122 D. Mart. Luther's Sermon on the Power of the Ban. *)
Between August 21 and 31, 1518.
Translated from Latin.
Brother Martin Luther [wishes] salvation to the godly reader!
Methinks it is a special grace bestowed upon me by the Lord Christ that my words alone are so unpleasant and abhorrent to many. Furthermore, I do not know into how many heresies (as if they were of the Proteus' kind) they are turned almost at the second mouth 1) and if I did not know that the same had happened to our Lord Christ Himself and to all the apostles and prophets, I would have despaired long ago and kept silent. But now, because the necessity of my office urges me to do so, I base myself on the fact "that one must obey God more than men" [Apost. 5, 29.], I am also more than willing to let go of my office and title of doctor, if it pleases the leaders 2) of the church (that is, Christ). But if I am to keep it, then whoever wants to, may be lenient with me.
1) Secunda lingua. This is spoken with reference to the title: a iinZuis tortiis - of evil mouths, according to Sirach 28, 16. in the Vulgate.
2) Lat.: rnasorldns.
and interpret them for the best. I will endeavor to work with all my strength so that Christ may proclaim and hear Christ. I say this, dear reader, because I preached a certain sermon on the ban to the congregation in Wittenberg, which I have almost forgotten, but my wretched adversaries remember it more than they should, and interpret it most sharply, not to say quite unreasonably. Therefore, I will take pains, as far as my memory will allow, to state the opinion, if not the words, of the whole sermon completely publicly, in order to prove that I have taught such things, which neither I, the teacher, nor the godly listener may regret. But what my friends have done with the free or false repetition of my speech 3) or are still doing, may the Lord grant that they may one day see it for themselves. Amen. Farewell.
3) periphrasi ant pseudophrasi. With this, Luther points to those who have transformed his speech into spiteful articles. Cf. the introduction.
*This writing appeared in Latin in many individual editions under the title: Korroo 66 virtuto oxeornmurrioatioiris k'ratri Martino Dutdor ^.UKustiniano a linAuis tortÜ8 tau dem evsrdsratus. The Weimar edition lists five from 1518; one by Joh. Grünenberg in Wittenberg, two by Valentin Schumann in Leipzig, one by Wolfgang Stöckel in Leipzig, one by Silvanus Otmar in Augsburg; furthermore four editions from 1519: two by Valentin Schumann, one by Melchior Lotther in Leipzig and one by Silvanus Otmar in Augsburg; finally an edition by Martin Landsberg in Leipzig without indication of the time. First our sermon is found in the Basel collections: in that of October 1518 p. O 4^; in that of February and that of August p. D ij; in that of March 1520 p. ?p 4^; in Martini Imtirorii inoukrationurr" pars urm, Lasiwao in Ä "dibn8 vldarn Dotri 1520 in6N86 Duiio, toi. 255. further, in the Latin Gesammtausgabe": Wittenberger (1545), Dorn. I, toi. 62; Jenaer (1564), Dorn. I, toi. 164; Erlanger, opp. var. NVA., Vol. II, p. 306; Weimarschen, Vol. I, p. 636 and Löscher, Reformations-Acta, Vol. II, p. 377. In German Uebersetzung it first appeared in 1559 and this was brought into the Hallische Theil p. 116, then into the Leipziger, Supplement, pp. The preface is once again in the Leipziger, Vol. XVII, p. 167. We have retranslated according to the Weimar edition, from which we have taken most of these bibliographical data.
876 L. v. a. ii. 307 f. 122. Luther's Sermon on the Power of the Ban. W. xix, io8g-iosi. 877
Sermon on the power of the ban, finally wrung from evil mouths by Brother Martin Luther, Augustinian. 1)
The sermon, which I owe you and which I have promised you so often, 2) I want to finally give, that is, today I want to talk about the power of the ban. So that you may understand this quite clearly, I will deal with it in good order.
First.
It is necessary to see what the spell of the church is, and what power and meaning the word has.
The ban is nothing other than a deprivation of fellowship and a separation from the fellowship of believers. The fellowship of believers is twofold: an inward and spiritual and an outward and physical one. The spiritual is one faith, one hope, one love towards God. The bodily is the participation in the same sacraments, that is, in the signs of faith, hope, and love, which, however, extends even further to a communion in things, company (usus), conversation, living together, and other bodily intercourse.
Therefore, just as in that first, spiritual communion no creature can either put a soul into communion or reconcile it if it is excluded from communion, but only God alone, so also no creature can take away this communion from it or separate it from communion, but only man himself through his own sin.
This opinion is clear enough, because no creature can give or take away faith, hope, love, according to the saying Rom. 8, 35: "Who will separate us from the love of God? Love of God?" and later [v.38.]: "I am sure that neither death nor life, neither angels nor principalities nor powers, neither things present nor things to come, neither things high nor things low, nor any other creature, will be able to separate us from the love of God.
1) This superscription is found in the Basel collection of Adam Petri, but is missing in the editions. In Löscher at the beginning of the preface.
2) See the introduction to this paper.
from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. And 1 Petr. 3, 13: "And who is there that can harm you, if ye follow that which is good?"
Second.
It follows that the ecclesiastical ban is only a deprivation of the external communion, namely of the sacraments, the funeral, the burial, the public prayer, then also (as it is said) of other things which belong to the bodily need and to the intercourse. For this opinion is well known. So Paul also writes, 1 Cor. 5, 11, "that they should have nothing to do, nor eat with him who lets himself be called a brother and is a fornicator, a blasphemer, a drunkard, a robber" 2c. And 2 Thess. 3:14: "If any man obey not our word which is in this epistle, denounce him, and have nothing to do with him, that he may be ashamed." It follows: "Yet hold him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother." If this is not speaking of the outward ban, without concerning the inward fellowship, I confess that I do not understand the apostle Paul. And John in the second epistle [v. 10. f.], "If any man come to you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not at home, neither salute him. For he that saluteth him maketh himself partaker of his evil works."
Third.
Being banished does not mean that the soul is handed over to the devil or deprived of the goods of the church and the common prayer of the same. This is perfectly clear from what has been said, because if faith, hope and love remain, true communion and participation in all the goods of the church also remain.
Fourth.
The ban, if it is just, rather indicates that the soul has been handed over to the devil and deprived of the spiritual communion of the church, because it is imposed on the one who, through mortal sin, has deprived himself of the communion of love and handed himself over to the devil, as, on the other hand, the re-ban is imposed on the one who, through mortal sin, has deprived himself of the communion of love and handed himself over to the devil;
878 L. ". ii, 30K-3I0. V. Luther's Writings from the Loosening and Binding Key. W. xix, insi-1094. 879
Reconciliation is a sacrament and outward sign of inward reconciliation and communion. Therefore, it is true that ecclesiastical excommunication does not inflict anything (infert), but presupposes that someone is in death and in sin, that is, in fact, spiritually separated [from the Church] (excommunicatum).
Fifth.
The ban is temporal and physical in such a way that it is not ordered against, but for the inner community: either to restore it, if it has been justly cast, or to increase it, if it has been unjust.
This is proved by the word of the apostle in the second epistle to the Corinthians in the last chapter [v. 10]: "I will act according to the power which the Lord has given me to amend, and not to destroy." I understand this at least in such a way that he cannot work destruction, but can only build through the power of the church. For he also banished that incestuous man, 1 Cor. 5:5, and gave him over to Satan in such a way that the spirit would nevertheless be blessed, and as said above, they are not to be kept as enemies, but punished as brethren, not that they might be brought to ruin, but that they might be put to shame. And to speak more boldly, even Christ as man had not this power to separate souls, as he speaks Joh. 6, 37. "All that come unto me I will not cast out," and again [v. 39.], "This is the will of the Father which hath sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he hath given me," and again in another place [Luc. 9, 56.], "The Son of man is not come to destroy men's souls, but to preserve them." Similarly, in reference to this, there is also a clear text [in Spiritual Law, Book 6, De sententia excommunicationis [on the falling of the ban), Cap. Cum medicinalis, which is very remarkable in that it says: "Since the excommunication is intended for healing, not for death, not for chastisement, not for extermination, provided only that the one against whom it has been pronounced does not despise it, the ecclesiastical judge may well take care that in pronouncing it he indicates that
he seeks that which is for the betterment and healing." So it is said there. Why is it not said "what serves for destruction and death", as some stupid, despondent (desperati) people fear, yes, as some tyrannical officials pretend? So the ecclesiastical ban is a godly motherly scourge, decreed over the body and bodily things, by which the church does not cast into hell, but rather calls back those who hasten to hell and urges them on to blessedness. Therefore, it must be received with the greatest joy and reverence, not to mention borne with the greatest patience.
Sixth.
For this alone, and most of all, care must be taken that the ban, such a faithful helper (ministerium) to blessedness, is not despised or borne with great impatience, because it must be loved not only for the sake of the power of the Church, before which one must always have reverence in and of itself, but also for the godly effect (operationem) of this power and for the promotion of one's own salvation. I will give a simile: A mother punishes her dear child, sometimes deservedly, sometimes without fault. Here it is obvious that it was a godly and salutary chastisement for the child. If, impatient with this maternal discipline, the child does not refrain from doing what is forbidden or does not do what is commanded, but rebels angrily against the mother or despises her, it will be guilty of transgressing the commandment of God, in which he commanded to honor the parents, and it will happen that from a very light chastisement, which was without sin, even meritorious, it will bring about for itself the most detestable guilt and eternal punishment. Thus we see (alas!) even nowadays such incidents that they murder officials, beat notaries and messengers, throw them into the water, capture them and commit other despicable monstrosities, which I believe they would not do if they did not believe, according to the widespread but erroneous opinion, that they were being punished by the law. They would not do this, as I believe, if they did not believe, according to the popular but erroneous opinion, that they are being condemned by the ban and are not rather being sought for salvation.
would. For this is why they add despair to these crimes, the last and most horrible of all evils. And this has been the cause that I was intent on this sermon and now also publish it, although God rightly allows this murder against the officials, because they desire that this mind should remain hidden from the use of the ban for bliss, so that they may all the more surely fortify their tyranny through the terror of the people, and finally also suffer the fate (extrema.) of the tyrants.
If, however, the people were made to understand by instruction the great necessity and the exceedingly salutary power of this power and ban, and that it does not serve against them but for their benefit, they [the officials] would find less danger and a calmer obedience among the people, and would also gain honor and love.
Therefore, dear brethren in the Lord, do not let these monstrosities be contested. The servants of this power may be officers or tax collectors, they may be, I say, good or evil, or whatever they are, the power itself will not harm you, but always benefit you, may it be rightly used or misused, only receive it rightly or seek with humility [to escape injustice and be delivered. Look to the mother, the church. What is it to you if she lays out her rod for you by the hand of an unworthy man? Nevertheless, it is the rod of your most blessed Mother, and a most salutary one at that.
Seventh.
Rather, take heed and fix your eyes on it, so that you either do or do not do what you are banished and scourged for, so much the more that you may not take the rod upon you. But ah, in all this it goes quite wrong: we do not direct our attention to what the rod intends, but only to what it does. For who is there among us now who would fear so much to offend God (and it is for this reason alone that we are banished when we are justly banished) as to strive to avoid the ban and to give Him
to escape? Thus it comes about that we always fear the punishments, even the so godly and good ones, more than the most atrocious sins; and to this contribute, unfortunately, by their so many threats and their domineering behavior, the servants of this exceedingly good power, the tongue-thrashers in the courts.
Eighth.
The ban must not only be pronounced because of rebelliousness in matters of faith (fidei), but because of any annoying gross offense. This is evident from what has been said before, since Paul commands in 1 Cor. 5, 11. and 2 Thess. 3, 14. that one should not have anything to do with fornicators either 2c., although it is a great pity and abuse of this power that people are sometimes put under ban for the seventh or eighth part of a guilder, while atrocious and grievous gross offenses are left unpunished, and in order to give a gloss to this tyranny, that they would be banished not because of their transgressions, but because of their obstinacy, as if this were not cruel enough, that they drag a poor man through such long distances before their so large torture chambers for the sake of so little money. But of this elsewhere.
Ninth.
This must be considered above all and in all these things, that the power of the church, because it is Christ's power, although for the sake of our sins it is mostly given to people like Pilate, Herod, Annas and Caiphas and other violent tyrants, is nevertheless always - and this is incumbent upon us - held in honor and cultivated with the highest diligence, according to the example of Christ, who honored Annas, Caiphas and Pilate in such a way. Therefore, even the most unseemly abuse must not move us not to cheerfully tolerate whatever it may do, or at least to reverently reject it. For our time is a very dangerous one, therefore we must
1) Here is an anacoluth in Latin.
882 L, V. L. II, 311-313. V. Luther's Writings on the Loosening and Binding Key. W. XIX, 1097-1099. 883
We must act most wisely, so that we do not, for the sake of persons, also disregard violence; indeed, for the sake of violence we must hold in honor even the most unworthy persons. For this is what God says to us in anger: "I will give them children as princes, and children shall rule over them," Isa. 3:4 [according to the Vulgate]. And this we can do all the more easily, since we know that they can do nothing for the good or for the harm of the soul, except occasionally, both to exercise us and to try us (et exercitative, et tentative) (that I speak thus).
Tenth.
An unjust ban is the noblest merit, therefore it must be borne with meekness, if your humbly presented excuse is not given room. For here you can speak the word, Ps. 109:28: "If they curse, you bless." Only see to it that you do not despise violence: the power of violence brings benefit, but contempt will plunge you into ruin. For if a child (as I have said) who has been undeservedly punished is the more favored by his mother after his innocent patient suffering has been recognized, how much more will he obtain greater favor with God who has patiently suffered chastisement in innocence even from his mother, the Church? Yes, if we are commanded to be willing and benevolent toward the adversary, because we are with him on the way [Matth. 5, 25.], how much more toward our most blessed mother, the Church, even if she should chastise us through the most unworthy people! For she remains the mother, because she remains the church, but it remains the church, because Christ, her bridegroom, remains forever.
In the case of an unjust ban, you must be extremely careful that you do not do, say, or refrain from doing the thing for which you are being banished, unless this is done without a
sin can happen. For since righteousness and truth concern the inner fellowship of the church, they must not be abated on account of the outward ban, even if it should come to the suffering of death, because he who feared the ban would in such a way come into the ban in the very worst way; he must therefore bear it patiently and die in the ban, not fearing either that he will not receive the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, no funeral, no burial 2c. will be granted to him. These are incomparably lesser things than that righteousness should be given for their sake. For even he who dies as one justly condemned will not be condemned for the sake of it, unless he dies unrepentant and in contempt of the ban. Repentance and humility solve and pacify everything, even if his body is dug up or thrown into the water. But blessed and blessed is he who died in an unjust ban; for the righteousness which he did not forsake, though he suffered so severe a chastisement, he will be crowned for ever.
Twelfth.
However, the popes and their servants must be reminded that they should impose the church penalties reluctantly and as rarely as possible; for since a church punishment (censura) is a kind of law, but every law is a force and an occasion of sin, and the law is not fulfilled without the grace of God, they cannot give the grace of God, that is, the fulfillment of the law itself, so by making much of the laws and church punishments they do nothing but give cause and occasion for the accumulation of sins and transgressions against God; For as much as we are required to obey their commands, they are much more required to take our weakness into consideration.
End.