August. 1522.
Against Henry, King of England. Martin Luther. 1522.
Jesus.
To the well-born and noble Lord, Mr. Sebastian Schlick, Count of Passnn, Lord of Elbogen etc., his Superior in Christ, [wuscht] Martin Luther, Wittenbergischer Ecclesiast Grace and Peace in Christ!
It is now the third year and more, my good count, that the grim papist people accuse me of having fled to the Bohemians, because they would like to hear that more than anything else, the good people, because at such a rumor alone they would like to raise a cry of victory, rejoice and shout: We have won; the heretic has fled to the heretics. For thus the stupid and exceedingly unlearned beast of the papal body must be angry and inflamed, after it sees that it has been overcome by learning and truth, and that the whole swarm of its asses cannot stand against the one Luther, and merely snatch at this consolation that I flee to Bohemia, so that they may at least be refreshed by the disgrace of a foreign name and think themselves terrible giants, while otherwise they dare not appear anywhere because of their ignorance and their evil conscience.
I have already faced them for the third time, and have come to Worms, even though I knew that the emperor had broken my public escort (for the princes of Germany, the people once praised for their loyalty- have now done nothing to please the Roman idol like this).
(I have learned to respect faithfulness and faith, to the eternal shame of the nation). Thus, this fleeting and fearful Luther dared to jump into the Behemoth's boat. But what did those terrible giants do about it? In the whole three years not even one was found who came to Wittenberg and stood before us, since they could be sufficiently assured of escort and protection (because they would have done everything under the emperor's protection). And yet the effeminate and pusillanimous people still dare to hope for a triumph, namely, to decorate with my escape their most terrible disgrace, by which they are notorious throughout the world, namely, that they dare not come under the eyes of the one Luther because of gross ignorance and timidity. What do you think these frail blisters (bullae) would do if they were forced to stand before the emperor and the powerful enemies? I mean, the wretches would crawl into a thousand holes, now peeping like mice in their nooks and crannies: Luther think on the run!
So also the king of England gossips in this book with a lot of slobber about my escape to Bohemia; admittedly as a clever man, who thinks that his book is therefore victorious and well written, if Luther had fled to Bohemia: so mad and effeminate is the foolish king's spitefulness.
I, however, although eager to see Bohemia and the religion so detested by the papist monsters, have so far abstained from it, and will continue to abstain from it, but not because I was afraid of the disgrace of the name, with which
IX, 82, again there under the same title with the addition: DonM alins ost Klo iidor ynam itls, Huom ante Nune vornaonla soripsit. Vlttomvorsao M. I). XXII In Latin it is found in the collective editions: in the Jena one (1566), Dom. II, toi. 516d.; rn the Wittenberg, Dom. II, toto. 339; in the Erlanger, opp. var. ar^. Vol. VI, p. 385; according to the latter, which the former edition has printed, we have translated, with comparison of the Jena edition. The letter to Sebastian Schlick, Count of Passun, is also found in De Wette, vol. II, 231.
the scum of worthless people, namely the papists, have in an exceedingly faithless and unjust manner branded the very famous nation. For the Bohemians have abandoned the murderous and antichristic papists for most just causes, after they, who are seven times heretical, have burned the innocent man John Hus and have ungodly condemned both of them, instituted by Christ. For these are the causes of the papal hatred against this people, and the children of this purple-wrapped whore still do not recognize their atrocious murder and the theft of God, that they have condemned the Gospel, but rather continue to defend their foolishness, and want to pin the disgrace with which they themselves are marked before God on a foreign and innocent nation.
Accordingly, I am not afraid of the shame of the Bohemian name, which is an honor before God, but [therefore I stay away from Bohemia,] because Christ has placed me here to torment the papist monsters, while they can find nothing in me that they would like to raise to cool their incredible hatred. Christ wants them to be thus martyred by their own spitefulness and crushed by their own wickedness. So I await them here, and I will await their impotent spitefulness still further, but I will irritate and torment them very well as long as I live: but if they kill me, I will torment them most of all. For I am given to them by my Lord Christ to be a monster in such a way that, if they let me live or kill me, their praising conscience will have no joy (gratiam), peace nor comfort, so that they will be consumed by twofold sorrow, and with the torment of the present envy deserve the eternal torment of hell. For the death of the abominable Pabst is present, its inevitable fate comes upon it, and (as Daniel says) it now approaches its end, and no one will help it. 1) So we come up against each other from both sides: Those with the utmost fury, I
1) We have adopted the reading of the Jena edition auxiliaditnr, instead of auxiliadatur in the Erlanger.
with the highest contempt; and my boldness in Christ will overcome their last and already paling fury.
But I am thinking of another escape to Bohemia, so that the papal soothsayers will not be found without all true prophecies, but will have to suffer all the more bitter remorse about it, namely, that I, according to the words of Moses, provoke them against those who are not a people, and make them bitter against a foolish people. For with my writings (whether Christ wills it) I will soon bring it about that the Bohemians will be rid of their disgrace, but the papists alone will be a horrible, shameful name in all the world, that it is a ban and a curse to be called a papist. Not that I approve of all things concerning the Bohemians, because I do not know their affairs, and hear that they have sects among themselves, but that the papal multitude, when compared with them, shall become an abomination and an abomination in all the world, because they themselves are nothing but sects, in such a degree that the Franciscans alone are divided among themselves by six sects.
But I write this to you, noble hero, so that my flight may first take its beginning to you, who have your dominion in front in Bohemia, on Germany's border, so that I may progress through you and your country in all Bohemia. A king who is a layman has written to his most holy pope. I, who once became a clergyman by the grace of the Pabst, wanted to write to a most Christian layman. For I hear that you have an unbelievable love for pure evangelical truth, and that the abominations and aversions of the Roman pestilence are being driven out of your dominion everywhere. Happy hero! In this way the shame of the Bohemian name will be erased, and the whore will have all the mud of her lies and fornications poured back into her lap, so that her shame will be exposed before the whole world to her eternal disgrace.
This shall be the beginning of my escape, this the hope of a very good example, which the other Bohemian lords and authorities may follow. Thus, I will not only have fled to Bohemia, but also live in it.
If the fury of the unruly whore should burn me here already. But at the same time I want to inflame her hatred and win the victory in Christ. She shall not succeed in anything else; this is how Christ will have it. Amen.
The grace of our Lord JEsu Christ sustain and strengthen you, excellent hero, for eternity, Amen! Wittenberg, July 15, 1522.
1. Our Lord Jesus Christ has struck the whole realm of the papal abominations with such blindness and madness that they, the mad giants in innumerable heaps, who have been arguing with the one Luther for full three years, still cannot understand what I am arguing with them about, since I have omitted so many writings in vain, which publicly testify that I seek only this, that the divine Scriptures alone rule, as is right and proper, but that human fetters and statutes are put aside as the most harmful nuisances, or are tolerated as free and indifferent things after the venom and sting, that is, of force to compel and command, and of binding the consciences, have been drawn out, like another ruin or calamity of the world. For they, incited by constant madness against me, do nothing more than human statutes, glosses of the fathers and longstanding (seculorum) doings and customs, namely, precisely what I deny and dispute, of which they themselves also confess that one cannot rely on it and that it has often been wrong. I dispute about the right and they answer me about what happens. I ask about the cause, they indicate the work. I ask: by what power do you do this? they say: because we do so, and have done so. 1) Instead of a rational cause, there is will; instead of power, there is custom; instead of law, there is habit; and this in divine things.
2 They have even in their schools a quite erroneous way of arguing, which is called proof from the thing to be proved (petitionem principii). This they learn and teach until they grow gray, until the grave, with such
1) xro rLtionk voluntas. The saying of the tyrants.
The wretched people, with so much trouble and so much expense! But when they have to use their doctrine, they cannot but prove from what is to be proved. So it happens that I cry out: Gospel, Gospel! Christ, Christ! They answer: "Fathers, fathers! Custom, custom! But when I say, "Custom, fathers, statutes have often erred, they must be received with more firmness and certainty, but Christ cannot err," they are more mute than fish, or, as the Scripture says, "Like a deaf adder that stoppeth up her ears, that she heareth not the voice of the beseecher." Or they answer what is always on their tongue: thus says Ambrose. Are you more learned than Ambrose? are you alone wise? and nothing more. As if we were arguing about Ambrose's and my teachings, and as if I could not also say: you do not understand Ambrose correctly and are twisting him. Dear! What end is there to arguing with these blind, mad and foolish people?
3 This book of the king of England is exactly like that, who does nothing in the whole text, except that he always insists on human fictions and interpretations of the fathers and long-standing (seculorum) customs. Here he rages, here he blasphemes; there he is all vituperation and venom, that I should be thought more learned, holier and greater than they. And he is not satisfied that I allow them such things, that they are held free, but this new God has imposed on us as necessary articles of faith what he has found only spoken or done by men; if I do not believe such things, he wants to become quite mad and makes of me a heretic and, I do not know how many monsters. Dear! Where does this new God, the King of England, the creator of new articles of faith, come from? I know so far only about One God, who can make articles of faith and demand faith.
4. but before other foolish minds, this new God has brought to market a peculiar new foolishness; for those have sought to twist in some way the Scripture I have attracted, and from their right mind have interpreted it otherwise, at least nothing.
without mentioning the Scriptures and boasting of them. But this new God, who defies his divinity in a whimsical way, and is certain that everything he says must have happened or must already be there, expressly testifies: He leaves my main foundation aside and leaves it to others to put it down, he only wants to make the building shaky, that is, to fight with hay and stubble against the rock of the word, so that one does not know whether foolishness itself could rage more and foolishness itself be more foolish than this our Heinzenkopf, perhaps to make the proverb true: Either a king or a fool had to be born. For which fool could say: I want to claim seven sacraments, but I want to leave the main reason of the adversary untouched? One would think that an arch-enemy of the king would have published this book, to the eternal shame of the king,
(5) But lest it appear that I despise the name of a great king, and that the fool may be answered according to his folly, I will reveal his folly in a short booklet, as much as my business will suffer, but at another time I will treat more extensively this blasphemous mouth of the king according to dignities.
6 For the fact that almost no one believes that this is the king's book does not concern me. For I want it to be the king's, under whose name it went out, and I want to direct my attack on the foolish king, who has let the sophistical husks abuse his name and fill the whole book with so many lies and poison, that Leus 1) or Leus' double (homousios), namely a sophist afflicted with snuff and snot, could not have been painted more aptly, such as the fat sows, the Thomists, nourish in their pile, so that the English Pharaoh also has his Jannes and Jambres.
7 Therefore, let King Henry not blame me but himself if he is treated somewhat harshly and roughly by me. For he does not appear with a royal spirit or with any vein of royal blood,
1) Edward Lee, Caplan and Almosenirer of Henry VIII.
but with a servile, yes, quite impudent whorish insolence and foolishness, and proves everything only with invectives, and, what is most shameful in a human being, let alone in the most highly placed people, he lies publicly and with diligence in such a way that one can recognize a sophist composed of ignorance and poison. One would let him get away with it if he were mistaken in a human way. But since he puts together lies with knowledge and will against my King's Majesty in heaven, the poor damned dung and worm: so I will be allowed to stain also the English Majesty with her dung and manure for my King and to trample underfoot that crown, which casts blasphemies against Christ.
8. And since it is known that the Thomists are such a stupid and completely drowsy kind of sophists, that nature has not produced anything more stupid and more bearable in human beings, and our King Henry wants to let himself be seen as a special Thomist in this book, by dreaming among other things of the mark (charactere) and sacramental power in waters and snoring, which monstrous things his sophist comrades in the high schools can no longer stand: So it seemed to me that he needed to be shaken with harsh words, if he might be encouraged out of the deepest sleep, and might want to hear his dreams and hear the empty faces of his deep sleep. For for no other reason does this book please our sophistical neighbors so much, than because it is excellently Thomistic, and they have a food that suits their taste.
(9) If I kicked the idol of the papal abomination to the ground for the sake of Christ, because he had put himself in the place of God and made himself master of kings and of the whole world, who is this Henry, the new Thomist, namely a disciple of such an idle monster that he is allowed to sap his poisonous blasphemies against the honor of the same 2)? He may be a protector of the church, but only of the church, which he in such a great book
2) in must precede ejus tionorsm, and evomat must be completed (Walch).
The Lord praises and defends the purple whore, the drunken whore and the mother of fornications (Revelation 17:4, 5, 6). I want to consider his church and its protector as one and the same, I want to attack both together and slay them with Christ's help.
(10) For I am certain that I have my teachings from heaven, which I have also kept victorious against him who has more power and cunning in his outermost claw than all the popes, kings and teachers, so that they are of no avail who raise up against me with empty bubbles of names and titles, and advertise writings under royal inscriptions. My teachings shall remain, and the pope fall, against all the gates of hell, against the mighty ones of the air and the earth and the sea! They themselves have challenged me to war, war they shall have. They have despised the peace offered, so shall they not have peace! God will have an understanding, who shall be tired first, the pope or Luther. So I like to become prouder and prouder in Christ from day to day against these ludicrous and inconsistent basilisks, the more they rage.
(11) But before we come to the matter itself, I will first reject two accusations which the Thomistic king makes against me according to his feminine incapacity. One: namely, that I am often repugnant to myself. This impudent lie of his is also, contrary to his conscience, carried and raised throughout the whole book in such a way that one can see that he did not write this booklet so much to teach seven sacraments or (as he writes) to assert them, but rather out of a disease of his most poisonous mind, namely that, since he could not let out the poison and pus of envy and malice downwards, nor digest it, he would have the opportunity to drool it out upwards through his stinking mouth and to look at nothing else but to stuff everyone's mouth with lies and to make me hateful. That must surely be quite disgraceful to lie and rave like a dirty whore with such an insolent forehead and impotent spirit; something quite different would have befitted a royal mind and bloom.
12. the other one, that I have the pope and the
Church, namely as a whoremonger and bawd, and Satan's chair, to whose protector he was recently declared with the indulgence! In order that I may accordingly bring down his impudent lie in the world, I must state here the things of which I have written, in order. They are of two kinds.
13. First, of things taught in the Scriptures, namely, 1):
Of faith.
From love.
From hope.
From works.
From suffering.
From the sky.
From hell.
Of repentance.
From the Lord's Supper.
Of sins.
By law.
From death.
From Christo.
From God.
From free will.
From grace.
From baptism.
For these are the main things that a Christian must know, which are also necessary for salvation; I have acted in such a way that no one can blame me for ever having been of a different opinion than I held from the beginning of my writing. I have never contradicted myself in this, but have always remained in the same sense from the beginning and always the same to me. My books, which are available, and all who have read them, bear witness to this; it is also witness to the lying king's damned conscience.
14. who could therefore believe that such a
1) In the Jena edition, these pieces are in fol-.
gender order:
1) Of faith.
2) Of love.
3) Of hope.
4) Of works.
5) From suffering.
6) Of baptism.
7) Of repentance.
8) Of the Lord's Supper.
9) From the law.
10) Of sins.
11) From death.
12) Of free will.
13) Of grace.
14) From Christo.
15) From God.
16) Of the Last Judgment.
17) From Heaven.
18) From hell.
19) From the church.
20) And the like.
Not only does the great king dare to lie about me, saying that I am repugnant to him, but he also publicly claims that I have taught the faith in such a way that I do not want people to do good deeds and that they are allowed to do evil deeds. As if there were not still people alive who have read my things and could refute his impudent lie, since his own conscience also convicts him and he sufficiently testifies that he has read most of my things, so that it is not worth the trouble to answer a king who dares to lie so boldly, since he, if he had wanted to write against the heresies, would have had to take care that not even the slightest suspicion of fraud would adhere to him: But now he resorts entirely to lying. Who can trust any part of his writing, since he so often repeats and spreads such a big lie throughout the whole book?
(15) Such viper-breeding sticks to its natural way and follows the example of its parents. For this is how Paul taught that all the children of Adam are justified by faith alone without works, as he writes in Rom. 3:8: "As some say, that we should say: Let us do evil, that good may come of it." What kind of judgment awaits these? "Which condemnation (he says) is quite right." What, then, shall I say to my basilisk on account of his lie, but just such a judgment of condemnation?
(16) The other kind is of things apart from the Scriptures. Namely:
From the Pabstthum.
From resolutions of the Concilien.
From teachers.
From indulgences.
About purgatory. About the mass. Of Hohenschuhn. Of monastic vows". About bishop idols. Of human statutes. Of veneration of the saints. Of new sacraments, and what is more, namely weeds, which Satan, through the dominion of his Roman idol, has planted in the field of the Lord.
which the church not only can salutarily do without, but may not even exist if it does not do without it or makes use of it according to its own free will. For nothing more harmful can be taught in the church than when that which is not necessary becomes necessary. For by this tyranny the consciences are entangled and the freedom of faith is destroyed, and lies are worshipped for truth, idols for God, abominations for holiness.
17. Since the Scriptures have nothing of such things, the mad papists, the masters of lies and makers of idols, have taken a right worthy work in hand, namely, to drag and twist the whole Scriptures on their poison and lies, so that for them out of the passages that taught of faith, so that out of the passages that taught faith, the pontificality had to come forth, out of those that exhorted to humility, the splendor of tyranny had to be erected, until they had confused everything with the greatest lies and had destroyed the whole Scripture, so that in its place the shrine of the papal heart reigns, which is possessed by the most worthless devil.
Thus, from the rock of unconquerable faith, Matth. 16, 18, they have made the papacy and the pope, which have not only been overcome by abominable errors and vices, but are also still flooded and devoured by daily examples of abominations.
19 So also, where Christ teaches that no one is great in His Church unless he is servant of all, they have turned this mind upside down, namely, that they stated that there is nothing in the Church of God that is not great.
(20) While these monstrous abominations were raging, the Lord, without my knowing it, drew me into the midst of this din and, on the occasion of the fraudulent indulgence, gave me the opportunity to wrest from Satan some passages of Scripture, like the club of Hercules' fist, and to restore them to the right mind of the spirit. But, dear God, how fiercely did their wrath begin to foam here, wanting to throw heaven and earth, fire and water, into each other, since he could not stand that his crow should be given the foreign
The feathers with which he had so excellently groomed her to be a governor of Christ would be plucked out.
At first, I treated this crow with humility and reverence, and I was especially straightforward about the fact that the papacy was indeed something, not knowing that it was actually against the gauze of the Scriptures; but I was content to purify the Scriptures alone, and I considered the papacy to be something like the kingdoms and dominions of men. But they, hardened by the use of long tyranny, and defying that they had succeeded in their deceit hitherto (according to Daniel [8:24]), despised all my modesty and reverence, and endeavored to set their idol in the place of God, and to bring it into the midst of the Scriptures.
22. But Christ gave me a spirit that was an excellent condemnor of both papist deceit and madness, and made that the more I purified the Scriptures, the more I noticed the interwoven abomination, until finally, by the hand of the Mighty One in Jacob, it has come to pass that it is clearly and plainly written that the pope, cardinals, bishops, priests, monks, nuns, masses and this whole realm with its doctrines and offices is nothing but monsters, idols, larvae, lies and the very real abomination that stands in holy places, Masses and this whole kingdom with its doctrines and offices are nothing but monsters, idols, larvae, lies and the very real abomination that stands in the holy place, which only defiles itself with the titles of right bishops and the church, namely the purple-clad whore who sits on the many-headed beast, drunk with the blood of Christ's witnesses and makes the kings of the earth drunk with the cup of her fornications and abominations.
Of all of which Peter foretold [2 Ep. 2:1 ff.], "False teachers shall bring in corrupt sects, denying the Lord that bought them, blaspheming the way of truth, and by covetousness shall deal with you 1) with imaginary words."
(24) For the one fury of this wicked people is that they want to act before God only by works, not by faith alone.
1) We read vobis with the Jena edition and the Vulgate, instead of uodis in the Erlanger Ausgqbe.
Therefore, Christ must necessarily be denied and the faith destroyed, but the profit must increase and all the world's wealth must be devoured for their masses and vigils. For this is how this fundamentally perverse abomination perverts everything. The works that one must use against men, they offer to God; the faith, through which one serves God alone, they offer to men. For they believe all the teachings of men, but they do not believe God. Again, they do no good to any man, but they do good to God.
25 Since I now recognized such truth, I have had to revoke some of my speeches in which I still wrote something good about the papacy and about what is taught apart from the Scriptures. I still revoke them and regret from the bottom of my heart if I have written any syllable for the good of the papacy and its kingdom, and I ask my readers to wisely guard against such errors of mine.
26 Furthermore, what made the king, this Thomist in disguise, mad in the booklet about the Babylonian prison, I also recant and confess that I have said less than is due. For it is too much honor and glory to say that the papacy is a mighty chase of the Roman bishop. For this example of Nimrod also applies to all secular rulers, to whom we should be subject according to God's will, honor them, bless them and pray for them.
27 With greater truth I say of the Pabstacy: The Pabstacy is the most harmful abomination of the prince, Satan, that ever was or will be under the sun. Thus I revoke my writing of the Babylonian captivity to please the Lord Henry, the new Thomist, so that such a great majesty of the Thomist name does not burst with malice; for such a revocation such a learned and terrible Thomist shall force from me! For so that his little book would not be without all power to move Luthern, he has added threats and advises that this heretic should be burned completely if he does not convert, and all this quite fundamentally Thomistic (DbomLstloisslwo). For it is certain that Luther
will be frightened by such threats and accept everything that the Thomistic slobber lies and gossips in this book of the king!
These are the weapons by which heretics are overcome today: the fire and the fury of the grossest asses and Thomistic swine. But such sows may go on and, if they have the heart, burn me. Here I am and I will wait for them; but with the ashes alone, even if they were scattered in a thousand lakes, I will still pursue and hunt down this horrible rabble after death.
In short, in life I want to be an enemy of the papacy, in burned I want to be an enemy twice over; do what you can, you Thomists, you shall have Luther as a bear on the way and as a lioness on the way; he will meet you everywhere and will not let you have peace until he has crushed your iron neck and brazen foreheads, either to salvation or to destruction. So far it may be enough to have used the patience in vain: henceforth, because you are obdurate and blinded always continue to put on the horns and have become wild and unruly of your own free will, no one waits with me for me to say something gentle and mild against you desperate monsters. For I want to annoy you more and more until you have wasted all anger and strength and fall to pieces within yourselves. He may have won who first wears the other down; as you will, so be it done to you.
(30) That I then again come to the king's glorious Thomist way, by which he condemns me as one who writes things contrary to each other and is not in agreement with myself: so the wretched bookmaker, because he lacked things, has shown with poisonous words that he can smear a lot of paper; a quite royal deed! How honestly he does it, however, the inclined reader will see from the fact that the disguised Thomist also does not bring up a single passage, only for the sake of showing that he thereby proves my lack of existence. Only this oratorical art is used by the big-talking king: Luther argues with himself, who would believe him? That he says so, the new protector of the church and of the
God newly arisen in England enough. But to give an example of it was unnecessary, so that Luther would not be given the opportunity to excuse himself and to treat the foolish king according to Thomistic dignities.
Because one has wanted to play a game of larvae in concealed words without example, I do not say under a larva, but openly, that the King of England, this Henry, lies completely, and presents with his lies much more a very frivolous buffoon than a king. I, Luther, publicly lay this accusation against this poisonous Thomist, and prove it by the testimony of both my writings and my readers all over the world. Away in this with royal majesty and my humility! I am talking to a lying buffoon, who hides under royal titles, about divine things, the violation of which against lies is due to every Christian. If a foolish king so forgets the royal majesty that he dares to step into the public with obvious lies, and that when he is dealing with holy things, why should it not be nice for me to drive his lies back into his mouth, so that, if he has had the thrill to lie against the divine majesty, it may pass him away by having to hear the truth against his majesty?
For here I have no patience to observe, where the reckless buffoon sets out with lies, not against me or my life (which would have been tolerated), but against the doctrine itself, since I know for certain that it is not mine but Christ's. He may ascribe it to his lies when he hears what is unworthy of the king's name. He may then attribute it to himself and his lies if he has to hear what is unworthy of the royal name. His unclean mouth has deserved this, which has defiled my King, who is the King of glory, with its blasphemies. For my doctrine does not disagree with itself in any part, nor can it, because it is Christ's doctrine, and the whole world already knows that of faith, of love, of works, and of all that the Spirit of Christ has taught in the holy Scriptures, I have always kept the same thing, always taught and written the same thing.
Although I have increased more and more from day to day through practice and diligence, and have presented the same things sometimes in this way, sometimes in a different way, sometimes more clearly, sometimes more richly and expansively, as happens in writing with the same things.
But if he wants me to disagree with myself on the things that I have dealt with apart from Scripture, namely, pontificalism, indulgences, masses, and similar weeds, of which I modestly had a different opinion in the beginning, but later condemned it entirely (that I should attribute to so great a king this lie that he lies against the man Luther in human matters): then everyone sees his Thomistic foolishness or stupidity, since he has not yet come so far in the whole Thomistry that he knows what doctrines are, which dispute and do not dispute with each other. Come here then, you boastful Thomist, to the rod, I will teach you what it is that doctrines dispute with each other.
If this means not remaining the same in doctrines, as the Thomistic king would have it, if one, after having recognized the truth, has a different opinion than before, and recants the error he held before, dear one, then say, who of the wisest and holiest men has ever remained the same? Shall we condemn all Paul's epistles, because he now considers as dung all that was profit to him before? Let us also condemn Augustine, who in a special book revoked many things and taught contrary to his former teachings. Thus, according to this king's invaluable wisdom, sinners must cease to repent and adopt a better mind, because otherwise the angry king of England would condemn them in a writing as unstable, because they would not agree with themselves.
35 And why does not the king measure himself with his own wisdom, and drink wine now, when before he sucked his mother's milk? Why does he now arm himself with iron, when before he put on children's boots? Yes, why does he condemn in me what he himself does? For in this very book he praises me for approving of piety before, and condemns me for rejecting it afterward. Why
So I, too, was not allowed to think differently of the papacy than before, and to exchange my errors with better opinions? But who should believe that such a great king could have raved in such a tasteless manner? One might think that he had been acting out his antics, as in carnival days, if he had not been a Thomist and had shown his seriousness in other poisonous lies.
(36) These are rather contradictory doctrines, when one teaches things that are contradictory at the same time, when one defends and asserts them at the same time and does not refute or condemn either of them. Just as the papists' foolishness is at odds with itself, since they make Christ and the pope out of the rock, since Christ is holy, but the pope is godless, and holiness is just as true to godlessness as light is to darkness, as Christ and Belial are. For this is how Pabstism consists of (or rather falls into) nothing but inconstant, fundamentally controversial, and entirely lying doctrines, which it teaches, asserts, and defends on both sides at the same time.
(37) So the reader can see from this few reasons what a miserable ignorance of the Thomists or childish impudence it is that makes them not understand their own words, and they dare to write assertions about the sacraments and to raise boastful words as witnesses of their indescribable ignorance. For I believe that this booklet of the king's was written for this purpose, so that the world would not think that I falsely belittled the stupidity and ignorance of the sophists, especially of these swine (the Thomists); for so my judgment had to be confirmed and proved by them by such a work and seal.
(38) To the other accusation with which the king reproaches me, namely, that I am biting, I answer: He should first have proved that my biting is unjust and that the papacy is innocent. For why else does Christ himself, Matt. 23, bite the scribes and Pharisees with such vehemence and accuse them of being hypocrites, blind men, fools, full of impurity, hypocrites and murderers? And yet how often is Pau-
lus vehemently against his divisions (as he calls them) and false apostles, whom he calls dogs, deceitful workers, Satanic apostles, children of the devil, full of all cunning and mischievousness, seducers, loose talkers, sorcerers and deceivers, because they counterfeit God's word and handle it? Will the Thomist in disguise also accuse them, like me, of spitefulness and pride?
(39) Yes, in order to show his quite Thomistic head and his rabble-rousing manner completely, as if he wanted to portray an actor on the stage, he races with blasphemies, lies and vituperations through the whole book in such a way against me, and yet does not prove the least of it beforehand in relation to me, so that he seems to condemn my bitterness for no other reason than that he justifies the rage to blaspheme among his filthy Thomists and deserves a Thomistic wreath of victory. The foolish head! who has been able to recognize abundantly that I consider the Pabstium to be the kingdom of the Antichrist, whom Job also commands to curse through those who are ready to awaken the Leviathan. And everywhere the spirit commands to punish the world because of the sin of godlessness, and praises, yes, requires this holy and righteous bitterness.
40 The king, however, as if he had already won that the papacy is holy, rages against my acrimony with whole barrels of venom and vituperation. But he wanted, as I said, to make a hypocrite of the Thomists and a larva, with whom it is the utmost disloyalty and highest heresy not to worship the Magistri nostri, even if they were a plague of the world, as angels of God, not to be silent at their mere hint, and to agree with them in everything: for that would be a crime that no fire could atone enough.
41 But I, who have hitherto been somewhat too lenient against the papist brutes, hoping that they would mend their ways, will now, seeing that they are of this sort, completely given over to a perverse mind, and having gone to their place with their leader Pharaoh out of desperate stubbornness, no longer use any restraint, any mercy, against them, and will also show my friends
no longer resist writing harshly, but will despise them with silence. Or, where I have to deal with them, I will drive at them as hard as I can, and only bravely irritate and provoke such stupid lumps, such ignorant asses, such fat sows, because they are not worthy of any other service than that they are provoked to their punishment. And this I will do in honor of the Heinzian church and even of its glorious Thomistic protector Heinz, so that he cannot complain that he has condemned my bitterness in vain with his cursed vituperativeness.
42 Now let us come to the matter itself and, according to the manner of Aristotle, who is the god of the Thomists, first deal with these things in general, then with them in particular.
The highest, most common, and only one force of the Heinzian wisdom in the so royal booklet is not a passage of Scripture, not a valid reason, but only the Thomistic way of disputing: Mich dünket das, Ich halten so, Ich glaube so. And that I remember my Amsdorf here: the great king disputes in such a way, as he used to tell, that certain Leipzig bad theologians have done, since, when the responder denied the established thing, against the opponent, this opponent proved it as follows: It must be so. When the latter denied it again, the latter also said anew: "And how can it be otherwise? It must be so! Quite beautiful and basic-Thomistic, yes, also quite Leipzigish and basic-Hellenic!
44 Thus, since in my writing of the Babylonian captivity I had particularly contested this Thomistic common ground and had set up the divine Scripture against custom, habit and human prestige, our Lord King, nevertheless, according to his Thomistic wisdom, said nothing else to it than: It must be so, the custom is not different. It is a lukewarm custom, I believe so, The fathers have written so. The church has ordered it so etc. If I were to write a thousand more books and prove by Scripture that the custom and the reputation of men in matters of faith is nothing, it would be easy for the Thomistic king to answer in a thousand books and, ignoring the Scriptural passages I have cited, to always say
It has to be like this, custom makes it like this. The reputation of men says so, and nothing more. But if I say: How do you prove that the custom and the human reputation are valid? he answers: It must be so. It seems so to me. I believe so. Do you alone want to be more learned than all the others?
You see, my reader, that these indomitable sticks seek nothing else than that one believe them alone; but I do not desire that one believe me, but the revealed words of God. They demand that one believe their ineffectual and dreamy fantasies and despise God's word. For I have not entirely denied either the custom or the reputation of men, but only want that which is written apart from the holy Scriptures to remain free and indifferent; I only do not want that necessary articles of faith be made out of the words of men; I want that what is said or done without the testimony of Scripture be tolerated, but that it be tolerated freely.
46 But these clods make articles of faith out of every word of the fathers, which the saints did not want to be attached to their writings, so little so that they cannot be offended by any worse blasphemy than when these drowsy Thomists turn their free words and deeds into necessary articles, that is, into lying ropes to the ruin of souls.
47 So this shall be my main answer to all the quite tasteless dung of this larva of the Thomists, which he gathers in his little book. And I divide them into two types as follows:
(48) If he puts on such a custom or such a reputation of men, which is evidently contrary to the Scriptures, let custom, reputation, king, Thomist, Sophist, Satan, yea, an angel be accursed from heaven! For nothing must be contrary to Scripture, but everything must be in favor of it.
49 This is what the foolish king claims about the second part of the sacrament, since he also insists, before Thomistic foolishness, that the custom is considered an article of faith against the clearest text of the Gospel, as we shall see. In such foolishness
No heretic has ever suffered from heresy, because up to now the heretics have used the Scriptures at least in pretense, none have obviously rejected them. But the papists and Thomists, as the basic soup of the last abominations, have adopted the whore's forehead, that they also admit that the holy scripture has this, and yet they want, one must not cherish such an opinion. The devil himself does not blaspheme the divine majesty so obviously against her words and to her face and accuses her of lying.
50 If, however, he attracts such a custom or reputation of men who do not dispute with Scripture, I do not reject it, but will tolerate it, but on condition that Christian liberty remains unimpaired, and that it is at our discretion to follow such things, to keep them, to change them when, where, and how we please. If they want to take this freedom captive and make necessary articles of faith out of it, then I say once again: Cursed is he who misses it, no matter whether he is a loutish Thomist or a stupid pope, or a king or a pope!
51) Such is the nature of our Lord King's sacraments of Confirmation, Marriage, Priestly Ordination, Last Holy Communion, and Mixture of Water with Wine etc. as articles of faith.
But we have more than too mighty lightnings against such stubble and tow of the Thomists, since Christ Matth. 15, 9. says of all statutes of men: "In vain do they serve me with doctrines and commandments of men. What is all the nonsense of this disguised Thomist against this one word of Christ, that I pass over much else that is mentioned? If all that is commandment of men is in vain, with what impudence may the foolish king make articles of faith out of it for us? Therefore the poor and miserable protector of the Heinz church lies with his whole book struck down by this single word of Christ!
Where are you, Mr. Heinz? Present your excellent booklet against Luther! What claims your glory? Seven sacraments! By what teachings? God's or
of men? Then let your Thomistic glory hear the judgment, not of Luther, but of him before whom the foundations of the whole world tremble: "In vain do they serve me with doctrines of men"; then go your glory and teach the papal lords this vain faith and service of God, and defend it bravely as best it can! But from the Church of God keep away your glory's impure and profane mouth, which accepts nothing but the word of God.
Finally, this beginning of the king is so foolish that it also goes against common sense. For who should not laugh that by such great simsone nothing is brought forward as proof for our Christian faith but the length of time and the custom of many people? On what grounds shall we prove that the Turkish faith is erroneous, which has now lasted a thousand years, and arose sooner than Germany was converted to the faith? Is it enough that we, separated by great distances of land, are not compelled to dispute with them, and are allowed to chatter away in our corners whatever seems good to us? Who, after the example of this insurmountable Thomist, would not justly justify the Jews, since they so much surpass us in length of time?
(55) And why should it not be said, on the word of King Henry of England, that the heathen throughout the world have rightly persecuted the new faith of Christ, since their idolatry, on this excellent and wholly Thomistic ground of proof, should be held to be a right and wholesome faith, because it has been confirmed for so many thousands of years, in so many countries and peoples, by so constant a custom? And may we not also claim, according to the same Henry's teaching, that godless people's errors are the right faith, because from the beginning of the world their quantity and long duration and power have far surpassed the small number and small nature of the godly?
. In short, if people's words are as valid as articles of faith, why shouldn't my words also make articles of faith? Am I not also a human being? Yes, according to this new wisdom of the King, we can all be
And the king himself, in order to be spared the trouble of writing, may follow this principle of his and say: I am a man who speaks like this, therefore it must be like this, it cannot be otherwise. These are all foolish, ridiculous, and quite Heinzian and Thomistic things, as if a spiritual thing were to be measured according to the lapse of time and according to the custom or right of men, like a field or a meadow.
(57) But if they should say that their limitation is different from that of those, that that of the popes is of the Holy Spirit, but that of those is of men, the Turk will laugh at this futile evasion, and say, Since thou assertest this without Scripture, and without signs from the mere appearance of men, thou dost not judge any more than if I also were to say that my faith is of God; and as easily as thou despisest mine, so easily do I despise thine. By the very reputation by which you prove yours, I also prove mine. What will become of this but that even fools see that the Heinz Thomists, before their excessive ignorance, have made a mockery of our faith and have fortified all the heathen's ungodliness, worthy that their mouths, tongues and hands be cut off, so that they may continue to speak or write nothing for eternity.
(58) But this is the way of the unruly Satan, that he may tear us away from the Scriptures by wicked scribes and profane Thomists, and set our faith on the lies of men. For there is no further need of holy scripture, if it is enough to rely on new words of men apart from scripture.
59 We, however, as we grant the papal church such worthy defenders, say that he is cursed and condemned who wants to give our faith a foundation other than that which is established. For Paul, 1 Cor. 2:4 f., affirms with great authority that our faith must be based on the words of God, when he says: "My word and my preaching were not in the reasoning of human wisdom, but in the demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith may be based, not on human wisdom, but on the power of God."
With this heavenly lightning and thunder he strikes and scatters, like the wind the dust, all the larvae of this Heinzen in his exceedingly tasteless little book. For what does the silly Henry write but sensible speeches of human wisdom, proving nothing of the spirit, nothing of power, but using the length of times, speeches and deeds of men? with an insolent mouth he even dares to demand that we build our faith on such human things, and publicly rages against this divine word of Paul. Therefore be cursed and accursed, not only what this silly Heinz does, but also the whole body of this behemoth, the kingdom of the pope, with all its teachings, with which they want to lead us away from our God and tear his word out of our hearts!
61 Therefore we remain with the protector of our faith, who says in Matt. 16, "I will build my church, not on the length of time or the number of people, nor on: Nor on custom or the word of the saints, nor on John the Baptist, or Elijah, or Isaiah, or Jeremiah, or any of the prophets; but on the one and sure rock, which is Christ, the Son of God. This is the strength of our faith, there we are safe against the gates of hell. He cannot lie nor deceive, but all men are liars. And even the saints, when they act or speak apart from this rock, are men. The very clear and certain word of God must be the basis of our faith: "If anyone speaks," it says [1 Pet. 4:4], "he must speak it as the word of God," and "all prophecy is similar to faith," Rom. 12:7.
This is our strength, against which the Heinces, Thomists, Papists and everything that belongs to the basic soup, the scum and the mud pit of such godless and god-changing people must fall silent; for they have nothing to answer against it, but lie disgraced and prostrated before the thunder of these words. And we also expect what this farcical king with all his sophists will dare to mutter against it. For this saying stands firm, that only to the
faith is due to certain words of God, as it says in Rom. 10, 17: "Faith comes from preaching, but preaching through the word of Christ."
63. therefore, whatsoever is brought forward apart from the word of God must be based on our will, that we are masters to believe it or not to believe it, to condemn it or approve it, as it is written [1 Cor. 3, 22. f.): "All things are yours, whether they be Apollos or Cephas or Paul; but ye are Christ's." If we alone are Christ's, who then is this foolish king, that he seeks to make us his own by his lies to the pope? We are not the pope's, but the pope is ours. It is not our place to be judged by him, but to judge him ourselves. For [1 Cor. 2, 15.] "the spiritual is judged by no one and judges all," because it is true [1 Cor. 3, 21.], "It is all yours," even the pope, how much more such dung and stains of men, the Thomists and Heinces.
(64) Although I am also a fool and clumsy enough that I so often in vain impress upon the mad and desperate brains and always in vain sing to their deaf and obdurate heads that the statutes of men or long usage in matters of faith are of no value. For how often have I said that even in Augustine's opinion only the divine Scriptures deserve the honor of being firmly believed to have nothing erroneous in them; but the others, no matter how learned and holy, are not worthy of such honor? But even if Augustine had not said this, Scripture requires that no one but it alone be believed.
65. I have, I say, always sung this in vain to the deaf vipers, who always repeat and say their little songs without end: Ambrose, Augustine, Jerome have said this, therefore Luther is a heretic, because Augustine's and Ambrose's words are articles of faith, since these holy men have demanded nothing less than this sacrilegious service of the hens and asses, that their sayings should be made equal to the articles of faith, but rather they wanted that all their sayings should be free and placed under every believer's judgment. Yes!
Even the Thomists must admit that the holy men have often erred, so their testimony cannot be sufficient to establish faith and make the conscience firm, even according to the judgment of common sense.
So this is my general answer against the royal basic teachings of the Thomists, on which this royal booklet is entirely based, namely the length of time and the quantity of people. Perhaps the most astute Heinzen will still make holy angels out of devils, because the length of time is for them from the beginning of the world as a primeval Thomistic basic rule of truth. Furthermore, Satan has a very great advantage because of the number of people who adhere to him, that he is also called the prince of the world by Christ and the god of this world and the prince of this darkness by Paul. Thus, as the Heinzian precepts and articles are, so are faith and truth. As the faith is, so are the saints, that is, Babylon and the abomination that is right for the last times.
Let us now come to the particular things of our Henry and see how happily Thomistic wisdom endows its basic truths (principia) with conclusions (aptet conclusionibus). But I must first ask the favorable and sincere reader's pardon if I am troublesome in repeating so often one and the same thing in order to refute human doctrines or custom. For how can I do otherwise, since the Thomistic king presents nothing else in the whole book but human doctrines and customs? He uses hardly one scripture, and that one in a wrong way, namely to prove the sacrament of priestly ordination, as we will see. If it is not annoying to read always in the foolish king: It must be so, I mean. So it is with the custom, So the church teaches, You alone are wise etc., so let one, I ask, not be annoyed to read just as often: Such holding or thinking is nothing. This custom proves nothing. This "it must be" is as much as being nothing. Such a church is not Christ's church; I do not want to be clever,
but Christ alone is wise etc. Necessity forces me to answer the foolish king in this way to every single piece, because he brings such reasons to every single piece.
68 First, the royal protector takes up the issue of indulgences, which I had claimed to be a fraud of Roman wickedness. He defends it thus: If the indulgence is a fraud, then not only the previous popes must be frauds, but also Leo X himself, whom Luther praises excellently.
O a royal and Thomistic astuteness! For here again the proverb applies: A king or a fool had to be born. If Luther has such a reputation that such a great king believes him when he praises Leo X, why does he not also believe him when he condemns indulgences? especially since here he is provided with Scripture, reasons and facts, but there he is nothing but a courtesy of benevolence toward a person. But the Thomist larva wanted to behave according to what looks good to him, since he decided not to follow the Scriptures, not reasons, but mere words of men.
70 Therefore, the Thomistic King answers me, who condemn the indulgences, nothing but this word: The indulgences are not a fraud, because Leo X is a good man. Therefore it must be so; it cannot be otherwise. With this royal and Thomistic reason you may also say: Nothing bad is going on in Rome at the Pope's court, because Leo X is a good man, and so the excellent Magister noster, the King of England, will justify the whole abomination of Roman ruin.
The same reason was used by my Silvester before him, because he was also a Thomist. For if I were to treat here the high doctrine that it is another to be a good man, another to be a good citizen, and another to be a good prince, as you Aristotle teaches, I would act in vain before such stupid and coarse blocks. How much less would they grasp it if I disputed about this according to the holy scriptures! For indeed this is not a good man who cannot be a good prince. For the spirit of Christ (by which alone we are good) is not a good man.
The words of Paul to Timothy [2. Ep. 2, 17] make a man perfect and fit for all good works. This is also proved by the histories of the Scriptures. In front of people the subtlety has well taken place: Another is to be a good man, namely for appearance, another is to be a good prince, also for appearance. But Saul was no longer a good man when he was no longer a good prince.
Therefore, it does not prove anything against me that I have praised Leo X. Person and condemned the indulgence on the other hand. There is a double judgment here. Man must not be judged, even if he were fundamentally evil before God, as long as he lives outwardly without vice, for such judgment belongs before him who examines hearts and kidneys. Another is to judge indulgences, which belongs to the doctrine in which both good and evil (may they be truly good or only in appearance) can err, yes, even the elect; thus only the obviously godless are stiff-necked in error. This judgment belongs to all and sundry, that we may distinguish the voice of the shepherd from that of the stranger. Of Leo X himself, however, I am still uncertain to this day what kind of opinion he had and whether he was stubborn in error. For it is well known who was the author of Leo's last bull. But why do I throw such spiritual things and precious things before swine? What should he understand of these things who does not understand that this conclusion is quite inconsistent: Leo is good, therefore the indulgence is right?
Let us come to another matter, that of the papacy, which I have overthrown with mighty scriptural passages. Its protector, however, is as mute to my writing as a fish, and in royal confidence imagines that Luther will abandon the Scriptures at his mere hint and fall in with his lies. But he proves the pabstacy as follows: It must be so, because I have heard that India also submits to the Roman pope, as does Greece; St. Jerome also recognizes the Roman church as the mother. What does Luther want to say here against such excellent and Thomistic things?
I answer: If the papacy will exist because the king of England has heard that India and Greece have submitted to it, it will not exist for the same reason, because Luther has heard and is certain that neither India nor Greece have ever been or want to be under the Roman pope. Then the boastful king lies crudely in his way, since he makes Jerome an assertor of the papacy, since this man calls the church only his mother, but not the mother of the whole world, and writes sharply against the ambition of this great world dominion. But the king looks more at what he sees than at the matter. Therefore, as befits a Thomist larva, he leaves aside the Scriptures, which are necessary to assert matters of faith, and tells us, however, what he has heard, so that our faith and the blessedness of our souls may be based on what he has heard.
75. Hitherto it would seem as if the King of England had only jested as an unlearned and ignorant layman (if one feels like it), but now he attacks it in earnest and prepares himself for the intended cause, namely, that he wants to assert seven sacraments, and first of all the sacrament of the altar, in which I had punished three kinds of tyranny: the first, that a part of the sacrament was taken away; the second, that the people were forced by a necessary article of faith to believe that bread and wine ceased after the consecration; the third, that they made a work and sacrifice of it.
Here I no longer have to deal with Heinrich's ignorance and lack of understanding, but with his obdurate and insolent malice. Here he not only lies, like a quite frivolous buffoon, but in these serious matters he is sometimes bold, sometimes volatile, sometimes he dissembles, sometimes he falsifies, sometimes he twists; he certainly talks and keeps quiet about everything, as he pleases, so that, if he does not surpass the worst villain, he certainly equals him admirably. Read my booklet about the Babylonian captivity, dearest reader, and you will see that I speak the truth, for I have written [there] more strongly than I am able to do now. That this
the poisonous and malicious Thomist must have noticed, this is my reason that he left my best and strongest scriptural passages and reasons untouched, and nevertheless wanted to capture the godly readers with his unrhymed little book, so that they would not read my little book and would not become aware of its mischievousness.
I confess that I got a little excited when I compared my little book with his and saw that he had skipped over my strong reasons in such an unworthy manner and yet praised the assertion of the sacraments against Luther with such full cheeks. This is the fact that the papal empire, which is entirely made up of lies, can do nothing but lie, cheat, pretend, mock, walk on eggshells, and boast and trumpet its victories in all of this.
But let us reveal this evil and royal unworthiness in the first tyranny, namely [that] only one part of the Sacrament [is left]. I have proved by seven reasons that the second part of the Sacrament was taken away from the laity in an ungodly way, which already then overcame me, but now also triumph, since the most grandiose claimant of the papists leaves these [reasons] untouched with royal bravery.
The first reason is the testimony of the evangelists, who tell in a constant and unanimous speech that Christ has appointed both figures for those who would celebrate his memorial, and he adds significantly to the cup: "Drink from it, all of you. The king, the protector of the church, said nothing.
The other was: if Christ alone had given the sacrament in the Lord's Supper to the clergy, then one should not give a piece to the laity at all, because one may not change Christ's institution and example. Here the boastful protector, the King of England, is silent.
81 The third: if a part of these sacraments can be taken away from the laity, a part of baptism and penance can also be taken away from them by the same power; and all that Christas ever instituted can be taken away in part: where
not, then that piece cannot be taken either. For this, the boastful defender of the sacraments falls silent.
The fourth is that Christ says, "His blood is poured out for the forgiveness of our sins; therefore to whom forgiveness of sins is given, the sign of forgiveness which Christ gave them cannot be denied. To this the Thomist in disguise, the Englishman, is dumb.
The fifth: if he could take away the wine, he can also take away the bread and thus the whole sacrament and annul Christ's institution completely; but if he cannot take away the whole, he cannot annul the part. There the invincible king may have thought of the saying: one can answer many things with silence, and also dissolve all things for me with silence.
(84) The sixth: What need is there that both forms should be denied to the laity, since all admit the thing itself, so that they teach us that as much is given under one form as under both? If they concede the thing, which is the most important thing, why do they not want to give the second sign (as they prate) of the same thing? But this reason was too much for the so glorious protector of faith.
The seventh: Paul shut up all and gives 1 Cor. 11. not to the priests, but to the church and all believers the whole sacrament. This reason said to the sacrament defender: Do not touch me.
Have you now sufficiently recognized the unworthiness of this defender? Now see if there is the slightest drop of royal blood in such a body, or a spark of an honest man in his mind. Whom, I pray thee, should not be annoyed by this more than sophistical malice and insolence, which deliberately and deliberately rages against the recognized truth in such a way that he would like to see it destroyed and buried not only for himself but also for the whole world? This is the devil's chosen weapon and the most worthy protector of the papist church. With the same diligence he does many other things through his whole godly life.
blasphemous and profane booklet; and the pious reader will learn from this sign that he should beware of it as of a mud puddle of death, and keep it suspicious in every letter. It is not worthy of forgiveness, because there is no error here, but only unworthiness and obdurate wickedness, which is aimed at lying and blaspheming God.
But let us see how the defender, so mute in necessary matters, is nevertheless so tongue-tied in his antics. Open your belly wide, my reader, so that you may grasp the great Thomistic things in it; since he wants to prove that one was allowed to put away the other piece, how he walks along so regally, as if he were the king. The church (he says) also communicates early in the sacrament, since Christ did it in the evening. Furthermore, we also mix water into the wine, of which the Scriptures make no mention. If the church could do or order something else here, it could also take away a part of the sacrament.
Thus must he turn and roll, who has so foolishly and abominably lied against the Lord of glory. How I would that asses and sows could speak, that they might judge between me and Henry! But I will take other asses and sows, which can speak more than too much. Judge, then, yourselves, you sophists, you of Paris, of Louvain, of Cologne, also you of Leipzig, and your like, wherever they are: according to what art of conclusion this quite Heinzian and quite Thomistic conclusion has validity? For you too have put the remark on the margin of this booklet: Here Luther lies thrown to the ground! and you have given your Heinz right. Say, then, whence is this doctrine? whence the rule of this conclusion: Something happens without Scripture, therefore one must hold against Scripture? Water is mixed in the wine without a testimony of the Scriptures, so one must condemn the Scriptures that use the other form, consider them heresy, and defile them with your other raging blasphemies.
89. do not be ashamed of your forehead, my Heinz, who is no longer a king, but a godless robber of the holy ones.
ly and divine words of Christ? Do you, you poisonous sophists, not sweat? Behold, how poor Luther lies on the ground. You wretched lumps, you are given to a wrong mind, that you claim that the main strength of this royal booklet lies in it, of which even the stones cry out that it is the highest blasphemy.
90. I will invent here some kinds of fools or foolish people, to paint my king better with his colors. If one disputes in such a way that he proves that something happens against the Scriptures, therefore the Scriptures must give way, for example, an adultery happens, therefore the law that forbids adultery is heretical, then I believe that such a one, although he is very foolish, would nevertheless appear foolish to my king. But how much wiser would such a one disputes than this one disputes my Heinz. For if the Scripture must be abolished because of a fact, then it is best abolished by a fact that is just opposite to it.
91. But my king, to surpass all foolishness, proves by a fact which does not belong to it at all, that the Scriptures are to be abrogated. For the fact that water is mixed into wine is as little against both forms of the sacrament as it is against the creation and the birth of Christ. If then the king concludes rightly: Whom, without Scripture, is mixed with water, therefore Scripture must be left with respect to a part of the Sacrament: so also the conclusion must be right: Wine is mixed with water without Scripture, therefore Scripture must be abolished in relation to creation, in relation to the birth of Christ. So the boastful king teaches us that one must abolish Scripture and the Word of God not only by a contrary fact, but also by one that does not rhyme with it at all; and where we do not agree with him, he alone wants to be a Christian, even a protector and defender of the church, we all are to be heretics. And this reward of his error my king has received in himself, as is fitting.
But I want to write another fool's poem: If one would claim that a passage of Scripture is heretical because another is
If, for example, he were to say that John the Baptist was not a forerunner because Jethro had advised Moses to establish a civil order (politiam) [Exodus 18], then perhaps my king would also laugh at the man's folly or have pity on him.
But there is no comparison of this folly with the royal folly. For if that which is not appropriate to the matter (im- pertinentia) can change something in Scripture, a passage of Scripture that does not belong to the matter will do so rather than a fact that does not rhyme with it, without Scripture. For that wine is mixed with water is a fact entirely without Scripture, and does not belong to a part of the Sacrament. And yet my king, according to the testimony of the sophists, has felled poor Luther with this conclusion, and has earned indulgences, which is certainly a very worthy reward for such wisdom. Therefore you will not fail to conclude in the same way: Henry is king of England, and yet God knows nothing about it, and the Scriptures do not commemorate it, therefore Christ was not born, nor did he suffer, indeed, the whole Scripture is nothing. But I do not want you to write here in the margin: here the king of England lies thrown to the ground, because I do not want him to be felled by words, but by the clarity of the matter.
What do we conclude from all this? Certainly this, that the thoughts of godless hearts are revealed by this characteristic of contradiction. For this is why they have fallen into these abysses of inconsistencies and most abominable monstrosities, because at the bottom of their hearts they consider the holy Scripture to be something human, like the mixing of water and wine, and do not give it any greater honor; hence they disgrace it, because they have not honored and praised it as a divine Scripture.
But what have these swine to do with the Scriptures? Let us come to their own treatise and prove to them that they do not understand their own things either. Tell us, then, the boastful claimant
of the sacraments: How is it proved that Mass must be said in the morning, or that it is contrary to Christ's commandment to say it in the morning when He did so in the evening? Likewise, I ask about the mixing of wine with water: Who made this article of faith? Who dares to say that it is a sin to say it [the mass] without water? Does Heinrich? by saying: It must be so; and does not believe that Luther keeps it without water?
(96) Custom, he says, is as much as a law. I answer: It may be considered a law in worldly matters. But we are called to freedom, which neither law nor custom may or should suffer, because we have to do with spiritual things. For this reason, the Heinzian glory and royal dignity has learned its art of reasoning badly and here proves quite erroneously by what is to be proved (petit principium), in that it takes for a certain, proven, divine and necessary article of faith what is, after all, quite free and a human little finger. It is no wonder, then, if the fall of the little book he has built on such sand is great.
Therefore, we gladly grant the holy papists and Heinzists their splendid articles of faith, by which they believe: one must communicate only in the morning; one must say mass only in a holy place or at a portable altar (portatili, as they call it); one must mix wine with water etc. and other highly important articles, which are very decent to these most holy saints. But we declare such believers to be fools and fools only, and make the celebration of the Sacrament free, whether by day or by night, morning or evening. For times, hours, places, dress and ceremonies are free. With us, he who eats or drinks moderately before Communion does not sin, which Paul also confirms when he says in 1 Cor. 11:34: "But if any man hunger, let him eat at home, lest ye come together for judgment at the Lord's table."
98 Thus Christ, when he instituted the Lord's Supper in the evening, did not institute the evening for communion, nor also the morning, for no word remembers the time, the persons, the
Place or dress. For otherwise, if the circumstance of the time makes an article, the example of the age, the place, the persons, the clothes will also make an article, and no one will be allowed to partake of the Lord's Supper except people of male age, as the apostles were, then also only in lay clothes. Nor should it be given to women, not even to virgins, because Scripture does not say that they partook of it at that time. Who can name all the inconsistencies that will follow the king who demands so much?
But it is quite another thing with both forms of the sacrament, which Christ has not left free, but has established them and their use with certain and clear words. And in my opinion it would be better and safer not to put water into the wine, because it is only a human fancy, and even has an unjust, even evil meaning. For it does not signify our incorporation into Christ, because the Scriptures do not have such a sign, but rather that which is written in Isa. 1:22 [according to the Vulgate]: "Thy wine is mingled with water," that is, the most pure Scripture of God is mingled with the statutes of men, which is especially fulfilled in this sacrament; indeed, the wine here has become water, for there is nothing left of the words of God in this sacrament.
100 Not that I condemn the use of the morning, or that one communicates in holy places, but only the necessity we reject. For we want that if one cannot fast, or if he would have to keep a flow or a dizziness if he stayed sober, he first eats and drinks before he goes to the table of the Lord, and does this freely, so that he may be right in body and mind. For what Heinz calls the church, we call the purple whore. For the church cannot do without customs and ceremonies, but does not make laws and cords of the souls out of them; but those who are so emblazoned with the name of the church, those swine and asses, Heinzists, Papists, Sophists, Thomists, and such like deceivers and antichrists, do.
101. so you, dear reader, have what you need from
of the wisdom of the King of England, for you see how foolishly and ridiculously he claims that the custom, which has an uncertain origin, which is free and changeable, should be considered an article of faith against the revealed, approved and unchangeable word of the Gospel. From this you also learn how contemptuously he held the Word of God when he made his writing, puffed up by his name and the majesty of his crown, against the poor and meager Luther. But you have partly seen Christ's judgment, how he does not fear the proud and blasphemous kings at all, but rather moves mountains before they realize it, and catches the prudent in their cunning.
So I confirm my booklet of the Babylonian captivity as exceedingly Christian, since the cowardly king has left its grounds untouched and played against my rocks with his wavering and scrawny stubble, but has made a magnificent spectacle to the world that even children and fools can notice his great ignorance, stupidity, wickedness and unworthiness. Let us move on to something else.
Fourth, since I had proved that it was not necessary to believe that bread and wine would be transformed, this Thomistic king comes at me with two suits of armor. One is Ambrose's word, the other the Thomistic battering ram, which is called: It must be so. He introduces Ambrosius for the assertion that nothing remains after the blessing but body and blood.
What shall I answer such clumsy and foolish fools? If I ask whether Ambrose's word is a necessary article of faith, the king will say, "It must be! If I say: Who gave Ambrose the right to make articles of faith? he will say: It must be so. And the mad head does not see that Ambrose's word is such a word that devours itself, since it is impossible that nothing else should remain after the blessing but body and blood. Except that among the Thomists, the most perceptive people, shape, heat, cold, and such accidental things are considered nothing. For as they are not nothing, so we really see them after
of the blessing still remain, so that we grasp with our hands that Ambrose obviously erred here.
But if Ambrose had wanted that no bread and wine should remain, I will say: I let Ambrose have his mind, and the holy man also did not want to trick anyone's conscience with this word as with an article of faith, because he cannot prove this from Scripture, but as he himself freely thought so, so he also left others free to have other opinions; except for the Thomists, who also, as is fair, must be entangled and caught in their sleepy dreams as in articles of faith.
Now this is another proof of the king: it must be so, because (he speaks) the words of Christ are clear, who says: "This is my body." He does not say: with or in this is my body.
Here I complain again, not about the slumber, but about the unworthiness of the king; because the robber mutilates the words of Christ and jumps royally over my proof reason, as if he had the right to rob and put the words of God at will. According to his coarse and ass-like Thomistic worldly wisdom, he connects the pronoun "this" with the statement (praedicatum): "my body". Immediately after that he shouts, as if he had proved it: The words are clear: This is my body. In the meantime, however, he is silent about the main thing with which I cornered that narrated worldly wisdom. For in the whole disputation I have argued that the pronoun "this" could not be added to "my body" at this point. Because for this I did not need such thick sows, who told me that nothing but the body would be there, if the little word "this" pointed to nothing but the "body".
(108) But the fundamentally false prover of things to be proved, as is the way of all sophists, should first show that the pronoun "this" belongs to the predicate, and overthrow my reasons. He does nothing about this and even prattles ridiculously. Christ did not say: In and with this, but: This is my body. Couldn't I say with the same sharpest perspicacity of the Thomists: Christ did not say:
the bread is changed into the body, as you, magisters of fables, pretend?
But here the king should have made an effort, since I have shown from the context of the speech, the pronoun "this" refers to "bread", and so the words are clearly: This is my body, that is: This bread is my body. For the text has it thus, "He took the bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and said, This is my body," etc. Here you see how all the words, "took, blessed, broke," are said of the bread. Now the little word "this" points to the same. For the very thing which he took, blessed, broke, this (I say) taken, blessed, broken, is indicated when he says, 'This is my body'; not the predicate, but the subject is shown. For he did not take, bless, and break his body, but the bread. Therefore he points not to the body, but to the bread. These are the clear words, which the unworthy king hides, and merely drives his sentence: This is my body, and refers the pronoun "this" out of his own audacity to the "body".
(110) This is also quite a bit of Thomistic wisdom, that when one demands reason from him for this article of faith, since he knows that I do not accept any article unless it is proven by clear Scripture, he does not come up with anything other than that: It must be so, the words are clear and evident. But who is such a great teacher of the art of speech, who from these words: This is my body, takes or concludes so much that the bread is changed, when it is not done by the scum of the Thomists, who have caused that we have also forgotten the art of speech? Why does he not speak from the same power: the transformation is also shown in the words, since it is said: The revelation of St. John? For if it is enough for an article of faith to say royally: The words are clear, there will be no words that cannot prove all things to all people, especially since the foolish head hears that these words are called clear by me to another mind, and according to his mind quite strange, even dark.
Yes! the respectable [Magister] noster (eximius nostralis), King Heinz, has also dared from me by a Thomistic trick.
to demand that I should prove that it is not transformed. For one must teach the most unskilful Thomist also the rudiments of the art of dispute, who, since he should prove the proposition that is asserted, demands of the opponent that he prove the negation. Let us send these learned men to the heretics or to the Turks to defend our faith, in such a way that it would not be necessary to give a reason for the faith, but only to say: Prove your denial. O Thomists-saints and asses! although I have, as I said, bravely proved my own point from the Gospel, namely, that in matters of faith only what Scripture asserts is to be asserted; but what it does not assert must not be asserted, but left free. The sacrament itself, however, she clearly calls bread.
But that is enough of what our royal sophist philosophizes; now it is worth the effort to see how Thomistic he also theologizes against my reasons.
Since I had set against such Thomistic article of faith the heavenly lightning, the word of Paul: 1 Cor. 10, 16. where he calls this sacrament so obviously bread, that neither the ignorance of the king nor the unworthiness of the Thomist could find an excuse to lie and mock, because the words of Paul stand brighter than day: "The bread which we break, is it not the fellowship of the body of Christ?"For he saith not, the body which we break; neither the nothing which is left after the consecration, which we break; nor the things by chance which we break; but the bread which we break; which was already blessed and sanctified. Now this blessed bread is the fellowship of the body of Christ etc. The same is written in 1 Cor. 11, 27: "Whoever eats of this bread" etc.
The good and lovely Thomist brings nothing from the Scriptures, nothing of reasons, but only from his own: It must be so, he says, the Scriptures sometimes call what has been, or what is similar, as Ex. 7, 12: The staff of Aaron swallowed up the sorcerer's staff, that is, the serpent, which before was Aaron's staff. He says that.
You lie rightly against your own head, foolish and nefarious king, who with an insolent forehead dare to attribute to the infallible words of God that they mean something other than they say. How great a door, I pray you, does this foolishness of the king open to all heretics and enemies of the faith to blaspheme! If one admits that the reputation of Scripture is based on slippery and deceptive words, what will not all masters of all doctrines be able to prove, reject, defend, and assert? How much more correctly did Augustine not even want to allow a lie to be valid for jest or for service (officiosum) in the holy Scriptures? This king, however, gives us the power, if we are at all cornered by words of Scripture, to mock them and to interpret them in such a way that they cannot press us further.
Nevertheless, if the Thomistic king does not consider his creator worthy of such great honor as to take his mind captive under the words of the same, confessing that he rather does not know how one staff devoured the other than to twist them sacrilegiously, and that it is true that the serpent is called a staff because it has been a staff, by what inference then shall it follow that also here is called bread what is not bread, but has only been? Must one draw that without scripture on all scriptures, what is found in one place? In such a way one can conclude according to the Thomistic wisdom in such a way: The Scripture says once that the virgin is a mother, therefore many other virgins must also be mothers, although the Scripture says nothing about them, as he does here: that there must be no bread, because the staff is not a staff.
Thus, many hundreds of examples of such monstrous things can be brought out from the Scriptures. For the disguised Thomist is very much like the Arian scum and Kothe. For the same, when pressed with clear Scripture that Christ is God, spoke according to the same royal and English sophistry so long before: Christ is God only in name, not truly: that is, he is called only God,
is not born of God, as also this new Arian dares to blaspheme: it is only called bread by Paul, but it is not bread. Thus, this grandiloquent claimant of the sacraments will easily defend the Manichaeans, who have taken away the very words of God and put a fantasy in their place.
118 So I will also use the king's art against him and say: Your Thomistic bread change is not, but is only called transformation or is equal to transformation. How will he resist me? Will I not be allowed to play tricks in his slumber dreams, as he plays with the very loud words of God? But I prove it thus: Because one reads in the Scriptures that that is called a staff, which is not one, then I can deny the essence of any thing according to my own power, in and out of the Scriptures, and claim that it is only called that; unless the example and reputation of such a great king, of such a Thomist, of such an astute and so lofty and glorious claimant, should not count for anything.
So you see, my reader, how the Thomistic wisdom, namely the gross and ass-like ignorance, is the same everywhere in all things. For this is the perpetual error of the sophists, who are in bad taste, that they again and again take for proved what is disputed, and take for proved what is still unproved. Then they make themselves out of the Lord's gold, as Ezekiel says, and interpret God's words to their dreams and then say: What I say must be so, because what the Scripture says is so. O worthy defenders of papal indulgences and the sacraments!
120 But this is the right rank of the devil, by which he disguises himself as an angel of light. And as from the beginning he wanted to be like the Most High, so he does not cease to do the same with divine words and deeds, to deceive the children of unbelief. Thus he mocks in his pope, and since the latter has arrogated to himself the right to annul vows, he salivates with full cheeks in his decrees this like
nce confidently: The firstborn of an ass was exchanged for a sheep, therefore I will change the vow into another work, as if the firstborn of an ass were as much as a vow. A staff is called a staff, and yet is not a staff; therefore Paul calls bread that which is not bread; as if staff and bread were one. With what abysses should not Satan flood the church, after the Sophists have been allowed to ascend the chair and they have begun to use this teaching and disputing manner?
(121) But the king shows another skill in this matter, so that no one can take him for anything but a Thomist: If, he says, Luther takes the words of Scripture so accurately, he will also say that Christ in heaven is a loaf of wheat, since he says [John 6:51], "I am the loaf that came down from heaven"; likewise a natural vine, since he says [John 15:1], "I am a right vine. "etc.
I have said before that there is nothing grosser and more distasteful under the sun than these Thomistic monsters. For what boy would not laugh at the foolish king here, if he is not more worthy of hatred or tears because of his conspicuous unworthiness and rage to blaspheme? He has not so much sense or caution that he sees what difference there is between these words of Christ and his dreams. For the context, the inconsistency of the things, the contradiction of the different meanings (intelligentiarum), then also his [Christ's] own interpretation force him that he must speak of spiritual bread, as he says 1) Joh. 6, 63.]: "My words are spirit and life." But there is nothing of this in Paul's saying, since he speaks of the bread of the sacrament; indeed, everything compels us to understand Paul of the bread of wheat. And yet this stubborn clod dares to claim a similarity of speech here, which no mischievous fool could invent here.
123 Nevertheless, the king does this according to his Thomistic highness, because the rule of a right understanding of the Scriptures is of the same kind.
(namely, that one pays attention to the context, to the circumstances, and to what contradicts it) and to assert all sorts of things by picking out and twisting any word. Therefore, dear reader, I ask you what you must think of this quite tasteless and unrhymed booklet of this stupid and foolish king; at the same time also how in the whole Thomist body no power of judgment, no attentiveness, no diligence, no care, but everything is said, conducted and acted with unbelievable sacrilege, presumption and sleepiness, so that they could torture their readers and viewers to death through weariness.
My Paul, then, stands unconquerably against the wretched transducers of bread, saying, "The bread that we break," and blasts them with a double horn. First, that they cannot prove their own with any reason or testimony. Secondly, that they do nothing else with their bald reply than make out that what is to be proved is proved, and the most they can accomplish is: that it can be as they invent, while they should prove both the fact and the right: that it is so and must be so. For no one doubts that God can change bread, but that he does so, they cannot prove.
And I am surprised that this most wise Thomist does not transform also the accidental things, since these words of transformation are, according to his brain, only of the body of Christ: This is my body. So there will be nothing but the body of Christ, as his Ambrose testifies, therefore also the whiteness will not be there with the other accidental things. Or why does he not explain what prevents that no more bread remains there, just as these accidental things remain there? What necessity is there to destroy the essence and to preserve the accidental qualities? Is it only the Thomistic: It must be so?
I pass over here your very eloquent contempt, since I had given two very convincing parables of the red-hot iron and the incarnate God, since neither the iron to the fire, nor the man to the fire.
God must necessarily give way. For although I am not obliged to state the reason and cause for my things, I can nevertheless cause enough trouble for the defender if I state that his poem can behave differently. Therefore I can say that the body of Christ is in the sacrament in such a way that nothing is taken from the bread, as fire is in iron and yet remains the essence of iron. Likewise, God in man, without violating humanity, in that in both cases the beings are united in such a way that each retains its effect and actual nature, and they constitute only one. This, I say, I can teach until the papists invalidate this equation, not with Thomistic contempt, but with credible reasoning. For it falls to them to prove that which they affirm, while I can make this waver with a single particular thing. For this is not called writing the reason and cause of the sacraments, if I jump over and despise the opponent's reasons, as this unrhymed Thomist does, but if I show that they are vain and void. For otherwise the defender, by his ridiculous dissimulation, as if he did not see them, and by his timid flight, himself contributes to the fact that they must be considered insurmountable.
But the very best and most beautiful Thomistic thing is what must be mentioned at last and in a fair way, because Mr. Heinz, the Magister noster (nostralis), gives this reason why one must say that bread can no longer remain: Because no being is worthy to be united with the being who has created everything.
Here, my reader, admire the great things of Thomistic wisdom. First of all, Mr. Heinz holds that the divinity of Christ enters in the Sacrament instead of the bread, and therefore the bread must give way, lest such an unworthy being be mixed with the creative being. Dear! What heretic has ever been so mad as to teach that the bread is changed into the Godhead? - Did not Heinz with his sows and asses also teach until now that the bread is changed into the body, but not into the Godhead? Or do they only want to teach the body
How can they be called a creative being if they are attached to the blood of Christ? See where the ungodly madness drives the godless souls, after they have once started to base themselves on lies.
After that, Luthern should also be justified in being angry about this very cute way of concluding: The being is unworthy, therefore it cannot be made into a more worthy one. Namely, in such matters our faith depends on the worthiness and unworthiness of beings; let us conclude, then, as the Thomists do: that God is not man, because the human being is unworthy to be joined to the majesty of so great a majesty. Let us deny that the Holy Spirit is poured out even into the hearts of the righteous (not to mention the ungodly who are to be justified), because the human heart is all too unworthy of the majesty of the Spirit. So also here, according to the Heinz wisdom, the bread is not the body of Christ, because the body of Christ as a creative being is too worthy to be united with such a small being. Beautiful, glorious, quite Thomistic and Heinzian! If the bread's unworthiness does not allow it to be the body of Christ, yet this reason's worthiness is very worthy, that it dwells and applies in no other than Thomistic heads and such asses.
But if I ask: The bread's essence is unworthy to be united with the body, as the creative essence, then why are the accidental qualities [of it] worthy to be united with it and to remain, since the Thomist God [Aristotle] teaches that the essence is better in every respect than the accidental qualities, except in the way of knowledge, which takes place because of our insufficiency (defectus)? What will Mr. Heinz, the most astute assertor, say? Without doubt nothing else, but: It must be so; I am king, and if that is still too little. I am a Thomist, therefore it is true; that is, they say what is worthy of them. For so it behooves sows, when the kernel is out of the wheat, to eat the bran and husks, and instead of the essence of the bread the accidental qualities are highly valued.
to raise. Yes, Christ shows himself true here, since he said: "I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which all your adversaries will not be able to resist and contradict. For you well see, dear reader, with what fierce lies the God-changing papists tear themselves apart by wanting to contradict me. This is the power of truth, that it proves those to be lying who stain themselves, and sows the cunning in their craftiness.
131. So we have this article, which I did not demand so urgently before, now confirmed in the most perfect way, namely by the papists' own assertions, that is, lies and folly and blasphemies, so that we are now quite sure that it is a mere poem of the godless and blind Thomists, whatever they babble about the transformation, and that one must firmly rely on the reliable words of God, since he speaks simply and purely in Paulo: The bread that we break and eat is the body of Christ.
132. So that I may not be ungrateful to the magisterial service (magisterio) of Mr. Heinz, I will now also change my opinion and transform it, and say: Before I said that there was nothing in it, whether one thinks one way or the other about the transformation; but now that I have seen the very beautiful reasons and proofs of the sacrament denier, I conclude: that it is ungodly and blasphemous for one to say that the bread is changed; on the other hand, it is catholic and blasphemous to say, with Paul, that the bread which we break is the body of Christ. Cursed is he who says otherwise and changes a letter or a dot, even if it were Mr. Heinz, the new and excellent Thomist himself!
The fifth is the main thing, the main work and, as it were, the cornerstone of the Heinzian assertion: that the mass is a work and a sacrifice. Only then is Mr. Heinz a real Mr. Heinz, and the Thomist a Thomist. And first of all, he once heard from some half-speech artist: if he found the opponent's reasons to be indisputable, one would have to laugh at him and despise him with a wrinkled nose, so that the stupid reader would believe that the opponent had already been defeated beforehand,
before he would be attacked by such a great orator.
134 Thus our king also makes a preface with pompous empty words, so that' he adorns himself very finely, as if the refutation of the so foolish and unlearned Luther, who denies that the mass is a work and sacrifice, displeases him.
Namely, Satan feels the wound, and since he does not know what to do because of the sorrow of the soul, he seeks to provoke me out of mere grief, and because he can do nothing else, by scorn and ridicule. But he who gave us the knowledge of Satan's thoughts will also give us the ability to mock the mocker and despise the scorner, and to confidently pull through the fragile blisters of his foolishness.
If you like threatening and mocking words, then the king, the defender, has overcome Luther seven times. But if you look at the matter itself, it is such antics that our neighbors and companions, the papists, have been singing to us in vain for three years now, namely, that the mass is a work and a sacrifice. For this is how the long use of the great multitude has brought it about, this is how the Church (that is, the whore of Babel) holds it; this is how it must be, the Magistri nostri have taught it this way, and the Fathers have said it this way.
This is the fury in which the king, who is angry here, rages, shouts and foams, who is certainly not at all merciful to Luther, if this helps somewhat to maintain the sacraments and can frighten Luther. For the rest, however, that he should confirm this so generally accepted, so widespread, so approved, yes, also so rich and even amusing article, at least only with a tittle from the holy scripture or with words of God, or refute my clauses, that does not have to be; the long use knows nothing about that; the church does not hold that; the Magistri nostri do not teach that; that did not come to a defender of the sacraments.
In order that such an excellent defender may nevertheless say something, he puts forward a reason which is very powerful and which has so far satisfied everyone: that the mass is a work and a sacrifice. It reads thus:
If the Mass were not a good work, then
the laity would certainly not give the clergy anything in return for temporal benefits.
Astonishment, my reader; this is a royal and Thomistic reason and, as I said, most powerful, because it has moved very many so far and still moves them. Here Luther lies felled to the ground, and no one has hit him so skillfully as the King of England in this book with this very reason. For whether I like it or not, I must confess that this is so: truly, I say, the mass is a sacrifice and a good work because (as the king says) the laity give the priests riches and goods for it.
140 Again, in spite of Luther, it must be true for the same reason that the mass is not a good work if the laity do not spend their goods on it, which would have been proven by the outcome if the laity had ceased to spend their goods on the masses, and it would have happened that the mass would have become what money would have wanted. The king spoke beautifully and well by this reason, and with a proof fitting for such a great claimant, he asserted the fair. So it depends on the laymen's donation and the money's will that the mass is a work or something that may always benefit the priests. Remember, then, my reader, that the king, the claimant, has no other reason for his mass than this.
Now judge, my reader, whoever you may be 1), what is to be answered from such foolish, nonsensical and completely wrong monstrosities according to dignities? Which whore dares to carry her shame so boldly to the market, as this exceedingly impudent king's mouth obviously spreads the stinginess and deceit of the priests and holds them up to us as reasons of his great faith!
But so often we are terrified by the fury of the divine judgment, which warns us with these horrible examples of wrath that we should be humble in holy things, by punishing those who rage against the pure doctrine and revealed truth with such apparent wrath.
1) Instead of sst we read ss.
The king is a man who beats the punishments of nonsense. For with all my power, I could not have made this poor king look so shameful and horrible in front of the whole world, as he does himself with this nonsense. Learn, I beg you, you poor papists, since even your disgrace drives you to it, to finally fear God's judgment. What will happen there if he already disgraces you so violently here in time?
143) The nonsense that follows is not less that, since he first despises me with many words (for that is what he has learned in oratory above all things), he finally asserts: he wants to leave untouched what he should have refuted most, namely, my main reason and my main strength, since I have proved from the words of Christ: the mass is a testament and a promise, and therefore cannot be called a work or sacrifice. Here the unfortunate claimant, because he had been overcome by the strength of this mighty reason, pathetically silencing his conscience, not only passes by, but also publicly testifies that he wants to pass by and leave it to others.
O the defender of the sacraments! O the defender of the Roman Church! who is twice Thomistic and by far the most worthy of all the indulgences of the pope! One could have forgiven him if he had silently passed over this most powerful reason of mine; but to publicly declare that he wants to pass over, since he hears that I trust in it alone and most of all, and that everything of his is thereby overthrown, that is so ridiculous and foolish that it cannot be worse.
Therefore, by the special grace of the King, the Assessor, I assert and testify (lest I be ungrateful again) that the mass is not a work or sacrifice until another comes and proves that a testament or promise of God can be a work or sacrifice. But when will he come? The king himself truly saw that he would come on the Day of Nevermore, therefore he surely left it untouched, because he would have been quite miserably smashed and thrown to the ground if he had touched it.
would have. You may believe here that such a great king is either actually running because his brain is injured, or that some enemy of his has published this booklet under the royal name for his disgrace. For who has seen a greater folly than this, since in royal grandiloquence it is written against Luther/ and in the work itself his main strength and most noble reasons are not only passed over, but it is also said in clear words that one wants to let them rest on themselves?
But after Mr. Heinz, our Thomist, had proved with this silver and golden reason that the mass is a work, he continues in his bravery to refute also Luther's reasons and first of all brings forward his Thomistic stuff (thomisti- catur) of the following form:
He who cuts wood does a work; thus, he who performs the blessing does a work; therefore, the mass must also be a work. But if it is a work, it is not an evil one, therefore it is a good one.
Thus concludes the boastful claimant of the sacraments. There also Luther lies thrown down! I gladly confess that I am surpassed by the appalling Thomistic stupidity and have trouble speaking in such a way that the wretched people understand me only to some extent. I therefore say that the mass is taken in two ways: once Heinzian and Thomistic, in the way you see here in the king's booklet, mass is so much as performing the blessing, or speaking the words of blessing. That this is our work, even the Thomists' stupidity cannot deny, let alone that I should deny here that Heinz, the Magister noster, has won here.
But this is a new description and a new example of the mass, because I could not have ever thought of the mass in this way in fever or madness. And I wonder that the Thomists, so rich, have not confirmed this cute reason with five others. For if blessing is a mass, so can shouting, singing, burning incense, lighting candles, making the chalice pure, lifting the host aloft, perhaps also sneezing and clearing one's throat, and what could be done according to this basic reason?
Heinzian cleverness not call everything else a fair? Yes, we allow the new inventor of words and things to call a sow's head or a donkey's head a fair; for what does he, for whom words and things stand and fall at will, according to his Aristotle, care that everything arbitrary should be called so?
We therefore confess that in this way the mass is a work, and we recant and repent of the gross error that we did not know beforehand that once the King of England would call it a mass; for otherwise we would have had such great erudition that we would have guarded against such error and not given him cause to write such a great book.
150 But this will quite plague the claimant, that in this way the mass will not be a good work, if the blessing is not good. For a wicked man does by blessing, that is. Holding mass, as the king calls it, evil. Therefore, no evil priest will be allowed to consecrate, nor can he, because they want the mass to be necessarily a good work. And at the same time the splendid theology will fall, by which it is established that the mass of even an evil priest is always a good work by virtue of the work performed (virtute operis operati), although not by virtue of the one who performs it (virtute operis operantis). For Henry takes the work of the doer for the mass, not the performed work itself. But perhaps the king is busy with too many things to have learned or thought of this theology of the work done and that of the thuende. Thus, the enemies of truth must make themselves a disgrace and a mockery as a reward for their blasphemies.
In another way, the mass as we speak of it is really and truly the word of promise itself, with the added sign of bread and wine. For if all else is missing, and you believe these words of Christ, "This is my body which is given for you," then you truly have the Mass whole. Then, if you accept the sign with the same faith, you have received the benefit and fruit of the Mass. Therefore, it is quite evident that the Mass is not
is something of our work or word, but of Christ alone, who gives both the word of promise and the sign in bread and wine, and that the use of these cannot consist in sacrifice and doing, but only in receiving and suffering. But how should the wretched claimant understand these things of ours, since he does not even understand his own of the work that is done, and, by accusing us, disproves himself to his greatest shame?
152 Thereupon he pours out his Thomist stuff to defend the sacrifice of the mass in the following way:
Therefore, he says, if the Mephistopheles is a promise, it does not follow that it is not also a sacrifice, since in the Old Testament there were sacrifices which were also promises.
I answer: For this Thomistic assertion the king should at least have given a single example; but now he considers it enough, according to his manner, if he only writes: in the Old Testament the sacrifices were promises; and then immediately: It must be so; but such an incomprehensible assertor, as I see, should first have been presented with a dictionary, from which he would first learn what both sacrifice and promise mean. For the promise is a word, but sacrifice is a thing, so that even little children understand that it is impossible for the promise to be a sacrifice or the word a thing. Oh, poor me, that I have to waste my time with such monsters of foolishness, and that I am not worthy of being argued with by people who are capable of understanding and learning!
It is therefore a manifest error to say that the sacrifices in the Old Testament were promises, unless the king, the assertor, wanted to speak figuratively in a Thomistic, slippery way: that the sacrifices promised, that is, signified what was to be in Christ in the future. This does not mean that the sacraments are proclaimed, but rather that they play with words and engage in antics, since in this way the promise is so much a sign or a thing, but not a word. In the mass, however, we call the words of Christ themselves the promise, without which bread and wine are neither a sign nor a sacrament, nor even a word.
would be a mass. For the fact that promises have been obtained through the sacrifices offered in faith is something else. For we are not dealing here with the fruit or meaning of the sacrifices, but with the essence itself, so that we may know what a sacrifice is or is not.
But Mr. Heinz wonders what kind of preachers I must have heard, since I had written that nothing was ever said about these promises in the sermons, while he had heard about the testament, promises, witnesses etc. to overflowing.
I answer: And I am also surprised that the king has such an unskilled head and such great foolishness, since he has heard so many wonderful sermons, that he has not learned and understood how God's word cannot be our work or sacrifice, yes, he blabbers the opposite without stopping. For if there were still a spark of human reason in him, he could certainly not deny that the sign of God was a work of God against us, and that the sacrifices and promises of God were not our work, but God's word.
Furthermore, the King of Lies, who writes in this passage that he has heard of such testaments and promises to the point of insatiability, later blathers at the sacrament of priestly ordination: "In the whole supper of Christ there is no promise," with which he not only contradicts himself most shamefully, but also rages with impudent lies against the supper of the Lord. Thus the fury and madness overthrows the papists, that they see nothing at all what they say, or against what they teach.
157 He also dares to say that it is obvious that the priests do not only what Christ did in the Lord's Supper, but also what he did on the cross.
I answer: If Mr. Heinrich only says this, but does not prove it, then I say: it is obvious that the priests omit in the mass what Christ did in the Lord's Supper, but they do what the Jews did to Christ on the cross. And not only do I say this, but I also prove it; for he who perverts the word of God and annihilates it, truly crucifies the Son of God, which is done by all those who, out of the promise of the Lord's Supper, have done.
to make a work, because that is truly nothing other than turning the truth of God into lies.
Then he holds up to me the canon of the mass, in which the mass is called a sacrifice. And its testimony should bind me because I would have used its words. For the words: As often as you do it etc., were not in the Gospel, but only: This do. In Paul, however, there were others. Here behold the wretched Satan, how he creeps, how he lurks, how he seeks evasions; but in vain, for he will not escape. I have rejected the Canon and still reject it, because it obviously calls sacrifices contrary to the Gospel, which are signs given to us for the promises of God, and are to be taken from us, but not to be sacrificed.
For that the king says that in the Gospel the words are not written, As often as ye shall do it; what child does not see that so great an assertor lacks the art of speech? As if it had been necessary for the evangelists to agree in all syllables, and to set up the form of the sacrament in such a way as the papists have set it up for us as so unchangeable and necessary that they consider him guilty of a mortal sin and consign him to hell who only omits the little word enim [for], namely [as judges of hell] like Rhadamanthus and Aeacus who rage as executioners of the completely free Gewisien.
160 Therefore I say, according to the testimony of the teachers of language and according to common sense, that what the evangelists say about the Lord's Supper is one and the same, although they put a few words differently, and that the expression, "This do," is just as much as: As often as you do it, and I believe that the Holy Spirit, by special counsel, has so arranged it, that the evangelists have written the same thing a little differently, so that they might fall into the vain sin against the Papist way of sacrament, that he might save us from the future superstition and tyranny of godless men. For the one who used the form of Lucas, Marcus, Matthew, Paul would not perform the blessing less truly than the one who uses this godless and false canon.
But since I had written: Sacrifice and mass fought against each other, in that a sacrifice was offered, but the mass was received, then the bold Mr. Heinz dares to point Luther to the Bible and says: Where is there in the Old Testament any sacrifice that is not offered and also received at the same time? Here he virtually boasts that Luther's highest reason thereby falls over the heap, and the boastful claimant surely triumphs. I answer: This is not my highest reason, but the one which Mr. Heinz above gave me after his Thomistic grace, namely that the mass is a testament and a promise: This, I say, is my main reason.
But that I still give something to the triumphant, so the Mr. Heinrich, if he had only once opened and looked at the Bible, yes, if he had only remembered the 51st Psalm, which he once read as a child (if he is a Christian), the Thomistic triumph would not have raised so high; because there he would have read about the burnt offering, which is the highest and most famous sacrifice in the law. That was certainly offered GOtte alone completely, and nothing of it received.
(163) Yes, if my king had a little common sense, I would turn the question of triumph to him and say: Where is there in the law any sacrifice that was received and not offered completely? Do you want to make a sacrifice out of the shoulders, the brnst and other things that fell to the priests for their use? Or will the ambiguous mocking king call that also sacrifice, what was brought by the people and the priests from the fields and dedicated before the Lord for their use? So, with the Lord Henry, is offering and sacrifice one and the same?
But what do I care what this useless chatterer wrote? It is enough for me that under the law everything that was sacrificed was burned completely. But what was not burned, but given partly to the priest, partly to the people, was not sacrificed, but separated from the sacrificed and eaten. But what do these holy things matter to the unholy papists?
on? Therefore, in the cup of the Babylonian whore there is no sacrifice that is offered alone. For this is the Bible of our Lord Heinz; but our Bible is full of such sacrifices.
Finally, he cites the sayings of the fathers to prove the sacrifice of the Mass and ridicules my foolishness, that I alone want to be wise before all others, which would be foolish. etc. Here I say that this confirms my opinion. For this is what I have said, that the Thomistic' asses can put forward nothing but the multitude of men and the old usage, and then say to him who puts forward the Scripture: thou art the greatest fool of all; wilt thou alone be wise? Then it must be so. But this is enough for me, as the most foolish, that the wisest Heinz cannot bring forward a scripture against me, nor even refute the one brought forward against him. Furthermore, he must admit that his fathers were often mistaken, that his old custom does not make an article of faith, and that no one can rely on it except the church of the big bunch, whose protector he is, with the indulgence [given to him by the pope].
I do not oppose the sayings of the fathers, men, angels, devils, the ancient custom, nor the multitude of people, but only the word of the eternal Majesty, the gospel, which they themselves must approve, in which the mass is clearly presented as a sign and testament of God, in which he promises us his grace and assures us with a sign. For this is God's work and word, not ours. Here I stand, here I sit, here I remain, here I boast, here I triumph, here I scoff at the Papists, Thomists, Heinzists, Sophists, and all the gates of hell, let alone the words of men, however holy they may be, or the deceitful habit.
God's word is above all, the divine majesty is on my side, so that I do not care if a thousand people like Augustine, a thousand people like Cyprian, a thousand Heinzian churches stand against me. God cannot err nor deceive. But Augustine and Cyprian, like all the elect, could err and really did err. Here answer, Mr. Heinz! Here show yourself as a man, as one who has reason and cause to-
338 L. V. L. VI, 437-439. XIII Luther's dispute with Henry VIII. W. XIX, 419-422. 339
here write books! Your insults are nothing, your accusations do nothing, your lies I despise, your threats I do not fear. Because here you freeze like a block, while you are nothing else but loud words.
It is most disgraceful for such a great king to write such a great book and not want to touch this my main thing; and none has yet been found who ever dared to touch it. As many as approach here, flee back again through seven ways, although they had invaded through one way with great impetuosity and shouts of triumph. It is wonderful how much they would like to do harm here, how bad an abomination it is in their eyes. But no one behaved more wisely here than King Henry, who, since he wanted to destroy Luther, assured that he did not want to touch this strong ground. But I know and say no thanks at all for such an inclined will; indeed, his wrath and fury must be taken by the executioner (male valeat), if he can do harm and does not do it.
But I despise this anger of his, in which he goes out against me, that I have taught that faith without works is the best preparation for the Sacrament, and that Christians should not be forced to take it by laws. For these are the words of a man who thinks that men become good with God through laws, since he does not know what faith is and what works are, and what laws work in the consciences of the wicked; for he is a grossly incomprehensible block. For it is not fitting for papists to know such things, but, as Peter and Jude say, only to blaspheme unknowable things. For consciences are not helped by laws, but only by grace. By laws, especially by human laws, they are miserably ruined.
But at the end of this passage it is worth the effort to see how he struggles to prove that the statutes of men are necessary, contrary to my opinion, since I have taught that nothing should be established apart from Scripture, or, if something is established, that it must be considered free and not necessary,
because we are also lords of the Sabbath through Christ our Redeemer. Therefore, the king concludes thus:
If nothing is to be held except what is written, it follows that, since it is not written that Christ took the sacrament, priests also cannot take the sacraments. Based on this Thomistic assumption, he drives the conclusion back upon me: "But the priests take the sacrament by necessity, and yet this is not written in the Gospel; therefore many other things are to be held as necessary besides the Gospel. This is concluded in a quite Thomistic way according to the rule of inference that is quite common to them, which is called proof from what is to be proven (petitio principii). For the king would first have had to prove that it was necessary for the priests to take the sacrament as a punishment for mortal sin. For I say that it is free for it to be taken by priests or not. But it is now necessary according to the doctrines of men and the custom of many. Therefore the Thomistic king proves human propositions very well by human propositions, the negated by the negated. For from such and no other proofs must stand the assertion of the sacraments and the whole Heinzian church.
. 172.. For the rest, like this: Christ blessed the sacrament, not the apostles; therefore neither apostles nor priests may consecrate (consecrare), because one may not establish or do anything other than what is written. If poor Luther would try to escape here and say: Christ commanded the apostles to consecrate, since he says: This does, then my ungracious Lord Heinz comes before him and says: This is said of taking and not of blessing.
Dear Savior Christ, what an outrageous blindness and madness is in these people! When I ask here: Mr. Heinz, in which linguistic art did your glory learn this? Which dictionary told you that "this do" means just as much as "this take"? He will answer, "It must be so," because we use words as we please. But we let such swine go, and say, Christ hath not changed the use of the word.
Take used in these words: Take, eat, etc., as the very plain words testify; not indeed for the heinzen and clogs, but for all children and fools. But the service of blessing he has ordered in these words: Such thut. For "to do" is as much as to imitate everything that he himself did at that time.
But what shall I say to these wicked monsters, who judge with such reasons as they have written out of the most impotent envy, so that nothing more foolish and inconsistent can be invented? For if this reason of the foolish king is valid, one must not follow Christ in any matter. For if Christ had not instituted to consecrate the sacrament (which is impossible), he has nevertheless shown an example of consecration and had it written down; for our king wanted to dispute that one may neither pray, nor do good, nor suffer, because nothing of our prayers, works and sufferings is written. The immeasurable silliness of the silliest king overcomes me completely through weariness.
Therefore let us now come to the highest reason of his dishonesty, namely the words of Augustine: I did not believe the Gospel, if I was not moved by the reputation of the church. The robbers of the church draw and pervert this word so that they ascribe to the church (that is, to the Roman whore, who has nothing of the church or Christianity but the name) the right to make laws.
This is what Henry is doing, so that he may also corner me with my own words by the appearance of such a word, that I said: the church has the power to judge all doctrines. I see that this completely unlearned head of the king needs nothing so much as a concise dictionary (Vocabulario Gemma), or a little book (Breviloquo), so that he might begin to learn words with the children; he does it out of pure Thomistic unworthiness, that he forces all words to mean everything, so that here too the right to judge must be just as much as the right to order, or to give laws.
177 In short: if Augustine had also claimed in clear words: there would have been someone in
the church the right to make laws; who then is Augustine? Who will be able to force us to believe him? By what power is his word an article of faith? I confess that it is a common word, but that does not make it certain and certain. One must prove the right to make laws from a divine command, but not from a human one.
But now they also falsify Augustine's word in more than one way (non simpliciter). For he speaks of the church, which is spread throughout the world, and which has the right to judge doctrines. But they attribute it to the pope, of whom they themselves admit that he is often a member of the devil and errs, and give him not only the right and power to judge, but also to make laws. Therefore it is necessary here to explain to these crude sophists what difference there is between the right to judge or to recognize, and between the right to make laws or to command.
It is the duty of every Christian to know and to judge the doctrine, and he is accursed who infringes this right by one little bit. For Christ himself has decreed this right in many insurmountable sayings: e.g. Matth. 7, 15: "Beware of false prophets who come to you in sheep's clothing. He certainly says this word to the people against the teachers and commands them to avoid their false teachings. But how can they avoid them without recognizing them? And how can they recognize them if they do not have the right to judge? But now he gives them not only the right but also the command to judge, so that this single passage can be enough against all the popes, all the fathers, all the councils, all the schools, all the sayings that have granted the right to judge and to conclude only to the bishops and clergy, but have robbed the people, that is, the church, the queen, of it in an ungodly and ecclesiastical way. For there Christ stands and says: "Beware of false prophets."
180 Almost all the syllables of the prophets agree with this. For what do the prophets do but warn the people not to believe the false prophets? What is
But this warning, other than declaring and confirming that the right to judge and discern rests with the people, is to remind them of their duty and to put them on guard against all the teachings of all their priests and teachers.
181 Therefore we conclude here: As often as Moses, Joshua, David and all the prophets in the old law call out and warn the people against false prophets, so often do they cry out, command, proclaim and confirm the same right to judge and recognize all the teachings of all people. But they do this in countless places. Does our Heinz or any impure Thomist have anything to say against it? Have we not shut the mouths of those who speak unjustly?
Let us return to the New Testament. When Christ says John 10:27, 5: "My sheep hear my voice, but they do not hear the voice of strangers, but flee from them," does he not make the sheep judges and transfer the right to know to the listeners? And Paul, when he says in 1 Cor. 14:29, 30, "Let one speak, and let others judge; but if a revelation comes to him that sitteth, let the first hold his peace," does he not here give judgment to the hearer? So too, all that Christ commanded, Matt. 24 and everywhere about the false teachers, Peter and Paul about the false apostles, teachers, and John [1 Ep. 4, 1] about the tester of spirits, all goes to the effect that the people have the power to judge, to test, to condemn, and that with every right.
For each one believes rightly or wrongly at his own peril; therefore each one must take care for himself that he believes rightly, so that common sense and the necessity of salvation also urge that the judgment of doctrine must necessarily be with the hearer. It is written in vain [1 Thess. 5, 21]: "Test everything, and keep what is good," and again [1 Cor. 2, 15]: "The spiritual man judges everything, and is judged by no one." But every Christian is spiritual by the Spirit of Christ [1 Cor. 3:22]: "All things are yours," saith he, "whether it be Apollos, Paul, or Cephas:" that is, ye have the right to judge all words and deeds.
Now you may see of what kind of spirit the divinely predatory and abominable conciliationists have been, who, against such great thunderbolts and against the most evident sayings, have presumed to arrogate to the popes the right to judge and discern, and also to command and legislate. Without a doubt, these were the thoughts of Satan, by which he flooded the world with the effects of error and placed the abomination in the holy place: in the most certain tyranny, after the people had been deprived of the power to judge, from which false teachers should have shied away, and the way had been paved by the foolish and superstitious obedience and the patience of the people, to break in with all errors and abominations.
(185) And remembering here my Heinz and the Sophists, who base their faith on the length of time and the multitude of people, first of all he cannot deny that this stolen right has granted tyranny over a thousand years, because already in the Nicene Concilio, which was the best of all, they began to make laws and to arrogate such right to themselves. And from that time until now it has been so established that nothing is more practicable, nor can be more firmly proved by the multitude of people and long custom, than this right, so that today there is no one who does not consider it wholesome, right and divine. But here you see that it is pure church robbery and godlessness against the most obvious and insurmountable scripture of God.
186. Therefore, if such a great error and such church robbery, with such a great length of time and the whole multitude of people who have either consented, or been deceived, or approved, has prevailed against the truth of God, I will here at once smash to powder all the sophists and papists their main reason of length and multitude, and shut them up, that they may see why God does not want us to believe any creature, however long or much or great it may be, but His infallible word alone.
187 We have therefore defined this as something
It is indisputable that the power to recognize and judge the teachings, or to examine them, is with us, not with the councils, popes, fathers, teachers. But it does not follow that at the same time the right to make laws is with us, for that belongs to God alone. But it belongs to us to recognize, examine and judge his law and word, and to separate them from all other laws; but not to give laws or to command them. For from the words of Christ, "Beware of false prophets," it does not therefore follow, "So it behooves you to prophesy. Yes,,as Peter speaks [2 Petr. 1, 20. 21.]: "No prophecy has ever been produced by human will, and no prophecy in the Scriptures is done by their own interpretation, but the holy men of God have spoken, impelled by the Holy Spirit." So it does not follow: My sheep hear my voice; therefore the sheep will give or make my voice. Rather, the opposite follows: I give my voice, but the sheep recognize it after it is given, test it, and follow it.
Therefore we see here that all popes, all conciliarities, all schools that teach something else in the church than the Word of God alone are wolves, Satan's servants and false prophets. We also understand at the same time the gross foolishness of our Heinz and all Thomists who raise their insolent mouths against Heaven and may say in this godless booklet: although the sacrament of priestly ordination is not written in Scripture, the Church would still have the power to introduce it.
And how foolishly he has taken the word of Augustine, which speaks of the Gospel, which has been recognized and accepted by the Church throughout the world, and applied it to the right to establish human statutes according to the liking of godless men! This is the right way to understand the sayings of the Fathers and the Scriptures. These are the people who write the reason and cause of the sacraments; whose quantity and long duration is the power to make articles of faith, who are so stupid and dull that they make no distinction between recognizing and commanding.
190. But here they will say: If a
If each has the power to judge and to examine, how will one do so if the judges are not one, and each judges according to his own head? Therefore there must necessarily be one by whose judgment the others leave it alone and be satisfied, so that the unity of the church may be preserved. I answer: This sophistry is better suited for no one than the Thomists. For now I also ask: What is the situation today, when all are under the judgment of the one pope? Where is the unity unharmed here? Is the unity preserved unharmed, if one unites under the outward name of the pope? Where is the unity of hearts? Who is assured in his conscience that the pope judges rightly? And where there is no certainty, there is no unity. Therefore, although there is an outward show of unity under the pope, inwardly there is nothing but the most dreadful Babylon, that no stone is left upon another, nor is one heart in unison with another, so that one sees how beautifully human audacity with its statutes knows how to advise spiritual matters. Therefore, another way must be sought for the unity of the church.
191. and this is the one that Christ states Joh. 6, 45: "They will all be taught by God. Whosoever therefore shall hear of my Father, let him come unto me." The inward spirit, I say, is the only thing that makes us live together in one house; it teaches us to believe one thing, to judge one thing, to know one thing, to test one thing, to teach one thing, to confess one thing, and to follow one thing. Where he is not, it is impossible that there should be unity. And where it is, it is only an outward and whitewashed one.
Therefore, God does not ask whether ungodly people are one or not, who do not have unity of spirit. It is enough for His children to have one baptism and one bread as common marks and symbols (symbola) for their outward unity, by which they confess and practice unity of faith and spirit. The papist church seeks its unity in the unity with its outward idol, the pope, although inwardly it is scattered by the most conspiratorial errors to all the will of Satan.
193 But let us return to our purpose! We have thus enforced and victoriously asserted against the claimant of the sacraments that the Mass is not a work or sacrifice, but a word and sign of divine grace, which he uses against us to build up and strengthen our faith against himself. And we see how Satan has been heard, that the longer and more vehemently he rages and writes against us, the more clumsy and ludicrous stuff he has to parrot. For this little book of the king's, as it has the best Latin of almost all those that have been written against me: so it is certainly the silliest and most foolish, so that I would almost have attributed it to our Leipzig scribes, who are wont to conclude in this way when they conclude in the best way.
But after the mass has been thrown to the ground, I think that we triumph over the entire papacy. For on the mass, as on a rock, the whole papacy is founded with its monasteries, dioceses. The whole papacy, with its monasteries, dioceses, altars, ministers and doctrines, and especially with its whole belly, is based on the mass. All this must fall immediately when their ungodly and abominable mass falls. Thus Christ has begun through me to expose the abominations that stand in the holy place, and to destroy him whose coming has been through the working of Satan in lying signs and wonders. O the wretched defender of the papal church! O the wretched church, which has squandered its indulgence in vain for so great a book, except that both the defender and his book have received their just reward; for as the indulgence, so is the church, so is the defender, so is the book.
This is enough for me to defend the first sacrament, which the claimant, Herr Heinrich, took special pains to assert, because he knew well that the entire salvation of the papist empire rested on it. I must save the other until another time, since I am now burdened with other business, but especially with the translation of the Bible, which is particularly important.
1) We have read with the Jena edition vapatnui instead of the Erlangen.
I need to do this so that I do not encourage Satan's efforts out of all too great zeal to refute him, 2) who intends to prevent me through these tasteless little books, but he shall achieve nothing.
It would not cost much effort to refute the stupid Thomists in their six other sacraments, because throughout the entire six sacraments they do not present anything worthy of an answer, except for the one thing he mentions about the sacrament of priestly ordination; namely, Paul had commanded Titus in his letter [Titus 1:5]: he should ordain priests through the churches. For here, he wants, the ordination of priests is instituted. But the Thomistic larva does not see, neither what I say, nor what he answers.
197 I have denied that the ordination to the priesthood is a sacrament, that is, a promise and a sign added to grace, like baptism and bread. I have not denied, but rather asserted, that it is the calling and appointment of a minister and preacher, whether it be by the power of an apostle or the pope alone, or of the people voting and consenting at the same time; there is nothing in it. Although it is better done with the consent and election of the people, as the apostles, Apost. 6, elected seven deacons. For although Paul commands Titus to ordain priests, it does not follow that Titus did it by his own power alone, but that he appointed them according to the example of the apostles by the vote of the people, otherwise Paul's words would conflict with the example of the apostles.
198 But what he draws from the laying on of hands to the sacrament of priestly ordination, even children see that this does not belong to it at all, but that he makes everything out of the Scriptures that comes into his mind, according to his papist manner. The laying on of hands was at that time the visible communication of the Holy Spirit.
199 And what shall I say? He did not even want to understand the name of the Sacrament rightly, which he clearly shows, since he has the place
2) Here we have followed the reading of the Jena edition.
Paul, Eph. 5, 32, deals with marriage, which Paul uses of Christ and the church, saying: "This sacrament is great, but I say of Christ and the church. For the Scripture does not suffer marriage to be called a sacrament, since sacrament, according to the usage of the whole Scripture, means a secret hidden thing, which can be comprehended by faith alone. Marriage, however, is not at all a hidden thing or a thing grasped only by faith, so that it cannot be a marriage if it does not take place publicly before the eyes. For it is the union of a man and a woman, which is confirmed by outward and public confession and intercourse. It is no wonder that the Thomistic donkeys are so nonsensical, in whom God has not wanted anything healthy and right to remain. Although I have given in to the common custom that they call sacraments, which are rather visible signs. Only I denied that they were called sacraments in the Scriptures.
The whole thing is therefore this: The whole book of Henry is based on the word of men and the custom of ancient times, but not on the words of God or the custom of the spirit, as he himself is forced to confess. On the other hand, the brief epitome of mine is this: that human words and usage of long ago may well be tolerated and retained, where they do not conflict with the holy Scriptures, but still cannot make an article of faith and a necessary custom (observantiam).
If King Henry, with the help of the power and efforts of all Thomists, papists, devils, and men, can prove that the words of men must be kept, Luther will be overcome by his own judgment and confession, for only then will I accept and keep as articles of faith whatever the Thomists command. Where he cannot do so, Luther has the victory. For what else do they want? for if he also
had written a thousand times a thousand books against me, they cannot desire anything else from me.
For I do not ask what Ambrose, Augustine, Conciliar, and the custom of long ages say; nor did I need King Henry as a teacher to teach me this, because I already knew it so well that I also denied it, so that one must admire the foolishness of Satan, who looks at me with the very things that I dispute, and always sets up as proof that which is to be proven.
I do not dispute, I say, what he or she has said or not said, written or not written, but whether what has been said and written is necessary to keep? whether it is an article of faith? whether it is like the word of God? whether it binds the conscience? I ask about freedom or captivity; I argue for freedom, but the king for captivity. I have shown the reason for freedom, the king omits the reasons for captivity and only chats about what captivity is. He makes debtors and yet shows no debt. So the silly and miserable upholder of the Babylonian captivity and his papist church may pass away.
Lastly, if anyone finds my harshness or vehemence against the king repugnant, let him answer that in this book I am dealing with unreasonable monsters, who have despised all my humble and best writings/ and my most humble humiliation, and have only become more obdurate through my modesty. Furthermore, I have also abstained from poisonous slander and lies, of which the king's book is quite full; and it is also nothing great if I despise and bite a king of the earth, since he has not shied away from blaspheming the king of heaven in his speeches and desecrating him with the most poisonous lies. The Lord judges the nations rightly [Ps. 98:9.] Amen.
350 Erl. 53, 14S-1Z1. XIII Luther's dispute with Henry VIII. W. xix, 435-437. 351