish faith is now about a thousand years old, and before Germany became Christian. And the Jews will gain over two thousand years before Christ's birth. And why did we Germans become Christians, when our ancestors in German lands have all honored idols from the beginning? In this way, the pagan faith will be right and the Christian faith will be wrong. For the pagan faith has stood much longer and had ten times more people.

37 Is not the king of England, together with the papists, fine fellows with their long spear? And whether they speak: Yes, our spear was made by the Holy Spirit, but not by the Turks and the Jews. Answer: Wherewith shall they prove it? By the king of England saying, I have believed it, and if I say it, it is enough? The Turk will say again: I also believe in my spear, that it is from the Holy Spirit; therefore it is enough that I say it. Behold, thus the unholy people put our faith on the sand, and only give the unbelievers the ground and strength of their unbelief with their lies and falsehoods.

38 What use or need is the holy scripture to confirm our faith? Let us only say: many have held to it for so long, therefore it is right; so adultery, murder, robbery and all kinds of sin will also become right, for they have been granted from the world. Behold, God has provided such protectors by special counsel to the Papist Church and the Papist faith, that they bite their own tongues and eat their own flesh, as Revelation 17:16 is said of them.

39 Therefore, I will answer the papists to the king once again. First of all, the long spear is not valid. For the saying is true: What has been wrong for a hundred years has never been right for an hour. And if the years were right, the devil would be the most righteous on earth, who is now over five thousand years old. Therefore one must indicate other reason, than the length of the time and humans sense.

40 On the other hand, my papists know, and must confess, that holy fathers have often erred; therefore their sayings must not be believed, for they lead bright writings, as Augustine himself often says.

In the third place, though they have not erred, yet they have no power to establish articles of faith: otherwise the article would not come to an end; as it has already been done by the Concilia and High Schools. King Henry still thinks that it is an article of faith when he imposes a sentence of the fathers. As when he introduces from Ambrosio: "After the blessing of the priest there is nothing' but the body of Christ" etc. From this he concludes that there is no bread in the Sacrament. And does not see, the great brain, how the same saying concludes just as strongly, that there is also no taste, color, shape. For he says, Let nothing remain but the body of Christ. He who leaves nothing, takes everything away.

Therefore I let such dark uncertain sayings of King Henry and the Papal Church be articles of their faith. My faith shall have God's sayings as articles, pure and alone, without any man's addition, that and no other. God does not lie to me, all men are liars [fPs. 116, 11].

And all holy fathers, if they speak apart from the Scriptures, they are just as absent as other men. But how the doctrines of men are to be shunned, I have already strongly proved before by a special booklet, and with it I have knocked King Henry's book to the ground before it came to light; of which I now draw one, Matt. 15:9: "In vain do they serve me with doctrines and commandments of men." This saying alone is strong enough for me against all the sayings of men that King Henry raises up, even if they were as many as leaves in the forest and sand by the sea. And herewith I want to answer his whole book, which is based on nothing more than the sayings of men and old customs, as we shall see.

(43) It is true that he uses many of the sayings of the Scriptures when he speaks of secondary affairs, and has them drawn in the margin, so that the simple-minded people may think that he is leading them to the matter in themselves, when he is only scolding me with them, or otherwise doing something that does not serve the matter, except where the Scriptures forbid hatred, envy, cursing, and pride. Therefore, let us see the one saying that he brings to the matter, how falsely he handles it, of which we have said above.

44 Since I had said of the sacrament of consecration that it had no basis in the Scriptures, he draws on the saying of Paul in Titum 1, 5: "I have left thee in Crete, that thou shouldest fully establish it, as I have left it, and fill the cities to and fro with elders, as I have ordained thee" etc. This is the only saying in the whole book that has a semblance to the matter. For the fact that he also refers there to the sayings 1 Tim. 4, 14. of laying on of hands, everyone sees well that it is drawn there from a Heinzen head, and nothing belongs to the ordination of priests, as Apost. 8, 17. Cap. 13, 3. Cap. 19, 6. The apostles used to lay hands on all believers.

45 I now answer: If St. Paul, by this saying, gives the bishop alone the power to ordain or make priests, then all that is done against this must be wrong. Thus we read Apost. 1, 15. ff. that all disciples together mention St. Matthias.

and they laughed about it and counted him among the eleven apostles. Here St. Peter or someone else should have ordained St. Matthiam alone, where St. Paul should have had Heinzen's mind. The same Apost. 6, 2. no apostle alone, yea, even all the apostles at all, were allowed to give the little ordination (as they call it) to make the seven deacons; but, as the text says [v. 2.], "they called the whole multitude of the disciples, and chose and appointed the seven deacons, all of them."

46 Therefore the saying in Titus 1:5 can have no other meaning than that Titus should ordain elders or priests, not only, but with the consent, election and approval of the whole congregation; or all the apostles must have erred in the above-mentioned matters. Thus the holy fathers Cyprian, Augustine, Ambrose and many more were ordained afterwards; as is abundantly proved in their books; that King Heinz should be ashamed that he may condemn such things. But King Heinz would like to protect us from the tyranny of the Pabst, who appoints priests and charges them on our necks, whether we want it or not; as Jeroboam of old appointed priests whom he wanted; which the Scriptures punish [1 Kings 12:31].

47) But that King Heinz claims that the church has the power to establish religious sacraments, even though there is no reason for it in Scripture; just as I have said that she has the power to know which is God's word and which is not God's word, I will answer in due time. For the great rude Thomist does not see that the power to reprove doctrine is commanded and appointed to all of us 1) in Scripture, since Christ says, Matth. 7, 15: "Beware of false prophets"; item: Joh. 10, 5: "The sheep do not hear the strange voice." But to put in new doctrine and order is not commanded; indeed, it is manifoldly forbidden. You are a rough Heinz, and remain a Heinz.

1) Instead of "tadeln, uns allen", which the Jena edition offers, the Wittenberg edition has "handeln uns allein". That the reading of the Jena edition is correct is proven by the corresponding passage in the Latin: jus äs äostrlna soINOsssnäi st jMisanäi, ssu xroiranäi esse xsnss nos. Lrl. var. arx, VI, x. 443.

The piece in particular, so the king proves against me.

48 The first is about indulgences, which I have accused of being deceptive; King Henry refutes this: if this were true, then all popes would have been deceivers, even Leo himself, whom Luther has often praised.

49. answer. What do you think? Is this not a royal battle against Luther? Such embarrassment should please no one, but only the indulgence seekers who read the king's book. I have thoroughly proved that the indulgences were deceivers, as now all the world grasps itself. So King Henry thinks it is enough to say, without any proof, that they were not deceivers, and not to answer a word to my reasons. Aut

regem, autr fatuum, 2) it says.

The other one is from the papacy, which I have also pushed with strong writing; 3) which King Henry leaves untouched and proves it with his discretion, namely that he has heard that those in India should also submit to the pope. Item, Graecia. Item, St. Jerome. What shall I say? Is the papacy therefore right that King Henry should hear and think such things? It is also wrong for me to hear otherwise, and I know that King Henry is lying, and St. Jerome, whom he attracts, does not say a word about the papacy; that I think King Henry is dreaming or is drunk, who himself does not know what he is saying.

The third is of both kinds, that one is wrongfully taken from the laity. Here he once again challenges the Scriptures and the clear words of the Gospel, which I have led, and Paul 1 Cor. 11, 23, 26, and says that he should not answer my Scriptures, but that I should leave the Scriptures and follow his mere zeal. Now hear what he raises. The Christian church (he says) holds mass in the morning, which Christ did in the evening. Item, we put water into the wine; yet the gospel says nothing of it. So then here the church is right

2) This proverb reads completely: Xut rsZsin, ant katuum uassi oxortuit, i.e. either a king or a fool had to be born. Cf. § 4 of the following scripture.

3) Wittb. Edition: overturned.

and does well to change it and add to it, so it is also well done that it takes off one form and has power to take off and add to and put on everything else. Here Luther lies down (is written in the margin), there won, who can refute that? No one has ever hit Luther so hard. And even if I would like to run away and say that one should not put water in it, the hero of England beats me to it and judges, not with writings, but with his royal conceit, that Luther will certainly not be so bold as to bless the wine without water.

52. answer. It would like to insist one (with leave) the stranguria about the rough

Fools' heads. And if I did not have to serve the simple-minded, I would not answer a word. It is shameful and harmful that one should read such a book of fools without going to Rome and to our neighbors.

53 So we say: Christ instituted both forms through himself and Paul his apostle; therefore it is not in any creature's power to change or abolish the same. But he hath appointed no time, neither evening nor morning, nor day nor night. Therefore all Christians are free to have mass when they want, be it evening, morning, noon, or midnight. Therefore, if there is no other impropriety, it would not be a sin for anyone to have mass in the evening or at midnight. The time, place, person, clothes, customs, and what is more external, should be free? and is free for anyone to use according to his occasion. It is not a sin whether you say mass in the choir, in the church, in the parlor, in the cellar, in the chamber, in the field, on the water, in the air, all places are free; thus also all time and hour is free, be it at six in the evening or at twelve at night, if only faith is there. Despite not only King Heinzen, but all papal Kunzen and all devils to prove otherwise.

Therefore, King Heinz should have put the glasses on his nose beforehand, and see that he proved beforehand that one should say mass only in the morning and not at any other time. So they plump along with their dream, and build on it. Why has his

Did not great prudence also attract the fact that Christ said mass at the age of thirty-three and gave the sacrament to all adults, which has now been changed so that priests say mass at the age of fifty, sixty, and twenty-five, and children as young as twelve take the sacrament? Item, he would like to say of the place that Christ said mass in an unconsecrated place, in "unconsecrated" clothes, if it is now held differently. O of the wise people, one should put them above the goose eggs. For we almost begrudge the papal saints the excellent new articles of faith, namely:

I believe that Mass should be said in the morning.

I believe that Mass should be said in churches.

I believe that one should wear plates and chasuble, and what is the more.

But we Christians believe that such believers are great fools with their articles, and do not rely on King Henry's conceit, but on Christ's word, when he says: Hoc facite, "If or how often you do this, do it in remembrance of me. Here he indicates neither morning nor evening, but leaves, yes, sets all time free, and condemns all who want to grasp and bind it to a time. So also St. Paul 1 Cor. II, 34. writes publicly, "If any man hunger, let him eat at home, lest ye come together for judgment." See, here Paul also allows that they may eat before they receive the sacrament, if it is necessary, which he also freely sets free at all times. But that the pope with his fornication takes the consciences captive in this way, that he also rejects him who takes a drink, a morsel of bread, or medicine, or some drops of water, and makes a necessary article out of it, against this freedom, and strangles the consciences without cause, his God the devil will thank him for it.

(56) Again I say to our enthusiasts, 1) who boast of our name and do all shame, stand up and preach, if they only know something new, that it should be said of them; to them I do not mean herewith

1) Marginal gloss of the Jena edition: Carlstadt and others.

Laube 1) give, that they drive in with the boots, shout and rave: Yes, yes, I may say mass in the evening, yes, I will eat and drink my fill before etc. Just as the papists fall too much on the left side, so the devil leads these too much on the right side. Therefore they shall know that I am not with them; neither have they their raving from me.

(57) But I say that it pleases me to say mass in the morning, or to receive the sacrament soberly, and to act in the ordinary way. But that an article be made of it, and as a necessary law, as King Heinz and the papists pretend, that it is a sin who does otherwise, that we do not want to suffer, we do not want to step on this left side, but remain on the free middle road. So, if someone could not fast, or would be unskilled sober, he should eat and drink, and say mass or receive the sacrament, when, where and how he wants; only that he needs this freedom in a good mood, with fear of God and gratitude. But let him who is sober-minded also remain free in the old way, and let no commandment, necessity, laws, conscience, sin, or new articles of faith be set up for him on any side.

058 So also I say, that it is no sin to put water into the wine, or not to put it in; but every man shall be free to go as he will, and suffer no law. Though methinks it were better not to put water in it, because we read not that Christ put it in, and is a mere man's foot. But, as I have said, we do not want to argue about this, but let each man have his own way. That is why King Heinz did not consider the matter well here, that he wanted to establish and make necessary a figure and a man's doctrine from this water mixture, which he cannot prove necessary, because only with his conceit and mine. Now Luther is just as interested in the conceit of the King of England as in the conceit of the cuckoo.

59 Even that [which] he calls Christian church, on which his whole book boasts, he has never proven that it is Christian church.

1) i. Permission.

That therefore all his talk is a loud slobbering, and could not say, if one asked him what church was called, and wants to write about the church.

The Christian church has no other doctrine than God's word, but the one who teaches man's doctrine as necessary is not the church, but the red whore of Babylon, with the golden cup full of her fornication, Revelation 17:4, as I have often proven. Therefore we abide in Christ's words, which I have put on both of them, which King Heinz undoubtedly leaves us, not out of ignorance, but out of royal grace, unresolved and unaccountable; perhaps that he is secretly so favorable to us that he tells us to abide in Christ's word, and only curses us by heart and hypocrites to the pope. For he has meant that he must not answer us to our sayings, but that we must only hear what he says from his head without Scripture. Yes, dear Heinz, you got it right.

(61) Now, then, I pray that everyone will consider for himself what precious thing there may be in the king's book. For they boast and write it in the margin: Luther lies down here; they themselves consider it the most delicious piece in the whole book. But how I lie down, I think, is known from the above. That this book must have been written either by an arch-fool or by one who thinks himself clever; and those who praise it must be even greater fools. But I say, no one ever wrote more foolishly against me, without [it] being adorned a little with Latin. But let us see some more of the king's cleverness, although I have enough of the previous ones and am full.

The fourth part is that I have said that in the sacrament there is bread and wine, the true body and blood of Christ, so that it is not necessary to believe that after the blessing the bread ceases. Although I have not forced anyone to hold otherwise or in such a way, without wanting to make a necessary article and law out of it, as if one must believe that there is never any bread. Here, King Heinz proves his art, that I almost have to call him Master Heinz.

63) In the first place, he does not put any reason in the Scripture, but says: the world has thus

and he believes that it is right that neither bread nor wine remain there, but be changed into the flesh and blood of Christ; and does not see, the coarse brain, that I challenge this very thing, and demand reason from the Scriptures that such a change take place. He does not give it, and therefore tells me what he believes, as if I did not know it before.

On the other hand, this is the right way to argue: if one sets an article and the other denies it, then the one who sets it is guilty of proving it, for the jurists also say: Negativa non probatur. King Heinz is still so clever that he sets the article, and drives at me, I should prove the no, and he does not want to prove the yes. Therefore I still say no to the fact that bread and wine are changed; and offer defiance to King Heinz and all papists that they prove their yes. Although I am not the first to say this, but in their schools writes Cardinal Camera. 1) himself: it is more evident that bread is not transformed. Why doesn't King Heinz kill it, and so obviously deny that I alone say this? The world has never believed it so far before it was brought out by Thomas Aquinas.

I have based myself on Christ's word, when the evangelist says that he took the bread in his hands, blessed it, and said, "Take and eat, this is my body" etc. And Paul 1 Cor. 10, 16: "Is not the bread which we break the fellowship of the body of Christ?" Now what GOt calls bread, let it not be denied that it is bread.

66 Here a sophist comes to the aid of King Henry, saying, "Although Christ took the bread and blessed it, it is never bread, but only the body after the blessing, and the bread is now changed. For the words are plainly thus, This is my body, saith not, This is bread, or, In whom is my body; but, This is my body.

67 I answer: No, my dear sophist, you do not escape me in this way. You should prove that the transformation of the bread has happened before you hesitate the words on it. So you draw

1) d. i. Cameracensis, the Cardinal of Cambray, Pierre d'AillY.

the words on it before you prove them. For these words, 'This is my body,' are just as true if bread remains there as if it does not. For I can well say that bread is my body, just as I say of Christ that man is God; that nevertheless it is not necessary for humanity to disappear, and for God to remain. So here also "this is my body" may well be the body, that nevertheless bread remains.

68 You say it is clear that no bread remains when he says, "This is my body. Yes, it is clear in your head, since there is darkness inside. Thinkest thou, as thou mockest me, Christ saith not, This is my bread, or there remaineth bread, I could not also mock thee, saying, Christ saith not, Here perish the bread, or here is the bread changed, as thou pretendest. Where did you read that the bright word of Christ is to be glossed over in this way?

69 You say that the words are clear, that is my body. Certainly they are clear, but they do not mean that the bread will cease, but rather that it will remain. For the little word "this is" points to the bread, and the words where he says, "He took, he blessed, he gave," etc., all point to the bread which he took into his hands: and of the same which was taken into his hands, blessed, broken, and given, he says, "This is my body." So that the words are clearly all about the bread in all languages, so that it can be grasped; except by the blind sophists, who do no more than corrupt the languages.

(70) Do you not see, when you insist that only the body of Christ remains, when he says, "This is my body," that the same concludes just as strongly, that no color, shape, smell, savor, thickness, or softness of the bread remains either, but Christ's body alone, as the words sound, "This is my body"? Dear one, stand up and tell us that in the sacrament there is no sacrament, that is, no external thing, neither color nor shape, but vain and only the body of Christ. But tell me, can the word "this is my body" suffer besides it the essence of color, form, smell, and taste, that they are not also changed into the body of Christ, why should not also the bread live?

If there were more than bread, would you be able to make it? I can say of a fiery iron, that is fire; and yet must not deny iron.

71 Summa Summarum, you and all the papists may rant and rave: you shall never prove that bread will never remain here. In spite of you and in spite of you! Although I said that I do not care, let everyone do as he pleases, there is no danger to the faith in this; it is enough for me that they cannot make an article out of it for me, and my conscience is free from such their chatter and useless poetry. Therefore I still say that King Heinz is lying, since he says that the Christian church has set such things and thus believes. He will not prove it either; but the Thomists and Papists believe and teach thus. They are a church just as a whore is a virgin. The church does not deal with useless fables of men.

But that he interprets St. Paul's word, 1 Cor. 10, 16, where he clearly calls this sacrament bread, so that the Scripture often calls something that is not, but was before, as it says in Ex. 7, 12, "the staff of Aaron ate the staffs of the sorcerers," that is, the serpent ate his serpents. Behold the insolent devil, who with impudent mouth may say that God lies and says otherwise than the thing is in itself. So I say again that King Heinz, with his sophist Kunzen, leaks into his poisonous lying mouth. The scripture has never spoken differently than it is in itself. Or does Junker Heinz now first of all want to teach the Holy Spirit to speak of his works? Who told you to gloss over the fact that the staff of Aaron is not called a staff here? Without a doubt, he who calls you bread here does not call you bread. If you do not understand how a staff eats sticks, you should still recognize yourself as a creature and give glory to God, believing his word to be true.

73 And if such a lie existed, that the Scripture meant something that was not so, how will Kunz the sophist prove that this is also the case? Is it enough that he says so? So let us take authority to say in all places that henceforth no word shall remain in Scripture that may not be called something else than it is. Now when the Scripture says,

Let Christ be God and man, let us say: Nay, let the Scripture be so understood, that he was man and God, or equal to a man and God, so henceforth in all things: ei, how finely then shall we raise up the Manichaeans again, and set all Scripture in a mockery to the heretics!

74 So I might also answer the king, Your transforming is not a transforming, but it is like it, or was like it before; if he says, No, you do not prove that here transforming is to be interpreted in this way, I say, What is it necessary to prove? Is it enough that I say it, just as you say here that bread is like bread in St. Paul's word, and yet prove nothing? Do you see, dear king, what a difference there is between saying something and proving it? and how the spirit of deceit drives the enemies of truth to make a thousand fools' works out of one?

75 So it is also when he says: If Luther wants to be so strict about the words, then he will have to say that Christ is a wheat loaf in heaven, because he says: "I am the loaf that came from heaven", Joh. 6, 51. Item: "I am a true vine" etc. [Joh. 15, 1.]

76. answer. If King Heinz had also waited for his kingdom, or studied it in the Scriptures, he would not have been so foolish with God's words. Christ, Joh. 6, 51., interprets himself as speaking of the spiritual bread and the spiritual vine. Therefore there is no word here that interprets differently than the thing is in itself; but Christ is truly spiritual bread and wine, food etc. For where the word "spiritual" is added to the other word, it becomes a new word, as the Grammatici teach in figuris,

juxta illud:

Dixeris egregie, notum si callida verbum Reddiderit junctura novum. 1)

So when Paul says: "Take the sword of the Spirit" [Eph. 6, 17.], sword no longer means iron and steel, but God's word.

77 But here in the sacrament Christ does not take spiritual bread into his hands but

1) Horace, ^rs xoötlea, v. 47.

that is natural and grown in the countryside. So he does not make spiritual bread out of it. Therefore it is different here, because he says: I am the bread from heaven. There Christ is not wheat bread; but here his body is not spiritual bread, but there he is spiritual bread: here of course wheat bread is his body, and St. Paul's word may not be understood otherwise. So Paul stands here and pushes and disgraces King Heinzen in the very finest way with his lazy, lame jokes about bread's likeness and the jiggery-pokery.

But what he continues to spout here and makes his mockery of the fact that I have used the two similes: iron is fire, and man is God; so also let bread be Christ's body, that both natures nevertheless remain, I let go, is enough for me that he does not bite them and has to leave them, and therefore he deludes himself that no being is worthy to be mixed with such a being, which has created all beings. I say, God does not ask about the worthiness of the being, otherwise one would also have to say, God would not be man, because human being is not worthy of the divine being, so the bread of Christ's body is not worthy of being. But it does not follow that it is not there, without King Heinzen and Kunz Sophists.

79. And who would tell all the abominations that follow from the foolish mad reason of King Heinzen, if one wanted to measure God's work according to worthiness and unworthiness? Is it not a royal wisdom: The bread is not worthy to be Christ's body, therefore it is not so? Man is not worthy to be God, therefore it is not so. The sinner is not worthy of God's grace, therefore God is not gracious to him. Hans Tölpel, where did you go to school? Tell me, why is the shape of the bread, the color, the taste, the softness, the smell worth that [it] is Christ's body? Is the color better than the essence? Is the taste better than the grain? God grant that thou mayest eat the color of bread, and never more bread, until thou sweep and cleanse thy foolish brain with hunger, if thou mayest become wiser.

The fifth piece is that I have not wanted the Mass to be a sacrifice nor a good work.

let. Yes, here King Heinze makes himself think that he is Master Klügel himself. How strongly does he argue against Luther? Whoever hears the magnificent words alone should think that he has eaten Luther a thousand times. And if you look at it, these are the arguments by which our geese have long since eaten the grass, namely, the ridiculous antics that our neighbors have been singing to us for three years now, that it is the old custom and that many keep it that way and, as they are wont to say, the church (that is, their Babylonian whore) keeps it that way.

81 My king also does this; he does not take a single point from the Scriptures, so that he establishes himself and overthrows me, even though I stand and remain on the Scriptures. But he draws on the canon, the still mass and the sayings of the fathers. It is true that I am almost tired and unenthusiastic to act in the king's muck, and would probably have more to do; but one has to listen to fools with pistons, whether they get anything wiser from it. I have to completely shorten their bells and enrage the devil even more, who cries foul here through King Heinzen, sprays and rages. God protect us from the angry King Heinzen, only for one hour, after which we will find counsel.

The tender king complains, among other things, that if the mass were not a good work, the laity would not give the priests anything in return. This has ever been royally argued and truly said. And we also confess with confidence that what the papists teach is to be done for money. So this is one reason from King Henry's art, that the mass must be a good work, so that the priests ever gain money. An honest cause! But here Luther lies low, and no one has ever been so equally correct as King Heinze. So again it must be true: if the laity did not give money, the mass would no longer be a good work; this is also royally spoken and true. For you should well see, where the fair would yield as much as it yields, it would soon become what the bag only wanted. For King Heinz puts the matter on the bag, if it wants to be called a good work or not, so it must be. Do you ask where the scripture is based?

Answer: King Heinz believes it is so right, therefore sbe-^darf's no more writing.

See, dear man, what impudent whores these are, what a spirit has written the book, how the devil cannot contain his melancholy! God be praised that he is so struck. Now my little book about the Babylonian prison is all the more dear to me. It hit and did not miss, and made them nonsensical. Tell me, a sincere pious man, how must I place myself to be afraid of such idols, or to honor them as scholars? They say I am hopeful and courageous. How should one not become courageous when he sees such clumsy, foolish, foolish fables put forward in such serious matters? Well, this is the most important thing of King Heinen, why the fair is a good work: that it gives money.

84 After that, with excellent words, he says that my speech is nothing, but he will leave the foundation in peace and give it to be overturned, only to indicate my building, which is built on it, so that it will fall. Thank you, my king, that he leaves the foundation standing; it must be a wise king who fights against me and gives me the foundation freely. He fears that if he touches it, it will fall on his head and crumble.

85 Therefore I conclude from King Heinz's leave that the mass is neither sacrifice nor good work, until another comes and overturns my reason; for King Heinz let it stand. Someone from this place might think that someone else had written this book under the king's name, mocking and disgracing the king; or would have to think that the king is nonsensical, who writes against Luther, and yet makes a point of not touching his reason, after which he fills the pages with cursing, scolding, wrinkling his nose and poisonous stings.

86) After this, he again points out how the mass is a good work, saying, "He who cuts a piece of wood does a work; should not he do a work who makes or changes the sacrament? If it is a work, it is not evil, it must be good. So it follows that the mass is a good work. Here I must truly laugh in earnest. It is

probably such a fine little pebble from King Heinzen, if it had been said by Claus Narr. How can the devil fantasize so visibly 1)?

But to answer the dear writer, here is to know that the Mass is two things. First, as we speak of it, it is the sacrament itself with the words of the promise, namely, the true body and blood of Christ in the bread and wine, together with the words "this is my body. etc. For if this were not there, the rest would be vain giving and giving. But the sacrament and the promise we did not make, but Christ made, and still makes daily: therefore it is not our work nor word, but we receive it by faith spiritually, and with the mouth bodily. This is the reason King Heinz gives me. Therefore he speaks differently of the mass, and says: the mass is that one speaks the words of God and grasps the hosts with the hand, lifts and lays them. These are our works, in which we grasp and act upon God's Word and Sacrament. According to such royal prudence, reaching, corporal, 2) wiping the chalice, perhaps sneezing and spitting over the altar also belong to the Mass.

So we confess that King Heinzen's mass is indeed a work, and good, if the priest is pious. For it is not evil to speak God's word and to carry the hosts. But we have never dreamed of talking about the mass in this way, nor did anyone tell us earlier that King Heinz would call it a mass, otherwise we would have been very wary. And because he is so powerful to change the words, we want to grant him gladly that he is called mass calf's head or donkey's head, as he wants.

We maintain that the Mass is Testamentum et signum Dei adjectum, that is, not our word nor work, but God's word, through which alone He makes the Sacrament when we say it, therefore God's word and work may not be ours. So it cannot be our good work nor sacrifice, but it is God's good word and work, which He gives us and we receive with faith.

1) i.e. poseable.

2) The white linen cloth for covering the hosts.

accept. Behold, how finely the king shows that my building falls from himself!

90] Then he points out how the mass is also a sacrifice, and is so certain of it that he does not think it worthwhile to conclude me, and proves it thus: if the mass is a promise, it does not prevent it from also being a sacrifice. For in the Old Testament there were also sacrifices, which were at the same time promises; for they promised the goods, therefore they happened etc. Here I do not understand king Heinzen. For if this is his opinion, that the sacrifices themselves were promises, then he is lying, and almost fooling. For promises were God's word, and must always be God's word; therefore they could not be our work or sacrifice. It is true that one obtains the promise through sacrifice. Now this is the figure, that Christ by his own sacrifice obtained for us the promised blessedness made to Abraham; and we also, by our body's sacrifice and death, obtain the promised blessedness. Therefore, see how King Heinz knows nothing about what is promised or sacrificed.

91) But that he wonders what kind of preachers I hear in these lands, because I write that nothing of the promise has ever been preached properly in the mass, when in his country such things are preached to excess, I answer: and I also wonder, because he hears such his preachers, that he learns nothing at all from them, and has remained a stupid ass's head, who does not see at all that the promise or God's word may not be our work or sacrifice. For where God speaks, we do nothing, nor do we give him anything, but we listen, grasp and take from him what he says, just as a coarse donkey may grasp, and King Heinz nevertheless does not understand, but still drools against it, and thinks that if he mocks him and scolds me, he has hit the mark. In addition, the liar, who says here that he has heard the promise to excess, denies it afterwards, since he writes of the consecration, there is no promise in the whole supper of Christ. This is how mad and nonsensical hatred makes the wretched people.

92. after that, because I have done all my writing

and doctrines, that nothing is to be taught or kept which is not clearly written in Scripture; therefore human doctrines or additions are to be nothing or free and unnecessary: my King Heinz strives to make such additions necessary and not to leave them free. And speaks first: it is not written that Christ took the sacrament in the supper, so now the priests must not take the sacrament either. Answer: Well, my dear Heinz, where did you read that it is necessary for the priests to take the sacrament? In your church, that is, in the Babylonian whore? You rude ass, you should first prove that the priests must take the sacrament: so you go along as if you had fought for it, and build on it as on a foundation.

I say: Christ has taken it or not, there is nothing to believe, which you desire, because it is not written. So the priest should also be free to take the sacrament or not. And he shall trample underfoot the Pope's constraint and law. Free, free, free we want and should be in everything that is outside the Scriptures. Defy that which is against us! Therefore, my main reason stands firm, which King Heinz here even thinks to have overturned.

94 He also says that Christ blessed the sacrament and not the apostles, so the apostles and priests do not have to bless. But if I were to say that he commanded them, since he says, "Hoc facite, this is in remembrance of me, I will draw his disgrace to it, that the disciples were commanded to take the sacrament, not to bless it. I am saying here that King Heinz of England is an angel, 1) since the devil has possessed him so completely that he does nothing else but publicly blaspheme and desecrate the words of the divine majesty. That God may command you, Satan, how you rage against your Creator and Lord!

95 Therefore I say, the word that Christ says, Hoc facite, which doeth, extends to the whole ministry, commanding them both to bless.

1) Dietz, Wörterbuch zu Luthers deutschen Schriften, says: I cannot explain this strange word as well as Grimm; he gives as a guess: Narr.

and to take freely as they will. As Paul also says in 1 Cor. 11, 23: "I have given you what I have received from the Lord" etc. For by this he means that he commanded you to do all that was then done by him and his disciples.

96 And if King Heinen's blasphemy were true, that Christ did not say this about blessing, but about taking. Rather, what would he have commanded them to take? Should he always come down from heaven and bless them himself? So even the lying mouth thinks nothing what it says. If they are to take what they took then, they must take blessed bread or the sacrament. How can they take it if they do not bless it first?

97. But if he will stretch my word, since I have said that "nothing shall be kept apart from the Scriptures," so that he also respects the natural consequence of the commanded works, I will deny it: It is not written that the sacrament of the apostles touched or wetted the mouth, tongue, or gullet; it is not written that they tasted or smelled or looked at it, and what more are the consequences that must naturally follow the receiving, he (I say) wants to stretch my words so tight that he blames me for also denying such consequence when I say that nothing is to be kept apart from Scripture: Who does not see in the Christian patron of the church the poisonous heart with dragon's gall, which seeks only cause to lie and blaspheme?

So I also say, if Christ had not commanded to bless the sacrament, but because he commands to take what is blessed, the natural consequence is that he would also have commanded to bless it. But such a consequence the king liar and blasphemer will never prove about the sacrament, that it is a sacrifice, a good work, to put water into wine, and what the Babylonian whore, the king of England's church, has lied more for articles. Therefore my reason still stands: because Christ did not sacrifice the Sacrament at the Lord's Supper, it is not to be sacrificed at any Mass, and nothing new is to be established apart from the Scriptures.

99 But King Heinz says, "Let it be so.

I reply that prudence may have two understandings. The first is that they should offer the sacrament. The first, that they should offer the Sacrament. But this he denies, and cannot prove; for the priests do not do that which Christ did on the cross, but that which he did in the supper, when he did not offer himself; for he offered himself only once. The other, that they sacrifice and crucify Christ in the sacrament, as the Jews did, is clear; for those who sacrifice the sacrament blaspheme, profane, crucify, and kill his holy word, that he might have instituted the mass.

100 After that he comes to the still mass or canon, and pretends that many things are now in custom, as well as the canon, which are not in the Scriptures, and imposes on me, I have the word Quotiescunque feceritis, as often as their

that does etc., not taken from the Gospel (for it says only hoc facite, that does), but from the Canon; therefore I should also keep the whole Canon, in which the Sacrament is called a sacrifice. You poor devil, how you drag your head, how you seek help! But it does not help you, you must not let the mass remain a sacrifice without your thanks.

I have rejected the Canon, because it is too crude about sacrifices of the Sacrament; but King Liar should have done so much honor to St. Paul that he considered him to be true that his words were Christ's, and that he had received everything from Christ, as he himself says. Therefore, the words of Christ "this does" must be as valid as the words of Paul "Quotiescunque feceritis,

as often as you do it". And they also apply so much, if one only disregards the grammar, ohn that king Heinz must drive his Alfenzen and monkey play, and unequal sense from it sang, and lie, that in St. Paul other words stand.

But that he introduces some of the fathers' sayings and mocks my hope that I alone will be wise and be the greatest of fools etc. does not concern me. It is enough for me that King Heinz cannot raise a writing against the greatest fool, the wisest and the wise man against the fool.

must know that the sayings of the fathers are uncertain and have often been mistaken; therefore it is not possible to build on them without Scripture, without in his church, since he is the patron of it. But I set against all the sayings of the fathers, against all angels, men, devils, arts and words, the Scriptures and the Gospel, wherein the mass is clearly known to be the word and work of God, wherein God promises us and shews us his grace. Here I stand, here I defy, here I pride myself and say: God's word is above everything to me, divine majesty stands with me; therefore I do not give a hair's breadth if a thousand Augustinians, a thousand Heinzen churches in addition, were against me, and I am certain that the right church holds with me to God's word, and lets Heinzen churches hang on to human words.

Bite my nut, Heinz of England, defiance and defiance, your cursing does not help, your scolding does not count, your lying I do not respect, your dread I do not fear: for you stumble on this piece, as a stick, and are otherwise nothing but vain words. When thou shalt speak, thou shalt hold thy peace; when thou shalt hold thy peace, thou shalt wash. If you take me that the mass is a promise and work of God to us, you shall have won. Then I will also say that the mass is a sacrifice.

But God's promise and word cannot be our work, nor can it be sacrificed, but only received and believed. Let us see who wants to say otherwise here. It is a shame that a king writes such a big book and does not want to touch or meet this main piece, on which I stand. Nor has anyone ever wanted to touch it; they are all dumb when they come to it and flee like the devil from the cross; and yet they hear that I stand on this rock and defy them, and they think they want to chase me away with nose-rubbing and mocking. How bitter is the little piece to them, how gladly would they bite it? But no one is above King Heinzen's wisdom, he has publicly declared that he will leave this reason untouched. But I do not know how to thank him. I don't like you (said the fox), they are black.

105. what now King Heinz further washes, that I have faith without work [as] the best

I have to be grateful to him as a senseless fool who does not know what faith is and how consciences are not to be forced with laws but irritated with promises. For he only reproaches such doctrine, but does not refute it; therefore I can answer him nothing else to his reproach, but Deo gratias, grace-junior.

The last thing that he calls my highest and strongest piece is that I wrote: The mass is not a sacrifice, because the priest receives the mass. Sacrifice, however, is given to God. Now receiving and giving are at the same time against each other. Then my Heinz is a joyful and bold fellow, and may defy me and say: Where was there ever a sacrifice in the old law that was not taken by the one who offers it? I answer, in the Bible that is read in Heinzen's church, that is, in the red whore church, of course there is none; but if my Heinz had only glanced at our Bible a little, at least at the Psalm Misere, which the children

If he had read it, he would have read the burnt offering, which is called holocaustum and juge sacrificium,

Nothing was taken from it, but it was burned completely in honor of God. This was the highest and best sacrifice, since it was not possible to sacrifice and receive, give and take at the same time. But as the patron is, so is the church and its biblia.

(107) Although this is not my strongest reason, as Heinz the liar denies, but that which I said above, which King Heinz leaves untouched for me by grace, I still say that no other sacrifice has been, nor can be, sacrificed and taken at the same time. For though they were not all burned, yet one part was burned, and the other part given to the priests, who took it in God's stead, of which I will say no more now; it is enough that Heinz of England shows how even he himself and his sophist Kunz are swine, who have not read the Scriptures, yet write books, and impudently cry out judgment that it is not in the Scriptures. So I conclude here that Heinz of England is lying when he writes that the sacrifices are given and taken at the same time,

and cannot prove it, but were only given to God. But how this is fulfilled in Christ and in us, I leave pending now.

So we have saved the high sacrament and the mass, that it is not our sacrifice nor good work, but a gracious word and sign of God, so that he acts against us to give grace and life, which we should believe; and see that the devil in Henry of England has become a miracle-monger over his opposition; hope, he shall also, the longer he opposes, the more foolish he shall become. But if we have the mass, then we have it. For this is the main piece and foundation of the papacy and all clergy, on which their monasteries, convents, churches, yes, their whole belly, body and life, status and being, honor and splendor is built: all this falls to the ground without our storming. You wretched Heinzen church, how badly your patron protects you with such coarse, foolish, lying slobber in this book, you have put on your indulgence badly. I myself did not know that my little book about the Babylonian prison would be so powerful and good.

I must now postpone the other six sacraments. It is also easy to take everything away from Heinzen, if one does nothing more, because Heinze does not lead scripture, but teachings of men; they are not valid without scripture. Thus the word sacrament is nowhere in the whole of Scripture in the usage to which they refer; for sacramentum, or mystery, in Scripture actually means a secret or hidden thing. So they turn it around and say that it is called the outward sign. But I let this happen, so that I am free to keep or leave such an interpretation, because it is not interpreted in this way in Scripture. For I will not dispute with anyone that he says something more or different than is written. Yes, I will certainly allow him to say that Heinz is called. Kunze. But I will argue with them, so that they do not make a nuisance of it for me, as if it had to be so, and be the opinion of the Scriptures, what they slander.

110: So, when Paul says Eph. 5, 31. 32: "There shall be two in one flesh, which is a great sacrament, but I say in Christ, that the two shall be one.

and in the church. There Paul points the sacrament or mystery to Christ and the church, that they are the sacrament and hidden thing. This explains that marriage is not called a sacrament in Scripture, because man and woman are external things, and signify the mystery or sacrament that is in Christ and the church.

But that Heinze of England interprets this saying about marriage, he does so in his own way, so that what he interprets must be right, and it is not necessary for him to prove it with Scripture. For he should first show an example, as I have done, since sacrament is called an outward thing in Scripture. This he will do when his God goes to heaven, and Christ will lie 1).

I only want to touch on it recently and show what is to be thought of the whole of Heinzen's writing in the other sacraments. Since I have written how powerful faith is, that it alone, without all works, cancels all sin and condemns no sin, for only unbelief, and all others, where only faith exists or returns, are swallowed up in a moment, Heinz cries out and rages, saying: I teach not only good works to cease, but also boldness to sin. How surely Luther lies down there! He does not think that there is a man under heaven who has read my Scriptures, what I teach about good works, but he takes power to lie and blaspheme as he pleases.

But I am not surprised that King Heinz drives thus, who herewith shows that he knows less what faith and good works are than a coarse block, which of course feels God. King Heinz must also help to keep the saying true: that there are no greater fools than kings and princes, but I am amazed at the devil, that he is thus deceiving me through his pagans and yet knows well that it is nothing before me. It is God's work that blinds him and makes him a fool, so that through me he may attack me with his mischievousness.

1) In both the Jena and the Wittenberg editions "liegen", which Walch has already correctly resolved with "lügen". Likewise at the end of the next paragraph: "liegen und lestern". Instead of the latter, the Erlangen edition correctly introduced "lügen", but left "liegen" in this place.

Day come. That is why he does not let him speak or argue yet, without through rusterige 1) brain and coarse clumsy heads, which themselves do not know what I or they speak.

If I now ask Heinzen: Does not faith alone eradicate sin, who then does it? he will perhaps say: the letters of indulgence in the Heinzen church. Does not a man have to be pious before he does good works? For the work is not good, but the person is good, as Christ says, Matth. 7, 18: "An evil tree cannot bear good fruit. Thus sins must be removed before good works can be added. Yes, good works must follow the eradication of sin. Who then will put away sin but faith alone? But have I taught such things? Does not St. Peter, Apost. 15:9: "that God purifies the heart through faith"; item, Paul, Rom. 10:10: "If one believes from the heart, he is justified"; and 1 John 3:9: "He who is born of God" (that is, he who believes, 1 John 1:7) "does not sin and cannot sin"?

Do you see here, man, who is the one whom King Heinz blasphemes and condemns with his poisonous lying mouth? Namely our main saying of faith. Dear lying man, say to John, that he tells you to do good works and to do evil, because he says: "He who believes does not sin and cannot sin. Say to Petro that he is lying, because he says, "God purifies the heart through faith. But if you stand up against him and say, "Works must cleanse sin, but faith must not," then you have protected your church of Heinzen.

(116) Therefore behold me, dear man, I will expose to thee the abomination in King Helena's heart, that thou mayest know whether he be a Christian or a Gentile. He saith, Doth not adultery condemn? Does not murder condemn? etc. So blind is the Thomistic head, that it thinks faith can stand with sins, that one can commit adultery and kill and still believe; therefore they must of necessity, because of sin, turn away from faith (as it is too small) and appropriate it to works. With this Christ is now denied and all the

1) Perhaps as much as "rusty".

The aforementioned sayings are condemned with the whole gospel, in which forgiveness of sin and justification are attributed to faith without all works. But let the foolish stubborn heathen and deniers of Christ depart; to the pious simple-minded we will say it briefly.

He who believes may not commit adultery or sin, as John says, 1 Ep 1:6, for the word of God to which he adheres is almighty and the power of God, Rom 1:16, which does not let him fall or sink. But if he sins, then faith is surely gone beforehand, and he has fallen from the word, and there is unbelief. But where there is unbelief, its fruits follow: adultery, murder, hatred etc. Therefore, before the outward sin takes place, the greatest main sin has already taken place inwardly, unbelief. Therefore it is true that there is no sin, because unbelief is sin and does sin. And if it were possible that unbelief could be separated from hatred or sin, it would not be sin. Therefore, as faith alone is and does all righteousness, so unbelief alone is and does all sin. Therefore Christ does not put on sin, John 16:9, but unbelief, saying, "This is sin, that they believe not on me."

But the faith in the Heinzen church is just a faith, as King Heinze is a patron of the church and as the pope's decree gospel. It is a dream in which they sleep to eternal death. Behold, this tender truth and main part of the Gospel this wretched fool does not know; therefore everyone may well know what good can be in the whole book. He who fools and errs in faith must fool and err in all words, works, mind and thoughts, as St. Paul says, Titus 1:15: "Nothing is pure to the unbelieving, but impure is both their mind and conscience." King Heinz proves this with his book, as with a flush example, which should not please anyone but our sophists and neighbors, so that the food may be like the stomach, et labris sua lactuca.

Summa Summarum, the whole book of King Heinzen is based on people's sayings and customs. What need is there of many words? If he can prove that men make proverbs and custom articles of faith, then give

I am caught in all things. If he cannot do this, I have won, because I appeal to God's word and scripture, against the sayings and customs of men. It will never be pushed further if one argues about it for a thousand years. Therefore, King Heinz and Kunz Sophist should not teach me human sayings and customs, which I knew well before without his mastery, but prove that they were necessary articles of faith, then I would be caught. But if human sayings and customs make articles of faith, I would like to know why my sayings should not also be articles of faith, since I am more a man than another? Why should not the doctrine of the Turk and the Jew also be right, and of all heretics? For they are also fine, understanding, reasonable people, and have had it longer in the custom than we Germans. But if they are not valid, why are the king's men valid with their sayings? since they are as almost without God's word as no other man.

That is why I want to leave it here for a while. For it is on my neck to translate the Bible, in addition to other business, that I can no longer muck about in Heinzen's dirt 1). But I will (God willing) take the time once, and answer the poisonous liar and blasphemer King Heinzen completely and exploit him, so that he should say that Luther has answered him, and attack whether I am acting without Scripture and faith. However, whoever wants to, may read my little books about repentance, marriage, baptism, and the priesthood; for Heinz Liar does not attack me with any scripture.

But I fear that he has taken this look before him out of such devotion that his conscience is wriggling. For he knows well with what conscience he possesses the kingdom of England, after the royal tribe has he-

1) i. e. stirring around.

murdered and the royal blood is consumed. He fears his skin, the blood would be smelled on him. Therefore he intends to hang himself on the pope and to pretend to him, so that he may sit firmly. In the same way, he was once attached to the emperor, now to the king of France; as tyrannical and evil consciences are wont to do. They are right together, Pabst and Heinz of England. The former has inherited his papacy with as good a conscience as the latter his kingdom. Therefore, one itches the other as mules itch each other.

If anyone blames me for not sparing the king's majesty and for being too harsh, let him know that I did it because he did not spare himself. Yet he lies so publicly and insolently out of intent, as the boys; so he scolds so bitterly, poisonously, and without intermission, as no public angry whore can scold, that one can well see how there is no royal vein in him. Kings are not in the habit of lying so wickedly, nor of raving so effeminately. In addition, he tells such lies and scolds against God's Scriptures, and disgraces my King and Lord so much that he would have deserved it better. If he had only scolded me honestly and struck me freely and happily, I would have liked it. But to seek such melancholy and feminine causes against God's word is not fitting for a man, let alone a king. I, too, have lash out, but no one can ever punish me for lying. But if he has caused another to do it, he has done it to him. Why does he let it go out under his name?

You papists shall not end that which you intend, do what you will. Let this gospel, which I, Martin Luther, have preached, give way and be subject to pope, bishop, priests, monks, kings, princes, devils, death, sin, and everything that is not Christ and in Christ, for which it shall not help.