Part 2 - 2/3

This page is under construction and what you see and read is the first step or the beginning of a process to get the best responsive websites for mobile phones and devices, which until now (2024) has not been created yet with Lutheran writings and books.

The main reason to publication of step one (or version 0.1.0) is the search functionality that can be used to searching for words or phrases (to find where Luther was writing it and reference to it).

Part 2 - 2/3

Dr. Martin Luther's

Complete Writings,

published by

Dr. Joh. Georg Walch.

Nineteenth volume.

Reformation Writings.

Disputes with the Papists.

New revised stereotype edition.

St. Louis, Mo.

Concordia Lutheran Publishing House (M. C. Barthel, Agent).

1889.

** Dr. Martin Luther's**

Reformation Writings.

Second Part.

Dogmatic - polemical writings.

A. Against the papists.

(Continued and concluded.)

Newly published on behalf of the Ministry of the German Evangelical Lutheran Synod

of Missouri, Ohio and other states.

St. Louis, Mo.

Concordia Lutheran Publishing House (M. C. Barthel, Agent).

1889.

** Foreword**.

This 19th volume contains the continuation and at the same time the conclusion of Luther's polemical writings against the papists. In it, not only the main writings, which Luther originally wrote in Latin, as "Of the Babylonian Captivity," "Against Henry, King of England," "How to Confess" (Confitendi ratio), "Luther's Judgment of Spiritual and Monastic Vows" are translated into German, but also the smaller writings (no. 89b. 107. 111. 126. 136. No. 21 and 37 in the appendix of this volume), Luther's sermons (No. 114. 115. 116. 122.), all disputations and letters. In other writings, which were published by Luther himself in both Latin and German, the German text has been compared with the Latin text, which has made it possible to correct some readings. (No. 129. 138. 158. 183.) The German writings have been carefully improved and freed from many hundred errors of the old edition. Several duplicates have been eradicated (in the old edition No. 177. 223 I 259.), and many incorrect time entries are

corrected. For the first time, the correct time determination is given for the text No. 110 in this volume. (Compare the introduction, p. 32.) The writings No. 164 of the old edition and No. 41 of the appendix have been omitted, which is accounted for in the introduction, pp. 31 and 34. Newly included, on the other hand, is the "Spottzettel Luther's vom Heiligthum des Cardinals zu Mainz," which has not yet been found in any edition of Luther's works. The writing "Vom Dolmetschen und Fürbitte der Heiligen," which Walch had torn apart in the old edition, is included in its entirety in this volume (No. 128).

May God grant that this new edition may now also be diligently used by us, so that we may recognize more and more clearly how great grace and blessing God has shown us by bringing His holy Word out of the rubble of papal darkness through His chosen armament, Doctor Martin Luther, brightly and purely to light again, and may we grow in knowledge of and faith in our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, amen.

St. Louis, Michaelis 1889.

A. F. Hoppe.

** Introduction**

to

first section of Luther's controversial writings against the papists.

XIII Luther's dispute with King Henry VIII of England.

Luther's quarrel with King Henry VIII of England arose from the fact that the king, in a very vehement writing full of invective and the most vexatious accusations against Luther, sought to refute the latter's book "Of the Babylonian Captivity of the Church" and to uphold the seven sacraments of the Roman Church. As a reward for these his efforts for the Roman Church and the Papal See, the Pope awarded him the title of Protector of the Faith.

Already on August 31, 1520, a part of the writing of the Babylonian captivity of the church 1) (No. 69 in this volume) was finished, probably already printed (excusum), as we see from his letter to Spalatin under this date. On October 6, the printing was completed and the writing was sent?) Fourteen days after its appearance, it was banned. This enormous reformation writing belongs, as Kolde (Martin Luther, p. 271) rightly says, "to the most spiritually powerful, which Luther ever wrote". In it he sang the higher hymn against Rome, which he sang at the end of the book.

1. The various editions of this manuscript are given in the first note to No. 69.
2. Cf. the list of some of Luther's writings that are relevant here, Col. 424.

of his writing to the German nobility. That it followed so soon - for the writing to the nobility was not completed until June 23 and appeared in mid-August - was probably due to the fact that an unnamed and unknown Italian monk in Cremona had written against the communion under both forms, and Alveld had published his treatise on the communion of the laity under both forms against Luther in Leipzig in July 1520. The writing about the Babylonian captivity of the church is addressed to Hermann Tulich, Corrector in Melchior Lotther's printing office in Wittenberg. 3) In it Luther proves that all those are ungodly who deny the laity communion under both forms. He calls it a "prelude" because he still wants to deliver a great deal to his time, 4) as soon as the papists will have overcome this book; a "recantation" because in this writing he denies the seven number of sacraments, while in his "Sermon of the New Testament, that is, of the Mass," published shortly before the writing was issued to the nobility, he still gives seven sacraments.

3. Cf. the 2nd note to Col. 4 of this volume.
4. As the completion of the Babylonian prison, Luther sees, as he says in the epilogue to his answer to Ambrosius Catharinus, his interpretation of the eighth chapter of the prophet Daniel (Walch, St. Louis Edition, Vol. XVIII, 1484 ff.), in which he proves "that in the Scriptures there is very much of their Prince and Head," namely, that he is the end-Christ.

2 Introduction.

mente had admitted. Here he accepts only three sacraments, baptism, the Lord's Supper and penance; the latter in a broader sense. These three, however, have been led into a miserable captivity by the Roman court, and the church has been deprived of all its freedom. Above all, however, Luther deals with the sacrament of the altar and proves from Scripture that it must be administered to communicants under both forms, according to the institution of Christ, and that the correct sacrament is not given under one form. This robbery of the one form is the first captivity of this sacrament. The second is the teaching that bread and wine should cease after the consecration, being changed into the body and blood of Christ, and that all those are declared heretics who will not believe this. However, Luther still allows either of these two opinions to stand, except that no one is held guilty of heresy if he believes that there is true bread and true wine on the altar. The third captivity is the ungodly abuse of this sacrament, that it has been made into a good work and a sacrifice; from it have come communities, brotherhoods, intercessions, merits, annual feasts, memorial days, and such like articles of commerce, and a mere fair has been made of the sacrament of God. But the sacrament can only be of use to those who receive it themselves or who hear Christ's words with a believing heart: "Given and shed for you for the forgiveness of sins. Thus, all masses offered for specific purposes, the so-called votive masses, and thus also everything through which the "venerable testament of God has been drawn into the bondage of the most ungodly profit", fall into this category.

In a similar way, Luther shows how baptism and repentance are also led into captivity. "Almost no one is left who remembers that he was baptized and boasts of baptism, after so many other ways have been invented to remit sins and go to heaven." When people have fallen into sins, they despair as if they have lost baptism, and begin to lean on repentance, relying on

abandoned. "Hence have arisen the innumerable burdens of vows, spiritualities, works, satisfactions, pilgrimages, indulgences, and sects, and such a flood of books, questions, opinions, and statutes of men, that the whole world can no longer contain, so that this tyranny afflicts the Church of God much more grievously than it ever afflicted the synagogue or any other nation under heaven."

Of the other so-called sacraments of the papal church, confirmation, marriage, priestly ordination and the last rites, Luther proves that they are not sacraments, but Roman charms, against God and His Word, a Babylonian captivity of the Church.

How powerfully and sensitively the Roman church was struck by this writing can be seen, among other things, from the fact that the imperial confessor Glapio had extracted 32 articles from it at the Diet of Worms as heresies, and that the articles which Luther was to recant at Worms were mainly taken from it. 1) Likewise, the University of Paris extracted 24 articles from this writing as erroneous. 2) and declared that this book was so full of various errors that it rightly deserved to be compared to the Koran. 3) Joh. Cochläus, 4) in his displeasure about this book, states that Luther borrowed much from Wiklef's and Hussen's books, which seemed to serve him for his indignation. Luther himself, however, in his "Answer to King Henry of England's Book" summarizes the behavior and rage of the papists in these words: "Two years ago I let go out a booklet in Latin called The Babylonian Prison, which made the papists nonsensical, and they have lied about it and hated me for taking pity on them. Everyone would have liked to devour it, but the fishing rod was too hard and too sharp for them.

As repugnant and detestable as this book was to the papists, as pleasant and beneficial was

1. Cf. Förstemann, Neues Urkundenbuch zur Geschichte der Reformation, p. 37 and p. 44.
2. Cf. Walch, St. Louis Edition, vol. XVIII, Col.
3. Ibidem, Col. 937.
4. In oonunsut. äs necessary st serixtis Imtdsri x. 28.

Introduction. 3

It is a good example for the lovers of the evangelical truth. Through it, among others, D. Johann Bugenhagen (Pomeranus), who was then rector of the Latin school at Treptow in Pomerania, came to the knowledge of the gospel. 1) Otto Slutow, church inspector there, had invited him and his colleagues as guests towards the end of the year 1520. At the table, Slutow showed the book of the Babylonian Captivity, which he had received from a friend in Leipzig, and especially asked Bugenhagen for a verdict on it. During the meal, Bugenhagen read a few pages and then hastily and hastily passed judgment: since the Savior of the world had suffered, many heretics had troubled the church and attacked it severely, but none had done so badly as Luther. But when he had read the book in its entirety and considered it more carefully, he passed a completely different judgment on his colleagues: "What can I tell you? The whole world is blind and in great darkness. This one man stands what is true." Through the testimony that Bugenhagen then gave, many were won for the gospel, among them the abbot of the place, Johannes Bodelwinus, and the preachers there, Joh. Kyrichius, and Joh. Lorichius, along with the deacon Christian Kettelhut, who now also preached the gospel. A fierce persecution arose, led by Bishop Erasmus in Camin, and Bugenhagen, forced to leave Treptow, turned to Wittenberg in the spring of 1521. The pastor of the town, Simon Heinsius, had died and Bugenhagen became his successor.

King Henry VIII of England also had a great hatred for Luther and therefore sent, on May 20, 1521, a letter to Emperor Carl V and a letter to Prince Ludwig of the Palatinate (No. 70 and 71 in this volume) with the request that these princes wanted to root out the weeds and the poisonous heresy, to drive this fragile, sick and wicked sheep far and wide from the Christian faith and to chase it away, the impure and infected member from the noblest part of the

1. Seckendorf, Historia IMdsrauisrui, üb. I, x. 179 and 182.

The body must be cut down in time, the heretical books and Luther himself must be completely destroyed by fire, force and sword and uprooted by the roots.

Probably driven mainly by ambition, King Henry VIII joined the ranks of the fighters against Luther and in 1521 had a refutation of Luther's writing "Of the Babylonian Captivity of the Church" issued under his name under the title: Assertion of the Seven Sacraments against Martin Luther 2) (No. 72 in this volume). It is dedicated to Pope Leo X and was solemnly presented to him by an envoy, John Clerk, on October 20, 1521. In return, Leo X gave him the title of "Protector of the Faith" and granted an indulgence for ten years to all who would read the King's writing. It cannot be determined whether the king himself wrote this scripture or whether he made use of outside assistance. He was not unlearned, for he had initially been appointed Archbishop of Canterbury by his father Henry VII. The theological studies, especially of Thomas Aquinas, which he had pursued in his youth, he continued when he became crown prince after the death of his elder brother and even as king. Therefore it is not impossible that he himself, as he wanted to be regarded for it, was the author of the writing. Luther, on the other hand, expressed the opinion 3) "that King Henry had given an ell of coarse cloth or two to it", that, on the other hand, Edward Lee, chaplain and almoner of Henry VIII, had written the book. Others hold Thomas Morus or Johann Fischer, bishop of Rochester, for the author. The latter assumption gains some probability from the fact that this book was included in the collection of Fischer's writings, and that he later sought to defend this book. Others say that Cardinal Wolsey helped the king with this work. In any case, this much is certain, that the book was quite appropriate to the king's school of thought.

2. The Latin title and indication of the editions can be found in the first note to No. 72.
3. In his German response to King Henry of England's book, § 4.

4 Introduction.

On the papal side there was no small rejoicing that such a powerful king had appeared as a fighter for the Roman see, as a defender of Roman doctrine. In Rome, his book was put on a par with the writings of Jerome and Augustine; in England, the clergy showered him with flattery of every kind and compared him to King Solomon; from Germany, Duke George wrote to him: "But how far we approved of Ew. Durchlaucht's writing and how useful we thought it to be for everyone is clear from the fact that we translated it from Latin into German and had it republished by the printers of our country." Emser, who had made the translation on Duke George's order, says in his letter to the Duchess Barbara of Saxony that among those who had written against Luther, none had come so close to the goal as the King of England.

If we now look at the Scriptures themselves, we find that there is nothing in them of correct proof from the Holy Scriptures. Luther summarizes the reasons presented in the book to the effect that the king always bases his opinions on the length of time and the number of people and concludes with the statement: "It must be so. On the other hand, the book contains a great wealth of invective and a variety of the most spiteful accusations against Luther. He calls Luther an excessively arrogant man, a member of Satan, a hellish wolf; he has a heart full of pus from which his mouth overflows, acts with a malice that no mouth can express and no pen can describe, but brings out of himself only empty wind. Luther is a plague, a vicious, deceitful, impudent, foolish, simple-minded man, a launderer, slanderer, liar, a death-striker who deprives people of body and soul. The main accusations he brings against Luther are the following: Luther contradicts himself because he now teaches differently than before; he called the Babylonian captivity a prelude because he was about to revoke the whole Christian religion; he taught that the more erroneous the teaching, the more he was a liar.

Because Luther says that no sin condemns but unbelief, he does not consider adultery, capital murder, perjury, patricide to be damnable sins; he makes faith a defense of a vicious life; he wants that secret confession should not be commanded, so that no one is deterred from sinning by a heavy penance and that everything is permitted to everyone; He emphasizes faith in such a way that it not only certifies good works, but also makes one bold for all evil deeds; his opinion is that faith is always sufficient for salvation without good works; he teaches that marriage is not a sacrament, so that in the future people will no longer place so much emphasis on marital fidelity.

After Luther had received this book in June, he announced his intention to Spalatin 1) on July 4, 1522, that he would respond to it, and on July 26, 1522, that he would proceed no less against the King of England than in his book against the false spiritual status of the pope and the bishops, because he saw that he was humbling himself in vain. Whoever has read the king's writing and seen from it how he dealt with Luther, will certainly not be surprised that Luther also put his plan into action. Luther's reply appeared in Latin in August 1522 under the title: Wider Heinrich, König von England, Martin Lutheri (No. 73b in this volume), then also in the same year in German by Luther himself under the title: Antwort deutsch Doctor Martin Luthers auf König Heinrichs von England Buch (No. 73a in this volume). The Latin edition is accompanied by a note to Count Sebastian Schlick dated July 15, 1522. We have found it necessary to bring a new translation of the Latin reply in addition to the German reply made by Luther himself, because Luther's work is not actually a

1. Cf. the list of some of Luther's writings that are relevant here, Col. 424.
2. The Latin title and editions are given in the notes to the headings of No. 73a and 73b.

Introduction. 5

Luther's writing is not to be called a translation of the Latin, but a free adaptation, which has essentially the same content, but is quite significantly shortened. At the beginning of his writing, Luther complains that while he always cries: Gospel, Gospel, Christ, Christ, his opponents answer nothing else but: Fathers, fathers, use, use, statutes, statutes. Then he defends himself against the accusation, as if he contradicts himself, making the distinction that in the things which every Christian must know for his salvation, as of faith, of love, of good works, of hope, of suffering, of dying, of baptism, of repentance, of the Lord's Supper, of the Law, of sins, of the grace of God, of free will, of Christ, of God, of the Last Judgment, of heaven and hell, of the Christian Church, of excommunication, and the like, never taught anything other than what the Scriptures say and always remained true. But of the other things that stand like weeds in the Christian field, as of the papacy, of the articles of the conciliar, of the teachers, of indulgences, of purgatory, of masses, of high schools, of spiritual vows, of the bishops who are now, of human laws, of the ministry of the saints, of new sacraments, and the like, he did not know in the beginning that they were contrary to Scripture, and only thought that they were without Scripture; He only wanted the Scriptures to be pure, clean, and certain, and therefore he was willing to leave the papacy in place and to help it. But because they maintain all their lies and iniquities and do not want to be punished, because through their resistance their lies have come to light more and more clearly by means of the bright Scriptures, Luther had to punish his first books by the last and revoke them in these matters that are outside the Scriptures; for he had given too much honor to the papacy. After that, he deals with indulgences, the power of the pope, and especially Holy Communion, upholding through God's Word the doctrine he had put forward: But of transubstantiation he explains himself in such a way that he had said before that it was all the same whether one held this way or the other about the change of bread; but now, after having explained the reasons of the

He says that it is ungodly and blasphemous if someone says that the bread is changed, but catholic and godly if one says with Paul: the bread we break is the body of Christ. He then briefly speaks of priestly ordination and marriage and (in the German answer) of the power of faith, which alone, without any works, can destroy sins. No one can do good works who is not first pious. God first forgives sin and purifies the heart through faith; but he who stands in faith does not sin, for the word of God to which he adheres is almighty and God's power; it does not let him fall or sink.

As thoroughly as Luther refuted the book of the king in this writing, none of his writings has been judged more hatefully than this one, because he, which cannot be denied, treated a "king" extremely harshly in it. This has been interpreted as if he were depriving the authorities of their due honor. He should have dealt gently and mildly with the one who blasphemed the king of honors, who spoke lies (against better knowledge), who reviled the teaching of the gospel, justification by faith alone, as the cause of sin, as hellish poison, as the very worst heresy and wickedness, because he was a king! In appearing against Luther as a hostile writer, the king did not wait for his magisterial office. As a king, it was least fitting for him to lie against Luther and his teachings and to use the lowest malicious words, and for the sake of his unroyal behavior he deserved two strikes. Although Luther gave him back his vile words, he did not repay him in kind, for lies are not to be found in Luther; he always stuck to the truth. 1) In our opinion, therefore, Luther is absolutely right when he says: "If a king of England is allowed to spew out his lies unashamedly, I may cheerfully shove them back down his throat, for in doing so he blasphemes all my Christian doctrine and smears his dirt.

1. Luther himself asserts these reasons in the penultimate paragraph of his German response to King Henry of England's book.

6 Introduction .

to the crown of my King of honors, which is Christ, whose doctrine I have."

However, we hear how Luther continues to defend himself against the accusation that he wrote too harshly against the King of England, which even several of his friends agreed with. Already on August 28, 1522, he wrote a letter to a good friend (No. 74 in this volume), in which he indicates the cause of this harsh letter. In it he says, as in two other letters 1) to Spalatin, September 4, 1522, and to Joh. Lang, Nov. (?) 1522, that he had done it with good deliberation and would henceforth no longer treat blasphemers and liars with gentleness. Christ, Peter and Paul (not to mention the prophets) had not always been gentle, but they had also scolded such people harshly and horribly. His friendly, gentle writings, his humble offering, his patient endurance of their lies and blasphemies only moved his adversaries to stronger raving and blasphemy, so that they found themselves completely hardened. Whoever would accept Luther's teachings with a right heart would not be annoyed by his blasphemy. It would also be judged quite unfairly: if his enemies scold and blaspheme, one would not want to see it, but would praise them for being the best Christians; in Luther, on the other hand, they do not notice the many good things, but pick up only the hard things and consider him a heretic. Those have scolded much more than Luther and are with great heaps nonsensical on the one Luther. It is God's judgment that those who are not worthy of the Gospel should be offended by such scolding and fall away. Why he is so harsh, one cannot see now, but will have to recognize it in his time and confess that it is out of a good heart and well done.

1. Cf. the list of some of the writings that have an impact here, Col. 425.
2. We are of the opinion that with these words Luther refers to the judgment of the Lord; likewise in the letter to Spalatin of September 4, 1522. In contrast, Köstlin (3rd edition), vol. i, 677, says: "We will, of course, not be able to find such a justification of his procedure by a later turn of events." Also in the letter to Spalatin of March 11, 1527, which refers to Luther's harsh letter in his

It was to be expected that Luther's answer would provoke the king's anger. On February 20, 1523, he sent a letter through a special herald to the Dukes of Saxony (No. 75 in this volume), namely to Prince Frederick, his brother John, and Duke George, in which he complains about the dishonor that Luther has done to his royal name and honor, and requests that they, as princes of the same bloodline as the kings of England, would like to curb Luther and his accursed sect; if it could not be done with kindness, also with bloodshed. Finally, he asks them not to allow Luther's translation of the Bible to be spread.

Before the herald could hand over the letter from his king to Elector Frederick (which happened on April 27, 1523), Knight Hans von Planitz wrote to Elector Frederick (No. 76 in this volume) on April 24, 1523, informing him of what he had learned from the English herald on the way, so that the latter would not come before him without the Elector's prior knowledge. Planitz, however, escorted the herald from Nuremberg, where he had been the Elector's envoy at the Imperial Diet, to Altenburg. On April 28 or 29, 3) 1523, the letter of reply from the Elector Frederick and his brother, Duke John (No. 77 in this volume), together with a passport 4) (No. 78) were handed over to the herald. This answer will probably not have turned out quite according to the wishes of King Heinrich. The two princes testify in it that they want to keep themselves as Christians and obedient members of the Christian church by God's grace. They do not undertake to represent Luther's teachings, writings and sermons, but leave everything at its value and leave it to its own responsibility, since it would be difficult for them, without the divine Scriptures, because they do not have the necessary knowledge and experience in these matters, to do anything.

"Answer to the King of England's blasphemy title," Luther says, "but Christ will judge."

3. For this timing, see the last note to No. 77.
4. In the same the name of the herald Raphael Jork York? is given.

Introduction. 7

to act or to undertake. They also remind the king that he himself has written that he considers it unseemly to enter into a disputation with Luther, and that he will not rage with the nonsensical man and will never become so nonsensical that he should be annoyed that he is scolded by a nonsensical man for a nonsensical man. Furthermore, they announce that at the last Imperial Diet in Nuremberg, the papal nuncio received this answer from the emperor and the empire to his question: "How is this matter to be dealt with? What would be decided in this concilium by the assembly of common Christianity, they would abide by as Christian princes, as they have also now proven in this matter of their hope no differently than befits Christian people.

The response of Duke George of Saxony to the letter of King Henry VIII (No. 79 in this volume) was of a completely different nature. (No. 79 in this volume), which he handed over to the Herald on May 9, 1523. The king's letter had been delivered to the duke on April 30. 1) Duke George states that he would not have allowed the publication of Luther's writings to go unpunished in his lands. He has. He has forbidden Luther's writings against the king in his country and has given the printer who first offered them for sale a severe prison sentence. Indeed, he had the king's excellent writing translated and republished by his printers. Luther's book clearly shows that its author has nothing to protect himself with except nonsensical blasphemies. The injustice done to the king was as painful to all noble German princes as if it had been done to them. Because Luther was not in his territory, he could not do anything against him, but he tried to prevent Luther's writings as well as Luther's followers in every way. For this reason, he also had all the copies of Luther's

1. See § 1 of this paper.

German translation of the New Testament, through which Luther wanted to bring his teachings to the people, for his own money. Let everyone recognize that, even if everything works to the detriment of the church, he was not lacking in will but rather in ability. From Luther's teaching that the necessity of both good and evil depends on God, all Lutheran errors flowed, namely, that free will is nothing; from the blind reason of men; from the contempt of good works; from the rejection of all customs as well as other human ordinances. He wanted to make every effort to put a stop to these.

Probably on May 13, 1523, Spalatin reported in a letter to Elector Frederick (No. 80 in this volume) about the departure of the English herald and mentions in particular that he had complained that he had been delayed so long by Duke George, that the latter had not let him come before him personally, that he had been treated unfriendly by his courtiers, that a good part of the gift of honor had been stolen; On the other hand, he praised the kind treatment that the Elector and his best brother, Duke John, had bestowed upon him, and he also praised both princes as pious and wise people.

As long as Luther was convinced that one of his opponents was stubbornly obstinate, he did not want to use any restraint against him, as he expresses in his letter to Johann Lang in November (?) 1522. (In this volume, appendix, no. 1.) As soon as he thought he had good reason to hope for such an opponent, he was not ashamed to humble himself before him in order to win him over to the cause of the gospel. This was the case with King Henry VII of England. Motivated by manifold ideas of his friends, especially by letters of the exiled King Christian of Denmark, perhaps also at the instigation of his Elector and Duke John, Luther wrote a humble missive to King Henry VII of England.

8 Introduction .

The first draft of this letter was sent by Luther to Spalatin 1) on May 15, 1525, with the request that he add to it or change what was necessary. What Luther writes at the beginning of the text No. 83: "I was not moved to do this without cause, nor by lesser people," also seems to indicate that Luther was prompted to write this letter by his princes. The words of Luther just mentioned cannot refer to King Christian, because Luther himself names him in § 10 (of No. 83). According to Luther's letter to Spalatin 2) of June 21, 1525, it seems as if the rumor had gone out that letters or writings of the King of England entitled to good hope for him; for Luther speaks of such in immediate connection with the letter of the King of Denmark. On September 1, 1525, the letter was actually written and probably, as can be seen from the latter letter to Spalatin, handed over to a messenger through Spalatin's mediation and sent to the King of England. In this letter, Luther humiliates himself in the interest of the cause of the Gospel with the greatest self-denial before the King of England. He says that credible witnesses have informed him that the booklet, which went out under the name of the king, did not come from him, but from malicious sophists who misused his name. Therefore, for the sake of the love, suffering and honor of Christ, he asks the king to forgive him for what he has offended him with, and also offers, if it should be so pleasing to the king, to recant all this in another public book. Luther, however, expressly excludes his doctrine from such recantation, because he "teaches nothing else than that we must be saved through faith in Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who suffered for us and was raised again. Finally, he asks God that the king become a perfect disciple of Christ, a confessor of the Gospel and Luther's gracious Lord, and pronounces,

1. Cf. the list of some of Luther's writings that are relevant here, Col. 425.
2. Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 977 f. § 2.

that he was waiting for a gracious and kind answer.

It took a long time, almost a year, until this missive of Luther's came into the hands of the king, therefore his answer to Luther's above-mentioned missive (No. 82 in this volume) was delayed until the end of the year 1526 and only reached Luther's hands around New Year's Day 1527. This answer of the king was extremely hostile and vituperative, as Luther remarks in a letter to Wenceslaus Link about Christmas 1526 3) (in this volume, appendix, no. 11), "that it has the appearance, as if he is glad about the opportunity to be able to take revenge on me". In a vile manner, the king repeatedly speaks out about the marriage alliance Luther had entered into with a nun sanctified to God, reviles in many words Luther's heresy of faith and good works, by which he had plunged countless souls into hell, and demands that he confess his errors and recant his heresies.

This long writing of the king, for whose author Luther considered Erasmus, as he states in a letter to Spalatin of February 1, 1527 and to Johann Lang of February 4, 1527 (in this volume, appendix, no. 3 and no. 2), Luther countered at the beginning of the year 1527, probably already in February, his short reply to the king's blasphemous writing in England, Titel (no. 83 in this volume), which is mainly directed against the title under which Emser had published Luther's missive together with the king's answer in German translation: "Ein Sendbrief Martin Luthers an den König in Engelland, Heinrichen dies Namens den achten, darinnen er verzicht 4) und Gnade begtet, um das, damit er gemeldten König närrisch und zu jähe ver-

3. About the time determination of this letter, which is assigned to the year 1525 by Walch and also by De Wette, Vol. Ill, p. 58 s., compare Col. 425, note 2, and Köstlin, Martin Luther (3rd edition), Vol. II, p. 146 aä p. 646.
4. "Belicht" i.e. forgiveness. Köstlin misunderstood the word "verzicht" and therefore changed the title of vol. II, p. 145 to: "darin er verzichtet und um Gnade begtet.

Introduction. 9

I have promised to revoke the same. The now reported Serene King, Prince and Lord 2c. Antwort auf obgenannten Sendbrief, einem jedem Christen nützlich und christlich zu lesen." This title was intended to give the impression that Luther had recanted his teaching. Therefore, in this writing, Luther asks his readers "not to turn back on the title that they have printed on it with great courage and now shout and rejoice: Luther has recanted . . . But that I should recant something in secret letters, which I teach with public writings, is nothing." "Since I let myself be persuaded that the king of England had turned back and was inclined to the Gospel, I went to and wanted to excuse my person against his person." Many people who were favorably disposed toward the Gospel also took offense at this writing of Luther's because of its harshness, as Luther wrote to Spalatin 1) on March 11, 1527: "It is wonderful how many people, even among our own, take offense at my little book against the king of England, although it seems to me very necessary against the so great hope of the devil; but Christ will judge." However, although there was great joy in Rome that such a great, powerful king had published writings against Luther, and the followers of the Pope thought that Luther, overwhelmed by the great prestige of his opponent, would now have to remain silent, even to many, Many who loved the Gospel and were friendly toward Luther were not comfortable with it, and the fear arose that it would not go well, so according to God's advice this controversy also had to serve to strengthen the cause of the Gospel and many would fall in with it. 2)

XIV Luther's dispute with Duke George of Saxony.

Duke George of Saxony, the cousin of the Chursächsichen princes, was a laudable secular regent, a friend of scholars,

1. Walch, old edition, vol. XVII, 2696.
2. Cf. Sarpi, Histor. eouoil. Iü>. I,

p. 26.

He was a patron of the sciences and had a good education himself, for he understood and spoke Latin and wrote most of his letters himself, 3) both in German and Latin; in the most important imperial affairs, Emperor Carl V consulted him.

Not immediately after the beginning of the Reformation, he emerged as an open enemy of Luther. For he too, like the other German princes, recognized the necessity of a reformation of the church, but wanted it to be limited to purely external things. Only the depravity and immorality of the clergy, the great pomp and wealth of the bishops and high prelates offended him, and the fact that so much money was being drawn from the German land through indulgences was a thorn in his side. Therefore, he liked some of the first writings of Luther, which were directed against the indulgences, very much, and he promoted the realization of the Leipzig disputation, was also personally present, because he expected honor from it for his University of Leipzig. 4) He also allowed Luther's writings to be printed in Leipzig. But he was annoyed by Luther's teachings on faith and divine grace. When he attacked the supremacy of the pope and began to teach against the communion under one form, he became Luther's determined enemy, a persecutor and tyrant against the followers of the Protestant doctrine. His high officials, the chancellor Pflug, the councillor Carlowitz, the secretary Emser, along with the bishops of Merseburg and Meissen did their utmost to stir up the Duke's anger against the pure doctrine, so that after the Leipzig disputation he was not only inaccessible to the Gospel, but also hostile to it, but, hostile to it, did nothing that was in his power to hinder the course of the gospel and, where it had already taken root, to suppress and eradicate it.

Already about the first sermon that Duke George heard from Luther's mouth, on the feast day of St. Jacob, July 25, 1517, in the castle's

3. Cf. Kolde, Friedrich der Weise, p. 32, note 3.
4. Cf. Duke George's letter to Luther, No. 98 in this volume, § II, and Luther's letter to Spalatin, August 13, 1519, Walch, old edition, Vol. X V, I35S, § 5.

10 Introduction.

In a sermon in the church of Dresden, in which he explained that there was no reason to doubt his blessedness because those who heard God's word with true faith were righteous disciples of Christ and chosen for eternal life, he expressed himself very displeasingly and said: He wanted to give a lot of money because he had not heard this sermon, because it only made the people safe and nefarious.

The first reason for Luther's dispute with Duke George was Luther's sermon, which he published in December 1519: Ein Sermon von dem hochwürdigen Sacrament des heiligen wahren Leichnams Christi und von den Bruderschaften (No. 84 in this volume). In it, he lays special emphasis on the fact that through this holy sacrament the glorious fellowship of faith, love, mutual service and common suffering is signified and worked, and exhorts to this right Christian fellowship. On the other hand, he warns against the brotherhoods that were going on at that time, 1) in which one under the name of some saint or the holy virgin or the holy corpse of Christ for the benefit of the members of the brotherhood, who had paid their entrance fee of one to twenty guilders and otherwise paid their contributions, Luther had the confraternity hold vigils and masses, after which they "gave the whole day and night and other days to the devil" "with eating, drinking, wasting money, yelling, screaming, chatting, dancing and wasting time. Luther urges, if one wants to keep brotherhoods, that they be made similar to the right divine brotherhood mij showing love and service to one's neighbor. One should use the money that one wants to spend to feed the poor or otherwise help the needy and needy. One should not see to it that many masses are held, but strive that one increases in the meaning and the faith of the sacrament, then it would stand better in Christianity.

It was especially one sentence in this sermon which caused the opposition of the opponents of the

1. Cf. Kolde, Friedrich der Weise, p. 74 f., where the 86 brotherhoods to which Degenhard Pfeffinger belonged at his death (1519) are listed.

It is considered good by me that the church in a common concilio again decrees that all men be given both forms, like the priests. On the basis of these words, the Leipzig theologians, as Luther wrote to Spalatin, accused him of Bohemian heresy on January 10, 1520 (in this volume, Appendix, No. 4), and proclaimed that Luther was a Bohemian by birth and education. Luther suspects that this little seed was sown by Ochsenfart (Dungersheim). In order to refute both accusations of his enemies, that he "demanded and commanded" communion under both forms and that he was a Bohemian by birth, Luther wrote after the middle of January 1520 an explanation of several articles in his Sermon vom hochwürdigen Sacrament des heiligen wahren Leichnams Christi (No. 87 in this volume). Luther sent a finished copy of this writing to his friend Joh. Lang on January 26, 1520?)

The sermon was in print on November 29, 1519, 2) and came into the hands of Duke George on Christmas Eve. Incited by Emser and others, he wrote a letter to the Elector Frederick on December 27, 1519 (No. 85 in this volume), in which he announced that, in his and other scholars' opinion, this booklet of Luther's was "almost Prague" and "basically brought much heresy and annoyance with it. Since Luther began to preach, more than six thousand followers of the Communion under both forms had increased in Bohemia, the Bohemian heresy was strengthened, and because Luther had all his sermons printed, he wanted to cause irreparable damage through them in all lands, also in those of Duke George; Indeed, through his printed writings, if this were not resisted, Luther would be bishop and leader of the heretics (Häresiarcha) at Prague, while the Elector thought he had him as doctor in Wittenberg. Therefore, the Elector may prevent the aggravation and damage in Christendom by appropriate decrees. In the answer

2. Cf. the list of some of the writings that have an impact here, Col. 486 ff.

Introduction. 11

To Duke George, on December 29, 1519, the Elector declares (No. 86 in this volume) that he does not defend Luther's teachings, and that he also completely refrains from such matters; however, he hears that Luther's teachings are considered Christian by many scholars and persons of understanding. He leaves them with their value and with his (Luther's) responsibility, especially since Luther's matter is already under judicial decision and Luther has also offered to appear before the commissary appointed by the pope and to be judged in equity.

Shortly thereafter, another contender against Luther's sermon appeared on the scene. On January 24, 1520, the Bishop of Meissen, Johann von Schleinitz, issued a letter against Luther's sermon on the reverend sacrament (No. 88 in this volume). 88 in this volume), in which he decreed that Luther's sermon should be confiscated everywhere, because in it, contrary to the statutes of the recent Lateran Council, the use of the Holy Sacrament in both forms was recommended, whereby the obedient members of the Church would be given cause to doubt the Sacrament and its reception, and great trouble, error and division would be caused in the Church of God, especially in the diocese of Meissen, which borders on the land of condemned error (Bohemia).' Furthermore, he commanded that in order to counteract the trouble caused by the booklet in his diocese, the people should be instructed by sermons that under every form the Lord Christ is whole, and they should be taught that those who, in obedience to the Mother, the Church, are satisfied with one form, deserve more by taking it than by communion under both forms. This decree was issued by the bishop with the advice and consent of his chapter and posted everywhere. It was issued under the seal of the official office at Stolpen, but in the name of the bishop, who had his residence there.

On February 5, 1520, Luther wrote to Spalatin that the bishop of Meissen had banned his sermon in a public note and sent him a Latin copy of the note. At the same time he showed him his ab-

The bishop refuses to answer. Three days later, he informs him that he wrote the German answer to the bishop's note yesterday (February 7). On February 11, he writes to the bishop: he should not be surprised at the vehemence of Luther's answer to the note, which went out under the official's seal in Stolpen (No. 89a in this volume), which is well deserved by his opponents. 1) The Latin answer to the same (No. 89b in this volume) is now in progress. At the same time Luther asks for the bishop's note back, because he needs the best tomorrow or at the latest the day after tomorrow, in order to attach it to the Latin answer. Immediately after sending this letter, Luther received a warning from Spalatin that he should not write vehemently against the Bishop of Meissen. But it was too late; Luther wrote to Spalatin on February 12 (in this volume, Appendix, No. 5) and informed him that the writing was already under the press. Thereupon Luther received from Spalatin, as soon as he had received a finished copy (on February 16, such a copy was already in Stolpen), a letter full of reproaches about the vehemence in his answer to Stolpen's note, against which Luther defends himself in his letter to Spalatin (No. 90 in this volume), before February 18, 2) 1520, and justifies his vehemence. In the postscript to this letter, he repeats that Spalatin's accusation that his advice was despised was unfounded, because Spalatin did not remember that the German answer was almost finished when he received the warning. Spalatin's advice had come too late. On the other hand, Luther promises him in a letter on February 18, 3) that he wants to print the Latin answer.

1. The writing, which Luther sent to Spalatin at the same time as this letter, is not this "answer to the note", but the Tessaradecas, a consolation writing, which is dedicated to the Elector Frederick. Walch, St. Louis Edition, Vol. X, 1816 contains a print of the same.
2. That this letter is to be placed before February 18 and is earlier than the one reported by De Wette, Vol. 1, 413, is evident from what we have reported in the first note to No. 90, taken together with what Luther asserts in the postscript to this letter.
3. Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 673.

12 Introduction.

We will arrange it as gently as possible and send it to him for review before it is printed. This would also have happened with the German answer, if it had not already been in print. As a result, the considerably more extensive Latin writing turned out to be much gentler than the German. That Luther did not direct his answer directly against the bishop of Meissen, but chose the above-mentioned title, he did so because he did not want to believe that this more "foolish than foolish" decree originated from him, because he was much too pious and learned for that. There were only two or three lickspittles who misused the name of such a great bishop and the church to cover their ignorance and spitefulness; he wanted to answer them with this. First, Luther shows the silliness that in the decree it is described as annoying, rebellious, unholy, and presumptuous if someone expresses the wish that a council would decide something, and yet Luther did not teach that one should pass both forms, but, although it seems good to him, he expressly put it aside to the determination of a council. Luther then argues that the author of the note cites no better reason for his action than the last Roman concilium, not yet ten years old, which is considered nothing in Rome and is not held in high esteem anywhere, serves to strengthen the Bohemian error. Furthermore, that they lead the saying for the One Figure: Obedience is better than sacrifice, is clumsy; for the Bohemians require obedience to Christ, who has instituted both forms in the Gospel, and rightly accuse us of disobedience to the Gospel. This saying puts us defenselessly into the hands of the Bohemians by giving them the sword against us. Finally, that it is commanded to be taught that Christ is wholly under every form is done out of malice, in order to bring Luther under suspicion as if he did not believe this, while he never denied such, yes, not even the Bohemians.

Another cause of dispute was the translation of the New Testament published by Luther. The printing had already begun in May 1522, and in July the following were published

1. On September 25, Luther sent a finished copy to the castle captain von Berlepsch at Wartburg Castle. The very large print run was very well received, was soon out of print, and a second edition appeared in December. Since the enemies of the Gospel feared that if the common man got hold of the Bible, he would see the truth of Luther's teachings and the groundlessness of the Pabst, especially since Luther had added marginal glosses to his translation in which he attacked the Pabst, and since woodcuts had been inserted into the Revelation of John, which were partly aimed at the Pabst, they took measures to prevent the distribution of the New Testament. On November 7, 1522, Duke George of Saxony issued a mandate to hand over the New Testament translated by Luther (No. 91 in this volume). In it, he recalls that he had already seriously commanded that no one should dare to read, buy, or sell Luther's books, or to have them with him. Now, however, that the German translation of the New Testament has been published in Wittenberg, which is generally believed to have been translated by Luther, 2) he orders that anyone who has such a book in his possession should deliver it to the nearest magistrate. The money spent for it would be refunded, but the person concerned should state where and from whom, and also how much he had received such books. The delivery was to be made by Christmas 1522, under threat of severe punishment. The success that Duke George had with this mandate is extraordinarily low. 3) According to the reports of the three bailiffs in question, four copies were delivered in the bailiwick of Leipzig (among them two that were ordered for Duke Heinrich of Mecklenburg; the third was delivered by the bailiff Georg von Wiedenbach, with the
2. Cf. Walch, old edition, Vol. X V, Appendix, No. 92.
3. It went out in folio with the simple title: Das neve Testament, Deutzsch, Vuittenberg, without indication of the translator, the printer and the year. (Köstlin, Martin Luther, Vol. I, 600.)
4. Cf. Seidemann, Erläuterungen zur Reformationgeschichte, pp. 56 ff.

Introduction. 13

Remark that it had been given to him by Lotther), in the bailiwick of Meissen four copies, in the bailiwick of Weißenfels, however, not a single one. Therefore, it also has to do with the one, whose Duke George claimed against the King of England in his letter of May 9, 1523 (No. 79 of this volume, § 10): "we have taken all copies of this book, as many as were brought into our country and sold in it, for our own money from those who had bought them," was not much, because despite all his efforts he could not get rid of more than a few florins for the few copies, because some of the books were delivered "to the gracious lord for obedience", without asking for money for them.

During an occasional visit to Weimar in October 1522, Luther delivered, among other things, a sermon by secular authorities. Duke John of Saxony, who had heard it, requested that Luther print it. This was done; But prompted by the commands of Duke George of Saxony, 1) the Dukes of Bavaria, and the Elector of Brandenburg that the New Testaments be delivered, he gave it a different form, and the sermon became "von weltlicher Obrigkeit, how far one owes obedience to them", in which he proved that secular authorities are not entitled to rule over faith and conscience, that they are not allowed to give such commandments and that therefore the subjects "should not hand over one leaf, not one letter". This writing is found in the St. Louis edition, vol. X, 374 ff, and there, in the preface Col. 52 ff. the necessary is said about it.

Shortly thereafter, another dispute arose with Duke George over the consolation pamphlet that Luther sent to Hartmuth von Cronberg shortly after his return from the Wartburg, in March 1522, under the title: "A Missive to all those who suffer comforting persecution on account of the Word of God, by D. Martin

1. The mandate of Duke George was also posted in the lands of Duke Henry of Saxony. Cf. Seidemann, Erläuterungen, p. 52 s.

Luther wrote to the honorable Hartmuth von Cronberg", in which Luther consoled him about the loss of his possessions, the small town and castle of Cronberg. Castle Cronberg, which he had lost through participation in the feuds of his father-in-law Franz von Sickingen. The words, which Duke Georg, when a printed copy came to his hands, 2) referred to himself and which most likely also applied to him, are the following 3): "Such joy and gladness in Christ the wretched enemies do not recognize, and are angry with us that we tell them about it and offer it to them, wanting to kill us for the sake of life. Oh God! The almighty resurrection of Christ is too much of a greater defiance than that he should be made afraid and cowardly by their instant violence of straw and paper tyranny. The one is primarily the water bubble N.. 4) defies heaven with its high belly, and has renounced the gospel; also has it in mind that he wants to eat Christ like a wolf eats a mosquito; also makes himself believe that he has not bitten a little scratch into his left spur, and rages before all others. I have prayed for him with all my heart, and have almost taken pity on his horrible run-up, but I worry that his sentence has long been deserved" 2c. On December 28, 1522, Duke George received the reprint of the letter to Cronberg and issued a letter to Luther on December 30 (No. 92 in this volume), in which he inquires whether Luther confessed that he had let the letter go out to Hartmuth von Cronberg. Luther's reply to Duke George's letter (No. 93), which took place on January 3, 1523, was very vehement. Throughout, he addresses him in the same. He addresses him as "Ew. Fürstliche Ungnaden", but signs himself "Martinus Luther von GOttes Gnaden Evangelist zu Wittenberg". It is all the same to him how Duke George wants to receive what Luther has written, because in everything,

2. Luther himself states that he neither arranged nor ordered the printing. Therefore, a considerable time passed between the writing of the letter and the arrival of a printed copy in Duke George's hands. Cf. Seidemann, Erläuterungen, p. 76.

3. Walch, old edition, vol. XV, 1983 f., Z 7 and 8. 4) One edition > here has the name of Duke Georg.

14 Introduction.

whatever he acts or speaks against the same, he offers himself justly, and with God's help he will also receive it as right; God, however, will find the power well. Luther was being maliciously lied to by the Duke, and would have just cause to complain of iniquities, but he kept silent about it all; however, he would not fear any water bubble to death. Duke George became even more bitter about this and on January 17, 1523, he complained to Elector Frederick 1) with the request, "E. L. should show himself against Luther in such a way, so that we and everyone may judge that E. L. is not pleased to blaspheme and revile us as your cousin and flesh and blood so innocently". On the basis of this statement of claim, an extensive correspondence between Chursachsen and Duke Geor ensued, 2) which only came to its end on May 11, 1523, when both sides agreed that Luther should be summoned to Naumburg on May 20 before a court of arbitration, which should consist of three members of the Elector and three members of the Duke. However, nothing came of the matter; why not is not known. However, we see from a letter of Duke George to the Elector John of February 19, 1529, that around Exaudi 1523, their mutual councils had negotiated with each other at Naumburg and that he (Duke George) had then put the matter to rest at Frederick's and John's request. In addition, Duke George had turned for advice and help in this matter to the Imperial Regiment in Nuremberg, to his brother Duke Henry and to Count Albrecht of Mansfeld; all of them unanimously advised him to refrain from seeking his right against Luther, but gave him their "sympathy". The imperial regiment could not be set in motion against Luther even by Georg's reproaching him for the way in which Luther, in his writing on secular authority, had called the princes in general knaves.

1. The letter is found in Seidemann's "Erläuterungen" p. 63 ff.
2. Seidemann 1. e. p. 66 ff. lists 20 to and from writings. The correspondence of Duke Georg with his brother Duke Heinrich, with Count Albrecht von Mansfeld and with the Michsregiment at Nuremberg is also found there.

had cloaked. 3) Four letters to Link and Spalatin concerning this dispute can be found in the appendix of this volume, No. 6 to No. 9. A short excerpt from them, as far as the present matter is concerned, has been given in Col. 492 f.

Once again, in 1527, Luther's translation of the New Testament became the cause of a dispute, in which, however, only Duke George and his family were active, but Luther remained silent about the multiple falsehoods and obviously false accusations that were brought against him. As early as September 21, 1523, Emser had Wolfgang Stöcke! in Leipzig state: "For what reason and cause Luther's interpretation of the New Testament had been forbidden to the common man. With an apparent indication of how, where and in which places Luther had perverted the text and acted unfaithfully, or with false glosses and prefaces had led him out of the old Christian path to his advantage and delusion. By the Ordinario Loci, my gracious lord, Lord Adolph, Bishop of Merseburg and Prince of Anhalt 2c., übersichtiget and approved", 158 quarto leaves. A second edition in octavo appeared in Dresden in 1524 under the title: "Annotationes Hieronymi Emser über Luthers Neu Testament gebessert und emendirt"; a third edition in Leipzig in 1528 in octavo. In the extensive preface and in the annotations, Emser wanted to bring more than a thousand heresies and errors on Luther, but all that he has brought forward is miserable useless stuff and comes to the point that Luther in his translation had departed from the old Latin version and used some words differently than they are usually taken; these are supposed to be the heresies and errors.

3. Köstlin, Martin Luther, Vol. I, 629. - Earlier, Duke George had already appealed to the Imperial Regiment Against Luther. He had sent Luther's book "Von beider Gestalt des Sacraments zu nehmen" to the same and expressed the hope, "because now", after Luther had returned from the Wartburg to Wittenberg, "one knew well where Martinus abstained and where he had his being, therefore one would probably show oneself duly in it. Cf. Kolde, Friedrich der Weise, p. 63, the letter of Hans von der Planitz to Elector Friedrich, from Nuremberg, May 14, 1822. Planitz says there about Duke Georg, he "is quite heated in this matter.

Introduction. 15

Emser's writing is rough, un-German and therefore incomprehensible. Then, in 1527, Stöckel 1) published Emser's New Testament in folio under the title: "Das Neue Testament nach Laut der christlichen Kirchen bewährten Text corrigirt und wiederum zurecht gebracht", mostly a reprint of Luther's translation. But where Emser deviated from Luther and added to his own, he spoiled the matter. That is why Luther called him the "Sudler in Dresen". Luther himself publicly stated this in his "Sendbrief vom Dolmetschen und Fürbitte der Heiligen", 2) 1530: "The Sudler in Dresen confesses that my German is sweet and good, and saw well that he could not make it better, and yet wanted to disgrace it; went to and took before him my New Testament almost from word to word, as I have made it, and did my preface, glossa and name of it, wrote his name, preface and gloffa to it, thus sold my New Testament under his name. Dear children, what a pity it was that his sovereign condemned and forbade to read Luther's New Testament with an atrocious preface, but at the same time commanded to read Sudler's New Testament, which is exactly the same one that Luther made. Duke George's preface to Emser's New Testament, dated August 1, 1527, is included in No. 94 of this volume. From it, one can clearly see how justified Luther's accusation against him is, that he "rudely lies" against Luther, and how good reason Luther had to act harshly against him. 3) He does not mention Luther's teaching

1. Seidemann, Erläuterungen, p. 52. Walch in his introduction p. 37 states "zu Dresden". Waldau in "Emsers Leben und Schriften", p. 68, names neither printer nor place of printing for the first edition. Walch's information will be correct, since, as it seems, Stöckel moved from Leipzig to Dresden.
2. Walch, old edition, Vol. XXI, 313, ? 4. in this volume, Col. 971. We have included this writing, which Walch had reworked, in this volume in its entirety, Col. 968 ff.
3. Again and again the accusation arises that Luther wrote too harshly against the enemies of the gospel. We are of the opinion that this accusation cannot be countered more effectively than by pointing out how Luther's opponents reviled and blasphemed the Lord Jesus Christ and His Church in him. Therefore we leave here a more extensive extract from this

alone "a glaring, heretical doctrine," his followers "a godless sect," censures him: "he has in many places perverted the New Testament, added to and detracted from it, provided it with heretical glosses, reviled and rebuked the canonical writings of the holy apostles, and cloaked his godless doctrine under the appearance of the Gospel," but even goes so far as to claim that "Luther has famously said that he wants to make it so that in a short time no church, no priest, and neither prince nor bishop shall remain under heaven. He blames Luther for all ungodly doctrine and shameful life of any fanatics and red spirits, for the whole abomination of the peasant revolt: "he also undertook, through his subsequent fanatics and falsely called evangelical preachers, to completely eradicate the Christian church and our holy faith, and to expel not only the dear saints, but also Christ Himself from heaven. Likewise, that images of the saints and crucifixes in churches and in the streets have been broken and smashed, that all good works are reviled, abolished and omitted, that a carnal, wild life is led: this is the consequence of Luther's teaching. "But in order to remain unpunished, they have struck down the sacred conciliar laws and all the power of the church, and have granted the common rabble the power to judge and punish not only the Scriptures and conciliar laws, but also the authorities, ecclesiastical and secular." "Some say that baptism is not necessary." "They also tear up the sacrament of holy matrimony in an unchristian way, allowing and giving two or more wives to one man, two or more husbands to one woman." "The Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ is handled in an exceedingly unchristian manner and in many different ways. Some want to have it under two forms, some under none; some consider it to be Christ's flesh and blood.

We follow the characteristic writing of his bitter enemy and believe that we are thereby once and for all relieved of the duty to continue to defend Luther against this accusation. Which believing Christian's heart should not burn with righteous anger over such invectives of the church of Christ as Duke George here mendaciously presents? Luther could not have been a reformer if he had treated such a man gently and gelinoe.

16 Introduction.

Blood, but not for Christ Himself; some say that Christ is there, but only as a man, not as a God; some say that bread and wine together with the flesh and blood; some that it is only bread and wine and a bad sign, like a seal to a letter." "They show no honor to the reverend Sacrament; some go to it without all repentance and confession, eating and drinking as if it were common food and drink. They thrust the hosts into their pockets, carry themselves about with them, call it an idol and a devil, and trample it underfoot." "This happens because they do not consider Christ to be a god, but only a bad man and prophet, and some do not consider him at all. They say that he was conceived in original sin, much less that he could have taken away other people's sin." From this ungodly doctrine and writings these tender fruits had arisen, "namely, not only a carnal, but also an animal and devilish liberty, self-will, sacrilege, disobedience and bloody rebellion of the poor deceived subjects, contempt, dishonor and blasphemy of all spiritual and temporal authorities, apostasy and wretched fall of the clergy, abandonment of all discipline and fear of God." The sacred instruments had been "sold on the open market, used for worldly pleasure, and houses of worship had been turned into stables and other unseemly buildings, all worship and devotion of the people to God and His saints had been extinguished, and our holy Christian faith had been completely eradicated from many places. In particular, however, "miserable murder, death and bloodshed" had resulted from it, and Luther and his followers had "alienated many Christian souls, whom Christ had purchased with His precious blood, from Him again by their seductive teachings, and, as to be feared, caused them to be eternally damned." In his last writing against the King of England 1) Luther had boasted "that he had brought us into this freedom and light", "the enthusiasts and the red spirits would neither have been so bold nor so scanty to start the thing".

1. This refers to the paper No. 83 in this volume. Compare s 21 of the same.

Therefore, as a Christian prince, he had reason enough to forbid Luther's translation of the New Testament. In order to clear himself of the accusation that he wanted to forbid the reading of God's word, he says that he was able to get Hieronymus Emser to correct the New Testament according to the Vulgate, and recommends his subjects most urgently to accept this true word of God and to read it diligently for the salvation of their souls. Finally, he grants Emser a privilege for this New Testament for two years. - As evil as this edition of the New Testament had been intended by Duke George, it became, through God's gracious government, a means for a quicker and further spread of the holy Gospel, for in a short time a large number of different editions appeared, 2) through which, contrary to the custom of the Roman Church, the Word of God was put into the hands of the laity. Even if the translation is not entirely correct, it is mostly Luther's work, 3) and those who read it were able to recognize from it the correctness of the Lutheran doctrine and the groundlessness of Pabstism.

When, after almost half a year, the first edition of Emser's New Testament was almost out of print, the Duke granted his privilege for the new printing (No. 95 in this volume) on January 25, 1528, in favor of the publishers and the editor, who has not been named. This second edition is significantly changed, or, as Duke George says: "with a noticeable improvement." In addition to Duke George's preface, it is preceded by another short preface (No. 96), in which George's preface is called "a Summarium of Lutheran and other heresies arising from it. As already mentioned, Luther remained silent on the subject, although he did intend to "send a letter of condolence to Duke Georg.

2. Waldau, Emser, p. 68 ff, lists 27 different editions, among them also one from Lower Saxony at Rostock in 1530.
3. Cf. Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 313 f., Z5.- In this volume, Col. 971.
4. Thus Luther writes to Jonas, December 10, 1527. Walch, old edition, vol. XVII, appendix, no. 4.

Introduction. 17

because of the eternal disgrace with which those who live under his protection have sullied him by misusing his name for the preface to Emser's will. He refrained from doing so, however, because Emser had died in the meantime (November 8, 1527) and Duke George was ill.

However, Luther did not miss an attempt to win Duke George by a friendly humble letter, which he sent to him on December 21, 1525, moved by "great fine people of his countrymen. This humble letter from Luther to Duke George is found in this volume, No. 97. A few days later, on December 28, 1525, Duke George issued a harsh, unfriendly reply to this letter (No. 98 in this volume), in which he accuses Luther's gospel of all false teaching and all shameful living, expresses his inclination to punish Luther as he did Muenzer, and ridicules him because of his marriage to a nun. In a letter to Nicolaus Hausmann (No. 99) of January 20, 1526, Luther says that he had written to Duke George in good hope, but that he had been mistaken and had humbled himself in vain; he would not answer him. Already before, in a letter to Amsdorf (No. 12 in the appendix of this volume), on January 2, 1526, he had reported that he had written a humble and completely sincere letter to Duke George, but that he had received an exceedingly foolish answer, in which the boorish crudeness inherited from his Bohemian blood was revealed. Almost a year later, around Christmas 1526, Luther remembers this matter once again in a letter to Wenceslaus Link (No. 11 in the appendix of this volume), in which he informs him that his humble letter to the King of England had been answered by him so hostilely that it seems as if he is looking forward to an opportunity for revenge, as is Duke George.

Another of Luther's disputes with Duke George arose from the so-called Packsche Händeln. It had the council and

1. Cf. Col. 417 in this volume.

Otto von Pack, informed Landgrave Philipp von Hessen that on May 13, 1527, an alliance had been made under oath at Breslau by the most important Catholic princes against the princes adhering to the Gospel, with the intention of demanding Luther's surrender and restoring the old church service everywhere. If the Protestant princes refused to do so, they were to go to war and divide their lands among themselves. The following were named as participants in the alliance: the King of Bohemia, Ferdinand, Duke George of Saxony, the Dukes William and Ludwig of Bavaria, the Electors Joachim of Brandenburg and Albrecht of Mainz, the Archbishop Matthew Lang of Salzburg, the Bishops Wigand of Bamberg and Conrad of Würzburg. At the first communication about the alliance, which still falls into the year 1527, 3) Pack had given the landgrave a copy of the alliance, but promised that he would also provide him with the original for inspection. On the occasion of a visit, which the Landgrave paid to his father-in-law, Duke Georg, in Dresden, Pack presented the Landgrave with another copy on February 18, 1528, which was allegedly taken from the Duke's chancellery and provided with the Duke's seal. Pack, however, made an effort to get the original signed and sealed by all participants against payment of 4000 florins (which he really received). After his return from Dresden, the Landgrave went to Weimar to the Elector of Saxony and his son and, in the face of the threatening danger, persuaded them to make a counter-agreement, which was concluded on March 9, 1528. In it, it was stated that 26,000 men of war should be raised, and that one wanted to try to attract other allies, the kings of Poland and Denmark, the dukes of Prussia, Lüneburg, Pomerania and Mecklenburg and the cities of Ulm and Magdeburg, "for life, honor, dignity,

2. Seckendorf has May 12; but xost Invocavit is May 13, since Invocavit fell out of the twelfth in 1527.
3. Seckendorf, Rist. IntM, lid. II, x. 946.

18 Introduction.

to protect country and people and everything that can be conceived in the world". By acting quickly, they wanted to forestall the opponents; however, the dukes of the Church did not want to strike before they had obtained the advice of their theologians on this matter. Luther and Melanchthon advised peace and to wait for the attack of the opponents. As a result, the Elector began to hesitate and a more moderate alliance was reached at another convention on April 23, 1528. Covenants. However, it was very difficult to temper the landgrave's heat and prevent him from invading the lands of the bishops of Bamberg, Würzburg and Mainz with the army they had gathered at Herren-Breitungen on the Werra. However, he wanted to spare his father-in-law, Duke Georg; therefore, on May 17, 1528, he admonished him by letter, 1) he would like to resign from this shameful alliance. On May 21, Duke Georg replied that the alliance was a worthless invention, and if the landgrave did not name the person who had reported it to him, he would have to consider him the inventor of it. Duke George had the landgrave's letter and his reply to it printed and sent it to everyone who was interested. At the same time the Landgrave published, on May 22, before he had received the answer of Duke George, the wording of the alliance indicated to him by Pack. Luther commemorates this writing in a letter to Amsdorf, June 8, 1528, No. 14 in the appendix of this volume.

Like Duke George, all interested parties denied the existence of such an alliance and protested their innocence. In June 2)

1. This letter of the Landgrave, He^ogs Georg's answer to it, the letters of apology of the other princes and other documents relating to this trade can be found in Walch, old edition, Vol. XVI, 428 ff.
2. Cf. the letter of Elector John to Luther, Melanchthon and the captain at Wittenberg, June 9, 1528. Burkhardt, Briefwechsel, p. 135. According to this letter, peace had already been reached with the two Franconian bishops; an agreement was reached with Mainz at Gelnhausen on June 14. A reconciliation between Duke Georg and the Landgrave was reached in September. Seckendorf, 8ist. Imtk., lid. II, p. 98.

Through the mediation of the Electors of Trier and the Palatinate, war undertakings were abandoned. The bishops of Mainz and Würzburg, however, on whose borders the landgrave's army lay, each had to pay him 40,000 guldens in war indemnity, the bishop of Bamberg 20,000 guldens. This put an end to Pack's unrest. The landgrave had had D. Pack imprisoned, as we can see from Luther's letter to Johann Hess (No. 13 in the appendix of this volume), which was probably written before mid-June 1528. 3) From July 20 to 24, a solemn interrogation of him was held in Cassel, to which King Ferdinand, the Princes of Treves, the Palatinate and Brandenburg, and Duke George had sent their envoys. First, he was questioned by the Hessian chancellor Joh. Feig whether he had informed the landgrave that such a covenant (the wording of which was read out) had been concluded between the king Ferdinand and the princes; whether he had shown the landgrave a copy with the seal of Duke George on February 18, 1528 in Dresden, and finally, whether he had promised to procure and present the original? Pack answered all this in the affirmative without reservation. Upon questioning, all the envoys present declared that they considered the landgrave excused for having believed this man's report. Thereupon the chancellor of Duke George, D. Pistoris, continued the case against Pack, accusing him of many forgeries in writings and of deceitfulness in actions, also of embezzling funds from the revenues of the prince, and that he had sought to stir up discord among the princes. Most of these accusations Pack denied, others he gave a different interpretation. With regard to his knowledge of the alliance and the document in which the articles of it were laid down, he testified as follows: When he was present in Breslau, he was not present at the deliberations.

3. Luther's letter to Wenceslaus Link, July 14, 1528, is also about Pack's imprisonment and his upcoming interrogation. Walch, St. Louis edition, vol. X, 1539, ß 19. A duplicate of this letter is Walch, old edition, vol. XVII, appendix, no. 2.

Introduction. 19

In 1527, when Duke Heinrich of Brunswick was with Duke Georg, the latter ordered him to give the Chancellor Pistoris the command to fetch the document he was aware of. Pistoris had been prevented from putting it into the Duke's hands himself, and had handed it over to him D. Pack to deliver it to the Duke. After one or two hours, he had received it back from the Duke and was to deliver it to the Chancellor again. He had read it through beforehand, but had not revealed anything to anyone except the landgrave. The latter had already heard rumors of the alliance; when Pack was sent to Cassel by Duke Georg, and the Landgrave questioned him about it, he made the announcement under the seal of secrecy, and gave him a copy of it, but for nothing, and also promised to procure the original. On his return to Dresden, he found that the Duke's seal had been broken and the document had been torn. He gave many reasons why he had not, and could not, have invented the articles of the covenant. He stated that five years ago 1) a council had been held by the Mainz, the Brandenburg and Duke George at Jüterbock to eradicate Luther's heresy; at Zerbst the same matter had been discussed and finally at Dessau it had been decided to use force, with the consent of the Emperor and Ferdinand. For this he referred to the minutes (Acta) of these meetings. The document, which he had shown to the Landgrave on February 18, had been destroyed by himself after he had received it again from the Landgrave, because he could not have put the seal, which had been pressed on the envelope and the silk thread, back in its place so that it was sealed as before. This had been done out of fear of discovery. The document was made by the hand of a certain

1. The first intended alliance of the Old Believer princes living in Saxony and Hesse is from October 20, 1523, and so far completely unknown, although the articles for it still exist. (Seidemann, Explanations, p. 130.)

He should be summoned and questioned, then it will become clear from which original (autographo) he copied it. If he were to be convicted that he (Pack) had invented and written it, he would suffer any punishment. Pistoris replied that the Bohemian was a worthless man and had already been expelled from the court. But the argument with which Pistoris cornered D. Pack the most was this: he showed letters which Pack had written to him from Hesse under a fictitious place and time, in which he accused the landgrave of causing unrest on the basis of a quite simple and unworthy fictitious alliance. Pack could not wriggle out of this accusation in any other way than to say that he had wanted to give the chancellor the runaround so as not to be hindered in his plan to obtain the original, for the sake of which he had made a trip to Dresden. The action ended with Pistoris declaring that it was sufficiently obvious that Pack was guilty of fraud and, together with the other envoys, demanding Pack's extradition to his master so that he could be questioned thoroughly and the matter would come to light even more clearly. The landgrave refused to comply with this demand. For the time being, Pack was kept in custody, but then expelled from the country. Inactive, he wandered around for several years until he was finally beheaded in 1536 2) in Vilvorden, a town near Brüffel, on the orders of Duke Georg, who had persecuted him incessantly. It does not follow from this act of George that he considered the alliance a fabrication, but may have considered himself entitled to do so because of the breach of trust and the theft of the document from his office. Link was firmly convinced of the existence of the alliance, as he stated in his letter to Duke John Frederick, early in December 1528; also Spalatin, who writes in his handwritten history of the year 1528: "The poor man (Pack) has the Breslau Alliance of the German nation and the whole Christian nation in his hands.

2. Thus Seckendorf. Cochläus gives the year 1537.

20 Introduction.

to his great discomfort, he will finally lose his life and limb in the Netherlands. 1)

Luther held, as he stated in a letter to Wenceslaus Link, 2) on June 14, 1528, that the alliance of the godless princes was not a mere fantasy (chimaera). 3) Duke George's mute apology was almost a confession, because everyone knew that they had dealt with such things in order to destroy the gospel. Link had carelessly left this letter out of his hands, so it had been possible that Duke George, without Link's knowledge and will, had obtained a copy of it on October 27, 1528, and now made great efforts to get hold of the original as well. He had therefore, through his secretary Thomas von der Heiden, approached the council 4) of Nuremberg with the request that they help the Duke to obtain the original. The council, however, did not agree. One of the "few" to whom Link had sent the letter was D. juris Scheurl; he had the original in his hands and played the traitor. 5) On the one hand, he had George's secretary, Thomas von der Heiden, inspect the original through his servant, and on the other hand, he himself dictated Luther's letter to his (Scheurl's) servant in the pen for Duke George. With difficulty, Link recovered the original from Scheurl, who had been offered "one hundred or two hundred florins" for it, and then burned it. Shortly before the 4th De-

1. Hortleder, äe deUo Oernaanieo. Dona. I, IIP. II, "ap. 9, tot. 800.
2. Walch, old edition, vol. XVI, 507.
3. Later, Luther still held on to this opinion, even expressing it publicly again in 1533 in a pamphlet Against Duke George. (Cf. No. 30 in the appendix of this volume, § 66 and § 74. Likewise in the writing "Wider den Meuchler zu Dresden. 1531 (Walch, old edition, vol. XVI, 2074, § 33).

4). Cf. the letter from Chancellor Brück to Luther, December 4, 1528. Burkhardt, Briefwechsel, p. 152 f.

5. See No. 15 in the appendix to this volume.
6. Cf. Duke Georg's letter to Scheurl, end of November or beginning of December 1528. Seidemann, Erläuterungen, p. 143.

cember 7) Link had written to Duke Johann Friedrich about the letter matter.

The very next day after receiving the copy of the letter, on October 28, 1528, Duke George wrote a letter to Luther 8) in which he asked him, without offering a greeting or a grace, if he had made "a writing according to the one in it" for the link. On October 31, Luther replied, 9) he wished that he be spared such notes or copies. Those who had prepared and handed such notes would probably be able to give information as to what the writing was. As always, Duke George sued Luther because of this evasive answer at the Elector and Luther defended himself on November 25, 1528 10) against the accusation of the Duke in a letter to the Elector, which, written in general terms, was intended to be forwarded to Duke George. The Elector wished, 11) "so that our cousin would not be easily induced to further writing and disputation", that a small mitigating change be made by Luther's hand and that the letter be copied by him. 12) This was done and the mitigated letter was given the same date as the previous one, namely: on the day 13) of Catharine; it was sent to Duke George on December 11.

This would have been the end of the dispute, but Luther had meanwhile written his "Report to a Good Friend of Both Saints on the Mandate of the Bishop of Meissen", in which he says: "Everyone must be an enemy to them (the Lutheran princes) and seek treacherous plots and alliances against them, of which they can make use.

7. Not only on December 23 as Seckendorf, lid. II, p. 99, and reported to him according to Seidemann, Erläuterungen, p. 138. Cf. the letter of Chancellor Brück. Burkhardt, p. 152.
8. Walch, old edition, vol. XVI, 509.
9. Walch, old edition, vol. XVI, 510.
10. De Wette, vol: III, 404.
11. Letter from the Elector to Luther, December 2, 1528. Burkhardt, p. 151 f.
12. This mitigated letter is found in Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 270. Seidemann, Lutherbriefe, p. 36.
13. Not "am Montage Catharinä", as De Wette and Walch have, because Catharinä fell on Wednesday in 1528, Cf. Seidemann, Erläuterungen, p. 130.

Introduction 21

must be ashamed of himself afterwards, as the attack in Mainz also happened. 1) On the other hand, Duke Georg had a document printed under the title 2): "What form we Georg, von GOttes Gnaden Herzog zu Sachsen 2c., by Martin Luther of the poetic alliance halben in Schriften unerfindlich angegeben und darauf unsere Antwort." At the end: "Printed in Dresden by Wolfgang Stöckel". It is dated December 19, 1528, and already on that day he sent a copy to the Elector, 3) on December 22 also to the Landgrave, with the request "to have such writing publicly read and posted to yours". On December 19, the document was also sent to King Ferdinand, the Electors of Mainz and Brandenburg, the Archbishop of Salzburg, the Dukes of Bavaria, and the Bishops of Würzburg and Bamberg. In this document, George had Luther's letter printed according to his copy, as well as his letter to Luther and his answer. 8000 copies of it had been printed, which were to be thrown on the market at the New Year's Fair in Leipzig; before that, only single copies had been given to some favored persons. There was a big surprise waiting for the duke. Luther had also received a copy at the same time. Therefore he made the decision, as he reported towards the end of December in a letter to Wenceslaus Link (No. 15 in the appendix of this volume), to publish his answer, quite unexpectedly for Duke George, with the writing of his opponent at the same time. On December 31st, Luther sent a letter to the Elector (No. 22 in the appendix of this volume), in which he mentions that in the next New Year's Mass, next to the great booklet of Duke George, his answer will go out, and consoles him because of his worry about Duke George's raving. Thus, Luther's writing on secret and stolen letters (No. 100 in this volume) appeared on New Year's Day 1529, in which he asserts: "If the letter to Link is not mine, then it is a fictitious, false, lying letter, which shall be without harm to me; but if it is mine, as I have stated in this way on

1. § 11 in No. 157 of this volume.
2. Walch, old edition, vol. XVI, 506-519.
3. Cf. Seidemann, Erläuterungen, pp. 135 and 139.

Duke George's confession and deed, then to Duke George is my earnest demand on my account, but on God's account his earnest strict commandment, that he make the said letter, together with all copies that are copied or printed from it, in the case of a mortal sin and loss of divine graces and blessedness, to me or to D. Wenceslao as stolen and robbed property to its rightful lord and owner, and thus, with full restitution, make the letter secret again and put it where he took it, because there is God's commandment, 'thou shalt not steal', to which G. must be subject as well as other men. At the end is an interpretation of the seventh Psalm.

Already on January 22, 1529, George's rejoinder against this writing of Luther's was produced) under the title: "A short report, so we Georg, von GOttes Gnaden Herzog zu Sachsen 2c., auf etzliche neue rasende Lügen, die Martin Luther in einem Druck gegen unsere Entschuldigung, des gedichteten Bündnisses halben, ausgehen, zu thun verursacht." "Printed in Dresden by Wolfgang Stöckel." At the same time, namely on January 23, 1529, Cochlaeus also sent out a rebuttal under the title: "How, against the illustrious Highborn Prince and Lord, Mr. George, Duke of Saxony 2c., Martin Luther has Germanized and misused the seventh Psalm, apparently indicated by Doctorem Joannem Cocleum." In the meantime, Duke Georg again complained to the Elector through his advisors Heinrich von Schleinitz zum Sathan and Wolf von Schönberg, Amtmann zu Meißen, on January 13, 1529. They delivered Luther's writing "von heimlichen Briefen" (of secret letters) together with Georg's counter-writing "ein kurzer Bericht" (a short report), the latter of which the Elector should allow to be posted in his lands. The envoys received a written reply: Luther's letter to Link had been written on June 14, 1528, i.e. "before the treaties", and was therefore no longer to be considered. George should not have hurried so much with his tendering and printing and thus not have made the matter more difficult. The

4. Seidemann, Erläuterungen, pp. 136 ff.

22 Introduction.

The Elector wanted to issue a prohibition to Luther and the Wittenberg printers "to revile his loved ones or anyone else," as his blessed brother had seriously forbidden them earlier. Unfortunately, they were also printing unpeaceful things elsewhere. In a letter of January 24, 1529, George replied that Luther had also reviled him "according to the contract" in the writing on the bishop of Meissen's mandate because of the fabricated alliance. George sends his latest responsibility (the "short report") in print and asks the Elector to allow it to be posted in the Electorate by George's messenger. In his reply of January 28, 1529, the Elector repeats that Duke Georg had made the settlement of the matter more difficult by his excessive haste. He was not pleased that Luther had become involved with Georg. He had never taken Luther's side, just as his brother had not, so Georg should not have involved him in these matters. The messenger could strike unhindered. Thus Duke George received permission to spread his writings against Luther in the Electorate by public notice, while Luther received on January 18, 1529 1) from the Elector the order not to have anything printed against Duke George or other princes and persons without having sent it in beforehand and having received permission to do so. What he allowed to be printed in teaching matters was to be overlooked by the Rector and some persons of the University, as the decree of Elector Friedrich already existed. Duke George was not yet satisfied with this, but wrote again on February 19 that Luther's writing on the Bishop of Meissen's mandate had gone out "somewhat after the first contract"; this writing clearly proved "that Luther would not let himself contest the contract", and he did not consider what was said for Luther sufficient. But the Elector put an end to this dispute by writing to Duke George on February 22, 1529: he did not want to dispute with him any further in this matter; if the Duke wanted to have the matter brought before impartial judges, he would not bear any responsibility for it.

1. See the letter from the Elector to Luther. Burkhardt, Briefwechsel, p. 155 f.

Shyness. In a letter to Duke George on June 30, 1530, and to Melanchthon on July 7, 1530, Erasmus spoke very disapprovingly about Luther's writing "of secret letters. These letters are, as Seidemann says, 3) extremely strange in relation to Erasmus himself.

After the Imperial Diet in Augsburg, in 1531, Luther had sent out two sharp writings, the "Warning to his dear Germans" and the "Gloss on the supposed imperial edict. 4) Duke George complained about them again by letter to the Elector as "a pious man who wanted to do right", and at the same time sent two letters of abuse 5) (which were addressed to the abbess and the provost of the monastery at Riesa Rissau, both dated Wittenberg, March 19, 1531, and the first signed by M. L.), with the inquiry whether Luther would confess to these letters. The Elector sent the Chancellor Brück to Wittenberg to put this question to Luther and to give him the order in the name of the Elector that he should refrain from the vehement, sharp letter, "so that incorrectness may be prevented". On April 16, 1531, Luther therefore wrote to the Elector. 6) Luther rejects the two shameful letters; it is not his way of writing and he knows neither the monastery nor the abbess. That his two writings are sharp and violent, he admits, but justifies it with the "sharpness and speed of the trade" on the side of the opponents. The adversary has "omitted such a dreadful, cruel, bloodthirsty, false edict, and thus twitched the sword against the Elector and his relatives". The Elector had been silent about all this for more than half a year and had shown too much patience, thus making the opponents even more defiant, proud and wanton. "For this reason," Luther continues, "whether C. F. G. and her relatives want to remain silent and suffer forever, it is nevertheless the

2. HpistolLL eä. Olsriei, PÄZ. 1293 s.
3. "Explanatory Notes," p. 142.
4. Walch, old edition, vol. XVI, 1959 and 2016.
5. These two letters are printed in Burkhardt's "Briefwechsel," p. 190.
6. Walch, old edition, vol. XVI, 2119.

Introduction. 23

I have not been able to remain silent nor to suffer for such a long time, as the matter is initially and most nobly my own. For if I should finally remain silent on such a public condemnation of my doctrine, it would be just as much as if I abandoned it and denied it; before I want to do that and suffer, I want to incur the wrath of all the devils, of all the world, before the imperial councilors remain silent. Then Luther explains that "that part should also take itself by the nose once. The emperor has never punished or forbidden the most shameful and sharpest writings, which have gone out without intermission throughout the empire, even in his hereditary lands and in the French lands. Likewise, King Ferdinand did not find D. Faber's writing too harshly, or the Dukes of Bavaria those of D. Eck, which are full of lies and blasphemy; they did not oppose or punish them. Margrave Joachim did not punish his Wimpina and Mensing; Duke George was never displeased that Emser, Cochläus and many others in his lands wrote sharply, bitterly and disgracefully against us, and also touched and sullied the honor of the deceased Elector and the reigning Elector. "Has Duke George himself written against me (says Luther) and many times in such a way that a loose Emser or snotspoon should be ashamed to write in this way; but it should not be given to him either." Luther soon carried out this threat. In the meantime, Duke George himself, but anonymously, had sent out a vehement diatribe against Luther and hid behind the priest of Cologne. Even before May 8, 1531 1) Luther's answer to it appeared under the title: "Wider den Meuchler zu Dresden gedruckt" ("Against the Assassin Printed in Dresden"), 2) in which Luther very sharply denounces Duke George under the epithet "Assassin" 3). Although the writings concerning this episode of Luther's dispute with Duke George are not found in this volume, we have not been able to pass them by, because the next dispute is, at least in part, related to it.

1. Cf. Luther's letter to Brück of this date. Walch, old edition, vol. XVI, 2124.
2. Walch, old edition, vol. XVI, 2062.
3. See the note to No. 25 in the appendix of this volume.

The preaching of the Gospel had found many followers in Leipzig, so Duke George took strict measures to prevent the continuation of the Word of God and to bring people back to the priesthood. Everyone who went to confession and communion around Easter received a mark from the priest, by which he could prove that he had communicated under one form. Whoever could not show such a badge either had to take an oath in which he renounced the evangelical doctrine (the form of the oath, which Duke George interpreted to the subjects who had fallen away from the Gospel, can be found in the appendix of this volume No. 26), or had himself expelled from the city. In their distress, several citizens of Leipzig turned to Luther 5) with the question whether they could take a gestalt with a clear conscience, 6) in order to satisfy their authorities. Luther's answer to the question of some citizens of Leipzig, on April 11, 1533, (No. 23 in the appendix of this volume) was that no one may do this who is convinced in his conscience that both forms are God's word and order. Because of this letter, the mayor of Leipzig, Wolf Wiedemann, sent a letter to Luther (No. 24 in the appendix of this volume), in which he asked, on April 25, 1533, whether Luther would confess to the same as his own. On April 27, Luther replied to Wiedemann (No. 25 in the appendix to this volume) that if he told him on whose authority, whether the priest at Cologne or the assassin at Dresden or Duke George, 7) he should be given an ample answer. Thereupon, the Duke sued Luthern again before the Elector, on the basis of the letter to the Leipzigers, because he had led the subjects to disobey their authorities.

4. Köstlin, Martin Luther, Vol. II, 312 says that it later turned out that none of the oath formulas circulated at Leipzig had come from the secular or ecclesiastical authorities.
5. Cf. Tischreden, cap. 27, § 150. Walch, St. Louis Edition, Vol. XXII, 925.
6. What may be meant by the words: "under the appearance, as if they had both received form", namely the so-called unconsecrated flushing chalice, about it compare Köstlin, Martin Luther, vol. II, p. 664 uä p. 314, note 1.
7. Cf. the note to No. 25 in the appendix.

24 Introduction.

for sedition, and for the sake of several expressions used in the letter, for defamation. The Elector wrote to Luther 1) on May 12, 1533, informing him of the complaint and asking him to answer for it. Luther did this in his writing: Verantwortung des von Herzog Georg ihm auflegten Aufruhrs, in Juni oder Juli 1533 (No. 28 in the appendix of this volume), to which he added a long letter of consolation 2) to the Christians innocently chased out of Leipzig by Duke George. In it, he first reminds him of the lesson that Duke Georg received in the writing of secret and stolen letters. Then he rejects the accusation as if he had offended the person or the prince's honor with his letter to the Leipzigers, or had even stirred up sedition against him. For it was a spiritual matter, concerning God's Word and blessedness, that he had acted in it; no worldly matter or sedition could be made out of it. Yes, Luther had even advised the people to suffer and tolerate, not to go against their authorities, but to let go of body and goods for the sake of God's word. By calling him an apostle of the devil, he was not blaspheming the Duke, but telling the truth as it is reckoned before God in spiritual matters. If Duke George wanted to refer the words: "they shall strike the devil in the face with the cross" to himself and understand an iron or wooden cross, this would be quite unreasonable. Luther, by the grace of God, had the glory that since the time of the apostles, no one had taught so gloriously and clearly about the authorities and had confirmed, instructed and comforted the consciences of the secular classes as he had. After a long and heated correspondence had been conducted between Duke Georg and the Elector because of this writing, Duke Georg sent a delegation of three men, namely Heinrich von Schleinitz zum Sathan, Doctor Georg von Breitenbach, Ordinary, and Hans Pflug zu Frauenhayn, with a letter to be delivered to Dresden on

1. The same can be found in Burkhardt's "Briefwechsel".
2. This letter of consolation is found in Walch, St. Louis Edition, vol. X, 1932 sf.

The envoys were to request from John Frederick that they be allowed to present their advertisement in the presence of all the councilors and the entire court staff. If this was refused, they were to make the advertisement known to the other councilors and court servants after the audience had been completed. On August 10, they publicly presented their complaints against Luther before the entire court in Altenburg. In particular, they asserted 4) that Luther had been guilty of lying by stating that an oath had been administered to the Leipzigers against the Protestant religion. The Elector had the Chancellor Brück reply to them excellently (viriliter), with great praise of Luther. He had preached the pure word of God and the Elector wanted to preserve this in his lands. Finally, the matter was referred to a court of arbitration which, on November 18, 5) at Grimma, decreed that one should refrain from quarreling and that the theologians should be instructed to be modest in their writing, especially in matters that did not concern religion, and that peace and harmony between the princes should be maintained. In the meantime, Duke George had sent out a rebuttal to Luther's "responsibility" through Cochlaeus under the title: "Duke George of Saxony's honest and thorough apology against Mart. Luther's seditious and mendacious letter and responsibility." Dresden 1533. At the same time (for by D. Benedict Pauli, mayor of Wittenberg, who was in Dresden at the time, a large part of the printed sheets had been sent to Luther), Luther's small answer to Duke Georgen's latest book (No. 30 in the appendix to this volume) appeared at the autumn fair, i.e., at the end of September or beginning of October 1533. This answer was not directed against Cochläus, but against Duke Georg, because the writing was, as Luther says, "drawn with his name and shield by heart". He calls it a

3. Thus Burkhardt, Briefwechsel, p. 214 f.
4. Seckendorf, Rist. I^utli., lid. Ill, x. 59.
5. Not on November 13, as Seckendorf indicates. Cf. De Wette, vol. VI, 507, note 7.

Introduction. 25

"This book is only a preface and forerunner of a larger one, which he wants to publish. In it, Luther defends himself against the accusation that he had invented the oath formula. Cochläus had it printed in his book; but because he did not get it from Luther, it is clear that Luther did not invent it. Concerning the fact that Duke George blames him for being a perjured, perverted monk, Luther explains splendidly that the monks are not only perjured, but also denied, apostate Christians and blasphemers and new crucifiers of their Savior Jesus Christ: whoever goes out from them and goes to repentance in Christ is a blessed apostate, a blessed perverter, a blessed perjurer, who has not believed the devil and has become an apostate before him. Luther came from the devilish vow back to his right and denied baptism. He who has vowed monasticism is guilty, at the loss of his blessedness, of falling away from this blasphemy and escaping. It is a blessed name with which Duke George thinks he has reviled Luther. Luther likes to be scolded by all names, except that he is a faithful, pious monk. Finally, he defends the late Elector John and the Landgrave because of the war armament undertaken for the sake of the Pack alliance and repeats that "even today the Notel has not been purified from the princely alliance. Cochläus sent out a reply to this writing under the title: "To Luther's short answer a short rebuttal concerning Duke Georgen of Saxony. Luther was prevented from answering this and from publishing his promised larger writing against it by the treaty concluded in the meantime at Grimma, by which silence was imposed on both parties.

Finally, it is to be mentioned that Duke George once unwittingly gave a praising testimony about Luther, namely about Luther's doubts whether men of war can also be in a blessed state. About this is to look up the report of M. Cyriacus Spangenberg, which we have communicated in No. 101 in this volume.

Luther's verdict on Duke George, which he passed in 1533, is found in this volume, Appendix, No. 27.

XV Luther's dispute with the Elector Albrecht of Mainz.

Already on the occasion of Luther's quarrel with Tetzel, Cardinal 1) Albrecht, Margrave of Brandenburg, Archbishop of Magdeburg and Mainz, Administrator of the Bishopric of Halberstadt, also Elector of Mainz, was remembered in the introduction to the 18th volume of the St. Louis edition (pp. 5 and 13). He and Pope Leo X were very similar in their love of art and science, their pompousness, their love of precious buildings and their need for money. Albrecht also needed large sums of money to pay for the pallium of the Archbishopric of Mainz and to indulge his addiction to fornication. When Luther's 95 theses against indulgences depleted his main source of money, he sought to open up another, albeit smaller one, by setting up a new indulgence business in Halle after Tetzel's death. Because, as Luther says, the Elector Albrecht "freely confessed publicly how all the clumsy 'Thaddel', by which Tetzel happened, were not his alone, but the Bishop of Mainz's will", so on December 1, 1521, from the Wartburg, he addressed the "hard, but Christian writing to the Cardinal and Archbishop of Magdeburg and Mainz, concerning the indulgence, which he again had set up in Halle after Tetzel's death". 2c. (No. 102 in this volume.) In it, he reminds the Elector that he had already "written to him twice in Latin" 2) and that he had prayed to him out of Christian love.

1. By the way, Albrecht received the cardinal dignity from the pope only on August 1, 1618. This is "the strongest explanation about how the pope wanted to get involved in the accusations that he had to suffer because of the trade in indulgences. (Köstlin, Martin Luther, Vol. I, p. 208.)
2. The first letter is from October 31, 1517, the second from February 4, 1520. Walch, old edition, vol. XV, 479 and 1640. That no "missing letter" from Nov. 26, 1521 (or 1522) will be addressed to Archbishop Albrecht of Mainz, as Seidemann and Burkhardt assume, compare the second note to No. 103 in this volume. This has, as we found later, also already Köstlin, Martin Luther, Vol. I, p. 797 (3rd ed. p. 802) aü p. 486 pronounced.

26 Introduction.

Luther warned about the false indulgences and opposed "the wild, seductive, money-addicted preachers and the heretical, superstitious books," but did nothing with them. Now Luther, according to the Gospel, did the third warning. He was not "of the plan" and even now wanted to do "what Christian love demands of him, not considering the infernal gates, let alone unlearned men, popes, cardinals and bishops. Herewith, finally and in writing, the Elector should be told: "if the idol of indulgences is not removed, I must, for the sake of divine doctrine and Christian blessedness, let this be a necessary, urgent and unavoidable cause for E. C. F. G. as well as for the Christian love. C. F. G. as well as the pope publicly, to make a cheerful objection against such presumption, to drive all of Tetzel's previous abominations upon the bishop of Mainz, and to show all the world the difference between a bishop and a wolf." Finally, Luther admonishes the Elector to leave the priests in peace who, in order to avoid unchastity, have entered or want to enter the marital state. If there is not a correct and prompt answer from the Elector within a fortnight, Luther will blaspheme his booklet "Against the God of Halle". On December 21, 1521, Cardinal Albrecht, Archbishop of Mainz, gave an extremely gracious and kind answer to Luther's letter (No. 103 in this volume). He understands that the reason for Luther's letter has long since been removed; he wants to behave and show himself as a pious spiritual and Christian prince should, and confesses that he is a poor sinful man. Probably at the same time as this letter, Luther received a letter from Wolfgang Fabricius Capito, the Cardinal's preacher and counselor, dated December 20 and 21, 1521, 1) in which he exhorts him (citing Christ as an example) to moderation, especially against his master, the Archbishop of Mainz, who had answered his counsel 2) so meekly. The archbishop was anxious to present the gospel in a more secure and

1. This letter together with a postscript can be found in Krafft, Briefe und Documente, p. 35 ff.
2. Seckendorf, Hist. I^id. I, x. 175.

more suitable (commodiorem) way to promote. Through this letter of Capito's, the suspicion arose in Luther that the archbishop might not have meant it sincerely with his kind answer, and therefore wrote to Melanchthon on January 13, 1522 3): "If the letter of Mainz had been alone, they would have achieved their purpose (vicerant), but now that that of Fabricius was enclosed, they have revealed their cunning and their empty pretense; this displeases me extraordinarily about Fabricius. I wanted the ungodly nature to come to an end, and that orator Capito represents the cause of ungodliness by teaching the bishop to confess his personal sins, and believes that Luther has been led quite nicely on the fool's rope in this way. I will also moderate myself so that I do not treat this man in the first letter as he deserves, but I will show him, and he shall know, that other people can also feel something with their noses" (spiritum esse in naribus hominis). This happened in Luther's letter to Wolfgang Fabricius Capito of January 17, 1522 (No. 104 in this volume). Luther tells him that Capito, by his own interpretation, had forced him to understand the words "another way" as follows: "the gospel would be promoted if the princes were given credit for something, if they were spared, if their deeds were excused, and (as your words read) if we held ourselves in such a way that we did not wantonly challenge them to a quarrel. This way of yours is, in my opinion, a right hypocrisy and denial of Christian truth, and quite actually 'the reputation of the person,' which Scripture so abhors that it rejects nothing in a more vehement way." "One should say before all things what is right and wrong; after that, when the hearer has accepted such, one should tolerate him, and, as Paul says, receive the weak in faith." Accordingly, Capito should also hold himself against his bishop. On the same day (January 17, 1522) Luther wrote to Spalatin: "I like neither the bishop's nor Capito's letter because of their unfortunate and all-too-revealing deceptive euphemism (fucum).

3. Walch, old edition, Vol. XV, Appendix, No. 103.

Introduction. 27

I have answered Fabricius, not the bishop nor will I do so, until I have known his mind."

Not from the very beginning had Luther intended to limit himself in this matter to a private punishment of the archbishop, but as early as October 7, 1521, he wrote to Spalatin 1): "I will not allow myself to be held back from attacking the idol at Mainz privately and publicly along with his whorehouse at Halle." On November 1, 1521, he informed Nicolaus Gerbellius 2) that he had finished a public punishment against the Cardinal of Mainz, and on November 11, 1521, he sent the finished document to Spalatin 3) with the request that he hand it over to Melanchthon. In this letter Luther also expresses his displeasure about the fact that the court wants to prevent him from writing against the archbishop because of the renewed indulgences in Halle, and declares that he will not let himself be prevented from doing so, should he lose Spalatin, yes, also the prince and all creatures over it. 4) Nevertheless, Spalatin, probably on the orders of the Elector, who had said that "he would not suffer that anything be written against the Mainzer, or anything that might disturb the public peace, kept Luther's writing with him. Luther learned of this during a secret visit to Wittenberg and therefore wrote a reproachful letter to Spalatin from there, approximately between December 5 and 8, 1521 5) No. 105 in this volume). As a result, Spalatin delivered the writing that was to go out against the Mainzer to Melanch-

1. Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 765.
2. Walch, old edition, Vol. XV', Appendix, No. 71, § 5.
3. Walch, old edition, Vol. XV, Appendix, No. 80.
4. Thus perdam is correctly reproduced by Walch I. e.. What Köstlin, Martin Luther, Vol. I, 484, offers: "ob auch Spalatin und der Churfürst und alle Welt darüber zu, Grunde gingen", is a thought unworthy of Luther and quite remote from him. It would be frightening if a reformer would say (and Luther would really have said this, if xerclam here means "to ruin"): "I will rather ruin you and even the prince and all creatures"! How the papists would rejoice if they could bring this with truth on Luther! And now this horrible mistake in Köstlin already runs through three editions.
5. For the timing, see the first note to No. 105.

thon, and Luther asked him, in the aforementioned letter of January 13, 1522, to keep it for future use.

Now there was a longer pause in Luther's quarrel against the Cardinal of Mainz, for from then on he was quite silent against the Gospel, except that here and there, as Luther assumed, violence was exercised against the followers of the Gospel not by the Cardinal himself, but "by some wolves and lions at his court. This happened especially in Miltenberg, Halberstadt and Halle. 6) In Miltenberg, a Chur-Mainzian city, D. Johann Draconites, called D. Johann Carlstadt from his birthplace, preached the Gospel. For this reason he was driven out, but several of his followers were killed or imprisoned. As a result, Luther sent out a missive to the Christians of Miltenberg in February 1524, 7) in which he comforted the distressed community. Luther announced this to the Elector of Mainz 8) on February 14, 1524, in a very moderate letter. The Elector seems to have behaved in such a way that Luther was confident that he would also turn to the Gospel, and in a letter 9) of June 2, 1525, he admonished him to marry and to change the archbishopric into a secular principality. Similarly, on July 6, 1530, Luther sent him an admonition from the fortress of Coburg to 10) accept the Protestant confession, or at least to leave it in peace. But Luther was deceived in his hopes; the Cardinal continued his old life of sin and fell from one disgraceful deed to another. In June 1535, he committed a judicial murder of his rentmaster, Hans von Schönitz (Schenitz, Schanz), from whom, without allowing him an advocate or responsibility, he used torture to extract the confession of all kinds of fraud and embezzlement of funds. Although the relatives agreed to act as guarantors, the

6. Cf. Luther's letter to Spalatin of January 18, 1524. Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 886, s 3.
7. Walch, old edition, vol. V, 1844.
8. Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 67.
9. Walch, St. Louis Edition, Vol. X, 678.
10. Walch, old edition, vol. XVI, 1085.

28 Introduction.

1. he did not let the matter come to an ordinary investigation before the imperial chamber court, but hanged Hans Schönitz on the Giebichenstein with great haste, making himself the judge in his own matter. Luther expresses the suspicion that if Hans Schönitz had been admitted to the defense, it would have come to light that those funds had been spent on fornication and other evil activities of the Cardinal; that is why his mouth had been shut so quickly. It was brought to the Cardinal's attention that Ludwig Rabe, one of his subjects, should talk about these events much now and then. Therefore, the Cardinal had made attempts to have Ludwig Rabe imprisoned in Leipzig. But the latter had escaped and had found a place of refuge with Luther as "table companion and house guest". When the Cardinal addressed a letter to Rabe in which he threatened that "he would have Rabe speak of the executed Hans Schanz," Luther took this to mean that the Cardinal was "poking and prodding" at him, that is, that the Cardinal wanted to accuse him and Rabe of giving him a bad name by speaking out of turn in Schanzen's matter. So he tried to shift his shame onto Luthern. In order to do enough for his conscience, so that God and the world would not judge him as if he was silent in evil matters, Luther wrote a serious and last 2) punitive letter to Cardinal Albrecht 2c on July 31, 1535. (No. 31 in the appendix of this volume.) Luther says that he does not want to be forbidden to hear and believe, nor to tell good friends what honest people are saying about Schanz. Incidentally, all of Wittenberg was full of Schanz's accident for two days before Luther and Rabe learned of it, and they could not believe that the servant they had loved so much before had died so suddenly and in such a way from his dearest friend.
2. Cf. Walch, St. Louis Edition, Vol. XXII, 1689, No. 64. Lauterbach, p. 31.
3. It did not remain the last. Cf. the last note to this paper.

Lord should be hanged. "Such a thing," says Luther, "neither Ludwig nor I had brought about nor invented, and the Cardinal's name was spit upon and condemned without our doing."

The brother of the executed man, Antonius von Schönitz, endeavored to save his brother's honor and also to bring into his possession his brother's goods, which the Cardinal had confiscated in order to hold himself harmless, and therefore wanted to take the right path against him. On the other hand, the Cardinal made every possible effort to wrest from the hanged man the papers he had left behind, which were in Antony's hands, in order to deprive him of the evidence that could be used against him. He also did not omit anything that served to shift all the blame onto the murdered man and to purify himself in public opinion. Therefore, before January 12, 1536, Luther issued a harsh punitive and warning letter to the Cardinal (No. 33 in the appendix of this volume), in which he expresses that he should not succeed in his high endeavor "to bury and cover the blood of poor Hans Schanzen by various ways and persons", as with the innocent blood of M. Georg Winkler. The Cardinal "wants to work with honor from the blood of both and let the shame remain on the dead", but Luther is awakened by God to be an Elijah over Ahab and Jezebel. By this writing, he indicates to him that he wants to use Hans "Schanzen's last words, when he cried out against violence and then died, that he did not deserve such death" against the Cardinal. Luther made this known for his own sake, so that it could not be said that "he had neither admonished nor denounced anything beforehand.

Some time passed, probably because of resistance from the court, before Luther fulfilled his promise. In the meantime, we have a whole number of letters 3) that were written in this matter; most of them are addressed to Prince George of Anhalt, whom Luther er-

3. De Wette, Vol. VI, pp. 166. 170. 171. 174. 175.

Burkhardt, p. 264.

Introduction. 29

warns not to let the Cardinal use him as an intermediary in the matter of Schönitzen; the Cardinal only wants to delay the matter. Luther's intention to write vehemently against the Cardinal of Mainz must also have become known in other circles. For at the beginning of December 1536, the Elector John Frederick, moved by a letter from the Elector of Brandenburg and his cousins, asked Luther how he was doing with his planned letter against the Cardinal of Mainz. Luther answered in a letter to Brück of December 10, 1536 (in the appendix of this volume, No. 32), that he wished the princes all the best and would prefer that they persist with their cousin, the Cardinal, so that he would improve. They would also consider that it would not mean a tribe reviled if Luther had to tell the truth to a boy. To the reproach of Duke Albrecht of Prussia (July 24, 1538), who was well-disposed toward him, that he had attacked the Elector of Mainz too harshly in his writing against the epigrams of M. Simon Lemnius, Luther replied on August 15, 1): "It is not a disgrace to have boys in a family, but honest that one neither praises nor defends them. Once again Duke Albrecht 2) admonished Luther to be lenient against the Cardinal on October 8, 1538, adding "that broken pots were found in all places." Prince George of Anhalt also seems to have asked Luthern 3) not to publish the writing against the Cardinal. The Elector of Brandenburg had written to the Elector of Saxony as well as to the Landgrave of Hesse to prevent the publication of the writing; indeed, Luther's sovereign had "diligently and in many ways bargained with him that he would postpone the publication of that writing for at least a few more months, but Luther said that he had reasons why he did not want to drag it out and postpone it; and he wanted the verdict 4)

1. De Wette, Vol. V, p. 123.
2. Burkhardt, Briefwechsel, p. 312.
3. In his letter to Luther of December 22, 1538. Kolde, Analecta p. 336, note 1.
4. Here, in the letter of I. Jonas to Georg von Anhalt, dated January 6, 1539, is an illegible Greek word. Bgl. Kolde I. o.

God's and man's suffering, he is urged by his conscience 2c." At the beginning of the year 1539, Luther let his writing against the bishop of Magdeburg, Cardinal Albrecht, concerning the innocently hanged Hans Schenitz (No. 34 in the appendix of this volume), go out. 5) In the preface, Luther says: "It is no disgrace for a noble lineage to punish a bad boy who has sprung from this lineage. In the scripture itself, Luther proves on the basis of Job 31, 13-15, that the Cardinal was partisan and judge in one person in the matter of Schönitz, contrary to God's word, and puts this on the Cardinal's conscience. However, Luther was now obligated by his Elector to no longer print anything in personal matters that he had not previously presented to the court. 6) Nevertheless, Luther writes to Justus Jonas on November 6, 1542 (No. 35a and 35b in the appendix of this volume), "that the mockery of the sanctuary of the Cardinal at Mainz 7) is his," and states: "For I am not willing to be silent about the desperate enemy of God and blasphemer at Mainz for his diabolical will to courage, which he drives for and against the blood of Christ. . . For they shall sit under him that sitteth on the right hand of GOD, and not above him; with honors not."

XVI Luther's dispute with Caspar Schatzgeyer.

Caspar Schatzgeyer or, as he is also called, Schatzger (on his tombstone in the Franciscan church in Munich: Schazgier), was born in Landshut (Bavaria) in 1463 and received his first instruction in the Franciscan monastery there. He then studied theology in Ingolstadt, became a Baccalaureus and then entered the order of the Minorites in his hometown. In 1514

5. As Köstlin, Martin Luther (3rd ed.), vol. II, p. 431 assumes, it was written in December 1538.
6. Köstlin, Martin Luther, 3rd ed. Vol. II, 432.
7. De Wette, Vol. V, 504, remarks that he knows nothing to say about this for explanation. We have included this "mocking note" in the appendix immediately after the letter to Jonas.

30 Introduction.

He was elected Provincial at the Order's Chapter in Heidelberg and re-elected in 1520 at the Chapter in Amberg. At the time when Eck attributed his Expurgatio 1) to him, September 2, 1519, we meet him as priest and Guardian of the Franciscan monastery at Nuremberg. In 1523, at the General Chapter of Burgos, he was appointed Jnquisitor of the Faith. He seems to have spent most of his monastic life as Guardian of the Franciscan monastery in Munich, where he taught exegesis and dogmatics to his brothers and died on September 18, 1527. He wrote a large amount of writings, 2) which were collected by his friars and published in Ingolstadt in 1543 as Opera omnia Schatz- geri, with a preface by Eck. The book in which he attacked Luther's writing on the vows has the title: Replica contra periculosa scripta post Scrutinium divinae scripturae jam pridem emissum emanata, de votis monasticis, constitutionibus ecclesiasticis, sacrificio sacrosanctae Eucharistiae, sacerdotio novae legis, potestate apostolica cum adjectione responsionis ad tria objecta. As we can see from Luther's letter to D. Johann Brismann, perhaps in January 1523 (No. 106 in this volume), Luther entrusted him, who had previously also been a Minorit, with the answer to Schatzgeyer's writing and at the same time gave him some reasons. Brismann's answer, to which he added Luther's letter, has the title: Ad Casp. Schatzgeyri Minoritae plicas^3^ ) responsio per Jo. Brismannum pro Lutherano libello de votis monasticis. M. Lutheri epistola ad Brismannum de eodem. It appeared at Wittenberg in 1523 and was reprinted in the same year. Schatzgeyer, on the other hand, sent out his Examen novarum doctrinarum, etc., but received no reply.

1. Cf. Walch, St. Louis Edition, vol. XVIII, Introduction, p. 27, second columne.
2. Wiedemann, Eck, p. 419 ff. lists 23 different writings.
3. This refers to the title of the opposing writing: repliea.

XVII Luther's dispute with Cochlaeus.

Cochlaeus was actually named Johann Dobeneck, but called himself Cochlaeus (from cochlea, the snail) after his birthplace, the village of Wendelstein near Nuremberg. At the time when he attacked Luther in a writing about the power of the sacraments, through which he wanted to overthrow justification by faith alone, he stood as dean of the church of the Holy Virgin at Frankfurt am Main. From there he fled at the beginning of the peasant revolt in 1525 and received the canonicate of St. Victor in Mainz. After the death of Emser (who died on November 8, 1527) he was called to Meissen by Duke George in 1529. 4) He died in 1552 at Breslau or, as others indicate, in Vienna. He was a bitter, malicious, impudent adversary of Luther, who of all spread the most slander and invective against Luther and let one writing after another go out against Luther and his teachings. Only to the one above-mentioned writing Luther answered him with a counter-writing "Wider den gewappneten Mann Cochläus" (No. 107 in this volume) in the middle of February 1523. This writing is addressed to Wilhelm Nesen 5), a teacher expelled from Louvain, who had found a refuge in Wittenberg, but in the following year, as Luther reported to Johann Lang 6) on July 6, drowned in the Elbe. In this writing, Luther proves extremely clearly and beautifully that faith alone makes one righteous. The arrogant boasts of Cochläus, however, as Luther reports about the duel offered to him by Cochläus at Worms, made him ridiculous before the whole world. Therefore, Luther did not consider him to be one of his worthy opponents, and in a letter to Spalatin (No. 17 in the appendix of this volume) of February 1, 1524, he states that it was not necessary to answer Cochläus about his books.

4. Seckendorf, Rist. I^utN., Ind. II, p. 14a (16).
5. Luther mentions Nesen in the "Antwort auf des Königs zu England Lästerschrift Titel" (in this volume Col. 416) with the words: "der feine Mensch".
6. Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 907.

Introduction. 31

Introduction to

the

second section of Luther's controversial writings against the papists:

Concerning the Papal Errors, which Luther Disputed.

I. Against Papal Errors in General.

Much more was written against Luther than he could ever have answered, although he would have had nothing else to do. But as we have seen many times before and now in the last-mentioned letter to Spalatin, he let many writings of his adversaries rush by, partly "because he was busy with other, better things", partly because "many such books were destroyed daily by himself". As a true teacher of the divine word, he especially took care of the consciences caught in the tyranny of the pope and made it his business to report to them from God's holy word, thereby equipping, strengthening and comforting them. 1) Such a writing is his booklet "Von Menschenlehre zu meiden" ("To avoid the doctrine of men") together with a "Antwort auf Sprüche, so man führt, um Menschenlehre zu stärken" ("Answer to sayings, which one uses to strengthen the doctrine of men") (No. 108 in this volume), which must have gone out soon after March 24, 1522, thus about April 1522. For on the aforementioned day, he wrote that he had intended to dedicate his book "von Menschenlehre" to his host at the Wartburg, because the latter had requested instruction from him in this matter, but did not dare to do so, because he feared that he would thereby betray the place of his imprisonment. Luther had this booklet published, as he himself says at the beginning of the book, "for the comfort and salvation of the poor consciences living in monasteries.

1. Here we only take into account those writings that are included in this volume, not those whose title Walch has attracted.

or pens lie imprisoned by human law", but not to the service of "the impudent lewd heads who raise their Christian nature only by eating eggs, meat, milk, not confessing, storming images 2c." What else is worth mentioning is given in the note to the superscription, Col. 599.

Here follows in the old edition of Walch a writing, which has the title: Hauptartikel, durch welche die gemeine Christenheit bisher verführt worden, nebst Nicolai von Amsdorfs Zuschrift. This writing, which, as Amsdorf says in his letter to Otto von Ebenleben, has a layman as its author, first appeared in Wittenberg in 1522 without the name of the author, who "for moving reasons" did not want to be named. It was not included in the two oldest collections of Luther's works because it was known that it did not originate from Luther. First it was included by Aurifaber in the Eisleben Collection, Vol. I, p. 119 a, with the remark that it was considered certain that Luther was the author, and that Joachim Westphal (preacher in Hamburg, who attacked the Calvinist doctrine of the Lord's Supper in 1552) had also testified to this in one of his edited writings. From there it has passed into the Altenburg edition, vol. II, p. 224. In both of these editions, Amsdorf's dedicatory inscription is missing. In the Leipzig edition, vol. XVIII, p. 295, the writing is found with Amsdorf's dedication and is printed from it in the old Walch edition. We are of the opinion that Luther did not write it. The writing

32 Introduction.

The way of writing is completely different from Luther's. The content, however, is similar to the faith, but the writing does not seem to us to deserve a place in Luther's works. But even for the reprinting of Amsdorf's preface, which in our opinion is far better than the text itself, we do not think the reason is sufficient, which moved Walch to include the text together with the letter of his collection, namely, "because the same once came into the parts of Luther's books". We have thought it better to exclude the inappropriate again. Amsdorf himself did not include it in the Jena edition published under his supervision. His example is authoritative here because he, and perhaps only he, knew who the author was.

About the following writing: Das Pabstthum mit seinen Gliedern abgemalt und beschrieben, mit Luthers Vorund Nachrede (No. 109 in diesem Bande), Neujahr 1526, in which a large number of the ecclesiastical estates and orders are described in verse in the taste of the time, the necessary has already been said in the first note to the superscription. Luther was induced to let it go out because the papists became insolent and wanton again after the rebellious peasants had been defeated. This writing was supposed to be "a public punishment of the public abomination and devil's play", since the papists thought that "they had recovered and were completely reborn again".

Shortly before November 2, 1535, because on this day Luther sent several copies to Leonhard Beier, 1) pastor in Zwickau, thus about the end of October, the writing appeared: Etliche Artikel von den Papisten jetzt neulich verfälscht sammt einem Briefe D. Martin Luther to the preachers of Soest, 2) a city in Westphalia (No. 110 in this volume). The passage in the aforementioned letter that deals with these articles is as follows: "I am sending copies of the articles, about which

1. De Wette, Vol. IV, p. 647. This letter has not been referred to this writing so far. De Wette only says that it is about a "writing enclosed with Melanchthon", but does not know which one.
2. Spoken: "Soft". This is also how the Wittenberg edition spelled the name of the city.

you write. The papists have made miraculous things (mirabilia) of these articles everywhere, but their fame will be disgraced. M. Philip has not published them (edidit), and he is doing great injustice, more but still to the Elector 3) and to all of us;

3. To understand this passage correctly, we must add what Seckendorf, nist. Imtk., I^ld. Ill, p. 229 b, (ii) reports: "In the archive at Weimar UeZ. X. lob 452, OO, No. 220 is the same writing (Seckendorf is talking about the articles brought by the electoral envoys from England in November 1539, which Walch, old edition, vol. XVII, 342 sf. Cf. the letter of the Elector to Luther and Metanchthon of November 13, 1539 in Burkhardt, Luthers Briefwechsel, p. 336) translated into German, but changed and truncated iinterpoluturn), with the inscription that it had been sent to the Emperor by the Elector of Saxony, Johann Friedrich. I confess that I was not a little troubled when I searched through this volume, and I could also find no sign from other papers and documents, on which occasion, on which day and in which year the Elector would have written such things "contrary to his religion". But after I had read the other volume, namely the one from which I have told the English affairs, and had looked more closely at the Latin writing which I have just communicated, which had been sent from England it was not sent, but the envoys had brought it, I immediately recognized that the same slander had been brought up in Germany against the Elector, which the lickspittles in England had attached to Luther and his colleagues. However, it has been deceitfully changed in one place and another according to the differences of the country (locü) and the people. For what they inserted in the Scripture, which was spread in England, against the rule of the pope over kings and princes, in order to flatter King Henry, they omitted in the German. Also, in the doctrine of justification, they have come closer to Luther's teaching than most of the papal teachers in Germany approved. Of the masses they have also spoken more clearly, and where ceremonies and feasts are dealt with, they have written that only those feasts should be retained which would have been in use in the church at the time of Jerome, Ambrose, and Gregory of Nazianzus." Especially the last sentence proves irrefutably that Seckendorf is speaking here of our present Scripture. He is only mistaken in that he lets the English articles be the earlier ones from which the German ones are supposed to have been prepared, because he did not know the above letter of Luther to Beier, which was first published from the Gleichische Sammlung at Dresden by Schütze (Vol. II, p. 358). Rather, the articles written in Germany in 1535 were brought to England and changed there according to the king's taste. A secondary proof for this assumption lies in the signature of the English articles (Walch, alte Äusg. Bd. XVII, 345): "Gegeben in Deutschland im März 1539", because this is how it should read instead of "Gegeben in Deutschen". (Cf. Walch, introduction to the 17th volume, p. 55, first columne.) Thus it is also easily explained that neither

Introduction. 33

It seems as if they are perhaps brought together from some of M. Philip's writings. Well! the devil has often cheated himself; who knows whether he could not also cheat himself this time, when I do not doubt." From this it is clear that it was pretended that Melanchthon had written and published these articles, that the Wittenberg theologians had agreed, and that the Elector had sent them to the Emperor. Disturbed by this, the preachers at Soest sent these articles to Luther with the inquiry whether it was true that so much had been left to the papists. This prompted Luther to publish the fabricated articles together with his letter to the preachers at Soest, so that they could comfort their own and shut others up. Luther declared: "unless they accept the gospel which I call my gospel," there was no hope of agreement between him and the pope. Luther had caught the conscience of the papists that they know that their gospel is man's teaching, and they must confess that Luther's gospel is God's teaching and the Holy Scripture. Thus for the present this matter was ended; but it arose again four years later. These articles had found their way to England and had been so changed there as to please the king. In November 1539, the envoys whom the Elector had had in England brought these articles with him, whereupon the Elector wrote to Luther and Melanchthon 1) on November 13, 1539, asking them to counter "the cunning and evil practices of the adversaries" in a Latin writing. Much research was done to find the answer, but in vain, because, unknown even to the Elector, this matter had long since been dealt with in Germany by the present Scriptures; and therefore no answer was given. The only other thing that could be done for Ver-

Seckendorf, as he complains (Iäl>. Ill, 228a (r)), nor anyone else has been able to find the answer to this that Luther was ordered by his Elector, "a suitable writing in Latin". It is highly probable that this was never written, because Luther and Melanchthon must have answered the Elector's request: these articles had already been answered sufficiently four years ago by Luther's letter to the preachers at Soest.

1. This letter is found in Burkhardt, p. 336.
2. The fact that Luther writes in the letter: "My Lord Jesus Christ has now preserved me for more than twenty years in this great cause against so many spirits who wanted to overpower me and subjugate me to the pope" is easily settled by the fact that Luther does not count the years from the actual beginning of the Reformation, but from the year 1512, when he became Doctor of Theology.

In the case of the following text: Exemples of Papal Theology and Doctrine with Luther's Preface and Marginal Glosses (No. 111 in this volume), we have not been so fortunate, despite all the efforts made, that we could have determined the time of its writing or publication without doubt. The Jena edition has at the end the year 1523, which Seckendorf (Hist. Luth., Lib. I, p. 284, § 160, Add. ΙΠ, e) has also assumed, but no edition is known which is earlier than 1531. On the basis of this, Köstlin (Martin Luther, 3rd edition, Vol. II, p. 661) has decided for the year 1531. However, we do not consider this merely negative reason, "that there is no trace of older printings", sufficient to overturn the authority of the Jena edition. In Luther's letters we have not been able to find any hint of this writing; the writing itself also gives no definite clue to the solution of this question. We agree with the Erlangen edition (Opp. var. arZ., Vol. VII, p. 21) that the year 1523 is not improbable, because Luther had a lot to do with monastic vows at that time. In the scripture we are informed about the blasphemous sermon, which a Dominican Provincial held on the occasion of the initiation of a young girl into the order. Luther's statement in the Vorreds (§ 6), that he shared this excellent example of papal theology with young people of both sexes, "so that they will be more careful in the future to avoid the monsters of such a great abomination," seems to us to speak for an earlier time than 1531.

2. Seidemapn in De Wette, vol. VI, p. 235 places it after mid-November 1539 and Burkhardt remarks nothing about it.

t.

34 Introduction.

II. Against the person, office and power of the pope and bishops.

Luther's writing: Wider den falschgenannten geistlichen Stand des Pabsts und der Bischöfe (No. 112 in this volume) can probably be dated to July 1522, because his letter to Spalatin of July 26, 1522, in which he writes: "I wanted and it happened on purpose that my little book, which attacks the larval bishops, should be so sharp," suggests that this writing had come into Spalatin's hands shortly before. With great frankness and tremendous sharpness, he castigates the neglect of office and the worldly nature, pomp, ignorance and vice of the bishops and the extreme corruption of the Roman clergy, shows the danger and distress of conscience of those who are in the ecclesiastical orders, and teaches how the clergy should behave according to God's holy word. Seckendorf rightly remarks, 1) that it is wonderful that Luther remained alive even for one day after such testimony, which he gave so unreservedly against the great of the world. For almost all bishoprics were in the hands of the closest relatives of powerful princes, and there was hardly any bishop who, coming from a noble family, did not have influential protectors behind him. The papal liars, namely Cochlaeus 2) and Emser, accused Luther on the basis of this writing as an instigator of sedition and unrest, by concealing what Luther had expressly said, that the resistance against the disgraceful episcopal regiment must not be done with the fist, but with the word of God. Emser sent out a rebuttal under the title: "Wider den falschgenannten Ecclesiasten und wahrhaftigen Erzketzer Martinum Luther Emsers treue und neue Verwarnung, mit beständiger Vorlegung aus bewährter und kanonischer Schrift." (Against the false-named ecclesiastics and true arch-heretic Martin Luther Emser's faithful and new warning, with constant presentation from proven and canonical Scripture). Leipzig, 1523, but Luther did not answer him.

The second scripture Walch assigned to this section is Luther's letter

1. Rist. ILd. I, p. 201 d, (4).
2. in its OommeM. äs astis st soriptis ImÜrsr.

x. 63.

to Duke Albrecht of Prussia, about the Pope and his power (No. 113 in this volume), which will have to be set in January or February of the year 1524, because, as Aurifaber notes, it was handed over to Spalatin to be delivered to the Duke at the Imperial Diet in Nuremberg. This letter contains the answer to five questions which the duke had addressed to Luther concerning the power of the pope. Some of Luther's other writings, in which Luther dealt with the same subject, are referred to at the end of this section.

In addition to these two writings, Walch has included in the appendix of this volume a number of writings which he has described as concerning the Pabst's person and teachings, namely: Interpretation of two gruesome figures of the Pabst by Melanchthon with Luther's Amen and of the monk's calf at Freiberg found by Luther. End of January or beginning of February 1523 (No. 36 in the appendix of this volume). Two episcopal bulls, one of God (of the bishop of Samland) and one of Papal origin (of the bishop of Ermeland), with Luther's preface and glosses. January 1524 (No. 37 in the appendix to this volume). Luther's speeches, caught from his mouth at the disputation on Christ's words "Go and sell all that you have and give it to the poor" (Walch, St. Louis edition, vol. X, 576). April 1539 (No. 39 in the appendix of this volume). Luther's preface to the barefoot monks Eulenspiegel and Alcoran, called Francisci liber conformitatum.

1542 (No. 40 in the appendix of this volume). Finally: Luther's preface to the booklet "Pabst loyalty of Hadrian IV and Alexander III against Emperor Frederick Barbarossa practiced. 1545 (No. 41 in the appendix of this volume). We have omitted the booklet itself, because it not only has no special value, but is even quite legerdemain-like and completely unhistorical, e.g. it lets the Emperor Frederick return to Germany from the Promised Land and hold another Imperial Diet in Nuremberg 2c.

• Introduction. 35

The only historical thing in this story is the humiliating treatment that Emperor Frederick had to suffer from Pope Alexander III in Venice, for the sake of which Luther wrote this preface. By the way, Luther also corrects the above wrong statement in § 4 of his preface and says that the emperor lost his life "in the water" in Palestine.

III Against indulgences.

Even before the actual beginning of the Reformation, Luther bore witness in his sermons against the mischief that was being practiced with indulgences. Several of these sermons, which Luther delivered as an introduction to his lectures on the Ten Commandments from the end of June 1516 to February 24, 1517, have been preserved in a manuscript from which they were first printed in Löscher's Reformation Acts, Vol. I, 729, 734 and 740. Three of them are included in this volume (translated according to the Weimar edition), namely a piece of Luther's sermon on indulgences from July 27, 1516 (No. 114), Luther's sermon on indulgences on the day before the consecration of the church (the collegiate church in Wittenberg) from October 31, 1516 (No**. 115**), and Luther's sermon on the day of St. Matthew, February 24, 1517 (No. 116). In these sermons, Luther leaves the indulgence itself as "the merit of Christ and his saints", which therefore is to be received with all reverence, but he severely castigates the abuse of it, through which it "has become the most shameful service of avarice and not the salvation of souls, but rather the money in the stock exchanges is sought". About the content of these sermons, the necessary has already been said in the 18th volume of our edition, introduction p. 9 f. As far as the text is concerned, the Weimar edition, Vol. I, p. 19 about it 1) says: "The text handed down to us by Löscher is distorted by gross errors. The so-called Erlanger Ausgabe, Lutheri opp. lat. var. arg. vol. I, p. 41-214, has most carefully corrected these errors.

1. The above is said about all the sermons found in Löscher, Vol. I, pp. 231-299 and pp. 729-795, and therefore also applies to our sermons, which belong to the latter section.

and even included obvious nonsense without objection. Walch had our sermons translated into German by younger scholars and assigned them to different parts of his edition; some even appear twice: the corrupt passages are simply omitted, the darker ones are broadly paraphrased according to their meaning; now and then faithful work shows itself." The last sermon "on the day of St. Matthew" has already been printed in the 12th volume of our edition, improved in several respects, but because the revision was made according to the Erlangen edition (the Weimar edition, the first volume of which appeared at the same time, could not yet be used), we were forced to insert it here once again in an improved translation. Whoever wants to convince himself of how justified the above judgment is about the mostly insufficient, extremely prolix translation in Walch's old edition, and furthermore how indispensable it is for us to make new translations (which significantly delays the publication of our edition), should take the trouble to compare the first of the above-mentioned three sermons (No. 114 in this volume) with the one in Walch's old edition, Vol. XIX, 917-929.

Luther's Theses on the Remission of Guilt and Punishment (No. 117 in this volume) were written in 1518; the time of their composition cannot be specified. They were intended for the Friday disputations in Wittenberg and closely follow Luther's "Explanations of his Disputation on the Power of Indulgences" 2) in content, in that our theses are also proven in this writing, as the last note attached to them testifies.

The next writing that we encounter in Walch's old edition, Christi Ablaßbrief gestellet durch D. Martin Luther den 10. Juni 1523, is not a separate writing, but a piece of Luther's interpretation of the Holy Father-Unsers 1517, which is found in Walch's old edition, Vol. VII, 1154-1156, §§ 132-135; therefore it is omitted here. First

2. Walch, St. Louis Edition, vol.-XVIII, col. 100-269.

36 Introduction.

this piece under the above title recording healthy in a small collection: "Urtheil D. Martin Luther and Philippi Melanchthon by Erasmo Roterodam. A Christian epistle of D. Martin Luther to D. Wolfgang Fabritium Capitonem, in which is learned what measure to preach the gospel and how to use sharpness or kindness. Christ Letter of Indulgence. Do not become children - 1 Cor. 14." At the end of the letter of indulgence it says: Doctor Martinus Luther at Wittenberg. From the latter information it has been concluded that this writing is to be placed in the year 1523, although in it is still pronounced: "Not that I reject Roman indulgences." It first came into the collection of Luther's writings through Aurifaber, who included it as previously unprinted in the Eisleben edition, Vol. I, toi. 173. From there it has passed into all later editions: into the Altenburger, vol. II, p. 353; into the Hallischer Theil p. 135; into the Leipziger Ausgabe, vol. XVIIl, p. 495; into Walch's old edition, vol. XIX, 957 and into the Erlanger Ausgabe, vol. 29, p. 43.

Luther's letter to Spalatin of February 15, 1518, to which Walch refers in the old edition Col. 957, refers to Luther's Sermon on Indulgences and Grace; the necessary has been said about it in the 18th volume of the St. Louis edition, Introduction, p. 15, Col. 1.

Around the middle of December 1524, Pope Clement VII issued two bulls, dated December 17 and 19, in which he proclaimed a Jubilee Year for the year 1525. Luther had these printed under the title: Two Bulls of Pabst Clement the Seventh, in which he proclaims the Roman Jubilee Year 2c. (No. 118 in this volume), and provided them with his preface and glosses. The going out of this writing will have to be set in the beginning of the year 1525. 1) In it, Luther says, "that the obvious deception and robbery of indulgences is so obvious that even the enemies of the Gospel must confess that it is vain avarice, deceit and fraud, and yet the Antichrist dares to continue with the lazy, stinking, embarrassed, and untrustworthy indulgences.

1. Cf. the first note to No. 118.

The first thing we know is that every hour when the holy gospel is heard and believed is a jubilee year, that the time when the gospel is pure is the right, pleasant jubilee year. "We know that every hour those who hear and believe the holy gospel have a year of rejoicing, that the time when the gospel goes pure is the right, rich, pleasant year of rejoicing." "Not the pabst's fictitious, lousy indulgences can satisfy consciences, but only faith in Christ." The Son of God "is the right, certain way to blessedness and no other, neither in heaven nor on earth. O blessed and blessed are those who have experienced this dear pleasant time, see and hear the joyful message, recognize it rightly, accept it, believe it from the heart and also thank God for such great grace. But few are those, even among us, who are still right in the Word of God".

IV. Against the aural confession.

Luther's writing "Weise, wie man beichten soll" (No. 119 in this volume) appeared at the end of March 1520, because on March 25 Luther sent a finished copy to Spalatin. 2) Already on January 14, 1519, Luther wrote to Spalatin, 3) that he was busy with an instruction on how one should confess (Formam confessionis meditor), and sent it to him on January 24. 4) After a year had passed, namely on January 18, 1520, Luther wrote to Spalatin 5): "I once made a 'Meise zu beichten' for you; I wish to have a copy of it (hujus exemplar), because I fear that it will be printed as it is, as our Adelmann writes to me, who wished that I should send it to him improved or changed." What Luther expresses here as an apprehension 6) that the editions he had written only for his

2. Walch, old edition, Vol. XV, Appendix No. 29.
3. Walch, old edition, vol. XV, appendix, no. 5 with the wrong year 1518. Cf. Weim. Ausg., vol. II, p. 48. Erl. Briefw., vol. I, p. 353, note 1.
4. Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 618, § 1.
5. Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 667, § 2.
6. Perhaps it is to be seen as a fine rebuke to Spalatin, because, as it seems, Adelmann, canon in Augsburg, wrote to Luther because of the already published writing.

Introduction. 37

In the meantime, already in the year 1519, it had happened several times that the writing, which had been written for a friend, but not for publication, would go out in print. Both in Leipzig by Melchior Lotther and in Basel by Adam Petri, this writing was published in this year under the title: "Eine kurze Anweisung, wie man beichten soll, aus Doctor Martin Luther Augustiners Wohlmeinung gezogen. 1) In the Leipzig copy is added at the end: "Printed at Leipzig from the demand of Melchior Lotther." If one compares this writing with the later translation of the Confitendi ratio by Spalatin, one can hardly doubt that the "short instruction" also came from Spalatin's pen. He must have given it to Melchior Lotther for printing at his request. Although Luther must have suspected that Spalatin had a hand in the publication, he did not let him pay for it, but after he had reworked it into the "Way of Confession", he sent it, as already mentioned, again to Spalatin, who translated it again and dedicated it to Duke John of Saxony on May 8, 1520. Luther had also intended a dedication of his improved writing to Alexius Chrosner, canon in Altenburg; indeed, he had already made such a dedication and had asked Chrosner 2) to allow him to send it to the Duke of Saxony.

1. This writing is found in Walch, St. Louis Edition, Vol. X, 2158, and the first part of it in all editions of the Tischreden, Cap. 18, § 12, with the exception of "the St. Louis edition, in which this paragraph has been omitted as not belonging to the Tischreden (moreover as a duplicate). - It is remarkable that the three oldest complete editions of Luther's works, the Wittenberg, the Jena, and the Altenburg editions, did not include the "short instruction" because Luther did not want it to be published. It is first found in the Leipzig Supplement volume p. 118, then by Walch and in the Erlangen edition, vol. 21, p. 244 si. The proofs of this writing in the old editions given by the latter on p. 245 are simply taken out of the air. Also in the Weimar edition, vol. II, 69, this writing has found admission.
2. Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 685 f. gives the letter to Chrosner the date "March 24", which may be correct; however, we suspect that the letter may be backdated by several more days, perhaps reading "VII 6al6n6. ^xrilis" may be read from XII 6u-. lencl. The latter would result in March 21. The date, which can be found for this letter in Aurifaber, Vol. I, p. 251 and after him in De Wette, Vol. I, p. 433 and in Erlanger Briefwechsel, Vol. I, p. 370.

Luther had told the translators that the writing would go out under his name; however, it was omitted from the print, perhaps through an oversight at the printer's 3) office. The lack of good proofreading lamented by Luther is also evident in Spalatin's translation, at least in two places. We have found it necessary to make a new translation. In this writing, Luther teaches, as the title indicates: How one should confess. Namely, one should not rely on one's own works, one's own righteousness, nor on one's confession, but place one's trust in God's mercy and in the promise of His grace. Above all, a person must confess his sins to God, as if to a secret friend, to whom he is not ashamed to reveal all his affairs, with the earnest good intention of improving his life, but also not seeking this intention from himself, but from God, who alone can give it. Only obvious mortal sins belong to sacramental confession; secret sins of the heart do not belong to it, or only if a person has decided to commit sins against God's holy commandments with the open consent of his heart. A man is not even able to confess all his mortal sins, but only the fewest of them; therefore he should humble himself before God in such a way and say: "Behold, all that I am, my life, actions and speech are all such that they are mortal sin and damnable." This is the deadliest mortal sin, that a man does not believe that he is charged with mortal sin. One should abandon the generally accepted distinctions of sins, so that confession does not become torture,

finds: "7 tüulonü. ^xrilis", i.e. March 26, is wrong in any case. It is not to be assumed that Luther should have sent the writing to Spalatin on March 25, 1520 "without preface", but on the following day asked Chrosnern to allow him the dedication. The latest possible date for the letter to Chrosner is therefore March 24, because the date for the letter to Spalatin (March 25) is undoubted, since the original exists in Dessau. Cf. Burkhardt, Luthers Briefwechsel, p. 27.

3. In the aforementioned letter of March 25, 1520, Luther writes to Spalatin: "I send the 'Way to Confess' badly corrected, which is annoying, then also without preface, which, although it was ready, I do not know by what accident, we omitted when printing it."

38 Introduction.

But man should look rightly at the holy ten commandments, in which all sins are included, and then take absolution, in which he is absolved of his sins, with great joy in faith.

Luther's Instruction of Confessors on the Forbidden Books (No. 120 in this volume) appeared in mid-February 1521, 1) for the comfort of confessors to whom the confessors should refuse absolution or Holy Communion because they had or were reading Luther's writings. The confessors, and only those who consider Luther's teachings to be right in their conscience, are instructed how they should behave toward such sacrilegious behavior. In all humility, they are to deny their research to the confessor, and if he nevertheless does not want to desist and grant absolution after they have freely confessed that they have the forbidden books and do not want to promise not to have and read them anymore, they are to let him have his absolution, which he withholds from them as a thief and robber, and cheerfully boast that they are absolved before God. They should not allow themselves to be challenged even if they do not receive the sacrament in that year, for one may well do without it, but the soul cannot do without the divine word. One must not let himself be driven by anything from the teaching which he recognizes and respects in his conscience as divine. We are to strengthen ourselves with sayings of the Holy Scriptures, yes, praise God for making us worthy to suffer for the sake of His Word. Finally, Luther warns the confessors that they should not torture the consciences of the confessors, lest the latter be moved to ask and inquire in turn where they got the power and where the secret confession came from. If the pope and his people had not acted against Luther with storms and violence, much would have remained that they can now never bring back.

Of Luther's now following writing "Von der Beichte, ob die Pabst Macht habe zu gebieten" (No. 121 in

1. For this timing, see the note to the caption of No. 120.

De Wette (Vol. II, p. 13) assumes that it was not published until August or September of that year. It is likely that Luther's absence from Wittenberg, as he was writing it at Wartburg Castle, delayed its publication for so long. Originally, Luther intended to make a sermon out of it, as he wrote to Spalatin 2) on May 14, 1521: "I will write a German sermon on the freedom of the ear confession", but it became this booklet on confession. On June 10, he sends the finished manuscript to Spalatin 3) with the order to have it printed as soon as possible. About the 119th Psalm, 4) which he translated and annotated at that time, but had not yet completed, 5) Luther was still undecided whether he should add it to this writing or publish it as a separate booklet. Subsequently, this psalm appeared both separately and attached to our writing. The latter, however, had not yet happened on August 6, 1521, for on that day Luther wrote to Spalatin. 6): "I am surprised that the 119th Psalm has been so lost, for I am certain that I added it to the end of the Sermon on Confession in such a way that one part of it was on the same sheet with the last part of the Scripture on Confession, so that the Sermon on Confession must necessarily be incomplete. The remaining part, however, I have sent especially with the second package; perhaps you are not looking carefully." About the printing of the. In a letter to Spalatin 7) of August 15, 1521, Luther expresses himself very displeasingly: "I have sent the second and third sheets 8) "I have received the second and third sheets 8) 'Of Confession' from you; I had already received the same with the first sheet from Philip.

2. Walch, old edition, vol. XV, appendix, no. 68, ? 4.
3. Walch, old edition, Vol. XV, Appendix, No. 74.
4. Walch, old edition, vol. V, 1816.
5. The beginning of the same was on the last sheet of the Scripture.
6. Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 758.
7. Walch, old edition, vol. XV, appendix, no. 73, s 1.
8. The whole of Scripture comprises en the various individual editions from 7 to 8H sheets; the Psalm 3 sheets.

Introduction. 39

hold. But I am extremely sorry and annoyed by this printing. Oh, if only I had not sent anything German! So badly, so carelessly, so without order 1) it is printed, so as not to say anything about the bad types and the bad paper. The printer Johannes 2) is also a "right Hans" (est Joannes in eodem tempore). - The writing itself has three parts. The first part is a preface in which Luther warns, on the basis of many sayings of the Holy Scriptures, against the doctrines of men and the commandments of men with which the pope has ruled in the church and suppressed the Word of God. In the second part, he demonstrates how the sayings used by the papists for auricular confession partly do not speak of it at all, partly (like Jac. 5, 16.) run completely counter to the commandment and compulsion of auricular confession; then, that the church fathers did not write anything about it either. In the third part, he teaches that secret confession is a very delicious, wholesome thing, for which one should thank God with all one's heart that it is permitted and given to us; it is an opened treasure of grace, in which God holds out and offers His mercy and forgiveness of all sin; it is a blessed, rich promise of God, which no one forces and presses, but entices and tempts everyone. Therefore, no one may be forced and driven to it by laws or commandments, but God wants to have such people who come to it eagerly and willingly, whose hearts struggle and groan for the help of divine grace. Against this the Pope, "the greatest juggler on earth", acts with his commandments that everyone should confess all his sins to his own priest at Easter time. No one should turn back on such commandments of the pope. 3)

1. Cf. the note to § 47 of this paper.
2. This probably refers to Johannes Grünenberg, from whose Osficin several editions of this writing originated, not Hans Luft, as De Wette assumes (Vol. II, p. 42), since it is not known that he also printed this writing. In the list of sources in Dietz, Wörterbuch zu Luthers Schriften (Dictionary of Luther's Writings), Luft's name appears first in the printing of the Tröstbrief an die Christen zu Augsburg (Letter of Comfort to the Christians at Augsburg), which is dated December II, 1523 (the printing has no date); then only again in 1524, "Die ander Epistel S. Petri" (The Other Epistle to St. Peter), and more frequently thereafter. '
3. A scripture that strengthens Luther's booklet on confession against the adversaries is his sermon on the ten lepers. Compare the note in the 12th volume of the St. Louis edition, Col. 1438.

V. Luther's Writings on the Ransoming and Binding Key or on the Violence of the

Church and from the ban.

Luther's Sermon on the Power of Banishment (No. 122 in this volume), which, as the Latin title indicates, "was finally wrung from him by evil mouths," 4) appeared between August 21 and 31, 1518. It was delivered when Luther had just returned from Heidelberg, presumably on Sunday Exaudi (May 16) 1518, in Wittenberg. "Already before, in a sermon of the Lent, 5) he had expressed himself about the 'Spiet', which one causes at present with the banning, and had then promised his listeners to instruct them once more in detail about what the banning really had to mean." 6) In the Lenten sermon he says, "The ban letters fly like bats for the sake of a small thing." Luther fulfilled his promise through our sermon, which, as he writes in a letter to Staupitz 7) of September 1, 1518, "was very necessary for the people because of the harsh drudgery of the officials against our people." By these words Luther himself gives us the occasion for this sermon. 8) "Although" (Luther continues) "all our jurists and theologians highly approve of it, it is nevertheless wonderful how great a fire the exceedingly frightening spies have endeavored to fan from it, since they have caught it from my mouth and then put it into exceedingly spitefully written articles and have spread them everywhere and are still spreading them; and they are very anxious to rob me of my good name. Finally, he even flies to Augsburg among the great ones [of the

4. The expression u liuZuis tertiis is taken from Sirach 28, 16. (according to the Vulgate), as the Weimar edition indicates.
5. St. Louis edition, vol. XII, 1311, s 16th Wednesday after Lätare (March 17) 1518.
6. Thus Köstlin, Martin Luther, Vol. I, p. 211.
7. Walch, old edition, vol. XV, appendix, no. §, Z4.
8. This overturns the assumption of Löscher (II, 376), which Walch and the Erlangen edition followed, that Luther was moved to this sermon by the citation to Rome, which he received on August 7, 1518. Similarly, in the sixth section of our Sermons, Luther states "the cause" that prompted him to publish it.

40 Introduction.

In Dresden, 1) it has been thrown in my face, in that some articles of it have been attracted." Already earlier, namely on July 10, 1518, Luther had written to Wenceslaus Link 2): "I have recently preached a sermon to the people about the power of the ban, in which I have punished the tyranny and ignorance of this completely miserable bunch of officials, commissioners and vicars only above. Everyone is surprised that they have never heard of the same. Now we all expect what evil may come to me in the future; I have lit a new fire. But so does the word of truth, the sign which is contradicted. I wanted to debate this publicly, but the rumor had spread and moved many great people so much that my bishop of Brandenburg demanded through a noble messenger that I postpone the debate. I did so and still do, especially because my friends advised me to do so. This includes a letter from Spalatin to Luther 3) from September 5, 1518, in which he writes from the Imperial Diet in Augsburg: "I cannot say, however, how much evil, how much spitefulness the sentences of the ban seem to have brought you. I cannot be surprised enough that they were sent here from there, and all the more so because (I write what I have seen) an exceedingly bitter mockery against Roman avarice had been attached to them. For that which has been sent hither has been delivered into the hands of both apostolic legates. I fear that it has been sent to Rome and has done you tremendous harm." From these documents we see that Luther also wanted to organize a disputation on the subject of his sermon, but was prevented from doing so by the Bishop of Brandenburg. Luther himself did not initially intend to publish his sermon in print.

1. Cf. Luther's letter to Spalatin of January 14, 1819, Walch, old edition, vol. XV, appendix, no. 5. There and in De Wette, vol. I, p. 83, with the erroneous date 1518.
2. Walch, old edition, Vol. XV, Appendix, No. 2, § 5.
3. Burkhardt, Briefwechsel, p. 12.

As the title indicates, he was urged to do so by evil mouths, who picked up individual parts of his sermon and, to dishonor and corrupt him, turned them into hateful articles and spread them everywhere, including at the Imperial Diet in Augsburg. As a result of such shameful distortion of his doctrine, Luther was forced, after a considerable time had passed since the sermon had been held, to compose his sermon as well as possible from his memory and to publish it, in order to counteract the abuse of his words. Although the Elector had warned Luthern, probably through Spalatin, against his intention, perhaps because he feared greater harm from the outgoing of the sermon, the printing had been completed and the writing had appeared before he received the disfavored letter, for on August 31, 1518, Luther wrote to Spalatin 4): "Before your letter arrived, dear Spalatin, the Sermon vom Banne had already been published, but with such modesty and supported by such firm proofs of truth that I cherish the hope that it will not only not be disapproved of by the lovers of truth, but will be received entirely with favor, even by those whom tyranny itself delights; so gloriously have I exalted that holy power, yet without flattery, though not without necessity. For I have taught nothing in it which they themselves have not taught and still teach." In his letter to Spalatin 5) of August 21, 1518, Luther does not yet mention anything about the printing of the sermon, but on August 31 it had already gone out, so we have to put it between these two dates. - In this sermon Luther teaches that the ban is a separation from the community of believers. This, however, is a twofold one, an inward and an outward one. The inward, spiritual community consists of one faith, one love, one hope against God. The outward, bodily communion consists in the participation in the same sacraments, as a sign of the inward communion, also in the participation in outward things, intercourse and contact. Into the spiritual communion can

4. Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 598, § 1.
5. Walch, old edition, Vol. XV, 528.

Introduction. 41

God alone, and no human being can exclude someone from this community, but only the human being himself through his own sin. Therefore, the ecclesiastical ban can only be a deprivation of external fellowship, nor is the soul handed over to the devil through it, nor is the person deprived of the goods of the church, if he remains in faith, love and hope. A just ban indicates that the soul of a person who, through mortal sin, has already deprived himself of the fellowship of the church and has given his soul to the devil, has been handed over to the devil. The ecclesiastical ban does not inflict anything, but has the prerequisite that someone is already spiritually separated from the church by his sin. The ban is temporal and bodily, and is intended to restore spiritual communion, not to ruin, but to restore and preserve people through shame. Therefore, the ban should be received with the greatest reverence and borne with the greatest patience. The fact that the ban has often not been received in this way is largely the fault of the officials, who, by their manifold threats and domineering behavior, have only endeavored to instill fear and terror of the ban on the people and have sometimes banished them for a very small sum of money, for the seventh or eighth part of a guilder, while they have let the most atrocious, most grievous sins go unpunished.

A sermon quite similar to this sermon, which is expanded from this sermon (for many passages in it are almost word for word the same), was preached by Luther in 1519, soon after his sermon on the Sacrament of the Holy Body of Christ, with special reference to the same, and had it published in the same year, probably in December, 1) under the title: "A Sermon on the Ban" (No. 123 in this volume). The sacrament of the Lord's Supper is a sign of the communion of all saints, whereas the actual office of the banns is that they are given to a schoolmaster.

1. For the determination of the time, see the note to the heading.

Christian men from this sacrament. On the whole, the content is otherwise the same as in the previous sermon, only sharper against the tyranny that the spiritual judges exercised with the ban, and more detailed, because the first sermon has only twelve sections, this one, however, twenty-one.

In 1521, at one of the Friday disputations, the ban was 2) also disputed. Luther presented the theses; they can be found under the title Luther's Disputation on the Ban in No. 124 of this volume. It was probably held in the first quarter of the year, since Luther had already set out on his journey to Worms on April 2, 1521, but stayed at Wartburg Castle after the Imperial Diet. In the only disputation, which we still have from the year 1521, it is expressly added to the title that Luther sent it (namely from his Patmos).

During the Imperial Diet in Augsburg, Luther wrote his book on the keys (No. 125 in this volume). On July 20, 1530, Luther informed Wenceslaus Link 3) from Coburg that his recantation of Purgatory was now under press in Wittenberg and that he already had his lies of the keys in progress. As a reason for these two writings, Luther states that he wanted to give his opponents, who were raging and shouting against him out of boredom and because they had nothing to do, cause to rage and shout. On August 24, Luther sent his Sermon von den Schulen to Melanchthon 4) with the remark that this writing does not deny its author by its verbosity (verbositate) and that the booklet of the keys will be of the same kind. In fact, the writing was quite extensive, because it includes in different editions from 7-1/4 to 10 sheets in quarto. On September 8, the writing is in the hands of his wife and Luther writes to her 5): "If you like the copy of the Keys of St. John of Pomerania and Creutzigern, let it be printed. It is nothing that

2. The title in the Erlangen edition says so. 3) De Wette, Vol. IV, > p. 104. > > 4) Walch, old edition. Vol. XVI, Appendix, No. II. 5) De Wette, Vol. > VI, p. 122.

42 Introduction.

one celebrates the devil. The writing appeared then also soon, probably at the end of September or beginning of October, at Wittenberg with Hans Luft, because already on 20 October a reprint went out without indication of place and printer. 1) In the Tischreden, Cap. 18, § 3 (Walch, St. Louis Edition, Vol. XXII, 558) we are told that the Bohemians were annoyed by this writing because they insisted that God alone forgives sin, but did not want to believe that he could and would do it through a man. Luther proves in this scripture that in the Gospel of Matthew, chapters 16 and 18, to which the papists refer, binding and loosing does not mean commanding and forbidding or making laws and commandments over Christianity, but Christ speaks of keeping and forgiving sin. These keys help to eternal life and do not require any work, but only faith. The papists, through their false doctrine of the keys, have made the pope a god on earth, so that they boast of him that he is also over the Holy Scriptures, and can change and interpret them as he pleases. The binding key of the pope, which establishes the laws, never errs; but from the right key they have made a wrong key, e.g. when the pope banishes someone who is not bound before God, or loosens someone who is not loose before God. They proved this by selling indulgences, with which they cheated the whole world out of their money. They have tied forgiveness to right repentance and confession, that is, to man's work, instead of basing it on God's promise, which is grasped in faith. Through the false key they have made God a liar in order to get the key to the world's box. They hold the keys not for a divine but for a human order, do not base them on God's word but on man's deeds. If a man is pious, the key will unlock; if a man is not pious, the key will not unlock. As Pabst's keys are, so is his church, an uncertain and lying church, which hovers in doubt and unbelief without God's word. But the church of faith stands on the ge

1. Erlanger Ausgabe, Vol. 31, p. 126. Print No. 2.

know the rock of Christ. Furthermore, they have further divided the keys into the key of power, according to which the pope has power to rule over everything in heaven and on earth, over emperors and kings, over angels and purgatory, and into the key of knowledge, by which the pope has power over all rights, spiritual and temporal; over all teachings, of God and of men; over all dealings, things, questions and errors. Christ does not want to have all these keys, the fallacy key, the knowledge key (that one should know how man stands before God), the key of force or rule, the binding key, which makes laws, the loosening key, which dispenses money, in the Church and Christians should not suffer them, but the doctrinal key, which God has commanded to the preaching ministry, and for those who sin, the right binding and loosening key. The papists practice the binding key by making laws, and the loosening key by remitting sins that should be punished with banishment; but they do not pay attention to these. They practice the keys on nothing but invented false sins that go against their laws or concern the dear penny, and knowingly banish the gospel. Finally, Luther gives a wonderful, comforting instruction on the right use of the keys. In it, God's word and promise is given to us, which we are to receive firmly in faith without any doubt.

Luther's article on the power of the Christian church, which he wants to maintain against the whole school of Satan 2c. (No. 126 in this volume), from July 1530, 2) are written by Luther in Latin. The translation published in the same year is

2. This timing results from the fact that the articles (as Köstlin, Martin Luther, 3rd ed., vol. II, p. 223 and 227 notes) arrived in Augsburg on the same day as his printed missive to Archbishop Albrecht of Magdeburg of July 6, 1530, namely on July 22. Furthermore, Luther writes about the same to Spalatin under July 27, 1530 (De Wette, vol. IV, p. 113. Walch, old edition, vol. XVI, 1198 omits the conclusion of the letter in which these words are contained): "In the sentences the opponents will find innumerable heresies, but also contradictions, because they are very sharp dialecticians, especially when they move outside those examples: honao eurrit, klato mnrrtt, which they alone have learned." '

Introduction. 43

The Erlangen edition, which wanted to include Luther's writings only in their original language, should not have included them in the 31st volume of the German writings, but should have limited itself to reproducing them in Latin. That the translation found in the old Walch edition and reproduced by the Erlangen edition is not by Luther is, in our opinion, already proven by the fact that the Wittenberg and Jena editions do not bring this, but another and indeed better and more exact translation, which was made according to the single edition (described in the first note of this number). All previous German translations have, according to the single edition, forty sentences. All other Latin editions offer only 38 sentences, because what was broadly separated in the 36th and 37th thesis of the single edition 1) was included in the conclusion of the 35th thesis (probably by Luther himself), making these two theses superfluous. In these theses it is taught that the church has no power to set articles of faith or to give commandments of good works, for these are sufficiently set forth in Holy Scripture. The Scripture is mistress of the Church, but not vice versa. The Church, but not a priest or the pope, can order ceremonies over itself, but in such a way that they can be changed according to the circumstances of the time. Failure to observe the ceremonies does not make one a heretic, but obstinate error in an article of faith. Priestly marriage, even according to the Pope's law, is neither a sin, nor a nuisance, nor something shameful, but Christian.

VI Luther's writings on the saints and their intercession.

In the church at Erfurt, several sermons about the service of the saints had caused quarrels and discord. To counter this, Luther wrote the Epistle or Instruction to the Church at Erfurt Assembled in God (No. 127 in

1. Cf. Erlanger Ausgabe, opp. var. srZ., vol. IV, p. 376 f., note 3.

This volume), dated July 10, 1522, and on the same day he sent it to Johann Lang 2) with the remark that if he wanted to have the epistle printed, he should see to it that it was divided correctly according to its sections. Luther also authorizes him to insert more names of those to whom he wishes to send greetings, but he should limit their number to ten. This is how it was printed, and according to what has just been said, probably first in Erfurt. - Above all, Luther admonishes the preachers to refrain from useless questions about the saints and the dead, but to point the people to the one mediator Christ. They have enough to teach and learn from him. The others, who want to call on the names of the saints, should not be despised in their weakness, but they should not place their trust and confidence in a saint, but only in Christ. For confidence is the highest honor due to God alone. By raising such unnecessary matters and questions, Satan seeks to corrupt the simple, necessary, simple knowledge of Christ. The weak are to be spared, and they are to be guided carefully, so that they leave the unnecessary and take hold of the one Christ as necessary. This is not accomplished by quarreling, rebellion and violence, but by tearing hearts away from the devil's false doctrine through the word of truth. Although Luther treats the weak so cleanly in this writing that he does not impute the calling of the saints to them as a sin, we cannot agree with Walch's judgment, which he states in the introduction to the 19th volume of the book. Introduction to the 19th volume, p. 84: Luther had indicated through this writing "that he had not yet gained sufficient knowledge of this matter. For to his friend Lang, to whom he had already promised a letter to the congregation in Erfurt on March 28, 1522 3), he writes in another letter, in which he renews this promise, on May 29, 1522 4): "It is foolish to bother with unnecessary

2. Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 806.

3. Walch, old edition, vol. XV, appendix, no. 101. § I. 4) Walch, old > edition, vol. XXI, 788, s 3.

44 Introduction.

We must be careful not to waste our time on things and neglect what is necessary. The service of the saints will fall away by itself without our help, as soon as it is established that it is not necessary, and Christ alone is on Mount Tabor. For by this reason this service has passed away (excidit) from me, so that I do not know how and when I have stopped calling on the saints in prayer and have been content with Christ and God the Father alone. Therefore, I cannot praise those who summarily (simpliciter) condemn the worshippers of the saints among us. For one must lead the weak slowly and not suddenly rush, so that one first gives them the reason why it is not necessary to venerate them, then also obtains a reverent attitude toward them; my little book will speak about this." It should be especially noted that this writing is not an argument against the opponents of the truth, but an instruction to the church at Erfurt gathered in God, that is, for the believers who allow themselves to be instructed in their weakness by the Word of God.

The second writing of this section is: Ein Sendbrief D. M. Luthers vom Dolmetschen und Fürbitte der Heiligen (No. 128 in this volume), datirt vom 8. September 1530. In the old edition of Walch it is torn apart; the first part, of interpreting, is found in the 21st volume, Col. 309, the second part, of the intercession of the saints, here in the 19th volume. But Köstlin rightly says, 1) "that the two subjects of this epistle are more closely related to each other than it seems from the title. For since in the first part primarily Luther's translation of Rom. 3, 28. is defended, "that man is justified by faith alone," it is evident that it is a necessary consequence that nothing else, thus also not the intercession of the saints, if there were such, can help or assist in justification and blessedness. We therefore share the whole scripture in this volume. From Coburg, Luther sent the same to Wenceslaus Link 2) on September 12, 1530, and authorized

1. Martin Luther, 3rd edition, Vol. II, p. 846.
2. Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 1216.

Luther's letter was sent to Wenceslaus Link by a friend and handed over to him. "For I would like," Luther wrote, "that it should seem written in a corner, as it were, and precede as a prelude, as if I cared for nothing and dealt with other things. I have written more expansively in this matter, whether perhaps some might be preserved by hope. You can now put this title in front of it: A Letter from Mart. Luther on Interpreting', or as you like." Link seems to have soon arranged for the printing, for his preface is dated September 15, 1530, and the old collections have the addition to the heading: "to a good friend.

VII Luther's writings on Christian freedom and ceremonies.

According to the unanimous judgment of older and newer people, the writing "Von der Freiheit eines Christenmenschen" (No. 129 in this volume), which was written after October 12, 1520, is one of the most beautiful 3) that Luther ever wrote. Seckendorf 4) exclaims admiringly: "Would to God that the two sentences which Luther has treated in this booklet, as Luther has explained them, would also stick in the hearts of all Christians." Luther himself says of it in his letter to Pope Leo X: "So that I do not come empty before your holiness, I bring with me a little book, issued under your name, for a good wish and beginning of peace and good hope, from which your holiness may taste what kind of business I would like to do and would also like to deal with fruitfully, if it were possible for me in front of your unchristian flatterers. It is a small booklet, if the paper is looked at, but nevertheless the whole sum of a Christian life is comprehended in it, if the meaning is understood." So that it may be rightly recognized what a Christian man is and how it relates to the freedom that Christ has given

3. Kolde, Martin Luther, Vol. I, p. 274: "perhaps the most beautiful writing."
4. Hist. HP. I, x. 99 sq,

Introduction. 45

Luther treats the two sentences on the basis of Scripture: "A Christian man is a free lord over all things and subject to no one", and "an honorist man is a servant of all things and subject to everyone", by tracing everything back to faith and deriving it from it. We refrain here from a further communication of the contents, partly in order not to extend the introduction unduly, partly because every Christian should read and frequently reread this delicious scripture himself. - The occasion for this writing is the following: The papal legate Carl von Miltitz made all possible efforts to curb Luther, 1) or, as Miltitz expresses it in his letter to the Elector 2) of August 19, 1520: "I am sonder Zweifel, so mir Doctor Martinus folgen wird, ich will ihm, neben Ew. Churfürstl. Gn. Rath, help him out of this error and misfortune, which he is committing by papal sanctity. 3) I will also now come to the Chapter in Eisleben, act with the Patre Commissario along with the other brothers, and think of good means, save Doctor Martini's efforts, toil and work, and turn his letter into a different style, which is all first done by Your Electoral Grace. Gn. Jntercession and Council." Therefore, as he indicates here, Miltitz went to the General Chapter of the Augustinians taking place in Eisleben, 4) at which Staupitz resigned his office as Vicar General and Wenceslaus Link was elected in his place, gave a speech there and asked the Fathers for advice on how Luther should be subdued. They replied that they had nothing to do with him and did not know any advice, as Luther wrote to Spalatin on September 1, 1520. But finally Miltitz obtained from the chapter (as Luther informs Spalatin 5) on September 11): "that the venerable father Staupitz and the new vicar Wenceslaus should travel to me and ask me to have a private

1. Walch, old edition, Vol. XV, Appendix, No. 39.
2. Walch, old edition, Vol. XV, 926. Cyprian, useful documents, Vol. I, 435.
3. In the original: "to help".
4. Miltitz hoped to meet Luthern there, but he was not present.
5. Walch, old edition, Vol. XV, Appendix, No. 13.

I would write a letter to the Roman pope, assuring him that I would never have done anything against his person, and I expressed the hope that through this advice the matter would come to an end. Although this is not valid with me, not even with the fathers, the man will nevertheless be favored, who perhaps also wants to advise his cause through this. I will therefore write what is also the truth, that I have never taken anything into consideration that could be interpreted against the person of the pope; for what can I write more easily and with greater truth? By the way, I must be careful not to treat the Roman See too harshly when writing: yet it shall have its salt." As soon as Miltitz had received the promise from the chapter that the deputation he had requested should go to Luther, he wrote a very respectful letter to Luther from Eisleben on August 29, 1520, 6) in which he admonishes him "not to be contrary to his brothers who would visit him, but to be at their will and at the will of the whole chapter and to follow their advice, which the dear venerable brother (fraternitatem tuam) will never regret. As we have seen, Luther let himself be found willingly, but before he came to fulfill his promise, Eck had arrived from Rome with the papal bull of excommunication, so he changed his intention, as he wrote to Spalatin 7) on October 3, 1520: "I have not yet done it, nor will I do it now, since Eck, as one hears, has bulls and curses ready for me at Leipzig. It is not yet known what he wants to do." In the meantime, Eck had the papal bull posted at Meissen on September 21, at Merseburg on the 25th, and at Brandenburg on the 29th. 8) On October 3, Miltitz sent a copy of the bull from Leipzig to the Elector. Miltitz was very dissatisfied with the publication of the same by Eck, and was pleased about the various hardships and dangers which Eck had to endure in Leipzig because of

6. Walch, old edition, vol. XV, 928. Seidemann, Miltitz, p. 25.
7. Walch, old edition, vol. XV, appendix, no. 40, S1.
8. Letter from Miltitzen to the Elector of October 3, 1520. Walch, old edition, Vol. XV, 930.

46 Introduction.

The students, in particular, had to put up with his great shouting, banging and bragging about the bull, because it ruined his plans. "I told Eck that he had done wrong in publicizing the bull, while the matter had been in an amicable and peaceful relationship with him Luther; he should have written to me what I would have done in the matter. Still on the same day s3. Oct.] Miltitz wants "to ride to Fabian von Feilitsch, to ask him to write to Doctor Martino, that he comes to Lichtenberg or to Eilenberg", in order to act further with him, and has the most extensive expectations: "if he wants to follow his promise, I want to bring true 1) of this bull, because the bull has not force before 120 days; the while I want to have been long in it in Rome and have written again outside." So it happened that Luther went to Lichtenberg on October 11, arrived there at 4 o'clock in the afternoon, and the next day agreed with Miltitz that he should publish a letter to the Pope in German and Latin, which would be placed in some small booklet. In the letter Luther should "tell his story, assure how he had never attacked the person of the pope and put the whole blame on Eck". About this, Miltitz reported to the Elector, October 14, 1520, from Eilenburg 2): "He will also be completely and utterly

1. The word "true" here might have the same meaning as in the expression wear and teur, wear, departure, so that the meaning of this sentence is: so I will deprive the bull of its power. Likewise in Miltitzen's letter to the Elector of October 14, 1520: "we want to find a cause for the matter soon, before one hundred and twenty days pass." After this passage we have changed "I and XX days" to "120 days". Cyprian I, 452.
2. The following letters belong here: Luther to Spalatin, October 11, 1520 (Walch, old edition, Vol. XV, Appendix, No. 41 with wrong date): "I am now going to Lichtenberg at this hour to offer Carl Miltitz again the opportunity to talk to me, as the prince has commanded, although the preceptor sv. Wolfgang ReißenAiW does not like to see it, who fears, I do not know, how great things." (Cf. Cyprian, vol. I, p. 445 st) - Luther to Spalatin, October 12, 1520. (Walch, old edition, vol. XV, 933, with the wrong signature: Lichtenberg, Antonii 1520 i.e., 17 JanZ instead of: Lichtenberg, im Antoniterkloster sXntoniniE 1520. In De Wette, vol. I, p. 496 with the inaccurate time determination 12. or 13 October, because we know that Luther

papal holiness in all humility; the booklet will go out in twelve days, and will have the date "on 6. September", immediately ten days after the Council of the Chapter in 3) Eisleben, because he was requested by Staupitz and Link 3) to write to papal holiness in all humility that he did so as an obedient man, but so that no one would say that Eckius with his followers had urged him to write such to papal holiness with his bull, which bull was published on the one and twentieth of September. So this booklet went out fifteen days before, before anyone knew anything about the bull." As agreed between them, Luther added September 6, 5) to his letter to the Pope and placed it in front of his Tractate von der christlichen Freiheit, which Luther had published in German and Latin. The German script is somewhat shorter than the Latin. Kolde judges it 6) to be more edifying than the Latin. What Köstlin 7) says about our scripture will also be correct, that Luther with it "just as with his other tracts and sermons gives the Christian readers

left Lichtenberg "at 1 o'clock past noon" on October 12, 1520). - Reißenbusch to Fabian von Feilitsch, October 13, 1520 (Cyprian, nützliche Urkunden, Vol. I, p. 444 sf.) In this letter, he reports on the meeting that took place and expresses his fears that he would be drawn into the game; that is why he did not stay at home: "If I were honorable, I would not have taken a hundred guilders to stay at home. For I would have encountered it the way I did. Mr. Carol wanted to bring me, the poor devil, into the game, so that, if one did not want to take revenge on Doctor Luther, that this would soon end with me. From this letter, the exact timing of the aforementioned letter and the correction for the letter of October 11 results, that the "preceptor" hovering in great fear is not Melanchthon, as Walch and after him De Wette note, but Reißenbusch. Miltitzen's letter to the Elector of October 14, 1520, is found in Cyprian, nützliche Urkunden, Vol. I, p. 449 sf.

3. Here Cyprian, Vol. I, p. 450, has a gap, which could be completed in the manner indicated. Accordingly, on August 27, the chapter would have decided to delegate the envoys to Luther.
4. Walch, old edition, vol. XV, 934 sf.
5. April 6, in the Jena edition, then in Seckendorf, Cyprian et al, is a reading error: Apr. instead of Levi.
6. Martin Luther, Vol. I, p. 277.
7. Martin Luther, Vol. I, p. 395.

Introduction. 47

wanted to serve in general. It was not caused by the bull of excommunication or the intention of the letter to which Luther attached it, but was only used by him for this purpose. Also concerning the time of the publication of the writing, Luther will have kept himself according to the agreement with Miltitz. Since, according to the agreement of October 12, the booklet was to go out in twelve days, we have to place the writing in the second half of October 1520.

Luther's writing on the custom and confession of Christian freedom (No. 130 in this volume) is not a complete writing, but only a part of such, and is assigned by the old editions to the year 1524. According to its content, it corresponds to a section of the sermon 1) which Luther held on Wednesday after Invocavit (March 12) 1520 after his return from the Wartburg in Wittenberg, in order to ward off the disorders that had broken out there.

In a letter to Philipp Gluenspieß zu Mansfeld (No. 131 in this volume) in 1526, Luther writes that one can gladly yield to the weak in love and service and keep it with them, as long as one does not insist that it is commanded by God.

Luther's letter to Thomas Neuenhagen, preacher in Eisenach (No. 132 in this volume), dated September 3, 1524 (1526?), urges him to testify to the evangelical freedom with his words and to use the ceremonies freely. He is to despise the speeches of D. Jakob Strauß and his followers that diminish him, and not to give way to them at all. Both men, Neuenhagen and Strauß, belong to the first witnesses of the Gospel. As early as 1520, Neuenhagen had refused to publicize Leo X's bull of excommunication against Luther in the Wurzen parish, and was therefore thrown into prison by the bishop of Meissen, but escaped after a month and arrived in Wittenberg. As

1. Walch, old edition, vol. XX, 38, 88 10-17 and 8^, W 4-7.
2. Seckendorf, nist. I^utN., I4d. I, p. 272, H 152, Add. 3. says that he was eonventor (ick est eoncknetor) of the Wurzen parish.

We find him a faithful servant of Christ in Eisenach, where, as our letter testifies, he had to suffer disgrace for the sake of the Gospel. That he was really inferior to D. Strauß in gifts and scholarship, which Seckendorf and, according to him, Walch want to infer from our letter, we are not able to recognize from it. - Jakob Strauß was an impetuous man, like Carlstadt. In 1523 he began to preach against purgatory and similar things with great vehemence and not without many errors. For this reason, he was sued by the Dean and the Chapter of Eisenach before the brother of the Elector, Duke John of Saxony. 3) From the same year we also have a statement of Luther about him in a letter to Count George II of Werthheim from June 17, 1523, which disapprovingly remembers the self-will of D. Strauss 4): ,,I). Strauß has his head and now does it in Eisenach as well, as he can, and lets us say and write." The last words show that Strauß did not turn back on Luther's rebukes. The next letter of Luther, in which Strauss is mentioned, is dated October 18, 1523, addressed to Brück, 5) in which Luther expresses his concern about a booklet written by Strauss about the purchase of interest. In this book Strauss had stated "that the interest man is not guilty of handing over the debt to the usurer, otherwise he would consent to the usurer and sin with him. Of this Luther says, "This is not right." In the same matter, which extended into the following year, Luther then wrote several more letters to D. Strauß, namely one in October 1523 6), another probably in April 1524 (De Wette, vol. II, p. 502), and a third on April 25, 1524 (De Wette, vol. II, p. 504). These letters are written in the most amiable manner and assert the word of Christ against Straussen's position (Match. 5, 40. Luc. 6, 29.): "He who will take your skirt,

3. Scultetus, über das Jahr 1523, p. 163, for which he refers to the archives of the church at Eisenach.
4. De Wette, Vol. VI, p. 43.
5. Walch, St. Louis Edition, vol. X, 912 f.
6. Walch, old edition, Vol. XXI, 77. The letter is not addressed to Brück, as De Wette already correctly assumed (Vol. II, 426), but to Strauß.

48 Introduction.

Let him also have the coat, and whoever strikes you on one cheek, offer him also the other." But Strauss continued to pursue his cause in sermons and writings. In June 1524, he had sent a letter of redemption to Duke John Frederick 1), which had turned out in such a way that the duke exclaimed: "Unfortunately, there are too many enthusiasts, God be lamented, and they cause us a lot of trouble up here. He expresses the wish that Luther, especially in Thuringia, would move from one city to another and see with what kind of preachers the cities were provided. "Which preachers then are not fit, you would have to dismiss with the help of the authorities." This is, because it is written in direct connection with Straussen's trade, especially directed against him. Only once more, namely in December 1524, in a letter from Luther to Spalatin 2) do we encounter a word that could give hope for a favorable turn in Straussen's behavior: "I like Straussen's sermon better than I did his booklet before." But even it is not completely satisfactory. In contrast, Luther writes to Spalatin as early as April 10, 1525 3): "I wish very much that D. Strauß, who also like Carlstadt seeks his rule, would be stopped by the prince. For already, although still secretly, we are not at all agreeable to him, since he prefers us to that rebellious, completely Carlstadtian peasant by far." By his further behavior, D. Strauss must have earned himself a very bad name, because the rumor about him was circulated and believed that he, like Münzer, had been executed 4). Still in 1525 Strauß was imprisoned in Weimar, as Seckendorf reports 5): "Luther suspected what happened in the following year (1525) at Eisenach, since this Strauß did not show the way (praeivit) to the raging people in the way he should have done, and through this stormy nature

1. Walch, St. Louis Edition, vol. X, 353. Letter from the duke to Luther, June 24, 1524.
2. Walch, alte Ausgab^ Vol. XXI, 940.
3. Walch, old edition; Vol. XXI, 969, § 3.
4. Luther's letter to Johann Rühel of May 30, 1525. Walch, old edition, vol. XVI, 165 ff, § 6.
5. Seckendorf, List. Lmtü., I4d. I, x. 272 d.

(praecipitantia) deserved to be brought to Weimar and kept in prison." In 1528, on September 24, Luther wrote to Chancellor Brück 6): "Some think, M. G. Herr should dare as much Brods on him (Carlstadt] and keep (him), as the Strauß was kept at Weimar." If it is true that Strauß was deposed in 1525, 7) imprisoned and held in custody for a longer time, it does not seem credible to us that he was still a preacher in Eisenach and Neuenhagen College on September 3, 1526. Rather, he was in Baden around this time and participated in the Sacrament controversy against Zwingli. 8) We would be inclined to refer our letter to the year 1524. The only authority for the year 1526 is Aurifaber's collection of letters; it might have been moved from IV to VI.

A Dominican, John de Turrecremata or Torquemada, who lived in the 15th century, taught in Paris, attended the Council of Basel, and attained great honors and titles, published a tractatus de efficacia aquae benedictae contra Petrum Anglicum in Bohemia, without indication of place and year. This tract was reprinted in Rome in 1524 and 1559. From this writing, an excerpt was made in German, in which a tenfold benefit of the consecrated water is praised in rhymed form. Luther had this excerpt reprinted in 1539 with the addition of several rhymes written by him, in which he castigates this horrible superstition and abomination, under the title: Von dem geweihten Wasser und des Pabsts Agnus Dei D. Mart. Luther (No. 133 in this volume). Place and printer are not indicated. The Wittenberg and Jena editions do not include this writing.

In 1539, Elector Joachim II of Brandenburg had a new church order drawn up, with Jakob Stratner in particular,

6. Walch, old edition, vol. XV, 2496, § 8.
7. In the Supplement to the first Index, No. 77, Seckendorf states this and repeats that it happened during the Peasants' Revolt.
8. Compare Walch, old edition, vol. XX, 1845 and 1872. Köstlin, Martin Luther, vol. II, 84.

Introduction. 49

Court preacher in Berlin, 1) and Georg Buchholzer, provost in Berlin, and asked for Luther's expert opinion. This took place on December 4, 1539, in a letter to the Elector Joachim II of Brandenburg (No. 134 in this volume) and another letter to Georg Buchholzer (No. 135 in this volume), in which Luther made several expositions on the draft. Both letters were first printed in the Märkische Antiphonen-Buche and from there passed over into the Altenburg edition.

VIII. Luther's writings against the seven sacraments.

To this section belongs especially the first writing of this volume, Luther's Book of the Babylonian Captivity of the Church. Walch has added the following writing to this section: Luther's hasty (extemporem) answer to the articles which the Magistri nostri extracted from his Babylonian captivity and from his writing "Grund und Ursach" (Reason and Cause) and which they wanted to reproach him with on his arrival at Worms before the imperial assembly there, as if they were heretical, although it has never been proven from Scripture that they are (No. 136 in this volume). The articles are probably to be placed with Förstemamn 2) in February of the year 1521 or perhaps only in March, for at this time the papal authorities often extracted articles from Luther's writings in order to convict him of heresy on the basis of them at the Diet of Worms. The papal legate Aleander also took care to collect such articles, 3) but not with the intention of making use of them at the Diet, but rather to use them to persuade the emperor that he should

1. Seckendorf, nist. Imtk., lab. Ill, p. 235 k, says he was court preacher in Onolzbach. We followed Seidemann in De Wette, vol. VI, p. 625.
2. Förstemann, Neues Urkundenbuch, p. 44.
3. Seckendorf, llist. Imtk., läk. I, p. 168 k, (in) lets our articles be collected by Aleander and says that they were presented to Luther at the Reichstag in April, which is erroneous. He counts 40 articles, while our writing has only 37.

Luthern should not be held responsible, but simply have his heretical books burned. 4) Another such collector was the emperor's confessor, Glapio, whose articles drawn from Luther's writings are preserved in the manuscript of Chancellor Brück. 5) The latter, however, had the intention to use them against Luther, but it did not come to that, because Aleander's advice prevailed. In Förstemann, only the articles are included, with the inscription in Spalatin's hand: "Die lateinischen Artikel, so Doctor Martinus Luther sollt revociren oder widerrufen 1521", without Luther's answers to them. These articles were sent to Luther by Spalatin, and in a letter to Spalatin 6) dated March 19, Luther acknowledges receipt. His answer to them will therefore have to be set at the end of March or the beginning of April, because on April 16, 10 o'clock in the morning, Luther arrived in Worms.

IX. Luther's Writings Against the Mass.

a. From the abuse of the mass.

On August 3, 1520, Luther sent his Sermon on the New Testament, that is, on the Holy Mass (No. 137 in this volume) to the Augustinian Johann Voigt at Magdeburg 7) with the instruction to deliver it to Staupitz, Provincial of the Augustinian Order. In this writing, in which he leaves the seven number of the sacraments still standing, which he attacks soon after in his Book of the Babylonian Captivity, he teaches that the Mass is not a sacrifice which we offer to God, because we must not presume to give anything to God in the sacrament in which he gives us everything. "Only those," says Luther, "who have the faith that Christ is a priest for them in heaven before God's eyes, lay their prayers, praise, distress and themselves on him and present them through him, do not doubt that he judges them.

4. Förstemann, 1. 6., p. 35 a.
5. Förstemann, I. o., p. 37 ff.
6. Walch, old edition, vol. XV, 2052, § I.
7. Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 710, ß I. In this first paragraph, there is an abominable misprint: "der Mittend. Esel" instead of: "der Leipziger Esel," namely Alveld. Cf. Walch, St. Louis edition, vol. XVIII, introduction, p 31 ff.

50 Introduction.

They take the sacrament and testament as a sign of all this, and do not doubt that all sin is forgiven, that God has become a merciful Father, and that eternal life has been prepared: Behold, all those where they are, these are true priests, and truly keep true mass, and also obtain thereby what they will. For faith must do everything."

In October 1) of the year 1521, the Mass service in the church of the Augustinians in Wittenberg was completely discontinued, after Melanchthon and his students had already taken Holy Communion under both forms in the parish church on Michaelmas. Luther (at the Wartburg) was delighted by this news, because he "felt from it that the word of Christ was working in them and that they had not received it in vain," but he feared that not all of his monastic brethren would have made such a great change with a completely free good conscience, nor would they be prepared to invite upon themselves the raging and blustering of the adversaries, who would do the worst they could. Therefore, to comfort and strengthen the weak consciences, Luther wrote "On the Abuse of the Mass" (No. 138 in this volume) first in Latin, but then also in German. In Latin, the letter to the Augustinians at Wittenberg is dated November 1, 1521; the German letter is dated November 25. On November 11, Luther sent the Latin copy to Spalatin, 2) so that he would put it into print. Out of fear, however, Spalatin had not forwarded the writings that Luther had sent him (on the abuse of the Mass, on monastic vows, and against the new god at Halle), but had left them with him. Luther learned of this when he made a secret visit to Wittenberg in early December, and therefore wrote very unwillingly to Spalatin 3) and threatened that

1. Felix Ulscenius in his report to Capito reports that this happened on October 23, 1521 (üoäis) (Jäger, Carlstadt, p. 508), while Köstlin, Martin LutAr, Vol. I, p. 505, gives October 13.
2. Walch, alte Ausaabe^Bd. XV, Anhang, No. 80, §6.
3. Cf. Lucher's Brref to Spalatin, No. 105 in this volume.

he would proceed much more violently in the matters if Spalatin withheld the writings. 4) Walch says in the introduction to the 19th volume, p. 94: "whether Luther himself or someone else did the translation is not known to me," which the Erlangen edition (vol. 28, p. 27) repeats. But we are firmly convinced that Luther himself made the translation. It bears his stamp completely, and we do not think it possible that someone else, with the great freedom and boldness of this translation, would have been able to match the sense of the Latin original so exactly everywhere. In print, the German text will have appeared either simultaneously with the Latin or soon after it.

b. Of the abolition of the papal masses, especially the private or angular mass.

The writings reported here are largely related to the maintenance of the masses in the All Saints' Church in Wittenberg. This church was the collegiate church of the Collegium of Canonicals, 5) which was founded in 1359 by Duke Rudolf and originally 6) consisted of 14 canons (canons), 14 vicars and a number of canons (chorales). In 1509, Prince Frederick the Wise added 4 priests, 8 canons and a choir of 16 boys. These formed the so-called small choir and, like the canons (the larger choir), had their own dean; their task was to hold masses in honor of the Holy Virgin and to sing all kinds of chants at certain hours after the canons. Frederick continually made it his business to bring new shrines for the collegiate church in Wittenberg. 7) Still on August 13, 1520, he wrote to his brother, Duke Johann 8): "Tomorrow I will ask whether God

4. This timing is found in the original edition and in the Jena one (1566), Dorn. II, toi. 441.
5. Cf. Burkhardt, Luthers Briefwechsel, p. 55.
6. Seckendorf, nist. I,utN., lab. I, p. 274.
7. Cf. Luther's letter to Spalatin of December 14, 1516, Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 564, § 1. - Kolde, Friedrich der Weise, p. 28 f.
8. Förstemann, Neues Urkundenbuch, p. 2.

Introduction. 51

I want to go to Wittenberg and take my leave from all the dear saints, may the almighty God grant me grace to do so," and Spalatin's correspondence expressly testifies that he still had his commissioners buy out new treasures into the year 1522. 1) In 1519, the Elector, on the advice of his confessor, Jakob Voigt, a Franciscan, added two new priests and eight canons to the already large number of collegiate clergy, with the stipulation that they should hold masses and sing chants in remembrance of the Passion of Christ every week from Thursday to Sunday throughout the year, with the ceremonies that were otherwise only customary during the week of the martyrdom. Spalatin, probably at the Prince's suggestion, asked Luther to write something about this. Luther, however, rejected this in a letter to Spalatin 2) of August 18, 1519: "According to your wish, I have begun to make an effort to publish something about the contemplation of the Passion of Christ, but the more I think about it, the less I find what I like, because in the church there are already more than enough ceremonies, so that almost all serious things of Christian godliness are superstitions. He is equally disapproving in the following letter to the same 3) of August 26, 1519: "With regard to the arrangement of the contemplation of the Passion of Christ, nothing is so troublesome to me as that I see that these ceremonies tend to make people wonderfully hard, arid, inaccessible, and utterly unfit for all things and for all the power of a spiritual life." By this last increase, the number of clergy in the monastery at Wittenberg had risen to three and eighty, 4) who, according to Spalatin's estimate, said 11,039 masses annually. Annually, 35, 570 pounds of wax candles were consumed. Two complete communion vessels were made of solid gold, 27 of silver, and

1. Some of these letters in C. W. Schneider: Bibliothek der Kirchengeschichte. Weimar 1781, vol. II, p. 1 ff.
2. Walch, old edition, vol. XV, appendix, no. 54 and (duplicate) vol. XXI, 5.
3. Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 638 and again ibid., col. 6 f.
4. Seckendorf, nist. Lmtk., lük. I, x>. 274p.

In addition, about 40 other silver utensils. There was an enormous amount of vestments, including more than a hundred of heavy, thick, damask silk, in various colors, embroidered with gold. This gave the service a great splendor and Frederick took great pleasure in his pen. When Luther began to testify against the mass in sermons and writings in 1520, the mass soon came into such contempt that, while Luther was at the Wartburg, already on October 9, 1521, the two deans, D. Lorenz Schlamau (of the larger choir) and D. Christoph Blank (of the smaller choir), wrote to the Elector that there was a lack of priests who wanted to hold the newly founded masses. The Elector asked them to make an effort to maintain the foundation, but it was in vain; it went backwards. On March 16, 1522, they reported that the priests, who had been ordained in 1509 for the service of the Virgin Mary and recently in 1519 for the commemoration of the Passion of Christ, had resigned from their office, and therefore the dismissal of the choir singers had also become necessary. The canons and vicars of the old foundation, however, not only continued the masses, but also led a lewd life (that is why Luther calls the monastery a "Beth Aven"), so that Luther was prompted to preach against their godless life towards the end of the year 1522. On January 2, 1523, he wrote to Spalatin 5): "I have preached that even if they must be left in their godless ways, it is still the office of the authorities to prevent their fornication or to force them to marry. For even if no one can be forced to godliness and faith, public shameful deeds must be stopped." Not long after, on January 14, he wrote to Spalatin (Letter to Spalatin, No. 7 in the appendix of this volume): the sacrament should be distributed in both forms and the priesthood of Amaziah should be abolished. Luther took a more decisive stand on this matter when, in the course of February 1523, the dean of the greater

5. Walch, old edition, Vol. XV, Appendix, No. IIS.

52 Introduction.

The first one was the deceased of the choir, D. Lorenz Schlamau 1). Luther wrote to Spalatin 2) (probably soon after Schlamau's death, i.e. still in February) that he should see to it that such people were appointed who hated the abominations in the monastery, because now was the time to weaken this Bethaven. The provost of the monastery, D. Justus Jonas, came to Luther's aid by beginning to preach publicly against the existing church chants, vigils and masses in the monastery, 3) and delivered the letter written by Luther on March 1, 1523, to the provost and the canons in Wittenberg (No. 140a in this volume), in which he demanded that everything that could not be tolerated as an abomination against the Gospel be abolished. Inspired by this, the Scholasticus Matthäus Beskau, the Custos Johann Dolsche, Georg Elner, called Staffelstein, and Johann Volmar turned to the Elector on March 4, 1523 with the question: what should happen? The prince answered on March 6: the existing customs should be kept, or right reasons should be given why they should be changed. To Luthern, the canons said that no change could be made now because they did not have a dean. The election of a new dean caused great difficulty. Luther tried to influence it by writing (probably in the first days of March, but certainly before March 13) to Spalatin 4): "A dean and canons will be elected; but, O how I wish that Amsdorf or a similar man would become dean by the prince's determination!" Amsdorf was indeed elected dean by the university. He reports this in a letter to Spalatin 5) of March 13, 1523, indicating that he was thereby in great distress of conscience.

1. On February 9, he was dying. Luther's letter to Spalatin under this date Walch, old edition, vol. XXI 826.
2. Walch, all editions, Vol. XXI, 843. - De Wette, Vol. II, p. 314 has the time determination: In March or April. ,
3. Seckendorf, nist. Imtk., HP. I, p. 275, ss).
4. Walch, old edition, vol. XLI, 845. - De Wette, vol. II, p. 315 has also here a too late time determination: In April 1523^.
5. This praise is found in Kolde, Friedrich der Weise,

noth gerathen. He wished that the prince would disown him. His renunciation was accepted because he declared that he would not tolerate the masses. By July the election of a new dean came about; it fell to Matthew Beskau. This one continued the old way. Therefore, on July 11, 1523, Luther again addressed a letter to the canons of the Wittenberg Abbey (No. 139 in this volume), in which he reproached them that their previous excuse of not having a dean no longer existed, and renewed his request and demand that, in honor of the Gospel, the abominations in the Abbey Church be changed. The chapter also sent this letter to the Elector. 6) The latter, however, gave an evasive answer and wrote that the provost would have arrived in the meantime and would settle the matter. In the monastery, however, everything remained the same. Therefore, on August 2, 1523, Luther began to preach against the monastery. 7) This sermon is preserved in an excerpt: Ernstliche Erinnerung D. M. Luther to the canons of the monastery in Wittenberg in a public sermon to the whole congregation (No. 140d in this volume), in which he says: "They pretend that this is why they practice godlessness, because they call it the prince. But what does the prince's command concern us in this case? The prince is a secular ruler, who is supposed to be in charge of the sword, not the preaching office. You know that in this one should be more obedient to God than to men." This was again reported to the Elector. On August 7, 1523, he ordered the professors of law, Schurf and Schwertfeger, together with Melanchthon, to negotiate with Luther and to remind him that he had indicated to the Elector that he agreed with the decision of the Reichstag: "Furthermore, no innovation in religion should be started." They should also admonish him: "he should not act so quickly", because another Reichstag was coming up and one hoped for a concilium. Luther should refrain from his preaching against the chapter, which was too-

6. Burkhardt, Briefwechsel, p. 62.
7. Seckendorf, nist. 4-utk., I4V. I, p. 275a, (k).

Introduction. 53

is against his promise. 1) The Elector also expressed his disapproval of the fact that three canons had recently been elected who did not want to say mass; he also did not like the fact that some of the canons (Carlstadt and Jonas) had taken wives. To this Luther replied (as the deputies reported to the Elector on August 13): He had understood the Reichstag resolution against the innovations in such a way that one should beware of such innovations that were against God's word. If, however, the commandments of the Diet had a different opinion and were contrary to the word of God, he could not obey them, but would preach and pray publicly against the masses. But he would admonish the people not to act violently. Thereupon the canons (probably at the instigation of Jonas) turned to Luther with the request to give them an expert opinion on how, in his opinion, they should arrange their church services. Luther granted them in the letter to the provost, the canons and the chapter of Wittenberg of August 19, 1523 (No. 141 in this volume). On August 27, Jonas addressed a long letter to the Elector, in which he explained that, after he had recognized the truth, he had often resolved to "put an end to the annoying, atrocious and unchristian abuses" in the collegiate church (to whose provost the Elector had appointed him) by his own authority, for which he was ready to give God and the prince an answer (responsurus). So far he had hesitated out of consideration for the dean, but mainly for the sake of the prince. Now the chapter had been seriously admonished by Luther, and many had been struck in their conscience, so he too wanted to make his opinion known to the Elector as to how the abuses could be changed. In the parish church at Wittenberg some abuses had already been stopped, but in the collegiate church about thirty masses were still held weekly, more out of compulsion of the foundation than out of good will of those who were bound to hold them. Then Jonas proposes

1. Credenzbrief Churfürst Friedrichs für Hieronymus Schürf, Joh. Schwertfeger und Melanchthon an Dr. Luther, nebst Instruction derselben. Burkhardt, Briefwechsel, p. 63.

The same changes that Luther had recommended to the chapter on August 19. Finally, Jonas makes the definite statement that he will no longer be present at the masses and that he awaits what the Elector wants to decree about him. The Chapter must have inquired about Luther's letter of August 19 also with the Elector, because he issued a resolution on August 25, 2) in which he stated that the Chapter should honor and maintain the old foundations until he had thought things over further and given an answer. So it remained after his decree of September 4, 3) which was probably issued mainly because of the letter of Jonas, because in it it is especially stated that those who had an abomination in the holding of the masses should resign their office as canons. However, shortly thereafter both parts, namely both the prince and the chapter, seem to have yielded significantly to Luther's will, because from Michaelmas 1523 on, a lection from the Old Testament was read in Latin or German in place of the masses, while the other divine services remained in part for a while. Luther, however, was not satisfied with this and from time to time made his displeasure known. To Spalatin (No. 142 in this volume) he wrote on October 12, 1523, that he did not care whether the Baalites kept their ceremonies or not; but he would like to see them abolished. In another letter of November 6, 1523 4) he defends himself against the accusation that he had advised the election of three new canons, while he preached against it. In December 1523, he admonishes his friend Hausmann, 5) that he should not be annoyed by the fact that the blasphemous Tophet still exists in Wittenberg. In God's words there is plenty of antidote against it. The ruin languishes in the corner. There are only three or four sows and rotten wests left. Again, on April 24, 1524, Luther speaks

2. Burkhardt, Briefwechsel, p. 62.
3. Thus Burkhardt l. c. At Seckendorf: 4. oetodris. The latter cannot be correct, because a change really came about at Michaelmas.
4. Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 870.
5. Walch, St. Louis Edition, vol. X, 2255.

54 Introduction.

1. that he was annoyed that the canons did not want to change anything, even though they knew and confessed that it was completely ungodly. The last three new canons had given up their prebends for conscience' sake, so Schürf and Luther together asked the Elector 2) on July 8, 1524, to let them enjoy them; this request was repeated by Luther against Spalatin on July 10. On the same day, July 10, the answer of the Elector came, 3) from which it can be clearly seen that he, like Luther, was not completely satisfied with the present situation of things. He expresses his displeasure about the behavior of the three canonists, but does not give a complete rejection, but holds out the prospect that in the future the income of the prebends and fiefs would be used for other purposes, such as for the university, where the three canonists, if they were sent to lection, would also find their supply. Still on October 17, 1524, Luther wrote to Spalatin, 4) that he had not yet decided about the change of the ungodly ceremonies in the castle (i.e. in the All Saints' Monastery). "The time will come, if God wills, to create a council also in this matter." The occasion came very soon. About the middle of November, the dean communicated a pregnant woman in Wittenberg under one figure, against the promise given to Luther. As a result, Luther addressed a letter to the chapter at Wittenberg on November 17 (No. 143a in this volume), in which he urges the canons to "do away with everything that is red and spiritual, masses, vigils, and everything that is contrary to the holy Gospel. Instead of giving such an answer, the canons turned to the Elector the very next day, November 18, 1524, complaining 5) that Luther had not given the excuses for the church.
2. Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 898.
3. Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 73 and 908.
4. The same is printed in Burkhardt, Briefwechsel,
5. Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 917.
6. An excerpt from this letter in Kolde, Friedrich der Weise, p. 67. The scribes are: Matthäus Beskau, Dechant, Georg Staffelstein and Joh. Vollmar.

of their dean, "but he wants all masses to be said in our church. If not, he wants to send both mayors to us to admonish us; if not, he intends to leave the preaching chair and put another one on it, who should preach in such a way that such masses should be stopped". The Elector ordered Dr. Hieronymus Schürf and the licentiate Benedict Pauli to Luther on November 24, 6) in order to admonish Luther from violent intervention, since he himself "preaches that one should let the Word of God be fenced, which would work well in its time, if God would have it", and he should first "do that which he himself would preach and learn". Luther may still have patience, just as the mass is still tolerated in Nuremberg. The prince promises that he will not hinder the change, if he would recognize after diligent instruction and prayer what would be right and pleasing to God. Therefore he demands from Luther that he inform him of his opinion in writing. "But I do not find," says Seckendorf, "what he has written." We are of the opinion that Luther's answer is to be sought in his writing of the abomination of the still mass, so called the Canon (No. 144 in this volume), in which he proves quite insurmountably what the title says. Luther may have started this writing 7) immediately after the last-mentioned negotiation with the electoral deputies, and the reasons presented in it must have been convincing for the Elector, because we do not hear that he made any further objections against the performance of the masses in the monastery. On November 27, 1524, Luther declares to Spalatin 8) in the most decisive manner that he will abort the masses. In this letter, he states that a contrary order from the prince had driven him from Wittenberg.

6. Burkhardt, Briefwechsel, p. 76.
7. Because we do not have any definite clues to determine the time of writing, we have to rely on conjecture. The writing itself shows that the masses in the monastery still had their continuation. Compare, by the way, what is said immediately following to No. 143b.
8. Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 932.

Introduction. 55

would do. But already on December 2, he was able to report to Amsdorf 1): "We have finally brought our canons to the point that they have agreed that the mass should be abolished". On the second Sunday of Advent, 2) December 4, 1524, Luther preached publicly against the Canon of the Mass and rejected it. This caused the Wittenbergers, university, council and community, to demand of the monastery that all ungodly ceremonies be abolished. This seems to have been done orally and in writing. For Seckendorf reports that on December 3 and 8 the canons again complained to the Elector: Luther had rejected the Canon of the Mass in the sermon on the second Advent, whereupon the Rector of the University, two Burgermeisters and ten Rathsherren came to the dean and told the chapter that they would all be in communion if they insisted on their ceremonies. The written request, however, is preserved for us in the writing "Der Wittenbergischen Universität, Raths und Gemeine Suchung bei dem Stifte zu Wittenberg, die gottlosen Ceremonien alle abuthun" (No. 143b in this volume), which is to be placed in the week after the second Sunday of Advent (December 4, 1524), because right at the beginning it refers to the sermon held on this day: "as heard from the next (i.e. the last) sermon". The thoughts expressed in this writing, indeed, in part the words used in it, agree so exactly with those used in the writing "Vom Greuel der Stillmesse," that a correlation between the sermon on the second Sunday of Advent, to which the authors of this writing refer, and the aforementioned writing seems undeniable. Either the sermon flowed from the Scripture of the Abomination of the Stillmeffe (which seems to us the more probable), or vice versa. Finally, however, the chapter came together. On December 24, 1524, Christoph Blank, dean of the smaller choir, wrote to the Elector, 3) that through diligent research he had come to the convi-

1. Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 935.
2. Seckendorf, Hist. LMN., I^ib. I, x. 276, (I).
3. Seckendorf, nist. Hd. I, x. 276, (m).

He had also dismissed some of those who had hitherto held the masses in a different manner than that which is in accordance with God's words. The Elector answered the following day: "It is a difficult matter, which must be well considered, and he will take care of it, hoping also that means will be found to direct the matter in such a way that it will serve God's honor and our blessedness. In the meantime, however, in Wittenberg, "Des Capitels zu Wittenberg neue Ordnung des Gottesdiensts der Stiftskirche" (No. 143c in this volume) had been accepted by all the canons and introduced on December 24, 1524. The Elector allowed it to happen, probably because he too had come to the conclusion that those who urged the abolition of the mass had God's word for them.

The clergy at Eimbeck had written certain articles, since they had been asked by their sovereigns, the Dukes of Brunswick, to state "the reason for their faith". In their writing they had stated that the dispute about the corner mass was a quarrel about void things (de lana caprina). Count Albrecht of Mansfeld demanded an expert opinion from Luther. Luther complied with him in his letter to Count Albrecht of Mansfeld (No. 145 in this volume) on July 14, 1529. In this letter Luther shows that the Eimbeck clergymen in their writing spoke "as the arch-enemies of the sacrament and like the swarmers", therefore their princes should chase them out of the country as mocking knaves, or at least "to frighten" them to do so.

In a letter to Margrave George of Brandenburg (No. 146 in this volume), Luther replied to a previous inquiry on September 14, 1531, that the prince should not re-establish the angular masses because they are against God's command and Christ's institution, are sold and used as works and sacrifices, and are also used to atone for foreign sins against God, from which it follows that "they disturb the sacrament and the faith.

56 Introduction.

Luther struck a blow against the papacy and its strongest pillar, the mass, which was extremely sensitive to the papists, with his writing about the corner mass and the consecration of the clergy (No. 147 in this volume), which, as we can see from his letter to Nicolaus Hausmann 1) of December 17, 1533, had already been published at that time. The earliest news we have about it is from October 15, 1533, where Jonas told Spalatin 2): "Luther writes beteits ... a very strong tempest by which the papacy will be shaken." On January 3, 1534, Luther asked Amsdorf 3) to let him know what he thought of his book on the Angular Mass, because many accused him as if it were harmful to good and weak consciences. Amsdorf answered 4) on January 28, 1534: not to him, but perhaps to some pious, godly hearts it would seem questionable that Luther had said: A Christian can see and hear the masses. For the people of Halle and Leipzig wanted to whitewash their godlessness, if not defend it. Otherwise it was of the kind that was necessary at that time. In response, Luther thanked him 5) for his free judgment and added that it was not written for the papists, "as they are henceforth not worthy that we write or speak for them. Perhaps in May 1534, Luther wrote to Jonas, 6) that the book of the Chresem (chrismate) and the papist missalists annoyed the papists very much, although Luther had written it more to strengthen ours than to annoy the papists. At the same time, Luther asked Jonas to translate this book into Latin, which Jonas did. 7) From what Amsdorf says in his letter to Luther, we can conclude that the main impetus for this writing may have been that Luther wanted to make the Church, which had been under the tyranny of Duke George of Saxony and under the oppression of Cardinal Albrecht, more accessible.

1. Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 1411.
2. Weim. Archive, Neudecker. Transcript. (Köstlin, Martin Luther, vol. II, p. 665.)
3. De Wette, vol. IV, P. 499.

4. Walch, St. Louis Edition, Vol. XVIII, 1988. ö) Walch, St. Louis > Edition, Vol. XVIII, 1990.

6. Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 1260,
7. See the note to the caption of No. 147.

Luther wanted to strengthen the faith of the Protestant Christians living in Mainz. At the beginning of this writing, Luther points out how humbly the Lutherans had pleaded against the Pope and his bishops at the Imperial Diet in Augsburg, that they would gladly let themselves be consecrated and governed by them if they did not force them to adopt unchristian articles, but this could not be obtained from them, "but they want to force us from the truth to their lies and abominations, or they want us dead. Now, perhaps, their violence and consecration would be like the indulgences of the past, which have now been completely despised and lost by the papists. But they would have to blame their own stubbornness and obduracy. Then Luther tells of a disputation that he had to endure in his heart with the devil in his camp. The devil had challenged him on the grounds that for fifteen years he had been saying Mass in the corner almost every day and had done nothing but idolatry with it; he had not worshipped Christ's body and blood, but bread and wine, and had held them up for others to worship. He was not able to overcome the arguments 8) with which the devil had attacked him. He had to admit his sin and throw himself on the mercy of Christ. What Luther intended with this narrative is clear, both from this writing itself and from the letter to Hausmann 9): "Luther had wanted to put the wisdom and ability of the Pabstthum to the test: If they can give an account of their doctrine, they shall have won; but if they cannot, what would they do if in the battle of death they had to endure these arguments and, moreover, also those of the devil? For it is absolutely necessary to see to it that consciences are sure and certain in all things. For if one doubt remains, everything else cannot be made certain. Therefore, the word of God and the word of men must be

8. They are in this writing §§ 7-24. It would go too far if we wanted to show them here.
9. De Wette, Vol. IV, p. 495; Walch, old edition, Vol. XXI, 1411. Walch's translation, however, is of such a nature that it can provide little clarity on this, so we are forced to translate the passages in question according to De Wette.

Introduction. 57

^be divorced to the last drop.... For certainty is required in this article; if the Papists can give it, I will praise them; if they cannot give it, the Antichrist will be fully revealed in all his abomination.... . . Luther confesses his recent battle with the devil, and asks for absolution from the papists (as the words of Book 7 clearly say). Whoever can give the same, let him be blessed (beatus); but let him stop shouting or citing unrhymed stuff, because that does not mean eliminating arguments (solvere), if one cites things that do not fit (inconveniens). Otherwise Luther could have also (as he had also seen to it^1)^ ) adduced these unrhymed things, but he recognized that this was not enough: therefore he confesses and desires the wisdom of the papists, that haughty judge of God and men." On the same opinion he says in § 26 of the Scripture: "Summa, we are rid of such angular masses and Chresem and want to let them defend their masters, the Papists." Then Luther elaborates: If there is only bread and wine in the corner mass (because it is not kept according to Christ's order), then they are the greatest deceivers and seducers on earth, who have held out bread and wine to the Christians for Christ's body and blood, and besides this have shared and sold such their sacrifice and work as the highest service of God on earth, thereby reconciling sinners before God, redeeming the souls in purgatory, and driving away all misfortune temporally and eternally. But if the Body and Blood of Christ are there, they are the greatest thieves of God and robbers of the Church that have ever come on earth, because the Sacrament, according to Christ's order, is food common to all Christians for the strengthening and consolation of their faith. But the mangle-measurers keep it alone and sell their own work and sacrifice, their opus operatum. Here, the cries of "Church and fathers" cannot help. Human actions and speeches apart from and without God's word cannot help here. Moreover, because the consecration takes place secretly, no one can know what is going on in the win-

1. For example, in § 7 Luther refers to his ordination, to the papal church's command and obedience, to his seriousness and devotion.

Thomas Münzer famously said that he often omitted the words of the Consecration and ate more than two hundred unconsecrated Lord Gods, and it was said in Rome that some people held mass in such a way that they spoke the words over the bread and wine: You are bread, you will remain bread, you are wine, you will remain wine. The angular masses arose from human opinion, which was taken for the opinion of the church. The holy church, however, will let itself be heard on that day that it knew nothing of such an opinion, but that such was a blasphemous lie of the Antichrist, made strong by the effect of the devil. - Luther says about the ordination that only angle-measurers were ordained by the bishops, not parish priests or preachers. Through the ordination, they were only given the power and permission to hold angle masses, but not an office or ministry in the church. A parish priest or preacher had to be called or ordained anew. From a smeared angle priest, Christians have neither baptism, nor sacrament, nor consolation, nor absolution, nor preaching, nor any pastoral care. These have served only their belly and sold their work and sacrifice to the poor Christians. The right consecration, on the other hand, is to call or elect preachers, teachers and pastors from among those who have been born priests through holy baptism, to carry out such ministry for the sake of all of us. Finally, Luther admonishes the red spirits, including nefarious papists, to leave his book unused and not to use it to try to confirm their iniquity.

From the fact that Luther had made it uncertain in his writing on the corner mass whether Christ's body and blood were there or only bread and wine, because Christ's order and institution were not observed, some suspected that Luther was keeping up with the enthusiasts or enemies of the sacraments or would keep up with the times. Therefore, at the beginning of the year 1534, at the request of good friends, in order to shut up such false mouths, Luther sent a letter to a good friend concerning his book on the Anglican Mass (No. 148 in this volume).

58 Introduction.

In it, Luther refers to the fact that he has often confessed in his booklet In it, Luther refers to the fact that he has often confessed in his booklet that even among the papists, where they keep Christ's order, that is, where they act and distribute the sacrament and do not make a sacrifice out of it, even if it is only done in one form, it is still the true body of Christ and is received. He repeats and confirms the same confession of Holy Communion that he has made in many of his books against the enthusiasts, and wishes that the two words "Mass" and "Sacrament" be separated as far as darkness and light, yes, as the devil and God. He does not argue against the sacrament, but against the mass. The papal church keeps the mass in free disobedience to God, still wants to do right and well in it and not allow itself to be reformed, because with the cornerstone of the papal church, the mass, also falls its idol with its silver, gold and jewels. The sacrament, however, does not carry money, but brings spiritual benefit to eternal life.

In 1535, a disputation was held in Wittenberg against the angle mass (No. 149 in this volume), for which Luther presented the theses in the form of three syllogisms, in which it is proven that the angle masses are error, godlessness and idolatry, because they are based on human thought, will and service.

After Duke George of Saxony died on April 17, 1539, his successor, his brother Henry, introduced the Reformation in the Duchy of Saxony. Therefore, at the beginning of July 1539, at Luther's request, he raised a concern for Duke Heinrich of Saxony about the abolition of the private mass in the monastery of Meissen (No. 150 in this volume). At the end of this section, reference is made to two of Luther's other writings that concern the Angular Mass.

c. Against the papal doctrine of Transubstantiation.

When at the Imperial Diet in Regensburg in 1541, among other things, the

1. There are not, as the title of the issues says, "two concerns", but only one. Cf. the note to the title of No. 150 in this volume, Col. 1300.

When Luther and the papists were in the process of unification, and there seemed to be some hope for it, the Electorate of Brandenburg and Margrave George of Ansbach sent a delegation to Luther to seek his opinion. This consisted of Prince Johannes zu Anhalt, Matthias von Schulenburg, Churbrandenburg councilor, and Alexander Alesius. 2) They arrived in Wittenberg on June 7, 1541, and discussed the matter with Luther. Luther gave his opinion that the religious unification did not seem imminent to him, because the opponents had admitted four articles, but certainly not sincerely, because they did not want to admit the other ten, which would result with necessary consequence. On this occasion, the question of transubstantiation may have been discussed; Luther will have spoken about it at the table (because it is called a collation speech). This collation speech of the transubstantiation (No. 151 in this volume) Luther put in writing on request of one of the princes present, perhaps the prince George of Anhalt, who was also present at the conversation. Even the Elector Johann Friedrich came from Torgau to Wittenberg, entertained the princes present and took part in the discussion on June 10, 1541.

The assumption we have just made that the collation speech was written for Prince George of Anhalt gains in probability from the fact that Luther wrote his letter to George, Prince of Anhalt, about the transubstantiation (No. 152 in this volume) shortly before, namely on May 25, 1541, no doubt at the request of the prince.

d. About the elevation and worship of the sacrament.

Paul Speratus 3) had had to flee Vienna because of the preaching of the Gospel and on his journey northward he had been accepted as a preacher in the town of Iglau in Moravia at the beginning of 1522, where he worked with

2. Seckendorf, Ilist. I^MIi., I^id. Ill, p. 361, (10).
3. Cf. Walch, St. Louis Edition, vol. XVIII, 1434, note 2 to no. 61.

Introduction. 59

the Bohemian Brethren, 1) who are also called Moravian Brethren, Waldensians and Picards. From there, perhaps on May 10, but in any case before May 16, 1522 (cf. Burkhardt, Luthers Briefwechsel, p. 68; De Wette, vol. VI, p. 621), he sent a sermon to Luther, which he had delivered in Vienna, along with a letter in which he expressed his concerns about the doctrine of the Lord's Supper of the Bohemian Brethren. The bearers of the sermon and the letter were deputies of the Brethren congregation there, who wished to come to an agreement with Luther. Luther reported this in the first half of May (perhaps May 10; see above) 1522 to Spalatin 2): "The theologians of Vienna have started a sad game with Paul Speratus, the former Würzburg preacher who was expelled from there, and now he is active at Jglau in Moravia. He has written to me and dedicated to me an excellent booklet of vows 3)" (obtulit). On May 16, 1522, Luther replied to Speratus, 4) that he believed the articles of the Picards had not come before him rightly and purely, for he Luther "had investigated all things from them himself, but had not found that they held the bread in the sacrament of the altar to be a mere signification of the body of Christ, and the wine alone to be a signification of the blood of Christ, but that they believed the bread to be truly and actually the body, and the wine to be truly and actually the blood of Christ". They have, however, some peculiar pointed thoughts, which Luther wishes they would not trouble themselves with. But Speratus should not condemn them until he had first learned all things. In response to several questions of the Bohemian brethren, which Speratus, through the deputies, had addressed to

1. These are to be distinguished from the Hussites, whom Luther calls Votiswos; he never calls the Bohemian brothers by this name.
2. In De Wette, vol. II, p. 447 and Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 882 without date with the erroneous year 1523.
3. Of the high vow of baptism, along with other vows. A sermon preached at Vienna in Austria. Paulus Speratus. Königsberg in Prussia 1524." Luther wrote to Speratus about it: "Your booklet ... pleases us almost well, therefore we would not be displeased if you had it printed." (De Wette, vol. VI, p. 33.)
4. De Wette, Vol. VI, p. 33.

In another letter to Speratus 5) of June 13, 1522, Luther gives information about the controversy that Luther had brought to Luther, although he advises Speratus to cut off such unnecessary questions, to despise them, and to condemn them by his contempt. Such a controversial question was also that of concomitance, 6) that is, whether with the body also the blood was present and at the same time with the blood the body of the Lord was given and received in the Lord's Supper; whether with the body of Christ also His divinity and at the same time also God the Father and the Holy Spirit were present. Another question was whether one must worship the sacrament? To this Luther gives the answer: It is free to worship and invoke under the Sacrament, but he does not sin who does not worship, nor does he sin who worships. Further information about the doctrine of the Bohemian brothers 7) is given in a letter that Luther wrote to Spalatin 8) on July 4, 1522, in which he reports the presence of the deputies: "The Picards had deputies with me who asked me for advice about their faith. I have found almost everything healthy, except that they use dark and strange ways of speaking instead of the way of writing. Furthermore, I am troubled by the fact that they claim that there is no faith in the baptism of little children and that it is of no use, and yet they baptize them and rebaptize those who come to them from among us; then they also accept seven sacraments. For the celibacy of the priests is considered good among them, although they do not consider it necessary, but leave it free. So nowhere in the whole world is the purity of the gospel. Whether they also have a sound opinion of faith and works is not yet clear to me, for I doubt that very much. With regard to the Lord's Supper I see nothing wrong, unless they act deceitfully with words; so also not with regard to baptism." Also in two letters

5. Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 792.
6. For "Concomitance" see in this volume the paper No. 154, s 101 and s 103.
7. Cf. Tischreden, Cap. 37, U 65-68. Walch, St. Louis edition, vol. XXII, 1049 ff. and Col. 1874, No. 480.
8. Walch, old edition, Vol. XV, Appendix, No. 91.

60 Introduction.

to Hausman 1) Luther speaks out about the Picards. In the first Luther writes: "I now have no evil opinion of the Picards, having heard from those who were present here themselves their belief about the Lord's Supper." In the second, however, he says: "The Picards hold thus of the Sacrament, that Christ under the bread is not bodily, as some 2) say that they have seen there blood, a little child 2c. but spiritually or sacramentally, that is, whoever receives the bread visibly, truly receives the natural blood of Him who sits at the right hand of the Father, but invisibly. About this I cannot condemn them, because in such a way we also teach (sapimus). Furthermore, that they do not worship, they blame precisely on the fact that he is there not visibly, as they have appearances (visiones), but invisibly, that is, at the right hand of the Father." But Luther did not come to complete clarity about their doctrine through the deputies, so he asked the Waldensians "to actually make this article clear through a special booklet". As a result, the senior of the Brethren, Lucas, wrote such a book in Latin, to which he gave the title "Of Victorious Truth", which was delivered to Luther together with a catechism, which had gone out in German and Bohemian, and an older apologia by the brothers Horn (actually Roh) and Michael Weiss. 3) But even in this book it was, as Luther says, "not yet made as loud and clear as I would have liked to have seen". In the catechism, however, it was pronounced: "That Christ in the Sacrament

1. Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 868 and 869. In De Wette, vol. II, pp. 428 and 429 f., the first of these letters is dated "in October 1523" and the second "in October or November 1523", which can hardly be correct. Both letters are earlier than the writing No. 153, which we had to put "before June 1523". See what has been said about this writing.
2. To bring this passage in line with what is reported in the Tischreden, Cap. 37, § 67 (Walch, St. Louis Edition, Vol. XXII, 1050), one has to understand here under the "some" quite a few ddr Waldensians; however, the deputies must have assured that this was not their doctrine.
3. Köstlin, Martin Luther, Vol. I, p. 669. - The two letters of Luther to Hausmann mentioned before may refer to this legation, thus written in spring 1523.

is not independent, natural, nor is the same to be worshipped". In order to satisfy this irritation of the German booklet 4), "I want to give you (says Luther) and everyone, in the clearest and clearest way I like, this article, as we Germans believe, and as is also to be believed according to the Gospel". This Luther did in his writing "Vom Anbeten des Sacraments des heiligen Leichnams JEsu Christi an die Brüder in Böhmen und Mähren, Waldenses genannt" (No.153 in this volume). This will be set, because already in June, the counter-script of Lucas was ready, 5) before June 1523. The many editions that the manuscript went through in the same year (seven of them are known to us, cf. the first note to this manuscript) already prove that it did not appear towards the end of the year. This writing has a far greater significance than it seems at first sight. It is written not only because of the Bohemian brethren, but also because of those "who thought that it was bad to eat bread and drink wine in the Sacrament, as otherwise people eat bread and drink wine, and did not think any more of it, because the bread signifies the body and the wine signifies the blood of Christ. To such people one should take the word of Christ: "Receive, this is my body, this is my blood." "One must not so offend God's words that someone without clear Scripture would give another interpretation to a word, as is his natural interpretation, as these do, who freely, without Scripture, force the little word 'is' to mean as much as the little word 'means'." "For if one would allow such an outrage in one place, ... ...it could not be prevented in any other place, and the whole Scripture would be destroyed." "So then one would say,

4. So Luther's reply is directed against the Waldensian catechism, not against the Latin book of Lucas. The latter seems to be Köstlin's opinion. Burkhardt, p. 67, also assumes that it was directed against the catechism.
5. Burkhardt, Luthers Briefwechsel, p. 67. De Wette, vol. II, p. 433 places our writing "before November 13, 1523," misled by misunderstanding the words "in tioo lidkllo aä Losinos," which he interprets to mean this writing, while the letter to the council and the community of the city of Prague is meant, which is found in Walch, St. Louis edition, vol. X, 1548 ff.

Introduction. 61

that Mary is a virgin and the mother of God, let it be said that Mary means a virgin and the mother of God. Likewise Christ is God and man, that is, Christ means God and man" 2c. But we must refrain here from further indication of the content, and refer the reader to the Scripture itself.

In a letter to Leonhard Puchler, fencing master at Halle (No. 154 in this volume), Luther gives him an answer to his inquiry about the worship of the sacrament on December 11, 1523. Everyone should be free to do so; do not sin if you do it or do not do it, because he Christ has not commanded it.

Prince George of Anhalt had been disconcerted by the fact that Wittenberg had been reluctant to abolish the sacrament. Therefore, in his letter to Prince George of Anhalt of June 26, 1542 (No. 155 in this volume), Luther states the causes that had led to this. In all previous editions there is a letter, which is a combination of this letter with the one under No. 152, which we have omitted. About this, compare what was said in the first note to No. 152.

The last writing of this section is a letter of Luther to D. Gregorius Brück of January 6, 1543 (No. 156 in this volume), in which he indicates to him that he does not yet consider it time to let something go out publicly in print about the elevation and other ceremonies. "I have no hope," says Luther, "that we will ever more become one in need of the same ceremonies in all churches."

e. Against the Papal way of administering and using the Sacrament only under one form.

Initiated by a mandate of the Bishop of Meissen in 1528, in which he forbade communion under both forms, but commanded it under One Form and ordered the parish priests to teach the people "how under the One Form the whole Jesus Christ, Son of God, God and Man, is also His body and blood, and is eaten and drunk by the laity," Luther wrote the'

Writing: Ein Bericht an einen guten Freund von beider Gestalt des Sacraments aufs Bischofs zu Meißen Mandat (No. 157 in this volume), which was probably published in June 1528, because, as Duke Georg wrote to the Elector on February 19, 1529, it was written "somewhat after the first treaty" about the Pack Alliance (which was concluded on June 14 at Gelnhausen). With high probability, the unnamed "prudent person", to whom Luther attributed this letter, is to be looked for in the council of Freiberg, 2) because Cochläus dedicated his writing: "25 causes to offer the Sacrament to the laity under one form", which went out on January 10, 1529, to the dean and chapter of Freiberg, because some laity of the disobedient children of Freiberg enjoyed sub utraque or died like cattle without Sacrament. At the same time as this above-mentioned writing of Cochlaeus, another writing of the same, which is directed against Luther's letter, appeared under the title: "Vertheidigung bischöflichs Mandat zu Meißen, wider Martin Luthers Scheltworte. Printed in Leipzig by Nickel Schmidt. 24 quarto pages. It is dedicated to Count Hoyer of Mansfeld and dated January 9, 1529. In his writing, Luther destroys the reasons with which his opponents, especially Cochläus, D. Schmid (Faber) and D. Johannes Mensing (the fire of Bern), tried to support and defend the distribution of the sacrament under one form. The papists themselves "publicly confess that it is true and founded in Scripture to administer both forms" to the laity, according to Christ's institution, and also promise that "if a council were to be held, they would faithfully help that both forms should be administered to the laity. Furthermore, the pope "allows and gives both forms to the Bohemians", who are not all priests. "Is this right, why should it not be right for us?" To the answer given here: "The Church is above the Gospel and has the power to change it, as it has often done," Luther replies: "The Church, which boasts that it is above the Word of God, that is of the laity.

1. Cf. the introduction in this volume, section XIV.
2. Seidemann in De Wette, vol. VI, p. 630, note 2.

62 Introduction.

The devil's church and Satan's bride, who also wanted to set himself above God in the beginning.

The last writing of this section is: Etliche Sprüche wider das Concilium Obstantiense (wollt sagen Constantiense), zu Wittenberg gestellet und gehalten, und wo man noch will (No. 158 in diesem Bande). These are sentences that Luther posed for a Friday disputation in 1535. The necessary things about it have already been said in the first note to the scripture. Luther himself speaks about the name Obstantiense in the preface.

X. Luther's Writings on Law and Faith, Against the Merit of Works.

Almost all of Luther's writings assigned to this section (No. 159 to No. 171 in this volume) are disputations, the subject of which is indicated in the table of contents of this volume. Everything else that had to be said about them can be found in the notes to the headings.

XI. Luther's writings on monastic vows and monastic life in general.

In Wittenberg, during Luther's absence at the Wartburg, vows were discussed. This prompted him to elaborate a whole series of sentences on this subject, his "Kurzen Schlußreden von den Gelübden und geistlichen Leben der Klöster" (No. 172 and No. 173 in this volume 1) which he sent to both Melanchthon and Amsdorf 2) on September 9, 1521. His letter to Melanchthon (No. 18 in the appendix of this volume), in

1. In the old edition of Walch, these two numbers, as stated in his introduction p. 113, are separated from each other by mistake. That they belong together is proven by the words at the end of No. 172: "I want this to be disputed in such a way that it is recorded as certain and true; the following, the Disputation No. 1731, I simply submit so that it may be disputed and the truth investigated.
2. The letter to Amsdorf is found Walch, old edition, vol. XV, appendix, no. 97, but with wrong date. k'eriÄ sseunäa xost Xativitatis is not the second day of Christmas, but "Montag nach Mariä Gehurt", that is, the A. Sef^emdevL

to whom detailed and valuable instruction on the vows is given, at the same time grants him permission to publish this writing. "For I believe," says Luther, "that this opinion, which is clearly and firmly founded in the Holy Scriptures, can stand the light and the publicity." Melanchthon seems not to have waited for the "short explanations" promised by Luther in case of publication, but had this disputation printed soon, probably still in 1521. In the last words of the German single edition: "Bewerung mit geschrifft kumpt bald. Patientz." we find an allusion to Luther's promise and intention to add short explanations to the sentences. But this promise was not fulfilled, because some monks in Wittenberg had left the monastery, and Luther, who had received this news, "feared that they might have done so out of a conscience that was not yet sufficiently fortified. He wrote this in a letter to Spalatin of November 22, 1521 (No. 19 in the appendix to this volume) and added that this fear had forced him to write the booklet "Von den geistlichem und Klostergelübdens Martin Luthers Urtheil" (No. 174 in this volume). By this larger writing, as well as by the extensive execution, which Luther inserted into his Postille, with which he was busy at that time, a further explanation of his sentences became superfluous. 3) Attached to the letter was the Latin preface to this writing, a letter to his father Hans Luther, dated November 21, 1521, in which it is particularly discussed that Luther had entered monasticism about sixteen years ago without the knowledge and will of his father. He heartily and humbly begs his father not to disobey him, for he has now come so far that he is quite sure of it, there is nothing more holy, there is nothing less holy, and there is nothing more holy.

3. This excursus on the vows has also been published separately under the title: "Bedenken und Unterricht von den Klöstern und allen geistlichen Gelübden" and is found in the old edition of Walch (as a duplicate), vol. XIX, 2053-2084. We have omitted this writing in this volume, because it is already found at the appropriate place in the St. Louis edition, vol. XI, 391-415, 88 853-312.

Introduction. 63

There can be no higher service than to keep to God's commandments. At that time he not only doubted that this was the case, but he did not know anything about it at all. In the book itself, Luther proves most clearly, strongly and irrefutably from the Holy Scriptures that the monastic state is in its essence contrary to the Scriptures, that therefore the monastic vow is also void, illicit, ungodly and contrary to the Gospel, and that therefore one may also return to the freedom of the Christian faith with a clear conscience, and should do so as soon as possible. Already in the writing itself (towards the end) Luther says: "I consider that everything is so fortified with Scripture and clear reasons that it can not only shut the mouths of the adversaries (on which I have directed little of my attention), but also establish the consciences against God in good confidence and make them secure, which is what I have had in mind primarily. He repeats the same in his letter to D. Johann Brismann 1) in January 1523: The book of the vows is, "as I myself must say, of all those I have written, the strongest and, as I may well boast, irrevocable". For the rest, we refer the honored reader to the glorious writing itself. Against Luther's "Urtheil von den geistlichen und Klostergelübdens" Johann Dietenberger wrote a paper with the title: Joann. Dytenbergii Theologi, contra temerarium Martini Lutheri de votis Monasticis judicium. Libri Duo. However, these and other counter-writings did not prevent Luther's writings from penetrating the well-guarded monasteries and leading many monks and nuns out of them.

Shortly before Easter 1523, twelve virgins escaped from the Nimptschen monastery through the help of Leonhard Koppe in Torgau. 3) Luther himself soon made this public in a missive. Luther, who had suggested this himself, made this known publicly in a letter to Leonhard Koppe

1. In this volume No. 106, the cited passage is found in Col. 566, § 2.

2. Cf. Seidemann, Erläuterungen, p. 112 f., note 3. 3) Cf. Col. 1667, > note 4 in this volume."

Koppe, citizen of Torgau, of April 10, 1523 (No. 175 in this volume), in which he gives cause and answer that virgins may divinely leave the monasteries. As a reason "that he proclaims such" he gives: "What we do, we do in God and do not shrink from it in the light. "On the other hand, I do it to preserve the honor of the poor children and their friendship," so that no one may say that they were carried out dishonestly by loose boys and had put their honor in danger, because Koppe can be shown to be an honorable man under whose protection they have placed themselves.

On March 2, 1524, Luther sent out A Story of How God Helped Out an Honorable Convent Maiden with a letter to the Counts of Mansfeld (No. 176 in this volume), in which he railed against convent life. Luther publishes this story written by Florentina von Oberweimar, in which she describes the shameful, extremely tyrannical treatment she had to endure in the Neuenhelfte monastery in Eisleben, in order to show all the world "what monasticism is".

A papist Count of Henneberg had sent several articles to Duke John Frederick of Saxony, in which he sought to prove by means of sayings and examples from the Holy Scriptures that vows should not be broken. The duke sent these articles to Luther with the request to answer them. Luther did so on May 18, 1526, in his reply to Duke John Frederick of Saxony (No. 177 in this volume) on the articles drawn from Scripture for the monastic vows. At that time Luther was overloaded with work and gave only short, but conclusive answers. In the letter to the duke he expresses the wish that the same may direct the author of the article and other advocates of the vows to his "Büchlein von Klostergelübden" and similar writings.

Luther's writings had also penetrated the nunnery of St. Mary Magdalene of Penance in Freiberg, also called the Convent of St. James. There were about seven and seventy nuns in the convent, among them Ursula, Duchess of Münsterberg, and Trop-

Introduction.

pau, Countess of Glatz. She was daughter of Henry of Münsterberg and granddaughter of King George Podiebrad of Bohemia, thus sibling with Duke George (i.e. both were born of two sisters De Wette, III, 391), and niece of Duke George of Saxony's mother, Zdena, also related to George and Henry of Saxony. 1) She had turned to Luther with the request that he might be helpful to her to leave the monastery. Therefore Luther wrote on June 29, 1528 to his friend M. Nicolaus Hausmann 2) in Zwickau, whose brother Valentin lived in Freiberg: "As I hope, a thing will happen in which I will need your assistance one day; because a captive nun has written to me from Freiberg, who cries and sighs for redemption. She hopes to be able to escape from the convent and the city if there are people who will take her in on the outside and bring her into the territory of our prince. More of this at another time, for as yet I know not how far this city may be from the borders of our prince." Hausmann, as it seems, did not want to go into it, because in another letter to the same, 3) from August 5, 1528, Luther writes very briefly: "In the matter of the person who was to be kidnapped from Freiberg, nothing happens; it has only been thoughts, therefore you can be quiet." Ursula had by no means given up her plan of escape, however, but, since she had been able to achieve little or nothing by her complaints to her relatives, she left the convent on October 6, 4) with two other virgins, Dorothea Thanbergin from Freiberg and Margaretha Volkmarin from Leipzig, and turned to Wittenberg. Luther's house accepted them all as guests, as he reported to Spalatin on October 20, 1528 5). Already in the convent, Ursula had written a document to justify her steps and completed it on April 28, 1528. Luther had the same, provided with his post-

1. Seidemann, Erläuterungen, p. 106 ff.
2. Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 1113.
3. Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 1116.
4. Thus Köstlin, Martin Luther, vol. II, p. 118.
5. Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 1128. Cf. also Bürkhardt, Briefwechsel, p. 148.

The original text was published in 1528 under the title: Der Durchlauchtigen, Hochgebornen F. Ursulen, Herzogin zu Mönsterberg 2c., christliche Ursach des verlassen Klosters zu Freiberg (No. 178 in this volume). The fact that what Luther added is not, as the old editions call it, a preface, but a postscript, results partly from the fact that in the original edition published by Hans Luft in Wittenberg, Luther's writing makes up the last part, and partly from the fact that in the refutation, which the convent of the virgins who remained in the monastery at Freiberg completed on February 18, 1529. February 1529, it is said that he pinned his letter "to the book of the abetrunnygen nuns, praising them for their faithfulness and mysticism. Whether this refutation (says Seidemann 1. c. p. 115) was ever printed, since it was intended for printing, I cannot say. Later Ursula married a baron Hieronymus von Biberstein.

About the last two writings of this section: Luther's Answer and Report to Two Questions Brought to Him by Persons of High Standing, July 13, 1530 (No. 179), and: Grund und Ursach, dass das Klosterleben unchristlich sei, ein kurzer Auszug aus Luthers Buch von den Gelübden (No. 180 in diesem Bande), ist bei den Schriften selbst das Neöthige gesagt schon.

XII. Luther's writings on marital status, especially on priestly marriage, which was forbidden under the papists.

Luther addressed an exhortation to the lords of the Teutonic Order on March 28, 1523, that they should avoid false chastity and resort to proper marital chastity (No. 181 in this volume). In addition to the vow that they would fight against the unbelievers, the Teutonic Knights had also taken upon themselves the three monastic vows of chastity, poverty and obedience. There is a reason why Luther addressed especially to them the request to enter the marital state,

Introduction. 65

that Luther hoped "that your order could be a great, splendidly strong example before all other orders, if it were to break this course first, so that unchastity would be less in other orders as well, and the fruit of the Gospel would increase all the more. Moreover, it was easier for them to follow this admonition, because they were not hindered by the care for their livelihood like the mendicant monks, for the order was rich, and the masters could divide the goods among themselves. For the rest, Luther refers them to the writings in which he had given rich instruction on this subject elsewhere.

In 1528, an unnamed person spread very poisonous theses against the second marriage (the so-called digamy or, as it is called in these theses, bigamy) of the bishops. Some assume that Wilibald Pirkheimer of Nuremberg, who was initially favorable to the Reformation but fell away out of fear when his name was mentioned in Eck's bull, was the author of these theses. Luther published these theses in the same year (in Latin), with a short preface and a detailed refutation. We share this writing under the title: Eines Ungenannten Schlusse wider die andere Ehe der Priester, mit D. M. Luthers Widerlegung und kurzer Vorrede (No. 182 in this volume). Luther mentions these theses in a letter to Wenc. Link of May 12, 1528. 1)

XIII Luther's Writings from the Conciliar.

In this section, Walch has included only two smaller writings in this volume, while the larger and more important ones have been assigned to the 16th volume, but have only been mentioned here. The former of these two writings appeared under the title: "Aus-.

1. Walch, old edition, vol. XVII, 2716.

schreibung eines heiligen, freien, christlichen Concilii. Anno 1535." (Without Luther's name.) (No. 183 in this volume.) Probably the same writing appeared earlier in Latin, for the Latin Jena edition (1603), Tom. III, fol. 477, places it in the year 1534. It is a kind of satire, in which the angel Gabriel, by command of the Holy Spirit, summons all believers in Christ to a holy, free, Christian concilio, in order to hear there the decree of the reformation of the church. It is written in the horribly prolix and convoluted curial style that was in use at the time.

About the other writing: Luthers Disputation, was ein Concilium für Macht und Gewalt habe, Anno 1536 (No. 184 in diesem Bande), ist nichts Besonderes zu bemerken.

It only remains to briefly mention two writings in the appendix of this volume (all others have already been mentioned in the appropriate place), which do not belong to any of the sections in this volume in particular. They concern Luther's dispute with the theologians at Cologne and Louvain, and should therefore have been added to the 18th volume of Walch's edition 2). One of them is Luther's preface to Melanchthon's responsibility on the Cologne subclerical writing against Bucer. 1543 (No. 20 in the appendix of this volume). We reproduce the other in an improved translation under the title: D. Martin Luthers Schrift wider die 32 Artikel der Theologisten zu Löwen (No. 21 in the appendix of this volume), which appeared in 1545, probably in September. The necessary has been said about the writings themselves.

2. Luther's dispute with the theologians at Cologne, Louvain and Paris is found in Walch, St. Louis Edition, vol. XVIII, 932 ff.

** Contents of the nineteenth part**

the

The book is a continuation of the controversial writings of Luther and his opponents among the papists.

First Section.

In relation to the people with whom he had to argue.

Continued.

XIII Luther's dispute with King Henry VIII of England. Columne

69. from the Babylonian captivity. Oct. 6, 1520 4

70 King Henry VIII's Letter to Emperor Carl V May 20, 1521 128

71 King Henry VIII's letter to Elector Louis of the Palatinate. May 20, 1521 130

72 King Henry VIII's Book Against Luther's Babylonian Captivity. Book Against Luther's Babylonian Captivity. 1521... 134

73 a. Luther's German Response to King Henry of England's Book. 1522 238

73 b. The same scripture, newly translated: Against Henry, King of England. Mart. Luther. August 1522 280

74 Luther's letter to a good friend. Aug. 28, 1522 350

75 King Henry VIII's letter to Elector Frederick, his brother John, and Duke George of Saxony. Feb. 20, 1523 352

76 Des von Planitz letter to Elector Frederick of Saxony. April 24, 1523 360

77 Prince Frederick's and Duke John's Reply to Henry VIII's Letter. Letter. April 28 or 29, 1523 362

78 Elector Frederick's passport to the English herald. May 4, 1523 368

79. Duke George of saxony's answer to the Letter from King Henry VIII May 9, 1523 368

80: Spalatin's letter to Prince Frederick. Probably May 13, 1523 376

81 Luther's letter to King Henry VIII of England. Sept. 1, 1525. 378

82 King Henry VIII's. Reply to the above letter. 1526 382

83 Luther's response to the king's blasphemy in England Title. February (?) 1527 410

84 List of some of Luther's writings that have an impact here 424

XIV Luther's dispute with Duke George of Saxony.

a. On the occasion of the Sermon on the Sacrament of the Body of Christ published by Luther.

Columne

Luther's Sermon on the Sacrament of the Holy Body of Christ. Dec. 1519 426

85 Duke George of Saxony's letter to Elector Frederick. Dec. 27, 1519 450

86 Elector Frederick's reply to the above letter. Dec. 29, 1519 452

87 Luther's explanation of several articles in his Sermon vom Sacrament. After mid-January 1520 452

88: The Bishop of Meissen's Letter Against Luther's Sermon on the Sacrament. Jan. 24, 1520 460

89 a. Luther's reply to the note, so under the Official's at Stolpen 2c. Mid Feb. 1520 462

89 b. The same scripture translated from Latin. Late Feb. or early March 1520 468

Luther's defense of his reply against Spalatin. Before Feb. 18, 1520 482

List of some of Luther's writings that have an impact here 486

b. because of Luther's translation of the New Testament.

91 Duke George of Saxony's mandate to deliver Luther's New Testament. Nov. 7, 1522 488

c. because of Luther's letter to Hartmuth von Cronberg.

92: Duke George's letter to Luther concerning his missive to Hartmuth von Cronberg. Dec. 30. 1522 490

93 Luther's reply to the above letter. Jan. 3, 1523 492

List of some of Luther's letters 492

68 Contents of the nineteenth part.

d. because of the privilege and the preface Duke George's pre-Emser's New Testament. Column

94 Preface by Duke George to Emser's New Testament. August 1, 1527 494

95 Duke George's privilege for the new printing of the same. Jan. 25, 1528 500

96 Short preface to Emser's New Testament. 1528 502

e. because of his humble letter to Duke George.

Luther's humble letter to Duke George. 21 December 1525 504

98 Duke George's harsh and unfriendly response to this. December 28, 1525 508

Luther's letter to M. Nicolaus Hausmann concerning the above answer. January 20, 1526 514

f. On the occasion of Pack's Handel.

List of some of the writings that have an impact here 516

100 Luther's writing of secret and stolen letters. New Year 1529 518

g. because of Luther's answer to some citizens at Leipzig, concerning the Communion under One Form.

The related writings can be found in the appendix of this volume, No. 23-30.

h. as, however, Duke George on another occasion bore witness to the truth of Luther. . Column

101 M. Cyriacus Spangenberg's Report on Duke George's Verdict 546

XV Luther's dispute with the Elector Albrecht of Mainz.

Luther's hard but Christian writing to the Cardinal at Mainz. Dec. 1, 1521 548

103 Reply of the Cardinal of Mainz to the previous letter. Dec. 21, 1521 552

Luther's letter to Capito, the Cardinal's preacher and councilor. Jan. 17, 1522 554

Luther's letter to Spalatin. Approximately between Dec. 5 and 8, 1521 560

List of some of the writings that have an impact here 562

Luther's dispute with Duke Henry of Brunswick (1540 and 1541)

See Walch, old edition, vol. XVII, 1549 u. 1645.

XVI Luther's dispute with Caspar Schatzgeyer.

106 Luther's letter to D. Joh. Brismann. Much light in January 1523 564

The Streitschriften wider Miritianus (1528)

can be found in Walch, old edition, vol. XIV, 1336-1357.

XVII Luther's dispute with Cochlaeus.

Luther's writing Against the armed man Cochläus. Mid Feb. 1523 578

Second Section.

With regard to the papal errors that Luther denied.

I. Against Papal Errors in General.

108 Luther's writing "On the Doctrine of Man to Be Shunned". About April 1522 598

The papacy with its members painted 2c. With Luther's prefaces and postscripts. New year 1526 622

110 Some articles falsified by the papists, together with Luther's letter to the preachers at Soest. About the end of October 1535 640

111. examples of papal theology and doctrine, with Luther's preface and marginal glosses. 1523 646

II Luther's writings concerning the person, office and power of the pope and bishops.

112 Luther's writing against the false spiritual status of the pope and the bishops. Probably July 1522 668

113 Luther's letter to Duke Albrecht of Prussia. January or February 1524... 728

III Luther's writings concerning indulgences.

114. piece of a sermon by Luther on indulgences. July 27, 1516, 736

115 Luther's sermon on indulgences on the day before the Church consecration. 31 Oct. 1516 744

116 Luther's sermon on the day of St. Matthew. February 24, 1517 754

117 Luther's Theses on the Remission of Guilt and Punishment. 1518.... 760

118 Two bulls of Pabst Clement VII, in which he proclaims the Jubilee Year, with Luther's preface and glosses. Beginning 1525 766

IV. Luther's writings against auricular confession.

119 Luther's writing on how to confess (Confitendi ratio). End of March 1520 786

120 Luther's teaching of the confessional children about the banned books. Mid February 1521 808

121 Luther's writing: Of Confession, Whether or Not the Pope has power to command. June 1, 1521 814

Contents of the nineteenth part. 69

V. Luther's Writings on the Ransom and Binding Key, or on Church Violence and Ban. Columne

122 Luther's sermon on the power of the ban. Between August 21 and 31, 1518 874

123. Luther's Sermon on the Ban. End 1519 884

124 Luther's Disputation from the Ban. (First quarter) 1521 902

125 Luther's writing about the keys. End of September or beginning of October 1530 902

126. Luther's Article on the Violence of the Church. July 1530 958

VI. Seeker's writings of the saints "nd their intercession.

127 Luther's teaching of the saints to the Church at Erfurt. July 10, 1522 962

128 Luther's epistle on the interpretation and intercession of the saints. Sept. 8, 1530 968

129 List of some of the writings that have an impact here 986

Luther's writings on purgatory

can be found Walch, St. Louis Edition, vol. XVIII, col. 874-909.

VII Luther's writings on Christian freedom and ceremonies.

129: Luther's writing on the freedom of a Christian man. Second half of October 1520 986

Luther's writing on the custom and confession of Christian freedom. 1524 1012

131 Luther's letter to Philipp Glumspieß zu Mansfeld. 1526 1016

132 Luther's letter to Thomas Neuenhagen. September 3 1524 1018

133 Luther's Scripture on Consecrated Water and the Pabst's Agnus Dei. 1539 1018

Luther's Letter to the Elector Joachim II. of Brandenburg. December 4, 1539 1022

Luther's letter to Georg Buchholzer, provost of Berlin. December 4, 1539 1026

List of some of the writings that have an impact here 1028

VIII. Luther's writings against the seven sacraments.

136 Luther's hasty response to the articles that the magistri nostri extracted from his Babylonian captivity 2c. End of March or beginning of April 1521 1028

IX. Luther's Writings Against the Mass.

a. On the abuse of the Mass.

137 Luther's Sermon on the New Testament, that is, on the Holy Mass. August 3, 1520 1036

138 Luther's writing on the abuse of the mass.

Issued Nov. 1521, dated Jan. 1522 1068

b. On abolition of the papal masses, especially the private or angular mass.

139 Luther's letter to the canons of Wittenberg. July 11, 1523 1178

Columne > > Two writings by Luther concerning the chapter at Wittenberg:

140a. Luther's letter to the provost and canons of Wittenberg. March 1, 1523 1180

140b. Luther's earnest reminder to the canons in the monastery at Wittenberg. Aug. 2, 1523 1182

141 Luther's letter to the provost, the canons and the chapter of Wittenberg. Aug. 19. 1523 1184

142 Luther's letter to Spalatin. October 12, 1523 1188

143 a. Luther's letter to the chapter at Wittenberg. Nov. 17, 1524 1190

143b. The Wittenberg University, Council, and Community seek from the Wittenberg Abbey to abolish all ungodly ceremonies. Between 4 and 8 Dec. 1524 1192

143c. The chapter's new order of worship at Wittenberg. Dec. 24, 1524 1196

144 Luther's writing on the abomination of the still mass. (beginning of Dec. ?) 1524 1198

145 Luther's letter to Count Albrecht zu Mansfeld. July 14, 1529 1216

146 Luther's answer to Margrave George of Brandenburg. Sept. 14, 1531 1216

147 Luther's writing of the angular mass and consecration of the priests. December 1533 1220

148 Luther's letter to a good friend about his book on the Angular Mass. Beginning of 1534 1286

149 Luther's Disputation Against the Angular Mass.

1535 1298

150: Luther's concerns to Duke Heinrich of Saxony regarding the private mass in Meissen Abbey. Beginning of July 1539 1300

List of some writings belonging to it 1302

c. Against the papal doctrine of transformation.

151 Luther's collation speech on transubstantiation. June 1541. (?) 1302

152 Luther's letter to George, Prince of Anhalt, on transubstantiation. May 25, 1541 1306

d. Elevation and adoration of the Sacrament.

Luther's writing on worshiping the sacrament of the holy body of Christ. Before June 1523 1308

154. Luther's letter to Leonhard Puchler dated Adoration of the Sacrament. 11 Dec. 1523 1338

Luther's letter to Prince George of Anhalt about the Elevation. June 26, 1542 1340

Luther's letter to D. Greg. Brück of the Elevation. January 6, 1543 1342

e. Against the Dispensation of the Sacrament under One Form.

Reference to some writings belonging here.... 1344

157 Luther's report to a good friend of both forms of the sacrament on the bishop's to Meissen mandate. After June 14, 1528 1344

158 Luther's Some Sayings Against the Concilium at Constance. 1535 1396

70 Contents of the nineteenth part.

X. Luther's writings on the law and faith, against the merit of works.

Columne

Reference to Some Writings Belonging Here.... 1414

159 Luther's Nine Sentences on Circumcision. 1518 1414

160. Luther's Disputation on the Law and on the Justification. 1519 1416

161 Luther's disputation on the question of whether the Works belong to justification. 1520 1418

162. Luther's sentences about the cast-in and the attained faith, together with his explanation of this disputation. 1520 1420
163. Luther's five disputations on Rom. 3, 28. 1535 1436

164 Luther's Disputation on 1 Cor. 13. 1535. 1458

165 Luther's thoughts about the righteousness of the Faith. Without date. 1460

166 Luther's Disputation on Man. 1536 1462

167 Luther's Disputation on the Great Supper. 1537 1466

168. Luther's Disputation on Hebr. 13,8. 1541.... 1468

169 Luther's disputation on the faith against the Satan and his synagogue. 1541 1472

170. Luther's theological disputation that we

to be justified by faith alone. 1543 1474 171. Luther's Disputation on the Justifying

and of the belief in miracles. 1543 1478

XI. Lacher's writings on monastic vows and monastic life in general.

Luther's short final discourses on the vows and spiritual life of the monasteries. [September 1521 1480

Luther's Disputation on the Vows. [September 1521 1490

Luther's verdict on spiritual and monastic vows. End of February 1522 1500

Luther's "Bedenken und Unterricht von den Klöstern und Gelübden der Geistlichen" is a part of the sermon on Epiphany in the Kirchenpostille and is already printed Walch, St. Louiser Ausg., vol. XI, 391, §§ 253-312; therefore this writing is omitted here.

175 Luther's missive to Leonhard Koppe that virgins may divinely leave the monasteries. April 10, 1523 1666

176 A story of how God helped out a convent virgin, with Luther's letter to the Counts of Mansfeld. March 2, 1524 1674

177 Luther's Reply to Duke John Frederick of Saxony on the Articles for Monastic Vows Drawn from Holy Scripture. May 18, 1526 1684

178. Mrs. Ursulen, Duchess of Münsterberg, Christian Causes of the Abandoned Monastery at Freiberg, with Luther's Postscript. October or November 1528 1694

179 Luther's misgivings in response to two questions posed to him by persons of high rank, namely, whether the princes were justified in supporting the monastic life and the mass. have abolished 2c. July 13 1530 1724

180. reason and cause that the monastic life is unchristian, drawn from Luther's book of vows. 1530 1728

XII. Luther's writings on marital status and especially on priestly marriage, which was forbidden under the papists.

Columne

181 Luther's exhortation to the gentlemen of the German Order to avoid false chastity. March 28 . 1523 1730

182: An Unnamed Conclusion Against the Other Marriage of Priests, with D. M. Luther's Refutation and Preface. Before May 12, 1528 1746

XIII Luther's Writings from the Conciliar.

Luther's call for a holy free council. 1535 1762

Luther's disputation on the power of a council. 1536 1766

List of some writings belonging to it 1770

Appendix of some of Luther's letters.

1 Luther's letter to Johann Lang. November (?) 1522 1772

2 Luther's letter to Johann Lang. February 4, 1772

3. Luther's letter to Spalatin. February 1, 1527 1774

4 Luther's letter to Spalatin. January 14, 1520 1774

5 Luther's letter to Spalatin. February 12, 1520 1778

6. Luther's Letter to Wenc. Link. January 7, 1523 1780

7 Luther's letter to Spalatin. January 14, 15231782

8 Luther's Letter to Spalatin. April 25, 1523 1782

Luther's letter to Spalatin. End of March or the first three days of April 1523 1784

10 Luther's letter to J. Jonas. 10 Dec. 1527. Old edition, vol. XVII, appendix, no. 4.

11 Luther's letter to W. Link. About Christmas 1526 1786

Luther's letter to N. Amsdorf. Jan. 2, 1526 1786

Luther's letter to Joh. Hess. Before mid-June 1528 1788

14 Luther's Letter to N. Amsdorf. June 8, 1528 1790

15. Luther's Letter to W. Link. Towards the end of Dec. 1528 1790

Luther's letter to M. Stiefel. 1 Jan. 1528... 1792

Luther's letter to M. Spalatin. 1 Feb. 1524.... 1792

18 Luther's letter to M. Melanchthon. 9 Sept. 1521 1794

19 Luther's Letter to M. Spalatin. Nov. 22, 1521... 1800

Threefold appendix of some of Luther's controversial writings:

a. Concerning the theologians at Cologne and Leuven:

20 Luther's Preface to Melanchthon's Responsibility to the Cologne Scriptures. 1543 1802

21 Luther's writing Against the 32 Articles of the Theologians at Louvain. Probably September 1545 1808

b. Concerning Luther's dispute with Duke George and Cardinal Albrecht:

22 Luther's Letter to Churf. Johannes. Dec. 31, 1528 1816

23 Luther's letter to some citizens of Leipzig concerning the reception of the sacrament under one of them. April 11, 1533 1820

Contents of the nineteenth part. 71

Columne

24 Wolf Wiedemann's letter to Luther. 25. Apr. 1533 1822

25 Luther's reply to the previous letter. April 27, 1533 1822

26. rotel of the oath that Duke George imposed on his subjects. 1533 1824

27 Luther's Judgment of Duke George. 1533 1826

28 Luther's responsibility because of the George imposed on him. June or July 1533 1826

29 Luther's letter of consolation to the Christians, innocently chased out of Leipzig by Duke George for the sake of the Gospel. This is a part of the previous writing and already printed, Walch, St. Louis Edition, Vol. X, 1932 ff.

30 Luther's little answer to Duke George's next book. Late September or Early October 1533 1842

31 Luther's serious penal letter to Cardinal Albrecht for murder. July 31, 1535 1878

Luther's letter to Brück, from the Cardinal at Mainz. December 10, 1536 1882

33 Luther's harsh punishment and warning to the Cardinal. Before 12 January 1536 1884

34 Luther's writing Wider Cardinal Albrecht, concerning the innocently hanged Hans Schenitz. Beginning 1539 1888

Columne

35a. Luther's letter to J. Jonas concerning his mocking note of the Cardinal's sanctuary at Mainz. November 6, 1542 1930

35b. The mocking note. Before November 1542 1932

c. Concerning the Pabst's person and doctrine:

36. interpretation of two gruesome figures, the Pabst, by Melanchthon with Luther's Amen, and the monk's calf by Luther. End of January or beginning of February 1523 1934

37 Two episcopal bulls, one divine (of the bishop of Samland) and one papal (of the bishop of Ermeland), with Luther's preface and glosses. January 1524 1946

38 Luther's disputation on the words of Christ, "Go and sell all that you have and give it to the poor," April 1539, is found in Walch, St. Louis Edition, vol. X, 576.

39 Luther's speeches, which heard in the aforementioned disputation. April 1539 1958

40 Luther's Preface to the Barefoot Monks Eulenspiegel and Koran, called Francisci liber conforrnitatum. 1542 1960

41 Luther's preface to the booklet: Pabst loyalty of Hadrian IV and Alexander III practiced against Emperor Frederick Barbarossa. 1545 1964

The writings contained in this nineteenth volume

ordered according to the time sequence.

1516. Columne

July 27 piece of a sermon by Luther on indulgences 736

Oct. 31: Luther's Sermon on Indulgences on the Day of the

Church consecration 744

1517.

Feb. 24 Luther's Sermon on the Day of St. Matthew 754

1518.

Between August 21 and 31. Luther's Sermon on the Power of the Ban 874

Without date. Theses of remission of guilt and

Penalty 760

No date. Luther's Nine Sentences of Circumcision 1414

1519.

December. Luther's Sermon on the Sacrament of the Holy Body of Christ 426

December 27 Duke George of Saxony's letter to Elector Frederick 450

December 29: Elector Frederick's reply to the above letter 452

Columne

Late 1519. Luther's Sermon on the Ban.............. 884

No date. Luther's Disputation on the Law and from justification 14l6

1520.

January 14 Luther's letter to Spalatin 1774

After mid-Jan. Luther's explanation of some articles in his Sermon on the Sacrament 452

January 24 The Bishop of Meissen's letter of invitation to tender

Against Luther's Sermon on the Sacrament 460 February 12. Luther's Letter to Spalatin 1778 Before 18 Feb. Luther's Defense of His

Response to the note, so under the official's seal at Stolpen u. s. w 482

Middle of February. Luther's answer to the note, so under the official's seal at Stolpen has gone out 462

End of Feb. or beginning of March. The same script, translated from Latin 468

End of March. Luther's writing on how to confess (Confitendi ratio) 786

August 3 Luther's Sermon on the New Testament, i.e. on the Holy Mass 1036

72 Contents of the nineteenth part arranged in chronological order.

Columne

October 6 From the Babylonian Captivity... 4

Second half of Octobers. Luther's writing of the Freedom of a Christian 986

No date. Luther's Disputation on Whether Works Serve for Justification 1418

No date. Luther's Sentences of Infused and Acquired Faith 1420

1521.

Mid-February. Luther's teaching of the confessional children about the forbidden books 808

End of March or beginning of April. Luther's hasty reply to the articles which the Magistri nostri had received from his Babylonian captivity - have moved out 1028

First quarter of the year. Luther's disputation from the ban 902

May 20 King Henry VIII's letter to Emperor Carl V 128

May 20 King Henry VIII's letter to Churf. Louis of the Palatinate 130

June 1 Luther's writing: Von der Beichte, ob die der Pabst Macht habe zu gebieten 814

Sept. 9. Luther's letter to Melanchthon 1794

September. Luther's disputation of the vows. First part. 1480

September. Luther's disputation of the vows. Second part 1490

Nov. 22 Luther's letter to Spalatin 1800

Dec. I. Luther's hard but Christian writing to the Cardinal at Mainz 948

Between 5 and 8 Dec. Luther's letter to Spalatin 560

Dec. 21 Cardinal of Mainz's reply to Luther's letter . 552

No date. King Henry VIII's Book Against Luther's Babylonian Captivity 134

1522.

January 17 Luther's letter to Capito, Cardinal of Mainz Preacher 554

January. Scripture on the abuse of the Mass 1068

End of February. Luther's judgment of the ecclesiastical and monastic vows 1500

About April. Luther's writing: On the Doctrine of Man to be Shunned 598

Probably in July. Luther's writing against the falsely named spiritual state of the pope 2c 668

July 10- Luther's teaching from the saints to the Church at Erfurt 962

No date. Luther's German Response to Henry VIII. Book 238

August. The same scripture translated from Latin 280

August 28 Luther's letter to a good friend about his hard writing 350

November 7 Duke George's Mandate, the New To deliver Luther's will 488

Novembers (?). Luther's letter to Johann Lang 1772

December 30 Duke George's letter to Luther because of his missive to Hartmuth von Cronberg 490

1523.

January 3, Luther's reply to Duke George's letter 492

Columne

January (?). Luther's letter to Brismann 564 January 7. Luther's letter to Wenc. Link. 1780

January 14 Luther's letter to Spalatin 1782

End of January or beginning of February. Interpretation of the Pabstle by Melanchthon and the Monk's Calf by Luther 1934

February 20 King Henry VIII's letter to Churf. Friedrich and Duke Johannes rc 352

Middle of February. Luther's writing against the armed man Cochlaeus 578

March 1 Luther's letter to the provost and canons in Wittenberg 1180

March 28 Luther's exhortation to the gentlemen of the Teutonic Order rc 1730

End of March or beginning of April. Luther's letter to Spalatin ' 1784

April 10 Luther's missive to L. Koppe that. Virgins may leave convents Christian.... 1666

April 24 Des von Planitz letter to Elector Frederick 360

April 25 Luther's letter to Spalatin 1782

April 28 or 29 Churf. Frederick and Duke John's reply to Henry VIII 362

May 4 Elector Frederick's passport for the English herald 368

May 9 Duke George of Saxony's reply to the Letter of Henry VIII 368

Probably May 13. Spalatin's letter to Elector Frederick 376

Before June. Luther's Scripture on Adoration of the Sacrament of the Holy Body 1308

July 11 Luther's letter to the canons of Wittenberg 1178

Aug. 2 Luther's earnest exhortation to the canons of the Wittenberg Abbey in 1182.

Aug. 19 Luther's letter to the provost, canons and chapter at Wittenberg 1184

October 12 Luther's letter to Spalatin 1188

December 11 Luther's Letter to Leonh. Puchler on Worshiping the Sacrament 1338

Without date. Examples of Papal Theology and Teaching with Luther's preface etc 646

1524.

January. Two episcopal bulls, one godly and one papal 2c 1946

January or Feb. Luther's letter to Duke Albrecht of Prussia 728

February I. Luther's Letter to Spalatin 1792

March 2 A story of how God helped out a convent virgin 2c 1674

Sept. 3 Luther's letter to Thomas Neuenhagen 1018

November 17 Luther's letter to the chapter at Wittenberg 1190

Between Dec. 4 and 8, the Wittenberg University 2c. Seeking from the monastery to abolish all ungodly ceremonies 1192

Early Dec. (?). Luther's writing: On the Abomination of the Still Mass 1198

Dec. 24 Wittenberg Chapter's new order of worship 1196

Undated. Luther's writing: On the Custom and Confession of Christian Liberty 1012

Contents of the nineteenth part arranged in chronological order. 73

1525. Columne

Beginning of the year. Two bulls of Pabst Clement VII, in which he proclaims the jubilee year, with Luther's preface and glosses 766

Sept. 1 Luther's missive to King Henry VIII of England 378

December 21 Luther's Humble Letter to Duke George 504

December 28 Duke George's tough response to Luther's letter 508

1526.

New Year. The Papacy with its Members Painted, with Luther's Preface 2c 622

Jan. 2. Luther's letter to Nic. Amsdorf 1786

Jan. 20 Luther's letter to Hausmann about Duke George's harsh reply 514

May 18 Luther's reply to Duke Joh. Friedrich about articles for the monastic vows 1684

About Christmas. Luther's letter to Wenc. Link 1786

No date. King Henry VIII's Response to Luther's epistle 382

No date. Luther's letter to Philipp Gluenspieß 1016

1527.

February 1 Luther's letter to Spalatin 1774

" 4. Luther's Letter to Joh. Lang.... 1772

February (?). Luther's response to the king's blasphemy in England Title 410

Aug. 1 Preface of Duke George to Emser's New Testament 494

1528.

Jan. 1 Luther's letter to M. Stiefel 1792

Jan. 25 Duke George's privilege to the new Printing of Emser's New Testament 500

Probably at the same time as the previous writing:

Short preface to Emser's New Testament.... 502

Before May 12. An Unnamed Conclusion Against the Other Marriage of Priests, with Luther's Preface and Refutation 1746

June 8 Luther's letter to N. Amsdorf 1790

Before mid-June. Luther's letter to Joh. Heß 1788

After June 14. Luther's Report to a Good Friend of Both Forms of the Sacrament on the Bishop of Meissen's Mandate 1344

October or November. Ursula, Duchess of Münsterberg, Causes of the Abandoned Monastery 1694

Towards the end of Decembers. Luther's Letter to W. Link 1790

Dec. 31. Luther's Letter to Prince John 1816

1529.

New Year. Luther's writing of secret and stolen letters. 518

July 14 Luther's letter to Count Albrecht of Mansfeld 1216

1530.

July. Luther's Article on the Violence of the Church.... 958

July 13 Luther's objections to two questions as to whether the princes were justified in abolishing monastic life and the mass 2c 1724

Sept. 8. epistle of interpretation and intercession to the saints 968

Columne

Late Sept. or early Oct. Luther's writing of the keys 902

Without date. Reason and cause that monastic life is unchristian, drawn from Luther's book of vows 1728

1531.

Sept. 14 Reply to Margrave George of Brandenburg 1216

1533.

April 11: Luther's letter to some citizens of Leipzig concerning the reception of the sacrament under one form 1820

April 25 Wolf Wiedemann's letter to Luther 1822

April 27 Luther's reply to the previous letter 1822.

June or July. Luther's responsibility because of the sedition imposed on him by Duke George.... 1826

End of September or beginning of Octobers. Luther's little answer to Duke George's next book 1842

December. Luther's Writing of the Angular Mass and Consecration of the Priests 1220

Without date. Notel of the oath that Duke George imposed on his subjects 1824

Without date. Luther's Judgment of Duke George.... 1826

1534.

Beginning of the year. Luther's Letter to a Good Friend About His Book of the Angular Mass 1286

1535.

July 31 Luther's serious penal letter to Card. Albrecht for murder 1878

About the end of October. Several articles falsified by the papists, together with Luther's letter to the congregation at Soest 840.

No date. Luther's Disputation from the Angle Fair 1298

No date. Luther's Several Sayings Against the Concilium at Constance 1396

No date. Luther's five disputations on Rom. 3, 28 1436

No date. Luther's disputation on 1 Cor. 13. 1458

No date. Luther's Call for a Holy Free Concil 1762

1536.

Before January 12. Luther's severe punishment and warning letter to Cardinal Albrecht at Mainz 1884

Dec. 10. Luther's letter to Brück, from the Cardinal at Mainz 1882

Without date. Disputation of man 1462

Without date. Disputation, what power a Concil has 1766

1537.

No date. Disputation of the Great Supper 1466

1539.

Beginning of the year. Luther's writing against Card. Albrecht because of Hans Schenitz 1888

April. Luther's speeches, caught from his mouth at the disputation on the words of Christ: Go and sell all that thou hast 2c. 1958

74Contents of the nineteenth part arranged in chronological order.

Columne

Early July. Luther's Concerns to Duke Heinrich about the Private Mass in the Abbey of Meissen 1300

Dec. 4 Luther's letter to Churf. Joachim II of Brandenburg 1022

Dec. 4 Luther's letter to Georg Buchholzer, provost in Berlin 1026

No date. Luther's Scripture on Consecrated Water and the Pabst's Agnus Dei 1018

Mal 25. Luther's Letter to George of Anhalt on Transubstantiation 1306

June. Luther's Collation Speech on Transubstantiation 1302

Without date. Disputation on Hebr. 13, 8 1468

No date. Disputation on the Faith against Satan and his Synagogue 1472

June 26 Luther's letter to Georg zu Anhalt from the Elevation 1340

Before November. Luther's Mocking Note from the Shrine of Card. at Mainz 1932

Nov. 6 Luther's letter to Just. Jonas because of this mocking note 1930

Columne

No date. Luther's Preface to the Barefoot Monk Eulenspiegel and Koran, Francisci liber conformitatum 1960

Jan. 6 Luther's letter to Brück on the Elevation 1342

No date. Luther's disputation that we are justified by faith alone 1474

No date. Luther's Disputation on the Justifying and Miracle Faith 1478

Undated. Luther's Preface to Melanchthon's Responsibility to the Writing of the Cologne...... 1802

Probably September. Luther's writing against the

32 Articles of the Theologians at Louvain. 1808

No date. Luther's preface to the booklet: "Pope's Loyalty to Hadrian IV and Alexander III against Emperor Frederick Barbarossa 1964

No time specified.

Luther's Thoughts on the Righteousness of Faith............ 1460

** Reformation Writings.**

Second part:

Dogmatic-Polemical writings

A. Against the Papists.

Continued.

Continuation of the first section of Luther's controversial writings against the papists:

With regard to the persons with whom Luther had to engage in controversy.

XIII Luther's dispute with King Henry VIII of England.

69. Luther's Book of the Babylonian Captivity of the Church, which deals mainly with the nature, number, and utility of the sacraments.*)

1520.

Translated from Latin.

Prelude 1) D. Martin Luther's of the Babylonian Captivity of the Church.

JEsus.

Martin Luther, Augustinian, wishes his Hermann Tulich 2) Heil.

I may want to or not, so I am forced to become more learned day by day,

1. What is meant by this word "prelude" can be seen from the last paragraph of the present writing: He Luther hears that papist bulls of excommunication are ready against him, by which he should be urged to recant or otherwise be declared a heretic. If this were true, this book should form the first part of his future recantation; but he would soon have a second such part follow, such as the papal chair had never seen or heard before, in order to abundantly testify to his obedience, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.
2. Hermann Tulich, born in Steinheim near Paderborn, corrector in Melchior Lotther's print shop in Leipzig,

as so many and so great magisters are competing with each other to press me and practice me. Two years ago I wrote about indulgences, but in such a way that now I am immensely pleased to have published the booklet 3).

With his eldest son, he moved to Wittenberg in 1519. In 1525, he and Agricola were appointed to the newly founded school in Eisleben, which he soon left again and then stayed in Wittenberg until 1532, when he became Rector in Lüneburg, where he died in 1540. (Erl. Briefwechsel, vol. 2, 490.) - The letter must be dated October 6, 1520, because Luther wrote to Spalatin on October 3: "The book of the Babylonian captivity will go out Saturday and be sent to you." Cf. Walch, old edition, vol. XV, appendix, no. 40, § 4.

3. This refers to Luther's explanations of the "Disputation on the Power of Indulgences," which were completed on May 30, 1518, and went out in mid-August. Cf. Walch, St. Louis Edition, vol. XVIII, 100. Similarly, the introduction to the XVIII. Bande sud No. XI. Therefore, de Wette's note, vol. 1, 493: "Almost three years had passed," is not entirely accurate.

*) The oldest edition of this book appeared in Wittenberg in Latin, without indication of the time, but in all probability in 1520, with the printer's mark of Melchior Lotther, under the title: De captivitate Babylonica ecclesiae Praeludium Martini Lutheri. At the end: Hostis Herodes impie, Christum venire quid times? Non arripit mortalia, Qui regna dat coelestia, pernet. Further, probably still err dem"

6 L. V. L. V. 16 f. XIII Luther's dispute with Henry VIII. W. XIX, s-7. 7

gave. For at that time I was caught up in a great superstition concerning Roman tyranny, so I did not think that it indulgences should be rejected altogether, seeing that it was approved by such a great consensus of the people. This is also not to be wondered at, because I alone rolled this rock at that time. But afterwards, supported by the kindness of Silvester and the brothers who zealously defended him, I came to understand that he was nothing but a mere fraud of the Roman flatterers, in order to corrupt the faith of God and the money of the people. And would God that I could obtain it from the booksellers and persuade all who read it to burn all my books on indulgences and accept this sentence instead of everything I wrote about it:

The indulgence is a knavery of the Roman sycophants.

After that Eck and Emser with their co-conspirators began to teach me about the supremacy of the pope. And here, too, I confess, not to be ungrateful to such learned people, that I was greatly encouraged by their efforts; namely, although I denied that the papacy was by divine right, I admitted that it was by human right. But after I have heard and read the most sophistical sophistry of these Junkers 1) wherewith they have

1. DroMidorum; this was the name of the Roman knights because of the conquest of the city of Trossulum. Later in a contemptuous sense: a dandy, someone who plays the great lord.

I know now and I am sure that the Pabstthum is the kingdom of Babylon and the power of Nimrod, the mighty hunter. Therefore, so that everything is for the best for my friends, I ask the booksellers, I ask the readers, that they would like to burn what I have published about this matter and hold on to this sentence:

The Pabstthum is the mighty hunt of the Roman bishop.

This is proven by the justifications of Eck, Emser and the Lector of the Bible 2) at Leipzig.

Now one plays school with me about the Communion under both forms and some other very important things. Here it has now trouble that I also do not hear these my teachers 3) in vain. A certain monk (frater) in Cremona, a Welshman (Italus), has written "a revocation (revocationem) of Martin Luther to the Holy See". That is, a revocation by which not I revoke (as the words read), but a revocation by which he calls me again (revocat) (for this is how the Welsh begin to speak Latin nowadays). About both forms of the Sacrament, against me has

2. Alveld. Cf. Walch, St.. Louis edition, vol. XVIII, 1002. There he is called: Dsotor 8aoras Dlisoio^iashier he is called Hpsensis Isotor Lidli-.

6us called.

3. Oratippus. Cratippus was the most outstanding peripatetic philosopher in Athens at the time of Cicero. Therefore, Cicero had sent his son Marcus to Athens to be instructed by him. 6io. äs oL 6up. I.

The same year, an edition by Ulrich von Hütten under the same title, without indication of time and place. On the back of the title page Luther's picture with the following verses:

Numina coelestem nobis peperere Lutherani:

Nostra diu majus^aecla videre nihil.

Quem si pontificum crudelis deprimit error: Non feret iratos impia terra deos.

Then another edition, without indication of place and time and without page numbers, with the same title, which has at the end these words: bdnls praoiudio, c^od doooro pot68t, iootor, ouaii8 reg tota tutura Ät. In 1524 this Schrrft appeared in two different collections of Luther's writings, together with the Reply to the Book of Ambrosius Catharinus and vo Udortato oiirigtiLoL to Wenceslaus Link, with no indication of the place. In German, we know of three old individual editions, one of which bears the year 1520, but none of which gives the place, under the title: Von der babylonischen Gefängniß der Kirchen, D. Martin Luther. This translation is, as can be seen with certainty from the first paragraph of the text No. 73 in this volume, not by Luther. In Latin, the text is found in the Wittenberg edition, Dom. II, toi. 63;- in the Jena edition (1566), Dom. II, toi. 259; in the Erlanaer, opp. var. arx., vol. V, page 13. German in the Altenburger, vol. 6, page 1371 and in the Leipziger, Wo: iK page 511. Our translation is according to the Erlanger edition.

8 L. V. E. V, 17-1P. 69. about the Babylonian captivity of the church. W. XIX. 7-9. 9

another monk at Leipzig, a German, wrote, that lector (as you know) of the whole biblical canon, who (as I hear) will do even greater and wonderfully miraculous things. Admittedly, the cautious German has concealed his name, perhaps because he was afraid that it would happen to him as it did to Cajetan and Silvester. On the other hand, the Leipziger, as befits a brave and irrepressible German, has glorified his name, his life, his fame, his honor, yes, almost even his clogs with many verses on the title. Here I will no doubt learn quite extraordinary things, since a dedicatory letter is also addressed to the Son of God Himself: so familiar are these saints with Christ who reigns in heaven. After that, it seems to me that three magpies are speaking here, one well in Latin, the other better in Greek, the third best in Hebrew. What do you think, dear Hermann, that I should do here other than prick up my ears? The matter is conducted in Leipzig by the Observance of the Holy Cross.

Up to now, I have thought that it would be nice if a general council would determine that the sacrament should be administered to the laity in both forms. The more than overlearned monk, wanting to improve this opinion, says that it is neither commanded nor advised, neither by Christ nor by the apostles, that the laity should be served both ways, and therefore it is left to the judgment of the church what should be done or omitted here, and it must be obeyed. So much for that. You may ask what madness (intsmpsrius) moves the man, or against whom he writes, since I have not condemned the use of one form and have left it to the judgment of the church to establish the use of both forms. This is exactly what he is trying to assert and wants to argue against me with it. I answer: This way of disputing is common among all who write against Luther, that they assert what they dispute, or invent something they would like to dispute. So did Silvester, so Eck, so Emser, so also the Cologne and Löwener; if this brother had deviated from their way, he would not have written against Luther.

But this man has encountered something especially fortunate before others; for since he wanted to prove that the use of both forms is neither commanded nor advised, but left to the arbitrariness of the church, he introduces Scripture, by which he proves that by the commandment of Christ one form is ordered for the laity, so that, according to this new interpreter of Scripture, it must be true that one form is not commanded and at the same time commanded by Christ. You know that these Leipzig dialecticians may make special use of this new way of disputing. Does not Emser, although he testified in his first booklet that he speaks of me in a sincere manner, and was convicted by me of the most shameful envy and vile lies, in his later book, in that he wants to refute me, confess both quite clearly: he wrote with an insincere and with a sincere (et nigro et candido) mind? He is, of course, a good man, as you know.

But listen to our beautiful orator, 1) for whom the arbitrariness of the church and the commandment of Christ are one and the same, again a commandment of Christ and not-a-commandment of Christ the same. With what skill can he prove that only one form should be given to the laity, according to the commandment of Christ, that is, according to the arbitrariness of the church! For he designates it with large letters in this way: Infallible foundation. Then he treats the sixth chapter of John with incredible wisdom, where Christ speaks of the bread from heaven and of the bread of life, which is himself. The very learned man not only applies these words to the sacrament of the altar, but he also does this so that, since Christ had said: "I am the living bread" John 6:51, and not: "I am the living cup", he could conclude that at this point only one form of the sacrament was instituted for the laity. But that it follows: "My flesh is the right food, and my blood is the right food.

1. Kpeeiosura speeistoreiv, a play on words that cannot be rendered in German. By the word speoiutor, formed by Luther himself, is alluded to 8x "66i68 (figure) in the sacrament. It can also be understood by one who knows how to give a beautiful appearance to his cause; here, of course, ironically. '

10 L. V. L. V. 19 f. XIII Luther's dispute with Henry VIII. W. XIX, 9-12. 11

the right drink" Joh. 6, 55.; likewise v. 53.: "Will you not eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood"; since this seemed to the monkish (fraterno) brain irrefutably to argue for both forms against one - hui! how happily and learnedly he escapes in this way: That Christ, by these words, meant nothing else than that he who received one form should receive under it both the flesh and the blood/ This forms his infallible basis for the construction so worthy of a holy and heavenly observance.

. From this, I ask you to learn with me that Christ commands one form in the sixth chapter of John, but in such a way that this very territory is the same, as it is left to the arbitrariness of the church; moreover, that Christ speaks in this chapter of course of the laity, not of the clergy (presbyteris). For the living bread from heaven is of no concern to them, that is. A figure of the sacrament, but perhaps the bread of death from hell. But what is to happen to the deacons and subdeacons who are neither laymen nor priests? According to this excellent writer, they do not have to use either one or both forms. You understand, dear Tulich, the conventional 1) and new ways of treating Scripture: But you must also learn that Christ John 6 speaks of the sacrament of the altar, although he himself teaches that he speaks of faith in the Word made man, saying v. 29: "This is God's work, that you believe in him whom he has sent." But this professor of the Bible from Leipzig must be allowed to prove anything he likes from any passage of Scripture. For he is a theologian after the manner of Anaxagoras, 2) rather of Aristotle, for whom names and transposed (transposita,) words mean the same and everything. For he applies the testimonies of Scripture, throughout the whole book, in such a way that when he proves

1. odservarNieum. Perhaps Luther meant to say: as it is the custom of the Observant Brethren.
2. A Greek philosopher who proved that snow is black: snow is water, but water is black, so snow is black.

Christ is in the Sacrament, he would dare to begin in this way: A Lection of the Book of Revelation of St. John the Apostle. For just as appropriately as this word could be said, everything is said that is his, and yet the clever man thinks that he can dress up his folly by the amount of what is said.

I pass over the other, lest I torment you almost to death with the dung of this awful stinking cesspool. Finally, he cites Paul, 1 Cor. 11, who says v. 23 that he received it from the Lord and gave the Corinthians the use of both the bread and the cup. By treating the Scripture excellently here again, as everywhere, our vaporizer (speciator) teaches that Paul there admitted, not gave, both kinds. Do you ask how he proves this? From his head, as also in John 6, for it is not proper for this lector to give an account of what he says, since he belongs to the order of those who prove and teach everything from their dreams (visionibus). So we are also taught here that the apostle did not write to all the Corinthians in this passage, but only to the laity, therefore he did not allow anything to the priests there, but they were deprived of the whole sacrament; then, that according to the new grammar: "I have received it from the Lord" is the same as: It has been admitted by the Lord, and, "I have given it to you," that is, I have admitted it to you. This, I pray thee, mark thee especially. For after this, it will not only be up to the church, but also to every boy everywhere, according to this teacher, to make a permission out of all the commandments, institutions and ordinances of Christ and the apostles.

I therefore see that this man is driven by the angel of Satan, and that those who are in the game (oolluäunt) seek that they might gain a name in the world through me, as if they had been worthy to contend with Luther. But their hope shall deceive them and they, as despised people, shall never be called by name by me. I will argue with this one

12 D. V.". V.2S-22. 69. Of the Babylonian captivity of the church. K. XIX. ^2-14. 13

I will be satisfied with your answer to all your books as a whole. If they are worthy of Christ bringing them back to reason (ad sanam mentem), I ask that he do so according to his mercy. If they are not worthy, I pray that they may not cease to write such books, nor, as enemies of the truth, may they be granted to read others. It is said in general and with truth: Hoc scio pro certo, quod, si cum stercore certo, vinco vel vincor, semper ego maculor. This I know for certain, that if I fight with dirt, may I win or be defeated, I will always be defiled. Furthermore, because I see that they have an abundance of time and paper, I will take pains that they have ample occasion to write. I want to anticipate, so that while they triumph as glorious victors over any of my heresies (as it seems to them), I meanwhile bring about a new one. For I, too, wish that these excellent leaders in the war be adorned with many titles. Therefore, while they grumble that I vow communion under both forms, and they are most prosperously occupied with this very great cause, which is quite worthy of them, I will go on and now endeavor to show that all those are ungodly who deny the laity communion under both forms. In order to be able to do this all the more conveniently, I will make a prelude of the imprisonment of the Roman church and will provide a great deal more in its time, as soon as the very learned papists will have overcome this book.

I do this, however, so that when a godly reader meets me, he will not be annoyed by the filth I treat, and he will rightly complain that he does not read anything that either exercises and instructs the mind, or at least gives opportunity for learned thoughts. For you know how unwillingly my friends bear it, that I am taken up by the dirty intrigues of these people, which, as they my friends say, are amply refuted by reading itself; but better things are expected of me, which the devil can do through

try to hinder them. Now, finally, it has been decided to follow their advice and leave the business of bickering and quarreling to these hornets.

I do not want to say anything about that French brother at Cremona, because he is a simple-minded and dull-witted man who tries to call me back to the Holy See with a few oratorical blows (loris), from which I am not aware of having departed; no one has yet proved it to me. For he mainly deals with those ridiculous reasons that I should let myself be moved by the grace of my Order and the Empire, which had been transferred to the Germans. And it seems as if he wanted to write, not only to call me back, but to praise the French and the Pope. One can allow him to testify his willing obedience in this booklet, be it as it may. And he does not deserve to be treated harshly, since he does not seem to be moved by malice; but neither does he deserve to be refuted in an erudite manner, since he waffles everything out of mere ignorance and stupidity.

First I must deny that there are seven sacraments, and at present only three, baptism, penance, and bread, and must say that these have all been led into a miserable captivity by the Roman court, and the church has been deprived of all its freedom. But if I wanted to speak according to the usage of Scripture, I would have only one sacrament and three sacramental signs, of which I will speak in more detail in due time; now, of all of them, first the sacrament of bread.

Therefore, I will say how I have increased by also thinking about the administration of this sacrament. For at the time when I published the Sermon on the Lord's Supper 1) I was still attached to the common usage and did not care about the pope's right or wrong. But now that I have been challenged and exercised, yes, torn by force to this battlefield, I want to be free.

1. This refers to the scripture No. 137 in this volume: Sermon of the New Testament, that is, the Mass.

14W f. XIII Luther's dispute with Henry VIII. W. xix, 14-is. 15

out what my opinion is, let the papists all laugh or cry in a heap.

First of all, the sixth chapter of John must be set aside completely, because it does not even speak of the sacrament with a syllable, not only because the sacrament had not yet been instituted, but rather because the sequence of the speech and the thoughts clearly show that Christ speaks of faith in the Word made man (as I have said). For he saith John 6:63., "My words are spirit and life," showing that he speaketh of spiritual nourishment, by which he that eateth liveth, whereas the Jews understood him of carnal eating, and therefore quarreled v. 52.. But no eating makes alive than that in faith, for this is the truly spiritual and living eating; as Augustine also says, What hast thou prepared the belly and the teeth? believe; so hast thou eaten. For sacramental eating does not make alive, since many eat unworthily, so that what he spoke of in this passage cannot be understood of the sacrament.

Admittedly, there are some who have misused these words to teach the Sacrament, as well as the Decretale Dudum and many others. But it is another to misuse the Scripture, another to understand it rightly. Otherwise, since he says v. 53., "If ye eat not my flesh, and drink my blood, ye have no life in you," he would condemn all children, all weak, all absent, or who were otherwise in any way hindered from sacramental enjoyment, however glorious their faith, if he had commanded sacramental enjoyment there. Thus Augustine proves in the second book against Julian of Innocence that even children eat the flesh and drink the blood of Christ without the sacrament, that is, they are in communion with the church through the same faith. This opinion shall therefore be established that the sixth chapter of John serves nothing for the matter. Therefore I have written elsewhere that the Bohemians, in order to protect both forms, cannot honestly base themselves on this passage.

Of the Lord's Supper. 1)

There are therefore two passages which deal with this matter quite clearly: the Scriptures in the Gospels concerning the Lord's Supper, and Paul 1 Cor. 11; these we will examine. For Matthew, Marcus and Lucas agree that Christ gave the whole Sacrament to all the disciples; and that Paul gave both parts is certain, so that no one ever had such an impudent forehead as to say otherwise. Add to this that Matthew records that Christ did not say of the bread, eat ye all of it, but of the cup, "drink ye all of it." And Marcus likewise does not say, they all ate, but, "they all drank of it." Both place the designation of generality to the cup, not to the bread, as if the Spirit had foreseen this separation, which would deny to some the communion of the cup, which yet Christ willed to be common to all. With how great a fury, do you think, they would rush against us if they had found the word "all" put to the bread and not to the cup; they would by all means leave us no evasion, they would cry out, they would declare us heretics, they would condemn us as apostates. But since it is now on our side, against them, they do not allow themselves to be bound by any conclusion, as people who have the freest will to change, to change again and to throw everything into confusion, even in the things that are of God.

But imagine that I stood opposite them and asked my lords papists: Is the whole sacrament or both forms in the Lord's Supper given only to the clergy or also at the same time to the laity? If it is only given to the clergy (for that is what they want), then it is no longer permitted to give any form to the laity, for it must not be given freely to those to whom Christ did not give it in the first institution. Otherwise, if we allow one institution of Christ to be changed, we will have already invalidated all his laws, and anyone will dare to say that he is not being baptized.

1. This caption is not in the original, but in the Jena edition.

16 L. V. L. V, W-2Ü. 69. of the Babylonian captivity of the church. W. XIX, I6-1S. 17

by any of its laws or institutions. For a law or institution given to a single person cancels in Scripture even the most general. If it the sacrament is given at the same time also to the laity, it follows immediately and inevitably that the laity must not be denied both. If then one refuses to give it to those who ask for it, one acts ungodly and against Christ's deed, example, and institution.

I confess that, overcome by this reason, which is insuperable to me, I have neither read, nor heard, nor found anything to say against it, since here Christ's word and example stands exceedingly firm, where he speaks not permissively but commandingly, "Drink ye all of it." For if all are to drink, and it cannot be understood that it is said only to the clergy, it is surely ungodly that the laity who desire it should be kept from it, though an angel from heaven would do so. For that they say that it is left to the arbitrariness of the church to distribute one of the two forms, 'this is said without reason, brought forward without Scripture, and can be despised as easily as accepted, also proves nothing against the opponent who holds Christ's word and deed against us. Therefore, he must be repulsed with a word of Christ; but we do not have such a word.

But if the laity can be denied both, they could also be deprived of a part of baptism and penance by the same arbitrariness of the church, because there is the same reason and the same power everywhere. Therefore, just as the whole of baptism and the whole of absolution, so also the whole sacrament of bread must be given to the laity, if they desire it. But I am very surprised that they maintain that the clergy are under no circumstances permitted to receive one form in the Mass, otherwise they commit a mortal sin, for no other reason than that (as all unanimously say) both forms are the one complete Sacrament, which may not be divided. They may tell me, I beg you, why it may be divided among the laity, and why the whole Sacrament is not given to them alone? Do they confess

by their own testimony, that the laity must either be given both forms, or under one form they are not given the sacrament that is valid? How is one form not a complete sacrament with the clergy and a complete one with the laity? Why do they praise the arbitrariness of the church and the power of the pope? By these the words of God and the testimonies of truth are not dissolved.

Furthermore, it follows: If the Church can take away from the laity the form of wine, she can also take away the form of bread, consequently she can take away from the laity the whole Sacrament of the Altar and cancel the institution of Christ for them entirely. But, I ask you, by what power? But if she cannot take away the bread, or both, neither can she take away the wine. Here, too, there can be nothing to say to an opponent, since it must be the same power over One figure as over both figures; but if not over both, then not even over One. I wish to hear what the Roman flatterers wanted to say here.

But what penetrates me most of all, and completely convicts me (concludit), is that Christ says: "This is my blood, which is shed for you and for many, for the remission of sins." Here you see quite clearly that the blood is given to all for whose sins it is shed. But who should presume to say that it was not shed for the laity? Do you not see whom he is addressing by giving the cup? Does he not give it to all? Does he not say it was poured out for all? "For you," he says. After all, these may be priests; "and for many," these may not be priests, and yet he says, "Drink ye all of it." I, too, would easily make a buffoonery here and mock Christ's words with my words, as my buffoon does. But those who base themselves against us on the Scriptures must be refuted with the Scriptures. This is what has prevented me from condemning the Bohemians; be they evil or good, they certainly have Christ's word and deed for themselves, but we have neither, but only that vain little bundle of men: The church has ordered it so.

18 L. v.". v, 25-27. xIII Luther's dispute with Henry VIII. W.xix, 19-22. 19

Although not the church, but the tyrants of the churches have ordered this without the consent of the church (that is, the people of God).

But I ask you, what need, what devotion, what benefit is there to deny the laity both forms, that is, the visible sign, since everyone grants them the essence (rem) of the sacrament without the sign? If they concede the essence, which is the greater, why do they not concede to them the sign, which is the lesser? For in every sacrament the sign, in so far as it is a sign, is incomparably inferior to the essence itself. What, then, I say, prevents the lesser from being given, since the greater is given? This seems to me to have occurred only by permission of God in His wrath, so that there would be an occasion for division in the Church, thereby indicating that, since the essence of the Sacrament is already lost, we are contending for the sake of the sign and for the sake of what is the lesser, against what is the greatest and only, the essence; as some contend for the ceremonies against love. Yes, this monstrosity seems to have begun at the time when we began to rage against Christian love because of the riches of the world, so that God wanted to show by this frightening sign that we esteem the signs greater than the essence itself. What folly, if you would admit that through baptism the faith of baptism is given, but would deny the sign of this faith, that is, the water!

At last there stands the invincible Paul, who plugs the mouth of all, 1 Cor. 11:23: "I have received it of the Lord, which I gave you." He does not say, as the brother lies from his brain, I have allowed it to you. Nor is it true that for the sake of their disputes he indulged them in both. First of all, because the text itself indicates that there was no dispute about both, but because of the contempt and envy of those who had abundance and those who feasted, as the text clearly says, saying [v. 21 ff.

He is drunk, and you put to shame those who have nothing. Next, that he does not speak of his first giving. For he does not say, "I receive it from the Lord and give it to you," but "I have received and given," namely, in the beginning of the sermon, long before this argument, by giving to understand that he has given them both forms; this "given" (tradidisse) is as much as "commanded," as he elsewhere uses the same word. So it is nothing that the monkish vapors here wrap in from admission, without scripture, without reason, without cause. The opponents do not ask what he dreams, but what the Scriptures say about it, from which he cannot bring forward a single tittle for his dream, while those bring such great thunderbolts for their faith.

Therefore, all of you, flatterers of the pope, make an effort to defend yourselves against the accusation of impiety, of tyranny, of insulting the majesty of the gospel, of the injustice of reviling the brethren, since you call heretics those who do not form their opinion according to the mere dream of your head, against such obvious and powerful scriptural passages. If a part of both must be called heretics and schismatics, it is not the Bohemians, not the Greeks (because they base themselves on the Gospels), but you Romans are heretics and godless schismatics, since you rely on your imagination alone, against the clear Scriptures of God. Purify yourselves from this, you men!

But what could be said more ridiculous and more worthy of this monkish head than that the apostle of a special (particulari) church, namely that of the Corinthians, wrote and allowed this, but not the general? Whence does he prove this? From his usual storehouse, namely from his own and godless head. Since the general church accepts this letter for itself, reads it and follows it in everything, why not also in this part? If we admit that any letter of Paul, or any passage of any letter, does not concern the general church, then the whole reputation of Paul is already destroyed. For the Corinthians will say that what he wrote in the

20 L. V.". V. 27 f. 69. Of the Babylonian captivity of the church. W. XIX, 22-24. 21

Letters to the Romans teaches about faith, do not approach them. What could be more blasphemous and nonsensical than this foolishness? Far be it, far be it, that there should be any sham in the whole of Paul, whom the whole general church should not follow and hold. The fathers did not have such an opinion until these perilous times, in which, as Paul foretold, there would be blasphemers and blind men and men of disordered minds; of which this brother is one, and probably the most distinguished.

But 'we want to admit this intolerable frenzy. If Paul allowed it to a special church, so the Greeks do right, right also the Bohemians, also according to your statement, because they are special churches. Therefore it is enough that they do not act against Paul, who at least allows it. Furthermore, Paul could not allow anything against Christ's institution. I therefore oppose to you, O Rome, and to all your flatterers, these sayings of Christ and Paul for the Greeks and the Bohemians, and you will not be able to prove by a hair's breadth that you have power to change this, much less to accuse others of heresy for disregarding your presumption. But you are worthy to be accused of the crime of impiety and tyranny.

-In reference to this we read in Cyprian, who alone is powerful enough against all Romanists, that he testifies in the 5th book in the sermon of the fallen, that in that church it was the custom to give many laymen, even children, both forms, yes, even the body of the Lord in the hand, as he teaches with many examples. Among others, he scolds some of the people in this way: And that he take not immediately with defiled hands the body of the Lord, or with a defiled mouth drink the blood of the Lord; he is angry with the profane priests. You see here that he is talking about the laity, about godless people who wanted to receive the body and the blood from the priests. Do you have something here, you wretched flatterer, to lie about? Say that also this holy martyr, a teacher without equal (unum) in the church with apostolic spirit, is a heretic and in a

particular (particulari) church had made use of the admission.

There he tells a story, which he witnessed and which happened in his presence, where he writes quite clearly that a deacon 1) gave the chalice to a little 2) girl; indeed, since she refused, he poured the blood of the Lord into her. The same is read of St. Donatus. Whose broken chalice, O on the wretched flatterer! how miserably (frigide) he seeks to remove (eludit) that! I read (he says) that the chalice is broken, I do not read that the blood has been given. What is the miracle? Whoever understands what he wants in the holy scriptures can also read what he wants in the histories. But does this confirm the arbitrariness of the church or refute the heretics? But this is superfluous enough; for I have not begun this to answer him who is not worthy of an answer, but to reveal the truth of the matter.

I conclude, then, that to deny the laity both forms is ungodly and tyrannical, not even in the power of any angel, let alone in that of the pope or any council. Nor do I ask anything about the Council of Constance; if its prestige is valid, why is not also that of Basle, which has decreed that the Bohemians are free to receive both forms? This has been maintained there with much dispute, as the existing history books (annales) and the writings of the Council prove. This is what this ignorant flatterer cites for his dream; so wisely does he treat everything.

The first imprisonment of this Sacrament is in regard to its continuance 3) or its completeness (integritatem), which the Roman tyranny has taken away from us; not that those sin against Christ who use one form, since Christ has not commanded to use any, but has left it to the will of each one, saying: "As often as you do this, do it.

1. Instead of äiueonus, diueonuill will be read.
2. inlanti, meaning a child under seven years of age.
3. Kukstantiurll, i.e. what it consists of, namely two figures.

22 L. v.". v.M-30. XIII Luther's dispute with Henry VIII. W.xix,24-2". 23

in remembrance of me"; but that those sin who refuse to give both forms to those who want to use this will. The fault is not with the laity, but with the priests. The sacrament does not belong to the priests, but to all; neither are the priests masters, but servants, who must give both forms to those who desire it, as often as they desire it. Since they have stolen this right from the laity and denied it by force, they are tyrants; the laity, without fault, are deprived of both one and both forms, and in the meantime must be preserved by faith and by the desire for the whole Sacrament. Similarly, the ministers are obliged to give baptism and absolution to the one who desires them, as he has a right to them; if they do not give them, the desirer has the full merit of his faith, but they will be accused before Christ as ungodly servants. In the same way, the holy fathers of old did not communicate under any form of the sacrament in the wilderness for many years.

Therefore I do not deal with the fact that one should take both forms quickly by force (rapiatur), as if we were forced to do so by necessity of the commandment, but I instruct the conscience that everyone should suffer the Roman tyranny, knowing that his right in the sacrament has been robbed from him by force because of his sin. Only this I want, that no one justify the Roman tyranny, as if it had done right by denying the laity the one form, but let us abhor it and not give it our consent; yet let us bear it no differently than if we were prisoners with the Turk, where we were not allowed to use either form. That is why I have said that it seems to me beautiful if by the decision of a general council this captivity were lifted, and that Christian liberty were restored to us from the hands of the Roman tyrant, and each one were left his free will to desire and use as he is left in baptism and repentance. But now, with the same tyranny, he compels that one form be taken every year; so entirely

lthough the freedom given to us by Christ is extinguished, our ungodly ingratitude deserves it.

The second imprisonment of the same sacrament is milder as far as conscience is concerned, but it is by far the most dangerous of all to inflict it, let alone condemn it. Here I will be a Wiklefit and by a thousand names a heretic. How now? Since the Roman bishop has ceased to be a bishop and has become a tyrant, I do not fear all his decrees, knowing that it is not in his power to make new articles of faith, not even in that of a general council.

Once, when I was learning scholastic theology, the Cardinal of Cambray 1) gave me food for thought, since he very astutely disputes in the 4th book of the Sentenzey: It would be much more probable and fewer superfluous miracles would be performed, if it were taught that there is true bread and true wine on the altar, but not only the accidental properties (accidentia ^2^^2)^ ), if the church had not established the opposite. When I saw afterwards what kind of church had established this, namely the Thomistic, that is, the Aristotelian, I became bolder, and since I was hovering between saxum et sacrum, I finally fortified my conscience by the opinion just stated: that it is true bread and true wine, in which Christ's true flesh and true blood are no different nor less than those assume them to be among their accidental qualities. I did this because I saw that the opinions of the Thomists, whether approved by the pope or by a council, remain opinions and do not become articles of faith, even if an angel from heaven determined otherwise. For what is asserted without Scripture or proven revelation may well be assumed to be a conjecture; that it is believed is

1. Pierre d'Ailly, died around 1425.
2. i.e. the shape, color, smell and taste of the bread and wine, which through the blessing of the priest, as through a magic spell, are to be essentially transformed into the body and blood of Christ.

24 L. v: a. V. sof. 69. Of the Babylonian captivity of the church. W. HL, 2S-29. 25

not necessary. But this opinion of Thomas is so completely uncertain (fluctuat) without writing and reasoning that it seems to me that he has understood neither his philosophy nor his dialectics. Demi Aristotle speaks far differently of accidental things and of the thing itself (subjecto) than St. Thomas, so that it seems to me regrettable for such a great man that he has not only handed down opinions in matters of faith from Aristotle, but has also tried to base them on him, whom he did not understand: a quite unfortunate construction on a quite unfortunate foundation!

I therefore allow it if someone wants to hold both opinions; now I deal only with leaving out the doubts (scrupulös) of conscience, so that no one may fear that he is guilty of heresy if he should believe that there is true bread and true because on the altar. But he should know that he is free to imagine, assume and believe one or the other of these two without danger to his salvation, since there is no necessity of faith here. But I now want to state my opinion further. First of all, I do not want to hear or disrespect those who will cry out that this is Viklefitian, Hussite, heretical and contrary to the determination of the church, since this is only done by those whom I have convicted in many ways that they are heretics in the trade of indulgences, of free will and the grace of God, of good works and sins 2c., so that if Wiklefs was once a heretic, they themselves are ten times heretics, and it would be nice to be accused and suspected by heretics and perverse sophists, whom it is the greatest impiety to please, especially since they cannot prove their opinions by anything else, nor refute the opposite by any other reason than by saying: This is Wiklefitian, Hussite, heretical. For this lame speech (elumbe) always floats on top of their hostage, and nothing else, that when you desire Scripture, they say: Thus we hold, and the church (that is, we ourselves) has established it so; so much do these men, unworthy and untrustworthy in regard to the faith, dare to show us their brains.

The Church is entitled to interpret the articles of faith under the authority (autoritate) of the Church.

In my opinion, however, this is a particularly strong reason, that no violence should be done to the divine words, neither by a man nor by an angel, but, as far as possible, they should be left in their simplest meaning, and, unless an obvious circumstance compels, they must be taken not otherwise than in the grammatical and proper sense, lest the opponents be given occasion to make a mockery of the whole Scripture. For this reason Origen was rejected in the past, because he had turned the trees and everything that is written about paradise into figurative speeches, leaving aside the grammatical way of speaking, since from this it could be concluded that the trees were not created by God. So also here; since the evangelists clearly write that Christ took the bread and blessed it, and the book of Acts and Paul also call it bread afterwards, true bread must be understood and true wine, just as a true cup. For even they themselves do not say that the cup is changed. But since it is not necessary to establish that the essential transformation took place by divine power, it is to be taken for a little human reasoning, because it is not based on any scriptural passage, on any reasonable ground, as we will see.

It is therefore an inconsistent and new edition of words that bread is taken for the outward appearance (specie) or the accidental qualities of bread, and wine for the outward appearance and the accidental qualities of wine. Why do they not take everything else for external appearance and accidental qualities? Even though everything else is certain, God's words should not be so weakened and emptied of their meaning with such great harm.

But also the church has believed right for more than twelve hundred years. The holy fathers have nowhere ever thought of this transubstantiation (this is, of course, a monstrous word and a dream), until Aristotle's

26 L. A.". V, 31-33. xm. Luther's dispute with Heinrich vm. W. XIX, 29-31. 27

false (simulata) philosophy began to prevail in the Church in these last three hundred years, in which also many other things have been falsely established, such as: the divine being is neither begotten nor does it procreate; the soul is the essential form (formam substantialem) of the human body, and the like, which is absolutely asserted without any justification or cause, as the Cardinal of Cambray himself confesses.

They will perhaps say that the danger of idolatry enforces that bread and wine do not remain true. This is very ridiculous, since the laity have never known the subtle philosophy of substance and accidental qualities, nor could they grasp it if they were instructed about it, and the same danger is there where the accidental qualities remain, which they see, as with the substance, which they do not see. For if they do not worship the accidental qualities, but the Christ hidden there, why should they worship the bread which they do not see?

But why should Christ not be able to have his body contained (continere) in the substance of the bread as well as in the accidental properties? Behold, fire and iron, two substances, are so mixed together in a red-hot iron that each part is iron and fire. Why could not much more the transfigured body of Christ be in each part of the substance of the bread?

What will they do? They believe that Christ was born of his mother without violation of her virginity (utero illaeso). They also want to say here that the flesh of the virgin was destroyed in the meantime (annihilatam fuisse), or, as they want to express it more appropriately, transubstantiated, so that Christ, wrapped in its accidental qualities, finally came to light through the accidental qualities. The same will have to be said of the closed door and the closed entrance to the tomb, through which he went in and out without violating them. But from this has arisen that Babylon of this philosophy, of the constant quantity, which is different from the essence (sub

stantia), until it has come to the point that they themselves do not know what accidental properties (accidentia) and what the essence (substantia) is. For who has ever shown with certainty that heat, color, cold, light, gravity, shape are accidental properties? Finally, they have been forced by those accidental qualities on the altar to invent that a new being (esse) is added by God, for the sake of Aristotle, who says: the being of the accidental quality is that it is in the being, and innumerable monstrosities, from all of which they would be free, if they simply admitted that there is true bread. And I am really glad that at least among the common people the simple belief in this sacrament has remained. For as they do not grasp it, so they do not dispute whether the accidental qualities are there without the essence, but believe with simple faith that Christ's body and blood are contained in it, and leave to those idle people the trouble of disputing what it is that it contains.

But they will perhaps say: On the basis of Aristotle it is taught that the object of which something is said (subjectum) and the statement (praedicatum) of an affirmative proposition must stand for the same thing (supponere), or (that I add to the beast's own words from the 6th book of Metaphysics): To an affirmative proposition the summarizing of the outermost parts (of the proposition) is required (ad affirmativam requiritur extremorum comp. (That I put to the beast own words from the 6th book of the Metaphysics): To an affirmative proposition is required (ad affirmativam requiritur extremorum compositio) the summarizing of the outermost parts (of the proposition), what those interpret as a putting (of each of these parts for the same thing (pro eodem suppositionem). Therefore, if I say: This is my body, the subject Das cannot stand for the bread, but for the body of Christ.

What shall we say here, since we make Aristotle and human doctrines judges in such sublime and divine matters? Why don't we discard this pretension and just stick to the words of Christ, willing not to know what is happening, and be satisfied that the true body of Christ is there through the power of words? Or is it necessary to fully comprehend the modes of divine operation?

But what do they say to Aristotle, which

2b L. V." V, S3-ZL. 69. of the babylonian captivity of the church. M. XIX, 31-34. M

What is the meaning of the words "this white", "this great", "this something", "this something", "this something", "this something"? Therefore, with him "this white," "this great," "this something," are subjects of which something is said. If this is true, I ask: If for this reason transubstantiation 2) is to be set, so that the body of Christ is not testified of the bread with truth, why is not also transaccidentation 3) set, so that the body of Christ is not affirmatively testified of the accidental qualities? For the same danger remains if someone understands by the subject "this white" or "this round" and says of it: This is my body; and for the reason for which the transubstantiation is set, the transaccidentation is also to be set, because of the standing of the outermost parts of the sentence for the same thing.

But if you want to go up with the understanding and exclude the accidental qualities, so that you do not want to set a subject for them, when you say: This is my body, why do you not pass over the substance of the bread with the same ease? so that you also do not want the same to be understood by the subject, so that "this is my body" is not less in the substance than in the accidental qualities? especially since that the being of the body in the substance is not in the substance but in the accidental qualities.

of bread] is a divine work of omnipotent power, which can act just as much and in just such a way in the substance as in the accidental qualities.

But, so that we do not philosophize too much, Christ does not seem to have resisted in a beautiful way to this forwardness, since he said of the wine mixed: This is my blood, but: this is my blood. And still more clearly, since he mixes in the name of the cup, saying 1 Cor. 11, 25.: This cup of the new testament in my blood. Does it not seem that he has wanted to preserve us in simple faith, only that

1. Cf. Walch, St. Louis Edition, vol. XVIII, Evl. 1132, note 1.
2. i.e. transformation of the substance, the essence.
3. Transformation of the accidental properties.

we should believe that it is his blood in the cup? Truly, if I cannot learn how the bread can be the body of Christ, I will take my mind captive to the obedience of Christ, and, simply hanging on his words, I will firmly believe, not only that the body of Christ is in the bread, but that the bread is the body of Christ. For thus the words will protect me, when he says, "Take, eat; this (that is, this bread, which he had taken and broken) is my body" 1 Cor. 11:24. And Paul [1 Cor. 10, 16. "The bread which we break, is it not the fellowship of the body of Christ?" He does not say, in the bread, but, the bread itself is the fellowship of the body of Christ. What is the matter if philosophy does not grasp this? The Holy Spirit is greater than Aristotle. Does it understand the transformation of substance (trans-substantiationem) which they teach, since they themselves confess that the whole of philosophy falls here? But that in Greek and Latin the pronoun "that" is referred to "body" (oorpuo), makes the equality of gender, but in Hebrew, where there is no neuter gender, it is referred to "bread," so that one might say thus: This bread is my body, that also the usage of language and the common sense proves the subject, namely, that it is that which points to the bread, and not to the body, since it says: Hoc est corpus meum, this is my body, that is, this bread is my body.

As in the case of Christ, so also in the case of the sacrament, for the bodily indwelling of the Godhead does not require that human nature be transformed in its essence (transsubstantiari), so that the Godhead be kept under the accidental qualities (accidentibus) of human nature (teneatur). But, as each of the two natures remains complete (integra), it is rightly said: this man is GOD, this GOD is man. Although philosophy does not grasp this, faith does. And the prestige of the Word of God is greater than the capacity of our intellect. Thus, in the Sacrament, in order that the true body and blood of Christ may be

30Wf . XIII Luther's dispute with Henry VIII. W.xix, 34-ss. 31

There is no need for bread and wine to be transformed according to their essence, so that Christ is kept among the accidental qualities (teneatur), but since both remain at the same time, it is said with truth: This bread is my body, this wine is my blood, and vice versa. Meanwhile, I will hold this opinion in honor of the holy words of God, and will not suffer them to be violated by human wretched reasoning, and to be twisted to an understanding that is not in them. However, I allow others to follow the other opinion, which is firmly asserted in the Decretals, only that they should not insist that their opinions (as I have said) be accepted by us as articles of faith.

The third imprisonment of the same sacrament is by far the most impious abuse, by which it has happened that today in the church almost nothing is more firmly accepted and held with greater conviction than that the mass is a good work and a sacrifice. This abuse has swept along as with a flood innumerable other abuses, until, after the faith of the Sacrament has been completely extinguished, they have made of the divine Sacrament a mere fair, hucksterism, and certain profitable contracts. Therefore, communities, brotherhoods, intercessions, merits, annual feasts, memorial days, and such articles of commerce are sold, bought, established and arranged by contracts in the church, and on this rests the whole sustenance of the priests and monks.

I am attacking a difficult thing that is perhaps impossible to overthrow, since it is so ingrained, fixed by the custom of so many centuries and approved by the consensus of all, that it is necessary to eliminate and change most of the books that govern today, and almost the whole external appearance of the churches, and to introduce, or rather reintroduce, a different kind of ceremonies altogether. But my Christ lives, and one must heed the Word of God with greater care than the minds of all men and angels.

I will wait for my office and bring the matter to light myself, and for nothing, as I have received the truth, I will communicate it without disfavor. By the way, let each one consider his own salvation. I will faithfully make an effort so that no one can roll the guilt of his unbelief, and that he does not know the truth, onto me before the judgment seat of Christ.

Of the Sacrament of the Altar. 1)

First of all, in order to arrive at the true and free knowledge (scientiam) of this sacrament safely and happily, we must first of all take care to set aside everything that has been added to the original and simple institution of this sacrament by human efforts and zeal, as there are garments, ornaments, chants, prayers, organs, lights, and all the splendor of visible things, and fix our eyes and hearts on the mere and pure institution of Christ Himself, nor take anything else before us but the word of Christ Himself, by which He instituted, accomplished, and commanded the Sacrament to us. For in this word, and in nothing else, lies the power, nature, and whole essence of the Mass. All other things are human devices added to the words of Christ, without which the Mass can very well be said and exist. But the words of Christ, with which he instituted this sacrament, are these:

"And as they were eating, JESUS took the bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave to his disciples, saying, Take, eat: this is my body which is broken for you. In the same way he took the cup, gave thanks and gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you. This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is poured out for you and for many for the remission of sins. Do this in remembrance of me."

These words are also handed down by the apostle 1 Cor. 11. and explain them more extensively; we must base ourselves on the same and on them

1. This caption is missing in the original, but is in the Jena edition.

32 L. V. a. V, 36-38. 69 Of the Babylonian Captivity of the Church. W. XIX, 36-39. 33

We must be built as on a solid rock, if we do not want to be driven about by every wind of doctrine, as we have been led about by ungodly teachings of men who opposed the truth. For in these words nothing is omitted that belongs to the completeness, use and fruit of this sacrament, and nothing is set forth that is superfluous and not necessary for us to know. For whoever either contemplates or teaches about the mass with the omission of these words will teach tremendous ungodliness, as has been done by those who have made a good work (opus operatum) and a sacrifice out of it.

This, then, must first and infallibly be established, that the mass or sacrament of the altar is the testament of Christ, which he left behind him when he died, that it should be distributed to his faithful. For thus his words are, "This cup is the new testament in my blood." This truth, I say, must stand firm as an immovable foundation upon which we will build all that must be said. For this you will see, how we shall overthrow all ungodliness of men, which has been brought into this most lovely Sacrament. So Christ, who speaks the truth, says with truth that this is the new testament in his blood, which was shed for us. This I do not inculcate in vain; it is no small thing and must be taken deeply to heart.

So we ask what the will is, and at the same time we will recognize what the mass is, what its use, what its fruit, what its abuse. A will is undoubtedly the promise of a dying man, in which he names his inheritance and appoints heirs. A will therefore includes first the death of the one who makes the will (testatoris), then the promise of the inheritance and the naming of the heir. For this is how Paul deals with wills in Romans 4, Galatians 3 and 4, and Hebrews 9. We also see this clearly in these words of Christ. Christ testifies to his death by saying, "This is my body which is given, this is my blood which is shed."

He names and designates the inheritance, since he says, "For the remission of sins." But the heirs he sets up, saying, "For you and for many," that is, who accept it and believe the promise of him who makes the will; for faith makes heirs here, as we shall see.

You see, then, that the Mass (as we call it) is the promise of the forgiveness of sins made to us by God, and such a promise confirmed by the death of the Son of God. For a promise and a testament do not differ in any other way than that the testament includes at the same time the death of the promisee, and a testator is the same as a promisee who will die, but a promisee is (that I say so) a testator who will live. This testament of Christ is prefigured in all the promises of God, from the beginning of the world, indeed, all- old promises have been valid in this new future promise, what they have been valid, and have been based on it. Therefore these words are very common in Scripture: contract (pactum), covenant (foedus 1), testament of the Lord, by which it was signified that God would die one day. For where there is a testament, the death of the one who makes the testament must necessarily happen, Hebr. 9, 16. But God made a testament, therefore he had to die; but he could not die if he was not man. Thus, in the same word "testament" both the incarnation and the death of Christ are included in the shortest possible way.

From this it is quite obvious what is the use and misuse of the mass, what is a worthy and an unworthy preparation. For if it is a promise, as has been said, one comes to it by no works, by no powers, by no merits, but only by faith. For where there is the word of the promising God, there the faith of the person accessing it is necessary, so that it is clear that faith is the beginning of our blessedness, which is based on the word of the promising God, who, without all our effort, is the only one who is able to attain it.

1. For example, Isa. 28, 15, both words koeäug and xuotum occur. Luther translated the latter with understanding, i.e. agreement, contract.

34 L. V. L. V, 38-40. xIII Luther's dispute with Henry VIII. W. XIX, 39-41. 35

by grace, gratuitous (gratuita.) with undeserved mercy, and offers us the word of his promise. For he sent his word and so made them whole Luc. 9, 11.. But he did not accept our work and so made us whole. The word of God is the first of all; faith follows it, and love follows faith. After this, love does every good work, for it does no evil; indeed, it is the fulfillment of the law. And man can have no other agreement with God or act in any other way than through faith, that is, that not man through any works that are his, but God through His promise is the author of salvation, so that everything is founded, supported and sustained by His powerful word, "through which He begat us, that we might be the firstfruits of His creatures" Jac. 1, 18..

Thus, to raise Adam up after the fall, he made this promise, saying to the serpent Gen. 3:15, "I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed. The same shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel." In this word of promise, Adam was carried with his own, as it were, into God's bosom and sustained by faith in it, waiting with patience for the woman's seed to 1) crush the serpent's head, as God had promised. In this faith and expectation he also died, not knowing when and what kind he would be, but not doubting that he would come. For since such a promise is the truth of GOD, it also sustains in hell those who believe in it and wait for it. After this, another promise followed, which happened to Noah, until Abraham, when the rainbow was given to him as a sign of the covenant; through faith in this promise, he and his descendants received a gracious God. After the rainbow, He promised Abraham that all nations would be blessed through his seed. And this is the bosom of Abraham, into which

1. In the Vulgate: rQuUsrsra - yuas.

His descendants were taken up. After that, he gave a very clear promise of Christ to Moses and the children of Israel, especially to David, by which he finally revealed what kind of promise would have happened to the ancients.

Thus, in the end, the most perfect promise of the New Testament was made, in which life and blessedness by grace are promised in clear words and given to those who believe the promise. He also distinguishes this testament from the old with a clear sign, saying, "The new testament. For the old testament, given through Moses, was a promise, not of the forgiveness of sins, or of eternal goods, but of temporal goods, that is, of the land of Canaan, by which no one was renewed in the spirit to enter the heavenly inheritance Therefore also an unreasonable animal had to be killed in the likeness of Christ, by whose blood this testament was confirmed, so that what the blood was, such also was the testament; what the sacrifice was, such also was the promise. But here he speaks, "the new testament in my blood," not in someone else's blood, but in his own, through which grace is promised through the Spirit for the forgiveness of sins, to receive the inheritance.

Accordingly, the nature of the mass is really nothing other than the aforementioned words of Christ "Take and eat" 2c., as if he said: "Behold, O sinful and damned man! out of pure and undeserved love with which I love you, since the Father of all mercy wills it so, I promise you with these words, before you have earned and asked for anything, forgiveness of all your sins and eternal life. And so that you may be absolutely certain of this irrevocable promise of mine, I will give my body and shed my blood, confirm this promise with death itself, and leave both to you as a sign and memorial of the promise. As often as you use it, you shall remember me and praise, praise and give thanks for this my love and mercy toward you.

From this you see that if a Mass is to be worthy of being said, nothing else can be done.

36 L. V, L. V, 40 f. 69. Of the Babylonian captivity of the church. W. XIX, 41-44. 37

The faith that faithfully relies on this promise, believes Christ to be true in these words of his, and does not doubt that these exceedingly great goods have been given to him. This faith will soon be followed by a lovely movement of the heart, by which the spirit of man will be enlarged and made fat (this is love, given by the Holy Spirit in faith in Christ), so that he will be carried away to Christ, such a mild and kind Testator, and become completely a different and new man. For who would not weep softly (dulciter), indeed, almost die of joy in Christ, if he believed with undoubted confidence that this inestimable promise of Christ belonged to him? How could he not love such a great benefactor, who offers, promises and gives him, as an unworthy person and who deserves it far differently, such riches and this eternal inheritance in obliging grace?

Therefore this is our only misery, that we have many masses in the world, and no one, or only a few, recognize, contemplate and accept these promises and this riches presented, since in the mass nothing else should truly be acted upon with greater diligence, indeed only and only, than that we keep before our eyes, contemplate and repeat these words, these promises of Christ, which are truly the mass itself, so that in it we practice, nourish, increase and strengthen faith by this daily remembrance. For this is what he commands when he says: "Do this in remembrance of me. This is also what an evangelical preacher (evangelista) should do, that he faithfully inculcates this promise to the people and extols it to awaken their faith in it. But how many are there now who know that the Mass is a promise of Christ (not to mention the godless chatterers who preach human statutes instead of such a glorious promise)? And though they teach these words of Christ, yet do they not do it with the name of a promise or a testament, and do not teach it for the sake of it, that faith may be obtained.

Yes, this is what we weep for in this captivity: nowadays, all diligence is spent on

Take care that no layman hears these words of Christ, as if they were far too sacred to be recited to the common man. For so furious are we, and it is only for us priests to speak the words of the Consecration (as they are called) secretly; but in such a way that they are not even useful to us, because we ourselves do not consider them promises or a testament to feed our faith with. But I do not know out of what superstition and godless delusion we honor these words more than we believe them? What else does the devil work in us through such our misery, but that he leaves nothing of the mass in the church, and yet in the meantime sees to it that all corners of the world are full of masses, that is, of abuses and mockeries of God's testament and of very grave sins of idolatry, so that the world may be weighed down more and more without ceasing, and damnation may become the greater. For what can be more grave than the sin of idolatry, than to misuse the promises of God with perverse delusion, and either disregard or extinguish faith in them?

For God (as I have said) has never acted differently with men, nor does he yet act differently with them, except through the word of promise; again, we can never act differently with God except through faith in the word of his promise. He does not respect our works, nor does he need them, since through them we rather act against men, and with men, and with ourselves; but this he needs, that he may be considered true by us in his promises, and as such be awaited with patience, and honored with faith, hope and love. This is how he receives his glory from us, in that we receive and have all good things, not by our running, but by his mercy, promise, and giving. Behold, this is the right worship and true service which we are to perform at Mass. But if the words of promise are not brought forward, what exercise of faith can we have? After all, without faith, who hopes, who holds God dear? What kind of service of God is there without faith, without

38L . V. L. V. 41-4S. XIII Luther's dispute with Henry VIII. W. XIX, 44-46. 39

Hope, without love? Therefore, there is no doubt that today all priests and monks, together with the bishops and all their superiors, are idolaters and live in a highly dangerous state because of such ignorance, abuse and mockery of the Mass, or the Sacrament, or the promise of God.

For everyone easily understands that these two things are necessary at the same time, the promise and faith. For without promise nothing can be believed, and without faith the promise is of no use, because it is established and fulfilled by faith. From this it is easy for everyone to understand that one goes to mass, because it is nothing other than a promise, with faith alone, and takes part in it. What is added without faith in the way of prayers, preparations, works, signs, and offerings, are all more incentives to ungodliness than acts of godliness. For it may well happen that, when such things are done, they think that they go worthily to the altar, and yet they have never been more unskilful at any time or in any work, because of the unbelief which they bring with them. O how many priests do you see every day and everywhere, who, if they are either not properly dressed, or have not washed their hands, or have missed in prayer and have only missed a little, think, as wretched people, that they have hardly sinned. But that they neither respect nor believe in the mass itself, that is, in the divine promise, they have absolutely no conscience about it. O the shameful religion of our time, which is the most godless and ungrateful!

Therefore, a worthy preparation and proper use 1) is nothing but faith alone, with which the mass, that is, the divine promise, is believed. Therefore, whoever wants to go to the altar or receive this sacrament, take care that he does not appear empty before the face of God, his Lord. But he will come empty who does not have faith in the Mass or in this New Testament. With what kind of godlessness could he be more difficult

1. Instead of IsKiürriö we read IsZitimus.

For by such his unbelief he makes him, as much as there is in him, a liar, and who promises something in vain. It would therefore be safest not to go to mass with any other mind than if you were going to hear another promise of God, that is, that you would be willing to do and bring nothing much, but to believe and accept everything that is promised to you or proclaimed as promised by the priest's ministry. If you do not come with such a mind, stay away, for you are undoubtedly going there for the sake of suffering.

Therefore I have rightly said that the whole power of the mass consists in the words of Christ, by which he testifies that the forgiveness of sins is given to all those who believe, that his body is given and his blood is poured out for them. And therefore nothing is more necessary to those who want to hear the Mass than that they consider these words diligently and with full faith; if they do not do this, everything else is in vain. It is true that God tends to put a sign in almost every promise, as a reminder or memorial of His promise, so that it will be kept all the more faithfully and remembered all the more effectively. Likewise, when the promise was made to Noah that the earth would not be destroyed by another flood, he gave his rainbow in the clouds as a sign, saying that he wanted to remember his covenant. And to Abraham, after the promise of inheritance in his seed, he gave circumcision as a sign of the righteousness of faith. In such a way he gave to Gideon the dry and wet skin to confirm his promise that he should overcome the Midianites. Likewise he offered a sign to Ahaz through Isaiah, that he should overcome the king of Syria and Samaria, by which he would confirm faith concerning his promise in him. And such signs of the promises of God we read many in the Scriptures.

Likewise, GOD has also in the Mass, which is the most excellent among all promises,

40 D- V. a. V, 43-4p. 69, Of the Babylonian Captivity of the Church. W. XIX, 46-49. 41

He added a memorial sign of such a great promise, his own body and blood in the bread and wine, as he said, "This do in remembrance of me. Likewise, in baptism, He adds to the words of the promise the sign of immersion in water. From this we understand that in every promise of God two things are presented, the word and the sign, so that we know that the word is the testament and the sign the sacrament, just as in the Mass the word of Christ is the testament and the bread and wine are the sacrament. And as there is more in the word than in the sign, so there is more in the testament than in the sacrament. For a man can have the word or the testament and use it without the sign or without the sacrament. Believe, says Augustine, and you have eaten; but who is believed but the word of him who promised it? So I can have mass daily, even every hour, holding the words of Christ before me as often as I wish; and by them feed and strengthen my faith, that is, eat and drink truly spiritually.

Here you see what and how much the theologians who wrote the Sententiae (sententiarii) have done in this. First of all, what is the highest and the main part, namely, the testament and the word of promise, none of them takes into account, and thus they have obscured for us the faith and the whole power of the mass. Then they deal with the other part of it, namely, the sign or sacrament alone; but in such a way that they do not teach faith in this either, but that their preparations and good works (opera operato), communications and fruits are the mass; 1) until at last they have come to the abyss, and have pretended silly things of the change of substances and other many innumerable metaphysical crickets of Aristotle, and have done away with the science and right use, both of the testament and of the sacrament, together with the whole faith, and have made that the people of Christ (as the prophet speaks), of their GOt.

1. We have drawn irlissanci-to the previous, depending on äoeeant. The Erlanger has a semicolon before missum.

I have always forgotten it. But let others list the various fruits of hearing the Mass, and turn your mind to this, that you say and believe with the prophet that God has "prepared a table before you against all those who fear you" Ps. 23:5, at which your faith shall be fed and increase. But your faith is not fed in any other way than by the word of the divine promise. For "man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that passes through the mouth of God" Matt. 4:4. Therefore, above all things in the mass, you must be very diligently attentive to the divine promise, as to a very rich food, all kinds of pasture, and your holy refreshment, that you may esteem this above all, rely on it most, and cling to it steadfastly, even through death and all sins. If you do this, you will not only get the little drops and extremely small fruits of the mass, which some have superstitiously invented, but the main fountain of life itself, namely faith in the word, from which all good flows. As he says John 7:38: "He that believeth on me, out of his body shall flow rivers of living water." Likewise Cap. 4, 14: "Whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give, it shall become in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life."

Now there are two things which tend to make us object to not receiving the fruits of the Mass: one is that we are sinners and unworthy of such great things because of our poor condition; the other is that even if we were worthy, the things are so great that our fainthearted nature must not dare to desire or hope for them. For who should not rather be astonished at the forgiveness of sins and eternal life, than "desire the same, when after dignities the greatness of the goods that come thereby is considered, namely, to have God as your Father, to be a son and an heir of all God's goods? Against this twofold pusillanimity you must take hold of the word of Christ and consider it much stronger than these thoughts of your weakness. For "great are the works of

-42 L. V. L.V, 45f. XIII Luther's dispute with Henry VIII. , W. XIX, 49-51. 43

The Lord, whoever respects them, delights in them" Ps. 111:2, "who is able to do exceedingly abundantly above all that we ask or understand" Eph. 3:20. For if they did not surpass our worthiness, our understanding, and all our senses, they would not be divine things. So also Christ makes us of heart, saying, "Fear not, little host: for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom" Luc. I2, 32.. For this incomprehensible abundance of God, which has been poured out upon us through Christ, makes us love Him again most fervently above all things, approach Him with the highest confidence, regard everything in a lowly way, and are ready to suffer everything for His sake. Therefore, this sacrament is also rightly called a fountain of love.

Make an example of this to yourself in the case of men'. For if a rich lord bequeathed a thousand gold florins to a poor beggar or to an unworthy and wicked servant, truly he would demand and take them with confidence," and would pay no attention to his unworthiness or to the great bequest. If someone disliked him and reproached him for his unworthiness or the great bequest, what do you think he would say? Other than nothing: What is it to you? What I get, I do not get according to my merits, or any right of my own. I know that I am unworthy, and that I receive more than I deserve, yes, I deserve the opposite; but according to the right of the will, and the good will of another, I desire what I desire. If he did not consider it unworthy of him to bequeath such great gifts to an unworthy man, why should I, because of my unworthiness, despise to accept it? Yes, rather, for this very reason, the more unworthy I am, the more I reach for such undeserved and foreign grace. With the same thoughts every conscience must be armed to obtain this promise of Christ with undoubted faith, against all its doubts and remorse, and must take great care that it does not go to the Sacrament out of confidence in its confession, prayer, or preparation; but forsakes all these, and goes to it in a proud way.""

Trust in Christ who promises. For, as enough has been said, the word of promise alone shall prevail here ii" a pure faith, which alone and all is a sufficient preparation.

From this we see what a great wrath of God it was that the "godless" teachers hid the words of this testament from us until now and thereby, as much as there was in them, eradicated faith. Now it is easy to see what must inevitably follow such eradicated faith, namely the most "ungodly" superstitious works. For where faith perishes and the word of faith is silenced, human works and essays of works soon arise in its place. Through these, as through a Babylonian captivity, we are displaced from our larrde, and all our heart's joy has been captured. This is what has happened to the Mass, which has been changed by the teachings of nefarious men into a good work, which they call a work done (opus operatum), by which they presume to be able to do anything with God". After that, it has come to the extreme nonsense that, because they believed that the Mass had its power from the "done" work, they added that it would be no less useful to others, even though it would be harmful to the godless Mass priest. And on this sand they have based their donations, donations, brotherhoods, anniversaries, and such like innumerable profit and commercial dealings.

You will hardly be able to stand up to these empty pretenses (larvas), because they are strong and many, and deeply rooted, if you do not pay attention to what the mass is with very persistent care, and strongly remember my previous speeches. You have heard that the Mass is nothing other than a divine promise or bequest of Christ, confirmed with the Sacrament of His Body and Blood. If this is true, you understand that it cannot be a work in any way, and that nothing happens in it, nor can be done by any effort of anyone, but by faith alone. Now faith is not a work, but the teacher and life of works. For who is ever so nonsensical that

44 D- v-V 46-48. 69 On the Babylonian Captivity of the Church. W. xix, 51-54. 45

he should call a promise received, or a bequest given, a good work, which he does to his testator by accepting it? Who is the heir who thinks he is doing good to his father, who bequeathed him something, by receiving the letter of testament with the bequeathed inheritance? How are we so godless and sacrilegious that when we want to receive the divine bequest, we come as if we wanted to do a good work for God? Is not this ignorance of the will and this captivity of such a high sacrament to be highly lamented? Where we should be grateful for the gifts we have received, we come in hopefulness, and want to give what we should take, mocking the mercy of the giver with unheard-of nefariousness, by giving as a work what we receive as a gift; so that the testator now does not distribute his goods, but receives ours. Woe to this impiety!

But who has ever been so foolish as to think that baptism is a good work, or that he who was to be baptized believed that he was doing a work which he offered and communicated to God for himself and others? If then in a sacrament and testament there is no good work that could be communicated to others, there will be none in the mass either, because the latter is nothing but a testament and sacrament. Therefore, it is a public and ungodly error to offer or assign the mass for sin, for satisfaction, for the dead, or otherwise for any need of one's own or of others. It is easy to understand that this is obviously true, if one stubbornly holds that the Mass is a divine promise that is of no use to anyone, cannot be assigned to anyone, cannot be given to anyone, and cannot be communicated to anyone but only to those who believe with their own faith. For who can receive or bestow God's promise, which requires the special faith of everyone, on behalf of another? Can I give God's promise to another even if he does not believe? Or can I believe for another? Or can I make another believe? This is what would have to happen if I were to give the Mass to another person.

because there is nothing in the mass but the two things: God's promise and man's faith, who receives what it promises. If this is true, then I can also hear the gospel for others and believe, I will be able to be baptized for another, to be absolved of sins for another, I will also be able to receive the sacrament of the altar for another; I will also be able to marry for another, to become a priest for another, to receive confirmation for another, to receive the last rites for another.

Why then did Abraham not believe for all Jews? Why is faith required of every Jew for the very same promise that was believed by Abraham? Thus, the insurmountable truth must stand: Where God's promise is, each one stands for himself, his own faith is required, each one will also give account for himself and carry his burden, as he says Marci at the last, v. 16: "He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned." Thus each one can also make use of the mass by his own faith, and by all means participate in it for no one else, just as the priest cannot administer the sacrament to anyone for anyone else, but administers it to each one in particular. For the priests, in consecrating and administering the Sacrament, are our ministers, through whom we do not offer a good work or communicate in an active way, but through whom we receive the promises and the sign, and are communicated in a passive way. This has hitherto remained with the laity, for the laity are not said to do anything good by it, but to receive it. But the priests have turned to their nefarious ways and have made of the sacrament and testament of God a good work, which they communicate and offer, whereas the good should have been received.

But you want to speak: What, then, wilt thou reverse the custom and opinion of all churches and monasteries, where such things are so many?

46 L. V.". V, 48-60. XIII Luther's dispute with Henry VIII. W. XIX, 54-56. 47

What is the reason why the church has been valid for centuries, since annual festivals, intercessions, donations, notices, that is, all the richest pensions and incomes are donated to the mass? To this I answer: This is precisely what has driven me to write about the imprisonment of the Church. For thus the most reverend testament of God has been forced into the bondage of the most ungodly profit by the opinions and traditions of nefarious people, who have set aside the word of God, have presented us with the thoughts of their hearts, and have deceived the whole world. What do I care about the multiplicity and majesty of the erring? The truth is stronger than all of them. If you can deny Christ, who teaches that the mass is a testament or sacrament, I will agree with them. Then, if you can say that he does a good work who receives what is bequeathed in the testament, or uses the sacrament of promise for this very purpose, I will gladly condemn my opinion. But since you can do neither of these, why do you have misgivings about despising the great multitude that is running to damnation, about giving glory to God, and about confessing his truth? Namely, that nowadays all priests are in a wrong opinion, who consider the mass a work by which they help their needs or those of others, living or dead. I speak outrageous and astonishing things. But if you look at what the mass is, you will see that I have spoken truly. All this has made the all too great certainty before which we have not noticed the wrath of God upon us.

But this I easily admit, that the prayers which we pour out before God when we are gathered to receive the Mass are good works, or good deeds, which we distribute, bestow, share, and offer for one another. As Jacob teaches us: "Pray for one another, that you may be healed" Jac. 5, 16. And Paul, 1 Tim. 2:1, 2, commanded to "make supplication, prayer, and intercession for all men, for kings, and for all authorities." These things, however, are not the Mass, but works of the Mass, if the prayers of the Lord are to be understood differently.

The works of God may be called the works of the heart and the works of the mouth, for they come about through faith, which was received and increased in the sacrament. For the Mass or God's promise is not fulfilled by praying, but only by faith. But if we believe, we pray and do all kinds of good works. But which priest says mass for this reason, thinking that he is offering the prayers alone? They all imagine that they offer Christ Himself to the Father as a full sacrifice, and do a good work for all those in relation to whom they imagine that it will be useful to them. For they trust that they have accomplished by the work what they do not ascribe to prayer. Since in this way error has gradually grown, they have assigned to the sacrament what is due to prayer, and have sacrificed to God the good they are to receive.

Therefore, we must distinguish between the testament and sacrament themselves and the prayers that we pray at the same time. Not only that, but one must also know that the prayers are of no use at all, neither to the one who prays them, nor to those for whom they are prayed, unless the testament is first received with faith, so that faith alone prays, which alone is heard, as Jacob teaches in the first chapter. Prayer is so different from the mass. I can extend my prayer to as many as I want, but the mass is received by no one but he who believes for himself, and as much as he believes; nor can it be given, either to God or to men, but God alone gives it through the ministry of the priest to those men who receive it with faith alone, without any works or merits. For let no one dare to be so foolish as to say that he does a good work who comes poor and meager to receive a benefit from the hand of the rich. Now the Mass (as I have said) is a benefit of the divine promise, offered to all men by the hand of the priests. So it is certain that the mass is not a work that can be given to another, but an object (as it is called) of faith, in order to nourish and strengthen each one's own faith.

48 V- a. V, SO f. 69. Of the Babylonian captivity of the church. W. XIX, 56-59. 49

Now there is a second offense to be removed, which is much greater and very apparent, that is that everywhere it is believed that the Mass is a sacrifice offered to God. The words of the Canon also seem to be in favor of this opinion, since it is said: These gifts, these presents, these holy sacrifices. And afterwards: This sacrifice. Similarly, it is clearly desired that this sacrifice be acceptable, like the sacrifice of Abel 2c. Therefore Christ is called the sacrificial lamb (hostia) of the altar. To this also come the sayings of the holy fathers, so many examples, and such a strong use, which has been constantly observed throughout the world.

To all this, because it is so firmly rooted, one must steadfastly oppose the words and example of Christ. For if we do not receive that the Mass is a promise of Christ or a testament, as the words clearly read, we lose the whole Gospel and all comfort. We should not accept anything against these words, even if an angel from heaven would teach otherwise. For in these words there is nothing about works or sacrifice. After this, the example of Christ is also on our side. For Christ, in the last supper, when he instituted this sacrament and made the testament, did not offer it to his Father, or perform it as a good work for others; but sat at the table, and laid the same testament before each one, and gave them the sign. Now the Mass, the nearer and more conformable it is to the very first Mass which Christ said after the supper, the more Christian it is. But Christ's mass was simple, without all the pomp of vestments, vows, songs, and other ceremonies, whereas if it had been offered as a sacrifice, Christ would not have used it perfectly.

Not that anyone should blaspheme against the whole Christian Church, which has adorned and enlarged the Mass with many customs and ceremonies; but this I want, that no one, deceived by such outward appearances of ceremonies and hindered by the manifold pomp, should lose the simplicity of the Mass, and indeed assume a kind of alteration of the substances, if he.

after having lost the simple essence of the mass, is attached to the manifold side things of the splendor. For what has been added to the word and example of Christ is an accessory to the Mass, each of which we should not esteem more highly than we now esteem the monstrances (as they are called) and the altar cloths in which the host itself is kept. Therefore, as it is contrary to one another to distribute the testament or to receive the promise and to offer a sacrifice, so it is contrary to one another that the Mass should be a sacrifice, because we receive the promise but give the sacrifice. Now the same thing cannot be taken and given at the same time, nor can it be given and received at the same time, certainly just as prayer and the thing received cannot be the same thing, neither is it the same thing to pray and to receive what is prayed for.

Now what shall we say to the Canon of the Mass, and to the sayings of the Fathers? First, I answer that if one has nothing to say, it is much safer to deny everything than to allow the Mass to be a work or a sacrifice, lest we deny the word of Christ and destroy faith at the same time as the Mass. However, in order to save the fathers, let us answer that from Paul, 1 Cor. 11, it cannot be taught that the Mass is a work or sacrifice, but 1) that the faithful Christians, gathered for Mass, were accustomed to bring food and drink, which they called collections, which was distributed to the needy, according to the use of the apostles, Apost. 4, 34. 4:34. Out of this collection, wine and bread were taken for the sacrament and consecrated. And because all this was sanctified with words and prayers, according to Jewish usage, that it was waved or lifted up, as we read in Genesis, the words and the action (rite) of lifting up or offering remained, after the usage of gathering something together and collecting that which had been brought.

1. It seems to us that there is a gap here in the Latin, which would like to be completed in the way we have done in the bracketed words. - Another way to lift the difficulty of this place would be that instead of non tloeeri - nos ckooeri would be read.

50 L.v. a. V, W f. XIII. Luther's dispute with Henry VIII. W.XIX, S9-M. 51

was to be set forth and abolished, had long since been abolished. Thus Hezekiah commands Isa. 37, 4, Isaiah to lift up his prayer before God's face for the others. And the Psalm says: "Lift up your hands in the sanctuary" Ps 134, 2. Likewise: "I will lift up my hands" Ps. 28, 2. Lift up holy hands in all places", 1 Tim. 2, 8. Therefore the words sacrificium, or oblatio, sacrifice or lifting, must not be applied to the sacrament and testament, but to the collected things (collectas). Therefore, the word Collecte has also remained for the prayers said at Mass.

This also makes it so that the priest, as soon as he has blessed the bread and the cup, lifts them up, by which he does not indicate that he is offering something to God, because he then does not commemorate the host or the sacrifice with any words; but this also has either remained from the use of the Hebrews, according to which that was set aside which was designated as having been received from God with acts of thanksgiving; or it is an exhortation to us, by which we are to be provoked to believe in this testament, which he brought forward and presented in the words of Christ, so that he also at the same time may point out its signs, and the lifting up (oblatio) of the bread actually correspond to this pointing speech: This is my body, and addresses us, the bystanders, as it were, with this sign. Thus, the lifting up of the cup is actually to correspond to these indicative words: This is the cup of the New Testament 2c. For the priest is to awaken faith in us with such use of lifting up. And would God, as He publicly lifts up the sign or sacrament before our eyes, that He would also at the same time proclaim the word or testament to our ears with a clear and bright voice, and that in every people's language, so that faith would be awakened all the more effectively. For why should we be allowed to say Mass in Greek, Latin and Hebrew, and not also in German, or in any other language?

Therefore, let the priests who say mass at this corrupt and very dangerous time beware. First, that they

The words of the greater and lesser canons, with the collections that are too clearly about the sacrifice, are not directed to the sacrament, but either to the bread and wine that is to be consecrated, or to their prayers. For the bread and wine are first set forth to be blessed, that they may be sanctified by the word and prayer. But after it is blessed and consecrated, it is not offered, but accepted as a gift from God. And in this trade a priest should remember that the Gospel must be preferred to all canons and collects made by men. But the Gospel, as you have heard, does not allow the Mass to be a sacrifice.

Then let him who says mass in public take care to do nothing but communicate himself and others through the mass, and at the same time beware of offering his prayers for himself and others, lest he be presumptuous and think that he is offering the mass. But he who says mass in private, let him take care to offer himself the Lord's Supper. For a private mass is no different and does no more than if a layman simply receives the sacrament from the hands of the priest, except for the prayers and that he consecrates and administers it to himself. In the matter of the Mass and the Sacrament itself, we are all equal, priest and layman.

Now, if a priest is asked by others to say vowed masses (as they are called), he should be careful not to take any reward for the mass, or to refrain from offering any vowed mass, but to draw all this to the prayers he is saying, whether for the living or for the dead, and to think thus: Behold, I will go and take the sacrament for myself alone; but in taking it, I will pray for this or for that. So that he takes the reward because of the prayer, and not because of the mass, for his food and sustenance. Nor should he respect that the whole world has a different opinion and use. You have the gospel, which is exceedingly sure; if you trust in it, you will easily despise all men's opinions and conceits. But if you despise me and continue to offer the mass, and not only the mass, but also the mass, then you will not despise me.

52 L. V. a. V, S3-SS. 69. Of the Babylonian captivity of the church. W. XIX, 61-64. 53

the prayers, you shall know that I have faithfully warned you and am pardoned on the last day; but you will have to bear your sin yourself. I have told you what I owe to you as a brother to a brother for your salvation. If you accept it, it will be your benefit; if you disregard it, it will be your harm. If anyone would condemn these teachings of mine, I answer him in the words of Paul, 2 Tim. 3:13: "But with wicked men and seducers the longer it is, the more grievous is it, and they are seduced."

From this, everyone can easily understand what is often said from Gregory: The mass of an evil priest is not to be held in lower esteem than that of a good priest, and St. Peter's mass would not have been better than Jude the Betrayer's, if they had both said mass. For with this cloak many want to cover their godlessness, and therefore have invented the difference between the work done and the work of him who works it (operis operati et operis operantis), so that they could presume to live for themselves in security and wickedness, and yet do good to others. But Gregory says right, and they understand him wrong. For it is quite true that as much of the testament and sacrament is given and received by ungodly priests as by the most holy. For who would doubt that the gospel is preached by the ungodly? Now the mass is a part of the gospel, yes, a summa and short concept of the gospel. For what is the whole gospel but the good news of the forgiveness of sins? But what can be widely and abundantly said of the remission of sins and of the grace of God is recently comprehended in the word of the testament. Therefore, even the common sermons should be nothing else than interpretations of the mass, that is, explanations of the divine promise of this testament. For this would be teaching the faith and building the church properly. But those who now interpret the mass are deceiving and deceiving with allegories of human ceremonies.

Therefore, as an ungodly man may baptize, that is, bring the word of promise and the sign of the water upon him whom he baptizes

He can also pronounce the promise of this sacrament and present it to the eaters, and take it with them, as Judas the betrayer did at the Lord's supper. And yet it always remains the same sacrament and testament, which works its work in the believer and a foreign work in the unbeliever. But in the sacrifice things are far different. For since it is not the mass but the prayers that are offered to God, it is clear that the sacrifices of an unholy priest are of no value, but (as the same Gregory says) if an unworthy man is sent to intercede, the mind of the judge is moved to greater punishment. Therefore these two are not to be mixed, the mass and the prayer; the sacrament and the work; the testament and' the sacrifice. For the one comes to us from God through the service of the priest, and requires faith; the other comes from our faith to God through the priest, and asks to be heard. The former descends; the latter ascends. Therefore, the former does not necessarily require a worthy and godly servant; but the latter does, for God does not hear sinners; He can do good through evil, but He does not accept any evil work, as He showed in Cain. And in Proverbs 15:8 it is said, "The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination to the Lord," and Romans 14:23, "Whatever is not of faith is sin."

But so that I may come to an end with this first part, for I will bring up the rest if anyone who would dispute it should appear, I will decide from all this to whom the mass is appointed for the benefit of, and who may worthily communicate: namely, only those who have sad, grieved, distressed, confused, and erroneous consciences. For since the word of the divine promise of this sacrament offers remission of sins, anyone who is distressed by remorse of conscience about sins or by the tickling of them goes without danger. For this testament of Christ is the only remedy for past, present and future sins, if only you adhere to it with undoubted faith and believe that you have been given remission of sins by grace and in vain.

54 L. V. E. V. 55-57. XIII Luther's Dispute with Henry VIII. W. XIX, 64-66. 55

as the words of the testament read. If you do not believe this, you cannot satisfy your conscience anywhere, ever, with any works, with any efforts. For faith alone is the peace of the conscience; but unbelief alone is the trouble of the conscience.

Of the Sacrament of Baptism.

Glory be to God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who, according to the riches of His mercy, has preserved at least this one Sacrament in His Church undefiled and unpoisoned by the ordinances of men, and has made it free to all peoples and all classes of men, and has not allowed it to be suppressed even with the most shameful profits and monstrous godless superstitions. He used this counsel to initiate children, in whom avarice and superstition could not yet be found, and to sanctify them with the simplest faith of his word, to whom baptism is most useful at the present time. For if this sacrament had been given to the ancients and the great, it seems that its power and glory could not have remained before the tyranny of avarice and superstition, which has brought down all divine things upon us. There is no doubt that the human arrogance would have invented also here its preparations and dignities, then also the reservations, conditions, and what are such money nets more, by which the water would not be sold more cheaply than now the parchment 1).

But since the devil could not extinguish the power of baptism in infants, he got the upper hand and destroyed it in all adults, so that now there is almost no one who remembers that he is baptized, much less that he boasts of it, after so many other ways have been invented to remit sins and go to heaven. To these opinions has given rise that dangerous speech of St. Jerome, which is either evil spoken, or

1. membranae, meaning the Roman letters and bulls.

The first is the one that has been misunderstood, since he calls repentance the second board (tabula) after the shipwreck, as if baptism were not a repentance. For this is why, when they have fallen into sins, they despair of the first plank or ship, as if they had lost it, and begin to lean and rely on the second plank alone, namely repentance. Hence have sprung the innumerable burdens of vows, spiritualities, works, penances, pilgrimages, indulgences and sects, and from these such a flood (maria) of books, questions, opinions and human statutes that the whole world can no longer contain, so that this tyranny plagues the Church of God much worse than it ever plagued the synagogue or any other nation under heaven.

But the bishops should have done away with all this and simply brought the Christians back to baptism with all diligence, so that they would understand what they were and what Christians had to do. But this is the only thing they do now, to lead the people away from baptism as far as possible and to sink them all into the flood of their tyranny and to make the people of Christ (as the prophet says) forget him forever. Oh how wretched are all those who are called bishops at this time, who not only do not know nor do anything that is due to bishops, but also do not know what they should know and do. And they fulfill the saying Isa. 56, 10. f. "All their watchmen are blind, they all know nothing: for the shepherds know no understanding; every one looketh to his way, every one is stingy to himself in his station."

Now the first thing that must be taken into account in baptism is the divine promise, which says: "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved." This promise is incomparably preferable to all the splendor of works, vows, spiritualities, and all that has been instituted by men. For on this promise hangs all our blessedness. But it must be taken into account in such a way that we exercise faith in it and do not doubt that we are blessed after we have been baptized. For where there is no such faith, or where it is not attained, there is no such faith.

56 D. V-". V 67-59. 69 On the Babylonian Captivity of the Church. W. XIX, 66-69. 57

Baptism is of no use to us, indeed it is harmful, not only at the time when we accept it, but also afterwards for the rest of our lives. For such unbelief belies the divine promise, which is the greatest sin of all. If we make this exercise of faith, we will soon understand how difficult it is to believe this divine promise. For human weakness, conscious of its sins, has the greatest difficulty in believing that it is blessed, or that it should be blessed; and yet, if it does not believe this, it cannot be blessed, because it does not believe the divine truth that promises blessedness.

This sermon should be diligently impressed upon the people, this promise should be recited without interruption, baptism should be taught again and again, and faith should be awakened and nourished in them for and for. For just as this divine promise was once pronounced upon us and remains true until death, so also our faith, which is based on it, should never be interrupted, but should be preserved and strengthened until death by the constant remembrance of this promise, which was made to us in baptism. Therefore, when we rise from sins or repent, we do nothing but return to the baptismal power and faith from which we fell, and come again to the promise made to us then in baptism, which we had forsaken through sin. For there remains always the truth of the promise once made, . which will receive us with outstretched hands if we repent. And this opinion, if I am not mistaken, is held by those who say somewhat obscurely that baptism is the first and foundation of all sacraments, without which none of the others can be overcome.

Therefore it will serve no small purpose if he who repents remembers first of all his baptism and the divine promise he left, remembers it with confidence, holds it up to the Lord, and rejoices that he still has so much help for his salvation that he has been baptized, cursing his ungodly ingratitude for departing from the faith and truth of it.

has fallen. For his heart will be unbelievably strengthened and revived to the hope of mercy, if he considers the divine promise made to him, which cannot lie, that it is still perfect and unchanged, nor can be changed by any sin, as Paul says 2 Tim. 2, 13: "If we believe not, he abideth faithful; he cannot deny himself." This truth of God, I say, will sustain him in such a way that, if all else were to fall away, yet this promise, which he has believed, will not leave him. For through it he has that with which he can oppose the evil enemy who is rushing toward him; he has that with which he can meet the sins that trouble his conscience; he has that with which he can answer the terrifying death and judgment; he has finally that which can be a comfort to him in all temptations, namely this One Truth, that he says: "God is true in His promises, the sign of which I received in baptism: "If God is for me, who can be against me?" Rom. 8, 31.

For if the children of Israel, when they wanted to repent, remembered first of all their exit from Egypt, and thus turned to God, who had carried them out - this remembrance and this very help is so often inculcated in them by Moses, and repeated by David - how much more should we remember our departure from our Egypt, and by its remembrance return to Him who carried us out through the bath of the new birth, whose remembrance has been commanded to us for this very purpose, which can happen most perfectly in the sacrament of bread and wine. For these three sacraments, penance, baptism and bread, were performed in one office in the past, and one helped the other. Thus we read of a holy virgin who, as often as she was challenged, defended herself with baptism alone, saying in brief: I am a Christian. For the enemy soon noticed the power of baptism and of the faith that clung to the truth of the promising God, and fled from her.

So you see how rich a Christian man or a baptized man is, who, even if he wants to, does not lose his blessedness.

58 L. V. ".v,8d f. XIII Luther's dispute with Henry VIII. W. XIX, 69-72. 59

even with the greatest sins, unless he does not want to believe. For no sins can condemn him but unbelief alone. All other sins, when faith returns, or insists on the divine promise made to him in baptism, are swallowed up in an instant by the same faith, yes, by the truth of GOD. For God cannot deny Himself if you confess Him and cling to Him who promises with firm trust. But repentance and confession of sins, and after that satisfaction, as well as all other humanly devised efforts, will soon leave you in the lurch and make you more miserable if you forget the divine truth and occupy yourself with them. For it is all vain and an affliction of the Holy Spirit, everything that is done apart from your faith in the true God.

There you see at the same time how dangerous, yes, how wrong it is, if one assumes that repentance is the second plank after the shipwreck, and how it is such a shameful error, if one thinks that because of sins the power of baptism is completely gone, and this ship is shattered. There remains this One, firm and unconquerable ship, and will never be torn to pieces, in which all those are led who seek to be brought to the harbor of blessedness, that is, the truth of God, which promises something in the sacraments. It is true that many jump from the ship into the sea and perish; these are the ones who abandon faith in the promise and plunge into sin. But the ship itself remains and passes through unharmed in its course. If he can come to the ship again by grace, he will not be brought to life by any pieces, but by the whole ship. This is the one who returns to the firm and lasting promise of God through faith. Therefore Peter 2. Ep. 1, 9. punishes those who sin, that "they forget the cleansing of their former sins", where he undoubtedly punishes the ingratitude concerning the received baptism and their godless unbelief.

What is the use of writing so much about baptism and not teaching this faith in the promise? All sacraments are intended to strengthen faith, and they do not touch this faith at all, so much so that godless people even claim that a person cannot be sure of the remission of his sins or of the grace of the sacraments. By this godlessness they deceive the whole world, and not only take the sacrament of baptism, on which the most distinguished glory of our conscience stands, captive, but also eradicate it completely. In the meantime, however, they are furious against the poor souls with their repentances, anxious confessions, circumstances, amends, works and such innumerable unworthiness. Now you must read carefully, even despise the Magister of Sentences in his fourth book with all those who have written about him, who write only about the essence (materia) and the form (forma) of the sacraments, when they write best, that is, treat the dead and killing letter of the sacraments, but leave the spirit, life and benefit, that is, the truth of the divine promise and our faith completely untouched.

Therefore, see to it that the splendid works and deceptions of the statutes of men do not deceive you, so that you do not do injustice to the divine truth and your faith. From faith in the sacraments you must begin without any works, if you want to be saved. But faith is followed by works; only that you must not disregard faith, which is the most excellent and highest work among all others, through which alone you will be preserved, even if you have to renounce all others. For it is a work of God, not of man, as Paul teaches. All other works God works with us and through us; this alone He works in us and without us.

From this we can clearly see what difference there is in baptizing between the minister, who is a man, and the founder, who is God. For man baptizes and does not baptize. He baptizes, because he performs the work and immerses the baptized; he also does not baptize, because in this work he does not act on his own authority, but on the authority of God.

60 D- V. a. V, 60-62. 69 Of the Babylonian Captivity of the Church. W. XIX, 72-74. 61

Instead. Therefore, we must accept baptism from the hands of a man no differently than if Christ himself, even God himself, baptized us with his own hands. For the baptism we receive at the hands of a man is not of man, but of Christ and of God. Otherwise, every other creature that we use by another's hand is God's alone. Beware, therefore, that you do not distinguish baptism in such a way that you assign the outward to man and the inward to God. Assign both to God, and consider the person of the Baptist only as an instrument in God's stead, through which the Lord, who sits in heaven, immerses you in water with his own hands and promises you forgiveness of sins on earth, and speaks to you with the voice of a man through the mouth of his servant.

This is also indicated by the words themselves, when he says: I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, Amen. He does not say, I baptize you in my name. As if he wanted to say: What I do, I do not do by my own authority, but in place of and in the name of God, so that you do not hold it differently than if God Himself had visibly done it. The founder and the servant are distinguished, but both perform one work; yes, only the founder through my service. For I believe that "in the name of" refers to the person of the founder, so that it does not only mean to invoke the name of the Lord or to call upon it in the work; but to perform the work itself, as a foreign one, in the place and in the name of another. With the same speech Christ says Matth. 24, 5: "Many will come under my name"; and Rom. 1, 5: "Through whom we have received grace and apostleship to establish the obedience of faith among all the Gentiles under his name."

I am very happy to follow this opinion, because it is very comforting and helps to strengthen the faith that we know that we are baptized, not by a man, but by the Trinity itself through a man who does the work for us in the name of the Trinity. This puts an end to the useless quarrels, since they are about the form of baptism.

(so they call the words themselves) quarrel, the Greeks saying, Let a servant of Christ be baptized, the Latins, I baptize. Likewise others, who talk with right earnestness and zeal, condemn it to be said thus: I baptize you in the name of Jesus Christ, of which it is certain that the apostles baptized according to this usage, as we read in the histories of the apostles, and want that henceforth no manner or form should apply but this: I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, Amen. But they quarrel in vain, for they prove nothing, and assert only their dreams. Baptism may be done this way or that, but if it is not done in the name of a man, but in the name of the Lord, it will surely make you blessed. Yes, I would not doubt that if someone received it in the name of the Lord, even though an ungodly servant did not give it in the name of the Lord, that he would still be truly baptized in the name of the Lord. For the power of baptism is not so much in the baptizer as in the faith and use of the baptized. As one reads an example of a buffoon who was baptized in jest. These and such fearful disputations and questions have been made by those who have attributed nothing to faith and everything to works and ceremonies, since we have nothing to thank for ceremonies, but everything to thank for faith alone, which makes us free in spirit from all these doubts and opinions.

The other thing that belongs to baptism is the sign or sacrament, that is, immersion in water, from which it gets its name. For baptizo Greek, mergo Latin, and baptisma means an immersion. For it is said that, according to the divine promises, signs are also given which signify that which the words indicate, or, as the more recent say, that the sacrament signifies powerfully. But let us see how it is. Many have thought that there is a hidden spiritual power in the words and water that works the grace of God in the soul of the one who receives them. Others contradict them and say that there is no power in the sacraments, but rather

62 L. v, 62-"4. xIII Luther's dispute with Henry VIII. W.xix, 74-77. 63

that grace is given by God alone, who is present in the sacraments that he has instituted, according to the contract made. However, all agree that the sacraments are powerful signs of grace. They are moved to this with this single reason: Otherwise one does not see how the sacraments of the New Testament would be better than the sacraments of the Old Testament, if they only signify; and therefore they have been induced to ascribe so much to the sacraments of the New Testament, that they have pretended that they minister even to those who are in mortal sin, and that neither faith nor grace is required, but that it is enough that they do not put up a bar, that is, that they have no real intention of sinning again.

But because this is ungodly and contrary to the faith and nature of the sacraments, it must be diligently guarded against and avoided. For it is an error that the sacraments of the New Testament are distinguished from the sacraments of the Old Testament according to the power of the meaning. Both signified in the same way, for the same God who now makes us blessed through baptism and bread also made Abel blessed through the sacrifice, Noah through the rainbow, Abraham through circumcision, and the others all through his signs. Therefore, there is no difference between the sacrament of the old and new law as far as the meaning is concerned; only that which God wrought in the patriarchs and other fathers at the time of the law is called the old law. For the signs that happened in the patriarchs and fathers are very different from the examples in the Old Testament that Moses ordered in his law, as there are the priestly customs in clothes, vessels, food, houses and the like. For not only are the sacraments of the New Law very different from these, but also the signs themselves, which God ever gave to the fathers who lived under the law. The sign of Gideon on the skin Judges 6, 37, of Manoah on the sacrifice, Cap. 13, 20, and such a sign was offered by Isaiah to Ahaz, Is. 7, 11. For in these were

At the same time something was promised, by which the faith in God was required.

In this way, then, the examples in the law are distinguished from the old and new signs, in that the latter do not have a word of promise attached to them that requires faith. Therefore they are not signs of justification, because they are not sacraments of faith that alone justify, but are only sacraments of works. For all their power and nature was works, not faith. For he who did them fulfilled them, even if he did them without faith. But ours and the fathers' signs or sacraments have a word of promise attached to them, which requires faith and cannot otherwise be fulfilled by any other work. Therefore they are signs or sacraments of justification, because they are sacraments of faith that justifies, and not of works. Therefore their whole efficacy is faith itself, and not the accomplishment of the deed. For he who believes them fulfills them, though he works nothing. Hence comes the saying, Not the sacrament, but the faith of the sacrament justifies. Thus circumcision did not justify Abraham and his seed, and yet the apostle calls it "a seal of the righteousness of faith." Rom. 4:11. For faith in the promise, to which circumcision was annexed, justified and fulfilled that which circumcision signified. For faith was a circumcision of the foreskin of the heart in the spirit, which signified the circumcision of the flesh in the letter. So the sacrifice of Abel did not justify him at all, but the faith by which he offered himself completely to God, which the outward sacrifice signified.

So also baptism justifies no one and is of no use to anyone, but faith in the word of promise, to which baptism is added. For this faith justifies and fulfills that which baptism signifies. For faith is an immersion of the old man and a coming forth of the new man. For this reason it cannot be said that the new sacraments are distinct from the old sacraments, for they have both the divine and the new sacraments.

64 L.v. Ä.v.64f. 69. Of the Babylonian captivity of the church. W. XIX, 77-80. 65

The same promises and the same spirit of faith, although they are incomparably different from the ancient figures because of the word of promise, which is the only and powerful means of distinction. For even as at this time the splendor of the garments, the places, the food, and innumerable ceremonies undoubtedly signify excellent things to be fulfilled in the spirit, nevertheless, because no word of divine promise is involved, they can in no way be compared to the signs of baptism and bread, neither do they justify, nor are they of any use, because their fulfillment is the custom or performance (opus) of them without faith, for in being done or performed they are fulfilled. The apostle also speaks of them in this way Col. 2, 22: "which is all consumed under hands, and is the commandment and doctrine of men" 2c. But the sacraments are not fulfilled when they are performed, but when they are believed.

So it cannot be true that in the sacraments there is a powerful power of justification, or that they are powerful signs of grace. For all this is said to the detriment of faith, out of ignorance of the divine promise, unless they were called powerful in such a way that, when there is undoubted faith, they then certainly and powerfully give grace. But they do not prove that they are considered powerful in this way, because they say that they are also useful to all ungodly and unbelievers, as long as they themselves do not put up a bar, just as if unbelief itself were not the most stubborn, hostile bar against the grace of God. That is how much they have tried to make a commandment out of the Sacrament and a work out of faith. For if the Sacrament gives me grace because I receive it, then in truth I receive grace from my work, and not from faith, nor do I take hold of the promise in the Sacrament, but only of the sign which is instituted and commanded by God. There you see clearly how the sacraments were not understood at all by the theologians who wrote the sentences (sententionariis), because they did not understand faith or the promise in the sacraments.

They did not take into account the meaning of the sacraments at all, but only hung on the sign and the use of the sign, and drew us from faith to the work, and from the word to the sign. For this reason (as I have said) they have not only taken the sacraments captive, but have completely taken away as much as was in them.

We should therefore open our eyes and learn to pay more attention to the word than to the sign, more to faith than to the work or the use of the sign, and know that where God's promise is, faith is required, and that both are so necessary that neither can be strong without the other. For nothing can be believed unless there is a promise, and neither is the promise strengthened unless it is believed: but when both are mutually present, it gives the sacraments a true and very certain power. Therefore, to seek the power of the sacrament without the promise and faith is to labor in vain and to find damnation. Thus Christ says Marc. 16, 16: "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." He thus indicates that faith in the sacrament is so necessary that it can also make one blessed without the sacrament. Therefore, he did not want to add whoever does not believe and is not baptized.

Therefore, baptism means two things, death and resurrection, that is, a perfect and complete justification. For the fact that the minister dips the child into the water means death, but that he takes it out again means life. Thus Paul interprets it Rom. 6:4: "We are buried with Christ through baptism into death, that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life." This death and resurrection we call a new creature, a rebirth, and a spiritual birth, which must not be understood merely in a vague way from the death of sin and from the life of grace, as many tend to do, but from the true death and from the true resurrection. For baptism is not a fictitious meaning. So dies

66 L. V. a. V, 65-67. XIII Luther's dispute with Henry VIII. W. XIX, 80-82. 67

Neither does sin, nor does grace fully arise until the body of sin that we carry in this life is destroyed, as St. Paul speaks there. For as long as we are in the flesh, the desires of the flesh move and are moved. Therefore, as we begin to believe, we begin at the same time to die to this world and live to God in the life to come, so that faith is properly and truly a death and resurrection, that is, that spiritual baptism in which we are immersed and come forth again.

Now that the washing away of sins is attributed to baptism, it is indeed attributed to it, but the meaning is altogether too dull and weak that it does not properly express baptism, which is rather a symbol of death and resurrection. For this reason I am moved to want those who are to be baptized to be completely immersed in the water, as the word means, and the mystery. Not that I consider it necessary, but that it would be nice if such a perfect thing were also given a perfect sign, as it was undoubtedly instituted by Christ. For the sinner is not both to be washed away and to die, that he may be wholly regenerated into another creature, and that he may be conformed to the death and resurrection of Christ, with whom he dies and rises again by baptism. For though Christ may be said to have been washed away from mortality by dying and rising again, yet it would not be so freshly spoken as to say, He is wholly changed and renewed. Thus it is said more strongly that by baptism we are meant to die completely and rise again to eternal life, than when it is said that we are washed away from sins.

Here again you see that the sacrament of baptism, even if it is a sign, is not a passing trade, but a lasting one. For though its use soon passeth away, yet that which is signified thereby remaineth unto death, yea, unto the resurrection at the last day. For as long as we are alive, we are always doing the

That which baptism means is that we die and rise. We die, I say, not only in the mind and spiritually, renouncing the sins and vanities of the world, but in fact we begin to leave this bodily life and take hold of the life to come: so that it is therefore a real (realis, as they say) and also bodily transition from this world to the Father.

Therefore, we should beware of those who have made the power of baptism so small and insignificant that they say that grace is indeed poured out in baptism, but afterwards it is poured out through sin, and then one must go to heaven by another way, just as if baptism had already been completely destroyed. You must not accept this opinion, but understand the meaning of baptism in such a way that you die and live by it, and therefore cannot come back by repentance or any other way, but only by the power of baptism and do anew what you were baptized to do and what your baptism means. Your baptism will never be destroyed, unless you desperately do not want to come back to your salvation. You can go away from the sign for a while, but the sign is not destroyed. Thus you are once baptized sacramentally, but you must always be baptized by faith, always die and always live. Baptism swallowed up the whole body and gave it out again, so also the power of baptism (res baptismi) should swallow up your whole life with body and soul and give it out again on the last day, clothed with the robe of clarity and immortality. Thus we are never without the power and without the sign of baptism, but rather must always be baptized more and more, until we fully fulfill the sign on the last day.

So you see that everything we do in this life that serves to kill the flesh and make the spirit alive belongs to baptism and that the shorter we live, the more quickly we fulfill our baptism, and the more difficult we suffer, the more blissfully we are conformed to our baptism. That is why the church is the most blissful church at that time.

68 L. v. L. v, 67-W. 69. Of the Babylonian Captivity of the Church. W. xix.W-ss. ßg

The most blessed, when the martyrs were killed daily and respected like sheep for slaughter. For at that time the power of baptism reigned in the church with full force, which we now do not recognize at all before the multitude of works and doctrines of men. For everything we live should be baptism and fulfill the sign or sacrament of baptism, because, freed from everything else, we are devoted to baptism alone, that is, to death and resurrection.

Now that this glory of our freedom and this science of baptism is caught at this time, to whom can we thank it but to the tyranny of the Roman bishop alone? While he, as it seems to the chief shepherd, should have been above all others a preacher and assertor of this freedom and science, as Paul says, 1 Cor. 4:1: "For this every man hold us, that is, for Christ's ministers and stewards of God's mysteries," he alone deals with it, that by his decrees and rights he oppresses and entraps captives under his tyrannical power. I ask you, by what right (that I do not say how ungodly and damningly he refrains from teaching these mysteries) does the pope legislate over us? Who has given him the power to take away this freedom of ours, which has been given to us through baptism? One thing, as I have said, is made our duty, that we should perform it in our whole life, that we should be baptized, that is, killed, and live by faith in Christ, which faith also should have been taught alone, especially by the chief shepherd. But now that faith has been concealed, by innumerable laws of works and ceremonies the church has been destroyed, the power and knowledge of baptism taken away, and faith in Christ prevented.

Therefore I say, neither the pope, nor a bishop, nor any man, has power to order a syllable over a Christian man, unless it be by his will; and what is done otherwise is done by a tyrannical spirit. Therefore the prayers, fasts, gifts, and everything that the pope has set and demanded in all his many and unjust decrees, he has demanded and set and demanded without any right.

so often sins against the freedom of the church, as often as he subverts one of them. Hence it has come about that today's clergy are indeed busy protectors of the freedom of the church, that is, of the stones, the wood, the fields and interest, for in such a way the church goods (ecclesiastica) are now being haggled for spiritual goods (spiritualia), but with the very same fictitious words they not only take captive the true freedom of the church, but they subvert it completely, even more than the Turk, against the apostle who says: "Do not become servants of men" 1 Cor. 7, 23.. For that is rightly called becoming the servants of men, when one allows himself to be subjected to their tyrannical statutes and laws.

The disciples of the pope help and strengthen this godless and cursed tyranny, and turn and pervert the words of Christ: "He who hears you hears me" Luc. 10, 16. For this word they puff up with full cheeks for the support of their traditions, since Christ said this to the apostles when they went to preach the gospel, and it is to be drawn on the gospel alone. But they leave the gospel alone and apply it only to their fables. For Christ says John 10:27, 5: "My sheep hear my voice, but the voice of the stranger they hear not." Therefore the gospel was left, that the bishops might make the voice of Christ sound; but they make their voices sound, and they only wish to be heard. The apostle also says, 1 Cor. 1, 17: "He was not sent to baptize, but to preach the gospel", therefore no one is bound to the statutes of the pope, nor is he to be heard except when he teaches the gospel and Christ. He should not teach anything else than completely free faith. But since Christ says, "He who hears you hears me," why does not the pope also hear others? For he does not say to Peter alone, "He who hears you. Finally, where there is true faith, there must also necessarily be the word of faith. Why then does an unbelieving pope not at times hear his believing servant who has the word of faith? Blindness, blindness reigns in the popes.

70 L. V. E. V, 69-71. XIII Luther's dispute with Henry VIII. W. XIX, 85-87-. 71

Others, however, who are even more insolent, attribute to the pope the power to give laws out of what is written in Matth. 16, 19: "All that you will bind" 2c., since Christ is there talking about sins, to bind and loose them, not how to imprison the whole church and suppress it with laws. So this tyranny does everything with its fictitious words, twisting and perverting God's word by force. This I admit, that the Christians should tolerate this cursed tyranny, like any other coercion of this world, according to what Christ says: "If someone gives you a stroke from your right cheek, offer him also the left one" Matth. 5, 39.. But this I deplore, that the godless popes boast that they can do this rightly, and presume to advise Christianity with this Babylon of theirs, and also teach this opinion to everyone. If they did this in the knowledge that it was ungodly and tyrannical, or that we suffered their violence, we could safely count it among the things that are useful to us to kill this life and fulfill our baptism, and our consciences would remain clear for us to boast that we had been wronged. But now they want the conscience of our freedom to be so entangled that we should believe that what they do is well done, and that it should not be punished, or complain that wrong has been done. And since they are wolves, they still want to be considered shepherds; since they are antichrists, they want to be honored in Christ's stead. Only for this freedom and conscience do I cry out, and cry out confidently:

By no right can any law be laid upon Christians, either by men or by angels, except as much as they will; for we are free from all. If something is imposed, it must be carried in such a way that the conscience of freedom remains unharmed, which knows and may say with certainty that violence is done to it, which it tolerates with glory, and is careful not to speak right to the tyrant, nor to murmur against tyranny. "For who is" (says St. Peter) "that could harm you, if you follow what is good?" 1 Pet. 3, 13. "To the elect all things must be for the best" Rom. 8, 28.. The

but because few know this glory of baptism and Christian liberty bliss, nor can know it before the tyranny of the pope, I will here unchain myself and free my conscience, and accuse the pope and all papists: That unless they do away with their laws and statutes, and restore and procure for the churches of Christ their liberty to be taught, they are guilty of all the souls that perish through this miserable captivity, and that the papacy is truly nothing but the kingdom of Babylon and of the true Antichrist. For who is "the man of sins, and the child of perdition" 2 Thess. 2, 3., but he who by his doctrines and shameful statutes increases the sins and perdition of souls in the church, and yet sits in the church as a god? But all these things have been superfluously fulfilled for many centuries by the papal tyranny, which has eradicated the faith, darkened the sacraments, suppressed the gospel, but has commanded its laws, which are not only godless and unspiritual, but also barbarous and very unlearned, and has increased them without end.

Therefore, behold the misery of our captivity, "How lies the city so desolate, which was full of people? She is a widow. She who was a princess among the nations and a queen in the lands must now serve. There is no one among all her friends to comfort her; all her neighbors despise her" Klagel. 1, 1. 2.. There are so many orders, so many customs, so many sects and so many spiritual professions, so many efforts, so many works, with which today's Christians strive, that they forget their baptism, and before so many locusts, caterpillars and beetles no one can remember that he was baptized, or what he obtained in baptism. For we should be like the little baptized children, who handle with no efforts and with no works, but are free in all things, secure and blessed through glorious baptism alone. For we too are children in Christ, always being baptized.

Perhaps my above words would like to be contrasted with the baptism of little children, who do not understand the promise of God, nor can they have the faith of baptism.

72 L- v-V, 7i f- 69. Of the Babylonian captivity of the church. W. xix, 87-90. 73

Therefore, either faith would not be required, or the children would be baptized in vain. Here I say what all say, that the little children are helped by the strange faith of those who bring them to baptism. For just as the word of God, when it is heard, is powerful, so that it can change even the heart of an ungodly man, who is no less deaf and incapable than any little child: so also through the prayer of the church, which the child presents and believes, to whom all things are possible, the little child is changed, cleansed and renewed by the infused faith. I would not doubt that not even an adult godless, if the Church prayed and presented him to GOD, could be changed in any sacrament; as we read of the gout-ridden man in the Gospel, who was made well by other people's faith Matth. 9, 2.. And for this reason I would gladly allow the sacraments of the New Testament to be powerful in giving grace, not only to those who do not put up a bar, but also to those who quite obstinately put up a bar. For what should the faith of the church and a believing prayer not take away, since it is held that St. Stephen converted Paul the Apostle by this power? But then the sacraments do not do this by their own power, but by the power of faith, which they do, without which, as I have said, they do nothing at all.

It is also asked whether a child that has not yet been born can be baptized if it stretches out a hand or foot from the mother's womb? Here I judge nothing imprudently and confess my ignorance. And I do not know whether that is enough, what they have as a basis, namely, that the soul would be completely in each part of the body. For it is not the soul but the body that is baptized with water by heart. I also do not want to judge that they say he cannot be born again who has not yet been born, although this is a very strong reason. Therefore I leave this to the teaching (magisterio) of the Spirit, and in the meantime leave each one to his own thoughts.

One thing I add here, and would to God that I could persuade everyone of it, namely,

That all vows be entirely abolished or avoided, whether they be vows to become spiritual, or to make a pilgrimage, or to perform other works, and that we remain in the most spiritual and operatic freedom of baptism. It cannot be said how much is taken away from baptism and how much the right knowledge of Christian freedom is obscured by the conceit of vows, which is now all too widespread to be silent about the unspeakable, innumerable dangers to souls, which the desire to vow and rash imprudence daily increase. O you nefarious popes and unholy shepherds, who surely snore and lust in your lusts, and care nothing for the great and very dangerous harm of Joseph! Amos 6:6.

Here, all vows should either be annulled with a common prohibition, especially the perpetual ones, and everyone should be directed back to the vows of baptism, or diligently admonished that no one would want to vow something rashly, that no one should be tempted to vow, and that one should be hard and slow to admit the vows. For we have vowed superfluously enough in baptism, and more than we can fulfill, and will have enough to do if we were intent only on this One Vow. But now we "move about water and land to make many fellow Jews" Matth. 23, 15., we fill the world with priests, monks and nuns, and these all we imprison with perpetual vows. Here we find people disputing and pretending that a work done in vows is more excellent than a work done apart from and without a vow, and I do not know with what greater rewards in heaven it should be preferred to others. O the blind and godless Pharisees, who measure righteousness and holiness by the greatness and quantity of works and other qualities, which with God are measured by faith alone, in which there is no difference of works, except in so far as there is a difference of faith.

With these pompous words of theirs, these godless people provide an appendix to their inventions, and make the works of

74 L. V. s. V, 72-74. XIII Luther's dispute with Henry VIII. W. XIX, 90-92. 75

of men great, in order to attract the ignorant rabble, who are led only by the appearance of works, to the great detriment of the faith, to the forgetfulness of baptism and to the harm of Christian freedom. For since a vow is a kind of law and a compulsion, when the vows are increased, the laws and works are necessarily also increased; but when these are increased, faith is destroyed and the freedom of baptism is taken captive. Not content with this ungodly flattery, some add that entrance into a religious order is, as it were, a new baptism, which may be renewed as often as the resolution to enter the order is repeated anew. 1) Thus these people who deal in vows have appropriated to themselves alone righteousness, blessedness, and glory; to the baptized they have left nothing at all by which they can be compared with them. The Roman bishop, the source and originator of all superstition, now confirms, approves, and adorns these ways of life with splendid bulls and liberties, but no one dignifies baptism with even a mention. And with this apparent pomp, as I have said, they drive the willing people of Christ wherever they please, so that, as ingrates against their baptism, they presume to do better with their works than others do with their faith.

That is why God, who is again wicked with the wicked Ps. 18, 27., and wants to avenge the ingratitude and arrogance of those who deal with vows, that they do not keep their vows, or keep them with great difficulty, and remain engrossed in their vows and never recognize the grace of faith and baptism, and because their spirit does not trust in God, constantly persist in their gilding, and in the end are a mockery to the whole world, always pursuing righteousness and yet never coming to righteousness, so that they fulfill the words Isa. 2, 8: "The land is full of idols.

1. I.e., if one repents of having entered the monastery, he should renew the resolution and accept it, and the new resolution would be as good for him as if he had been baptized anew. Cf. Walch, St. Louis Edition, Vol. XII, 1137 f" § 19.

However, I do not want to forbid or resist if someone secretly wants to vow something of his own free will, so that I do not even despise or condemn the vows. But that a public way of life should be made and confirmed out of it, I completely deny. It is enough that everyone is allowed to make vows for himself, at his own risk; but that a public way of living in vows to be made should be praised, I think it is harmful to the church and to simple people. First of all, because it is not a little contrary to the Christian life, because a vow is, so to speak, an external law and a human statute and presumption, from which the church is freed by baptism. For a Christian is not bound by any law except the divine. Furthermore, because the vow especially of chastity, obedience and constant poverty has no example in Scripture. But what has no example in Scripture is dangerous, and should by no means be advised to anyone, much less be considered a common and public way of life, although each one may be left to do as he pleases at his own peril. For some works the Spirit works in a few, who are by no means to be attracted to an example or to a common way of life.

But I am also very concerned that such ways of putting life under monastic vows will be among the number of those prophesied by the apostle: There will be false speakers in the gypsophone, who forbid to become married and to avoid the food that God has created to take with thanksgiving 1 Tim. 4, 2. f.. Let no one hold St. Bernard, Franciscus, Dominic and similar religious founders or multipliers against me. For God is terrifying and wonderful in His counsels over the children of men. He could have preserved Daniel, Ananias, Azariah and Mishael in the administration of the Babylonian kingdom (that is, in the midst of ungodliness); why could He not have sanctified them in a dangerous way of life or governed them with a special work of the spirit, which He did not want to be an example to others? And it is certain that their

76 L. V. L. V. 74-76. 69 On the Babylonian Captivity of the Church. W. XIX, 92-9P. 77

no one is saved by his vows or spiritual orders, but only by faith, through which we are all saved. This seemingly beautiful bondage of vows is the most vehement argument against it.

But let each one of you indulge in his own thoughts here; I will continue with what I have begun with. Because I now want to speak for the freedom of the church and for the price of baptism, I must share the advice I have learned through the instruction of the Holy Spirit. Therefore I counsel first of all the rulers (magnatibus) of the churches that they annul all these vows or ways of life of those who have made vows, or neither approve nor exalt them, or, if they would not do so, I counsel all who wish to be the more surely saved, that they abstain from all vows, and most of all from the great and constant ones, especially young men and youths. This I advise first, because such a life, as I have said, has no testimony nor example in Scripture, but has been blown up only by men, popes, bulls, even real bulls or water bladders. After that, because it is inclined to glitter because of its beautiful appearance and peculiarity, hopefulness and contempt for the common Christian life grows out of it. And if there were no other reason for abolishing such vows, this alone would have weight enough, that by them much is taken away from faith and baptism, and works are made great, which cannot be made great without harm, for among many thousands there is hardly one who does not hold works in the orders in higher esteem than faith. Through this frenzy, one wants to be better than the other, as if some had to live harder, the others not so hard (strictiores et laxiores), as they speak.

Therefore, I do not advise anyone, indeed I discourage anyone, to enter a religious order or priesthood unless he is equipped with such knowledge that he understands that the works of religious and priests, however holy and high they may be, are not at all different in the sight of God from the works of a peasant who works on the land.

or of a woman who waits on her household; but that all things be esteemed before God according to faith, as it is said in Jer. 5:3: "O LORD, thine eyes do see according to faith." And Sirach 33:27: "What you undertake, trust in GOD with all your heart, for this is GOD's commandment kept." Yes, it often happens that a domestic and minor work of a servant or a maid is more pleasing than all the fasting and all the works of a religious and the priests, for lack of faith. Since it is therefore probable that nowadays the vows only serve to make the works praiseworthy and to make one more presumptuous, it is to be feared that nowhere is there less of the faith and of the church than precisely in the priests, monks and bishops, and that they are the true pagans and hypocrites who consider themselves to be the church or the heart of the church, likewise spiritual people and regents of the church, since they are nothing less than that; and it is to be supposed that the common Christian people are the right people, who have been led into Babylonian captivity, where all that was freely given to us in baptism has been taken captive; and a few and poor country people have been left, who, as it happens to the married people, appear very little in their sight.

From this we see two outstanding errors of the Roman bishop. The first is that he dispenses with the vows and acts as if he alone had this authority over all Christians. So great is the wickedness and boldness of the wicked. For if a vow can be dispensed with, every brother can also make this dispensation with his neighbor, and he with himself. But if the neighbor cannot dispense, then the pope cannot dispense with any right. For from where does he have this power? From the keys? But these are common to all, and apply only to sins, Matt. 18. But since they themselves confess that the vows are divine right, what then does the pope deceive and corrupt the wretched souls by dispensing in divine right, in which he does not allow himself to be dispensed? In the title of the vows and the dissolution of the vows, he cackles that he does not want the vows to be dissolved.

78 L.v. L. V, 76f. XIII Luther's dispute with Henry VIII. W. XIX, 95-97. 79

The first birth of an ass could be solved with a sheep, just as in the old law of old. Just as if the first birth of an ass and a vow were one and the same, of which he so constantly requires that it must be performed, or if the Lord decrees in his law that a sheep can be given for an ass, so also a man, the pope, would like to have the same power in the law, which is not his but God's. The same is true for the vow. If the Lord decrees in his law that a sheep can be given for a donkey, then a man, the pope, would have the same authority in the law, which is not his but God's. This decree was not made by the pope, but by an ass substituted for the pope; so extraordinarily foolish and godless is he.

The other error is that he decrees to break up the marriage if one of the spouses enters a monastery, even without the will of the other, if the marriage has not yet been consummated by conjugal cohabitation. Dear, what devil blows such monstrous things into the head of the pope? God commands man to keep the pledge, and one to take care of the truth against the other. After that, God commands that each one of his own should do good, for "he hates predatory burnt offerings," as he speaks through Isaiah Cap. 61, 8. Now a husband owes the other a promise to keep because of the contract, and is not his own. He cannot cancel such a promise with any right, and what he does of his own, he does of the robbery, against the will of the other. Or why does not someone who is overburdened with debts, according to this rule, enter a religious order and be admitted, so that he may be relieved of his debts, and thus be allowed to deny faithfulness and good faith (fidem)? O blind men! you blind men! Which is greater: to keep the fidelity commanded by God, or the vow invented and chosen by a man? You Pabst are a shepherd of souls? and you are teachers of the holy teachings of God, who teach this? But for what reasons do you teach this way? Because you honor vows more than marriage. But not faith, which alone makes everything great, but works, which are nothing before God, or are all equal as far as merit is concerned.

Therefore, I do not doubt, there can be in the

I am not sure yet whether all the things that are vowed nowadays belong to the vows. But I am not yet quite sure myself whether all these things belong to the vows that are vowed nowadays. Such is the strangely ridiculous and foolish vow that parents pledge their unborn or even young child to a religious order or to constant chastity, since it is certain that this does not belong under any vows. And it seems to be a mockery of God, in that they vow things that are not in their power at all. I come to the religious, whose three vows I understand all the less the more I look at them, and I wonder where this sharp requirement of vows came from. And I understand that even less, in which year of age such vows can happen, so that they are lawful and valid. I like that they all agree that before the years of manhood their vows are invalid, although they deceive a large part of the children here, who do not know their age as well as the thing they vow. For in the case of those who are to be admitted, they do not take into account the years of manhood, imprisoning and devouring those who have taken the vow (professos) with a terrible conscience, as if the consent had been given later, as if the vow, which in itself was void, would finally become valid with time.

But this seems foolish to me, that a certain time should be set by others for the lawful vow of another, who cannot set the time for himself. Nor do I see why a vow made in the eighteenth year should be valid, but not that made in the tenth or twelfth. Nor does he satisfy me who would say that in the eighteenth year man feels his carnal desire. How if he hardly felt it in the twentieth or thirtieth year, or perhaps felt it more strongly in the thirtieth than in the twentieth? Or why don't you set a certain time for poverty and obedience? But what time will you determine, in which he should become aware that he is miserly or hopeful? For even the most spiritual notice

80 D. V. a. V, 77-7p . 69. Of the Babylonian captivity of the church. W. XIX, V7-100. 81

these impulses hardly in themselves. Therefore, no vow will be certain and legitimate until we have become spiritual and no longer need vows. So you see that these things are uncertain and very dangerous. Therefore it would be a salutary counsel if such high kinds of life, freed from vows, were left to the spirit alone, as they have been for ages, and not at all changed into the kind of a steady life. And this be enough of baptism and its freedom for the time being. In due time, I will perhaps speak more extensively of the vows, as it would be very necessary to treat them in detail.

Of the Sacrament of Penance.

Thirdly, the sacrament of penance is to be discussed here. In this matter, I have already enraged many through several tracts and disputations that I have published, and I have amply explained what my opinion of it is. Now I want to repeat recently in order to reveal the tyranny that has become no less prevalent here than in the Sacrament of Bread. For in these two sacraments, since profit and greed for money prevail, the avarice of the shepherds has raged unbelievably against the sheep of Christ. However, as we have already seen in the case of the vows, baptism, too, in order that avarice might be served, has miserably perished in adults.

The first and the main evil in this sacrament is that this sacrament has been completely taken away by them, so that nothing of it has remained. For since it also, like the other two sacraments, consists of the word of the divine promise and our faith, they have thrown both overboard. For the word of promise, when Christ says Matth. 16, 19: "All that you will bind" 2c. and Cap. 18, 18: "All that you will bind" and Joh. 20, 23: "Whose soever sins you remit, they are remitted to them" 2c., by which words the faith of those who repent is awakened to obtain the remission of sins, they have used for the purpose of their tyranny. For in all their books, doctrines

In their sermons and lectures they did not try to teach what was promised to the Christians in these words, what they should believe and what comfort they had, but how wide, how far, how deep they could drive their tyranny with their power and authority, until finally some began to command even the angels in heaven, and boast with unbelievable and furious godlessness that with these words they had received the authority to rule in heaven and on earth, also the authority to bind in heaven. So they teach nothing at all about the salvific faith of the people, but they talk all about the tyrannical power of the popes, since Christ deals nothing with power, but everything with faith.

For Christ has not ordained kingdoms, not powers, not dominions, but ministries in His Church. As we have learned from the apostle, who says: "For this purpose let us all be servants and stewards of the mysteries of God for Christ" 1 Cor. 4:1. Therefore, just as in the place where he says, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved," he has awakened the faith of those who are to be baptized, so that by this word of promise a man may be sure, when he is baptized and believes, that he will be saved, where no authority has been given at all, but only a ministry has been ordained for those who baptize; so also here, where he says, "All that thou shalt bind," 2c, he awakens the faith of the penitent, so that by this word he may be sure of the promise when he is delivered, and may believe that he is also truly delivered in heaven, where nothing at all is spoken of violence, but of the ministry of him who redeems. And it is to be wondered at what must have happened to blind and trusting men that they did not also draw tyranny to themselves from the promise of baptism, or, because they did not arrogate the same to themselves from baptism, why they might have undertaken it in the promise of repentance, since in both places there is the same service, the same promise, and the same nature of the sacrament, so that it cannot be denied that, if baptism is not solely for the

82 L. V.". V, 7S-81. xIII Luther's dispute with Henry VIII. W. XIX, 100-102. 83

Peter, even the keys with godless tyranny are assigned to the pope alone.

Likewise, when he breaks: "Take, this is my body, which is given for you; this is the cup in my blood," 2c., he awakens the faith of those who eat, so that, with these words their consciences being fortified by faith, they may be sure that they will receive forgiveness of sins when they eat. And here no violence is thought of, but only of service. But the promise of baptism has at least remained for the underage children; the promise of the bread and the cup has expired and changed into a servitude of avarice, and faith has become a work and the testament a sacrifice. The promise of atonement has been transformed into a very cruel tyranny, and it must be considered more than a worldly rule.

Our Babylon was not satisfied with this. She also eradicated faith so completely that she insolently denied that faith was necessary in this sacrament; indeed, out of anti-Christian godlessness, she declared it a heresy if anyone claimed that faith was necessary in this sacrament. What more has this tyranny done, and has it not done? "We sit right by the waters of Babel, and weep when we remember Zion. Our harps we hang upon the willows that are within" Ps. 137:1, 2. God curse these barren pastures of these rivers, Amen. Now that the promise and faith have been darkened and overturned, let us see what they have put in their place. They have given three parts to repentance: repentance, confession, and atonement; but they have taken away from each what was good in it, and have put their will and tyranny into it.

First of all, they taught repentance in such a way that they preferred it far above faith in the promise and considered it far better 1) because it was not a work of faith but a work of faith.

1. We have adopted the reading of the Jena edition, meliorsm, instead of viliorsm in the Erlangen edition.

merit. Yes, they do not even remember faith. For so they have been attached to works and to the examples of the Scriptures, in which it is read that many have obtained forgiveness because of their heart's repentance and humiliation. But they did not pay attention to the faith that worked such repentance and pain of heart, as it is written about the Ninevites, Jonah 3, 5: "The people of Nineveh believed in God, and preached that one should fast" 2c. Those who are even bolder and angrier than these have invented a kind of half repentance (attritionem), which by the power of the keys (which they do not know) becomes a true repentance. This half repentance (attritionem) they give to the wicked and unbelievers, so that the whole repentance may be taken away. O of the unbearable wrath of God! Should this be taught in the Church of God? Now that faith and its work is done, we walk safely in the teachings and opinions of men, and we perish in them. It is a great thing about a broken heart, and this comes only from the faith that is kindled against the promise and the threat of God. [It is this faith that looks at the immovable truth of God, trembles, frightens, and so contriteizes the conscience, and again elevates and comforts, and sustains the contrite conscience, so that the truth of the threat of God is the cause of the new, and the truth of the promise is the cause of comfort, if one believes, and man obtains forgiveness of sins through this faith. For this reason, faith should be taught and awakened above all things. But when faith has been obtained, repentance and consolation will infallibly follow of their own accord.

Therefore, although these teach something that (as they call it) from the collection (collectu) and contemplation of their sins they teach to procure a repentance, yet they teach dangerously and unjustly, in that they do not first teach the causes and the beginning of repentance, namely, the immovable truth of the divine threat and promise, in order to awaken faith, so that they may understand how they can with greater difficulty accept the divine truth, by which they are humbled and exalted.

84 V. L. V, 81 f. 69. Of the Babylonian captivity of the church. W. XIX,'102-105. 85

than the multitude of their sins, which, if they are considered without the truth of God, will rather stimulate and increase the desire to sin than to cause repentance. I mention here the insurmountable amount of burdens they have laid upon us, namely, that we should bring forth repentance for all sins, since this is impossible, and we can know the least part of the sins, yes, even the good works are found to be sins, as Ps. 143, 2. is written: "Lord, do not enter into judgment with your servant, for before you no living man is righteous." For it is enough that we repent of the sins which trouble us in our conscience, and which are easily recalled in our memory. For he who is thus frightened is undoubtedly ready to repent and fear all sins, and will repent and fear them where they will be revealed to him in the future.

Therefore, beware that you do not trust in your repentance or attribute the remission of sins to your pain. For God does not look upon you for this, but for your faith, by which you believed His threatenings and promises, which wrought in you such sorrow; and therefore that which is good in repentance shall not be imputed to your diligence in gathering up your sins, but to the truth of God and to our faith. All other things are works and fruits that follow of themselves, and do not make a good man, but happen to one who has already become good through faith in the truth of GOD. "Vapor went up from his nose, and consuming fire from his mouth; the foundations of the mountains stirred, and trembled, because he was angry," as it is said Ps. 18, 9. 8. The former is the terror of the threat that sets the wicked on fire; now when faith receives this terror, repentance goes up from it like a vapor 2c.

But repentance has been exposed not so much to tyranny and greed for gain as to godlessness and pernicious doctrines. Confession and atonement, however, are excellent workshops of profit.

and violence. First of all, confession. There is no doubt that confession of sins is necessary and commanded by God Matth. 3, 6: "They were baptized by John in the Jordan and confessed their sins. 1 John 1:9, 10: "If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins. If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us." For if it is not fitting for the saints to deny their sins, how much more should those confess their sins who are afflicted with public and great sins! But the confession made is most powerfully proved in Matt. 18:15 ff, where Christ teaches to punish the brother who sins against you, to denounce and accuse him to the congregation; and if he will not hear, to cast him out of the congregation. For then he will hear, if he will acknowledge and confess his sins and willingly submit to the punishment.

But the secret confession, which is now in use, although it cannot be proved from Scripture, is wonderfully pleasing to me, and is also useful, indeed, necessary; and I would not wish it not to be, but rejoice that it is in the church of Christ, since it is an immense help to troubled consciences. For when our conscience is thus exposed to our brother and the evil that lay hidden is secretly revealed, we receive a word of comfort from the mouth of our brother, spoken by God; if we accept this with faith, we obtain peace in the mercy of God, who speaks to us through the brother. But I detest the fact that such confession has been turned into a tyranny and money-grubbing of the popes. For they also reserve secret sins for themselves and then command them to be revealed to some confessors whom they have appointed for this purpose, namely, to torment the consciences of men; they only want to be bishops; the true works that are due to bishops, such as preaching the gospel and caring for the poor, are completely despised by them. Yes, these godless tyrants reserve for themselves mainly the sins that have less on them, but the great sins-

86 L. v. L. v, W-84. xIII Luther's dispute with Henry VIII. W. xix, ios-iv8. 87

They leave it to the common priests everywhere. Such are the ridiculous and fictitious pieces in the Bull of the Lord's Supper (coenae Domini). Yes, in order that the ungodliness of their perverse nature may become all the more evident, they not only do not reserve, but also teach and approve what goes against the honor of God, against the faith and the first commandments. These are pilgrimages, perverse veneration of the saints, false legends of the saints, and various reliance on and practice of works and ceremonies. Through all this, the faith of God is eradicated and idolatry is cultivated, as is happening today, so that we now have no other bishops than Jeroboam of old appointed in Dau and Bersaba, servants of the golden calves, who do not know the law of God, the faith and what belongs to the pasture of Christ's sheep, but only impose their imaginary works on the people with fear and violence.

Although I advise that one should suffer this power of reserved cases, just as Christ also commanded to suffer all tyranny, and taught us to be obedient to these money grubbers: nevertheless I do not admit that they have such power of reservation, nor do I believe that they can prove it with a bag or a letter. But I will prove the opposite. First, when Christ says Matth. 18, 15. says of public sins that we have won our brother's soul when he is punished and hears us, and that it is not necessary to report him to the church, because he does not want to hear us, and so the sin among the brothers can be corrected, how much more will this be true of secret sins, that they are taken away when one brother has willingly confessed the sin to another, that it is not necessary to tell the church, that is, the prelates or priests (as they talk and interpret). About this opinion we have another proven saying of Christ, who says Matth. 18, 18: "What you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and what you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." This is true for all and for every single Christian-

He also speaks again in reference to the same thing, v. 19: "Further I say unto you: If two of you become one on earth, why it is that they desire to ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven." But a brother who opens his secrecy to another and desires forgiveness truly becomes one on earth with his brother in the truth that is Christ. Christ speaks of this even more clearly, confirming his words v. 20: "Verily, verily, I say unto you, where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them."

Therefore I do not doubt that he is absolved from his secret sins who either confesses them voluntarily or, if he has been punished for them, has sought forgiveness and has reformed, before every brother in particular (privately), regardless of what the popes rage against with their power, because Christ has clearly given every believer the power to absolve. Add another small reason: if any reservation should apply to hidden sins, that without their remission no one would be saved, then most of all the things I mentioned above, yes, even the good works and idolatry that the popes teach us today, would hinder salvation. If the most difficult ones do not hinder, how much less should the easier ones be reserved in such an exceedingly foolish way? But the ignorant and blind shepherds cause these adventurous things in the church. Therefore I would exhort these princes of Babylon and bishops of Bethaven to restrain themselves in reserving any cases of sins, and then to freely allow all brothers and sisters to hear the confession of secret sins, so that the sinner may reveal his sin to whom he wishes, if he desires forgiveness and consolation, that is, the word of Christ from the mouth of his neighbor. For they aim at nothing else by such an outrage than to entrap the consciences of the weak without cause, to confirm their nefarious tyranny and to satisfy their avarice from the sins and the ruin of their brethren.

88 D. V. E. V, 84-86. 69 On the Babylonian Captivity of the Church. W. XIX, I08-NV. 89

For in this way they stain their hands with the blood of souls, and the children are swallowed up by their parents, and Ephraim swallows up Judah, and Syria Israel with an open mouth, as Isaiah says.

To these evil things they have added circumstances, as well as mothers, sisters, daughters, brothers-in-law, branches and fruits of sins; for all this is invented by shrewd and idle people, who have also made in sins a kind of tree of kinship and affinity; so fruitful is godlessness and ignorance. For this their fiction (be it what it will) has become a common law, as well as many others. For so the shepherds watch over the church of Christ, that they adorn with indulgences and confirm with bulls all that which these most foolish holy people (devotariis) have dreamed of superstition or new works, as soon as it has come to light. So much is lacking that they should instill the right faith in the people of God and preserve their freedom, for what kind of fellowship does freedom have with Babylonian tyranny?

But I advise to completely despise all circumstances of sins. With Christians, there is only One circumstance, which is that the brother has sinned. For no person can be compared to the Christian brotherhood, and the observation of the circumstances of the place, time, days, persons, or any other such pompous superstition, does nothing but magnify the things that are nothing, to the detriment of those that are everything, as if something more excellent and greater would be than the dignity of the Christian brotherhood. Thus they bind us to places, days, and persons, that thereby the esteem (opinio) of the fraternal name may be destroyed, and that we may serve captivity instead of liberty, we to whom all days, places, persons, and what is external, are alike.

I have said more than necessary in the trade of indulgences, which they have greatly abused to corrupt the Christians in body and soul, about how clumsily they have taught about it. First of all, they have so

that the people could never understand true satisfaction, which is a renewal of life. After this they continue and make it so necessary that they leave no room for faith in Christ, and with doubt they torture the consciences of the people quite miserably, so that one runs to Rome, one here, another there, this one to the Carthusian, that one to another place; one scourges himself with ruts, another kills his body with fasting and vigil; but with one and the same nonsense they all speak: Behold, here is Christ, there is Christ, and the kingdom of God, which is within us, and suppose that it shall come by their observances (observationibus). What monstrosities, O Roman See, we owe to you and your murderous laws and customs, with which you have so corrupted the whole world that they think they can do enough for their sins with their works of God, which alone is enough through the faith of a contrite heart. Not only do you keep faith quiet by making such noise, but you also suppress it, only so that your insatiable hedgehog may have such people to whom he says: Bring here, bring here, and sell sin.

Among these, some have come forth who have devised all the cunning to bring men's souls to despair, and have therefore established that a confessor must recount all the sins for which he has not yet made the atonement laid upon him. But what should not those be subject to who are born to bring everything into tenfold captivity? Furthermore, how many think that they are in a state of blessedness and that they have made amends for their sins, when they merely mouth the little prayers laid on them by the priest, even though in the meantime they do not intend to amend their lives? For they believe that in the one moment of their repentance and confession their whole life is improved; but only this is left, that they do enough for the past sins. But how could they understand otherwise, since they are not taught otherwise? Here, nothing is thought of the death of the flesh; here, nothing is thought of the death of the flesh.

90 D. V. a. V, 86-88. xIII Luther's dispute with Henry VIII. W. XIX, II0-II3. 91

even the example of Christ is not valid, when he absolves the adulteress and says to her: "Go and sin no more", Joh. 8, 11. and thereby lays out the cross for her to kill her flesh. A not insignificant cause of this erroneous opinion has been given by the fact that we absolve sinners before the satisfaction has been fulfilled, by which means they are more concerned about fulfilling the satisfaction that lasts than about repentance, which, as they believe, passes away under confession; since, on the other hand, absolution, as it was in the first church, should follow when satisfaction was fulfilled, so that afterwards, when the work ceases, they might exercise themselves the more in faith and renewal of life. This may now be repeated enough of what I have said more extensively in the booklet on indulgences, and herewith enough should be said of these three sacraments in general, which are taught and not taught in so many harmful books dealing with the sentences and rights. It remains to write something about the other sacraments as well, so that I am not considered to have rejected them without cause.

From the firming.

I wonder what occurred to them that they made a sacrament of confirmation out of the laying on of hands, since we read of this laying on of hands that Christ touched the little children, that the apostles gave the Holy Spirit, ordained priests, and healed the sick, as St. Paul writes to Timothy: "Let no one lay on hands soon" 1 Tim. 5:22. Why did they not also make a confirmation out of the Sacrament of Bread, since it is written Apost. 9, 19: "When he had taken the food, he was strengthened", and in the 104th Psalm, v. 15: "And the bread of man's heart strengthened", so that the confirmation understands three sacraments, the bread, the ordination and the confirmation itself? But if what the apostles did is a sacrament, why did they not make the sermon much more of a sacrament?

I'm not talking about that because I have the seven Sacra

I do not reject the idea of the laying on of hands, but because I do not admit that it can be proven from the Holy Scriptures. And if God wanted such an imposition of hands to be in the Church as it was in the time of the apostles, we might call it a confirmation or a healing. But nothing is left of it now, except as much as we ourselves have devised, to appoint the offices of the bishops, so that they may not be entirely without performance in the church. For after they had ordered the burdensome sacraments at the same time as the lesser ones to the subordinates (namely, because everything that the divine majesty has ordered must be despised), it was also reasonable that we should invent something easy that would not be burdensome to such tender and great heroes, and by no means entrust it as a lesser thing to the subordinates. For what human wisdom ordains, it is right that it should be held in honor among men. Therefore, whatever the priests are, they should have such service and office. For a bishop who does not preach the gospel and care for souls, what is he but an idol in the world, who alone has the name and form of a bishop?

For our part, we desire the sacraments instituted by God. But that we should count Confirmation among them, we have no reason to do so. For to the institution of a sacrament belongs first of all the word of the divine promise, by which faith is to be exercised. Now nowhere do we find that Christ promised anything about confirmation, although he laid his hands on many, and in the last v. 18, among other signs, Marci says: "They will lay their hands on the sick, and it will be better for them. But no one has made this a sacrament, nor could he. Therefore it is enough that Confirmation be considered a custom of the Church or a sacramental ceremony, like the other ceremonies of consecrated water and other things. For since all other creatures are sanctified by the word and prayer, why should not man much more be sanctified by them, even though, since they have no divine promise, they are not sacraments of faith?

92 L. v. a. v, ss f. 69. Of the Babylonian captivity of the church. W. xix, 113-116. 93

can be called? For they do not work salvation. But the sacraments are given to those who believe God's promise.

From marriage.

Marriage is not only held to be a sacrament without any Scripture, but by the same human statutes according to which it is praised as a sacrament, a mere mockery has been made of it; let us see something of this. We have said that in every sacrament there is a word of divine promise which is to be believed by him who receives the sign, and that a sign alone cannot be a sacrament. Now, nowhere does one find that he who takes a wife obtains some grace from God, indeed, not even a sign is instituted in marriage by God Himself. For it is nowhere read that it was instituted by GOD for this reason, so that it should mean something; although everything that is visibly acted upon can be understood as figures and allegories of invisible things. Nevertheless, the figures and allegories are not sacraments, as we speak of the sacraments.

Therefore, since marriage has been from the beginning of the world and still remains with unbelievers, there are no reasons why marriage can be called a sacrament of the new law and of the church alone. For the marriage of the ancient fathers was no less holy than ours, and the marriage of unbelievers is just as proper a marriage as that of believers; and yet they do not consider it a sacrament among them. Moreover, among believers there are many ungodly husbands and wives, who are even more wicked than any pagans; why then should marriage be called a sacrament among us and not among the pagans? Shall we speak of baptism and the church as foolishly as some do: that as the temporal kingdom is only in the church, so marriage is nowhere a sacrament but in the church? These are childish and ridiculous things, by which we expose our ignorance and iniquity to the ridicule of unbelievers.

But they want to speak: the apostle says Eph. 5, 31: "There will be two One flesh.

this is a great sacrament." Do you then want to contradict such a clear word of the apostle? I answer that this argument also indicates a sleepy, industrious, and careless reader. For this word "sacrament" is found in all the Scriptures, not in the sense in which we use it, but in the opposite one. For it means everywhere, not a sign of a sacred thing, but a sacred, secret and hidden thing. So Paul writes in 1 Cor. 4:1: "For this let every man count us, that is, Christ's ministers, and stewards of God's mysteries," 1) that is, of the sacraments. For where we have in Latin "sacrament," in the Greek language it is "mystery" (μυστήριον), which is the

Interpreter sometimes translates, but sometimes he leaves out the Greek word; therefore also here in the Greek it is said: There shall be two One flesh, which is a great mystery (mysterium). This has caused them to understand marriage for a sacrament of the new law, which would not have happened if they had read "mystery" (xxxxxxxxx), as in the Greek

stands.

St. Paul calls Christ Himself a sacrament in 1 Tim. 3, 16, saying: "Great is the holy sacrament (that is mystery), which was revealed in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, appeared to the angels, preached to the Gentiles, believed on by the world, and received up into glory. Why then did they not also take from this the eighth sacrament of the new law, since they have such clear testimony of Paul? Or if they abstained here, where they could have most easily invented many sacraments, why are they so wasteful there? Yes, they have been deceived both by ignorance of things and of words; indeed, they have stuck to their own opinions. For once they had taken the sacrament for a sign according to human opinion, they immediately made a sign out of the word sacrament without any judgment and without hesitation (scrupulo).

1. In the Erlangen edition: ministeriorum instead of m^stsriorurn, which the Jena one offers.

94 L. v. ". v, 89-si. XIII Luther's dispute with Henry VIII. W. xix,n6-ii8. 95

all, where they have read it in the holy scripture. These interpretations of the words, human habits, and others, they have brought into the holy scripture, and have perverted the same to their dreams, and have made everything out of everything. Thus they are always nonsensical in these words: a good work, an evil work, sin, grace, righteousness, virtue, and almost all, which are the noblest words and things. For they use all these words according to their liking, as they have taken it from the writings of men, to the ruin of the truth of God and our salvation.

Therefore, the sacrament and the mystery of St. Paul is the wisdom of the spirit itself, which is hidden in the mystery, as he says in 1 Cor. 2:7: "This wisdom is Christ, who also for this reason is not known by the rulers of this world; therefore they have also crucified him, and he still remains to them a foolishness, an offense, a stumbling block and the sign that is contradicted. The stewards of these mysteries are called preachers, because they preach Christ, the power and wisdom of God, but in such a way that if you do not believe it, you will not understand it. Therefore Sacramentum is a mystery and hidden thing, which is indicated with words, but understood with the faith of the heart. Such a sacrament is also this, of which we speak here: There shall be two in one flesh, which is a great mystery Eph. 5:31. This, they think, is spoken of marriage, whereas Paul introduced these words of Christ and the church, and explains himself by saying, But I say of Christ and the church v. 32. See then how they and St. Paul agree with each other. St. Paul says he preaches a great mystery of Christ and the church; so they preach it of the man and the woman. If in such a way they are free to interpret the holy scriptures as they please, it is no wonder that they make a hundred more sacraments out of the whole holy scripture.

So Christ and the Church is a mystery, that is, a great and hidden thing, which can well be represented by marriage,

than in an intelligible interpretation; but therefore marriage should not be called a sacrament. The heavens are a figure of the apostles, as it is said in the 19th Psalm v. 1; and the sun a figure of Christ, v. 5, the waters a figure of the nations, but therefore they are not sacraments. For there the institution and promise of God is lacking, which make a sacrament complete (integrant). For this reason, Paul in Eph. 5, 30. 31. applies the words that are spoken of marriage in Gen. 2, 23. 24. either from his own spirit to Christ, or he teaches in a general sentence (sententia generali) that the spiritual marriage of Christ is also understood by this, saying: "Just as Christ cares for the church, for we are members of his body, of his flesh and of his bones. Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife, and two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery [[sacramentum]]{.underline}. I say of Christ and the church." You see that he wants all these words to be said of Christ and diligently warns the reader to understand this mystery of Christ and the church, not of marriage.

I admit that the sacrament of repentance was also in the old law, even from the beginning of the world; but the new promise of repentance, and the gift of the keys, is peculiar to the new law. For as for circumcision we have baptism, so for sacrifices or other signs of repentance we now have the keys. We have said before that God also gave different promises and signs at different times to forgive sins and to make men blessed, since they have all received One grace, as Paul 2 Cor. 4, 13. 14. says: "We have the same spirit of faith, and we believe, therefore we speak." And 1 Cor. 10:3, 4: "Our fathers all ate the same kind of spiritual food, and all drank the same kind of spiritual drink. But they drank of the spiritual rock which followed, which was Christ." So also Heb. 11:39, 40: These all died, and "received not the promise, because that God had provided some better thing for us first, that they should not be made perfect without us." For "JEsus Chri-

96 L. v. a. v, si-93. 69. Of the Babylonian captivity of the church. W. xn, iis-121. 97

stus yesterday, today and forever" Heb 13:8. He is the head of his church from the beginning to the end of the world. The signs are therefore different, but all have the same faith; for, "without faith it is impossible to please God" Heb. 11:6, by which also Abel pleased God v. 4.

Therefore, let marriage be a model of Christ and the church, not a sacrament instituted by God, but invented by men in the church, because they are misled by ignorance both of the things themselves and of the Word. And if it does not harm the faith, it is to be tolerated in love; just as many other human statutes that stem from weakness and ignorance are tolerated in the church, as long as they are not contrary to faith and the divine Scriptures. But we now defend the pure faith and the true sacred Scriptures, lest, by asserting that something is comprehended in the sacred Scriptures and in the articles of our faith, and being afterwards convicted that it is not comprehended therein, we expose our faith to ridicule, and by ignorance in our own self-discovered matters cause offense to the adversaries and weak believers, nay, burden the sacred Scriptures with something improper. For the things that are founded by God in the holy Scriptures must be very widely distinguished from the things that are invented in the church by men, no matter how holy and learned they may have been.

Let this be said of marriage in and of itself. But what shall we say of the ungodly laws of men, by which this way of life instituted by God is entangled and the supreme is turned to the lower? O kind God, I am afraid to look at the outrage of the Roman tyrants, who only tear up and force marriage again according to their liking. My dear, is it then up to their arbitrariness to mock the human race and to abuse it in every way, and to exercise all courage on them for the sake of filthy money?

It is in many people's hands and is very highly respected a book that is made of all the filth of human teachings as a dung pit.

The title of this book is: Summa angeIica 1) its angelic epitome, which in truth is a more than diabolical summa, in which eighteen obstacles to marriage are listed among innumerable abominable things, by which the confessors are supposed to be instructed, while they are disgracefully confused. If one looks at these with a free eye of faith, one will see that they are from the number of those of whom Paul prophesied 1 Tim. 4:1, 2, "They shall cleave to the seducing spirits and doctrines of devils, through them that speak lies in glibness, and forbid to be married." What is forbidding marriage, if it is not forbidding to invent so many obstacles, and to lay ropes, so that one does not take up marriage, or so that those who are already married are divorced from each other again? Who gave man this power? After all, they may have been holy and guided by pious zeal, but how can an alien holiness harm my freedom? How can another's zeal take me captive? Let him be a saint and a zealot, whoever he wants and as long as he wants; only that he harms no one else and does not take away my freedom.

However, I am glad that the shameful laws have finally received their rightful honor, because through them the Romans have become merchants today. But what do they sell? Female and male private parts. A commodity quite worthy of such merchants, who are nothing but stink and impurity because of avarice and impiety. And nowadays there is no obstacle that does not become a lawful thing through the mediation of mammon, so that these laws of men seem to have arisen for no other reason than that they should be nets of money and snares of souls to such miserly men and predatory nimrods, and this abomination should stand in the church of God in the holy place, which is open to men.

1. The author of this book is Angelus Carletus.

äe dlavssio (Chiavasso), Vicar General of the Franciscans in Italy, who died in 1494 or 1495. (Erlanger Ausgabe.) ,,

98 L. V. a. V, p3-95. XIII Luther's dispute with Henry VIII. W. XIX, 121 f. 99

The shame of both sexes, or (as the Scripture calls it) shame and abomination, which they had previously taken to themselves by the power of their laws. O! a beautiful merchant class worthy of our popes, which they use instead of the service of the gospel, which they despise because of avarice and hopefulness, and therefore are given away with great shame and disgrace in a perverse sense.

But what should I say or do? If I were to explain each of them in detail, it would be too much to talk about. For everything is so confused that one does not know where to begin, continue or end. [I know that no matter for the common good can be salutary governed by laws. For if there is a wise authority, it will govern more blissfully under the guidance of nature than by laws. But if it is not wise, it will bring about only evil by laws, because it does not know how to use them, nor how to adapt them to the conditions of the times. Therefore, it is necessary to take more care in a community that good and understanding people are at the top than that laws are given. For they themselves will be the best laws and will judge all different cases with right (vivaci) equity. Now if there is a right knowledge of divine things, combined with natural prudence, it is entirely superfluous and harmful to have written laws; but above all, love needs no laws at all. 1) But I say, and do as much as is in me, request and admonish all priests and brothers, where they see an obstacle in which the pope can slacken something, although it would not be expressed in Scripture, that they absolutely confirm all such marriages, which may have been concluded contrary to the church or the popes' laws. They should thus protect themselves with the divine law, which says Matth. 19, 6: "What God has joined together, let not man put asunder." For the union of man and woman takes place according to the divine right; the same remains, even if human laws are violated in every possible way, and there shall be

1. What is enclosed here in square brackets is found in the original edition, but not in the Wittenberg and Jena editions.

to whom all human laws give way without any hesitation. For if a man forsake his father and mother, and cleave to his wife, how much more shall he set aside the foolish and unjust laws of men, that he may cleave to his wife? And the pope, bishop or official, who breaks any marriage that is made against the papal laws, is an antichrist, violator of nature, and guilty of insulting the divine majesty, because the saying remains: "What God has joined together, let not man put asunder.

Add that man has no power nor right to make such laws, and that Christians have been given liberty by Christ over all the laws of men, especially where the divine law intervenes, as he says, Marci 2:28, 27: "The Son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath"; and, "Man was not made for the Sabbath's sake, but the Sabbath for man's sake." Further, such laws are previously condemned by Paul, since he predicted that some would forbid marriage in the future. Therefore, the severity of such hindrances shall be relaxed here, which originate from spiritual kinship, from affinity (ex legali cognutione) and from consanguinity, as far as the holy Scriptures allow, in which only the second degree of consanguinity is forbidden, as written in the 3rd Book of Moses, Cap. 18, where twelve persons are forbidden, namely, the mother, the stepmother, the natural sister, the stepsister from father or mother, the granddaughter, the father's sister, the mother's sister, the daughter-in-law, the brother's wife, the wife's sister, the stepdaughter, the uncle's wife. Here only the first degree of affinity and the second of consanguinity are forbidden, but not in general, as is clear if one looks at it correctly, because the brother's or sister's daughter or granddaughter is not listed as forbidden, although it is in the second degree. Therefore, should any marriage have been contracted outside of these degrees, since one does not read that any other degrees have been forbidden by God anywhere, it must not be based on any

100 D. V. a, V, SS f. 69. Of the Babylonian captivity of the church. W. XIX, 122-124. 101

The marriage itself, which is instituted by God, is incomparably higher than the laws, so that it is not because of the laws that they must be torn apart, but the laws for their sake. 1)

So also these antics of co-fatherhoods, co-motherhoods, co-brotherhoods, co-sisterhoods, co-daughterships are supposed to be completely extinguished when a marriage is concluded. Who else invented this spiritual kinship than human superstition alone? Is it not proper for the baptizer, or the one who raises from baptism, to take the baptized woman, or the one he raised from baptism, in marriage; why is it proper for a Christian man to take a Christian woman in marriage? Or is the kinship which arises from the ceremonies or sign of the Sacrament greater than that which arises from the nature of the Sacrament itself? Is not a Christian the brother of the Christian sister? Or is not a baptized person the spiritual brother of a baptized person? What are we racing for? How, if one instructed his wife in the Gospel and the faith of Christ, he would have become truly her father in Christ thereby; should she not therefore remain his wife? Or would it not have been proper for Paul to marry a daughter of the Corinthians, of whom he famously said that he had begotten them all in Christ? See how Christian freedom is suppressed by the blindness of human superstition.

Much more important is the legal relationship, and yet they have also elevated this above the divine right of marriage. 2) Nor will I consent to the obstacle which they call the inequality of religion, that neither simply, nor on condition that she be converted to the faith, is she permitted to take an unbaptized woman in marriage. Who has forbidden this? God, or a human being? Who gave man the power to forbid such marriage? Of course, the spirits who are in

1. What is enclosed here in parentheses is found in the original edition, but not in the Wittenberg and Jena editions.
2. This sentence is in the original edition, but not in the Wittenberg and Jena editions.

Gleisnerei Lügenredner are, as Paul says 1 Tim. 4, 2., of which this must be said: The wicked have told me fables, but not as thy law. Patricias the Gentile took Monica, the mother of St. Augustine, a Christian, in marriage; why should this not be permitted today? Such severity out of foolishness, yes, out of impiety, is the hindrance of the crime, namely, if someone would marry such a one who is previously tainted with adultery, or if he would have made attempts to kill the previous husband, so that he could marry the surviving wife. I ask you, where does this strict law of men against men come from, which God has never required? Or do they want to pretend that they do not know that Bathsheba, the wife of Uriah, had both crimes on her, that is: she was stained with adultery, and after murdering her husband she was nevertheless married by David, the most holy man? Did the divine law permit this? What do tyrannical men do against their fellow servants?

[Also this is counted as an obstacle, what they call the obstacle of the union (ligaminis), that is, because someone is connected with another by betrothal. Here they conclude that if someone then recognizes another, the engagement ceases with the first. I do not believe this at all; I think that he who has betrothed himself to another has already lost his power over himself, and that for this reason, since divine law forbids divorce, he is due to the first, whom he did not recognize, although he recognized the other afterwards; for he could not give what he did not have, but he deceived her and committed a real adultery. But the fact that something else seemed good to them is due to the fact that they paid more attention to the carnal connection than to the commandment of God, according to which he must always be faithful to the first, which he promised. For he who wants to give must give of his own, and God forbid that no one should betray his brother in any matter whatsoever, which is to be done apart from and above the statutes of all

102 D. V. E. V, 96-98. XIII Luther's dispute with Henry VIII. W. XIX, 124. 103

The first one has to hold on to the second one. Thus I believe that such a one cannot dwell together with the second with a good conscience, and that this obstacle must be removed by all means. For if the vow to become a monk or nun (religionis) makes one free from family ties (alienum), why not also the vowed and received fidelity, since the latter is commanded and a fruit of the spirit, Gal. 5, 22, but the latter comes from human arbitrariness? And if the wife is free to reclaim her husband, and it is not opposed to this that the monastic vow has been made, why should not the bride be free to reclaim her bridegroom, even if the carnal union has taken place with another? But let us say further that he who has promised fidelity to a girl must not take a monastic vow, but he is the debtor of the person whom he wants to marry, because he owes to keep the fidelity, which he may not put behind by any statute of men, because it is commanded by God. Rather, it should happen here that he keeps faith with the former, since he could only give to the latter with a lying heart, and for that reason he did not give, but betrayed his neighbor (proximam) against God. Therefore, the obstacle of error has taken place here, which causes the marriage with the later one to be void. ] 1)

The obstacle of consecration is also a mere human fetish, especially since they talk that by consecration also a consummated marriage is broken, by always raising their statutes above God's commandment. I do not judge the priestly ordination as it is held today, but I know that Paul commands that "a bishop shall be the husband of one wife" 1 Tim. 3:2, and therefore the marriage of a deacon, priest, bishop, or whoever has any other ordination cannot be broken, even though Paul did not know these kinds of priests and such ordinations as we have now. Therefore, let us abandon all these cursed statutes of men, which are my means of increasing the number of the faithful.

1. This paragraph is in the original edition, but not in the Wittenberg and Jena editions.

The priest and his wife are married in a true and inseparable way, based on God's commandment. Therefore, between a priest and his wife is a true and inseparable marriage, based on God's command. But how if ungodly men forbid or break up such marriages only by their tyranny? Granted that it is not permitted by men, it is nevertheless permitted by God; if His commandment is contrary to the commandment of men, it shall be justly preferred.

[Similarly, the obstacle of public respectability is also a small fence by which the concluded marriages are torn apart. It torments (urit) me this brazen godlessness, which is so quickly ready to separate what God has joined together, so that you can recognize the Antichrist in it, who sets himself against everything that Christ has done and taught. I ask you, what is the cause that no blood relative of a previously dead bridegroom to the fourth generation could marry the bride? This is not a justice owed to public respectability, but an ignorance. 2) Why was not this justice of public respectability in the people of Israel, which was composed with the best and divine laws? rather, even by God's commandment, the nearest relative was forced to marry the next of kin's surviving wife. Or is it necessary to burden the people of Christian freedom with stricter laws than the people of legal servitude? And in order to put an end to these things, which are more inventions than obstacles, I say that I do not yet see any obstacle that could justifiably dissolve a marriage, except the inability to recognize the wife, the ignorance of a marriage already entered into, and the vow of chastity. About the vow, however, I am uncertain to this day, that I do not know at what time it should be considered valid, as I said above about the sacrament of baptism. Learn, then, from this marriage alone, how unfortunate and in the extreme everything has been confused, hindered, entangled and subjected to dangers by the corrupt ones,

2. justitig - inseitig,, a play on words.

104 L- a. v, 98 f. 69. Of the Babylonian captivity of the church. W. xix, 124 f. 105

unlearned and ungodly statutes of men, everything that is even done in the church, so that there is no hope of healing unless we bring back the gospel of freedom and judge and govern everything according to it, after all the laws of all men have been done away with. Amen. ] 1)

Therefore, it is necessary to speak of the incapacity of the sex, so that the souls who are in danger can be advised all the more easily, but with the condition that what I have said about the obstacle is spoken of what happens after the marriage that has already taken place, so that by such a thing no marriage is broken up. But about the marriage that is to be concluded first, let it be said recently what has been said above, that if the love of youth or any other need should press one, in which the pope dispenses, also every brother can make this dispensation with his brother, or every one with himself, he thus, according to this advice, takes a wife out of the hands of the tyrannical laws, in whatever way he can. For why should my freedom be taken from me by a foreign superstition or ignorance? Or if the pope dispenses for the sake of money, why would I not make the dispensation with myself for the benefit of my salvation or with my brother? Has the pope given laws? Let him give them to himself, without harm to my freedom or deprivation of it secretly.

[So let us look at the matter from the point of view of incapacity. I pose such a case as a question, if a woman, who is married to an incapable man, is either unable, or perhaps also unwilling, with as much testimony and noise as the rights require, to prove the incapacity of the husband by way of law, but would nevertheless like to have offspring, or could not abstain, and I had given the advice that she obtain a divorce from the husband in order to marry another, she is also convinced that her own and her husband's

1. This paragraph is in the original edition, but not in the Wittenberg and Jena editions.

If the husband's conscience and experience are superfluous enough witnesses of his incapacity, but the husband does not want it, then I would further advise that she, with the husband's consent (since he is no longer a husband, but only one who lives with her), go with another, for example the brother of the husband, but in secret marriage, and the offspring be attributed to the alleged (putativo) father (as he is called). Can then such a woman be blessed and be in the state of blessedness? I answer: certainly, for error and ignorance of the man's incapacity prevent marriage here, and the tyranny of the laws does not permit divorce, and the woman is free by divine law and cannot be forced to abstinence. Therefore, the man must make a concession to her right and allow another to have the wife he appears to have.

Furthermore, if the husband would not agree to be separated, I would advise her to marry someone else and flee to an unknown and distant place before allowing her to be in heat or commit adultery. For what else could be advised to one who is in constant danger of lust? I know, however, that some are moved by the fact that the offspring of this secret marriage is not rightfully (iniquus) the heir of his supposed father. But if it is done with the husband's consent, he will not be unjustly; but if it is done without his knowledge and will, a Christian and free mind, indeed, love, will be able to judge which of the two does the greatest harm to the other. The wife brings the inheritance to a stranger (alienat), but the husband has deceived the wife and cheats her out of her whole body, and that all her life long: does not the husband sin more, who ruins the wife's body and life, than the wife, who only brings the husband's temporal goods to a stranger? He therefore either suffers divorce or tolerates foreign heirs, since he has deceived an innocent girl through his fault and has equally deprived her of her life and property.

106 L. V. k. V, 99-101. xIII Luther's dispute with Henry VIII. W. XIX, 125-127. 107

The person who has defrauded her of the entire use of her body has given an almost unbearable cause for adultery; both must be put on an equal footing. Certainly the deception must with all rights fall back on the deceiver, and he is obliged to compensate for the damage that caused it. For in what way is such a husband different from the one who holds someone's wife captive with her husband? Is not such a tyrant obliged to feed the wife and children and husband, or to let them go free? So why should it not be the same here? Thus, I believe that the husband must be forced, either to divorce, or to feed someone else's heir. Love will undoubtedly judge in this way. In this case, the one who is not wealthy and is no longer a husband will not support the wife's heir with any other attitude (affectu) than if he received a sick wife or a wife afflicted with some other evil with full and heavy expenses. For by his, not by the wife's fault, the wife suffers this fretfulness (incommodo). To the best of my ability, I have wanted to present this for the instruction of challenged consciences, in that I wish to come to the aid of my afflicted brothers in this captivity with every possible consolation]. 1)

About the divorce, it is also asked whether it is allowed? Truly, I hate divorce so much that I would rather have a double marriage (digamiam) than divorce; but whether it is permissible, I do not dare to say. Christ himself, the chief shepherd, says Matth. 5, 32: "Whoever divorces his wife (except for adultery) makes her commit adultery. And he that divorceth a separated woman committeth adultery." So Christ allows divorce, but only in the case of adultery. Therefore the priest must err as often as he divorces for other reasons. No one should be safe who has received a dispensation much more by such papal sacrilege than by ordinary power. But this surprises me most of all, why they have a

1. The two preceding paragraphs, which are enclosed in square brackets, are found in the original edition, but not in the Wittenberg and Jena editions.

If a man is divorced from his wife, he should be forced into celibacy and not be allowed to marry another woman. For if Christ permits divorce in the case of adultery and does not force anyone to live a celibate life, and Paul expresses his opinion 1 Cor. 7:9 that "it is better to be free than to be in heat," then he certainly seems to permit that another woman be married instead of the divorced one. Would God that such things were fully discussed and decided, so that innumerable danger might befall those who, at this time, through no fault of their own, are forced to live an unmarried life, that is, whose wives or husbands run away and leave their spouses, and return for more than ten years, or never. This case penetrates and distresses me by the daily examples, be it out of special mischievousness of the devil, or by contempt of the word of God.

I, who alone cannot determine anything in this case, would very much like that what is written in 1 Cor. 7:15 be applied here: "If the unbeliever divorces, let him divorce. The brother or sister is not caught in such cases." Here St. Paul allows the divorcing unbeliever to be set free, and gives the believer the freedom to take another. Why should this not also apply when a believer, that is, one who is a believer in name only but an unbeliever in fact, leaves his spouse, especially if he is willing never to return? I truly could not find any difference on both sides. But I think that if in St. Paul's time an unbeliever who had left his wife had come back or had become a believer and promised to live with the believer again, he would not have been admitted, but would also have been allowed to marry another. But I do not set anything in this, as I have said; although I wish nothing more than that it should be set, because nothing grieves me and many others with me more intensely nowadays. However, I do not want anything to be established here solely by the authority of the pope or the bishops, but if two learned and pious men were to agree in the name of Christ and speak out such things in the spirit of Christ, I would give their consent.

108 D- V- a. V, 101-103. 69. Of the Babylonian Captivity of the Church. W. XIX, 127-129. 109

I would also prefer this judgment to the conciliums that are now used to assemble, which are praised only because of their number and power, but are without scholarship and sanctity. Therefore, I will hang up my harp here until someone else who understands will talk to me about it.

Of the consecration.

This sacrament is not known to the Church of Christ, and it is invented by the Church of the Pope, because it not only has no promise of grace written anywhere, but the whole New Testament does not even remember it with a word. But it is ridiculous to claim of something that it is a sacrament of God, of which it can nowhere be proven that it was instituted by God. It is not that I want such a custom to be rejected, which has been held for so many centuries, but that I do not want people to make up human lies in divine matters, nor is it proper to present something as ordained by God that is not ordained by God, so that we may not be a mockery to the adversaries. Rather, we should strive to make sure that everything we boast about as an article of faith, which we cannot in the least demonstrate in this sacrament, is certain and pure and based on clear sayings of Scripture.

The church also has no power to order new divine promises of grace; as some people say that what is established by the church is no less important than what is established by God, because it is governed by the Holy Spirit. For the church springs from the word of promise through faith and is nourished and sustained by the same word of promise, that is, it is established by the promise of God, and not the promise through it. For the Word of God is incomparably over the church, over which the church has no power to establish, order or do anything, but it is to be established, ordered and made as a creature. For who can give birth to its father or mother? Who has made its author beforehand?

But the church has the power to separate the word of God from the words of men.

Augustine confesses that he believed the gospel, moved by the prestige of the church, which testified that this was the right gospel: Not that the church is therefore above the gospel, for otherwise it would also be above God, whom we believe, because the church teaches this as the right God; but, as Augustine says elsewhere, the soul is so caught by the truth that it can judge all things according to it with the utmost certainty, but it cannot judge the truth, but is forced to say with unmistakable certainty that this is the truth. For example: our mind certainly says with unmistakable certainty that three and seven are ten, and yet it can show no reason why this is true, since it cannot deny that it is true: namely, it is itself imprisoned, in that it is judged more by truth than that it should judge it. Such a mind is also in the church, to judge and confirm the doctrines by enlightenment of the spirit, which it cannot prove, although it certainly has the same. For as with the philosophers no one judges from common notions, but all others are judged by them: so it is with us concerning the mind of the Spirit, which judges all things, and yet is judged by no one, as the apostle says 1 Cor. 2:15.

But of it elsewhere. Therefore, it is certain that the church cannot promise grace, because this belongs to God alone, and therefore cannot institute a sacrament. And even though it might be able to do so, it does not immediately follow that consecration is a sacrament. For who knows which church has the Holy Spirit, since, when such things are decided, only a few bishops or scholars tend to be present? In the case of these, it is quite possible that they are not of the church and that they can all err; just as the conciliarities have often erred, especially that at Costnitz, which among all has erred most ungodly. For only that is credibly proven which is approved by the general church, and not only by the Roman. Therefore, I allow that the consecration

110 L. V. L. V. 103 f. XIII Luther's dispute with Henry VIII. W. XIX, 129-132. 111

is a kind of custom of the church, as well as many others instituted by the ancient church fathers, such as consecrating vessels, houses, chasubles, water, salt, candles, herbs, wine, and the like, all of which no one considers a sacrament, nor is there any promise in them. Likewise, anointing the hands of men, having plates shaved, and other such things done is not called giving a sacrament, because nothing is promised in it, but they are only prepared for some offices, as vessels and instruments.

But you will say: What wilt thou say to Dionysius, who enumerates six sacraments, among which in the "ecclesiastical hierarchy" 1) he also places ordination? I answer: I know that this one alone among the ancients is considered the author of the seven number of sacraments, although he omitted marriage and indicated only six sacraments. For we read in all the other Fathers absolutely nothing of these sacraments; nor did they give it the name of a sacrament as often as they spoke of these things. For the invention of the sacraments is new. But this displeases me altogether (that I may speak more boldly), that so much credence is given to this Dionysius, whoever he may be, since he has almost nothing of thorough scholarship. For what he writes in the "celestial hierarchy" of the angels, with which book the rash and superstitious heads have so worked themselves off, of this I only ask: With what saying or with what reasonable causes can he prove it? Are they not all his own thoughts and almost like dreams, where you read them freely and judge impartially? In the book of his "mystical theology," which some of the most unlearned theologians exalt so highly, he is also quite harmful and follows Plato more than Christ in it, so that I would like a believer not to read it at all or at least rarely. For you do not learn Christ at all in it.

1. This is a writing attributed to Dionysius Areopagita (Apost. 17, 34.) probably in the fifth century; likewise the following mentioned writings on the heavenly hierarchy and on mystical theology. Cf. Guericke's Kirchengeschichte, 7th edition, vol. I, p. 218.

that if you already know it, you will lose it completely. I speak from experience. Let us rather hear Paul, that we may learn Christ crucified 1 Cor. 2:2. For "he is the way, the life, and the truth" John 14:6, he is the ladder by which we ascend to the Father. As he says, "No one comes to the Father except through me."

So also in the "ecclesiastical hierarchy", what does Dionysius do other than that he describes some customs of the church and jokes with his allegories, which he does not prove? The same thing has been done in our country by the one who made the book called Rationale divinorum. Such studies of allegories belong only to idle people. Or do you think that it would be difficult for me to play with allegories in every created thing? Did not Bonaventure interpret the liberal arts allegorically to the divine teachings? And Gerson made a mystical theologian out of the little Donati. It would not be difficult for me to write a better hierarchy than the one that Dionysius wrote, since he did not know anything about the pope, cardinals and archbishops, and placed the bishop as the highest. And who, after all, is of so little intellect that he could not dabble in secret interpretations? I would that no theologian should resort to allegories until he is fully established in the right and simple understanding of Scripture. Otherwise, it will happen to him, as it did to Origen, that he will not do theology without danger.

Therefore it should not be called a sacrament immediately, because Dionysius describes something. Otherwise, why do they not also make a sacrament out of the procession that he describes there, which still lasts until this day? Otherwise, their sacraments would be as many as the customs and external ceremonies have increased in the church. Based on such a weak foundation, they have invented characteres, which they have assigned to this sacrament of theirs, which would be indelibly imprinted on the consecrated. Eh, dear, where do these thoughts come from? With

2. Donatus, the Latin grammar in general use at that time.

112 D. V. a. V, 104-106. 69. Of the Babylonian captivity of the church. W. XIX, 132-134. 113

what scripture or reasonable causes are they founded on? Not that we do not want them to have freedom to write, to say, to assert what they like, but we also assert our freedom, so that they may not arrogate to themselves the right to make articles of faith out of their thoughts, as they have hitherto subjected themselves to. It is enough that we consent to their customs and practices for the sake of harmony; but we do not want to be forced to do so, as if that were necessary for our souls' salvation, which is not. They themselves may refrain from the coercion of their tyranny, and we will freely obey their opinion, so that we may live in peace with one another. For it is a shameful and unjust service that a Christian man, who is free, should be subject to other than heavenly and divine teachings.

After this they put their strongest reason on it, namely that Christ said in his supper: "This do in remembrance of me" Luc. 22, 19.. Then they say, Behold, Christ has ordained them priests. Therefore they said, among other things, that the sacrament should be administered only to priests under both forms. After that, they have also drawn from it what they wanted, since they have arrogated to themselves the arbitrariness of asserting anything they want from the words of Christ that are said in any place. But does this mean to interpret the word of God? Well, dear one, answer this. Christ promises nothing here, but only commands that such things be done in his memory. Why do they not also conclude that priests were also ordained when he laid out for them the ministry of preaching and baptism, saying Marc. 16:15, "Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature, baptizing them in the name," 2c. since preaching and baptizing are the proper works of priests? In addition, since today the most important work of a priest, and of which (as they say) cannot be dispensed at all, is to read the daily times (horas canonicas^1)^ ); why did they not include the Sacra-

1. Luther calls these prayers to be read daily at certain times "the tides" or "the seven tides".

What is the meaning of the word of consecration taken from it, since Christ commanded to pray, as in many other places, so also especially in the garden, so that they would not fall into temptation Matth. 26, 41? They then wanted to seek this excuse, that praying was not commanded; but it was enough to read the times of the day, so that this priestly work could nowhere be proven from the Scriptures, and for this reason such priestly office of praying was not of God, as it truly is not of God.

But which of the ancient fathers thought that with these words the priests were ordained? Where does this new mind come from, namely, which is invented with such cunning, in order to have a plantation of irreconcilable discord, by which the priests and the laity would be more distinguished than heaven and earth, to an incredible dishonor of the baptismal grace and to a confusion of the evangelical community; For this is the origin of the abominable tyranny of the clergy against the laity, that, trusting in the bodily anointing with which their hands are consecrated, and then in the scissors and clothing, they not only prefer themselves to the other Christian laity anointed with the Holy Spirit, but consider them almost unworthy dogs, not worthy to be numbered with them in the church. Therefore, they are not afraid to command them anything they want, to demand by force, to threaten, to drive and to oppress them. Summa, the sacrament of consecration has been an exceedingly fine elevator, and still is, to confirm all the monstrosities that have happened and are still happening in the church. Here the Christian brotherhood has completely come to an end, here the shepherds have become wolves, the servants have become tyrants, and the clergy have become more than worldly.

Now if they were forced to confess that all of us, as much as we are baptized, are also priests, as we are in truth; and that they alone have been commanded to preach, but with our permission: then they would also know at the same time that they have no right to rule over us, except as follows

114 L. V. L. V, I0K-108. xIII Luther's dispute with Henry VIII. W. XIX, 134-137. 115

much we ourselves allowed them to do out of our own good will. It is written in 1 Peter 2:9: "You are the chosen generation, the royal priesthood" and the priestly kingdom. Therefore we are all priests, as much as we are Christians. But those whom we call priests are servants, chosen from among us, who are to do all things in our name. And the priesthood is nothing other than a service. Thus it is said in 1 Cor. 4:1: "To this end let everyone hold us, that is, as Christ's servants and stewards of God's mysteries."

From this it follows that he who does not preach the word, to which he is nevertheless called by the Christian church, is by no means a priest, and the sacrament of ordination can be nothing else than a certain use to elect preachers into the church. For thus God describes a priest through the prophet Malachi Cap. 2, 7: "The lips of the priest shall keep the doctrine, that the law may be sought out of his mouth: for he is an angel of the LORD of hosts." Therefore be sure that whoever is not an angel of the LORD of hosts, or otherwise called to the service of angels (that I say so), is by no means a priest. As it is also said in Hosea 4:6, "Because thou rejectest the word of God, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt not be my priest." Therefore they are also called shepherds, that they should feed, that is, teach. Therefore, those who are ordained only to read the days and offer the masses are papal priests, but not Christian priests, because they not only do not preach, but also are not called to preach. Yes, it is precisely with this that it is a priesthood of this kind, namely, a different state than the office of preaching. Therefore they are daytime priests and mass priests, that is, living idols who have the priestly name, and yet are nothing less. Jeroboam ordained such priests at Bethaven from the very least yeast of the people, not from the Levitical generation.

See, then, how far the glory and honor of the Church has come. The whole world is full of priests, bishops, cardinals and clergymen, among whom (as far as their office is concerned) none preach, he

is called anew by another vocation, which takes place through sacramental consecration, but thinks that he fulfills his sacrament when he mumbles the chatter of the prayers to be read and says mass; Then he never prays these very times of the day, or where he does pray, he prays for himself, and (which is the greatest perversity) offers his masses as a sacrifice (whereas the mass is a use of the sacrament), so that it is evident that the consecration, which, as a sacrament, ordains this kind of people to the clergy, is certainly, purely, and entirely a fiction, originating from men who understand nothing of church affairs, of the priesthood, of the ministry of the Word of God, and of the sacraments: so that as the sacrament is, so may the priests be. To these errors and blindnesses was added this greater captivity, that they further separated themselves from the other Christians, as worldly, just as the Gauls cut the priests to the goddess Cybele and burdened them with a completely pretended celibate life.

It was not yet enough for the glitter and the effect of this error to forbid double marriage (digamiam), that is, that no one have two wives at the same time, as it was done before in the law (because we know that digamie means this). But they have interpreted the little word digamie in such a way, if one had not taken two virgins in marriage at the same time, but one after the other, or once a widow. Yes, the holiest sanctity of this most holy sacrament is of such value that he who has married a virgin cannot become a priest as long as this woman is still alive. And in order that it may attain the highest level of sanctity, even he is kept from the priesthood who, ignorantly and by mere chance of misfortune, has taken a weakened virgin in marriage. But if he had defiled six hundred harlots, or defiled as many women and virgins, or even kept many boys for his fornication, this shall not prevent him from becoming either a bishop, or a cardinal, or a pope. Furthermore, the word of the apostle 1 Tim. 3, 2., "that a

116 L. V. L. V, 108 f. 69. Of the Babylonian Captivity of the Church. W. XIX, 137-140. 117

Bishop of a woman's husband", they interpret that he should be a prelate of a church. Hence it has flowed that one cannot hold many benefices at the same time, unless the glorious pope dispenses that one be entrusted with three, twenty or a hundred wives, that is, churches, if he has been bribed with money or favor, that is, has been drawn to it out of Christian love and diligent care for the churches.

O you popes, who are worthy of this sacrament of consecration! O princes! Not of the Christian churches, but of the schools of Satan, even of darkness. I must cry out here with Isaiah 28, 14.: you mockers, who rule over my people, who are at Jerusalem"; and Amos 6, 1.: "Woe to the proud of Zion, and to those who rely on the mountain of Samaria, who boast the noblest over the Gentiles, and walk in the house of Israel" 2c. O the disgrace of the Church of GOD that befalls it from these abominations of priests! Where are the bishops or priests who know the Gospel, let alone preach it? What do they boast that they are priests? Why do they want to be considered holier, better, more powerful than other Christians who are only laymen? Any unlearned person can read the days, or (as the apostle says 1 Cor. 14:4) those who speak with tongues. But the praying of the days is for monks, hermits and private persons, and they should be laymen. The priest's office is to preach, but if he does not preach, he is a priest in the same way that a painted man is a man. Does this then make a bishop to consecrate such babbling priests? or to consecrate churches or bells? or to confirm children? No. A deacon and any layman can do that. The service of the Word of God makes a priest and a bishop.

Therefore I advise you to flee, all of you who want to live safely; flee, you young people, and do not let yourselves be consecrated with these holy things, because you either want to preach or believe that you have become no better than the laity through such a sacrament of consecration. For to read the days is nothing. Then to offer the mass is nothing but the sacrament.

receive. So what remains in you that would not be in every layman? The shorn plates and the clothes? It is a miserable priest who consists of a plate and clothes. Or does the oil poured on your fingers make you priests? But every Christian is anointed with the oil of the Holy Spirit and sanctified in soul and body, and in the past he took the Sacrament with his own hands, no less than the priests do now, although our superstition now ascribes great guilt to the laity where they touch a mere chalice or corporal 1) and it is also not permitted for a holy cloister virgin to wash the altar or other holy cloths. See for God's sake how this holy sanctity of consecration has increased. I hope that in the future it will no longer be proper for the laity to touch the altar unless they first offer money. I almost burst when I think of this godless tyranny of the most sacrilegious people, who mock and corrupt the freedom and honor of the Christian faith with such petty and childish antics.

Therefore, everyone who wants to be a Christian should be sure and consider carefully that we are all priests in the same way, that is, that we have equal authority over the word of God and each sacrament, but that it is not proper for anyone to use them, unless by permission of the congregation or by appointment of the superiors. For what is common to all, no one can take to himself in particular until he is called to it. And if therefore the sacrament of ordination is something, it can be nothing else than a certain custom of calling someone into the service of the church. Then, the priesthood can be nothing else than a ministry of the Word; of the Word, I say, not of the Law, but of the Gospel. The office of deacon, however, is a ministry not of reading the Gospel or the epistle, as is customary nowadays, but rather of reading the Gospel or the epistle.

1. Corporal, a white linen cloth for covering the hosts at the celebration of the Lord's Supper. According to Jsidorus Pelusiota, this is supposed to represent the canvas in which Joseph of Arimathea placed the body of Christ at the burial. (Neudecker, Lexicon der Religions- und christlichen Kirchengeschichte, I, 507.) ,,

118 L. V. L. V, 109-111. xiii. Luther's dispute with Henry VIII. W. XIX, 140-142. 119

The priests, relieved of the burden of temporal goods, may continue to pray and speak the word of God more freely. For in this intention, as we read in Apost. 6:3, the deacons were appointed; that he who either does not know the gospel or does not preach it is not only not a priest or bishop, but a poisonous pestilence of the church, who under the false title of a priest or a bishop, as it were under a sheep's clothing, suppresses the gospel and acts as a wolf in the church.

Therefore, those priests and bishops of whom the church is now full, if they do not work their salvation in another way, that is, if they do not recognize that they are neither priests nor bishops, and mourn that they bear this name, whose work they either do not know or cannot fulfill, and thus weep with prayer and tears over the miserable state of their gilding, are truly a people of eternal damnation. And so it comes true what is written about them in Isa. 5:13, 14: "Therefore my people will be taken away suddenly, and their rulers will suffer hunger and their people thirst. Therefore hell hath opened wide her soul, and opened her mouth without measure, that both her lords and her rulers, both her rich and her happy, may go down. O a frightening word for our times, when Christians are swallowed up by such a great maw!

But as much as we are taught from Scripture, since the ministry is precisely what we call the priesthood, I do not at all see how he who has once become a priest cannot again become a layman, since he is distinguished from the laity only by the ministry. But it cannot be impossible to be deposed from the ministry, just as guilty priests are punished everywhere now, either by being forbidden their ministry for a time or by being deprived of it forever. For the fiction of the indelible signs has long since been ridiculed. I allow that the pope imprints such marks, and that Christ knows nothing about it, and that just through this

an ordained priest is not both Christ's and Pabst's constant servant and prisoner; as it is at this time. But, if I am not mistaken, when this sacrament and seal fall again, the papacy itself will hardly remain with its marks, and the joyful freedom will come to us again, in which we will all recognize ourselves as equal in all rights, and after the tyrannical yoke has been shaken off, we will only understand that everyone who is a Christian has Christ. But he that hath Christ hath also all things that are Christ's, and hath all power; of which there is more, and more strength, which I should hear that my friends the papists dislike.

The sacrament of the last rites.

To this custom of oiling the sick our theologians have made two additions worthy of them. One, that they call it a sacrament; the other, that they call it "the last", and it is now said to be the sacrament of the last oiling, which is not to be given to anyone unless he is in the last stages. Perhaps (as they are subtle dialecticians) they have called it the last anointing in regard to the first anointing of baptism and the following two sacraments, confirmation and consecration. But here they have something with which they can counter me, namely, that according to the testimony of the apostle James, here is a promise and a sign by which, as I have said so far, a sacrament is instituted. For it is written in Jac 5:14, 15: "If any man be sick, let him call unto him the elders of the congregation, and let them pray over him, and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer of faith will help the sick person, and the Lord will raise him up, and if he has committed sins, they will be forgiven him." Behold, they say, a promise of forgiveness of sins and the sign of the oil.

But I say: if somewhere it has been spoken audibly, then it has been done here in particular. And I do not want to think now that many very credibly claim that this epistle is not of the apostle Jacobus, also not worthy of

120 L. V. L. V, 111-113. 69. Of the Babylonian Captivity of the Church. W. XIX, 142-145. 121

of the apostolic spirit, although it has acquired a reputation by habit, it now comes from whomsoever it may. However, even though it was from the apostle James, I still wanted to say that it is not proper for the apostles to institute a sacrament by their own authority, that is, to give God's promises with a sign attached. For this belonged to Christ alone. Thus Paul says 1 Cor. 11, 23 that he received the sacrament of the Lord's Supper from the Lord and was sent not to baptize but to preach the gospel, 1 Cor. 1, 17 but nowhere in the gospel is the sacrament of this last offering mentioned. But let us leave that aside and look at these words of the apostle, or who else is the author of the epistle, ourselves, and we will find at the same time how those who increased the sacraments did not pay attention to anything.

First of all, if they think that what the apostle says is true and must be kept, by what force do they change it and resist it? Why do they make it a final and special ointment, since the apostle intended it to be general? For the apostle did not intend that it should be the last and be given to the dying alone, but he says par excellence (absolute), "If any man be sick." He does not say, "If anyone is dying. 'Here I also do not respect what "the ecclesiastical hierarchy" of Dionysius pretends. The words of the apostle are evident, on which both he and they base themselves, and yet they do not follow them, so that it may be evident that they have not established the sacrament and the last rites by any scripture, but by their own will, from the misunderstood words of the apostle, to the detriment of the other sick people, from whom they have taken away by their own power the benefit of the rites instituted by the apostle.

But this is even better, that the promise of the apostle explicitly says: "The prayer of faith will help the sick person, and the Lord will raise him up" 2c. Behold, the apostle commands that therefore oiling and prayer should be made, that the sick person may be healed and raised up, that is, that he may not die, and

that such oiling is not the last. This is also proved by the prayers that are said under the oil, which ask for the sick person to be healed. On the other hand, they say that the oiling should be given to the dying, that is, so that they will not be healed and raised. If this matter were not a serious one, who could refrain from laughing at such beautiful, skillful and intelligent glosses of the apostolic words? Is not their sophistical foolishness publicly recognized here, which, as here, so also in many other places affirms what Scripture denies, and in turn denies what Scripture affirms? Yes, do we not therefore have to thank our so highly learned masters? So I have rightly said that nowhere have they been spoken of more thorougly than in this place.

Further, if this blessedness is a sacrament, it must undoubtedly be (as they say) an effective sign that signifies and promises. Now it promises health and restoration of the sick, as the words clearly read, "The prayer of faith shall help the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up." But who does not see that the promise of the apostle James is fulfilled in few, nay, in none? For among thousands, hardly anyone is restored to health; and no one believes that it is by the power of the sacrament, but by the help of nature or of medicine. For they attribute the opposite to the sacrament. So what do they want to say? Either the apostle must lie in this promise; or the blessedness must be no sacrament, for the promise of the sacraments is certain; but this fails with most. Yes, in order that we may recognize the wisdom and diligence of these theologians, they want the oelung to be the last, so that the promise does not exist, that is, so that the sacrament is not a sacrament. For if it is the last, it does not make healthy, but gives way to sickness; but if it makes healthy, it cannot be the last. Thus, according to the interpretation of these masters, it follows that Jacobus must be understood to have spoken against himself; and so that he did not institute a sacrament, he instituted a sacrament: because they want the blessedness to be the last, so that it is not true that the sacrament is the last.

122 D. V. L. V, IIL-IIS. XIII Luther's dispute with Henry VIII. W. XIX, 145-147. 123

that the sick person may be healed through them, as St. James stated. If this is not foolishness, I ask what is foolishness?

The words of Paul 1 Tim. 1, 7. happen to them: "They want to be masters of the Scriptures, and do not understand what they say or what they set." So they read everything and follow the same. With the same carelessness they have drawn secret confession from the words of the apostle, who says: "Confess your sins one to another" Jac. 5, 16.. But they do not keep even that, when the apostle commands that the elders of the church be called and pray over the sick. Now hardly a poor pawn is sent, while the apostle wants many of them to be present, not for the sake of blessedness, but for the sake of prayer. Therefore he also says: "The prayer of faith will help the sick" 2c. Although I do not know for sure whether he means priests, since he says presbyters, that is, the elders. For he is not a priest, or a servant of the church, who is an elder. Therefore, you might suppose that the apostle intended that the elders and most noble in the church should visit the sick, who, doing a work of mercy and praying in faith, made him well. However, it cannot be denied that the churches were governed by the elders in the past, without such ordinance and consecration, since they were chosen for it because of their age and long experience.

I think that this order is the same, of which Marci 6, 13. is written: "And they anointed many sick with oil and made them well", namely, that it was a use of the first church, by which they worked miraculous signs over the sick, but which has now long ceased; as also Marci at the last Christ endowed the faithful with the ability to drive out the serpents, and to lay their hands on the sick 2c. I am surprised that they did not also make sacraments out of these words, since they have the same effect and promise with these words of St. Jacob. That is why this last, that is, this he

Oelung, not a sacrament, but a council of St. Jacob, which may be followed by whoever wants to, taken from the Evangelio Marci in the sixth chapter, as I have said. For I do not believe that this counsel is given to all the sick, since sickness is the glory of the Church and death our gain, but only to those who impatiently and weakly believed bore their sickness, whom God therefore forsook, that in them the miraculous signs and works of faith might appear glorious.

And this Jacobus has carefully and diligently provided for, by assigning the promise of health and the forgiveness of sins not to oelung, but to the prayer of faith. For thus he saith, "And the prayer of faith shall help the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him." For a sacrament does not require prayer or the faith of the minister, because even an ungodly man baptizes and consecrates without prayer, but it is based solely on the promise and institution of God, and requires the faith of the one who receives it. But where is the prayer of faith in the use of our last rites today? Who prays in such faith over a sick person that he may not doubt that he will be healed? For James here describes such a prayer, of which he also said in the beginning, Cap. 1:6: "But he prayeth in faith, and doubteth not." And Christ speaks: Marc. 11, 24., "Whatsoever ye shall ask in your prayer, believe only that ye shall receive it, and it shall be done unto you."

There is no doubt that if this day such a prayer were to be made over a sick person, namely by the oldest, respectable and holy men, that through perfect faith as many would be healed as we wanted. For what is faith not able to do? But we leave faith (which is mostly required by these words of the apostle James), and understand by elders the whole rabble of the common priests; while the elders are supposed to be old and excellent men by faith. After this, we make a daily or free blessedness into a final one, and do not thereby obtain

124 v. a. v, ii5 f. 69. vsn of the Babylonian captivity of the church. W. xix, 147-iso. 125

We do not believe that our sacrament can be justified by the words of the apostle, which are in the strongest opposition to it. Nevertheless, we boast that our sacrament, yes, our fiction, can be justified and proven by the words of the apostle, which are most strongly 1) opposed to it. Oh, about the theologians!

I do not therefore condemn this our sacrament of the last rites; but that it is that which is described by the apostle James, I constantly deny, because neither its form, nor its custom, nor its power, nor its purpose is the same as ours. But let us count it among the sacraments which we have instituted, such as the consecration and sprinkling of salt and water. For we cannot deny "that every creature is sanctified by word and prayer," as the apostle Paul teaches us 1 Tim. 4:5. And in this way we do not deny that peace and forgiveness of sins are given through the last rites: not because it is a sacrament instituted by God, but because the one who receives it believes that it will happen to him. For the faith of him who receives it does not err, however much the minister of the church may err. For if one baptizes in jest, or absolves, that is, does not absolve (as far as the minister is concerned); yet he really and truly absolves and baptizes, if he who is to be baptized or absolved believes. How much more does he give peace to the sick, who oils with the last oil, although in truth he does not give him peace, if one looks at the service, because there is no sacrament; for the faith of the anointed also receives what the minister either could not give or did not want to give. For it is enough for the anointed to hear the word and believe. For what we believe that we will receive, that we also receive in truth; the servant acts or does not act, he heeps or plays his game. For the saying of Christ stands firm: "All things are possible to him who believes.

1. plus quam per kis äluposou - more than a double octave away from it.

Marc. 9, 23., and again: "Be it done to you as you have believed". Matth. 8, 13.. But our sophists say nothing about faith in these sacraments, but play with the power of the sacraments with all their might: for they are always learning, and yet never come to the knowledge of the truth.

But it has been useful that this ointment has been made the last, because by this good deed it has been made the least of all a mockery and subjected to tyranny and avarice, in that this only mercy has been left for the dying, that they could be oiled freely, even if they had not confessed nor even communicated. If this oiling had remained in daily use, especially if it had also made the sick healthy, even though it had not taken away the sin: ei, dear, which of the world's elders today would not hold the popes who have become such great emperors and princes from One Sacrament of Penance and Keys and the Sacrament of Consecration? But now, fortunately, just as they despise the prayer of faith, so they do not heal the sick, and have invented a new sacrament out of an old custom.

So much be said of the four sacraments for this time, which, as I well know, will displease those who think that they must take the number and the custom of the sacraments not from the Holy Scriptures, but from the Roman See: as if the Roman See had given these sacraments, and had not rather received them from the high schools of the universities, to which the Roman See undoubtedly owes all that it has. For the papal tyranny, which is so great, would not exist if it had not received so much help from the high schools, because among many famous bishoprics there has hardly been any other that has had so few learned bishops as the Roman. For so far it has surpassed the others only by violence, fraud and superstition: for those who sat on this chair a thousand years ago are so far different from those who have arisen in the meantime that

• 126 D. v.". v, 116-118. XIII Luther's dispute with Henry VIII. W. xix, 150-153. 127

it must be said that either the old or the present ones are not Roman bishops.

There are also some others that could be counted among the sacraments, namely all that in relation to which a promise of God has been made, as there are the prayer, the word and the cross. For Christ has promised answer to those who pray in many places, especially Luc. 11, 1. ff., where he incites us to pray with many parables; and which comes from the word v. 28.: "Blessed are those who hear God's word and keep it." But who will tell here how often he promises help and honor to the afflicted, the patient, and the humble? Yes, who can tell all of God's promises? Since He does nothing else in all of Scripture than to provoke us to faith, sometimes compelling us with commands and threats, sometimes enticing us to Himself with promises and comforts. For all that is written is either commandments or promises; the commandments humble the hopeful by their demands, but the promises exalt the humble by their forbearance.

But we have seen that actually only those sacraments are called which are promised with attached signs. But the others, because they do not have attached signs, are mere promises. From this it follows, if we want to speak of it in the strongest terms, that in the Church of God there are only two sacraments, baptism and bread, because in these two alone we also see the sign instituted by God and the promise of the forgiveness of sins. For the Sacrament of Penance, which I have added to these two, lacks a visible sign instituted by God; and I have said that it is nothing other than a way and return to baptism. But even the scholastici cannot say that their description fits penance, because they themselves ascribe to a sacrament a visible sign that gives a sensually perceptible form (formam ingerat sensibus) of the thing that it invisibly works. But penance or absolution does not have such a sign; therefore, by their own description they are forced either to say that penance is not a sacrament, and to say that it is not a sacrament.

that is, to diminish the sacraments, or to give another description of the sacraments.

But baptism, which we appropriate to the whole life, will be completely sufficient (recte satis erit) for all the sacraments we are to use in our life. But the bread is truly a sacrament of the dying and departing, because in it we proclaim Christ's departure from this world, so that we may follow him, and distribute these two sacraments in such a way that baptism is appropriated to the beginning and the whole course of life, but the bread to the end and death. And a Christian should use both in this life, until he leaves this world fully baptized and strengthened, born to a new eternal life, when he will eat with Christ in the kingdom of his Father, as he promised in the supper, saying: "Truly I say to you, that I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the day I drink it anew in the kingdom of God" Marc. 14, 25]; so that it is clearly recognized that Christ instituted the Sacrament of Bread to receive eternal life. For then, when the essence of both sacraments is fulfilled, baptism and bread will cease.

Herewith I will put an end to this prelude, which I gladly and joyfully hand over to all pious Christians who desire to know the right understanding of the Scriptures and the right use of the sacraments. For it is not a small gift to know "that which is given to us by God," as it says in 1 Cor. 2:12, and how to use the gifts. If we are instructed with such understanding of the Spirit, we will not rely deceitfully on those who think otherwise. But because our theologians have nowhere given us these two things, but have, as it were, deliberately obscured them, I have, though I have not given them, made it clear that I have not obscured them, and have given others cause to think better things. This has only been my intention to present both, because we cannot all do everything. But to the ungodly, and to those who take us for the divine things

128 L.v. L.V, 118. 69 Of the Babylonian Captivity of the Church. W. XIX, I53f. 129

I confidently and freely oppose them and do not respect their unlearned anger at all, although I wish them a good mind and do not despise their efforts, but only want them to be separated from the true righteous Christians.

I also hear that new bulls have been issued against me, and papal curses (diras), by which I am forced to recant or am declared a heretic. If this is true, I want this booklet to be a part of my future recantation,

so that they cannot complain that their tyranny has risen in vain. The remaining part I will shortly deliver with the help of Christ in such a way as the Roman See has neither seen nor heard, and thus sufficiently testify to my obedience, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, Amen.

What do you fear enemy Herod very much,

That Christ the Lord may be born to us, He seeks no mortal kingdom, > Who brings to us His kingdom of heaven.

*70 King Henry VIII's letter to the Roman Emperor, Carl the Fifth, )

In it, the king tries to persuade him to eradicate the Lutheran heresy, as he calls it, and to destroy Luther and his books by force.

Greenwich, May 20, 1521.

Translated from the Latin by Spalatin.

To the most holy and most powerful Lord Carl, by favor of divine goodness Roman King, chosen Emperor, at all times Major of the Empire, and to Hispania, both Sicily, Arragon, Castile 2c. King, Archduke of Austria, Duke of Burgundy, Brabant, Counts of Flanders 2c., our most beloved uncle and ally, Henry, by the grace of God King of England and France, and Lord of Hibernia, wishes the blessedness and constant increase of brotherly love and loyalty.

Although we consider that the Lutheran pestilence, poison and death, is now better known to the whole world, than that it may henceforth poison a Christian man with a few falsities and fabrications: Nevertheless, it is to be feared, if it were permitted to rage and rage further with invented guile and preconceived treachery, to pervert the holy laws and rights, to deny the holy fathers' decrees and to tear the unseamed skirt of our Lord JEsu Christ (as it is subjected to by the devilish inspirations) in the most cruel manner and to

He will henceforth lead into captivity some who follow after-talk and innate hatred rather than Christian truth, or rather, as the unlearned and those who are inclined to believe this deceitful, seductive man, who alone shows the appearance of a God-fearing man, together with him, to cut off their own necks and deprive them of their salvation. Therefore, we ask, admonish and remind Your Imperial Majesty, as sincerely as we are able, to root out this weed and poisoned heresy, to show a Christian prince's duty, office and aim in a bold and stately manner, and to consider that she may not prove a more pleasant service to the Almighty God than when she will endeavor to do so, to root out this weed from the Christian Commun (as we are undoubtedly hoping to do in the near future), to drive this fragile, sick and mischievous sheep from the Christian faith far and wide and to chase it away, and not to suffer and allow such a great heresy to be attributed to the German bloodline.

*This letter is found in Cyprian's "Nützliche Urkunden zur Reformations-Geschichte", Theil II, p. 222 in Latin, and in German after Spalatin's translation.

130 XIII Luther's Dispute with Henry VIII. W. xix, 154-1S6. 131

That the divine teaching and commandment of the saints be interpreted by the schismatic, unpeaceful and deceitful man, out of the hope of his senseless mind, and that the holy and many hundred years outdated ceremonies and customs and worship be diminished, or else destroyed; Yes, rather, cut off and cut off in time this impure and stubborn member from the noblest part of the corpse, and the heretical and harmful books, because there is no hope of salvation, together with Luther, as much as possible, with the fire, and sword, if he converts and improves himself, and no longer allow such a great pestilence, which is to be hated and cursed at all times, to grow up and spread with impunity. To what so holy and such a work, which is good for a Christian mind and heart, if not our petition, nor the brotherly and pure remembrance and admonition, nor the most inward and great covenant, should move the same your highness: so they should at least the increase of the holy right faith, the love of the Christian fear of God, the bond of the Christian confession, the common blessedness of all of us,

and, finally, to kindle the love that we all owe to Almighty God to confront and control this rampant disease. For that we advise this to Your Most Holy Majesty, we are moved by no other cause than that we desire to maintain the honor and dignity of the Holy Church and the Papal See whole and unharmed, and to be driven away from the German nation, which is otherwise a most solid fortress of the Christian faith, such a great stain, dishonor and disgrace. If, then, Your Imperial Majesty will bear and bring forth the fruits of the most God-fearing mind, which has been hoped for, and prove that she is worthy of such a great and high status, which she has attained by divine endowment, to which we want to give assistance at all times, with our council, our fortune and our blood, to carry out such an excellent and fine work, if necessity so requires. Your most holy majesty, whom the almighty God will be pleased to protect and handle for the increase of the Christian faith for a long time.

From our Royal Castle Greenwich, on the twentieth day of May, Anno 1521.

*71 King Henry VIII's letter to the Elector Palatine, Louis the Peaceable, )

which also contains complaints against Luther.

Greenwich, the

Henry, by the grace of God King of England and France, and Lord of Hibernia, deprives the most illustrious Prince, Lord Ludwig, Count Palatine of the Rhine, Duke of Bavaria 2c, Archduke of the Holy Roman Empire and Elector, his most beloved friend, of his blessedness.

That among you in German lands the fire, kindled by Luther and maintained by diabolical cunning for so long, not yet extinguished, rages and rages again so much, is not only on your account, but much more and more sorry to us for the sake of the holy Christian faith, than understood by some Scripture and letter, or else by man's own.

May 20, 1521.

The German nation, which has always been the most firm and strict of all nations, is not remembered before these times. For it is not remembered by any man or history or chronicle before these times that the most contentious and strict German nation, which has always been the most firm and secure preservation, help and fortification of the troubles, concerns and hardships of Christendom, has ever knowingly allowed a seed and cause of heresy to grow or, if one had secretly taken root, that it had not immediately and hourly driven it out and done away with it. For what could have happened to the German nation that was more shameful, dishonest, and inglorious?

*This letter is found in Cyprian's "Nützliche Urkunden zur Reformations-Geschichte", Theil II, p. 230.

132 Henry VIII to Prince Ludwig of the Palatinate. W. xix, 156-is8. 133

For one has grown up and risen from the dead in and among them, who has rejected the divine laws, the constitution and statutes of the holy fathers, and decrees that have become obsolete through so many years, more out of insolence and arrogance of an unjust and wicked mind than out of any respectability and completeness of Christian doctrine, and much else than the customs of the most respectable and the teachings of God, than out of some, even the very least respectability and wholeness of Christian doctrine, and much else, because those of their customs were most respectable and their doctrine was given to them by God, and they have always considered the laws and statutes touched upon to be the very truest and the very firmest, has he taken upon himself to interpret and construe them? And even if he had wanted to do enough for his innate hopefulness, and even if he had been challenged, either by the gloomy hatred of some people, or by his own avarice, it would still have been a little more painful if he had spared the holy Scriptures in the least, and had not introduced heresy, weeds and error in the name and appearance of holiness, and had not taken it upon himself to fill his hopeful and poisoned courage with very great danger to the Christian faith, and had not taught the sheep of the Lord Christ to fall away from the Lord Christ. If now the most wicked man's preconceived lies and cunning and trickery, by inspiration and coincidence of the devil, which in the beginning darkened the minds of some few people with the painted color of divine service and godliness, have finally become so well known and obvious in the whole world, and have thus come to light by divine will, that one must not have much trouble and work to keep his false and perverse faith, he will not be able to keep his faith.

Opinion, opinion and opinion with some reasonable causes further to move and overturn. Considering that he, who recognizes himself guilty and unjust in his conscience, now protects, saves, defends and stops himself with nonsense and heresy alone. Accordingly, we beseech and remind you in the Lord, by the increase of the holy Christian faith, by the salvation and honor of the German nation, by the friendly good opinion, faithfulness, goodwill and inclination which we bear to you by innate and hereditary habit, and finally by the common blessedness of all of us, let it lay bold and swift hands to eradicate and kill this poisoned, hereditary pestilence that is weaving itself around, and to avert and drive away the near and future destruction. Also the disobedient and contumacious of the Lord Christ, Luther, who then gives himself to grace and repentance, together with his heretical books, destroy and burn him to the ground. For in this way you will increase and maintain your honor, praise and Christian name, and show and prove that neither the cunning, danger and deceit of some heretics, nor the hatred or hope of some few, are so powerful, strong and respectable among you that they are able to distort, reverse and destroy all divine and human things and things. Which so holy and so pleasing to God work to accomplish and spend, we offer you our favor, help, fortune, together with our blood and life heartily, talk and promise. And blessed be you. Given in our royal castle and court camp at Greenwich on the twentieth day of May. Anno Domini 1521.

134- XIII Luther's Dispute with Henry VIII. W. xix, iss-ieo. 135

72. king Henry VIII in England writing,*)

In it, against Luther's book of the Babylonian Captivity, he wanted to assert the seven sacraments.

Translated from the Latin by M. Joh. Frick.

Assertion of the Seven Sacraments against Martin Luther, published by the most invincible king in England and France and

Lord in Ireland, Henry, of that name the Eighth, Anno 1521.

To Our Most Holy Lord, Lord Leo the Tenth, Roman Pontiff, Henry, by > the Grace of God King in England and France and Lord in Ireland, > wishes eternal bliss.

Since we are accustomed to spend our young years partly in war and partly in various other occupations for the good of the common good, we do not doubt that you, most holy father, will be surprised that we are now taking upon ourselves the work of such a person, who has devoted his entire life to studies, and who wants to prevent a great heresy that has taken root. Your Holiness, however, will, I believe, cease to be surprised when he will consider the causes which have impelled us to write this laborious document (which we do not like to admit to be equal to). For we have had to perceive how all kinds of sects have arisen from the weeds scattered in the Lord's field, how heresies have grown up in the faith, and how such a terrible discord has spread throughout Christendom that no true and righteous Christian can any longer endure this great evil, which is spreading so far, but rather sees the utmost necessity before him to oppose it with all his might. Accordingly, no one should be surprised that we, too, who are not strong in strength, but in faithfulness and good will to such a godly, so useful and so

We have set ourselves the task of proving both our reverence for Your Holiness and our zeal in the service of Christ, and our obedience to the adorable God, trusting completely that although our scholarship is so poor that it cannot be considered anything at all, nevertheless, through His grace, He will work with us in such a way that what we have not been able to accomplish through our scholarship, He Himself will be able to do according to His great power, that it should not be considered anything at all, the Lord will work with us through His grace in such a way that what we have not been able to accomplish through our science, He Himself will accomplish according to His goodness and great power and will help our weakness in knowledge through His strength. And although we do not deny that there are many everywhere who could have taken on this task more capably and done more justice to it, we are not so inexperienced in the sciences, especially in the theological sciences, that we should be ashamed to try something in writing, however small it may be, in a common matter, according to our ability. For since we learned from experience, as soon as we got a little older, that religion has a strong influence on the administration of common things, we began to take no little care of their consideration, and in doing this we found great pleasure in it; although it is not unknown to us that we did not get very far in it. At least, in our opinion, we have gained as much as is necessary, with the help, or rather the impetus, of that which can equip even an unlearned person and make him capable, I mean godliness and the sensitive pain over the offended religion, to thoroughly expose the fraud of the Lutheran heresy. In such confidence, we have dared to

*This writing appeared first in Latin in London in 1521 under the title: ^äsertio sextsm sacrarnentorum aävorsus Älartiuum Imtüsruiu; then it was printed again many times, among others in Antwerp in 1522, then, without indication of the place, in 1523; in Leyden in 1561; in Paris in 1562; in Naples in 1728; in the collection of the writings of Johann Fischer, bishop of Rochester, Würzburg in 1597, and in Abrah. Bzovii annai. aä nun. 1521, thorn. XlX, r>. Hieronymus Emser translated them into German and published them in 1522 under the title: Schutz und Handhabung der sieben Sacramenten wider Martinum Luther, von dem unüberwindlichsten König in Engelland und Frankreich und Herr in Hibernia, Hrn.

136 72 Henry VIII. Against the Babyl. Captivity. W. XIX, 160-162. 137

and our thoughts to Your Holiness, so that they may submit to public judgment under His name, who holds the office of Christ's governor on earth. For we are of the opinion that, since this heresy, which has been going on for some time among Christians, has been torn from the hands of the people, as it were, by virtue of your emphatic and salutary pronouncement, whatever of it still lies in the hearts, which have been seduced either by trickery or by flattering promises, must also be rooted out and banished in a proper way, or with proper reasons. For since minds are of such a kind that they prefer to be led rather than to be dragged by force, mild means must also be used with them. Whether we will achieve anything with them or not, we leave to the judgment of Your Holiness, to whose opinion we also entrust everything that would be an oversight on our part to be improved.

To the readers.

Although I lack both eloquence and erudition, I am driven by faithfulness and godliness, so that I may not be accused of any ingratitude, to defend my mother, Christ's bride (the church); but oh that it could only be done with as great ability as will on my part! But if others were in a better position to carry out this work, I nevertheless considered it my duty to take care of the church as much as possible, even though I am not at all learned, and to oppose the poisonous arrows of the enemy rushing toward her. To do this, the time and the present condition require. For before someone attacked, it was not necessary to defend oneself. But now that an enemy has arisen who could not be more harmful, who, by inspiration of the devil, under the pretext of love, driven by anger and hatred, spits out a snake venom both against the church and against the Catholic faith, it is necessary that against a general enemy of the Christian faith all servants of Christ, whatever their age, sex, or rank, stand up, and those who lack strength at least show their guilt by a zealous desire. And now we must protect ourselves with double weapons, namely with heavenly and with earthly ones. With heavenly weapons, so that the one who, through an illusory love, both brings others to ruin and himself to ruin, may be won over by true love and win over others, and so that one may have the victory over the one who fights with an illusory doctrine through the true doctrine.

victory. But with earthly ones, so that if the enemy is of such obstinate wickedness that he does not respect a holy council and throws a loving punishment to the wind, he may be brought to obedience by the chastisement, so that he who does not want to do good may refrain from doing evil, and he who has done great harm by wickedness may benefit others by the example of the punishment executed on him. Has such a harmful evil ever infiltrated Christ's army? Has such a poisonous serpent ever crept in as he who wrote of the Babylonian captivity of the Church, who twisted the holy Scriptures according to his own mind against the sacraments of Christ, who scornfully traversed the customs described by the ancient Fathers of the Church? who does not respect the most holy men, the most ancient interpreters of the Holy Scriptures, who calls the Holy Roman See Babylon, who calls the highest priesthood a tyranny, who considers the salvific conclusions of the whole Church a captivity, and who changes the name of the most holy pope into Antichrist? O what an abominable pride, insult and division does not this one blow and push away! What an abominable infernal wolf is not he who endeavors to scatter the host of Christ! What a mighty member of Satan is he who seeks to tear Christians, as members of Christ, from their head! How corrupt is not the heart, how accursed the intention of him who seeks out again the buried divisions, adds new ones to the old ones, and brings to light again the heresies that should have remained in eternal darkness, as the hound of hell, and considers himself the one according to whose word, with disregard of the old ones, everything should be directed, we would rather say, the whole church should fall over a heap!

What we shall say of its wickedness I know not, which we consider greater than a tongue could utter or a pen describe. Therefore we admonish and ask all believers in Christ, and for the sake of the name of Christ, which we confess, that those who want to read Luther's writings (if he is otherwise the author of the "Babylonian Captivity") may read them with caution and care, so that, as Virgilius said that he reads gold out of the dung of Ennii, they also read good in the midst of evil, but not, if they find something that pleases them, let themselves be so taken in by it that they imbibe poison at the same time as honey. For it would be better to do without both than to swallow both. So that this does not happen, then

138XIII Luther's Dispute with Henry VIII. W. xix, 162-iss. 139

I wish that the author will one day change his mind, so that he will convert and live, and withdraw his books, which are full of malice, according to Augustine's example, to whose order he belongs, and recant his errors. If Luther refuses to do so, it will soon happen that if Christian princes join together and take care of their office, his errors and he himself, if he persists in error, will be consumed by fire. However, we have considered it good to show the readers some passages in the book of the Babylonian captivity in which the poison is mainly contained. From this it will be clear with what a wounded conscience he went to this work, who, by pretending to the common best, was up to nothing but pure evil.

The proof of what we have now said must not be carried far. For lest someone run up and down and be made doubtful, Luther betrays himself and his meaning soon in the beginning. For who should doubt where he is aiming his sights when he has read even the first line?

The indulgence is a knavery of the Roman sycophants.

(1) Just as every animal is recognized primarily by its face, or is distinguished from others; so it is clear from this first sentence what a festering and rotten heart, whose mouth is full of bitterness, passes over from such a leech. For what he formerly wrote about indulgences, most people saw as depriving the pope of his power and the faithful of their blessed hope and comfort, and as forcibly moving people's minds so that they would trust in the riches of their penance and pay no attention to the treasure of the church and the free grace of God. And yet, all that he wrote at that time was still interpreted for the best, because he only said most of it and did not prove it, sometimes also demanded to be taught, and promised to follow the one who would teach him better. But what the supposed saint, who ascribes everything to the spirit, which nevertheless shuns and hates falsehood, wrote in simplicity, can easily be recognized from the fact that as soon as he was reminded by someone in a salutary way, he immediately repays good with evil, scolds and reviles; from which it can be seen how far he had come in anger and nonsense. Before, he confessed that the indulgence still had at least this power, that

he frees not only from guilt but also from punishment, which either the church has awarded or the priest has imposed. Now, however, not through his erudition (as he speaks), but through his malice, he has lapsed into contradicting himself and rejecting indulgences altogether, saying that they are nothing but pure fraud; good for nothing but depriving people of money and faith in God. Everyone can see how maliciously he not only raves, but also how furiously. For if indulgences are of no use, but, as Luther says, are vain deceit, then not only Pope Leo the Tenth (whose holy and blameless life and blameless conduct from his youth onward are very well known throughout the world) must of necessity be a part of it, as Luther himself confesses in a letter to the pope), but also for many hundred years after each other all Roman popes were frauds, who (as Luther himself also states) used to grant indulgences, one for one year, the other for three years; some granted some quadragenas, others a certain part of the whole penance, as the third part or half; still others granted plenary indulgences for guilt and punishment. Thus, if Luther wrote the truth, they were all impostors. But with how much stronger reason is it assumed that this single brother is a sick sheep than that so many popes should have been faithless shepherds from long ago. For Luther shows quite clearly (as we have already said) what kind of man he is; how little love is to be found in him, since he is not afraid to blaspheme so much against such great, such holy popes. If God says to all in the third book of Moses: there shall be no blasphemer nor ear-blower among the people; what is to be thought of Luther, who scatters such an atrocious blasphemy, not against a single man, but against so many and so venerable rulers, and not only gossips about it in a single city, but trumpets it throughout the whole world? If in the fifth book of Moses he is called cursed who secretly strikes his neighbor, how much greater a curse is he guilty of who publicly rails against his superiors? If, finally, according to the evangelist, he who hates his brother is a murderer and lacks eternal life, is not he who hates his father a murderer of fathers and worthy of eternal death? If he goes so far as to claim that indulgences have no power on earth, I will probably enter into a dispute with him in vain about what he can do to help those in purgatory.

140 Henry VIII against the Babylonian captivity. Captivity. W. xix, i65-i68. 141

2 Moreover, what is the use of speaking of the means by which we are delivered from purgatory to one who denies the whole doctrine of purgatory? And therefore, because he cannot bear that the pope absolves someone from it, he takes the liberty that he does not want to leave anyone in this place. What is the use of arguing with him, since he argues with himself? What good will it do me to argue with him by means of evidence that he should admit what he has denied before, since he now denies exactly what he has already admitted before. Now, however much one may dispute about papal indulgences, one must stand firm and firm by the words of Christ, in which he entrusts the keys of the kingdom of heaven to Petro, when he said: "Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven," Matth. 16. Item: "Whose soever sins you forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose soever sins you retain, they are retained." Now since it is clear from these words that every priest has the power to absolve from mortal sins and to take away eternal punishment, to whom should it not seem strange that the chief priest has no right over temporal punishments? But someone might object: Luther will not accept that a priest binds or loosens anything, or that the pope has a greater power than another bishop. But what is it to me what he accepts or does not accept, who accepted most of what he now does not want to accept shortly before, and now alone confuses everything that the whole church believed for so many centuries? For I do not think of other things on which the new reprover does not speak well, so that if the popes who granted indulgences had sinned, the whole assembly of the faithful, who unanimously accepted them for so long, would not be free of sins. But I think that one should rather stick to their judgment and to the custom observed by the saints than to follow Luther alone, who nonsensically condemns the whole church, and not only calls its head a foolish name, but is also not afraid to make a cry that the papal name is an empty name, and that in fact the papal regime can be regarded as nothing else than the Babylonian empire and the tyranny of Nimrod, the mighty hunter. Therefore, he asks the readers and booksellers to burn everything he has written before about the papacy and to keep this single sentence:

The Pabstthum is the mighty hunt of the Roman bishop.

This is certainly not a foolish wish, according to which he wants all his previous writings to be burned with fire. For most of it is worth nothing better. However, this sentence deserves it even more, which he alone wants to have preserved, after everything else has been removed from the way, as such a truth, which alone is worthy of eternal remembrance. Who should not be astonished here again at its inconstancy, except to whom its wickedness is already known before? Before, he denied that the papal power came from God and admitted that it was from men. Now, however, he is not at one with himself and claims that it does not come from either of them, but that the pope has arrogated the power to himself on his own authority. For this reason, he long ago held that the Roman Pontiff had been given dominion over the Catholic Church only according to human will, for the sake of the common good. And he asserted this so strongly that he also showed great disgust at the division of the Bohemians, because they had declared obedience to the Roman See, and said that those who did not obey the pope were committing a mortal sin. By writing such things not so long ago, he is now falling into the very thing he cursed at that time. The same steadfastness can be inferred from the fact that, since he taught in a public sermon that banishment or exclusion from the congregation was a useful means and that one had to bear it willingly and patiently, he himself, after he had been banished soon thereafter, and rightly so, He himself, after he had been banished soon after, and rightly so, carried the sentence against him so impatiently that he broke out in a rage into unheard-of and disgusting invectives, vituperations and blasphemies, as if he wanted to indicate by his rage that those who are cast out of the bosom of the church, which is our mother, would immediately be seized by the Furies and plagued by the devils. But I ask how he, who saw this only a short time ago, has now learned so quickly that he saw nothing at that time. Has he got new eyes? Or does he see more sharply now that his usual pride has been joined by anger and hatred? Or does he see further through the excellent eyeglasses he uses?

4. I will not act so inequitably against the pope as to enter anxiously and carefully into an inquiry about his right, as when

142XIII Luther's Dispute with Henry VIII. W. xix, iss-iro. 143

Such a thing would still be doubtful. At present, it is already enough that his adversary has gone so far in his rage that he denies himself all faith and clearly indicates that he himself is not sure of his cause because of his malice and does not know what he is saying. For he cannot deny that the whole faithful church recognizes and reveres the Holy Roman See as the mother and as the head, which only either the remoteness of the place or all kinds of danger prevent from coming. However, if it is otherwise true what those who come here from India testify, even Indians, who are separated by so many countries, seas and wastelands, submit to the Roman pope. Therefore, if the pope received such a great and extensive power neither by divine command nor according to human will, but arrogated it to himself, Luther may tell us when he had invaded the possession of such a great dominion. The beginning of such an amazing power cannot have remained unknown, especially if it was made in the memory of men. If he says that it arose about one or two human ages ago, he may prove this to us from history. Otherwise, however, if the thing were so old that one did not know anything about its origin, he would recognize that, according to all laws, that whose right exceeds all men's memory in such a way that one cannot know what kind of beginning it had, must be considered to have had a rightful beginning; indeed, it is known that all peoples agree that it is forbidden by the laws to set in motion (or to cast doubt on) that which has stood immobile for a long time. Certainly, if someone looks up the books of history, he will find that already before times, soon after the world was reconciled (by Christ), mostly all churches in Christendom made themselves submissive to the Roman one. Yes, we will perceive that even Greece, although she herself attained a dominion, nevertheless, as far as the highest spiritual dignity is concerned, kept it with the Roman church, except at the time of a division that arose. How much the Roman See should be granted, however, is clearly indicated by St. Jerome, who, although he himself was not a Roman, openly confessed that it would be enough if the Roman pope proved his prestige; others might object to whatever they wanted. Since Luther now speaks so bluntly, completely contrary to his previous opinion, that the pope has no authority over the Catholic Church, not even according to human law, but that he has no authority over the Roman Catholic Church.

has arbitrarily arrogated to himself a dominion: so I wonder very much that he imagines his readers either so credulous, or so stupid, to believe that a priest, unarmed and surrounded with no attendants (such he must have been before he intruded himself to the power as Luther speaks), could have thought and imagined, without basing himself on a right and relying on a respectable title, to have such a dominion over so many bishops, I will not say how anyone could imagine that all peoples, cities, kingdoms, countries, should have been so profligate with their property, with their right and their freedom, that they should grant to a foreign priest, to whom they owe nothing, so much power over themselves as he would hardly dare to demand himself. But what lies in this? Luther may believe what he likes in this, but at least he is merely admitting that his mind is clouded, his foolish heart darkened, and that he is given to doing and speaking in a wrong way what is not proper. How true is not the saying of the apostle: "If I could prophesy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge, and have all faith, so that I might remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing," 1 Cor. 13. But how far Luther is from the same (love) can be seen not only because he is consumed with wrath himself, but even more because he wants to drag everyone with him to destruction by taking pains to make everyone disobey the pope, to whom he himself is connected by a threefold bond, namely as a Christian, as a priest and as a brother; but for this very reason God will also punish him threefold. He does not think that obedience is much better than sacrifice, nor does he consider, because in the fifth book of Moses it is written: "Where anyone would act presumptuously, that he would not obey the priest who stands there in the office of the Lord his God, or the judge, he shall die", Deut. 17, what severe punishment he deserves who does not obey the highest priest and highest judge on earth. For the little monk, both at that time, when he was summoned to appear before the pope, when he was paid the expenses and promised protection, nevertheless refused to come without safe conduct, and now, too, he is violently confusing the church and stirring up the whole body to rebel against the head, which to contradict is an astonishing wickedness, and to continue in wickedness is to be considered an idolatrous sin.

144 72 Henry VIII. Against the Babyl. Captivity. W. XIX, 170-173. 145

Therefore, since Luther, through his hatred, plunges himself into ruin and refuses to obey the divine law, as he who seeks to establish his own law, we Christians should also take care, lest (as the apostle says) through the transgression of one man we become sinners of many, according to Romans 5, but rather bear an abhorrence of his wickedness and sing to the Lord with the prophet the song: "I am an enemy to the wicked, but I love your law.

5 Whether these two pieces, that indulgences are to be completely abolished and that the supreme power is to be taken away from the pope, of which we have explained our opinion, are very ungodly, Luther only needs them as preludes to overthrow the sacraments so that he can go around in his whole book. He himself admits that this book was meant to be a prelude to another work, in which, I believe, he seriously set out to attack the entire faith with hostility. Although I am very surprised if he will publish something with such zeal that he can flourish from poison even more than this whole prelude is puffed up, in which he left only three of seven sacraments, and that only for a time, by indicating that he will also eradicate these at the earliest. For one of these three he picked up soon after in the very same book to show what he would present in the following.

(6) To this he seems to pave the way by saying that when he wants to speak with the Scripture, he does not set more than One Sacrament and Three Sacramental Signs. If someone examines with diligence how he acts these three sacraments, which he at present regards either as three, or as one among three different signs, he will realize that he has acted them in such a way that he leaves no one in doubt that he has in mind to completely eliminate all three sacraments in his time. So that you, reader, may get behind the deceitfulness of this serpent with easier effort, just pay close attention to all his traces; walk very slowly, but do not walk too safely in the midst of his thorns and thistles, loopholes and caves, so that he does not secretly pursue you and let a deadly poison drip into your heels. For if you do not 1) enter it, it will lie there inert and rot from its own poison.

Therefore, let us begin there,

1. The "not" is inserted by us to give a sense to this dark sentence. The sense is perhaps: If one leaves him alone, he will perish by his own poison.

where he began, namely, with the venerable Sacrament of the Body of Christ, in which he first of all changed the name and preferred to call it the Sacrament of Bread, thereby indicating that he could not suffer us to remember the name of the Sacrament of the Body of Christ; and if he could only have found a pretense under which he could have put an evil name, he would not have refrained from doing so. St. Ambrose departs very far from his meaning when he says: "Although one sees the form of the bread and wine on the altar, one should firmly believe that it is nothing other than the flesh and blood of Christ. From which words it is quite clear that Ambrose believes that no other essence remains mixed with the essence of the body of Christ, by saying that what appears to have the form of bread and wine is nothing other than the body and blood of Christ. If Ambrose had only said that it was flesh and blood, Luther would perhaps have said that Ambrose, by admitting that it was flesh and blood, did not deny that the bread and the wine were there at the same time, as Luther himself writes that the substance of the flesh unites with the substance of the bread and the essence of the blood unites with the essential wine. But since Ambrose says that there is nothing else than flesh and blood, he obviously contradicts Luther, who says: the bread is at the same time with the flesh, and the wine is at the same time with the blood. However, even if what Luther asserts were as true as it is false, that the bread remains united with the body of Christ, Luther did not need to exclude the name of the body of Christ from the sacrament, in which, according to his confession, the true body of Christ is present. For if the essence of the bread were present at the same time as the body of Christ, which he argues for, there is no reason why the lesser substance should take away the name of the nobler and higher one. It is true that the apostle himself, because he wished to be guided by the concept of the hearers, who were still simple and inexperienced, called the sacrament bread; but now that one has been so long established in this doctrine of faith, one should not change such a venerable name, which presents the essence of the sacrament to those who hear it called, into a name that draws hearts and minds away from the body of Christ and toward the bread. Luther would probably not have made this change if he had not had in mind to gradually change the people, of whom he could already foresee it, from the name of the sacrament to the name of Christ.

146XIII Luther's Dispute with Henry VIII. W. xix, 173-176. 147

to bring the body of Christ to the worship of the bread, of which we will speak more soon.

8 Meanwhile, let us examine how deceitfully, under the pretense of love for the laity, he endeavored to incite them to hate the clergy. Then he decided to make the church's faith suspect, so that its reputation would fall, and in this way he paved the way to overthrow the most noble pieces of the Christian religion: so he started from such a point that he believed the mob would quickly fall in with him. He touched again the old sore, which had long ago sickened the Bohemians, that the laity did not partake of the Lord's Supper in either form. And since he first wrote about this matter in such a way that he only said that the pope would do well to draw a general conclusion that the laity received the sacrament under both forms, he left it alone after someone contradicted him as to who it was, We do not know who it was, he did not stop at what he said, but went so far in malice that he accused the entire clergy of impiety because they did not carry it out, and could not wait until the matter would be dealt with at a concilio. We do not want to talk about the first one here. However, although we do not understand the reasons why the Church does not conclude that both forms should be given to the laity, we do not doubt that it was done for good reasons, that it was not done before, and that such reasons exist even now, why the whole Sacrament is not distributed among them. Nor can we give our complete approval to the idea that the entire clergy should have been so foolish for so many centuries as to be guilty of an eternal punishment for the sake of a cause from which no temporal advantage accrued to it, since it is rather to be seen from this that it placed itself in no danger, rather, it can be seen from this that they did not put themselves in any danger, because God the Lord not only allowed this to happen, but also wrote that it should be so, and took them up into heaven and allowed them to be given great honor on earth among the people who worship Him. Among them was also, to say nothing of others, the highly learned and holy Thomas Aquinas, whom I remember here so much better, because Luther, according to his malice, can hear nothing of the holiness of this man; but blasphemes him, before whom all Christians show their reverence, with unwashed lips everywhere. Although there are many others who do not stand in the number of the saints, but who, one may either refer to

The people who see the doctrine or life are of such a nature that Luther cannot be compared with them. These are also not of the same opinion with Luther in this. Among them are Peter Lombard (magister sententiarum) and Nicolaus de Lyra, as well as many others whom Christians can trust more than Luther. For behold how fickle Luther is and how he contradicts himself. In one place he says that Christ did not allow all believers to drink of the Lord's Supper, but said, "Drink of it, all of you. Soon afterward, however, out of concern that the laity, whom he flatters out of hatred for the clergy, might take offense at this, he adds these words: "Not that those sin against Christ who enjoy only one form, because Christ prescribes nothing for us, but leaves it to our liberty, saying: As often as you do it, do it in remembrance of me; but those only provide it who refuse to give both forms to those who want to use their liberty in this. There you obviously see that he first said that there was a command, and here he claims that nothing is prescribed, but that it is in everyone's freedom. Now what need is there for us to contradict him, since he so often contradicts himself? And yet, when all is taken together, he does not entirely absolve the laity from sin when the matter is sharply examined, nor does he prove that the clergy, whom he so cruelly attacks, commit sin. For he places the whole sin in the fact that the priests deprived the laity, against their will, of the freedom to take the other form.

(9) Therefore, if anyone should ask him how he knows that this use has arisen against the will of the people, he will not be able to explain it, as we think. Why then does he condemn the whole clergy for depriving the laity of their right, against their will, since he can produce no proof that it was done against their will? Would it not have been much better to say that, since such a decree could not have been made without their will, the laity would have consented to it, according to the custom established by so many centuries? At least, considering how little the clergy can obtain from the laity, and how they cannot prevent even this, that they do not almost bury their dead under the altar themselves, we cannot well believe that the mob would allow that against their will, to their detriment in such an important matter, they should be deprived of the least of their rights; rather, we believe that this decree was made for considerable reasons with the good will of the laity. But

148 72 Henry VIII. Against the Babylonian Captivity. W. XIX, 176-178. 149

I am surprised that Luther is so displeased that the laity have been deprived of the other form, since he does not mind that the children are deprived of both forms, because he himself cannot deny that they received the Lord's Supper before. What custom, if it has been justly abolished, although Christ says, Drink ye all of it, and no one doubts that there were important causes for it, although now no one is aware of them: why should we not also imagine that the custom, according to which the laity formerly, and perhaps not for a very long time, were accustomed to take the Sacrament under both forms, has been abolished for just and lawful causes, although unknown to us? Moreover, if he examines this point carefully according to the account of the evangelists, and takes all liberty from the church in this, why does he not also wish that the Lord's Supper should always be partaken of during, or rather after, the evening meal? After all, it is no more proper to do something at this sacrament which you ought not to do than to omit something which ought to have been done by you. If, then, according to the custom of the whole church, it is wrong for the laity to be deprived of the form of wine, how may Luther mix wine with water? For I do not consider him so bold that he should consecrate wine without water; but that he mixes it with water he has learned neither from the first supper of the Lord, nor from the narrative of Paul, but only from the custom of the church; and if he keeps it with the same in one piece, why does he argue so pompously against it in another? Luther, however, may shout what he will about it; yet I consider it safer to believe that the Lord's Supper is rightly distributed among the laity only in one form, than that for so many centuries the whole clergy (as he says) should have been condemned on account of this single cause. For he calls all of them ungodly, and so ungodly that they have fallen into the sin of offended evangelical majesty. If one asks who are to be considered heretics and sectarians, he says, not the Bohemians, not the Greeks, because they are based on the gospel; but you Romans are heretics and godless sectarians, as you take the liberty of inventing something contrary to the clear letter of Scripture. If Luther accepts nothing but the clear letter of the Scriptures, why does he not also (as we have already said) want the Lord's Supper to be partaken of in the evening? for the Scriptures tell us that Christ kept it in the evening. How much more will

Luther believe that it was not by human invention but by God Himself that it was introduced into the Church that the laity do not take the Lord's Supper under both forms, from which also the ordinance was introduced that it should be received sober? For "it pleased the Holy Spirit," as St. Augustine says, "that the body of the Lord, which the apostles received at supper after other common foods, should be taken before other foods soberly in the church." It is therefore probable that the Holy Spirit, who governs the church of Christ, as he changed the sacrament of the Lord's Supper to such an extent that not those who had eaten supper, but sober persons, should receive it, so also arranged that the laity should no longer partake of both kinds of food, but only of one kind. For whoever has been able to change one, why should he not also be able to change the other? Luther thus betrays himself as to what he has in mind, because he is now so flattering the Bohemians, whose infidelity he has long since maligned. For none of those whom he calls papists and the pope's foxtails flatters the Roman leader as much as Luther flatters the common rabble in Bohemia. He does this not without reason. For he sees well that it will soon happen that the Germans, whom he has long deceived under the pretense of sheep simplicity, will finally cast out the recognized wolf. And that is why he first ingratiates himself with the Bohemians and makes friends with the unjust Mammon, so that, once he is driven out of his country, those whose errors he has crept into will accept him into their fatherland. But in order to make himself all the more popular with them for the sake of a strange deed, he undertakes to strike down all the prestige of church customs and, if he should succeed in this (which God wants to avert), to set everything in motion. For he takes on more than he will achieve. He takes care of the laymen in such a way that he thinks differently than he outwardly pretends: in one hand he offers them bread caressingly, in the other he carries a scorpion. For he first speaks widely of allowing the laity to take both forms, and who does not believe that he intends to increase the devotion of the laity to the Sacrament? But only notice where he aims afterwards. For he finally concludes the whole lecture in such a way that he demands that this too should be permitted, that the laity should no longer be compelled to go to communion on Easter, and that no time should be prescribed for them to receive the same, but that it should be

150XIII Luther's Dispute with Henry VIII. W. xix, i78-i8i. 151

It is left to the freedom of each one, and also that no one should take it more than once in his whole life, and that on the day of death, which is uncertain, and on which, when it has come to that, very few want to take it. Thus he, who before asserted that the sacrament should be given to the laity under both forms, concedes on the other hand that it is well to take no form at all, and makes this a liberty that the laity may abstain from the whole sacrament. Therefore, as friendly as this serpent looks at you, it still tries to pierce you with its poisonous tail, and it is quite clear that this torments him even more, that the laity take one form, than that they must abstain from the other. For just as the old serpent, after having been cast out of heaven, begrudged man paradise; so Luther, after having been banished through his own fault, so that he now completely lacks the wholesome use of both forms, seeks to draw all others into this snare, so that they may gradually get into the habit of taking no form at all, but such as are now no longer bound to receive both forms.

(10) The further you get in his book, the more his malicious intention catches your eye. For this is called with him the other prison, that one wants to prevent people from believing that the true bread and the true wine are still there after the Consecration. In this Luther wants to persuade us, against the opinion that all of Christendom accepts and has held to be true for so many hundred years, that Christ's body and blood are present in the Lord's Supper in such a way that the essence of the true bread and the true wine remains; and I think that he will deny the essence of the body and blood one day, if it occurs to him, and improve his opinion in this way, as he has already done three times, namely, on the point of indulgences, of the authority of the pope, and of the communion of the laity. In the meantime, he pretends that he wrote this because he was moved to do so by pity for the prisons in which the Israelite people served Babylon. So he calls the whole church a Babylon: the faith of the church he calls a servitude, and the merciful man offers freedom to all and sundry who want to separate themselves from the church and let themselves be infected by this rotten and cut-off limb. But it is well worth the effort to investigate how he attracts people to this more than servile freedom.

11. its main and most noble reason is

This one, "one should not do violence to the words of God, neither by a man nor by an angel, but one should, as much as possible", as he speaks, "remain with the proper meaning and not fall without urgent need on an improper and vague one, so that one does not give the adversaries the opportunity to mock the whole Scripture. But now we do violence to the words of God when we say that what Christ himself calls bread means only the accidental qualities of bread, and what Christ calls wine means only the form of wine. Thus, true bread and true wine remain on the altar. So that one does not do violence to the words of Christ if one takes the mere form for the essence. For since the evangelists clearly write that Christ took bread and blessed it, and since the book of Acts, as well as Paul, call it bread afterwards, true bread and true wine must be understood as a true cup. For even they themselves do not say that the cup is changed". This, then, is Luther's great and (as he himself calls it) most noble reason, which I hope will be explained in such a way that everyone can immediately see that it contains nothing important. For first of all, the fact that the evangelists write clearly what he says proves nothing so clearly for Luther, even though they speak clearly; on the other hand, they remain silent about what would still prove something for him. "Do they not write" (he says), "Christ took the bread and blessed it?" What is it then? That he took bread and blessed it, we ourselves confess; but that he gave bread to the disciples after he had made his body of it, we constantly deny, and the evangelists write nothing of it. In order that the matter may be clearer and all evasions prevented, let us hear the evangelists themselves. Matthew, Cap. 26, tells it thus: "And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, saying, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it:

1. This is not how Luther continues here, but what this and the two following sentences contain is a reversal of what Luther says in the "Babylonian Captivity": "It is therefore an inconsistent and new edition of words that bread is taken for the external appearance (specie) or the accidental qualities of bread, and wine for the external appearance and the accidental qualities of wine." King Henry wants his readers to believe as if Luther denies the essential and true presence of the body and blood of Jesus Christ in Holy Communion.

152 72 Henry VIII. Against the Babyl. Captivity. W. XIX, I8I-I83. 153

This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." Marci's words are thus, Cap. 14: "And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave it to them, saying, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, and they all drank of it. And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many." At last Lucas, cap. 22, the words thus, "And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave to them, saying, This is my body which is given for you. This do in remembrance of me. The same also took the cup after supper, saying, This is the cup, the new testament in my blood, which is poured out for you."

(12) From all these words of the evangelists I see no place where the sacrament after blessing is called bread or wine, but only body and blood. They say that Christ took the bread in his hand, which we all admit; but after the apostles took it, it is no longer called bread, but the body. Luther, however, seeks to interpret the words of the evangelist according to his own opinion and to turn them in this way: Take, eat, this, that is, this bread (he says), which he took and broke, is my body. This is Luther's interpretation; but it is not Christ's words, or the understanding of his words. If he had given the bread, which he took, to his disciples just as he took it, and had not first changed it into his body, and in presenting it had said: Take and eat, then one would quite rightly say that he had presented to them what he had taken in his hand. For what he would then have presented to them would have been nothing else (but bread). But because he changed the bread into his flesh before he gave it to the apostles to eat, they did not receive the bread that he had taken, but his body into which he had changed the bread. Just as if someone, after taking seed, gave another the flower that had grown from it, he would not have given what he had taken, even though here the common order of nature had produced one thing from another; so much less did Christ give to the apostles what he had taken in his hand, after he himself had changed the bread he had taken into his flesh by an astonishing miraculous work: because Aaron took the rod in his hand and threw the rod out of his hand, therefore the essence of the rod remained with the serpent; or, again, the essence of the rod remained with the serpent.

Serpent with the taken back rod. If with the serpent the rod could not remain, how much less can the bread remain with the flesh of Christ, as such an incomparable substance? For what Luther cleverly, or rather washes, "he remains with his simple faith, since Christ did not say of the wine: this is my blood, but this is my blood", I wonder what came into the man's mind when he wrote this. For who does not see how little this would help him and how it would rather seem to benefit him if Christ had said: this is my body. At least Luther would have had the opportunity to refer the article of proof to the wine. Now, although the word vinum generis is neutrius, Christ does not say: hoc, this, but hic, this is my blood, and although the word panis generis is masculini, he does say: hoc, this is my body, not hic, so that both articles indicate that Christ offers neither bread nor wine, but his body and blood. For that Luther wants the pronoun hoc to refer to the body, not according to the presentation of Christ, but according to the occasion of the Latin and Greek language, and therefore refers us to the Hebrew, is this not something ridiculous? For if the Hebrew language has no genus neutrum, neither can it show so clearly to which of the two Christ drew the article as the Latin or Greek. For if in the Hebrew language the article were in the genere masculino, as if to say: hic est corpus meum; still the matter would remain doubtful, because this expression could be regarded as forced, according to the requirements of the language, which has no neutrum. But since the words panis and corpus are not the same deneris among the Latins, he who translated them from the Greek language would have connected the article with bread, if he had not found in the evangelist that the proving article went to the body. Moreover, since Luther admits that there is also a different genus in Greek, he could easily have seen that the evangelists, who wrote in Greek, would have placed an article that was appropriate to the word panis, if they had not, because they knew the meaning of their Lord, wanted to remind the Christians of the article that is appropriate to the word corpus, that Christ did not give the disciples bread, but his body. Therefore, Luther's explanation, according to his own opinion, teaches us that the words of Christ: "Take and eat, this is my body, that is, this bread, which is not mine,

154XIII Luther's Dispute with Henry VIII. W. xix, 183-186. 155

but Christ himself, contrary to his own words, that what Christ handed them was not bread, as it appeared to them, but his body (if the evangelists relate Christ's words correctly), for otherwise he could have said, not hoc (which would have to be interpreted by the), but rather expressly: hic panis est corpus meum, this bread is my body, to teach the disciples that, as Luther now wants the church to believe, both Christ's body and bread were present in the Lord's Supper. But he spoke in this way so that he would clearly show that only the body is present, but not bread at the same time.

Because Luther so pompously claims what Christ also says about the cup, of which no one says that it is transformed, I am very surprised how the man is not at all ashamed of such appropriate foolishness. When Christ says, "This cup is the new testament in my blood," what does that do for Luther? What does it mean other than that what he gives to his disciples is his blood? Will Luther be able to tell us from these words of Christ that the essence of the wine remains because Christ speaks of the blood, or that the wine cannot be changed into the blood because the cup still remains? If Luther had rather chosen a prelude from another matter, in which he could have played with less danger. For since he acquits the Bohemians and Greeks of heresy in such a way that he cries out that all Romans are heretics, Luther rather reveals himself to be a heretic who not only denies the faith that the whole church professes, but also suggests much worse things to believe than either the Greeks or the Bohemians ever believed. We have written this only to the end, so that we may make clear from the words of Christ and the evangelists that one cannot prove what he boasts of doing from them, but that it is clear from them that there is no bread in the Lord's Supper. But that he objects that in the Acts of the Apostles the Lord's Supper is called bread, we wish he had put on a place. We find none which is not doubtful, and which does not seem to be much more about a common meal than about the sacramental. However, we readily admit that the apostle does not call it bread only once, and either in his speech he follows the custom of the Scriptures, which sometimes call something not what it really is, but what it was before, as when it says that the rod of Aaron means the rods of the sorcerers, which at that time were not rods, but the rods of the sorcerers.

It was enough for him to entertain a people who were still inexperienced in the faith with milk food and not to demand more of them at first than that the people should believe that the body of Christ was in the Lord's Supper and that he would then gradually feed them with stronger food when they had reached a manly age in Christ. This is also what happened in the Acts of the Apostles, where St. Peter, while addressing the people and inculcating them to believe in Christ, had misgivings about speaking so clearly about the divinity of Christ. Thus, they did not imprudently present hidden secrets that were doubtful to the people. But Christ did not hesitate to teach his apostles, whom he had so long established in his teaching, even at the first institution of the sacrament, that the substance of the bread and wine was no longer left, but that both the bread and the wine, of which only the form existed, had been changed into his body and blood. Which he taught so clearly that one must wonder how anyone could have come up afterwards and cast doubt on such a clear thing. For how could he have spoken more clearly that nothing of the bread remained, than when he said, This is my body? For he did not say, In this is my body, or, With what you see is my body, as if the body existed in the bread, or at the same time with the bread, but he says, This is my body; by which he evidently indicates (so that he may shut up those who bark about it) that the whole of what he presents to them is his body. Which, after he had presented it to the disciples, even if he had immediately given it the name of bread (which he did not do), no one, if he had at the same time reminded his hearers that what he called bread was nothing else than his body, into which the bread had been completely changed by him, could have doubted what Christ wanted to indicate by the name of bread. And so this paraphrase (for Luther also paraphrased the words) clearly shows that the word bread, in that the bread is changed into the body without doing the slightest violence to the word of God, means the form of the bread, but not the essence of it, unless Luther remains so precise in the actual understanding of the words that he believes that Christ was also in heaven a wheat or barley loaf, because he says of himself: I am the bread that came from heaven; or a barley loaf.

156 Henry VIII against the Babylonian captivity. Captivity. W. xix, 186-188. 157

A vine filled with true natural grapes, because he says: I am a true vine, and my Father is a vinedresser; or the elect would receive the reward in heaven by a bodily pleasure, because Christ says: I will appoint for you the kingdom, as my Father has appointed for me, that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom.

Luther takes a lot of trouble to overturn the arguments of the newer ones, so that they want to defend and prove the transformation, so that they take the reasons from Aristotelian philosophy. In this he seems to apply more diligence than the matter itself requires. For the church does not believe because they argue in this way, but because the church has believed this way from the beginning; and so that no one should waver, it has come to the conclusion that one must believe this way. Therefore they cite philosophical reasons in order to be able to show to some extent that nothing absurd follows from this belief; or that the transformation of the word (sic) into a new substance necessarily cancels the former substance and leaves nothing of it.

15. For Luther says that this doctrine of transformation arose only three hundred years ago, after the church had previously believed in Christ for over twelve hundred years, and that in the meantime the adventurous word "transformation" (as he calls it) had never been thought of: so, if he only wants to argue about it, hopefully no one will impose on him that he should believe the transformation, if he only believes that the bread is transformed into the body and the wine into the blood in such a way that nothing remains of the bread and wine but the form, which those who accept the transformation want to have with this single word. But since the church has once declared that this is true, why should Luther, even though the church has now finally settled the matter, nevertheless, if the ancients had not taught the opposite, and no one had ever thought of it before, not obey the present decree of the whole church, and think that it has finally been revealed to the church what had been hidden from it before? For as the Spirit blows where he wills, John 3, so he also blows when he wills.

Now this matter is not so new as Luther imagines, who, saying that the doctrine of transubstantiation arose only three hundred years ago, allows us at least four hundred years. For that is how many years have passed, in my opinion, since Hugo a Sancto Victore wrote a book about the sacraments from

in which you will find, if not the name of transubstantiation, then the matter and the doctrine. For thus his words are: Since it is therefore a single sacrament, three distinct things are presented to us therein: namely, a visible form, a true body, and the power of spiritual grace. Here you see that he sets the figure of bread, not a true bread; an essential body, not the figure of the body. And soon after he speaks even more clearly: "For what we see is the form of bread and wine, but what we believe under such a form is the true body and blood of Jesus Christ, which hung on the cross and flowed out of his side. Likewise, in another place, he speaks much more clearly: Through the sanctifying word, the true essence of the bread and wine is changed into the true body and blood of Christ, so that only the form of the bread and wine remains, and one substance passes into another. From this it is evident that this doctrine of transformation is somewhat older than Luther imagines. But in order that we may be stronger against him, let us show that what he claims to be a thing newly invented three hundred years ago was a doctrine of the holy fathers more than a thousand years ago.

For it is known that more than a thousand years ago the faithful were of the opinion that the whole substance of the bread and wine was truly changed into the body and blood of Christ. All the more we must be surprised that Luther is not ashamed to claim that this doctrine of transubstantiation arose only three hundred years ago. Who does not know that Eusebius, bishop of Emesa, 1) has been dead for more than six hundred years? Who, as it were, out of concern that people might appear who would undertake such a thing, proclaimed so many years ago: Let all doubt of unbelief be removed," he said, "because he who made all things is also a witness of the truth. Now the invisible priest has changed the visible creatures into the substance of his body and blood by a secret power and said: take and eat, this is my body; and again, take and drink, this is my blood. Does not this holy man clearly say that the substance of the bread and wine is transformed into the substance of the body and blood? What does St. Augustine want to have differently, if

1. He lived in the fourth century. The six hundred years are to be assumed from the time before the three hundred years that Luther sets.

158XIII Luther's Dispute with Henry VIII. W. xix, i88-isi. 159

he says: "But we worship in the visible form of bread and wine the invisible things, that is, body and blood? What can be said more clearly? For he does not say, in the bread and wine; but, in the form of the bread and wine. Luther denies that it is to be called bread, because it is only the form of bread, and thinks that Augustine would well have understood by the form of bread that which constituted the true essence of bread. Likewise Gregorius Nyssenus says: "Bread is bread before it is blessed, but after it is blessed it becomes the body of Christ through a mystery and is to be called so. What he says it is before blessing, he says it is no longer after blessing. Yes, also Theophilus explains the words: this is my body, so: what I give now, and what you take. The bread, however, is not only an image of the body of Christ, but is changed into the actual body of Christ; and soon after he says: "If we could see the body and the blood, we would not dare to take it. For this reason the Lord takes care of our weakness and preserves the form of the bread and the wine, but transforms the bread and the wine into the true body and the true blood. Here the holy and highly learned man steps on Luther's foot twice. First, he teaches that the article hoc must not be interpreted as Luther interprets it: hoc, that is, hic panis, this bread; but hoc, that is, what I now give and what you take. Then he clearly says that only the form of the bread and the wine would remain, and their substance would be changed into the body and the blood. And what else do those want who accept the transformation than what Theophilus said here, not only in the next three hundred years, when he had already been dead for several hundred years before the name of transubstantiation came up? What shall I cite St. Cyril, who not only says this, but speaks almost in this way? For he says: "We should not be afraid of the body and blood that are on the holy altar. God the Lord takes care of our weakness; brings a life force into the wafers and transforms them into the true actual body. Moreover, lest anyone should say that the ancient Fathers believed that in the Lord's Supper the body of Christ was thus, that the bread remained bread, this is opposed not only by what we have said (which is obviously opposed), but also by what we have quoted above from St. Ambrose, when he says: "Although it seems to be the form of the bread and the wine, yet after the blessing it is to be taken for nothing else than the body and the blood of Christ. There you see,

that the holy father says that not only is there body and blood, but also nothing else is there, even though it seems that bread and wine are still present. And he who says this did not say it only within the next three hundred years, from which Luther derives the origin of the doctrine of transubstantiation, but he wrote it more than a thousand years ago. Nor do I think that any of the ancient holy fathers would so easily have approved of Luther's similarity, taken from a red-hot iron. For no one has ever said that iron is transformed into fire in such a way that only the form of iron remains after the substance of it has been transformed into the substance of fire, which the ancients consistently believed about the bread and body of Christ. Or even if someone had said it, he understood it differently. Thus one swallow does not make a summer, and one must rather excuse him, whoever he may be, for not having had the insight in a matter not yet sufficiently investigated at that time, than to follow it against the faith of all others and of the whole church and against such an old doctrine, which he himself, whoever he may be, if he had only been pious, would undoubtedly have accepted where he should now live. For he who regards the holy body of Christ as it should be, will much rather give his approval that two substances should be united with each other, than that another body should remain mixed with the venerable body of Christ. For no substance is worthy to be mixed with the substance that created all substances.

18 Moreover, I think that this comparison of Luther, since he wants the bread to remain with the body, just as in the one person of Christ the divine nature remains with the human nature, would have been much less appropriate to the fathers of old. For as the highly learned and holy old fathers testify now and then that the bread is changed into the body; so none was so godless or so inexperienced that he would have believed that mankind would be changed into the Godhead, unless Luther invented a completely new person, that as the Godhead took on and accepted mankind, so also God and man would take on bread and wine. If he believes this, then, in our opinion, all who are not heretics must consider him a heretic. Therefore, to put an end to the point about transformation, it is clear from the words of Christ Himself and from the sayings of holy men that this teaching, which is now

160 Henry VIII against the Babylonian captivity. Captivity. W. xix, 191-194. 161

the church is the true doctrine, since it is believed that the substance of the bread and wine does not remain in the Lord's Supper. From this, then, the conclusion is to be drawn that Luther's mutual doctrine is a completely false and heretical doctrine.

19 One has to wonder how he could promise the people any benefit from this teaching. Should someone (as he says himself) consider himself a heretic because he agrees with Luther? But now Luther himself admits that one can believe without danger in this matter what the whole church believes. On the other hand, the whole church considers the one who agrees with Luther to be a heretic. Accordingly, Luther must not entice anyone dear to him to his opinion, which condemns the whole church; rather, he should advise those against whom he has a true love to join those who, according to his own confession, are in no danger. So this way of Luther is slippery and wrong. He disputes with the general doctrine not only of the present time, but of all times, and does not free those who hold with him from captivity, but leads them out of the freedom of faith, that is (as Luther himself says), he drags them out of a secure place captive in error, and brings them to a precipitous, impassable, uncertain, doubtful and highly dangerous place, and whoever enters into this danger perishes in it.

20. After the man who is very free for evil has overcome these two prisons, which he invented, he now also (as he pretends) assaults the third prison and sets a liberty, by which he ties up the whole church, as 1) the brightest cloud of which this more than church-robbing man dares to disperse, to destroy the pillar of fire, to break the ark of the covenant, and to cancel the few propitiatory sacrifices, which are often offered for the sin of the people. For he deprives the mass, as much as he can, of all the benefit that flows from it to the people, saying that the mass is not a good work and that it is of no use to the people. Whether we should be more astonished at the man's godlessness, or at his foolish hope, or rather at his silly arrogance, we do not know. For although he himself says that so many bars have been set against him, he brings nothing with him to reject a single one, but does not act differently than if he wanted to break through the rocks with a reed. He sees well and admits himself that the sayings of the old fathers, the canon of the mass, and the custom of the whole church, which now is protected by
21. The word "than" seems to be too much.

The man who has been in use for so many centuries and who has been confirmed by the applause of so many peoples, stands in the way. What does he now want to oppose so many, so strong and so insurmountable battle formations as a defense? He swarmed in the streets, endeavored to spread discord and sedition, to incite the mob against the fathers, and in order to induce them to apostatize, he lied, according to his foolish craftiness, of which he could easily be convicted, that he had the general over the whole army, namely Christ, in his camp, and pretended that he was blowing the trumpet of the Gospel before him. Has a more foolish stratagem ever been invented than this one? For who ever lived who was either so godless or so stupid, who held that the church, as the spiritual body of Christ, was so torn as to believe that where the joints of the limbs are, this is torn away from the head, and that he who has the flesh, should have left the church for whose sake he came into the flesh, and should have departed from it, with which he had promised to remain until the end of the world, for so many hundreds of years, and should at last have gone over to Luther as a sworn enemy. But let us see what arts he needs to make what he said seem as if Christ stood for him. After long digressions he describes the Mass, then he makes a distinction between the Mass and the Sacrifice of the Mass, makes an examination of the Lord's Supper, and examines the words of Christ that he uses since he instituted the Sacrament of the Mass. After he had found the word "testament" in it as such a hidden thing, he began, as if the enemies had already been defeated, to make the victory twice as great, emphasizing in words his invention (of which he prides himself) and showing quite pompously, as a hitherto unheard secret, what a testament is. He cries out that it must be remembered and well understood that a will is a promise made by a dying man, according to which he bequeaths his property and appoints certain persons as heirs. Therefore, he says, the sacrament of the Mass is nothing else than Christ's testament; but this testament is nothing else than the promise of eternal inheritance, to which he gives us Christians, whom he has appointed as heirs, his body and blood, as a sign of the certain promise. He repeats this, emphasizes it and impresses it ten times, and wants it to be regarded as an immovable foundation on which he builds wood, hay and stubble. For if this foundation were laid (that the messt is Christ's testament),

162XIII Luther's Dispute with Henry VIII. W. xix, 194-ise. 163

He dares," he says, "to reverse all ungodliness that ungodly men have introduced into this sacrament, and to show clearly that to receive the Lord's Supper one must bring faith alone; but one should not worry so much about works, whatever they may be: The more errant the conscience, and the more it bites and gnaws because of sins, the holier one goes; on the other hand, the more cheerful, holy, and cleansed of sins one takes, the worse one goes. 1)

21. Moreover, he says, the mass is not a good work, the mass is not a sacrifice, the mass is only useful for the ministers of the mass, but it does not help the people, it serves neither the dead nor the living, it is an ungodly error if one reads the mass for sins, for a human concern, It is a vain and ungodly thing for the brotherhoods and annual memorial feasts of the deceased, one should abolish such maintenance of the clergy, monks, canons, brothers and religious, 2) as we call them. So much, yes, so indescribably much good, he boasts to have found, because he recognized that this holy sacrament is Christ's testament. Now he also goes after the teachers of scholastic theology. He is against all those who speak to the people: That even though some wrote as much as they could, and others spoke as much as they could and taught about the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, neither of them understood anything about the testament, but ungodly withheld from the people this incomparable good (of which nothing was known before), that the laity, neither living nor deceased, would never have any benefit from the Mass. For the sake of ignorance of this matter, he calls all present-day clergy and monks, with the bishops and all their superiors, idols and those who live in a very dangerous state. Therefore, we do not examine this secret of Luther's (of which he makes so much boast), which applies the description of a testament quite exactly to the sacrament, to what extent it is founded; however, I do not see why he so boastfully states this invention as a new invention, and indeed for his own. We do not know whom he hears preaching there; at least we have heard this simile acted out by the brethren not only once, but more often than we would have liked, when they did not present only what Luther now claims to be something new and only invented: Christ is the testator, he has in the

1. What shameful slanders!
2. i.e. religious.

They said that he had made a will in the Last Supper, that he had promised an inheritance, that he had called it the kingdom of heaven, that he had appointed the assembly of believers as heirs, that this sacrament was a sacred sign, which was used as a pledge and seal; Not only, we say, did they recite this, but they also explained the number of witnesses, the handwriting, and other customs belonging to a testament from the books of legal scholars, and applied everything regularly to the sacrament, and indeed they did this more skillfully and more thoroughly than Luther, because they drew to the testament not only what Christ did in the Lord's Supper, but also what he suffered on the cross. Only in this do they fail to meet Luther, in that they have not invented the wonderful and hitherto unheard-of advantages of the mass, by which both the clergy would lose everything good in the present life and the people the enjoyment of the life to come. For the laity would not grant the priests any temporal benefit because of the mass, if they were persuaded that they would not derive any spiritual good from it. But it is worth the effort to see from what kind of tree Luther reads such wholesome fruits. Thus, after he has often precisely inculcated that the sacrament of the Lord's Supper is a sign of the testament, but that the testament is nothing but a promise of inheritance, he thinks that it follows from this that the mass can be neither a good work nor a sacrifice, which, even if someone admits it to him, he must also admit to a whole register of evils, by which he confuses the whole church. But whoever will deny it to him, his great effort will accomplish nothing. For one must be almost ashamed to relate the arguments with which he proves his opinion. So utterly useless and bad are they in so high a matter. For he concludes thus, as his own words read: You have heard that the Mass is nothing but a divine promise or bequest of Christ, confirmed with the Sacrament of His Body and Blood. If this is true, then you see that the Mass can in no way be a work, nor can it be kept by anyone other than in faith alone; but faith is not a work, but the teacher and life of works.

It is marvelous that, since Luther was in such great birth pains, he gave birth to nothing but an empty wind, which, although he considers it so strong that it is capable of uprooting trees, seems to us, on the other hand, to be so weak that it cannot even move a reed. For if you pull off the blanket of words in which he wraps his absurd opinion, as if he were a monkey, you will see that he is a monkey.

164 72 Henry VIII. Against the Babyl. Captivity. W. LIX, 196-199. 165

into a purple robe: if you take away the clamor with which he, as if the matter were already clearly proven, so often rages and rages against the whole church and, before he has even entered into a dispute, jumps and leaps as a wild victor, you will find that nothing remains but a mere and wretched sophistry. For what does he say with such a rambling circumlocution of words but: the mass is a promise, therefore it cannot be called a work. Who should not pity the man when he is so ignorant that he will not see his folly? or who should not be unwilling when he is with himself, and yet considers all Christians so stupid that they cannot see such obvious folly? Of the testament and the promise and the whole description and application of the testament to the sacrament, we do not want to get into a fight with him. We do not want to trouble him as much as he might encounter others who would tear down a good part of his foundation and reproach him both that the New Testament is a promise of the evangelical law, just as the old one was a promise of the Mosaic law, and also claim that Luther did not handle this testament wisely enough. For he who makes the will does not have to express verbally and by name what he leaves to the heir whom he has appointed as sole heir, nor is the forgiveness of sins, of which Luther says that it is bequeathed hereditarily, so much as the kingdom of heaven, but rather the way to heaven. If someone wanted to push these and other things strongly, he could perhaps shake the construction of the Lutheran foundation with armor from another side. But we want to leave that to those who feel like it. We do not want to move the foundation that he claims to be immovable, but only to show him that the building he has placed on the foundation can easily collapse on its own.

(23) In order that this may be the more clearly understood, let us consider a little the origin of the matter, and examine the Mass according to its first pattern. In the Holy Supper, in which he instituted this sacrament, the Lord Christ made his body and blood out of bread and wine and gave them to the disciples to eat and drink, and then, after a few hours, he offered this same body and blood on the altar of the cross as a sacrifice to his Father for the sins of the people. After this was done, the testament was completed. In the Lord's Supper he, since he had been

When he was very close to death, he made his will known by a testament, as dying people are wont to do, what they should do in his memory after his death. When he instituted the sacrament, he said to his disciples when he offered them his body and blood: "Do this in remembrance of me. If someone carefully considers this, he will see that Christ, the eternal High Priest, instead of all the other sacrifices which were offered after the priesthood of the Mosaic Law, which lasted for a time (most of which were a model of this most holy sacrifice), instituted one sacrifice, the most high sacrifice, which is the fulfillment and, as it were, the completion of all sacrifices, which was both to be offered to God and to be given to the people to eat. And just as Christ was the priest, so the disciples represented the people, as they did not bless themselves, but took the blessed things from the hand of their priest. But the Lord immediately chose them as priests and commanded that they themselves should hold this sacrament in his memory. What is this but that they should consecrate it and not only take it among themselves, but also distribute it to the people and offer it to God? For if Luther objects here that the priest cannot sacrifice because Christ did not sacrifice in the Lord's Supper, he is remembering what he himself said, that a testament becomes firm through the death of the one who made it, and has no force beforehand, nor is it completed until the death of the one who made it. Accordingly, not only what Christ did beforehand in the Lord's Supper belongs to the testament, but also his sacrifice on the cross. For on the cross he completed the sacrifice which had begun in the Lord's Supper, and by this alone is the commemoration of the whole thing, namely, of the blessing in the Lord's Supper and of the sacrifice on the cross, solemnly celebrated and presented through the sacrament of the Mass, and in such a way that through it death is presented even better than the Lord's Supper. For the apostle, when he wrote to the Corinthians, "As often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, do not add, 'You will have the Lord's Supper,' but, 'You will proclaim the death of the Lord.

Now let us come to the excellent reasons with which Luther proves that the mass is neither a good work nor a sacrifice; and although it would be better to deal first with the sacrifice, since he has raised the first question of the work, we will follow him. Thus, when he concludes: the Mass is a promise,

166XIII Luther's Dispute with Henry VIII. W. xix, iss-202. 167

Therefore it is not a good work, because no promise is a work, so we say that the mass which the priest says is not really a promise any more than the blessing of Christ was, and at the same time we ask him whether Christ did not do a work at that time? If he denies this, it should truly surprise us that, since he who makes an image of wood does a work, Christ should have done no work at all. Yes, that it was a good work, which he did, no one will doubt. For if the woman who poured an ointment on his head did a good work, who can doubt that Christ did a good work, both in giving his body to men to eat and in offering it as a sacrifice to God? If no one but such a one can deny that Christ did a good work in a highly important matter, then neither can it be denied that in the mass the priest does a good work, since he does nothing else in the mass than what Christ did in the Lord's Supper and on the cross. For this is indicated by the words of Christ: "Do this in remembrance of me. But what did he intend in these words that they should present and do in the mass other than what he himself did in the Lord's Supper and on the cross? For in the Lord's Supper he instituted the sacrament and began in it that which he accomplished on the cross. For from this the occasion seems to have arisen that, according to the custom of the church, water was mixed with the wine in the cup, because water and blood flowed from the side of Christ who was dead on the cross. Since it cannot be denied that Christ did a good work both in the Lord's Supper and on the cross, and that the priest presents and does the same thing in the mass, how can it be invented that the mass is not a good work? Therefore, when Luther treats the matter in such a way that, because the communion of one layman does not help another layman, the mass of the priest is also of no use to the people, he himself is blind in wanting to blind others, because he does not see that the benefit comes from this, because a layman now only takes from the hand of the priest, as the apostles initially took from the hand of Christ; but the priest does what Christ did at that time. For he offers to God the very same body that Christ offered. Therefore, it is also clear what a bad argument this is, since he compares the mass with the sacrament of baptism or marriage, and concludes from this that because a layman cannot be baptized for another layman, or take a wife for another layman, he cannot be baptized for another layman.

If the priest does not say mass for someone else, he cannot say mass for anyone else. For he has completely removed matrimony from the sacraments and, in a hidden way, also baptism, because he says that it is no more than a single actual sacrament. Why, then, does he now compare baptism and matrimony with the sacrament of the Mass, if he does not consider them sacraments? Although he admits that both are sacraments (which they are in fact), he should not have compared either of them with the sacrament of the Mass in such a way that this sacrament, which is the body of Him who is the Lord of all sacraments, could not replace the other sacraments, which he himself also instituted, because of a peculiar privilege, since it is clear that just as in all other sacraments the priest serves by offering it to all, so also in this sacrament, when he offers in the mass, he serves and communicates something good to all. Otherwise, if Luther remains so strict that all sacraments are equal to one another, and that in the sacrament of the Lord's Supper the priest has no preference over the laity, why does he not also strongly urge that the priest always communicate from another's hand, and that he not be permitted to take the sacrament for himself, even if he can already administer it to others, just as he also cannot absolve himself, even if he already has the keys of repentance. For what he says about faith, which must be present in all, because each one's own faith, not the faith of the priest, is useful, just as Abraham (as he says) did not believe for all the other Jews, is true, but does not prove his proposition at all. For even Christ, who sacrificed himself on the cross, did not save the people without their own faith, lest anyone think that the mass of any priest does this, but which mass of any priest is useful for salvation to those whose own faith deserves that they may share in the immense good which the mass imparts to many. Although it can also sometimes serve to bring about the infusion of faith into an unbeliever, Christ's death and suffering brought about the grace that was to be imparted to the Gentiles, through which they were to come to faith in Christ by means of the preaching of the Word. But Luther himself realizes that it is easy to tear down what he has built up, if the mass can be a sacrifice offered to God. He promises to remove this bar, and in order that he may seem to do this all the more faithfully and vigorously, he first makes himself a few one-size-fits-all statements.

168 72 Henry VIII. Against the Babyl. Captivity. W. XIX, 202-204. 169

which are contrary to his opinion. Now (he speaks) also the other annoyance is to be put aside, which is much more important and apparent, that is, that the mass is now and then held for a sacrifice, which is offered to God. To this also belong the words of the Canon, when it says there: these gifts, these presents, these holy sacrifices, and further below: this sacrifice 2c. Similarly, it is expressly required that the sacrifice be a pleasing sacrifice, like the sacrifice of Abel 2c. Therefore Christ is called the sacrifice of the altar. To this are added the sayings of the holy fathers, so many examples, and the custom constantly observed in Christendom.

Here you see, reader, what kind of bars Luther himself perceives to be pushed in front of him. But now listen further to the strong force with which he tries to remove them. To all this, he says, one must constantly oppose the word and example of Christ. And what are the words of Christ, which remained unknown to so many holy fathers and the entire Christian church for so many centuries, and which Luther first invented as a new Ezra? He indicates this himself when he says: "If we do not receive that the Mass is a promise or a testament, as the words clearly read, then we lose the whole Gospel and all comfort. We have heard the words, now let us see the example. For he adds this example: Christ, he says, in the last supper, when he instituted this sacrament, also made a testament: he did not himself offer it to his Father or complete it as a good work for others, but, sitting at the table, presented this testament to all and gave it as a sign. These are the words of Christ, this is the example from which Luther now clearly recognizes that the mass is not a sacrifice. One must therefore be surprised that out of so many holy fathers, out of so many eyes that have read the same gospel in the church for so many hundreds of years, none has ever been so perceptive as to perceive such an obvious thing, yes, that all eyes are still so blind that they cannot even see what Luther alone boasts of seeing, even though he already points to it with his fingers.

Is not Luther rather mistaken and thinks that he sees something which he does not see, and presumes to point to it with his fingers which is nowhere to be found? For, my dear, what kind of proof is this, if he therefore, because the mass is a promise, wants to show that it is not a sacrifice, as if promise and sacrifice were in conflict with each other,

like cold and warmth. Which proof of Luther is so weak that it seems to be worthy of no answer. For although so many of the sacrifices of the Mosaic Law were only images of things to come, they were also promises themselves. For they promised that for which they were made; and that not only what they pictured should in time come to pass, but also, in the people then present, for whom sacrifices were solemnly made every year, deliverances, atonements, purges, and cleansings should take place. Which, since it is so clear that no one can be completely unaware of it, Luther's idea is very ridiculous, since he now gives proof that it cannot happen, of which not only he but also the people certainly know that it has happened many times. Now let us come to the example of Christ, which, in Luther's opinion, presses us hard, because Christ did not use the sacrament in the Lord's Supper instead of a sacrifice, and did not offer a sacrifice to His Father. From this he wants to prove that the Mass, which must be completely consistent with the example of Christ by which it is instituted, cannot be a sacrifice.

When Luther so sharply points out the example of the Lord's Supper that he does not permit the priests to do anything else that is not read as having been done by Christ in it, they must never take the sacrament themselves when they consecrate it. For in the Gospel, in which the Lord's Supper is described, it is not read that Christ himself took his own body. For the fact that some teachers pretend that he took it, and that the church also says the same thing, does not help Luther, since neither all the teachers nor the teaching of the whole church gives him the slightest applause, nor does he think that one must believe something (for so he writes in the sacrament of priestly ordination) that is not clearly founded in Scripture. Now, however, he will not find anything like this in Scripture, as we hold that Christ took His body in the Lord's Supper, from which it follows, as we have said, that even the priests who consecrate the Lord's Supper may not take it, if Luther binds us so strictly to the example of the Lord's Supper. If he therefore admits that the clergy must take the sacrament because the apostles took it, and claims that they are commanded to do what the apostles did at that time, not what Christ did, then the priests will never be allowed to consecrate in this way. For it was the Lord Christ who blessed, and not the apostles. From this we see,

170 XIII Luther's Dispute with Henry VIII. W. xix, 204-207. 171

that in the sacrament the ministers are to do not only what Christ did in the Lord's Supper, but also what he did afterwards on the cross. The apostles also taught one thing and another which Christ either never did, or at least of which we read nothing that he ever did; to this belong, for example, the gestures and signs which they use in consecrating, some of which, we believe, came from the apostles. Moreover, in the Canon of the Mass, some words are recounted as if Christ had spoken them, of which nothing is found anywhere in Scripture, and yet there is no doubt that he spoke them. For Christ spoke and did many things, which no evangelist can distinguish; but some of them, who were present and to whom it was still fresh in their memory, have been reproduced as well as in writing, and have come down to us from the time of the apostles. Luther himself does not doubt that Christ said in the Lord's Supper: Do this, as often as you do it, in remembrance of me. And that these were Christ's words, he assumes to be so well known that he therefore takes as proof that no one may be forced to take the sacrament, but that it is a matter left to each one's freedom. Only to this end are we bound that, as often as we do such things, we do them in remembrance of Christ. He does not read these words anywhere in the Evangelists in the Lord's Supper. For there it says nothing else than: Do this in remembrance of me. Where then does he read the words, "As often as you do it"? Isn't it true, in the mass? I mean yes, nowhere else. For in the apostle they are written differently. Therefore, whoever believes and uses the words because he finds them in the Canon, why should he not also accept with the same faith the words of this very Canon, in which the Mass is called a sacrifice? Accordingly, if he admits that the clergy rightly received in the mass what they consecrate, although no clear letter of Scripture (which Luther alone accepts) testifies that Christ did such a thing, neither in the Lord's Supper nor at any other time, Luther must not be surprised if the priest offers Christ to his Father, which Christ himself did on the cross, as clear Scripture testifies not only in one place. For that the cross also belongs to the testament made in the Lord's Supper, Luther also admits when he says that a testament understands the death of the founder under itself, as by which such a testament is completed only and alone. Moreover, the fact that water is mixed with wine in the sacrament does not seem to have any meaning.

The reason for this is not to be found in the Lord's Supper, but in the cross.

Luther must therefore stop opposing us with this lying argument, that because Christ did not sacrifice himself in the Lord's Supper, one should therefore believe that the priest does not sacrifice in the mass either, in which he not only presents what Christ did in the Lord's Supper, but also what he did on the cross, in which he completed what he began in the Lord's Supper. Luther's last argument, however, by which the ship is preserved as from a secure anchor, is the most lying of all. How, he says, can it be that the priest offers to God what he himself takes? It is contradictory, he says, that the mass is a sacrifice because we receive it. The same thing cannot be taken and offered at the same time, nor given and received by one at the same time. Luther warns us everywhere against philosophical reasons, and he helps himself in such an important matter with nothing but sophistries. For what kind of sacrifice was there in the Mosaic Law that those who offered it did not take? Did God himself eat what was offered to him? Do you think that I would eat the flesh of an ox or drink the blood of a goat? says the Lord Ps. 50. Moreover, if Christ was both the priest and the sacrifice, why did he not decree that the priest, who was to present the same sacrifice, would offer and take the sacrifice both ways? But so that it may not seem as if we were imitating Luther, who has nothing but what he himself invented, let us cite what St. Ambrose says about the Mass. O Lord God, he says, with what great contrition of heart, with what outpouring of tears, with what great reverence and trembling, with what chastity of body and purity of soul must one not keep this divine and heavenly secret, Where your flesh is truly taken and your blood truly drunk, where the lowest is united with the highest, the divine with the human, where the holy angels are also present, where you are the priest and the sacrifice, in a wonderful and inexpressible way: who can worthily keep this mystery, unless thou, Almighty GOD, dignify him who sacrifices? Here you see how the Most Holy Father calls the Mass a sacrifice and says that in it Christ is both the priest and the sacrifice, just as he was on the cross.

28 How much Luther thinks of his reputation, he may see for himself, but how much it is with the hei-

172 72 Henry VIII. Against the Babyl. Captivity. W. XIX, 207-210. 173

Gregory, when he wrote: "Who among the faithful can doubt that at the hour of the sacrifice, when the priest raises his voice, heaven is opened in this mystery of Christ, the English choirs are present, the lowest is united with the highest, the earthly with the heavenly, visible and invisible things become one? And elsewhere: This strange sacrifice redeems the souls from eternal death, and renews for us the death of the native. The words are just as clear when he says: "We may well consider what kind of sacrifice this is for us, which constantly imitates the suffering of the only begotten Son. There we see that not only St. Ambrose, but also St. Gregory calls the Mass a sacrifice, and admits that in it not only the last supper of Christ, as Luther wants, but also his suffering is represented. However, these are not the only ones who believe this to be the case. For Augustine confesses this not only in one place. He says of the mass: "This sacrifice is repeated daily, although Christ suffered only once. Because we fall daily, Christ is also sacrificed for us daily. Item: The Lord's Supper is a blessed sacrifice, by which we are blessed; it is an inscribed sacrifice, by which we are inscribed in heaven; it is a valid sacrifice, by which we are considered to enter into the heart and bowels of the Lord Christ. Since such learned, such holy men call the Mass a sacrifice, since they recognize that through it not only the Lord's Supper but also the passion of Christ is presented; since they confess that such great and immeasurable goods come from it; since the whole Church, which agrees with them, proclaims and praises these same goods in the Mass: So we are very surprised how Luther can so boldly cry out the opposite and say that the mass is no sacrifice, no sacrifice, is of no use to the people, and that he mocks the reputation of so many holy fathers, even of the whole church, with his empty poem, as if everything that is said and said about the sacrifice in the mass were to be regarded as a remnant of the Jewish customs, according to which the priest, as he says, had to lift up what was offered by the people. Luther's poem seemed so inconsistent to us, and so strange to Luther himself, that he doubted whether he wanted to defend the sayings of the holy fathers and the custom of the entire church in such a careless way, or rather deliberately make them contemptible. For

What shall we say, he says, to the Canon of the Mass and the sayings of the Fathers? I answer, he says, that if one does not know what to say, it is better to deny everything outright than to allow the mass to be a work or a sacrifice, so that we do not deny the word of Christ and destroy the faith at the same time as the mass. However, in order that we also save the fathers, we say that it is all still a remnant of Jewish usage. 1) Therefore, in order that the polite man, who would like to spare the honor of the holy fathers and the whole church, may say something, he has, as it were out of guilt, so that it may not have the appearance that they are speaking orally, deemed them worthy to hang his excellent poem about the remnant of Jewish usage in front of their shame, instead of a blanket, which, if someone were to take it away, he might do it to their detriment. For Luther is not afraid to say freely that if someone comes down hard on him, he would rather throw to the winds all that the holy fathers have taught and the church has ever had in use than admit that the mass is a good work or a sacrifice, that is, he would rather have that than admit that what is really true is true. For that he says that those deny the word of Christ and at the same time destroy faith with the mass, who maintain that the mass is a sacrifice, no one will believe him, I hope, before and before he proves that he has either read another gospel than that which the holy fathers have read, or that he has read the very same gospel more diligently or understood it better, or that he cares more for the faith than anyone among men has ever done. But now, I believe, he will not preach another gospel, and if he should preach another, it would not be heard, even if an angel came down from heaven with it. But that which he presents he has neither so carefully examined nor so shrewdly discerned as it was previously examined and discerned by those, none of whom, however, said that he had found in it that which he boasts of having found, that the Mass is not a good work, not a sacrifice, not a sacrifice. In the end, however, how much both of them have cared for the faith cannot be hidden from anyone who will only diligently consider what has been written about it on both sides.

1. The last words mentioned here are again a complete reversal of what Luther said in the "Babylonian Captivity" Col. 49 f.. The reader should receive the impression as if Luther denies the whole holy supper and declares it for a Jewish use.

174XIII Luther's Dispute with Henry VIII. W. xix, 210-212. 175

(29) The holy men of old have well seen that, just as this is the highest of all the sacraments, which contains the Lord himself and the founder of the sacraments, so also of all the sacrifices this is the only one that has remained in the place where so many sacrifices were formerly made; and therefore, of all the works that can be done for the good of the people, this is far and away the most wholesome. For since the other sacraments benefit only individual persons, the Mass, on the other hand, benefits all and everyone, and since all intercessions that one sends to God on behalf of another can not only be prevented, but can also be done in vain and fruitlessly through the fault of men, God's merciful grace has established the Mass for the good of the faithful, in which Christ's own body should be offered as such a salvific sacrifice that no priest, no matter how godless he may be, can either rob or diminish its fruit for the people. Having perceived this, the holy fathers took great care to use all diligence that this sacrament of reconciliation might be both most faithfully kept and most highly reverenced, and among many other things they carefully taught that the bread and wine in the Lord's Supper should not remain, but be truly changed into the body and blood of Christ. They said that the Mass was a sacrifice in which Christ himself was offered for the sins of the Christian people. Furthermore, they kept, as much as humanly possible, this excellent mystery with great reverence and secret customs. During the Mass, the people had to be reverently present for their own salvation. Finally, so that the laity would not be weaned and gradually cease to take the sacrament, they decreed that everyone should receive the Lord's Supper at least once a year. With these and many other such efforts, the holy fathers have from time to time demonstrated their care for the faith and respect for this venerable sacrament. Therefore Luther must not boast (of which he does boast) that those who say that the Mass is a sacrifice, or that it benefits someone else besides the one who says it, destroy the word of Christ, the faith, and the Mass itself. But how can Luther have Christ's word, faith and the mass itself on his neck, so that they are not destroyed and fall! That would have been good, too, if he had thought about it. Initially he changes the name of the sacrament itself, and since it has been so many hundreds of years the Lord's Supper or the Sacrament of the Body of Christ

he wants it to be called bread, so that the name does not remind those who hear it called of the greatness of the thing. Luther also teaches that the bread and the wine, which the ancients knew would be changed into the body and blood of the Lord, remain whole, so that he may gradually take the glory from Christ and attach it to the bread.

30. And although he does not condemn the church, which honors and increases the mass with all kinds of customs and ceremonies, he nevertheless believes that the mass would be much more Christian if the chasubles, chants, gestures and all other splendid customs were abolished, so that it would come closer and be more similar to the very first mass, which Christ held in the Lord's Supper with the apostles; Yes, also for this reason, so that nothing remains of that which can capture the simple minds of the poor rabble and transform the worship of the visible God into the worship of the invisible God. In addition, he teaches and inculcates in all ways that the mass is not a good work, not a sacrifice, not a sacrifice, and that it does not benefit any of the people in the least. What is the purpose of this so holy and evangelical lection? Namely, so that all the people may leave the mass to the priest, who alone should benefit from it, as they see fit, but may themselves hold it in low esteem, and even deprive themselves of their duty to a cause from which they would have no advantage; finally, that the laity, when they communicate, should only bring with them the belief that they will be made partakers of the testament, their conscience may be as it wishes, indeed, the more erroneous and restless about the biting or tickling sins their conscience would be, the more they could be assured that they would be made partakers of the divine promise. Especially since this sacrament would be a remedy for sin, both past, present and future, which would not take place, namely, in the case of the one who has previously too anxiously purified himself from the disease of sin, so that he may examine himself according to Paul's rule and, as much as possible, go to the table of the Lord with a clear conscience, so that, if he cannot say: I am justified, he may at least say: I am not aware of anything. Accordingly, as soon as Luther had given instructions for this brief preparation for the use of the Lord's Supper, namely, that it consisted solely in faith in the promise, required no good works and an easy examination of conscience, he finally, in order that the perfect holiness that would be necessary for the use of the sacrament be done enough, opens his wish that the people be allowed to take the Lord's Supper as often and as much as possible.

176 72 Henry VIII. Against the Babyl. Captivity. W. XIX, 212-2IS. 177

at whatever time of the year it wishes, and do not bind it to a certain time. Is there anyone so blind as not to see the purpose of these useless things? Certainly they have no other purpose than that people should gradually be completely deprived of the enjoyment of the sacrament, who at first fell from daily communion to weekly, then postponed it still further, and finally would have stopped it altogether, had not the fathers, out of concern that such a thing might happen, decreed that everyone should attend communion three times a year, with the threat that he who did not comply would not be considered a Christian. However, even this could not be maintained for long. Therefore, in the end, one went so far that one could not have fallen further down, one would have almost fallen into hell, namely, that we should only communicate at least once a year. What a habit, if Luther (as is his wish) could abolish it, then the world, with the zeal of faith decreasing from day to day, would sooner or later get to where it had long since come (if it had not still been held back by this introduced habit of communicating annually), that with time almost no trace of using the Lord's Supper would remain with the laity, yes, perhaps not even with the clergy, if Luther could push it so far that the mass would lose not only its customs and ceremonies, but also the crowd, their trust in it and respect for it. So these are the beautiful assurances of Luther. This is the apparent freedom he promises to those who want to convert from the Catholic Church to him, namely, that they shall be made free from the use and belief of the sacrament. We can therefore dispense with the trouble of speaking more of this matter, because the thing itself is far too clear for it to be necessary to argue with anyone about it. However, it will not hurt to have recently pointed out the cunning plots of the devious serpent, and after we have finished with them (but hopefully everyone who is not completely blind will see them), it will not be necessary to warn everyone to beware of the foreseen misfortune. No one, we think, will be so foolish as to fall from the Church of God into the school of Satan and, leaving the service of Christ, to whom serving is just as much as ruling and reigning, enter into the freedom praised by Luther, where, under the mere appearance of freedom, he falls with knowledge and will into the aforementioned snares of the devil. Therefore, all

Christian believers intoning this verse with David: "I will not depart from your right hand, for you teach me."

It is therefore unnecessary for us to dwell at length on the other sacraments, the vast majority of which he rejects, because of the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, which he seemed to leave almost alone, he nevertheless acted, as we have shown, in such a way that no one may doubt that he intended to bring about its gradual decline, and because he praises no sacrament at all, without to the detriment of another sacrament. For he exalts baptism, but in such a way that he puts down penance, although he also speaks of baptism in such a way that it would have been better if he had touched nothing of it at all. For at first, in order that it might appear as if he were speaking sacredly of such a holy thing, he expansively shows that one must believe the divine promise, according to which the Lord promises blessedness to the faithful and baptized. He is unwilling and reproaches the church for not teaching Christians this faith, as if someone were so inexperienced in Christian doctrine that he had to be taught about it, and yet Luther presents this as something new and completely unheard of, to no small degree insulting all teachers. All this is nothing new with him, to babble about known things as if they were new. After describing this faith at length, he exalts the riches of this faith in such a way that it makes us poor in good works, without which, as St. James says, faith is completely dead. But now Luther emphasizes faith in such a way that it not only exempts us from good works, but also makes us bold to do all evil deeds. For thus he says: 1) You see how rich a Christian or a baptized person is, who, even if he wants to, cannot lose his salvation through sins, however great they may be, except through unbelief. For no sin can condemn him but unbelief. O the ungodly speech, which is also a teacher of all wickedness and is so hateful to godly ears that it is not necessary to rebuke it. Is not then adultery, capital murder, perjury, patricide condemnable? if only each one believes that he will be saved by the power of the promise in baptism? For this is evidently his opinion, and

1. Cf. "Of the Babylonian Captivity," Col. 57 f. Introduced in a twisted way to bring upon Luther the accusation that he makes people bold to do evil deeds and gives them the freedom to let good works stand in line.

178 XIII Luther's Dispute with Henry VIII. W. xix, 215-217. 179

This opinion of his does not improve the words that follow so much that they really make things worse. For he says: If faith comes and keeps the divine promise made to the baptized, everything else is destroyed in a moment by this faith, yes, by the truth of God, because he cannot deny himself if you only confess him and faithfully cling to him who promised it. What does he want to indicate with these words other than what he said before? Namely, if only there is no unbelief, all other vices would be swallowed up in a moment by faith alone, if only you confess Christ and faithfully adhere to his promise, that is, if you only firmly believe that you must be saved by faith, you may also have done what you want. And so that you do not doubt where he is aiming, he says: "Repentance and confession of sins, then also satisfaction and all other human inventions will suddenly leave you and make you quite miserable if you rely on them and throw divine truth to the wind. What truth does he mean? Namely, that no sins can condemn you but unbelief. Can Christian ears bear such noxious serpentine hissing, since he raises baptism for no other reason than to put down repentance and make baptismal grace a permissible liberty to sin? To which opinion is added this, that he does not like St. Jerome's saying that repentance is the other plank after shipwreck, and that he denies that the sin of faith is shipwreck, also speaking as if this word completely takes away all the power of faith. But who does not know, apart from Luther, that a sinner is not only not saved by faith alone in baptism, but also that baptism itself can bring him even greater condemnation? and rightly so, because he has offended God, from whom he received all baptismal grace; but to whom much is given by God, much is also demanded. Therefore, if he has lost faith through evil works, why can he not be said to have suffered shipwreck, having fallen from the grace of God into the power of Satan, from which, without repentance, he cannot be restored to such a state that baptism can be useful to him again? Has Jerome written wrongly? Is the opinion of the whole church so evil, which does not want to believe Luther, that the Christians without repentance alone

are safe and out of danger in the midst of their wickedness through faith? Moreover, he speaks of faith in the sacrament in such a way that he is not concerned about the form of the words, since the word by which the water is signified matters as much as the water itself, and if he thinks that one must be careful to see that this is pure and natural, one should not also be concerned about the examination and use of the true proper form of the words, which, as is known, is still observed by the church and was formerly in use among the ancients.

(32) Then he makes faith so great that it almost seems as if he wants to imply that faith alone is enough without the sacrament. For in this way he deprives the sacrament of grace and says that the sacrament itself is of no use, and denies that the sacraments communicate grace, or that they are powerful signs and means of grace, or that the sacraments of the evangelical law are distinguished by the power of their meaning. We do not wish to enter into a wide-ranging controversy about this; only it seems to us that, because everything was exemplary among the Jews, of which the fulfillment is in the Christian law, there is nothing inconsistent if someone believes that the sacraments of which the church makes use have such a great advantage over the Jewish sacraments as the new law has over the old, that is, as far as the body surpasses the shadow. In the meantime, we are neither the first nor the only one to have these thoughts, Hugo a Sancto Victore, whom everyone considers a learned and pious man, says: "We say that all sacraments are signs of the spiritual grace that is communicated through them. But it was necessary that after the passing of time the signs of spiritual grace should also become clearer and clearer, so that with the blessedness that has been wrought the knowledge of the truth might also increase. And soon after: Because circumcision can only take away the outward gross filth, but cannot cleanse from the inward defilements: so after circumcision came the water bath, which makes completely pure, so that perfect righteousness would be signified thereby. Hopefully, no one will deny that at least this teacher holds that the sacrament of baptism also cleanses inwardly and signifies perfect righteousness much more powerfully than circumcision did. In this, Luther points out two ways and refutes both, one, since most have held that there is a hidden spiritual power in the Word and water, which is in the soul of the one who receives the sacrament of baptism.

180 72 Henry VIII against the Babylonian captivity. Captivity. W. xix, 217-220. 181

The other, because some have attributed no power to the sacraments at all, but have thought that grace is communicated by God alone, who, by virtue of the covenant, is present in the sacraments instituted by Him. But since both agree that the sacraments celebrate powerful signs of grace," Luther rejects both ways. We, who do not know which way of the two is more probable, do not dare to reject them both outright. For that way, to which the fewest now agree, does not seem to be just as inconsistent, that water itself has a secret power to purify the soul through the word. For if one believes that fire 1) works in the soul either to punish or to curb sins, what prevents that through the power of God, by which that happens, water can also enter to wash away the filth of souls? With which opinion also Augustini's words seem to agree when he says: "The water of baptism touches the body and washes away the heart. Likewise Beda, who says that Christ, by touching his pure flesh, put a regenerating power into the water. In addition, the words of the prophet Ezekiel seem to belong here: "I bathed you with water and washed you with your blood," Ezek. 16. These words, though spoken a long time before the institution of baptism, are nevertheless to be taken, according to the prophetic way of speaking, from the time to come, and therefore the prophet does not speak only of the washing of the body, which did not deserve to be prophesied about. So also no bath washes away the sins of the souls, except the sacrament of the baptism. Thus Ezekiel seems to speak of this in the person of God, and to proclaim beforehand that in the sacrament of baptism a cleansing would take place through the water bath. Which this prophet soon after indicates even more clearly by a word used in the future time and says: "I will sprinkle clean water over you,' that you may be cleansed from all your uncleanness", Ezek. 36.; does he not here promise cleansing by water? Though Zechariah seems to make the matter still clearer when he speaks, "In that day shall fresh waters flow out of Jerusalem, half toward the sea toward the east, and the other half toward the uttermost sea." Do not these words obviously represent to us the baptism? namely, the water that quilts from the church and flows from the inheritance?

1. Here seems to be talked about purgatory.

and real sin, which the prophet does not call dead water, but living water, so that, as we believe, it may indicate the infused power of spiritual life through the hidden sanctification of God under an earthly element. Although, as we have said, we do not presume to judge or to inquire in what way God the Lord infuses grace through the sacraments, since His ways are inscrutable, we believe at least this, that God has in a certain way made the water there not idle, where He says that through it so many and great things should take place, especially since both the water and the salt and other bodily things, without the pledge of faith, receive a spiritual power through the word of God, insofar as everything is not in vain and in vain when wax candles, fire, water, salt, bread, altar, garments, rings are either invoked or consecrated with the invocation of divine grace. If this has some power and God is also present apart from the sacrament, how much more credible is it that the water flowing from Christ's side infuses a spiritual life force into the bath of rebirth? Christ himself makes this statement: "Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God," John 3. To this, as the apostle says, we are called in baptism. Since Luther attributes much power to faith in such baptism, we are not opposed to him, if only he does not attribute so much power to faith that faith gives the word to an evil life and conduct, or even eliminates the sacraments, which it is supposed to give form to.

(33) But we think that the certain and undoubted faith which he requires of every one who wishes to receive the sacrament can only be desired rather than required. For there is no doubt that St. Peter also, addressing the people thus: "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit," was ready to accept all the people for baptism, and yet he would not have demanded of all the perfect, certain, and undoubted faith of Luther, which no one could be sure of having demanded, but he promised from the sacrament itself the remission of sins, together with grace, to all who offered themselves and demanded it. For a certain and undoubted faith is a great thing, and one rarely attains it, nor does everyone attain it, not even once.

182XIII Luther's Dispute with Henry VIII. W. xix, 220-223. 183

by those who imagine that they have attained it. At least we stand in the unfailing hope that God's goodness is present in the sacraments and pours out invisible grace through visible signs, and that through the zeal of the sacrament the lukewarmness of the faithful comes to rest, so that many attain beatitude by means of the sacraments who cannot promise themselves more from their faith than he could promise himself who said there: "I believe, dear Lord, help my unbelief. Wherein, if to any, except our adversary, we seem to attach too much to the sacrament, let him know that we accept and set nothing inimical to faith, as to which we take nothing away, but as we hold that faith alone without the sacrament is not enough for him who can be capable of the sacrament, so also the sacrament without faith is sufficient, but both must stand together, and both must cooperate in their combined power. But we consider it safer to concede something to the sacrament than to ascribe to faith as much as Luther ascribes to it, who leaves neither grace nor the power of the sign to the sacrament. Moreover, he makes faith nothing other than a protection and defense of a vicious life, as we have shown more extensively above. This, that he may confirm it still more, he also deprives the church, after he has withdrawn grace from the sacraments, of all vows and laws. Indeed, what God has said, "Vow and keep," does not hold him back from it. But as for the vows, we do not doubt, there will appear some of those called vovistas and votarios, who answer to this point according to their religious rules. But these have been almost entirely expelled from the Church. On the other hand, as far as the laws are concerned, we have to wonder how the man could have invented such strange things without shyness and shame, as if Christians could not sin, but the whole bunch of believers were so perfect that nothing could be decreed, neither for the service of God, nor to avoid disgrace and vice. But now such efforts and prudence abolish all authority and prestige of princes and prelates. For what shall a king or prelate do, if he cannot make laws and keep them above the given laws, but the mob without law, like a ship without rudder, sways to and fro? Where then is the apostle's saying: "Let every man be subject to the authorities"? Where does this come: "But if you do evil, fear the king; for he does not bear the sword.

for nothing"? Rom. 13.; where the: "Obey your superiors", or the king who has dominion? 2c. Why, according to Paul, is the law good, 1 Tim. 1, and elsewhere, "The law is the bond of perfection"? Moreover, why does Augustine say: "The royal power, the judicial office, the executioner's hand, the weapons of a soldier, the discipline of a lord, the severity of a righteous father are not ordained in vain. All these things have their measures, their causes, their reasons, their benefits; but by being afraid of them, both the wicked are kept in check and the good live in peace among the wicked"? But we are not inclined to say more about kings, lest it seem as if we were speaking for ourselves. This we only ask: if neither men nor angels can prescribe laws for Christians, why does the apostle give so many laws about the election of bishops, widows, and that women should cover their heads? Why does he want that no believing woman should divorce her unbelieving husband, unless she is abandoned by him?

34 Why does he take it upon himself to say, "To others I say, not to the Lord"? 1 Cor. 7. Why did he exercise such great authority that he gave the incestuous man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh? Why did Peter inflict the same punishment on Ananias and Sapphira for keeping back some of their own money for themselves? If the apostles commanded many things to the Christian people without a special command from their Lord, why should those who are the successors of the apostles not be allowed to do the same for the good of the people? Ambrose, the bishop of Milan, a holy man who took no liberties, had no hesitation in issuing the order that in his monastery married couples should abstain from conjugal visits at the time of the forty-day fast, and Luther is not well disposed to speak of this, Luther does not like it when the Roman pope, as the successor of Peter and governor of Christ, to whom Christ, as the prince among the apostles, is believed to have entrusted the keys of the church, so that the others could either enter it or be expelled from it through him, issues a fast or prayer. For he gives the advice that according to the body one must obey, but according to the mind one must keep one's freedom; who is so blind that should not see these excuses? Why does this simple-minded and unholy man speak so contradictorily? Why does he command, as in the words of the apostle, one should not become the servant of men, one should not obey human laws?

184 Henry vIII against the Babylonian captivity. Captivity. W. XIX, 223-225. 185

and yet commands you to be subject to the unjust authority of the pope? Does the apostle then say: The kings have no right over you; you shall also bear an unjust rule? The lords have no right over you; you shall bear an unjust servitude? If Luther thinks one must not obey, why does he nevertheless say one must obey? But if he thinks one must obey, why does he himself not obey? Why does the deceitful man play with such deceptions? Why does he scold the pope, whom, as he says, must be obeyed? Why does he stir up trouble? Why does he stir up the mob against the one whose tyranny (as he calls it), according to his confession, must be endured? Truly for no other reason, as we think, than that he might ingratiate himself with the wicked, who wanted their wickedness to go unpunished, and that they might make him, who contends for their liberty, head over them, and destroy the church of Christ, so long founded on a strong rock, and establish a new church of the wicked and vicious, against which the prophet cries out: "I hate the assembly of the wicked, and sit not with the ungodly," with which our Church also agrees: "Rule me in thy truth, for thou art GOD my Savior, and to thee do I cleave all the day long."

Of repentance.

(35) What useless, vain, strange, ungodly, and contradictory things he prattles on about repentance, we are sorry to hear. First, according to his custom, he brings up as something new, which is known to all, that one must believe the promise of God, according to which he assured the penitent of the forgiveness of sins, and now he scolds the church for not teaching this faith. Dear one, who is it that exhorts one to repent of Judaism, that he should repent of what he has done, and yet doubts forgiveness? Who should teach that one must ask forgiveness, unless he also shows that remission of sins is promised to the penitent? What is more often extolled than the immeasurable grace of God, that He does not extend mercy to anyone who stains himself with wicked sins, but now repents? Has no one but Luther read this: "If the sinner repents, he shall live"? Ezek. 18 Has no one read that the adulteress was absolved, the prophet forgiven for the twofold sin of adultery and death, the thief granted paradise, and the prophet forgiven for the twofold sin of adultery and death?

at the time when he could not free himself from the sins he had previously committed by any means of satisfaction? Not to mention that one should not teach anything about this trust to obtain forgiveness (which Luther pretends to have ignored), but rather that those go too far in this piece who make people fall for this trust all too readily for themselves in such a way that they must be drawn more to the other side, since they have to regard the justice of God as a strict and immovable justice. For one will find ten times more who sin by trusting too much in this promise than by despairing of obtaining forgiveness. Luther may therefore always stop presenting this thing as new and admirable to us, which is only known to men. He should only stop complaining that it is no longer in use, since it is in use everywhere.

Of repentance.

36.^1)^ After the promise and faith have been obscured and overthrown, he says, let us see what they have put in their place. Three parts, he says, they have given to repentance, repentance, confession, and satisfaction. Luther treats all three of these parts in such a way that he indicates clearly enough that he does not like any of them. For first of all, he is displeased with repentance and calls the wrath of God unbearable namely, that one allows a half-repentance (attritioni) and believes that God replaces with the sacrament, where the pain in and of itself is not severe enough, what man still lacks. But let us see how beautifully he defends what he says and what his mutual opinion is. He teaches that it is a great thing about a broken heart and that it is not so easy to overcome. He wants all to know for certain and believe without doubt, for the sake of the word of promise, that all their sins are forgiven them and that they are also absolved by God in heaven, having been absolved by the mouth of the priest on earth. In which piece his proof either reverts to what he himself rebukes, or it will come out much stranger. For either God promised to forgive only those sins through repentance who, as much as the burden of sins requires, are contrite beforehand, or He promised it also to those who are less contrite, or finally He forgives them even to those who are not contrite at all. If he has promised forgiveness to none other than (as much as) those who are not at all contrite.

1. Cf. "Of the Babyl. Captivity," Col. 82 f.

186XIII Luther's Dispute with Henry VIII. W. xix, 223-228. 187

Luther (which he demands of everyone) cannot be certain and undoubted that he has been absolved. For how can he know that he will be made partaker of the promise who cannot know that his heart is sufficiently broken? For no one among all men knows what great repentance a mortal sin requires. Now if God promised forgiveness to those who (according to the nature of their sins) have a small repentance, He also promised it to those whom they call half repentant (attritos), and thus Luther himself agrees with those whom he rebukes. But if God has made the promise to those who have no repentance at all, He has made it so much more to the half-repentant, that is, those who repent of their sin to some extent. Therefore, if he only accepts repentance, that is, a sufficient pain, no one can be sure that he is absolved, and so Luther's certain and undoubted confidence of forgiveness is lost, or it is false and erroneous. If he says to someone whose otherwise lukewarm and casual repentance would not remit his sins that through the sacrament of penance all will be forgiven to him who only confesses that he is a sinner, who only asks for forgiveness and obtains it from the priest's mouth, what else does he say than what those whom he chides think? namely, those who say that half repentance becomes true repentance when the sacrament is added, because this replaces what man lacks. So either Luther's statement is wrong that man can be sure of forgiveness, or he must accept, whether he wants to or not, if not the name of attritionis, at least the thing that they designate with this word, which, if he admits it (but he will have to admit it if he does not want to depart from his opinion), it is untimely gossip that this man starts a dispute about the word after he has already admitted the thing. Again, with proud words, he goes on about the whole church, as if it teaches wrongly about repentance, teaching us that we should make a repentance out of the gathering and contemplation of sins, when we should first be taught (as he says) about the reason and causes of repentance, namely, of the immovable truth of the divine threat and promise, just as if one did not speak of such things to the congregation, citing many passages from sacred Scripture, some of which threaten, some of which counsel; moreover, also adding the causes that are just as powerful for obtaining repentance as those that Luther demands, and much more.

are holier. For these causes present almost nothing but the fear of punishment and the hope of reward, the like of which conversion to God is not so pleasant as when someone is converted through love. This happens when one imagines not only what Luther teaches, namely, the threat of God and the promise of forgiveness, but also what those teach whom Luther ridicules as those who teach nothing, namely, the goodness of God toward Himself and the benefits so abundantly shown to us, who deserve so little good but so much evil. For by such ideas the sinner will be brought to have greater remorse for having offended so dear a father than for having offended so mighty a Lord, and to be more afraid of punishment than of God's wrath, not desiring heaven but only God's mercy. This contemplation of the Divine goodness makes repentance. "Knowest thou not," saith the apostle, "that God's goodness leadeth thee to repentance?" Rom. 2, and it makes such, as we have said, even holier than that which Luther forms from fear of punishment and hope of promise, who boasts that no one teaches this but he alone, since all teach just this and much better things.

From confession.

(37) With regard to confession, he acts in such a way that in the case of public sins, which are known to everyone without confession, he demands confession, since it is not necessary. But of secret confession he speaks so inconsistently that, although he does not reject it entirely, he remains in doubt whether he should consider it a commanded thing. For he says that it cannot be proved from Scripture, and yet he says that it is wonderfully pleasing to him, and that it is also useful and necessary, though not to all, but only to satisfy troubled consciences, by which he implies, as we think, that if a man has a conscience like his own, and is sure either of his holiness or of the word of the divine promise, he has no need to confess secret sins; on the other hand, if one is fearful, he must confess to satisfy his conscience. Therefore, because he puts his words so ambiguously, it seems to us that he puts forward one and the other, so that the necessity of confession is clearer. And since he says that secret confession cannot be proved from Scripture, I will first refer to a passage from the Ecclesiastico, which seems to us, but not only to us, to be the following

18872 Henry VIII. Against the Babyl. Captivity. W. XIX, 228-230. 189

to take all three pieces of the penance in itself. My child, it is said, if you are sick, do not despise this, but ask the Lord and he will make you well. Let go of sin and make your hands blameless and cleanse your heart from all iniquity, Sir. 38. For God the Lord makes well by redeeming in heaven what the priest redeems on earth, we make our hands blameless in repentance, we let go of sin through repentance, we cleanse our heart from iniquity in confession, according to the saying of the prophet: Pour out your heart before him, Ps. 52. Chrysostom also summarizes these three pieces of repentance when he speaks: perfect repentance impels the sinner to endure everything gladly. And further on: In the heart repentance, in the mouth confession, in fact righteous humility, these parts make a fruitful repentance. This also serves for confession: Know the condition of your heart. But how can he know it if it is not shown to him? What is clearer than what we read in Numbers 5? The Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Tell the children of Israel, and say unto them: If a man or woman commit any sin against a man, and sin against the Lord thereby, the soul hath iniquity upon it, and they shall confess their sin which they have committed? In the old Jewish law, where everything was presented in the image, the lepers were commanded to show themselves to the priests. For if God the Lord wrote a law for this reason: Thou shalt not bind up the mouth of the ox that treadeth, that he may remind us that it is right for him that ministereth at the altar to live also of the altar (as the apostle explains, saying that this is written, not of oxen, but of men: Does God, saith he, care also for oxen? 1 Cor. 9.), no one may doubt that through the bodily leprosy in the carnal law, sin in the spiritual law was foreshadowed. And in order that Christ may gradually convince us of this opinion, he says to the lepers (whom he cleansed in going, not only from the leprosy of the body, but also from the leprosy of the soul): Go, show yourselves to the priests. Now the words of St. James, "Confess your sins one to another," seem to us to confirm just that, although we know that some interpret them in a different way, to imply a command of sacramental confession. Why should not also the confession be clearly about what the Lord says through Isaiah: Confess your iniquity, that you may be justified? If the reputation of the fathers is something

If we want to be justified from sin, we must first of all accept what St. Ambrose says: "No man can be justified from sin unless he himself has confessed sin. What can be said more clearly? Moreover, St. John Chrysostom says: "No one can receive the grace of God unless he has been cleansed of all sins through confession. Finally, St. Augustine also says: "Do penance as one should do it in the Church. No one says to himself: I do it secretly, because I do it before God. If, then, it is said without cause, "What you will do on earth," the keys are entrusted to the church in vain. But even if we do not read a word about confession, either expressly or in vague terms, nor even if the holy fathers should write anything about it; yet since we see that all the people have been revealing their sins to the priests for so many hundreds of years; since we see that so much good has arisen from it and, on the other hand, no evil has resulted from it, we can neither believe nor think anything else than that this thing has been ordered and maintained up to now, not by human counsel, but by divine command. For people would never have allowed themselves to be led by mere human prestige to talk about the most hidden sins, the secret awareness of which was already terrible enough for them, in which they were so concerned that they should not come to light, in front of another's ears (who could betray them if he wanted to) to their great shame, with their great danger and without any decency. Nor could it have happened that since so many good and bad priests hear confession without distinction, even those who can otherwise conceal nothing kept what they heard to themselves, unless God Himself, who instituted this sacrament, watched over this so wholesome matter with a special grace. Accordingly, Luther may say what he will, but it seems to us that confession was not introduced out of a custom of the people, not by a decree of the fathers, but by God Himself and has been preserved until now.

38. That Luther also condemns the reservation of sins, "forbidden by the fact" that not every priest forgave all sins, but some were under the authority of the bishop, some even under the authority of the pope, comes from the fact that the simple man respects everything so equally that out of hatred for the Roman pope he puts all popes in the same class with the least priests and is so blinded by hatred that he does not distinguish jurisdiction from order; indeed, he is even more blind that he does not even pay attention to the slightest order.

190 XIII Luther's Dispute with Henry VIII. W. xix, 230-233. 194

Since God depicts this contending church according to the pattern of the triumphant ones, why does he read there of so many levels and orders and here wants to know nothing of any level, of any order, of any difference? Why then did the apostle write so many things about the bishops, if no bishop had more power over his host than other clergymen, indeed, nothing more than a layman? We will deal with the laity later, but in the meantime we will speak of the priests. Although every priest has his rank, he does not have a judicial standing (which belongs only to the confessor) before he is entrusted with a certain host; however, he is considered capable beforehand, so that a congregation can be entrusted to him without danger. If a bishop, who has the supervision of a whole diocese, has entrusted a certain part of his care to a priest, does not reason itself teach that the latter cannot bind or loose, unless he permits it, without whose command he would not have been able to retain or remit the sins of any of his congregation? as even this bishop would not have the power to do in a foreign diocese. What wonder, then, if the bishop reserves some sins for himself, the care of which he considers more important than that it could be entrusted to anyone (even inexperienced)? Which, since it has been observed for so many hundred years, lest the people, when forgiveness is made too easy to them, should become even more inclined to wicked sins: Luther now commands, so that no one should be deterred from sinning by a heavy penance, that everyone should be allowed to do everything, be he priest or layman, even going so far in his foolishness that, since women in general have the fault that they do not conceal anything that belongs to them secretly, he even wants to make the women confessors of their husbands. But because the apostle does not allow a woman to teach, Luther will hopefully not choose her as a priest, who says that no one is a priest except the one who preaches. The teaching of the holy fathers proves, however, that one does not have to confess to anyone other than the priest (it is then a case of necessity). St. Augustine says that each one comes only to the overseers, through whom the office of the keys of the Church is performed. He does not say that he comes to the laity or to women. Elsewhere he speaks even more clearly: Whoever has remorse for his sins, let him have a right repentance and let his

He should present his life and conduct to God through the priest, and he should anticipate the divine judgment through confession. For the Lord has commanded those who want to become clean that they should present themselves to the priests, indicating that one must bodily confess sins presently. Likewise, Pope Leo says: Christ has given this authority to the superiors of the Church, that they should impose a penance on the confessors. Finally, the venerable Beda also says: "That which happens every day and does not involve much, we want to reveal to our equals, but more important things to the priests and, as often as it is necessary, let ourselves be cleansed, because sins cannot be remitted without confession. Moreover, what good is confession if it is not followed by absolution through the keys of the Church? But this right, says Ambrose, is granted only to the priests, which he shows elsewhere how he wants it understood, when he says: The word of God absolves from sins, the priest is judge. Augustine also writes quite clearly in another place: "He who repents without the priest's judgment robs the church of its authority. Now let everyone judge how well-founded Luther's opinion is, who, contrary to the opinion of all the saints, draws the keys of the church to the laity and women and says that Christ's words: What you will bind 2c. are said not only to the clergy, but to all believers. When M. Aemilius Scaurus, a famous and righteous man, was accused at Rome by Vario Sucronensi, a not particularly sincere man, and the plaintiff made a long speech, he answered briefly, and because he could rely on his and the people's conscience, he did not dignify him with a lengthy speech, but only said: "You Romans, Varius Sucronensis has said it, Aemilius Scaurus denies it, which of the two will you believe more? With what words, under the acclamation of the people, this honored man ridiculed the unworthy accusation of that man. This question, as we think, is nowhere better suited than to the present question. For that the words of Christ are spoken by the keys to the laity, Luther claims, Augustine denies it. Which of the two do you want to believe more? Luther claims it, Beda denies it, which one do you want to believe more? Luther claims, Ambrose denies, which one do you want to believe more? Finally, Luther claims it, the whole church denies it. Whom will you believe more? But if someone is so foolish that he thinks with Luther that one must confess to the women, it will be

192 Henry VIII against the Babylonian captivity. Captivity. W. xix, 233-236. 193

It may not be unhelpful to accept Luther's other teaching, since he advises that it should not take much effort to remember one's sins. It is certainly not good to be too careful in putting many things on the track, that you let everything fall into his ear, which has a passable and open way from the ear to the tongue. Otherwise, if the matter can be done without such danger, we have no hesitation in preferring to Luther's counsel the example of the prophet who says: "I remember all my years spent in bitterness and tribulation. All my years, he says, I remember, which I spent in bitterness and sorrow. For such a confession not only takes away past sins, but also brings abundantly new grace, according to the saying of Ambrose: "Peter became much stronger in the faith after he wept bitterly for the loss of his faith, and he found therefore a far greater grace than that which he lost." With which Gregorius agrees when he speaks, "The life that burns with love after sin becomes commonly much more pleasing to GOD than innocence that lies safe and sleeps. For since Luther calls those idle people who think that one must confess all circumstances of sins, Augustine judges quite differently and says: "One must consider the nature of the sin according to the place, according to the time, according to the duration, according to the diversity of the person, and how one has been tempted to it, even if one has committed it several times. For a fornicator must repent according to the excellence of his position or office, or according to the nature of the fornicator and his deed, in what way he commits the deed of shame, whether he commits it in a holy place or at a time devoted to prayer, such as feast days and Lent. He must consider how far he persists in it, how much it offends him, how persistently he has sinned, and how much he has allowed himself to be overcome by sin. For there are people who not only cannot overcome themselves, but also give themselves willingly to sin and do not expect the temptation to sin, but anticipate the irritation. He must ask himself how often he performed the sinful act, with what pleasure he performed it. He must confess and lament all these manifold circumstances, so that when he realizes what he has done sinfully, he will immediately find a merciful God and, having come to know the growth of sin, he will examine himself to see what age, mind and state he has been. With all these things, he must stop and examine the

The first thing we must do is to feel the guilt of sin and purify ourselves from all transgressions with tears. Up to this point Augustine. After this, we almost do not know whether Luther will find one (of those he calls idle) who has more carefully recounted the circumstances of sins; lest he imagine that no circumstances belong to confession. If a sin has various circumstances, it must be remembered as much as possible; but even more, grave and various sins must be collected and the conscience carefully examined, so that, where it can be, not a single one remains. For what Luther throws at us as a sharp arrow, that no one can confess all sins, because no one can remember them all, is only a blunt arrow. For who does not know that no one who has said that all and every sin must be confessed is so foolish as to think that even those sins which do not please the confessor must be told in the priest's ear?

About the satisfaction.

39 We do not know whether Luther is sufficient for others with regard to atonement; at least it seems to us that he would have preferred to remain silent than to say nothing with many words. For the fact that he says at the beginning that the church teaches about atonement in such a way that the common people never understand true atonement, which consists in the new life, is, as everyone can see, mere blasphemy. Who made Luther believe that the church does not teach that one must start a new life? He has not walked through the entire church, has not been present in all the confessionals, so that he would have overheard the ignorance of the clergy. He must therefore necessarily have either the Holy Spirit in his bosom or an evil spirit in his heart that inspired him with such things. But whatever the spirit may be, it cannot be a good spirit that teaches lies, but the spirit we spoke of is the lying devil and his father. For everyone knows that what Luther claims to be truth is false. For who has ever been such a fool that he should speak of the works that make up for past sins in such a way that he sees future sins through his fingers? Who does not, as often as he absolves, agree with the words of Christ: "Go, sin no more"? John 8, likewise the words of Paul: "As ye have committed your members to the service of uncleanness, and from one unrighteousness to another: so now also commit your members to the service of righteousness.

194 XIII Luther's Dispute with Henry VIII. W. xix, 236-238. 195

Who has not read Gregory's saying: We cannot repent worthily unless we also recognize the nature of such repentance, for to repent is to weep for the sins we have committed and not to commit again the sins we have wept for? For he who so mourns one sin that he commits another either does not yet know what repentance is, or he only pretends to have repented. For what is the use if someone weeps for the sin of indulgence and still burns with love for avarice? Even though nothing was said about this, since the priest imposes penance for the sins committed, he is in fact indicating that they are not to be committed again, as they must be regarded with a new punishment. From this it is obvious that Luther himself does not think about what he says, but must only have something to talk about, to leave the church. Such he always lets himself be heard as a master, wherever he wants in such an important matter, with great clamor, as he also does in these words: 1) What monstrosities, O Roman See, we have you and your murderous laws and customs to thank for, with which you have corrupted the whole world to such an extent that they think they can do enough for their sins with their works of God, which only happens enough through the faith of a contrite heart. Not only do you make faith silent by such noise, but you also suppress it, only so that your insatiable blood hedgehog may have such people to whom he says: bring here, bring here, and sell sin. Who should not think, by reading these cruel and terrible words, that Luther had encountered great and abominable abominations at the Roman see? But whoever examines everything carefully will see that there is much clamor and little behind it. For the first thing that is ridiculous is this, that he exclaims against the Roman See, as if only in the Roman and not everywhere in the whole church the works of atonement were insisted upon and repentance inculcated; or as if the laws, which he calls murderous laws, had not been drawn up mostly before by the holy fathers, with the common consent of the Christians, in public meetings and general assemblies. Subsequently, when he says that one does not satisfy God by works, but only by faith, and believes that this does not happen by works alone without faith, he rages nonsensically against the Roman See, in which he says, "I am a Christian.

1. Cf. "Of the Babyl. Captivity," Col. 89.

No one has ever been so foolish as to say that works are enough without faith, since everyone knows Paul's saying: "What does not come from faith is sin," Romans 14. If he considers works superfluous and faith alone sufficient, let the works be what they will, then he says something and in fact departs from the Roman See, which applauds St. James that faith without works is dead, Jac. 2. Thus you see how inconsistent Luther is, who so sets out on the Roman See that he in the meantime entangles himself in the net of foolishness or godlessness. However, we believe that Luther's true opinion is that faith is always sufficient for salvation without good works. For that he believes this is clear from many other passages as well as from the fact that he says: God does not care about works and does not need them. He only needs them so that we may believe him to be true in his promises. What Luther wants to indicate with these words, he may see for himself; at least we believe that God cares for our faith as well as for our works, and needs neither our works nor faith. For just as he, as God, has no need of our good, so he cares about everything that men do, as the one who forbids them to do one thing and commands them to do another, without whose providence not even a sparrow, the two of which are sold for a penny, can fall to the earth, Luc. But since Luther's intention seems to be that a penitent should only enter into a new life and not have the priest impose penance on him as satisfaction for the sins he has committed, let us hear what St. Augustine also writes in this passage. He says: "It is not enough that one's conduct be improved and that one refrain from past sins, unless one also repays the Lord for what he has done by a painful penance, by humble sighs, by the sacrifice of a broken heart, by almsgiving and fasting. And elsewhere he says: "A penitent, however, must surrender himself to the judgment and power of the priest, and not be left to himself to be ready to do anything he wants to do to regain spiritual life, which he would do to avoid bodily death. He speaks in the same way in another place: "The priests also bind the confessors by imposing a penitential satisfaction on them, and release them by remitting some of it. For they perform a work of justice on sinners by punishing them with a just punishment.

196 72 Henry VIII. Against the Babyl. Captivity. W. XIX, 238-241. 197

a work of mercy, in that they let some of it go.

40 Thus we have hopefully shown clearly enough how boldly Luther blasphemes the church, and how inconsistent, how ungodly, how tasteless things he assumes through all parts of penance, against the holy fathers, against the holy scriptures, against the consensus of so many times and peoples, yes, almost against general opinion. But he does not leave it at that, but since he has long known that repentance is a sacrament, he now, at the end of the whole book, begins to withdraw that which would still be the only true thing in his book, and (as he is wont to do) aggravates his opinion, so that he now denies that repentance is a sacrament. Before, he confesses that he does not doubt that whoever confesses before 'any brother especially, or voluntarily, and when punishment has been inflicted upon him, has asked for remission and has reformed, is absolved from all secret sins. If this is his opinion (though it is wrong that he says before every brother especially, and again that he thinks it does not matter whether he confesses voluntarily or, if he has been punished, asks for mercy), and yet he considers such penance so useful, why does he exclude penance from the number of sacraments? For no other reason than that its value would decrease noticeably, and if it once lost the name of a sacrament (which is held in high esteem by Christians), it would be considered something small. He finds no other excuse for this than that penance has no outward sign, just as if either outward penance or the bodily act and gesture with which the priest absolves the penitent could not be a sign of spiritual grace by which the penitent obtains forgiveness. But in order to put an end to this talk of repentance, we wish that he may at some point repent of the penance he has so mishandled, and that he may salutarily fulfill all its parts that he intends to rob from it, so that his wicked heart may be contrite, that he publicly confesses his errors, that he submits to the judgment of the church, which he offends with so many blasphemies, and that he atones for all that he has previously committed by means of a possible atonement (for he is not capable of making a worthy one).

From the confirmation.

He does not accept Confirmation as a sacrament at all, but rather says that he is surprised at what the Church has come up with,

that they made Confirmation a Sacrament; and with such a sacred thing the chatterer plays, and makes many useless words, and asks, 1) why they did not also make Confirmation out of the Sacrament of Bread, that Confirmation should comprehend three Sacraments, since they have some instruction for it in Scripture? Therefore the church does not make it a sacrament, because she does not take occasion from any words of Scripture to make other sacraments than those which Christ instituted and sanctified with his blood, just as, on the other hand, she does not omit any of those which were taught orally by Christ and afterwards also by the apostles, even if nothing else is found of them. For the fact that he says that confirmation does not effect salvation is not based on any promise of Christ, he only says this, but does not prove it, although he certainly denies everything. But since Luther himself cites a few oters in which (although he only mocks with them) the sacrament of confirmation cannot have its origin without rhyme, why then does he judge the whole church so maliciously, as if it were making a sacrament imprudently, because in these oters no word of promise is to be found, as if Christ had promised, said, and done nothing that the evangelists do not tell. In this way, if we had only the Gospel of John, he could also deny the institution of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, because John does not write anything about it, who, with the very counsel of God, omitted this, with which all many other things were omitted, which Jesus did, and, as the evangelist testifies, are not written in the book, as the whole world could not comprehend. Of these things, one and another was revealed orally to the faithful through the apostles, and then preserved by the constant faith of the Catholic Church. Why should you not believe them in some things (even if nothing is read about them in the Gospels), since, as Augustine says, without the tradition of the Church you could not know which are the Evangelia? If there were nothing written about them anywhere, the Gospel would remain written in the hearts of the faithful, which is older than all the books of the evangelists; the sacraments would remain, which are undoubtedly also much older than the writings of the evangelists, so that Luther would not think that his argument, as if a sacrament had been made in vain, was valid, because no institution of it is found in the evangelists. Otherwise, if he assumes nothing at all that he does not find so clearly in the

1. Cf. "Of the Babyl. Captivity," Col. 90

198XIII Luther's Dispute with Henry VIII. W. xix, 241-244. 199

If he reads the Gospel in such a way that there is no evasion, how does he believe (if he believes otherwise, since he doubts almost everything) the constant virginity of Mary? He finds so little of it in Scripture that Helvidius has nowhere taken the opportunity to assert the opposite except from the words of Scripture. And nothing else can be opposed to him than the faith of the whole church, which is nowhere greater or stronger than in the sacraments. At least we believe that there is no one who still has a shred of faith in him to be persuaded that Christ, who prayed for Peter that his faith would not cease, who founded his church on a strong rock, should bind the church, which has been the universal church for so many hundreds of years, to empty signs of bodily things, as to divine sacraments, by a mistaken faith. If we read nothing of this anywhere, yet those have been able to relate the mind of the Lord who have personally dealt with him, of whom he himself says: "Ye are my witnesses, for ye have been with me from the beginning." The Comforter could teach us what we should do, of whom Christ says: "But when the Comforter comes, whom I will send to you from my Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will testify of me," John 15, and again: "When he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. For he shall not speak of himself: but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak; and whatsoever is to come, that shall he declare unto you." Therefore, since the Church has had so many great teachers, so many living evangelists, should we believe that the Spirit who instills truth has instituted the Sacrament in vain, and taught us to base our hope on a sign that is not worthy? Should one not rather believe that it learned it from the apostles and from the Holy Spirit himself? Certainly, if anyone considers the name of this sacrament, the minister, the power it promises, he will see that the matter is not such that one can believe that the Church has audaciously made it a sacrament. For from chrism, as Hugh a Sancto Victore says, Christ has his name; from Christ we are called Christians, all of whom, since they all bear his name, had to receive the anointing, because in Christ we are all the chosen race and the royal priesthood. But we are anointed by none other than bishops, except in cases of emergency, so that they may make Christians of us, and anoint the Comforter the Holy One.

This teacher also clearly shows the fruit of the sacrament when he says: "As in baptism one receives the forgiveness of sins, so through the laying on of hands the Holy Spirit is given to us. This same teacher also clearly indicates the fruit of the sacrament when he says: "As one receives the forgiveness of sins in baptism, so the Comforter, the Holy Spirit, is given through the laying on of hands. There grace is given for the forgiveness of sins, here for strengthening and confirmation. But what is the use of straightening yourself up after falling, if you do not get strength to stand? Up to here Hugo, with whom also common sense agrees. For just as in the bodily life, apart from procreation, by which we receive life, another effect is required, by which we both grow and attain to perfection of virtue, so also to the spiritual life, which is attained by the rebirth of baptism, the sacrament of confirmation is necessary, by which the spiritual life is brought to perfect power and the Holy Spirit is imparted to perfect strength. And apart from the sacrament of baptism, which helps to believe, confirmation serves to support steadfastness and to confess sins all the more boldly. For to this end man receives confirmation, that he may confess the faith the more boldly before his judge. And this is what Melchiades says: In baptism we are born again to life, after baptism we are confirmed to the controversy. For confirmation proves us and equips us for conflict in this world.

Finally, in order that Luther may recognize that this sacrament is neither new nor an empty poem, but is not at all lacking in grace, but rather communicates the spirit of grace and truth, let us quote here what St. Jerome wrote about the sacrament of confirmation. For he says: "When the bishop lays out his hand, he lays it on those who have been baptized in the true faith, who believe that in the Father and Son and Holy Spirit there are three Persons and yet only One Being. But Arius, since he has believed in nothing else (only cover your ears, who will hear it, so that you will not defile yourselves by such ungodly speeches) but in the Father, the only true God, in Jesus Christ the Savior, as a mere creature, and in the Holy Spirit, who is a servant of both: how will he receive the Holy Spirit from the church, who has not yet obtained forgiveness of sin? For the Holy Ghost dwelleth nowhere but where there is a pure faith, and

200 72 Henry VIII. Against the Babyl. Captivity. W. XIX, 241-246. 201

does not make his temple one in whom true faith does not prevail. If you ask here why one who is baptized in the church cannot receive the Holy Spirit otherwise than by the hand of the bishop, learn that this use receives its prestige because after the ascension of the Lord the Holy Spirit came upon the apostles, and we find in many places that this often happened. Until here Jerome. With which statement many other passages of Scripture agree, as well as especially and most clearly the one which teaches us in the Acts of the Apostles that the people who had previously been baptized in Samaria, after Peter and John came to them and laid their hands on them, received the Holy Spirit. We wonder, then, how Luther came to think that Confirmation should be regarded only as a use and ceremony, and not as a sacrament, which, according to the testimony of holy teachers and the faith of the whole Church, but also according to the clearest passages of Scripture, by means of the visible sign of the papal hand, communicates not only grace, but also the Spirit of grace itself. Luther may therefore only stop to despise the sacrament of Confirmation, which has for itself the dignity of the church servant, the prestige of the church, and the benefit of the sacrament itself.

Of the Sacrament of Marriage.

(43) Marriage, which was the very first sacrament kept among the first men and honored by Christ through the very first miraculous work, and which was also held in such high esteem for so long a time for the sake of the name of the sacrament itself, Luther also now denies that it is a sacrament (so that people will no longer think so highly of marital fidelity in the future). And since he rejected other sacraments in such a way that he said that in the one no sign was instituted and in the other no grace was promised, he denies both in the case of marriage. For he says that there was no promise of grace anywhere; it was not instituted as a sign anywhere. How does he know this? Because it is not read anywhere, he says. O a brave speech and that is a mother of many heresies. From this source Helvidius has sucked his poison. Do you not accept a sacrament whose institution you do not read in the book? what book did he ever write who instituted everything? In some pieces, he says, I adhere to the evangelists of Christ. 1)

1. Luther did not make such a statement.

Why don't you keep some things with the church of Christ, which Christ himself preferred to all evangelists, who were nothing else than members of the church? Therefore, if you believe one, why do you put distrust in all? If you attach so much to one member, why do you attach nothing to the whole body? The Church believes that marriage is a sacrament; the Church believes that it was instituted by God, taught by Christ, the apostles and holy fathers, then brought to us by an oral tradition as a sacrament, and that it is also to be propagated as a sacrament by us to our descendants until the end of the world and to be venerated as a sacrament. This is what the Church believes, this is what she speaks. This, we say, this same Church also speaks to you, which tells you that the evangelists wrote a Gospel. For if the church did not say that the gospel of John was John's gospel, you could not know whether John wrote it. For you were not present when he wrote it. Why then do you not believe the church when it says that Christ did these things, instituted these sacraments, and that the apostles taught them, just as you believe it when it says that the evangelist wrote them?

44.^2)^ Marriage, says Luther, was with the ancient fathers and also with the pagans, and yet with both of them marriage was not a sacrament, since with both of them it was a true marriage just as it is with us. As for the fathers, who lived under and before the law, we do not agree with Luther; indeed, we believe that marriage was a sacrament with them, just as circumcision was. Of the Gentiles it is a different question, whose marriage status depended entirely on the customs and laws of each people, and thus with some marriage was lawful, which with others was considered highly irregular. However, there is no lack of those who, contrary to Luther, hold that marriage is a sacrament even for unbelievers. For St. Augustine also says: "The sacrament of marriage is common to all peoples, but the holiness of the sacrament is nowhere to be found but in the city of our God and on His holy mountain. About which opinion one can read, where it is convenient, the Hugo a Sancto Victore. And even if the marriage of unbelievers were not a sacrament, it would not follow what Luther concludes, that therefore the marriage of believers is not a sacrament either. For the people of God have found in marriage something sacred and at all times something sacred in it, so-.

2. Cf. "Of the Babyl. Captivity," Col. 82.

202XIII Luther's Dispute with Henry VIII. W. xix, 246-249. 203

Both when she was first appointed and when she was honored with divine laws. Furthermore, among the pagans, because it was considered a human thing, they used to take wives and cast them out, according to the treaties and human laws. Among the people of God, it was not permitted for husbands and wives to divorce each other. For what God permitted the Hebrews to do through Moses, namely, to give a bill of divorcement, Christ says that they were permitted to do so because of the hardness of their hearts, otherwise they would have killed the wives who were not suitable for their minds. For from the beginning, says Christ, it was not so. But Christ called Christians back to their former holiness and sanctified the marriage state with the indissoluble bond of fellowship, excepting fornication among those whom God, not human error, but God lawfully joined together. It does not follow, therefore, that if the marriage state was not a sacrament among the pagans, it is therefore not a sacrament among Christians now, nor was such a thing formerly among the ancient fathers. For as far as the Christians are concerned, the faith of the church is already sufficient, even if nowhere is anything found about it. And yet the single passage from the Apostle, which Luther takes the liberty of mockingly distorting, teaches quite clearly that marriage was instituted as a sacrament not only now, but also before time, from the beginning of the world. No one will doubt this, as we believe, who will only read and carefully consider the passage from the Epistle to the Ephesians, which we therefore want to include here in its entirety, because no interpretation can make the matter clearer than the words of the apostle, who sets forth his opinion so clearly that he leaves no room for the unruly blasphemies of Luther. For thus he says: "Let women be subject to their husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, just as Christ is the head of the church. And he is the Savior of his body. But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives are subject to their husbands in all things. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it, that he might sanctify it, and cleanse it with the bath of water in the word, that he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and blameless. So also husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. For no man hateth his own flesh, but cherisheth it, and cherisheth it.

just as the Lord is the church. For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife, and two shall be one flesh. The sacrament is great, but I say of Christ and the church." Eph. 5. Here it is written, as the holy apostle teaches everywhere, that the marriage of a man and a woman is a sacrament, which is a picture of the union of Christ and the church. For he says that marriage was sanctified in the sight of God, that it was a secret image of Christ united with the Church, and thus he compares the man with Christ, the woman with the Church. He says that the man is the head of the body, which is one body with the woman. Likewise, he also says that Christ is the head of that body and makes it one body with the church. He makes no other reason for a man to love his wife than that he is not an unequal sign of Christ, whom he represents, and this reason is even more important to him than the common nature of a male and female, which can also incite to love. By this very example he also demands of the woman that she fear and honor her husband, because the woman represents the community that must be obedient to Christ. After he has seriously and with many words emphasized this, so that no one will think that this comparison of a man with Christ and a woman with the church is only appropriate as an admonition, he shows that the matter has its reason, that it is a true sacrament, which was proclaimed beforehand by the very first prophet, in his very first prophecy, right at the beginning of the world. For when he said, "He that loveth his wife loveth himself: for no man hateth his own flesh at any time, but feedeth it, and cherisheth it, as Christ did the church; because we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones"; the apostle speaks these words, that he may bring to our minds those words which agree with them, when Adam, when Eve was first brought unto him, said, "This is bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh." And in order that the apostle might indicate still more clearly that to the union of Christ with the Church belongs also the sacrament of Adam's union with Eve, he adds the words of Adam himself: "For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and two shall be one flesh." This sacrament of Christ and the church is great according to the apostle's saying. How would he have

204 72 Henry VIII. Against the Babyl. Captivity. W. xix, 249-254 205

could refute Luther more clearly than with these words, with which Luther dares to play his game? than he who would assert that because the apostle said that the sacrament in Christ and his church was great, he had thereby abolished the sacrament of the marriage of a man and a woman; just as if someone said, "The sacrament of baptism is great in the washing away or cleansing of the soul"; or as if someone said, "The sacrament of the Lord's Supper is great in the body of Christ itself," would he thereby deny that the form of the bread and the wine is a sacrament? or if he says that this sacrament is great in the spiritual body of Christ, is he depriving the sacrament of the body which he received from the Virgin Mary? Who has ever seen anyone who would make such a wide use of such a 'useless interpretation'? For if this were the apostle's meaning, and if he wanted his words to be understood in such a way that he only called this sacrament great in Christ and the church, and that such a thing did not concern the marriage of a man and a woman, then this would greatly reduce the power and the emphasis of the same, by which he praises the marriage state with a comparison of two unions beforehand. He would also have harmed in another way, according to his opinion, which he adopted, if he had taken the words of the first man, which in themselves seem to bind the husband and wife to love one another, and applied them to Christ and the church in such a way as to teach that they do not concern the husband and wife. Now the apostle shows that the words of Adam contained a prophecy of Christ and the church, and this is also affirmed by all holy teachers, as the matter itself shows. For at the first sight of Eve he spoke these words, in which he preferred the woman to the father and the mother, since he himself had neither father nor mother, nor even a command to beget children, so that he might know by the comparison of parents and children what father and mother were. But if the words of the old father were a prophecy of Christ and his community, then they either do not concern the marriage state, of which they seem to deal, or the marriage state was made a sacrament as a sign of that union by God himself, by whose spirit the mouth of the speaking Adam was governed, to a sacrament, so that the very same words can be applied both to what was spoken of and to what was proclaimed before, that is, to the marriage state of men, and at the same time to the union of Christ with the Church, and thus a sacrament from a sacred cause and from a holy

and signs corresponding to the same thing.

45 Moreover, in order that it may be evident that what Luther says is without foundation, the apostle's purpose in this passage to the Ephesians is not to show from these words that the union of Christ with the church is a great sacrament, but to remind the spouses that they should conduct themselves in this way toward one another, so that they might make their marriage a sacrament, which would be in accordance with such a holy thing, of which it is the sacrament, and would have a complete resemblance to it. According to this, Luther is either negligent himself in this place and has only looked at it above and without consideration, or he maliciously conceals what he notices under the reading when he answers: this understanding, which we have presented and which the church accepts, is an indication of a sleepy, industrious and negligent reader. Did Augustine, then, read the apostle drowsily? Did Jerome and all the others, with the exception of Luther, read him drowsily? who alone, through his vigilance, came to the conclusion that Paul had not written about a sacrament, but about a mystery. O of the sharp-footed man, who alone saw that the whole Latin church in vain calls a sacrament what the apostle, writing in Greek, did not call a sacrament but a mystery, as if the Latins were mistaken in giving the words in Latin, because Paul did not use a Latin word in the Greek language. If the translator had not given the word sacramentum, but mystery, and had kept the Greek word entirely, he would not have overturned the argument, since from this place of the apostle one concludes that the marriage state is a sacrament, since the circumstances of the whole matter teach us that this is so. For he may twist the word mystery as he pleases, but he will never go so far as to say that, if he does not accept the sacrament, he therefore abolishes and denies the sacrament; nor can he be said to have a wrong opinion or to speak wrongly who thus speaks: The Lord's Supper is a great mystery. Therefore, since there is not one of all the sacraments that is not also a mystery, as containing in itself the secret and invisible grace under a visible sign, the translator, seeing that the whole context of this passage clearly shows that the apostle describes in the words to the Ephesians such a mystery, which is truly a sacrament, has also perceived that the whole church is a mystery.

206 XIII Luther's Dispute with Henry VIII. W. xix, 252-254. 207

the marriage for a sacrament hall, he has translated there the word mystery by sacramentum. If "he had translated this word wrongly, neither Jerome nor Augustine would have been such sleepy readers that they would not have noticed the translator's error, nor such inclined patrons of the marriage state that they would have preferred to retain the noticed error rather than improve it, Especially since Augustine did not yield to Luther in the knowledge of the Greek language, and Jerome, who was the most skilled in this language, was so fond of the virginal state that he was regarded by many as not being well disposed towards the married state.

46 So that everyone may easily recognize that not only those whom Luther contemptuously calls Sententlurios, but also the old pious and learned church fathers are called sleepy readers, let us hear what St. Augustine writes. He says: "Not only fertility, the fruit of which is childbearing, not only chastity, the bond of which is faith, but also the sacrament of marriage must be commanded to faithful spouses, hence the apostle says: "Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved his community. Thus Augustine calls marriage a sacrament, and lest Luther should say that he has read the place drowsily and carelessly, he acts upon it more than once in other of his writings in just this way. For elsewhere he speaks thus: In paradise it was said: a man will leave his father and mother and cling to his wife, which the apostle calls a great sacrament to Christ and his church. Why does Augustine not interpret Luther's opinion that it is wrong that the Latin translates mysterium by sacramentum, because Paul uses the word mystery and not sacramentum in Greek? Augustine calls marriage more than a thousand times the sacrament of marriage, the sacrament of matrimony; just as he does when he says: "All the good of marriage has been fulfilled in the parents of Christ, including children, fidelity and the sacrament. Why did he not remind us that it is not a sacrament but a mystery? Moreover, if Luther is right that marriage is not a sacrament except in Christ and his church, Augustine has spoken untruthfully. For neither is this sacrament a property of marriage, as Luther takes it, who only says it is a mystery; nor was it fulfilled in the marriage of Mary. About these words of the apostle writes

Augustine again: What is called great in Christ and his church is the least in all and every men and women, and yet it is an inseparable sacrament of union. When Luther says that no sacrament is called great except in Christ and his church, even a word researcher can refer to him from these words of the apostle, if they are considered with diligence. For since the apostle says: "The sacrament is great, but I am speaking of Christ and his church; what kind of sacrament is this, which is great in Christ and his church? Christ and the church cannot be a sacrament in Christ and the church. For no one speaks thus. Therefore this sacrament, of which he says that it is great in Christ and his church, must be the union of the male with the female, of which he spoke before. Therefore the apostle does not want to say anything else than this: The union of man and woman is a great sacrament in Christ and the church, as a holy sign in the most holy thing.

Finally, if Luther stubbornly denies that in these apostolic words marriage is called a sacrament, but only the union of Christ with the Church, he will at least admit that the union of man and woman is a sign of the sacred union by which Christ is joined to the Church, and which has its reason in the institution of God, according to which the first parents, whom God Himself joined together, were joined; but not invented by men afterwards. If Luther denies that what we have now said is evident from the words of the apostle, he denies it impudently. For this is so often and so clearly indicated in this place that whoever does not see this must be blind. If, then, it is established that grace is communicated through marriage, which signifies such a holy thing, Luther must, willingly or unwillingly, either accept marriage as a sacrament or reject all sacraments altogether, because, according to his confession, the sign of a holy thing with the promise of grace makes it a sacrament. Let us see, then, if we can make it reasonably clear that grace is obtained through marriage. For Luther evidently denies this and says: "Nowhere is it found that he who takes a wife obtains any grace from God. Marriage, says the apostle, is to be kept honest among all, and the marriage bed undefiled. The marriage bed could not be without defilement if marriage had no grace. And marriage has this ability, that the marriage bed may remain undefiled, nowhere.

208 Henry VIII against the Babylonian captivity. Captivity. W. xix, 254-257. 209

From where else but because God the Lord, who according to his goodness saw to it that even those things that have their natural order, even if they have neither reason nor feeling, lack nothing that is necessary according to each one's ability, provided with equal kindness that he associated grace with the marriage state, according to which each person who does not want to reject it will not only be faithful to his or her spouse, but will also be able not only not to be defiled by carnal intercourse, by whose shameful lust he or she would otherwise be defiled, but also to promote his or her salvation. For the marriage state would not have an undefiled marriage bed, if the grace that is imparted to marriage did not turn to the best what would otherwise become sin. Which Paul also clearly indicates elsewhere, when he deals with the duties of wives: she, he says, becomes blessed through childbearing. If you abolish the married state, what would be the consequence of childbearing, by which, as the apostle says, one becomes blessed in marriage, but death and eternal damnation? For if, says St. Bernard, in the Church you do away with the honored state of marriage and the immaculate marriage bed, do you not fill it with cohabitants, with incestuous persons, with those who commit fornication against themselves, with sissies, with adulterers of boys, and with all kinds of impure persons? If, then, apart from marriage, all childbearing is condemnable, the grace of matrimony seems to be great, according to which God not only cleanses that act by which you could stain yourself to your punishment (if you look at its nature), so that it leaves no stain after it, but also sanctifies it in such a way that, according to the testimony of the apostle, it bears a reward. And the marriage state has this license of grace not otherwise than by virtue of the sacrament, for which it was made by God Himself, so that it should serve the man who enters into it both for the duty of procreation of his sex, after he is once created, and as a means for evil desire, after he is restored. However, what would this conjugal act be but a lust, if God did not make it a means against the same, which He also really decrees, through the holy grace of the Sacrament, to be a means for lust, in such a way that He makes those who have the essentially paternal grace, that God has bestowed on the married state, as the Prodigal Son did, that they not only do not drink stolen water from other people's wells, but also that they fill themselves up from their own and that their moderate consumption becomes so beneficial to them that it may lead them to eternal happiness.

Life? For the apostle also confesses in the place where he exhorts to abstinence and virginity. For the apostle, in the place where he exhorts to abstinence and virginity, as a virtue opposed to procreation, also confesses that the married state is a gift of God; that is, of those gifts of which he says that every good gift and every perfect gift comes down from above, from the Father of lights. Does he not thereby teach that the gift of God, which is given to one for the reason that he who receives it is in the circumstances of life in which he is to be preserved, so that he does not fall into such a state in which he is lost as soon as he falls into it, has a preserving grace with him? Moreover, when the apostle thus saith, If a brother have an unbelieving wife, and she suffer her to dwell with him, let him not put her away. And if a wife have an unbelieving husband, and he suffer him to dwell with her, let her not put her away from him. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; otherwise your children would be unclean; but now find them holy. 1 Cor. 7. Does not the apostle indicate in these words that since marriage remains inviolable after one part has become a believer, the holiness of the sacrament sanctifies the whole marriage state, since it was previously quite impure? But why should the marriage, if it is a marriage, be holier than before, if the sacramental grace, which before baptism, which is the entrance to all sacraments, could not be shared in the marriage of unbelievers, was not connected with the marriage because of the faith of one part?

(48) Let us pass by the apostle and turn our attention to God, who sanctifies this sacrament. Did He not, when He joined our first parents together, sanctify the marriage state by a blessing? For the Scripture says: God blessed them and said: Be fruitful and multiply. And since this blessing had its effect on the other animals, for the strength of the body, according to each one's ability, who should doubt that in the rational man it imparted the power of spiritual grace to his spirit? Would anyone believe that God the Lord, having been so kind to the smallest and least animals that he bestowed his blessings on each one according to his nature, would extend his hand of blessing so sparingly to man, whom he created in his own image, that he would only take care of his body, but would completely pass over the soul with his great blessing, as the breath of life that he himself breathed and which bears his own image. Again, since Christ as God-Man

210 XIII Luther's Dispute with Henry VIII. W. xix. 257-259. 211

When he walked among men, and not only graced the wedding with his presence, but also made it respectable by a miraculous work, did he not thereby teach us that the married state is to be held in high esteem? But now we do not see what honorable thing would be found in it without grace. And I think that he would not have come to the wedding either, if either some grace had not already been bestowed on the marriage state at that time, which made it pleasing to Christ, or if he himself had not wanted to bestow grace on the marriage. Rather, we recognize that the miraculous work he performed here reminds us that the tasteless water of carnal lust was transformed by a secret grace of God into the tastiest wine. But what is the need to search for so many reasons of proof in such a clear matter, since only one place is sufficient, since Christ says: What God has joined together, let not man put asunder? O a word worthy of wonder, which no one could have uttered but the Word that became flesh! Who would not think that it was already enough that God joined together the first human beings, with whom the human race took its beginning? So highly honored were they with God, so wonderful a kindness did He show in them. But now we have heard from the mouth of truth that those who are joined to each other by a lawful marriage union are not joined carelessly, nor by human customs alone, but by God Himself through His invisible assistance and impassible cooperation. Therefore, it is forbidden for a man to separate what God has joined together. O a word that is not less full of wonder than of joy and fear! Who should not rejoice that God takes such great care of the marriage state that He not only considers it worthy to assist it, but also to preside over it? Who should not be frightened when he is doubtful about how to deal with his wife, whom he is bound not only to love but also to dwell with in such a way that he can return her pure and without stain to GOD, who gave her to him, when He demands her from him? Accordingly, if GOD, as He Himself says, joins all together Himself, who should not believe that grace is imparted by such a marriage? Should this be considered only a care for the carnal bond, that the Holy Spirit, whom one must worship in spirit and in truth, so carefully takes upon Himself the office of joining the spouses? Certainly, as far as this is concerned, it would have been enough for God to deprive the human race, like the rest of the animals, of its inherent

and by man's own fault corrupted nature. Therefore, beyond the care for the reproduction of the flesh, there must be something more sacred that the majestic God does in the marriage state, namely, without a doubt, that He, as the presider of all sacraments, communicates grace to the spouses to keep their marriage state holy. Since we have shown in so many ways that grace is imparted in marriage, and since it is clear from the apostle's words that the marriage state is a sign of a holy thing, which sign, since it is connected with grace, as we have shown, cannot be a mere image, it follows that, contrary to Luther's will, the marriage state is a sacrament, even if the apostle did not give it the name of a sacrament (which he does). Who, either of the ancients or of the moderns, has ever had any misgivings about calling marriage a sacrament, except those whom the Church has expelled from herself? In which only, as Hugo a Sancto Victore reports, a double sign is to be found. For, both matrimony itself is a sacrament of that union which takes place in the spirit, between God and the soul; and conjugal duty is a sacrament of that union which takes place in the flesh, between Christ and the Church. For if, he says, it is something great that happens in the flesh, how much greater must not be that which happens in the spirit! And if in the Holy Scriptures God is rightly called a bridegroom and the rational soul a bride, then there must be something between God and the soul of which that which is found in marriage between man and woman is a sacrament and image. Perhaps, however, to make it clearer, the union itself, which is outwardly preserved in marriage by virtue of the marriage covenant, is a sacrament, and the matter of this sacrament is the mutual heartfelt love, which is preserved by the bond of union and the marriage covenant. Again, the love itself, by which man and woman are united in holy matrimony, is a sacrament and a sign of that love by which God is inwardly united with the rational soul through the communication of His grace and His Spirit. Up to here Hugo. Accordingly, since not only the general faith of the Church so many hundreds of years before, and the ancient fathers, who are very famous for their knowledge of the Scriptures and for the merits of their way of life, but also even the holy apostle and teacher of the Gentiles, Paul, considered the marriage state to be a sacrament that makes marriage respectable, and the marriage bed by the

212 72 Henry VIII. Against the Babyl. Captivity. W. XIX, 259-262. 2 13

If we believe that grace not only keeps us unstained from adultery, but also washes away impure lust, turns water into wine, and provides a holy will to abstain from lawful attendance at certain times, we do not see what Luther can argue against this, except that (as St. Bernard says) the heretics, according to their liking, strive to tear the sacraments of the church, as the entrails of such a mother, with poisoned teeth.

Of the Sacrament of Consecration.

In the sacrament of consecration he does not proceed in an orderly manner, but by making this conclusion and that conclusion, he pours out all the treasures of his wickedness at once and reveals a mind that is very inclined to do harm wherever its powers allow it: he recites many things, claims and assumes the very worst, but does not confirm anything in any way and leaves it at that. From this one can see the strange impudence of this man, who, since he does not consider the whole church worthy to believe it, if it does not give an account of its faith, demands without cause that one should believe him alone, and that of such things, of which he cannot know what he should believe, if the church does not tell him. And yet he demands that one should believe him in such a way that whoever believes it does nothing but confuse and oppress the whole church. For what else has he in mind who presumes to overthrow the sacred sacrament of consecration than that, after the ministers of the mysteries have become lowly, the sacraments also should begin to be lowly, as if they too were distributed by lowly ones? This is the only cliff he goes to in the whole work. Accordingly, we want to read together Luther's teachings on consecration, which are scattered to and fro, because he keeps no order, so that the reader will have the heap of evil before his eyes at once, which, if he sees it, it will not take much effort (as we think) to refute it, since its ungodly teachings, as all will perceive, only aim at overthrowing the whole Christian faith through unbelief. For what else does he intend who says that there is no difference of priestly office between laymen and priests, that all priests are equal to one another, that they all have the same authority, that in every sacrament the office of administering the sacraments is entrusted to the priests by none other than the laity? The sacrament of consecration can be nothing other than a use of a preacher in

He who does not preach is not a priest, except ambiguously, just as a painted man is also called a man; he who is a priest can again become a layman, for the indelible sign means nothing; finally, ordination itself (which as a sacrament ordains those to the clergy who cannot preach) is true, mere, and merely a poem invented by men who understand nothing of church matters, of the priesthood, of the ministry of the word, of the sacrament. Finally, this holy priest (in order to give a pretense of how chaste he is) states as the most noble error, as the utmost blindness and as the greatest prison, that the clergy have imposed chastity on themselves. And since Christ highly praises those who have circumcised themselves for the sake of the kingdom of heaven, Matth. 19, this abominable Antichrist compares them to the circumcised idol priests of the goddess Cybele. We know for certain that the ears of a godly reader are shocked by the ungodly register of the most pernicious doctrines, each of which carries more heresies than that Trojan horse is said to have carried armed soldiers. The source of all this is none other than because he denies that consecration is a sacrament, and if this is obstructed, then the other little books must necessarily dry up. He says: 1) The church knows nothing about this sacrament and it was only invented by the papal church. These few words contain a great heap of lies and inconsistencies. For he distinguishes the papal church from the church of Christ, since the pope is the head of the same church, of which Christ is also the head. He says that the Church invented what it did not invent, but received as instituted. He claims that the Church of Christ knows nothing of this sacrament, since it is well known that almost no part of the world can be found that professes the true teachings of Christ and does not consider consecration a sacrament. For even if he could find an unknown corner (which, as we believe, he can find nowhere) in which one knew nothing of the sacrament of consecration, this corner could not be compared with the rest of the church, which stands not only under Christ, but also for Christ's sake under Christ's one governor, the Roman pope, and believes that consecration is a sacrament. Otherwise, when Luther insists on distinguishing the Papal Church from the Church of Christ, and says that in the one they consider consecration a sacrament, in the other they do not consider it a sacrament, he is not making a comparison.

1. Cf. "Of the Babyl. Captivity," Col. 108.

214 XIII Luther's Dispute with Henry VIII. W. xix, 262-265. 215

Sacrament, he shows the Church of Christ, which, contrary to the faith of the Papal Church (as he calls it), does not know about the Sacrament of Consecration. In the meantime it is quite clear that because he says that the Church of Christ knows nothing of this sacrament, and claims that those who have the pope as their head do not belong to the Church of Christ, he separates from the Church of Christ in both ways not only Rome, but all Italy, Germany, Spain, France, England, and all the other nations that are subject to the Roman pope or accept consecration for a sacrament. If he takes away all these nations from the Church of Christ, he must either confess that the Church of Christ is nowhere, or, after the manner of the Donatists, seek the Catholic Church of Christ from two or three heretics who murmur of Christ in the corner. But he brings out as an unavoidable arrow that this sacrament has no promise of grace, of which there is nothing anywhere, as he says, and denies that the whole New Testament makes mention of this sacrament even in a single word, also saying that it is something ridiculous to consider something a divine sacrament, which, being instituted by God, can nowhere be proved; one must not claim anything to be a divine ordinance that has not been ordained by God, and one must take care that everything is proven and confirmed to us by clear Scripture.

50 Whether there is no report of this sacrament in the New Testament, we will examine later; in the meantime, however, we will deal with him as if there were nothing at all in the New Testament. For with this arrow he dares to make almost all sacraments void. Against which arrow I want to throw the same iron, which Luther himself admits to be impenetrable, on my shield. For these are his own words 1): The church has this, that it can distinguish the word of God from the words of men, as Augustine confesses, he believed the gospel, and was moved to do so by the reputation of the church, which told him that this was the gospel. Since, then, according to Luther's confession, the church has this, that it can distinguish the word of God from the words of men, it is certain that it has this nowhere else but from God; and this for no other reason than that the church should not err in such matters in which it should not err. From this reason, which Luther himself gives us, it follows that the church has from God not only what Luther admits, i.e. that it has from God.

1. Cf. "Of the Babyl. Captivity," Col. 108 f.

It is not only the distinction of the words of God from the words of men, but also the ability to distinguish, by which it distinguishes in holy Scripture the divine understanding from the human one. Otherwise, what good will it do if the Church (under God's instruction) distinguishes the true Scriptures from the false ones and cannot distinguish the false mind from the true mind in the true Scriptures? In the same way, it follows that God teaches His Church in unwritten traditions, so that she may not erroneously accept false things as true, because no less danger can arise from this than if she either takes human writings for the Word of God, or draws a false understanding from the true Word of God, especially if it accepts false sacraments for true, human traditions, not even human traditions, but devilish inventions for divine traditions, if furthermore also the church of Christ builds its trust on fictitious and vain signs of physical things (as magicians tend to do), as if they were Christ's sacraments. It is therefore clear from what Luther himself admits that the church can distinguish God's word from the words of men, as no less the divine traditions from the human ones, because otherwise an error could arise on both sides that could be reasonably avoided, and Christ does not see to it that his church may not err in this or that way, but that it may not err in any way. But it could not err to any greater dishonor of Christ than if it built its trust, which is to be placed in him alone, on signs that are supported by no grace at all, but are empty of all good of faith. Accordingly, the Church cannot err when she accepts the sacraments of faith; she cannot, let us say, err any more than she can err when she accepts the Scriptures (but that the Church cannot err in this, Luther himself admits). If the matter were otherwise, all sorts of inconsistent things would follow, especially this, which could not be more inconsistent, that mostly all doctrines of the Christian faith, which had been established for so many hundreds of years, would be called into doubt anew at the whim and pleasure of prevalent heretics. For if nothing may be considered true but what is founded in the clear Scriptures (as Luther speaks), then we will not only not assert the constant virginity of St. Mary, but also others will be given an inexhaustible number of opportunities to assail the faith, if anyone has a whim either to bring up new sects or to reheat long-buried ones. Look at it under

216 Henry VIII against the Babylonian captivity. Captivity. W. XIX, 265-267. 217

There have been very few heretics who have not accepted the Scriptures; on the contrary, almost all of them have substantiated their teachings by either claiming that they have their basis in the Scriptures, or, if they seemed to be in accordance with reason, by saying that the opposite could not be proved from the Scriptures, because they disputed that what was brought forward against their sect was understood differently than the orthodox church understood it. And lest it should be said that it was clear, they, either with a different understanding imputed to them, or with other passages which they brought on the way from the same Scripture, and which seemed to be contrary to it, made everything so confused that it really seemed doubtful. According to this, we almost do not know whether there would ever have been a lack of matter to dispute against Arius about the Scriptures, if the general faith of the church had not been established.

(51) Since we have now proved ourselves from Luther's reason that the sacraments which the church believes can be instituted by none other than God, even if nothing of this is found in Scripture, let us see if Scripture does not think of this sacrament at all. All agree that the apostles were ordained priests in the Lord's Supper. Only Luther denies this, since it is clear that they were given the power to make the body of Christ, which only the priest can make. But, he says, it is not a sacrament, because no promise of grace has been made to them. How does Luther know this? Because it is not read anywhere, he says. This is Luther's usual conclusion: there is nothing written about it in the Gospel, therefore it did not happen from Christ, which way of concluding is invalidated by the evangelist when he says: many things happened that are not written in this book, John 21. But we want to get a little closer to Luther. He admits that the Lord's Supper is a sacrament, which, if he were to deny it, he would have lost all sense. But where does he find in Scripture that a promise of grace is made in this sacrament? For he accepts nothing but the Scriptures, and indeed the bright clear Scriptures. If you read the place of the Lord's Supper, you will not find in any of the evangelists that grace was promised in the endowment of this sacrament. It is written that Christ said, "This is my blood of the new testament, which is poured out for many for the remission of sins," Matt. 26, by which words he indicated that he would redeem the human race on the cross through his suffering. But since he

When the apostle said before, "Do these things in remembrance of me," he does not promise grace or forgiveness of sins to anyone who does them, that is, to the priest who consecrates or to the one who takes the Lord's Supper. Also, the apostle, in threatening judgment to unworthy guests, does not think anything of the grace of those who enjoy it worthily. If someone seeks a promise of grace from the sixth chapter of John for the one who receives the sacrament of the body and blood of the Lord, this cannot help Luther either, as he himself says that this whole chapter does not deal with the Lord's Supper. So you see how he cannot present this promise of grace, which he promised to show us as the foundation of the whole sacrament with such lofty words in the whole work, in this sacrament, which he leaves almost alone, if he does not (which must happen), apart from the words of Scripture, take recourse to the faith of the church. Therefore, just as it is enough for us to read in the Gospel that the power to administer the Sacrament was given to those in whose place the priests came, so it can also be enough for us to read that the apostle advised Timothy not to lay hands on anyone soon, 1 Tim. 5. 5 Such an one clearly demonstrates the priestly ordination, not from the congregation's consent, by which alone one can become a priest, as Luther says; but only from the bishop's ordination and from the certain laying on of hands, in which God communicates the inward grace by an outward sign. And what is to prevent us from believing the church of the living God, which according to the apostle's statement is a pillar and foundation of truth, 1 Tim. 3, as far as this grace is concerned, if Luther himself must believe the same church as far as it speaks of the grace promised in the sacrament of the Lord's Supper? For by such faith one recognizes either the promise of such grace, or least of all the bestowal of it without a promise.

(52) We must truly wonder how anyone could be so careless as to doubt whether grace is imparted to the evangelical priests in the consecration, since one reads many things from time to time that seem to indicate that grace was also imparted to the priests of the old covenant. For thus says God: You shall anoint Aaron and his sons and consecrate them to be my priests, Exodus 28. For otherwise what would the outward consecration to the service of God have helped, if God had not at the same time imparted grace, by which they were consecrated inwardly, and that also through Christ, since the

218XIII Luther's Dispute with Henry VIII. W. xix, 267-270. 219

Could faith in him, the then still future One, have already put a power into the preceding sacraments, just as he made the Jewish people able to attain eternal blessedness in time immemorial? But even if someone does not accept this, that the priesthood of the old law was given a grace, he has no reason to refuse to accept that the priests of the evangelical law are given a grace, because now through Christ's suffering the fullness of grace has come.

(53) According to the Acts of the Apostles, when Barnabas and Paul were set apart for the work to which the Holy Spirit had called them, they were not sent out until they were ordained for it by the laying on of hands. Why, my dear, did the apostles lay their hands on them? Did it happen that they only touched the body in vain and could not help the soul with any spiritual grace? How can Luther say that this sacrament is unknown to the Church of Christ, which is in use among all Christian nations? How can he call new that which Christ instituted, which the apostles also used? 1) Yes, he says, but nowhere among the ancient teachers, with the exception of Dionysius, was a sacrament named. For we read, he continues, nothing in the other Fathers about these sacraments, nor did they mention it by the name of a sacrament as often as they spoke of these things. A beautiful argument of Luther's, which is both obviously false and, even if it were true, nevertheless has no force. For if the ancients had not written anything at all about a matter that was not disputed in the past, or if they had written something, they would have given the matter the proper and not common name of sacraments, it would not necessarily be possible to conclude from this that ordination is either not a sacrament or has never been a sacrament. For if someone calls baptism a baptism and does not attach to it the name of a sacrament, will it be said that he did not consider baptism a sacrament? Moreover, if Dionysius had written solely from the ancient Fathers that ordination was a sacrament, it would be enough to overturn Luther's reproach, according to which he would have considered the sacraments a new invention. For he contradicts himself that it is new, because he admits that it is found in the writings of Dionysius, whom he himself counts among the ancients. And this would be correct,

1. Cf. "Of the Babyl. Captivity," Col. 110 ff.

Although St. Dionysius would be as the church-robbing Luther describes him, who says: there would be no thorough scholarship to be found in him; he would prove nothing of what he wrote, neither with sayings, nor with reasonable causes; but it would be all his own thoughts and almost like dreams, what he wrote in the "heavenly hierarchy". In the book of his "mystical theology," he says, which some of the most unlearned theologians exalt so highly, he is also quite harmful, and in it he follows Plato more than Christ; in it you learn to recognize Christ so little that, if you already know him, you lose him again completely. I speak from experience, he says, that is, as we think, he has experienced it, that only from it he has come to know Christ. So also, he continues in the "ecclesiastical hierarchy," what does Dionysius do other than describe some customs of the church and joke with his allegories? Finally, in order to show what a vain work St. Dionysius has done, he says: "Do you think it would be too difficult for me to speak with allegories in every created thing? It would not be too difficult for me to write a better hierarchy than the one written by Dionysius. Who can bear with patience the chatterer, who thus goes about the godly writings of a holy man, such invective is better suited for a heretic of his ilk? For he calls him an unlearned man, a buffoon, who not only writes dreams, but also harbors harmful and Christ-rejecting teachings. But what blasphemy brings glory to the holy man, whose entire writings prove that they are good, because they do not want to please an evil man. For what communion has light with darkness? How does Christ agree with Belial? That he did not absorb anything godly from the godly books of this holy man is the fault of his godless head; for Horatius writes quite rightly:

Sincerum est, nisi vas, quodcunque infundis, acescit.

That is, what you pour is pure and unadulterated, if the vessel does not make it sour. For that he speaks, it would not be difficult for him to write a better hierarchy than the one that Dionysius has written, of which he boasts only now, after this one has already been written. In the meantime, he attacks a much more important thing, and wants to destroy the other hierarchy, which is founded on a strong rock.

22072 . Henry VIII against the Babylonian captivity. Captivity. W. xix, 270-273. 221'

(54) The displeasure with which we resent the very insulting blasphemies hurled against the holy man by the godless Luther has led us quite far from our purpose. But, as we said at the beginning, even if Dionysius alone had taught that consecration is a sacrament, this would already be enough to convict Luther, who wants to claim that the sacraments are a new invention, because he not only admits that Dionysius belongs among the ancients, but also that all of Christendom holds him up as a holy man. That he is angry about this, however, comes only from his malice, according to which he cannot stand anything that is contrary to his godless heretical teachings. But now, so that it may be clearly seen how Luther's pretensions are everywhere null and void, let us show that not only Dionysius, but also Gregory and Augustine, the latter of whom he falsely cites for his opinion, believed that consecration is a sacrament. Moreover, we want to show that the indelible sign (with which Luther mocks), although not given this name, is clearly described by Jerome in the sacrament of baptism, but Augustine also remembers it in both sacraments, baptism and consecration. We want to begin with Jerome concerning the sign of baptism, so that the sign of consecration will fall all the more brightly in the eyes, which both Augustine and Gregory compare with baptism for the sake of the indelible mark. Thus Jerome writes about the words of Paul to the Ephesians: "Do not grieve the Holy Spirit, so that you may be sealed for the day of redemption, i.e.: we are sealed with the Holy Spirit of God, so that a divine sign may be imprinted on our spirit and soul and we may receive again the image after which we were created in the beginning. According to the Savior, this seal of the Holy Spirit is imprinted by God Himself. For with this, says he, God the Father has sealed us. And soon after: He sealed us for this reason, so that he would receive the sign and present it pure and unadulterated and unmutilated until the day of redemption, and for this very reason he would be able to give the reward to those who are redeemed. All those who have written about the sign of the sacraments have not described so clearly the sign that God the Lord impresses on the soul through the sacraments, as Jerome has described it in these words, not from his own brain (as Luther, the mendacious scoffer, invented), but from strong testimonies of the Holy Scriptures. For the

Character is such a quality of the soul, which God, known only to Him, but incomprehensible to us, impresses upon us as a sign by which He distinguishes His host from foreign hosts. Which sign, even though people may besmirch it with sins and turn white into black, the whole into something mutilated, the most pure into something impure, they cannot scratch it out in such a way that the whole world should not recognize those who have the sign of character imprinted on them, on the day of judgment, as to which herd they belong. For this very reason, the Church is so rigid and firm about repeating other sacraments so often (which is done in the case of the Lord's Supper, penance, marriage and the last rites), that she does not allow baptism, confirmation and ordination to ever be repeated. For the Church herself has been instructed by the Holy Spirit that in these sacraments a certain character or sign is imparted, which sign, since it cannot be erased, must therefore also not be repeated in the sacrament itself.

(55) In order that it may be clearly seen that consecration in this matter has the same meaning as baptism, let us hear what Gregory says: "That you say," he writes, "that one who has been consecrated must be consecrated more than once, is something ridiculous. For just as one who has been baptized once may not be baptized more than once, so it is not proper that one who has been consecrated once should be consecrated more than once in his consecration. There you see how the church does not allow the sacrament of ordination to be repeated any more than the sacrament of baptism, which, as we have said, depends on the indelible mark. But in order that we may shut up Luthern in this matter, and that he may not again cry out to us that the mark is a poem, and that of the ancients only Dionysius called consecration a sacrament; we will, as promised, also add Augustine's opinion of this matter. When he speaks of baptism and ordination, he writes: "Both are sacraments, and both are communicated to man by ordination: the one when he is baptized, and the other when he is ordained a priest. Therefore, neither of the two may be repeated in the Catholic Church. For even if heretics, 1) for the sake of peace, after having abandoned the error of schism, have been raised up and accepted again, and it is considered necessary that they should enter upon the very office which they previously administered, they may not be consecrated anew; but it remains with

1. Here in the meaning: arch-heretic.

222 XIII Luther's Dispute with Henry VIII. W. xix, 273-275. 223

them, as baptism, so also consecration, inviolate; because the fault lies in the division, but not in the sacraments, which retain their essence, be it where it is. And soon after: It is not necessary to do violence to any sacrament. Of the sacrament of consecration he adds: "Just as he who separates himself from unity does not use the sacraments rightly, and yet has them; so also he who separates himself from unity does not distribute them rightly, and yet distributes them. And again, coming again to both sacraments, he adds the words: Therefore they do not cease to be sacraments of Christ and of the church because not only heretics but also all the ungodly do not use them properly; but these must be corrected and punished, while those must be recognized and venerated. From this you see how well founded is that which Luther so boldly asserts, that the church of Christ knows nothing of the sacrament of consecration, that character is an empty poem, that the sacraments are a new invention, that the ancients did not consider consecration to be a sacrament. Of all this he has said nothing that you do not see proved by the testimony of such men as he can neither exclude from the church of Christ (as in which they shone brightly both by the doctrine of faith and by their example of virtue), nor count among the more recent, unless with him a thousand years are as one day. But he defends himself against all grounds of proof, against the reputation and credibility of all and sundry with a single argument. We all, he says, are priests according to the saying of Peter: you are the royal priesthood and the priestly kingdom. But no one can be a priest for another, just as no one can be a man for another. Therefore, those who are called priests are nothing else than certain laymen who alone have been chosen for the ministry of preaching either by the will of the people or by the call of a bishop with the help of the people; and ordination is nothing else than a mere service without sacrament. We have not only faithfully narrated his argument, but have also honestly and sincerely added what it is based on; and yet, to whom should not the blunt sophistry of the theologian make a laughing-stock? For if the ordination to the priesthood is nothing with God, because all Christians are priests; it will follow in the same way that Christ had no preference over Saul. For David also said of Saul, "I have sinned in that I have offended the Lord's anointed. Christ would have had no preference over those of whom

To whom it is said: Do not touch my anointed ones. Finally, God would have no preference over any of those of whom he spoke through the prophet himself: I have said well, you are gods and all the children of the Most High. Finally, just as Christians are all priests, so are they all kings. For it is not only said: you are the royal priesthood; but also: the priestly kingdom. One must be careful what this serpent has in mind, which we consider far too cunning to consider such a worthless argument important; but it only licks so that it stings, elevates laymen to the priesthood, so that it brings the priests into the class of the laymen. For he denies that ordination is a sacrament; and says it is nothing but a use to choose a preacher. For those who do not preach, of them he says that they are nothing less than priests, even that they are priests, as painted men are men, contrary to the apostle Paul, who writes to Timothy: The elders who preside well are counted worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in the word and in doctrine, 1 Tim. 5. Here the apostle clearly teaches that although those who, being elders, labor in the word and in doctrine are worthy of double honor, yet those who do not do this are not only elders, but can also preside well and be worthy of double honor. Otherwise, he would not have said: especially those who work on the word and on the doctrine, but rather: those who work on the word and on the doctrine. Moreover, lest Luther should say, which he does say, that the priest's office among the people is nothing else than to preach; for to offer the mass, he says, is nothing but to receive the sacrament: that, let us say, it may be evident how false this is, let us hear the apostle again. Every high priest, he says, who is taken from among men, is set apart for men against God, that he may offer gifts and sacrifices for sins, Heb. 5. Does not the apostle thus clearly indicate that the office of a high priest also requires this, that he offer sacrifices to God for men? which, though he wrote it to the Hebrews, who were nevertheless converted Christians, if he did not want them to be Jews, it is clear that he is speaking of the high priest of both laws, and thus twice drove Luthern into a corner with his testimony. For he teaches both that the mass is a sacrifice and is offered for the people, because the church has no other sacrifice, and also that offering the office constitutes the most noble part of the priestly office.

224 Henry VIII against the Babylonians. captivity. W. xix. 275-273. 225

And surely, if what Luther says were not false, you would easily see the consequence, that if no one can consecrate the body of the Lord, and out of so many thousands of priests who cannot preach, none is a real priest, but is only called so in an ambiguous sense, just as a painted man is called a man: all Christendom, among priests and laity, has nothing but idols, who worship bread as Christ, and bow their knees to Baal.

(56) In the use of appointing one to the service of the church, he attributes the noblest right to the people. For though in one place he seems to attribute a common right to the bishop or to the people, saying that though it is certain that all Christians are equal priests, and have equal power in the word and sacraments, yet no one may use them without the consent of the congregation, or without the appointment of a superior; yet in another place he attributes the prerogative to the people, when he speaks of the priests: How? 1) If they were compelled to suppose that we were all priests likewise, as much as we are baptized, as indeed we are; and that the ministry was left to them alone, but with our consent; they would know at the same time that they had no right to rule over us, except so much as we freely conceded to them.

If one compares these two words, they indicate that Luther's opinion is that the congregation can ordain a priest without a bishop, but that the bishop cannot do so without the congregation's consent, because he says that the priests alone are entrusted with the office, but not without the congregation's consent. For if this is true, no priest can be made without the consent of the congregation, with whose consent alone, as he says, bishops were formerly placed over the churches. It cannot be denied, he says, that the churches of old were governed by the elders, chosen for their age and experience, without the order of ordination. Where Luther found such things, he may show, it does not seem to us to be founded at all. For if every layman has equal authority with the priest in every sacrament, and the ordination of priests is nothing, why does the apostle write to Timothy thus: "Do not forsake the gift given you through prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the elders? And elsewhere to the same: I exhort you to raise up the

1. Cf. "Of the Babyl. Captivity," Col. 113.

Grace of God, which is in you through the laying on of my hands. And again he says: "Do not lay hands on anyone soon, and do not make yourself a partaker of other people's sins. In the same way the apostle writes to Titus: "For this reason I have left you in Crete, so that you may do as I have left you and fill the cities with elders, as I have commanded you. Here, O reader, a few words and a few words of the apostle are suddenly before your eyes, which, if you compare them, you will easily recognize that everything is false and fictitious, with which Luther so disorderly attacks the order of consecration. For of those of whom Luther says that they become priests with the consent of the congregation, they are made so, according to Paul's report, by the bishop, whom he left in Crete just at the end, that he filled the cities with elders; however, not carelessly, but as he himself had commanded for the time being. There you see that by the laying on of hands one is made a priest. And lest there should be any doubt that grace is imparted at the same time, you see at the same time that this also is imparted by the laying on of hands. Awaken, he says, the grace that is given to you through the laying on of my hands. Item: Do not neglect the gift that is in you, which is given to you through prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the elders, in it practice. We are surprised, then, that Luther is not ashamed to say that ordination is not a sacrament, knowing full well that Paul's words are in favor of those who teach that no one other than a priest makes one a priest, and not without ordination, in which ordination both a bodily sign is used and so much spiritual grace is imparted that the one who is ordained not only receives the Holy Spirit himself, but also receives the power to impart it to others. But how can this be something new, which the apostle speaks of, although Luther claims it? How can this be unknown to the church, which is read in all Christian churches, and read at all times? From which it is clear to all that not a single syllable of so much of what Luther babbled with such great audacity as certainly contrary to the order of consecration is true, but out of malice everything is false and fictitious.

From the Sacrament of the Last Unction.

In the Sacrament of the Last Rites, Luther, who himself deserved to be laughed at twice, laughs at the Church twice. Once, that the

226 XIII Luther's Dispute with Henry VIII. W. xix, 278-281. 227

Theologians call this ointment a sacrament, as if only those he calls theologians called it that. After that, that they call it the last. As for the other, he makes an objection in jest, which he will not be able to resolve in earnest. For this blessedness can also be called the last, because it is the last of four sacraments. After he wants to show that it is not a sacrament, he again makes an objection that everyone would reproach him with, namely, the words of the apostle James: "If anyone among you is sick, let him call to him the elders of the congregation, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer of faith will help the sick person, and the Lord will raise him up; and if he has committed sins, they will be forgiven him. Jac. 5. These words, which, according to his own description, clearly indicate that this blessedness is a sacrament, lacking neither a visible sign nor the promise of grace, he immediately begins to mock with a very bold audacity, as if they were of no force or emphasis. 1) But I say, saith he, if anywhere it hath been spoken thorougly, it hath been spoken chiefly here. But we are not afraid to say: if Luther has spoken audibly somewhere, who speaks audibly almost everywhere, then he speaks here of the Sacrament of the Last Rites in the highest degree audibly. I do not want to think now, he says, that this epistle is not from the apostle James, nor worthy of an apostolic spirit, as many very credibly claim, although it has gained a reputation out of habit, it now stems from whom it wants. But even if it were from the apostle James, I would still say that it is not proper for the apostles to institute a sacrament by their own authority, that is, to give God's promises with a sign attached; for this belongs to Christ alone. Thus Paul says that he received the sacrament of the Lord's Supper from the Lord and was sent not to baptize but to preach the gospel. But nowhere in the Gospel is the sacrament of this last Eucharist mentioned. From these words you see how he tries to invalidate Jacob's words in a twofold way: first, by saying that this epistle did not have the apostle as its author; then also by saying that if the apostle had already written it, no apostle would have the authority to institute sacraments. Although he now presents these two pieces with little, and immediately on something

1. Cf. "Of the Babyl. Captivity," Col. 119 f.

The most noble arrows, by which he intends to knock this sacrament over a pile.

59 For everything else he says is useless talk that gives opportunity to mock, as if the church did not observe the sacrament properly. But these two pieces concern one main point. For if the epistle were not worthy of the apostle and of an apostolic spirit; or if, since the apostle says that blessedness is a sacrament, it is not proved that it is a sacrament, it would follow that these words were of no avail. If he had said that in the past there had been doubt as to whose epistle this was, he would have been telling the truth. For the church has not accepted anything carelessly, but has examined everything carefully; and it does this for this reason, so that everything that it has accepted may be considered all the more certain, even if it were governed only by human prudence. But because he says that many claim that this epistle is not only not worthy of the apostle, but also unworthy of the apostolic spirit, and that they not only claim this, but also probably claim it, it is probable that he cannot prove this. He only brings forward some of many from the church, of whom, as we believe, there will not be so many and so important men that they should deserve to outweigh all the others. So far he has not named any. But we want to mention one who can be enough against many, namely St. Jerome, who was the most skilled in the holy scriptures, and who noticed the difference between the true and the genuine and among the doubtful scriptures in the most exact way. Thus, since he doubted for some time an epistle of Paul, but only at that time, when the matter had not yet been confirmed by the general acclaim of the church, he nevertheless says of that epistle, which is attributed to the apostle Jacob, that it is without any doubt his own. For he writes thus: Jacobus, Peter, Judas and John have written seven epistles, in which there is a spiritual understanding and which are both short and long, short as far as the words are concerned, long as far as the sayings are concerned, so that there is seldom anyone who would not realize his stupidity in reading them. In the preface to the seven canonical epistles, he says: "Among them is one, the first of Jacob, then two of Peter, three of John, and one of Jude. Here you see how St. Jerome makes the same judgment of Jacob's epistle that he makes of Peter's epistles, and

228 Henry VIII against the Babylonian captivity. Captivity. W. xix, Wi-283. 229

does not think that it is unworthy of the apostolic spirit. And certainly, if Luther had given reasons why the epistle was not Jacob's, but another's, through whom the same Spirit spoke, one could still let it pass. But now he says that it is probable that it is not worthy of the apostolic spirit, therefore it is really unworthy of it. In this we want to oppose Luther to Luther. For it is not easy for someone to contradict himself so often and so strongly as Luther contradicts himself. In the sacrament of consecration he says: "The church has the power to distinguish the word of God from the words of men. How then can he say that the epistle is not worthy of the apostolic spirit, of which the church, whose judgment is unimpeachable according to his statement in this piece, has judged that it is full of the apostolic spirit? Thus, by his wisdom, he has caught himself on all sides in such a way that he must either prove that the epistle is the apostle's (of which he has said the opposite is only probable) or say that the church lacks in judging the divinity of a scripture, which he has denied according to the above. If he says that she has accepted and approved as worthy of the apostolic spirit something that is not worthy of the apostolic spirit, he blasphemes the church; if he confesses that the apostle has written something that does not belong to an apostle, he blasphemes the apostle.

60 In this way we have now sufficiently refuted (indeed, he has sufficiently refuted himself) that he said that the epistle is neither worthy of the apostle nor of the apostolic spirit. But we will now come to the point, wherewith he, as befits a brave man, apparently charges at the apostle and says: "Even if the epistle is of the apostle James, it is still not proper for an apostle to institute a sacrament by his own authority, that is, to give God's promise with an attached sign. For this belongs to Christ alone. O the great blessedness of our time, to which a new Gentile teacher, Luther, has risen, who takes the liberty of contradicting the apostles to their faces, as it were after Paul's example, because he does not keep straight to the gospel of Christ, but (which is still far more than if he made the Gentiles Jews) arrogates to himself the authority to promise grace and to institute sacraments, that is, that he uses the authority of Christ, after the manner of a proud and apostate angel, who said: I will set my throne by the side of midnight, and be like unto the Most High. Now the High

Priests do not feel bad to be scolded by the one who scolds the apostle for such an atrocious act. For since it is established that the epistle is the apostle's, what else does he do but apparently say that the apostle instituted a sacrament without violence and improperly? Yes, though he denies that it is the apostle's epistle, yet he says, lest he should cease from blasphemy, that he would speak thus if it were the apostle's. Although some have thought that the Holy Spirit, whom God sent down at Pentecost, taught the apostles to use sacraments, of which Spirit Christ said before: The Holy Spirit, whom I will send, the same will teach you all things, so let us not speak of this now, whether the apostle has the power to institute a sacrament, as it is not necessary to speak of this; But because it is clear that the apostle teaches that blessedness is a sacrament, we do not doubt that it is a true sacrament, and that the apostle was not so presumptuous as to give people something that is not a sacrament for a sacrament, but rather that if he himself did not have the power to institute sacraments, he taught in these words only of that which he received from Christ, who, as he wished to make known to the world something else through Matthew, something else through Lucas, something else through John, something else through the apostle Paul, why did he not also teach one thing and another through the apostle James?

61. After Luther, as you have seen, has so bravely held his ground against the apostle, he now directs all his thoughts to how he may ridicule the church, which, in Luther's opinion, does not use the apostle's words correctly, because it only gives blessedness to the terminally ill, in that Jacobus does not say: "If someone wants to die, but: When someone is ill, as if the church sinned in not using such an important thing, which is a sacrament, imprudently in any minor fever, which someone may have contracted through excessive drinking, or that it does not want to do miracles by force through the sacrament in such an illness, which can be relieved by a little sleep or fasting. So that one may not doubt (although Jacobus writes only of a sick person) that he did not understand one who was afflicted with a minor illness, but rather with such an illness, the expulsion of which could be a sign that the patient had to thank the Sacrament for the recovery, the prayers that are said over the sick person (which everyone considers to be ancient) give the impression that the Sacrament is a miracle,

230XIII Luther's Dispute with Henry VIII. W. xix, 233-286. 231

but not for a new invention of those whom Luther calls theologians), namely that one does not have to use this sacrament, except in severe illnesses. And yet, just as such prayers do not promise the recovery of the body with certainty, they also do not give rise to doubts about it and are not, as Luther says, spoken over those who already see death before their eyes. For then they would ask in vain for recovery in so many little prayers if they were sure of death. Thus, the church does not want that which Luther so foolishly mocks, that it be the last cure, even though it is called the last, but rather that it not be the last, but that the sick person may be healed. If God does not want to make him well, this does not take away the power of the sacrament, whose most important healing is not of the body but of the soul. For Luther's argument about the power of the sign has no reason or power. 1) If this blessedness is a sacrament, he says, it is undoubtedly an effective sign that signifies and promises. Now it promises health and restoration of the sick, as the words clearly read: The prayer of faith will help the sick and the Lord will raise him up. But who does not see that the promise of the apostle James is fulfilled in a few? What shall we say then? Either the apostle must be lying in this promise, or the blessedness must not be a sacrament. For the promise of the sacraments is certain; but this fails in most. One can also only assume from this argument that Luther does not care to advance obvious blasphemies, if he can only deceive careless minds with some semblance of truth, as he is not ashamed to cite things against the theologians that they are supposed to have said, but are nowhere to be found. The sacrament, he says, is to be an effective sign of what he promises; but this sacrament does not bring back the health of the body that he promises. The theologians do not say this, but only that it is a powerful sign of grace. For this is how they describe it: the sacrament is a visible sign of invisible grace, not, they say, of bodily health, which can be given to one even without grace.

62 Therefore, when he says that it follows that, if this blessedness should be a sacrament, the apostle would be redeemed by it, Luther himself is lying. For a sacrament, insofar as it is a sacrament, does not promise the following

1. Cf. "Of the Babyl. Captivity," Col. 121.

the welfare of the body, but of the soul, through bodily signs. Otherwise, Luther would not only be lying to the apostle, but also to Christ Himself, even though the blessedness would not be a sacrament. For the words and promises must remain true even apart from the sacraments. So when the apostle says, Let him that is sick be helped by anointing and prayer, and Christ says, The signs which shall follow them that believe shall be, that they should lay hands on the sick, and it shall be better with them; who seeth not that this is sometimes done, but that it ought not always to be done? And yet those who promised it do not lie about it, since no one doubts that they did not promise bodily things, in whatever words they may have promised them, as everlasting goods, because the body, in which such 2) things should be manifested, cannot last continually. Of spiritual things, on the other hand, they promise that they will last forever, because the spirit by its nature will live forever. For Luther's opinion, which demands of the theologians that if blessedness is a sacrament, it should be permanent, so that it is not an invalid sign, is to the effect that it cannot be a sacrament, because it makes the body immortal, which he himself promises can happen by means of prayer, which is done by holy men in an undoubted faith. There is no doubt at all, he says, that even today, through such faith, as many could be healed as we would like. If this is true, such faith as he describes can make a man immortal. For if this can happen through faith, and not only occasionally, but (as Luther says) constantly (if it is only an undoubted faith), then it is believable that Luther, a man who is so inclined to faith that he almost announces war on good works in many places for the sake of faith, a man to whom God has now opened so many and great mysteries and who is establishing a new church, for which miraculous works are also necessary. Therefore, it is likely that Luther did everything by faith that can be done by faith. Only we must be surprised, if this is true, that he does not heal all the dying. 3) Every day we hear a rumor from Germany, as if the buried were already dead.

2. I.e., the promise given to the oel.
3. The following up to the end of this paragraph is incomprehensible to us. This much we recognize from the following paragraph that he wants to accuse Luther of murder.

, 232 Henry VIII against the Babylonian captivity. Captivity. W. xix, 286-288. 233

We never hear that one of them was healed, but that some of his followers killed pious and innocent priests because of him, so that he could show by this example that the order of consecration was nothing, the (indelible) sign was a poem; David was afraid because he was repentant for having touched the anointed one of the Lord.

These are Luther's cures, which his unstable faith works without good works. For he who kills does not bring health. Hence, as Luther says, the prayer must not only be done by faith, but also by a pious man, which is the very thing that prevents Luther, because he is not righteous, from making anyone well. This healing is not a sacrament because it does not always heal the body. Luther is a holy man, through whom also the body, as they say, or at least the soul is killed. The apostle Jacob writes nothing that is worthy of the apostolic spirit; Luther writes everything that is worthy of the apostolic spirit, and what is not worthy of it he distinguishes, and that against the whole church, of which he himself confessed that it could not err in the distinction of such writings. After reading the epistle of James and seeing so much there that is worthy of the apostolic spirit, we wondered very much how it occurred to Luther to think that it was indecent, what the apostle wrote about joy in temptations, patience in tribulations, wisdom to ask God for, unquestioning trust to put in God, and other things (such as are found throughout the epistle). Should he rather write that the common people have no benefit from the mass and that consecration is an empty poem, and other such things that Luther writes? which, although it is most worthy of a derogatory spirit, he must not disparage when lesser apostles write of lesser things. Although we wondered for a while why Luther did not like Jacob's epistle, we finally stopped wondering after reading it several times and paying closer attention to everything. For the apostle writes in such a way that it seems as if he had known something about Luther beforehand in a prophetic spirit, so vividly does he attack the man everywhere; especially when Luther despises the works under the pretext of faith, while Jacobus presents reasons, scriptural passages and examples,

that faith without works is dead. In addition, he attacks Luther's chattering will to courage with sharp words, and not only in one place. "If anyone," he says, "among you lets himself think that he serves God, and does not hold his tongue in check, but deceives his heart, his worship is vain," Jac. 1. In addition, Luther must see that this is very suitable for his tongue, about which he clenches his teeth when he reads it: "The tongue is a restless evil, full of deadly poison," Jac. 3. 3 Finally, he must also recognize that his teachings are just contrary to what the apostle writes widely about the quarrelsome: "Who is wise and prudent among you? let him show by his good conduct his works in meekness and wisdom. But if ye have bitter envy and strife in your hearts, boast not, neither lie against the truth. For this is not the wisdom that comes down from above, but earthly, human and devilish. For where there is envy and strife, there is disorder and vain evil. But wisdom from above is at first chaste, then peaceful, gentle, let it be said, full of mercy and good fruits, impartial, without hypocrisy. But the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace to those who keep the peace."

This, dear reader, is what moves Luther, that he does not like the apostle. This, we say, is how the apostle evidently strikes Luther and the insolence, blasphemy, ungodly and quarrelsome teachings of Luther, no different than if he had seen the man and read his writing. Although Luther does not respect his epistle, we do not doubt that it proves the sacrament of the last rites to all Christians, and Luther will not be so powerful that he can overthrow a single sacrament that the orthodox church has accepted for the salvation of the faithful, which neither the gates of hell will overpower, much less a few monks, than a rusty back door of hell.

In this booklet, we hope that we have clearly shown you, O reader, how inconsistent and ungodly Luther dealt with the sacraments. For although we have not touched on everything that his book contains, it seems to us that we have dealt with the matter in defense of the sacraments themselves (for that was actually our intention), although not as extensively as it could have been; however, almost more extensively than would have been necessary, not to mention that we should have been able to hold out longer. Otherwise, it would not have been difficult to explain the matter more extensively, both with arguments, laws and sayings of the teachers, and from the Scriptures themselves.

234XIII Luther's Dispute with Henry VIII. W. xix, sss-Wi. 235

if we did not do a futile task with regard to Luther and a superfluous task with regard to others. For if we wanted to bring Luther to better thoughts through our instruction, then a Moor will probably change his skin and a parder his spots. But if we wanted to show others how wrongly and wickedly Luther teaches, so that no one would be deceived into thinking well of him, there is no doubt that here and there are learned men who see this much more clearly without our recollection than we can make it known, and even if there are some who demand another's thoughts on this, we hope to have revealed ourselves sufficiently to them in this writing. For since from what we have presented it is only clear what kind of ecclesiastical robbery he harbors about the sacrament of the body of Christ (on which he defiles everything that the other sacraments have that is holy), who should doubt, even if we had added nothing more, how indecently he has no hesitation in acting on the sacraments?

For, as you see, he has acted in such a way that, apart from the one sacrament of baptism, which he treats badly enough, and which he deprives of all grace and leaves to nothing but a shameful repentance, he overturns all the other sacraments, denying the sign in one and something else in the other, and in such an important matter he neither proves nor adduces anything to support his opinion, but has enough to deny what the church accepts. What everyone believes, he alone scoffs at with unworthy reasons, and says that he accepts nothing but the bright and clear Scriptures, which, if anyone cites them, he either artificially rejects from himself, or else denies that they have the author who is given for them. Among the teachers, however, there is no one so old, no one so holy, no one of such great reputation in the interpretation of the holy Scriptures, whom this new teacher, who wants to be so holy and learned, does not reject with great respect. Therefore, since Luther despises everyone and believes no one, he must not become unwilling if no one believes him. And there is so much lacking that we would want to dispute with him more extensively, that we are rather sorry to have stayed with him so long. For what is the use of continuing to talk with someone who is not at one with all others, or even with himself, and what he denies in one place he asserts in another, and what he asserts he denies again? If you reproach him with faith, he argues with reason; if you strike him with reason, he insists on faith; if you lead him on the path of faith, he will not believe.

If you appeal to a wise man, he appeals to the Scriptures; if you present the Scriptures to him, he makes sophistries. He is not ashamed at all; he is afraid of no one and acts as if there were no law for him. He despises the old church teachers, laughs at the new ones, blasphemes the pope, the habits, teachings, customs, laws, conclusions and faith of the church, yes, he holds the church itself in such contempt that there is not much missing, he says there is no church but the one he makes up with a few heretics, of which he himself is the head. Therefore, since he is of the kind that he does not accept any principle that is certain and fixed, in which he would like to agree with his opponent, but wants to be left free to assert and deny something, what, when and how often he wants, not allowing himself to be bound by reason, nor by Scripture, nor by customs, nor by laws, nor finally by a reputation, be it human or divine: We have therefore decided not to get involved with him any further, and consider that one should not laboriously argue against such heresies, which have no foundation at all, but rather only admonish all Christians to beware of him as an abominable pestilence, who endeavors to introduce such shameful and abominable things, which are even the teachings of the Antichrist, into the church of Christ. For if every care must be taken to root out him who seeks to cause division over a single issue, how much more care must be taken to expel him who not only continues to spread division and agitate the church against the pope, the son against the father, the Christians against the governor of Christ, and at last to divide the whole church of Christ (which, since he was about to die, he united to him by love) by sedition, strife, and contention, but also to overthrow, profane, and defile what is holy in it with his vile heart, with his shameful tongue, and with his lurking hands? Who, if he still gave some hope and some signs of improvement, we would hereby have exhorted everyone to take care of this so very depraved and wretched man, and to make an effort to help him as much as possible and to bring him to a better mind to recant the heretical teachings he has spread. But at present we see no other signs than those that are usually harbingers of death. I am moved to believe this not only by his illness, although fatal, but rather by himself, because he has no medicine and no hand that can heal.

236 Henry VIII against the Babylonian captivity. Captivity. W. xix, 291-294. 237

takes. For how can he be healed who cannot be dealt with? Or how can inan deal with the one who talks uselessly when you teach him something, who gets angry when you remind him, who is unruly when you admonish him, who gets hot-tempered when you try to calm him down, who acts like a fool when you contradict him? Otherwise, if he could be helped, the most holy governor of Christ would not have left anything undone, so that, following the example of his shepherd, he would search for this erring sheep, find it, put it on his shoulders and bring it back to the fold. But unfortunately the infernal wolf has stolen this sheep before, devoured it and let it down in the middle of its belly, where it, lying half dead and in the last throes, against the pious shepherd, who calls out to it and sighs at its destruction, emits the most ugly barking from the unclean maw of the infernal wolf, at which the ears of the whole flock are disgusted and frightened.

For at first, when no one had challenged him, he issued the sentences of indulgence, in which, under the pretext of godliness, he impiously carried out papal sanctity. Afterwards, in order to insult him even more under the pretense of honor and guilt, he sent them to Rome, as if he wanted to subject them to the pope's judgment, after he had previously increased them with explanations that were much worse than the articles themselves, so that everyone would see, The pope is not being asked for advice by an honest and pious man, but is being mocked by a scoundrel, as if he were so stupid that he considered the great insult, which has no equal, an honor and, as they say, let the mocker pull out his beard. If the pope deserves nothing bad, what ill-bred son has ever insulted his innocent father? And even if there was something going on in Rome that needed to be changed: Luther, if he had been honest and had made Christianity his business (for which he wanted to be respected), would not have preferred his private honor to the common good; Much less would he have hunted down the fame of making fun of ungodly people and mocked them with the shame of a sleeping father, and after uncovering them, pointed them out with his fingers, but rather covered them up backwards and either orally or in writing secretly made a reverent reminder, according to the command of the apostle, who wills: That we should not mock the aged, nor reproach them, but entreat or exhort them. Which, if Luther had done, we have no doubt that it would have been

the most holy pope (so great is his manly known kindness), after he woke up, blessed his son Japhet and thanked him for his love, but did not curse him in anger, as he had not yet cursed a mocker, but bore him with merciful compassion and rather, considering that he is a son than that he is a mocker, had him dealt with by men of repute, before whose face he would not be worthy to appear, only so that he would desist from his wickedness. But there is so much missing that he obeyed this so godly and salutary advice that he not only scoffed at the man who had been sent away, who was worried about his welfare, but also published a new writing impromptu, in which he intended to throw the papal authority over a heap. After he was summoned to Rome, either to give an account of his writings or to recant his imprudent writing, and he was promised all the security of the well-deserved punishment to be meted out, together with a sufficient travel allowance, he nevertheless, so that he might show an immense modesty of an obedient man, did not want to come to the pope, except provided with a royal armament and accompanied by an armed crew. But the cautious man appealed to a general assembly, and that to one which was to be held soon in the Holy Spirit, so that he wanted to deny that in the assembly in which he would be condemned there was the Holy Spirit, as the holy and spiritual man does not think to be found anywhere but with him.

68. Thus, having been reminded once upon a time to change his ungodly mind, the godly shepherd, because he heaped one ungodliness upon another, was finally compelled to cast this sheep, which was sick with incurable mange (so that it would not infect the healthy sheep by touching it), out of the sheepfold far away, from the sheepfold far away, and to lament the death of his Absalom, whose life he could not preserve, by seeing hanging on the tree the ornament of his main hair, with which he had strutted thorougly. As soon as Luther saw that he had been cast out of the community of believers, he did as the wicked are wont to do when they are lamented, who consider it nothing if they fall into a deep pit. He did not bemoan and lament his misfortune, by which, like Satan, he suddenly fell from on high and was crushed, but by following the devil in despair, he himself is a devil, that is, a blasphemer.

238 Ecl. 28, 3tt f**. XIII** Luther's dispute with Henry VIII. W. XIX, 294-296. 239

and has begun to cast blasphemies and slander against the pope and, as the old serpent, to lay ropes of seduction for other believers whom he is hostile to, so that, as soon as they would eat of the forbidden tree of harmful knowledge, he would help to drive them out of the church paradise, from which he has been expelled, into a land that bears thorns and thistles. Certainly, we are very distressed about this great foolishness of this man and about his miserable condition and wish that, by the grace of God, he will change his mind, convert and live, and we do not wish this for his sake (although it is also for his sake), as we wish that, if it were possible, all would be saved), but so that when he once converts and, as the prodigal son, takes refuge in the compassion of his kind father and recognizes his error, he may also rebuke those whom he has led astray.

(69) By the way, if he has plunged so deep that a well of wickedness and despair pours over him, he may still gossip, blaspheme, revile and rage,

so that whoever is unclean may always be unclean. But we admonish and ask all other Christians for the sake of the wounds of Christ (whose teachings we profess), that they may turn away their ears from ungodly words and speeches and not cherish division and discord, especially at the present time, when Christians should primarily love harmony against the enemies of Christ; That they also give no ear to the invectives and calumnies which Luther's rage against the pope, the governor of Christ, casts, nor stain their hearts, which are sanctified to Christ, with ungodly heresies. For he who scatters such things is empty of all love, puffed up with the lust for glory, frosty of reason, and burning with hatred and envy.

Finally, with the same courage with which they would oppose the Turks, Saracens and other infidels, they should stand against this single man, who is weak in power but far more harmful in spirit than all Turks, Saracens and infidels.

End.

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

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

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

JEsus.

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

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

1. In the old editions: to.

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

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

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

240 Erl. 28, 345-347. 73 L. Luther's response to Henry VIII's. Book. W. XIX, 2Ä6-W8. 241

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

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

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

1. By order of Duke George of Saxony, Hieronymus Emser had this writing of the King of England translated from Latin into German and issued under the title: "Schutz und Handhabung der sieben Sacramenten wider Martinum Luther, von dem allerunüberwindlichsten König in Engelland und Frankreich und Herrn in Hibernia, Herrn Heinrichen der Achten dieses Namens ausgegangen".
2. Here the Erlangen edition has again reprinted the passages misquoted by Walch. Cf. Walch, St. Louis Edition, vol. XVIII, 885, note 2 and vol. XXII, Introduction, p. 38 f. There are seven such passages in this manuscript.

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

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

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

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

The first is:

Of faith.

From love.

Of good works.

From hope.

Of suffering and the cross.

From dying.

From baptism.

Of repentance.

Of the Sacrament of the Altar.

From the Law of GOD.

Of sins.

By the grace of GOD.

From the free will.

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

242 Erl. 28, 347-349. xiii Luther's dispute with Henry VIII. W. XIX, 298-300. 243

From Christo.

From GOD.

Of the Last Judgment.

From the heaven and hell.

From the Christian Church.

From the spell. And likewise.

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

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

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

1. i.e., good at all.

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

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

The other is:

From the Pabstthum.

From the Concilien article.

From the teachers.

From indulgences.

From Purgatory.

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

244 ed. 28, 349-351. 73 Ä. Luther's response to Henry VIII's. Book. W. XIX, 300-303. 245

From fairs.

From Hohenschnlen.

Of spiritual vows.

From bishops, so now are.

From laws of man.

From the Holy Service.

Of new sacraments, and the like.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

246 Erl. SS, 351-353. xIII Luther's dispute with Henry VIII. W. XIX, 303-306. 247

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

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

The first reason of the king.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

248 Erl. 28, 353-355. 73 a. Luther's response to Henry VIII's. Book. W. XIX, 306-308. 249

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

25 Let the wise king prove that if I had ever praised and punished the papacy, indulgences, mass 2c. at the same time, it would have been a right scribe. But what does he do? He says: Luther now writes differently about the pontiff and indulgences than he did before. Go on, my lord! If the king of England had not taught me and the world this, we would not know it; yet I have confessed it myself and everyone has read it; and therefore he alienates, this is called unruly doctrine. How good it would be for a king to rule his country, and let this thing be done that they could do? What is it that an ass will read the Psalter, which is made only to carry sackcloth? But why does not the wise man follow his own teaching and remain in One Mind for and for? He praises me for having honored the pope first, and then scolds me for rejecting him. Dear nobleman, let me here use your judgment and say: The king of England speaks against himself, reproaches what he has praised before; therefore his writing must not be right.

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

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

The second reason of the king.

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

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

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

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

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

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

250 Erl. 28, 355-357. xiii Luther's dispute with Henry VIII. W. XIX, 308-311. 251

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

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

The third reason of the king.

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

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

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

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

252 Erl. L8, 357-360. 73 a. Luther's response to Henry VIII's 'book. W. XIX, 311-313 25Z

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

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

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

In the third place, though they have not erred, yet they have no power to establish articles of faith: otherwise the article would not come to an end; as it has already been done by the Concilia and High Schools. King Henry still thinks that it is an article of faith when he imposes a sentence of the fathers. As when he introduces from Ambrosio: "After the blessing of the priest there is nothing' but the body of Christ" 2c. From this he concludes that there is no bread in the Sacrament. And does not see, the great brain, how the same saying concludes just as strongly, that there is also no taste, color, shape. For he says, Let nothing remain but the body of Christ. He who leaves nothing, takes everything away.

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

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

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

44 Since I had said of the sacrament of consecration that it had no basis in the Scriptures, he draws on the saying of Paul in Titum 1, 5: "I have left thee in Crete, that thou shouldest fully establish it, as I have left it, and fill the cities to and fro with elders, as I have ordained thee" 2c. This is the only saying in the whole book that has a semblance to the matter. For the fact that he also refers there to the sayings 1 Tim. 4, 14. of laying on of hands, everyone sees well that it is drawn there from a Heinzen head, and nothing belongs to the ordination of priests, as Apost. 8, 17. Cap. 13, 3. Cap. 19, 6. The apostles used to lay hands on all believers.

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

254 Erl. 28, 360-362? XIII.* Luther's dispute with Henry VIII. W. XIX, 313-316. 255

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

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

47. But that King Heinz claims that the church has the power to establish religious sacraments, even though there is no reason for it in Scripture; just as I have said that she has the power to know which is God's word and which is not God's word, I will answer in due time. For the great rude Thomist does not see that the power to reprove doctrine is commanded and appointed to all of us 1) in Scripture, since Christ says, Matth. 7, 15: "Beware of false prophets"; item: Joh. 10, 5: "The sheep do not hear the strange voice." But to put in new doctrine and order is not commanded; indeed, it is manifoldly forbidden. You are a rough Heinz, and remain a Heinz.
48. Instead of "tadeln, uns allen", which the Jena edition offers, the Wittenberg edition has "handeln uns allein". That the reading of the Jena edition is correct is proven by the corresponding passage in the Latin: jus äs äostrlna soINOsssnäi st jMisanäi, ssu xroiranäi esse xsnss nos. Lrl. var. arx, VI, x. 443.

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

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

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

regem, autr fatuum, 2) it says.

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

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

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

256 Erl. 28, SS2-3S4. 73 L. Luther's response to Henry VIII's. Book. W. XIX, 316-318. 257

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

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

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

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

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

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

I believe that Mass should be said in the morning.

I believe that Mass should be said in churches.

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

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

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

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

258 Erl. 28, 364-368. XIII Luther's dispute with Henry VIII. W. XIX, 318-321. 259

Laube 1) give, that they drive in with the boots, shout and rave: Yes, yes, I may say mass in the evening, yes, I will eat and drink my fill before 2c. Just as the papists fall too much on the left side, so the devil leads these too much on the right side. Therefore they shall know that I am not with them; neither have they their raving from me.

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

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

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

1. i. Permission.

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

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

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

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

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

260 Erl. 28, 386-368, 73 a. Luther's response to Henry's vm. Book. W, XIX, 321-323. 261

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

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

I have based myself on Christ's word, when the evangelist says that he took the bread in his hands, blessed it, and said, "Take and eat, this is my body" 2c. And Paul 1 Cor. 10, 16: "Is not the bread which we break the fellowship of the body of Christ?" Now what GOt calls bread, let it not be denied that it is bread.

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

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

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

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

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

69 You say that the words are clear, that is my body. Certainly they are clear, but they do not mean that the bread will cease, but rather that it will remain. For the little word "this is" points to the bread, and the words where he says, "He took, he blessed, he gave," 2c., all point to the bread which he took into his hands: and of the same which was taken into his hands, blessed, broken, and given, he says, "This is my body." So that the words are clearly all about the bread in all languages, so that it can be grasped; except by the blind sophists, who do no more than corrupt the languages.

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

262 Erl. 28, 368-370. xm. Luther's dispute with Henry VIII. W. XIX, 323-32g. 263

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

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

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

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

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

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

75 So it is also when he says: If Luther wants to be so strict about the words, then he will have to say that Christ is a wheat loaf in heaven, because he says: "I am the loaf that came from heaven", Joh. 6, 51. Item: "I am a true vine" 2c. Joh. 15, 1.

76. answer. If King Heinz had also waited for his kingdom, or studied it in the Scriptures, he would not have been so foolish with God's words. Christ, Joh. 6, 51., interprets himself as speaking of the spiritual bread and the spiritual vine. Therefore there is no word here that interprets differently than the thing is in itself; but Christ is truly spiritual bread and wine, food 2c. For where the word "spiritual" is added to the other word, it becomes a new word, as the Grammatici teach in figuris,

juxta illud:

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

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

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

1. Horace, ^rs xoötlea, v. 47.

264 Erl. 28, 370-373. 73 a. Luther's Response to Henry VIII's. Book. W. XIX, 326-328. 265

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

266 Erl. 28, 373-378. XIII Luther's dispute with Henry VIII. W. XIX, 328-331. 267

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. i.e. poseable.
2. The white linen cloth for covering the hosts.

268 Erl. 28, 378-377. 73 a. Luther's response to Henry VIII's. Book. W. LIX, 331-334. 269

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

90] Then he points out how the mass is also a sacrifice, and is so certain of it that he does not think it worthwhile to conclude me, and proves it thus: if the mass is a promise, it does not prevent it from also being a sacrifice. For in the Old Testament there were also sacrifices, which were at the same time promises; for they promised the goods, therefore they happened 2c. Here I do not understand king Heinzen. For if this is his opinion, that the sacrifices themselves were promises, then he is lying, and almost fooling. For promises were God's word, and must always be God's word; therefore they could not be our work or sacrifice. It is true that one obtains the promise through sacrifice. Now this is the figure, that Christ by his own sacrifice obtained for us the promised blessedness made to Abraham; and we also, by our body's sacrifice and death, obtain the promised blessedness. Therefore, see how King Heinz knows nothing about what is promised or sacrificed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

270 Erl. 28, 377-379. XIII Luther's dispute with Henry VIII. W. XIX, 334-336. 271

and to take freely as they will. As Paul also says in 1 Cor. 11, 23: "I have given you what I have received from the Lord" 2c. For by this he means that he commanded you to do all that was then done by him and his disciples.

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

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

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

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

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

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

that does 2c., not taken from the Gospel (for it says only hoc facite, that does), but from the Canon; therefore I should also keep the whole Canon, in which the Sacrament is called a sacrifice. You poor devil, how you drag your head, how you seek help! But it does not help you, you must not let the mass remain a sacrifice without your thanks.

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

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

But that he introduces some of the fathers' sayings and mocks my hope that I alone will be wise and be the greatest of fools 2c. does not concern me. It is enough for me that King Heinz cannot raise a writing against the greatest fool, the wisest and the wise man against the fool.

272 Erl. SS, 379-381. 73 L. Luther's Response to Henry VIII's. Book. W. XIX, 336-339. 273

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

274 Erl. 28, 381-383. XIII Luther's Dispute with Henry VIII. W. XIX, 339-341. 275

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

276 Erl. 28, 383-385. 73 a. Luther's response to Henry VIII's. Book. W. XIX, 341-344. 277

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

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

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

(116) Therefore behold me, dear man, I will expose to thee the abomination in King Helena's heart, that thou mayest know whether he be a Christian or a Gentile. He saith, Doth not adultery condemn? Does not murder condemn? 2c. So blind is the Thomistic head, that it thinks faith can stand with sins, that one can commit adultery and kill and still believe; therefore they must of necessity, because of sin, turn away from faith (as it is too small) and appropriate it to works. With this Christ is now denied and all the

1. Perhaps as much as "rusty".

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

He who believes may not commit adultery or sin, as John says, 1 Ep 1:6, for the word of God to which he adheres is almighty and the power of God, Rom 1:16, which does not let him fall or sink. But if he sins, then faith is surely gone beforehand, and he has fallen from the word, and there is unbelief. But where there is unbelief, its fruits follow: adultery, murder, hatred 2c. Therefore, before the outward sin takes place, the greatest main sin has already taken place inwardly, unbelief. Therefore it is true that there is no sin, because unbelief is sin and does sin. And if it were possible that unbelief could be separated from hatred or sin, it would not be sin. Therefore, as faith alone is and does all righteousness, so unbelief alone is and does all sin. Therefore Christ does not put on sin, John 16:9, but unbelief, saying, "This is sin, that they believe not on me."

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

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

278 Erl. SS, p8S-387. xIII Luther's dispute with Henry VIII. W. XIX, 344-346. 279

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

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

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

1. i. e. stirring around.

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

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

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

280 L. V. a. VI, 385 f. 73 d. The previous writing according to the Latin. W. XIX, 346-348. 281

73 b. The same writing newly translated from Latin.*)

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 2c., 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

*) This writing, which, as has already been noted to No. 73a. is very different from the German translation made by Luther himself, appeared in August 1522 at Wittenberg, but without indication of the printer, under the title: Oontra üom-ienm Ro^omMartinus Imtlmr IV'ittomdorMo 1522. Then, like Panzer

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.

** 282 n. v.** ". vi, 386-M8. XIII Luther's dispute with Henry VIII. W. xix, 348-351. 283

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.

284 L. V. a. VI, 388^-390. 73d. The previous writing according to the Latin. W. XIX, 351-353. 285

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.

286 L. v.". vi, 39" f. XIII Luther's dispute with Henry VIII. W. xix, 353-356. 287

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).

288 L. V.". VI, 391-393. 73 b. The previous writing according to the Latin. W. XIX, 356-358. 289

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.

290 L. V. s. VI, 393-395. xIII Luther's dispute with Henry VIII. W. XIX, 358-S6I. 291

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

292 L. V. L. VI, 395-397. 73 b. The previous writing according to the Latin. W. XIX, 361-363. 293

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

294 . V. L. VI, 397-399. XIII Luther's Dispute with Henry VIII. W. XIX, 363-366. 295

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.

296 L. V. L. VI. 3W f. 73 b. The previous writing according to the Latin. W. XIX, 3S6-3S8. 297

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-

298 L. V. a. VI, 400-402. xIII Luther's dispute with Henry VIII. W. XIX, 368-371. 299

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 2c. 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

300 L. V.". VI, 402-^04. 73 d. The previous writing according to the Latin. W. LIX, 371-373. 301

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 2c. 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

302 L. V. a. VI. 404-4V6. XIII Luther's dispute with Henry VIII. W. XIX, 373-376. 303

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."

304 L. V. L. VI, 466-408. 73 d. The previous writing according to the Latin. W. XIX, 376-378. 305

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!

306 L. V. a. VI, 408-410. xm. Luther's dispute with Henry VIII. W. XIX, 378-381. 307

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 2c., 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 2c. 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.

308 L. V. a. VI, 410-412. 73 b. The previous writing according to the Latin. W. XIX, 381-383. 309

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

310 L. V. L. VI, 412-414. XIII Luther's dispute with Henry VIII. W. XIX, 383-386. 311

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.

312 L. V. L. VI. 414 f. 73 d. The previous writing according to the Latin. W. XIX, 386-388. 313

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

Z14 V. a. VI, 415-417.XIII Luther's dispute with Henry VIII. W. XIX, 388-391. 315

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 2c. 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

316 L. V. a. VI, 417-419. 73 b. The previous writing according to the Latin. W. XIX, 391-394. 317

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

318 L. V. L. VI, 41A-421.XIII Luther's dispute with Henry VIII. W. XIX, 394-336. 319

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," 2c. 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.

320 D. V. L. VI, 421-423. 73 b. The previous writing according to the Latin. W. XIX, 3S6-3LS. 321

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 2c. The same is written in 1 Cor. 11, 27: "Whoever eats of this bread" 2c.

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,

322 L. V. g. VI, 423-425. xIII Luther's quarrel with Henry VIII-W. xix. 3ÜS-40I. 323

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. "2c.

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.

324 L. V. L. VI. 425 f. 73 b. The previous writing according to the Latin. W. XIX, 401-404. 325

(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

326 L. V.". VI, 42S-42S. XIII Luther's dispute with Henry VIII. W. XIX, 404-408. 327

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,

328 L. V. a. VI, 428-430. 73 b. The previous writing according to the Latin. W. XIX, 40"-409. 329

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.

330 L. V. L. VI. 430-432. XIII Luther's dispute with Henry VIII. W. XIX, 40S-4H. 331

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?

332 L. V. L. VI, 432-4S4. 73 b. The previous writing according to the Latin. W. XIX. 411-^14. 333

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.

334 ". v. L. vi. 434 s. XIII Luther's dispute with Henry VIII. W. xix, 414-417. 335

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 2c. 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 2c., 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.

336 L. V. L. VI, 435-437. 73 d. The previous writing according to the Latin. W. XIX, 417-419. 337

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. 2c. 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.

340 L.?. L. vi, 439-441. 73 d. The previous writing according to the Latin. W. xix, 422-425. 341

Take used in these words: Take, eat, 2c., 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

342 D. V. L. VI, 441-443. XIII Luther's dispute with Henry VIII. W. XIX, 425-427. 343

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

344 L. V. a. VI, 443-448. 73 b. The previous writing according to the Latin. W. XIX, 427-430. . 345

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.

346 - V. a. VI, 445-447. XIII Luther's dispute with Henry VIII. W. LIX, 430-432. 347

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.

348 V. L. VI, 447 f. 73b. The previous writing according to the Latin. W. XIX, 432-435, 349

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

74. D. Martin Luther's letter to a good friend,

in which he indicates the reason why he wrote so harshly and sharply to the King of England. *)

August 28, 1522.

Grace and peace in Christ. I have received your writing, my dear friend, through the redeemed Daniel, and I am glad that God's word is so important to you that you have taken such pains and diligence for his sake.

But if you want to know why I have answered the King of England so harshly, so that you can meet my adversaries, I let you know that I have done it out of well-considered courage, and I will no longer handle the blasphemers and liars with any litter, because my preaching and writing has reached its highest and end.

You know that Christ, Peter and Paul were not always gentle either. How often does he call the Jews viper-bred, murderers, children of the devil, fools? And especially Matth. 23, 19. 33. 37. in his last sermon is written how harshly and horribly he scolds them. Stephen, Apost. 7, 52, calls them murderers and traitors. Peter, Apost. 8:20 curses Simon that he should go to the devil with his money. With many other sharp words Paul, how does he scold so harshly? Now he calls them dogs, messengers of the devil, liars, deceivers, counterfeiters, deceivers, children of the devil; I will be silent here, like the prophets.

So I too, as you know, have written many a fine booklet without all sharpness, kindly and gently, offered myself most humbly to them, followed them, appeared with much food and effort, and endured their lies and blasphemy beyond measure. But the more I have humbled myself, the more they rage, blaspheming me and my teaching, until they are hardened, unable to hear or see. Who then is of the mind.

That he does not also regard and despise my many patience and prayers, what should I care if he is annoyed by my scolding? since he himself indicates that he knows no good in me, but only seeks cause to despise. The same 1) must then also meet him, so that his wrong heart may be revealed. For he who sows my teaching with a right heart would not be offended by my rebuke.

But is it not a wrong judgment that they do not want to see my enemies' reproaches and blasphemies, when they praise them as the best Christians and consider me a heretic? Now they have much more than I, scolded, even with great heaps on me some are nonsensical. Judge for yourselves what kind of hearts these are that let so much good go in me and grasp only the hard, again let so much bad go in those many and find so little good in them. But, as I have said, God's judgment is only to cause all who are not worthy of it to be angry and fall away, just as, John 6:60, many of Christ's disciples jumped back and said, "This speech is too hard, who can bear it?"

Therefore, my dear friend, do not be surprised that many are annoyed by my letter. So it shall be, and so it must be, that very few remain in the gospel. And the gospel is not more inimical to any man than to the false hearts that take its

1. All editions available to us have the reading "the same", but it seems to us to be erroneous. It might well be read "this same" for it; namely: that he does not regard Luther's kind and gentle writings, his patience and humility, but only seeks cause to despise them.

*) This letter is found in the German editions: Wittenberger, vol. IX, toi. 156; Jenaer (1585), vol. II, toi. 145b ; Altenburger, vol. II, p. 207; Leipziger, vol. XVIII, p. 209; Erlanger, vol. 53, p. 149 and in De Wette, vol. II, p. 242. According to the latter we share it.

352 - Erl. 53, 151. 74 Luther's letter to a friend. W. XIX, 437-439, 353

They put up with their friends and then, when things look a little sour, they fall away. How would they stake their lives on it if the hour or the pursuit demanded it?

Summa, why I am so harsh shall become clear in due time. Whoever does not want to believe that it is out of a good heart and is well done, may let it be, but he will have to confess it. My most gracious lord has also admonished me in writing, as have many other friends of the same kind: But

My answer is always that I do not want to let it go, nor should I. My trade is not a middle trade, which should yield or give way, or refrain 1) as I fool have done until now. Herewith I command you to God. Given at Wittenberg, on the Thursday after Bartholomew. Anno 1522.

Martinus Luther.

1. i.e. to lower oneself, to humble oneself.

*75 King Henry's Vm. Letter to Prince Frederick, his brother Johannes and George, Dukes of Saxony, against Luther. )

February 20, 1523.

Translated from Latin.

To the most illustrious and excellent princes, seemingly lords, and to > my dearest grandparents, pure and complete bliss, and constant > increase of blissful welfare.

If something should happen in which it would be good that I should be reminded and warned, I have, however, a certain hope that, according to the experienced piety of your mind, I would never lack your good warning.

(2) And after I have gauged your disposition toward me from my good opinion of you, and have imagined it to be undoubted, therefore I would consider myself a very ungrateful man if I failed to remind and warn you again in the matter that concerns not only your honor but also your goods. For what can affect you, so mighty, Christian and God-fearing princes, either more closely or more deeply than the diligence to curb the Lutheran sect? which is so evil that the devil has never brought a more harmful one on earth, or which will soon bring greater ruin if all the pious and God-fearing do not oppose it?

and before the princes who are most capable and obliged to do so.

(3) Not because I consider Luther to be one who could deceive pious and wise men, or that I should not know that his writings are so ungodly that all pious ears are horrified by them, but that I know that there will never be a lack of the impure bunch of the wicked, who have every unskillful one as their most skillful teacher. And as something grows in the most unskilful and unruly way, so they take it by great chance and spread it with the highest diligence and ability.

4 For as far as Luther is concerned, it was thought that Luther wrote neither too well for the unlearned nor too well for the wicked, just as many things were not almost well, thus some things were not quite bad; but he has accidentally increased things so much in anger that many have soon seen that everything he has ever written, either pleasant or unpleasant, has been done solely in the opinion that he has found a way and a way out with the presentation and indication of better things.

S) This letter was published by Hieronymus Emser under the title: Kertznissirm so potsnti8sirni rtzKis XnAÜao, obriMunus üäoi dstsu8ori8 invwtissimi, uä i1Iii8tri88imo8 uo o1uri88irno8 Kuxouius priueip68 äs oosrosuäa LviASucluHNL I,iitÜ6ruu tuotious 6t I-utüsro ip8O opistolu: itom, illnstrissirai priuoipm ciu6i8 Osor^ii ad sondern r[Mrn reseriptio, 1823, with an attribution to the Bishop of Meissen, Johann von Schleinitz. From the original, Cyprian had it reprinted in olurornrn virorum spistoli" sx vivliotü. Ootüun. untoArapüis 9, Darauf" the letter is translated into German and included in the "Gesammtausgabe": Wittenberger, vol. IX, toi. 170; Jenaer (1888), vol. II, toi. 189; Altenburger, vol. II, p. 282 and Leipziger, vol. XVIII, p. 210. We have followed the Jena edition.

354 XIII Luther's Dispute with Henry VIII. W. xix, 439-441. 355

He made room for anger and evil things, and that by pre-painting the honey he made the poison all the more worth buying.

(5) Which he, with constant success of always harmful doctrine, has made so completely evident that I consider it that there is no one in any place who has a little spark, either of the brain in the head, or of godliness in the heart, who has not completely thrown him out of his mind with his nonsense.

For first he began to argue, then to rage, then to be inflamed, finally to rage and finally, in the booklet in which he rages against me, to overcome the nonsense itself with raving and raging. And if he had written in the same book in some place nothing 1) that one would respect to serve the cause; if he had mixed some reason with nonsense; if nothing clever had escaped and escaped from him, as it then also tends to escape from the nonsensical: 2) although I do not consider it almost polite and decent that I should hold myself thus, that I should publicly step against such a man and dispute.

7 But because the king and prophet David did not consider it impolite that he danced naked before the ark of the covenant with everyone, 2 Sam. 6:14: after that I would not have thought anyone too low and unworthy to deal with him for the sake of the divine service, for the truth of the faith.

(8) Because he does not answer the matter, but instead of the causes he brings up a vain tale, I will not remind the others to meet and argue with him, nor will I keep them from doing so. Truly, I will not go there, that I should rage with the nonsensical. For every equal, 3) unsuspicious and reasonable reader, who will read my booklet next to his, will easily judge that Luther's tandreden are already more than sufficiently justified.

9 And if someone would be favorable to Luther with such inequity that he could not look at my words, or is so dumb and without all senses that when he holds the oerter against each other, he does not feel that there is no need for an answer, I will not satisfy him with an answer. For how could I answer to please those who do not want to either read or understand anything, but the mischievous words of Luther, who, because he handles the matter in this way, has

1. i. e. something.
2. According to "right constructive" should be continued like this: so I don't think it is very polite, and so on.
3. d. i. cheaper.

very much. For I was certain at the beginning that the cause I had presumed to defend was insurmountable by nature, and thus that even the gates of hell would not be able to overcome it.

(10) But because I knew my weakness, I doubted my weapons. But the enemy has now made it known throughout the world that either he is quite weak, or else my causes have been very strong, as against which he has been able to find and raise nothing but rude, naughty subtlety and quite nonsensical insults. And if he thinks that I am moved by this, he is far wrong. For however much he calls me nonsensical, now he calls me nonsensical more often than I mean, for a thousand times nonsensical, yet I never want to become so nonsensical that I should be annoyed that I am called nonsensical by a nonsensical man.

(11) Therefore, either my opinion deceives me, or his scornful and shameful impurity, against me and my royal name and honor, moves you, most eminent men, a little more than me. For it is the custom of the noble minds of the nobles to unite and befriend each other, so that even in the enemy, if they hate and persecute the man, they still honor the rank and hold the office in dignity.

12. There is hardly a noble person so rude, wild and unkind, who may be moved by some enmity, to sweat a noble person with the impudence of the tongue in a mischievous way: so do not doubt me that someone of nobility and the noble kind of virtue, which is each of you, of my respect and discretion, should be pleased that a prince's and friend's honor and reputation should be reviled by the most insolent boys. Which my respect and confidence to you also confirms this my good opinion, so I feel in myself.

For although all that Luther has said against me has not moved me in the least, nevertheless I have been very annoyed by the blasphemies with which he has reviled the emperor and other German princes with his most venomous tongue, all of which he has blasphemed in the first leaf of the same booklet, which he has spat out against my honor and name, with the most vituperative slur. For he speaks there thus: I went to Worms, even though I knew that the emperor had broken my escort; for the princes of the German nation, who at that time were 4) praised and praised for their honor and their name, were not in a position to do so.

4. d. i. once.

356 75 Henry VIII to the Dukes of Saxony. W. xix, 441-444. 357

that no nation has kept faith better than the Germans, have learned, now for the service and favor of the Roman idol, nothing more than to despise faith and loyalty, to the eternal disgrace of their nation.

(14) How the insolent mouth and fountain of lies lies so falsely and maliciously against the emperor and the German princes, indicates that if he did not lie, he would not be alive today who could tell these lies. 1) For who doubts how easily he could have brought off his deserved punishment, if the emperor and the princes had been willing to do so? But which, I will not say emperor or some prince and lord, but also some Christian well-born man, could have put this into his mind and take it, that he would break the escort and that he should kill Luther, although an open and common enemy of the faith, by breaking the faith, out of hatred of the guilty, as one says, to destroy innocence.

15. Because not the emperor, who most diligently keeps his promise, not the lords and princes, to whom nothing is dearer than honor, not a Christian man of honorable birth, as the one who puts faith in all things, would ever have thought of this and would have intended it; Where does any right and true German live who could suffer that a knave, a monk, should reproach and interpret so impudently, in the most lying way, not a German like himself, but all German princes, yes, even the prince and supreme of all German princes, the emperor, with such an eternal dishonor and disgrace of the German nation.

16 I am very surprised if the Germans suffer all this from him. Truly, the more we are moved that on and against such and such great princes a monk should use so much force, the less we are moved by his lies, which he smelled partly in Latin, which I read, and partly in German, of which I hear, this nonsensical man against me. 2) For if he has mixed something among the same blasphemous words, about the truth of which anyone who has no knowledge of these things might have doubted, it will now occur to the readers that one should not believe his blasphemy, whose eternal habit he sees to be to lie everywhere about all princes, yes, even about the emperor.

1. Meaning: If Luther had not lied about the fact that his escort had been broken by the emperor, he would no longer be alive and would not be able to insist on this.
2. i.e., expels.

For this is not new to Luther, to think up and invent all these things, so that he might maliciously arouse and incite the common people to dislike the prince; which things he has long before gathered a bunch of malicious people to promote and made dependent on him.

Therefore, there has never been a more seditious, poisonous, evil sect, which has thus abolished all worship, subdued all laws, disturbed all good customs, and reversed all communions, than this Lutheran sect, which defiles all holy things and contaminates all worldly things, which preaches Christ in such a way that it tramples His sacraments, which praises God's grace in such a way that it destroys the freedom of the will. It preaches Christ in such a way that it tramples on His sacraments, praises God's grace in such a way that it destroys the freedom of the will, exalts faith in such a way that it reduces good works and introduces the freedom to sin, exalts mercy in such a way that it suppresses justice and attributes the inevitable cause of all evils not to a devil, as the Manichaeans imagined, but to the one truly good.

19. And because he acts with the divine things in such a way, he pours out, like a snake thrown from heaven onto the earth, the poison, arouses indignation in the Christian church, abolishes all laws, weakens all authorities, incites the laity against the clergy and both of them against the pope, the peoples against the princes, and has no other intention than, since God is in favor, that the Germans first of all, on account of freedom, fight the lords, then that the Christians fight against the Christians, in the presence and with laughter of the enemies of Christ, on account of the faith and service of Christ.

20 And if anyone would not believe that such a great danger could always arise from a petty man, just think of the Turks' nonsense, which is now spreading on land and water, having taken over the greatest and most beautiful part of the whole world, and which in the past began with two boys.

21 However, let us not mention the Bohemian sect, which has also grown up in a hurry from a small worm into a sore-grave and great dragon, not without great damage to German lands. The evil fruit grows so easily if no one cuts it off. No one has ever lacked a companion to do harm, nor is anyone so weak that he could not inflict a murderous wound on one who does not respect and perceive his own, but is entitled to it as a game. And that this should not happen in this matter, all princes should take all possible care.

22 Now they will have all kinds of diligence.

358 XIII Luther's Dispute with Henry VIII. W. xix, 444-446. 359

if they do not consider these things to be insignificant, and do not regard it merely as a matter for the school, but, because it concerns God and man, esteem it worthy and worthy that the princes do so. Which, as it is due to all men, is most of all due to your office, dearest overseers, as you are the closest to this danger and, as it is said, can most easily dampen it, if the growing evil is met in haste, before the wicked through malice and the simple through error grow in number and strength, so that they cannot easily be kept. And do not doubt, you will be for it according to your wisdom and reverence for the holy Christian faith. For since no heresy can grow up that will not be very contrary to you Christian princes, it cannot be otherwise, you must be wonderfully repugnant to the Lutheran.

(23) For although the useless talkative man writes in more than one place that he was chosen by God to spread and preach this doctrine, which he alone calls evangelical, in the world, as he has begun, your wisdom easily notes that Luther does not impose anything, why it should be considered that he understood the evangelical words better than the old holy teachers of the Christian church, all of whose interpretation he rejects and despises. So you know well that many things, exposed by the apostles, have been kept without interruption until now, which the blasphemer mocks everything.

24. Moreover, notice how far the arrogant, lying and blasphemous spirit of man is from the Holy Spirit of God, who instills in his elect truth, meekness, humility, and with his own contempt, love and reverence for all men.

(25) Finally, you see that his doctrine, under the appearance and name of evangelical preaching, is nothing but vain Viklefian doctrine, which you, my dearest hosts, are wholeheartedly opposed to, as which the German princes, and before that, as I hear, your forefathers worked to exterminate. But because they were too slow to do so, they did not even like to expel it: so they brought the matter so far that they decided, blocked and pushed it, like a pernicious wild beast, into some regions 1) in Bohemia, like into a hole and pit.

026 And because it is so, I cannot doubt that ye shall be diligent to do it, lest

1. In the old editions: Gegenheit.

The wild beast, which your forefathers have blocked, would like to get rid of it through your carelessness, so that it creeps through Saxony and conquers the whole of Germany, also sprays out the infernal fire through its harmful blowing and scatters the fire, which the Germans so often want to extinguish with their blood.

27 In this matter, although I do not doubt that you are so willing and inclined in your piety that you need neither admonisher nor admonisher, nevertheless, out of goodwill toward you, I cannot refrain from adding my admonition and admonition to the goodwill of your will.

Because I do not respect any prince so strangely, to whom I am not obliged by this good opinion and fee to save his honor and the good reputation of my fortune, I am compelled, O most worthy men, to show you this with such greater diligence, the innate relationship of blood, which we have among each other, because I realize that your most noble ancestors were born from the most phenomenal tribe of the kings of England, my ancestors. What community of the tribe and society of the blood makes my mind so inclined to you, that nothing neither useful nor harmful may happen to you, that I do not think of it as happening to myself.

(29) And the more and more I am sure of this, the more and more I am urged to exhort and remind you, even to implore you, by all holy things, as much as it is always possible for you, to be temporal about it, that the accursed Lutheran sect be subdued, without murdering anyone, if it is possible, or even with bloodshed, if it would prevent with kindness the stiff-necked obstinacy that it should be subdued in all ways.

(30) Neither will you impose in any way that the laws, authorities, princes, communions, and all things divine and human, may in time become so contemptible, so represented, and so maligned, that the wicked may prevail, the pious may be silenced, and things may at last come to such a pass that some will have God as a revenger and judge of their perverse wickedness, and some of their untimely and disordered patience.

(31) Therefore, if your wisdom will meet this peril, you will obtain a special fame among men and an eternal prize with God, because you have brought your homeland back into good peace, you have broken the schism, and you have brought your country back to peace.

2. In the old editions: Leumbden.

360 75 Henry VIII to the Dukes of Saxony. W. xix, 446-448. 361

and rejected division, reestablished unity, built and purified the divine service.

Farewell, O most glorious men.

As I was about to seal this letter, I remembered that in his speeches against me he apologizes for not answering the other articles as well, because he is prevented from interpreting the biblia. For this reason, I have considered it good that I remind you that you should be above all things concerned that he not be permitted to do so. For just as I do not deny that it is good for the Scriptures to be read in all languages, so it is truly dangerous to be read in Luther's translation, because bad faith makes all men delude themselves that he is able to transpose good Scripture with a wrong interpretation, so that the common people 1) may think that they are reading what is written in the Holy Bible.

1. In the Wittenberg: does not want etc. w.

Scripture, which this cursed man drew from the cursed heretics. Be well again, most noble men, and most beloved to my mind.

The date in the written letter thus reads: Given in our royal court camp at Grenwick Greenwich, on the twentieth day of Februarii Anno Domini 1523.

^2)^ Your sincere grandfather and friend, Henry, King.

The Most Serene Lords, Frederick, by the Grace of God, Duke of Saxony, Elector of the Holy Roman Empire, Landgrave of Thuringia and Margrave of Meissen; as well as Johannsen and Georgen, by the same Grace, Dukes of Saxony, Landgraves of Thuringia and Margraves of Meissen. To our very dear grandparents and friends.

2. The following signature and the inscription of the letter are not found in the Jena, nor in the Wittenberg edition, but are taken by us from the old edition of Walch.

The letter from Planitz to Elector Frederick of Saxony, in which he reports to him what he has heard from the English herald on the way. *)

April 24, 1523.

Most Serene, Highborn Elector! My submissive, obedient and always willing services are ready for your Electoral Grace with diligence, most gracious Elector and Lord. Ew. Churfürstl. Grace I humbly inform you that I rode out to Nuremberg next Monday 3) and the English herald with me; have come here today towards Gera. In the meantime, I have made an effort to find out from him (but without noting it, as if I knew enough) what the things are for which he has been dispatched, but so far I have not heard anything special, for yesterday alone he indicated to me from his own motion, among other speeches, that he had orders from his King to send a letter to Your Electoral Grace as his friend. Grace, as his friend,

3. April 20, 1523.

much good to say, and that the King kindly commands and commends himself to Ew. Gnaden friendly and commendable. On the other hand, he would have a treasure, which he should hand over to Ew. Gn. and ask him to accept it as a favor. Thirdly, he has several letters belonging to Ew. Gn., which he should also hand over and ask for a friendly answer. This would be his order and nothing more, but if he were asked for something, he would also report as much as he knew. Today he also let himself be heard, saying that he could not be a good man, since he had previously been with Ew. Gn. and would have received a good answer. He was also asked whether the king was displeased with the booklet that Luther had made against him; he said that in England there was no mention of it at all, that people there did not respect it at all. At Nuremberg I was told that

*) This letter is found in Cyprian's "Nützliche Urkunden zur Ref.-Gesch.", Vol. II, p. 267.

362 XIII Luther's Dispute with Henry VIII. W. xix, 448-450. 363

says that the pope should have made a booklet 1) . Against Luther, and attributed it to the King of England, in which he calls him defensorem Ecclesiae and the most Christian king, with much other praise, which the Pope should ascribe to him, which booklet the herald should hand over to His Holiness the Prince. Gn., but I do not know the actual reason. He praises the House of Saxony almost highly, says that the King of England is of the tribe, and of the Dukes of Saxony origin, and gives many good words; but whether it is serious, I do not know. The herald knows French, English, because he is from England, Lombard, Welsh; but not almost perfect, because he also mixes other languages at times; he also knows Dutch German, but not well, and no Latin; I am willing, God willing, to go with him to Grimm on Saturday morning, where I want to keep him for a day, so that he rests there, so that he does not go to Your Lordship without prior knowledge. Grace, so that he does not come to Your Lordship! Grace. Margrave Joachim is here today.

1. This refers to the diploma that the Pope issued to the King of England for the title "Protector of the Faith" attached to him. To this the pope wrote an accompanying letter, in which he praised the king's book beyond all measure and declared it to be a work that had come about through the assistance of the Holy Spirit.

and lies today at Zeiz, has taken its way from Nuremberg to Culmbach. The Duke of Pomerania also went out next Monday to Nuremberg up to Forchheim, and Duke Henry of Mecklenburg on Tuesday up to Bamberg, there they have come together, and are now moving with each other, I understand, will lie today to the new town. The affair between the appointed princes and princes has remained unresolved in kindness, and in the end they have parted, but one with more grief than the other, as I have told Your Lordship. God willing, I still want to report. If the two main faults, avarice and greed, had not been at hand, we would have been able to well tolerate the error, but these two always interfered and prevented the direction, all of which I, out of courtesy to Your Lordship, have been able to report to you. I did not want to behave out of submissive obedience, because the same Ew. I am willing to do so without hesitation and with diligence. Date Gera on Friday after Misericordias Dom. Anno 1523.

Ew. Churfürst! Yours sincerely, obedient

Hans von der Planitz, Knight.

He is well acquainted with the French language, as I note, so he will make his application to Your Electoral Grace in French. Grace in French.

*77 Prince Frederick's and Duke John's answer to King Henry VIII's letter. )

April 28 or 29, 1523.

Friedrich Churfürst and Johannes, brothers, Dukes of Saxony 2c., offer > their friendly greetings to King Henry of England with royal dignity, > and what they are able to do dear and good.

1st Most Serene King, especially dear Lord, uncle and friend! Your Royal Dignity's letter, which holds date at Grenwick Greenwich, on the 20th day of February, we have received on the 27th day of April of this present year.

by handing over your honorary holder. 2) received, and all the contents heard.

2. and we do not wish to hold back your kind opinion that we have accepted your kind reminder, admonition and warning with good thanks, for which we also hereby express our kind thanks. For we note from this that your will and spirit, so

2. d. i. Herolds.

*This letter is found in Latin in Cyprian's "Nützliche Urkunden zur Ref.-Gesch.", Theil II, p. 276; in German in Spalatin's unnulid. rekoinrub. p. 61. In the German Allsgaben: Wittenberger, vol. IX, tot. 173; Jenaer (1585), vol. II, col. 198; Altenburger, vol. II, p. 286 and Leipziger, vol. X VIII, p. 213. We have followed the Jenaer edition. For the determination of the time, compare the last note to this writing.

364 77 Churf. Friedrichs u. Herzog Johannes'Antwort. W. xix, 450-453. 365

The people of the city, who are well acquainted with us, are very friendly to us, as reported in the Scriptures, so that E. K. W. should think that we would also like to show ourselves as friends.

(3) And we should be sorry that in our times errors of the holy Christian faith should arise, and that nothing should be preached, taught, written, or done in any other way that is contrary to the holy faith, and that unchristian strife, division, indignation, and other troubles should arise from it. And it should be even more burdensome to us if it should be imposed, caused or promoted by us, as much as we understand it, for which God, the Eternal, may protect us as we ask.

(4) For the will of God and of men shall never decide and experience otherwise than that our will, mind and opinion has never been and is not yet to hold us, with the grant of divine grace, otherwise than as Christian men and obedient to the holy Christian church. If anything grievous should be done against His Holiness or anyone else, of higher or lower rank, and before against those to whom we are bound by obligation, or if anything else unchristian should be done, or should be done later, we would not like it, but would be truly sorry.

5 To this we should not be a little burdened, if E. K. W. encountered something repugnant and disastrous from the fact that the English 1) and Saxons, according to credible English and Saxon histories and chronicles, are related to each other due to their innate friendship, many hundred years ago.

For this reason, we do not wish to reproach His Holiness for the fact that we have never undertaken to represent Luther's teachings, writings and sermons, but have left everything to its own value and responsibility. As we, Duke Frederick 2c., have informed several nuncios of Papal Holiness, Mr. Leo the Tenth Blessed and the present Pope, Mr. Adrian the Sixth, partly in writing and partly orally, also Roman Imperial Majesty, our most gracious Lord, and other estates of the Holy Roman Empire at the Imperial Diet in Worms and many others.

7. have also never entered into things, because that we might have suffered, and still, that the holy gospel and divine word, doctrine and truth be preached and taught, and the glory of God and the love of neighbor be faithfully sought.

1. Jenaer: Engelleser.

8 Luther also went to Wittenberg last year against our knowledge and will, and wrote to us, Frederick, that he wanted to stand by everyone's rights, and in such a letter he confessed that he had come there against our knowledge and will; this was reported to the imperial regiment at Nuremberg at that time.

9th Because also E. K. W., as a highly knowledgeable, learned king, as they are praised, themselves report in their letter to us that they considered them rude and ill-mannered, that they should thus compare themselves, that they should enter into disputation with Luther and interpose; also that E. K. W. do not want to rage with the nonsensical, and never want to become so nonsensical that they should be annoyed that they are scolded by a nonsensical man for a nonsensical man: therefore, E. K. W., as the wise man, can easily see that it would be difficult for us, without divine Scripture, and as they are not sufficiently reported and experienced in such matters, to act or undertake anything that would be contrary to God and the world.

We also do not want to conceal the fact that after the Imperial Diet held at Nuremberg, Papal Holiness requested through her nuncio, among other things, to indicate to her ways and means how these things should be dealt with. Thereupon Imperial Majesty's Governors, Princes, Princes and Estates of the Holy Roman Empire, in which we have also had full power over ours, finally give the affected Papal Holiness Nuncio the answer that they know of no other means and ways to reject this and other complaints, except that Papal Holiness, with Imperial Majesty's approval, has a free, free, and free of charge right of the Holy Roman Empire. Maj. should proclaim a free Christian concilium in a convenient place in the German nation, and begin it as soon as possible within a year.

(11) For this reason we want to be hopeful to God, where such a free and Christian concilium is undertaken and God's honor, common benefit and the love of the neighbor are sought (for which we also want to ask), that God will give His grace that these things will also be diligently considered, acted upon and promoted for the benefit of common Christianity.

(12) For we must ever be unmoved by the comforting promise of Christ our Savior, made to us in Matthew chapter 18, vv. 19, 20, when He says: "If two or three of you become one on earth, why they should ask, it shall be done for them of My Father who is in heaven. For where

366 Luther's dispute with Henry VIII. W. xix, 453-455. 367

two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them." Yes, as God says Isa. 65, 24: "Before they call, I will answer; while they are still speaking, I will hear". If we alone called upon GOD, the Merciful, in a right faith and trust. For as Christ, our Lord and Savior, Matth. 21, 22. and Marci 11, 24. says: "All things whatsoever ye shall ask in your prayers, believe only that ye shall receive them, and they shall be granted you." And St. Paul Rom. 4, 20. 21. writes: "Abraham was strong in faith, and gave glory to God, and knew in all certainty that what God promises He is able to do," and the word and the faith are so strong that, as Christ Himself says Matth. 16, 18: "even the gates of hell shall not prevail against them.

(13) What will now be considered, approved and decided in the future Concilio by the assembly of common Christianity for the best and most conducive to the holy faith and the entire Christian Church, with Christian counsel and on the basis of the Scriptures of God: in this we want to keep and show ourselves, if the Almighty God will otherwise spare us our lives for so long, with the help of God, as Christian princes ordered by the grace of God.

For what and other reasons, God wills, it shall be found that we have not proven ourselves in this matter, and otherwise, of our hope, other than as befits Christian men.

(15) Accordingly, our friendly request to E. K. W. is that, if things were to come to them differently, they would not give credence to this, but would have excused us good-willingly; as we note from their letter that they have done without this from themselves until now; that we express special thanks to E. K. W..

16. for God, who eternally knows and recognizes the hearts and minds of all of us, we do not want nor know to boast, and do not doubt that God will decree everything according to His divine will, praise and gracious favor.

17 And because the Catholic Church also informs us in its letter that the Turks' nonsense, which at first only arose from two, is now spreading to land and water, which we have always found difficult to experience, and still: it is good to note that such troubles, because of our, the Christians', sin, extend so far and tear down so far. Therefore hold

We can do no better than to call upon God Almighty above all things for His grace to ordain such things for the comfort of us poor sinners, and that we may have peace and unity among ourselves as much as is humanly possible.

18 And we hope that Your Majesty, as a Christian king, will also be diligent, advise and help everywhere, so that war and disunity between Christians may be tolerated, and peace and unity may be established and maintained, and the enemies of the holy Christian faith may be resisted all the more effectively, and they may also be converted to God and the true Christian faith by God's help, for which Your Majesty, as a powerful, possible king, may do much good.

19. for E. K. W. know that God is a "prince of peace", as Is. 9, 6. is written, and through his prophet Jeremiah Cap. 29, 11: "I know well the thoughts that I have toward you, saith the Lord, thoughts of peace, and not of sorrow, that I may give you the end that ye wait for." For this reason St. Paul also writes in his other epistle to the Corinthians at the last, v. 11: "Be at peace, and God will be with you of love and peace."

20 For we hope that God Almighty will grant us grace, therefore we also want to ask at all times to faithfully promote, as much as is in us, that which may suffice to strengthen divine honor and word, also the holy Christian faith and peace, and the love of our neighbor.

21 We did not want to behave in a friendly manner to your letter, and we kindly ask you to note this. We also hereby command you to maintain God Almighty, as our special dear Lord, grandfather and friend, for your blessedness. E. K. W. is blessed in the Lord. Datum Altenburg in Aprili Anno Domini 1523. 1)

Your Royal W. Oheime and Friends, Frederick, Elector, and John, > Brothers, Dukes of Saxony,

signed with his own hand.

1. This date is found in both the Jena and the Wittenberg editions. Our letter is to be dated either April 28 or 29, because on April 27, the English herald delivered the letter of his king to the Elector, while we find the same already on April 30 at the court of Duke George of Saxony. (Cf. No. 77 in this volume, §1.)

368 78 Churfürst Friedrichs zu Sachsen Passport. W. xix, 4SS-457. 369

78. Elector Frederick of Saxony Passport,

which was given to the English herald at his dispatch. *)

May 4

To all and every king, prince, prince, ecclesiastical and secular, to our and other prelates, counts, free lords, knights, servants, stewards, captains, officials, viziers, stewards, bailiffs, bailiffs, burgomasters, judges, city councilors and otherwise to all other of our subjects and relatives, to whom this letter of ours comes before, we, Frederick, Archmarshall and Elector of the Holy Roman Empire, and John, brothers, Dukes of Saxony, Landgraves of Thuringia and Margraves of Meissen, by the grace of God, offer our willing, friendly services, with the best of our love and good, gracious greetings, favorable salutations, grace and all good things, beforehand.

Most illustrious, venerable, reverend in God, worthy, well-born, noble, strict, firm, honorable, wise, especially dear lords, friends, grandfathers, brothers-in-law, special and faithful. We inform your royal dignities, dear ones and you friendly opinion, that the most illustrious prince, Mr. Henry, King of England and our especially dear Lord Oheim and friend of his K. W. Herold, Raphael Jork, 1) in his K. W. business, sent to us, and because the same his dispatch at

1. Probably York.

He has humbly requested that we give him a common open passport letter in view of his current runs. Which we did not want to refuse him, K. W. of England, for honor and friendship, nor for his own sake. And therefore it is our friendly request, gracious intention and desire to Your Royal Highness, dear ones, and to You, when the Highly Considered Royal Highness of England Herald will come to Your Royal Highness and dear Kingdom, Your, also our Principality Lands, Territories, Authority, Court and Territories and will request Your Royal Highness, dear ones, and You, also ours, to grant him, Your Royal Highness, dear ones, and You, also ours, a passport to the Kingdom of England, Your beloved ones and you, want to have him together with his servants, horses, goods and chattels for our sake in gracious, favorable, friendly and good order, and also provide him at his request with living and written escort and security for the future, so that he may come through and over everywhere the safer, more carefree and more honorable and may find ours enjoyable. In this E. K. W., Ew. Liebden and you others, show us friendly and good favor, which we are also kindly inclined to deserve towards your loved ones and you others, and to recognize towards you with grace. Thus do the rest of us our opinion. In witness whereof we have hereunto set our seal, and have hereunto set our seal at Altenburg Castle, this fourth day of May, Anno 1523.

**79. duke George of Saxony answer to the above letter of King Henry VIII? )

May 9, 1523.

Translated from the Latin by M. Frick.

To the most illustrious and invincible prince, Lord Henry, King in > England and France, Lord in Ireland, our beloved lord and uncle.

1. most noble and invincible king, especially dear lord and uncle, hail, bestow

We are happy to have both in the heavenly and earthly kingdoms, as well as all kinds of services before. Among many other things that arrived to us on the very day when His Serene Highness the Ambassador arrived (but it was April 30), nothing more pleasant and gratifying has come to us.

*) This document is found in Cypriän's "Nützliche Urkunden", Theil II, p. 285.

**This letter, except for Walch's edition, was only available in Latin and was published by Emser at the same time as the letter of King Henry VIII to the Dukes of Saxony reported in No. 75.

370XIII Luther's Dispute with Henry VIII. W. xix, 457-^59. 371

res can come to hand, than Your Grace's letter, to our cousins and to us at the same time, partly, because this gave us to recognize that we are still in the memory of that king, who is closely related to us both in lineage and blood (which blood relationship the older it is, The older it is, the more glory it brings to our family), as well as in power, loyalty, steadfastness, reputation, prudence, justice, bravery and all other sciences required in times of war as well as in times of peace, he is not inferior to any of the Christian kings; partly because this letter included such things, which, as they are to be remembered, befit a king who loves Christian harmony: Therefore it is also the duty of princes, who wish to be Christians not only in name but also in deed, to comply with and accept them with the greatest joy. Since we have at all times endeavored to be in the number of such princes, to be considered as such and to remain in it, we have not read through Your Serene Highness's letter aimed at this end without peculiar pleasure.

2. For at first, Your Serene Highness justly complains that the following of the Lutheran doctrine, after a small beginning, has increased to such an extent that through him (Lutherum) not only the pure Christian doctrine is now and then falsified, but also all divine and human ordinances of the ancients, This will undoubtedly lead to the obvious destruction of Christianity, although Luther wants to excuse his rebellious actions with the appearance of evangelical doctrine.
3. Thereafter, Your Serene Highness, according to her truly royal magnanimity, publicly testifies that she does not care about the private disgrace with which he has offended her royal dignity in his writing, which is filled with unreasonable blasphemies; but much more that this audacious man has dared to abstain from the same malicious insults neither against the imperial majesty nor against other German princes, by which boldness he clearly shows that he is dealing with how Christianity may be brought to contempt of the laws and the divine and human ordinances in all states, be disrupted by civil and domestic wars by means of an untamed freedom of the mob, and wear itself out by murder and manslaughter. Therefore be astonished

Your Serenity not a little, if the German princes would see through the fingers of such a great disgrace, with which their nation is occupied.

4 Because this evil also hits us the closest, Your Serene Highness admonishes us as lovingly as seriously that, since the matter can still be helped, we should resist with all our might the damage that is only increasing and has not yet reached the highest level, which would be pleasing to God and beneficial to the Christian Church, and would also bring honor to us and our country.

(5) If we now, as far as we are concerned, answer these points perhaps more circumstantially than the extensive royal proceedings allow, your Royal Highness will hopefully overlook this, both in view of our respect for his royal dignity, with whom we have long wished to converse in writing, and also because of the importance of the matter. For since this trade is of great importance and, we may almost say, connected with general danger, one cannot be so brief about it against such a great king. For as there has been no sect in the Christian religion for several hundred years, which has deceived many learned and honest men under an honorable pretense, and which has crept in much more quickly than one would have thought, and has spread almost in all Christian lands, so there has never been a concern so close to our hearts as how we would like to ward off this very sect, as soon as it became suspicious, and, after it has now and then become prevalent, to put a stop to it.

6. For four years have already passed since we granted Johann Eck, Luther and Carlstadt, as the most distinguished generals at the so unfortunate meeting, permission to engage in a scholarly battle in our university city of Leipzig over certain points of Lutheran doctrine, for no other intention than that, if both sides' arguments were diligently examined, the truth would be brought to light, the quarrels 1) would be settled by a judicial pronouncement of the high schools of Paris and Erfurt, and the disputes that had arisen would be resolved. But because Luther, as the progress 2) of the matter is well known

1. The following is transposed by us. In Walch's old edition, it says: "The disputes of the high schools in Paris and Erfurt were settled by a judicial decision, etc.".
2. xroxsssus is in Latin, but should probably be xro6688U8 or xroAr688U8.

372 79 Duke George of Saxony's Reply. W. xix, 459-462. 373

As he had been rejected by the court, did not trust the judgement 1) very much and burned with the desire to confuse everything, he preceded the court's verdict and, before he received the victory, sang songs of triumph in various published writings. And certainly, if it had been in our power, we would never have let the edition of the books he produced afterwards go unpunished to the printers, since we would soon have learned to see what the man was up to in a seditious way and where he would finally fall if he was not opposed. For since he recognized that all honest-minded people wish only this, that some abuses in the church be improved according to the strictness of the old service, he began his tragedy under this guise with great applause of the spectators on the scene of the whole world; But not long after, when he attempted to tear down that which could not be attacked and set in motion without damaging our religion, men of understanding easily perceived that a fox was hidden under the sheep's clothing. Now, however, after this man has gone so far in his outrageous audacity that he has not only attacked people of mediocre standing, who are, however, quite famous for their learning and holiness, with his malicious pen, but has also, which no one would easily have suspected, shot the reins of his blasphemy against the most noble king in England, he has given off clear signs of his insolent nature and malicious disposition.

7 And we cannot express how badly we have spoken of its impudent writing. For as soon as we received news of it, we both forbade by written orders that it should neither be sold nor read in our country, and also imposed a severe prison sentence on the bookseller who first offered it for sale. The more we approved of Your Serene Highness's book, in which she speaks the word of the sacraments introduced in the Christian church against Luther with as serious sayings as dainty words, the more we resented that the defense of truth is paid for and repaid with nothing but blasphemies of the rebellious monk. How far, however, we approved of Your Serenity's writing and how useful we considered it for everyone is clear from the fact that we have translated it from Latin into German and have

1. In Latin: in juäwiurn sentsutia instead of suäivuM.

by book printers in our country. However, we have also learned here that what is generally said is true, that there is no book so bad that one does not have some advantage from it, because since Luther's booklet completely reeks of all kinds of the most outrageous blasphemies, as well as of evil damage, this booklet, because it is nowhere built on solid grounds, clearly shows (as also Your Serene Highness writes) that its author, apart from nonsensical blasphemies, has nothing by which he can protect himself.

8 We cannot fail to praise Your Serene Highness's peculiar prudence and gentleness, as she does not consider it worthy of her royal dignity, nor does she consider it necessary, in order to win the trade, to enter into a new dispute with such a bad man, who has been deprived of the defense of thorough arguments, but who alone is equipped with a malicious tongue. Your Serene Highness is also unaware of the suspicion which, as she writes, she has in her heart of the German princes. For just as Your Serene Highness, according to her innate virtue and royal goodness, magnanimously throws to the winds the blasphemies heaped against Your Royal Highness, but at the same time considers it something unpleasant that the princes of the empire and even the emperor himself should be dragged through by him as those who have broken the peace, so, in turn, the injustice done to Your Highness is just as painful to all noble-minded German princes as if it had been done to them themselves. At least, as far as we are concerned, we consider that all arrows of injustice, which are unleashed against a prince, are not directed against the person of a single prince, but against the status of all princes, 2) indeed, of the entire nobility.

9. Not to mention that we, most noble King, would not wish to suppress the publication of the diatribe altogether, if it were possible for us to do so, this gives us no small relief that, since we are attacked before other princes of the empire in Luther's writings and sermons, sometimes openly, sometimes covertly, we have this in common with the most praiseworthy hero, Emperor Charles, of that name the Fifth, to whose word we consider it an honor to adhere rigidly, and Henry the Eighth, the most powerful king in England, with whom we would rather be scolded than praised by Luther's shameful followers. For the latter, neither with threats nor blasphemies, shall ever bring it so far that we should not proceed to

2. prinoixsm should be: xrinoipurru

374 XIII- Luther's Dispute with Henry VIII. W. xix. 462-46Z. 375

to do what a pious and Christian prince is entitled to do. And o that it would not be probable, what your royal highness thinks, that in view of the examples of Muhamed and Hus, one would even have to proceed, that the evil, if one does not prevent the harmful seed soon in the beginning, then, when it has gained the upper hand, cannot be eradicated, But just as the one separated all of Asia and a good part of Europe, and the other separated Bohemia from the church, so also Luther is now first taking over the German peoples, but soon the other Western nations as well, with a new violence introduced by sedition in such a way that one will not be able to drive it out afterwards.

(10) Although we certainly cannot know what other German princes will do about this (we do hope that each one will observe his duty for himself), and this fire has already spread so far that it is said to have seized the minds of the foreigners as well, we do not want to admit that anyone can justifiably complain that we are to blame for not dampening the fire of this evil. For since Luther himself has no dwelling in the lands that are under our rule, 1) but rather flees them far and wide and stays outside my territory, we may not take any action against him. However, we seek to repel the writings of this man, as well as the harmful enemies, from our cities and from our borders in every way and manner, which we do so diligently that, since the German translation of the New Testament (of which Your Serene Highness' letter also reports) recently went out in print against our suspicion, we have brought all the copies of this book, as many as we can, into our country, and therein we have sent them to all the countries of the world, We took back all copies of this book, as many as had been brought into our country and sold in it, for our own money from those who had bought them, because we already had the idea at that time, and the careful reading of the books made it sufficiently clear that Luther had taken upon himself this work of translation merely so that he could turn the whole of the Scriptures, translated for his own benefit, into an affirmation of his teachings by means of such trickery. Because he saw that it would not do for him to confirm his inconsistent and strange opinions with the opinions of the old divine scholars, from whose teachings and life Luther deviates by far, he took it upon himself to abuse the simplicity of the Scriptures, which can sometimes be drawn to a completely strange and contradictory understanding, in such a way.

1. in Latin: (iornicilium HON ündknt instead of kadsat.

(11) What more cunning and clever plan could he have devised to capture the minds of the simple than to deliver the entire New Testament Scripture, which he had interpreted in a new way according to his own opinion and annotated, into the hands of the rabble as a fishing rod hidden among the food? Otherwise he would have persuaded either no one at all, or only the most stupid, that the necessity of good, as well as of evil, depends on God. What doctrine, since even the pagans cannot bear it in their worldly ways, should we Christians, for whom the doctrine of faith shines so brightly, suffer the same from Luther? If we once assume with Luther that everything happens by necessity, then we will learn that all the power of the human mind, all the argument, all the law according to which a reward is awarded to the good and a punishment to the bad 2) is in vain and futile. For as far as we can see, this is the main source of the Lutheran errors; we mean divine providence, which, according to the fatal necessity of some worldly wise men, he wrongly understood, from which the other doctrines flowed as rivulets, namely, that free will is nothing; of the blind reason of men; of the contempt of good works, in short, of the rejection both of all customs and of other human ordinances.

(12) These things, since they are of such a nature that they can reverse the common nature of the whole world, we do not want to say our Germany, and have already been condemned by the worldly wise and Viklefites and rejected by a general curse, you, dearest king, well remember that they should be forbidden with all diligence, or at least kept locked up in the Bohemian mountains. For we would have to be ashamed of ourselves, since our ancestors considered it an honor to ward off the contagious evil of the Viking doctrine from their subjects with all kinds of weapons and even at the risk of their property and lives, if we, who are to follow them in virtue as well as in government, were to let this evil grow again through our negligence. Especially because it is as clear as daylight to believe nothing less than what those boast, that Luther was driven to write by the Spirit of Christ. For what does the spirit of Luther have in common with the spirit of Christ, lest we write harshly against him? Christ everywhere praises gentleness and patience; Luther, however, apart from the fact that he is opposed to irascibility, blasphemy, and such like affectations, does not praise gentleness and patience.

2. In Latin: xlknnm for HOKNN.

376 79 Duke George of Saxony's reply. W. xix, 4W-467. 377

The fact that the people of the country let the reins shoot out also sows a seed of unruliness and sedition among the rabble.

Accordingly, Your Highness must not doubt in the least our sincere love for them, nor our diligence in putting a stop to this pernicious mob. For we will make a special effort in accordance with our immense admiration of their virtues and the requirements of the old blood relationship. We will do our utmost to please Your Serene Highness, and with all our strength we will endeavor to diligently provide for everything that either we ourselves, or Your Serene Highness and her equals, deem useful for the tranquility of the Christian Church. And the matter may begin

If the church's will is to run as it will, we at least want to make it so that, if everything turns out to the detriment of the entire church, it will still be recognized that we have not lacked the will, but rather only the ability. Your Royal Highness, Most Sublime. King, be at ease in Jesus Christ, our Savior, who will always keep her free from all harm and protect her in the most perfect honors and comforts. Let us be recommended to her. From our city Quedlinburg the 9th of May in the year after Christ's birth 1523.

Your Royal Highness

George, Duke of Saxony 2c.

80 Spalatin's letter to Elector Frederick of Saxony from the English Herald).*

Probably the 13th of May 1523.

God's grace and peace before. Most gracious Lord!

The Mulman reports to me that the Herald of England has had great difficulty that Duke George of Saxony 2c. has delayed him so long.

He has always praised Ew. Churf. Gn. as a praiseworthy prince and said that Ew. Churf. Gn. is a much greater prince, a prince of the German nation, yes, a prince, and has dispatched him graciously, well and quickly.

And he said that he would not let Ew. He said that he would not let his gold and silver coins come from him for the rest of his life and that he would give them to the church after his life.

He disdained him very much that Duke George did not let him come before him, and let himself be heard that His Grace and her brother and cousin had heard and dispatched him themselves.

He stayed in the inn and talked with Gabriel and Mulman about wars and the like.

He has never been worshipped from the castle, except that he has been redeemed.

Has no one invited nor wanted to have as a guest, because once to a night feast his compatriot

from his city Caleß 1) a priest, for it Mulman holds, whom perhaps the Schösser found here in the market to Leipzig. Mulman said, however, that he did not note from his Latin speeches that he was particularly learned, as he is said to be.

Thomas von der Heyde, Duke George's secretary, ate with him once or twice.

Since he once told him by order that he should splurge, be in good spirits and not be challenged until he was dispatched, he then spoke to Mulman and Gabriel: What to show off, what to be in good spirits! I am not here for the sake of boasting and roasting apples. I am here to deliver my lord the king's things. For the while has been almost long for him and has steadily promised Ew. Gn. and her brother on account of their gracious assistance and ready immediate dispatch and said: O the pious, O the wise Elector of Saxony!

Finally, Doctor Kuchler and the captain at Leipzig gave him his clearance quite late on Monday 2) next past.

1. Maybe "Calais" because he also spoke French well.
2. May 11.
3. This letter is found in Cyprian's "Nützliche Urkunden zur Reformation-Geschichte", Theil II, p. 271. - The determination of the time is according to the words of this letter: "am Montag nächstvergangen. Duke George's letter is dated May 9; on the following Monday, May 11, the herald received his dispatch. Shortly thereafter, probably May 13 (cf. the last note to this writing), this letter was written.

378 De Wette in, 24. xIII Luther's dispute with Henry VIII. W. XIX, 467 f. 379

Doctor Kuchler took the floor and after Duke George's answer had been handed over, he gave him thirty-five silver coins, one of which is worth one guilder, for worship. And the herald had such reverence well complained and said to Mulman afterwards: He holds it for it, the prince had made him more and half of it had come.

He also said: What the captain here! What a man he is! He never touched his biret against me. He has never really looked at me; although I am not here for myself and for my own sake, but for the sake of my king. I still praise the Elector of Saxony, who knows how to keep people. As soon as I spoke with his Lordship, she took off her biretta. Likewise her Lord Privy Cousin. brother and cousin.

So he left Leipzig yesterday and,

1. Probably already on Tuesday, May 12, because he was eagerly waiting for an early dispatch. If this assumption is correct, May 13 is the date of this letter.

After it rained a lot, he kindly dismissed Mulman again. He took him in his arms and asked him to thank Ew. Churf. Gn. and her brother and cousin for his sake, besides expressing his sincere thanks, and especially to inform my gracious young master that he would soon send the promised book to his princely grace. For he has it in his house in Caleß and may not look for it long.

The herald's servant, a Flemming, praises Ew. Churf. Gn. as much as his lord and is said to have said: The pious prince! I will not forget him all my life. I will pray for him all my life. I want to serve him all my life.

So Mulman thinks that the herald came to Erfurt today. In the humble opinion of Your Honor, I do not want to keep this up any longer.

Ew. Churf. Gn.

menial servant

Spalatinus.

*81. D. Martin Luther's letter to King Henry Vlll. in England. )

Sept. 1, 1525.

From Latin

To the Most Serene Prince and Lord, Henry VIII, King of England

and Ireland.

I. Grace and peace in Christ our Lord and Savior, Amen. Most Serene King and Prince! Although I should have shied away from writing to your royal dignity and majesty, for the reason that I have

ischen translates.

I am aware that I had highly angered and offended the same E. K. dignity with my little book against E. M. (not caused by myself, but by those who do not mean well with E. M.), which I have printed foolishly and hastily.

2 Nevertheless, it is not only Your Majesty's royal kindness that makes me so happy, as the same

*) This epistle is found in Latin in Aurifaber, vol. II, toi. 290 d; with a better text in the Latin Wittenberg edition, vol. II, toi. 533; together with the reply of the King of England in an edition organized by Joh. Cochläus at Cologne in 1527, with XUmonitio loimnrük Ooolüuei in ntruingue opistolnm and other additions. In the excerpt, with omission of the passages from which one can clearly see that Luther did not want to revoke his kehre, in Ooinmenturiu loiiunnis Oooiiiuei, äs nötig et goriptig Nurtini I^utüori, p. 135. German in the Wittenberg edition, vol. IX, toi. 234; in the Jena (1556), vol. Ill, toi. 360; in the Altenvurger, vol. Ill, p. 486; twice in the Leipziger, vol. XIX, p. 358 and p. 549. Emser also published a German translation of this letter in 1527 under the title: Ein Sendbrief M. Luther's letter to the king of England, Henry the Eighth, in which he asks for forgiveness and mercy for having foolishly and too harshly violated the aforementioned king, with the promise to revoke it. The last reported by! King etc. Answer from the above-mentioned epistle, useful and Christian reading for every Christian. Cochläus says that he made the German translation together with Emser. - In Latin, this letter is also found in De Wette, Vol. MI, p. 23; our translation is based on this.

380 De Wette III. 24-26. 81 Luther's Sendbrjef to Henry VIII. W. XIX, 468-471. 381

is praised by many in writing and orally from day to day, such confidence and courage that I believe that E.M. will not harbor eternal anger and enmity because she recognizes that she is mortal, because she recognizes that she is mortal, will not harbor eternal anger and enmity, but also that I have learned from credible witnesses that the booklet which went out against me under Your Majesty's name is not the King of England's writing, as the deceitful sophists wanted to make it out to be, who, misusing the title of E. M. did not realize the danger they were putting themselves in by disgracing the royal name, especially the monster to whom God and men are openly hostile, the Cardinal of York, 1) this ruin of your kingdom, so that now I cannot lift my eyes against E. M. because of great shame. M., since I have allowed myself to be so recklessly moved by these wicked people, against such a great king, especially since I am an unworthy man, yes, a worm, whom one should have overcome only by contempt, or left unnoticed.

In addition to this, although I am small, this has seriously moved me to write, that Father M. has begun to be well-disposed toward the Gospel and is very displeased with such loose people. This news was a true gospel to my heart, that is, a joyful message.

Therefore, with this writing, I throw myself at the feet of Father as humbly as I can, and I ask and beg that Father, for the sake of the love and suffering of Christ and His glory, will deign to condescend and forgive me for whatever I have offended Father with, as Christ Himself asked and commanded that we also forgive one another's trespasses.

5 Furthermore, if it should not seem too small to Her Majesty that I recant in another public book and again show honor to Her Majesty's name, then she should graciously give me to understand this, and I will then do it without any delay with great pleasure. For even though I am a petty human being compared to Your M., it would nevertheless be of no small benefit and piety for the

1. Edward Lee.

Gospel and the glory of God, therefore, if I were granted to write to the King of England about the cause of the Gospel.

6. however, as He has begun, let God also make her understand that she is inclined and obedient to the Gospel with all her spirit, and that she does not let her royal ears or heart be taken in by the pernicious voices of the sirens, who can do nothing but proclaim Luther a heretic; but rather let her understand what evil I can teach, because I teach nothing but that through faith in Jesus Christ I am the Son of God. M. should rather consider for himself what evil I can teach, because I teach nothing else than that we must be saved through faith in Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who suffered for us and was raised again, as the holy Gospels and the letters of the apostles testify. For this is the main point and the basis of my teaching, on which I then build and teach the love of neighbor, obedience to worldly authority, then also the crucifixion or mortification of the sinful body, as the Christian teaching prescribes. What then is evil in these main points of Christian doctrine? Wait and hear, and then judge. Why am I condemned, since I have neither been questioned nor overcome?
7. further, that I punish the abuse and tyranny of the bishops, who teach other things than the aforementioned main points of Christian doctrine, yes, the opposite, and meanwhile seek income, splendor, carnality, yes, kingdoms, principalities and all the world's goods: does not the common man also notice this and condemn it, and do they not have to confess it themselves? Why do they not mend their ways and teach rightly, if they want to be free from hatred and blame?

(8) There is no doubt in your mind what great princes in Germany, how many rulers, and in addition how many highly knowledgeable people hold with me, and by the grace of God want to know that the teaching of the gospel, which has been cleansed from me by the special grace of Christ, is not condemned. Would to God that the Lord Christ would also add K.K.M. to their number and separate him from these murderers of souls.

9. but what wonder is it that the emperor

382 De Wette III, 26. xIII Luther's dispute with Henry VIII. W. XIX, 471,472. 383

and some princes rage and rage against me? Is it not written in the 2nd Psalm, "Why do the nations rage, and the people speak in vain? The kings of the land rebel, and the lords counsel with one another against the Lord and his anointed"? that it is rather a miracle if some prince or king loves the gospel. Oh, how I wish with all my strength that I could rejoice and be glad about such a miraculous work in His Holiness! And may the Lord, before whose eyes and according to whose will I am writing this, give strength to my words, so that the King of England will soon become a perfect disciple of Christ and a confessor of the Gospel, and also Luther's gracious

most gracious lord, amen. If it should please E. M. to answer me, I expect a gracious and kind answer. Wittenberg on the first of September in the year of the Lord 1525.

Your Royal Majesty.

most subservient

Martin Luther.

With your own hand.

1. In the Emser edition, the date is September 7, 1525. The wrong year 1526 is found in the Jena, Altenburg and Leipzig editions. In the latter, the correct number has been placed above it once, Vol. XIX, p. 358. That September 1, 1525 is the correct date is evident from the first lines of the next following text.

*82 Henry VIII, King of England, reply to Luther's above letter. )

We have finally received the letter that you, Luther, gave us at Wittenberg on the first day of September 1525, which we have received (I do not know in which country it travelled for so long), in which you say that you are sorry and ashamed of yourself that you have so foolishly and rashly let your book go out against me, not out of your own spirit, but out of the seduction of those who were not almost favorable to me. In which you know yourself (as you write) to be entirely guilty of how seriously you have injured us, and for this reason you are justified in shying away from petitioning us in writing; but you have been made brave and bold (you write) not only that you have heard me so graciously that, knowing myself to be mortal, I will not bear you immortal enmity, but also that you, by credible

Witnesses that the booklet, which went out under my name from the sacraments, is not truly mine, as for this the guileful (so you write) sophists wanted to consider, who abused our title of majesty and did not feel what danger they do to themselves with this our disgrace, first of all the Cardinal of York (Eboracum), whom you call an abomination and a common hatred of God and the world, in addition a poison of our kingdom. And for this reason you are so ashamed (as you write) that you must not open your eyes against us, that you have allowed these workers of wickedness to move you against such a great king. Further you append that this finally makes you scream.

2. With Walch: in.

*An edition of this letter was published in 1527 in Dresden by Wolfgang Stöcke under the title: Uospoiikio invietissimi XnsUuo ue Drunoiao ro^is, äolonsoris tiäei uo Domini D^verniuo uä praolutuo smstoluo ouxitu. About the edition of Cochlaeus at Cologne and the translation of Emser, both in 1527, information has already been given in the previous number. In addition, this answer of the king is found in the writings of Joh. Fischer, Bishop of Rochester, Würzburg 1597, and in Bzovii annal. uä unn. 1525, Dom. XIX, p. 373. The king's letter has no date. On the basis of Luther's letter to Wenceslaus Link, De Wette III, p. 58, one wanted to put this letter into the year 1525, but wrongly, because this letter belongs, as Köstlin correctly remarks "Martin Luther" vol. Il, p. 620 uä 145, not at all into the year 1525, but into the year 1526. Accordingly, this writing will also have to be put into the same year. Luther worked on the refutation of it on February 1, 1527.

Cf. in this volume, Appendix, No. 3. We reproduce the text according to Walch's old edition.

384 82 Henry VIII's. Reply to Luther's epistle. W. xix, 472-475. 385

I earnestly urged you that I have now begun to be favorable to the gospel, and have finally received a displeasure because of this kind of lost and useless people, namely those who are opposed to your sect, which, as you write, has truly been a gospel, that is, a joyful message to your heart, and you pray most sacredly that God the Lord may so instruct me that I may become obedient and inclined to the gospel with my whole spirit, and not let my ears be taken in by the poisonous voices of the sirens, who can do nothing but cry out Luther for a heretic. Then you remind me that I should take to heart that there is nothing wrong in your teaching, for you teach nothing else but that one must be saved through the faith of Jesus Christ, the Son of God (who suffered for us and was raised again). For this is the main and foundation of your doctrine, on which you build (as you say) love toward your neighbor, obedience toward the worldly ruler, and crucifixion of the body of sins. You also desire to be heard in this alone, and wonder that you are condemned, neither heard nor overcome. In addition, you rage against the Roman church in your old way, and boast how many German princes have taken your side, and that it is no wonder that the emperor and some princes persecute you, but it is more to be wondered at that any prince should fall to the gospel; Because princes and nations always tend to resist the gospel, and you desire very much that you may rejoice with me at this miraculous sign, that I may become a perfect disciple of Christ, a confessor of the gospel, and be counted among your good patrons. Furthermore, you beg and plead through the cross of Christ that we may forgive you for what your book has offended us, and you voluntarily promise that (as soon as 1) it is convenient for us) you will let another go out against it, and revoke the previous one in my honor, because you firmly believe 2) that the gospel and the honor of God can hope for no little fruit from it, if you are granted to write from the gospel to the king of England.

(2) These, Luther, are all the points and contents of your epistle, from which, as we sufficiently note, you do not mean what you write, but understand and well discern where your deceitful speech is going: so we will follow our old way,

1. With Walch: so much.
2. With Walch: us.

and so that you may not deceive the simple-minded with your guileful lists, we will answer you on all and every point in the shortest possible way.

3. That you say that you are ashamed of your book itself, I do not know how true you speak in that; But I do know that there is reason enough why you should be ashamed, not only of this book, but of almost all your books, which contain nothing but shameful errors and nonsensical heresies that are neither founded on reason nor supported by art, but are spoken and substantiated solely out of stubborn presumption, because you claim to be such a great teacher, the likes of which no one has ever been to this day or before. Nor can I well see how it could be true that you are urged to write your book against me by those who are not almost favorable to me, because the thing itself brings it along, that you are more tempted by those who have not granted you anything good, because your book is such that it may bring its poet nothing but shame and vice, and my book is an honor. For yours clearly shows that you have not found a single word of a sound mind that you might hold against me, which in my opinion proves sufficiently which of us has a better cause. No matter how much you pretend that you do not believe that the booklet I have let pass is mine, but that it was probably done in my name by the malicious sophists, much greater and more credible witnesses than your credible witnesses know that it is mine, and the less you like it, the more I prefer to confess it myself. But that you write that the booklet mentioned has brought me shame, everyone can understand well (how much you always bergest this), how very badly it upsets you that my booklet has been praised with such great coincidence by all pious people, and before that from the venerable judgment of the chair, which, just as it condemns your heresy, so it has so much testimony and power from the most holy Jerome that it let itself be meant that it would be enough for it if its faith were proven by this chair alone. Although I am not in the habit of boasting much about this honor, nor about any of my other works, I pray to God that I may do so always, and that all honor and glory may be attributed to God alone. But this pleases me to tell the truth, to some extent, that my book, be it as it may (for I am not unaware of my weakness, nor has your cause been much weaker), this

386 XIII Luther's Dispute with Henry VIII. W. xix, 475-177. 387

my little book (as far as the argument extends) has not only wiped out all the filth that you previously splashed on the holy sacraments, but also what you subsequently poured out furiously, and that it drove you to write such a book, from which the whole world would like to see that you had become completely nonsensical from the anger and impotence of your mind of an ungodly, as namely in which you, not only of art and senses, but also of all respectability, you might have mustered nothing but foolish chatter, whorish scolding, and more than hollow-headed insolence, when my book, in turn, has not only kept itself against the church (which faith you dare to overthrow) and proven our service, but has also shown love for you and desire to improve you rather than to condemn you, more than your badness ever deserved. To this end, my booklet reports that, according to the knowledge of highly learned men, many of your errors have been displaced with powerful causes, and that with powerful writings, which, to be sure, have not been invented from myself, nor have they been drawn to my benefit (as you are in the habit of pulling the holy Scriptures of your will to courage by the hair), but have been weighed according to the holy old fathers' interpretations and are entirely in accordance with him, so that in this matter we would have no fellowship with those whom you are wont to call sophists, who are in truth pious and learned men, whom you also call sophists for no other reason than that you would gladly weigh down their powerful arguments (with which they reveal and overcome your foolishness) with the hatred of sophistry.

4. Since you continue to spitefully disgrace and blaspheme with a poisonous tongue the most reverend in God the Father, the Cardinal of York, our most distinguished councillor and chancellor in England, I know his excellent wisdom better than I believe that he will be moved in the least by the spiteful blasphemies of your tongue 2), because your tongue also so reviles the whole church, belittles the most holy fathers, disgraces all saints, despises the apostles of Christ, dishonors his most holy mother and blasphemes God himself as the origin, founder and instigator of all sins; which abominable filth of your blasphemy appears publicly everywhere, not only in all the places of your poisonous books, which you have written to the noticeable harm of the Christian people, but also from the one that the peasants in German

1. Hohlhipler - a meanly scolding lotterbube. In Walch, instead of "hohlhippische" - "holipische".
2. With Walch: witnesses.

We have committed such senseless acts in the lands that have been made wild by your heresy. Therefore, although the above-mentioned most reverend father has been very dear to us for a long time because of his special virtues, he is and will be so much dearer to us every day, as much more we realize that he is hated by you and your kind; But that you call him a poison of my kingdom, does not seem advisable to us, that we should give an account to a monastic brother, what benefit and piety we and our kingdom received daily from this man's special wisdom, faithfulness, work, effort and wholesome diligence. But to say nothing of the other, this is an indication enough of how useful he is to our whole country, that he is carrying out the ministry he is commanded to do according to the will of our minds, and is always purifying our kingdom from the poisonous contamination of your heresy, of which some very sick people sometimes come even to England, yea, they come from those places which the noxious breath of your unhealthy mouth hath poisoned, which nevertheless, found by diligent inquiry and good diligence of the aforesaid most reverend father, we do not drive from us alone, lest your leprosy come among ours; but act and heal them conveniently, and with great love we bring them back to the right faith. For as far as ours are concerned, we hope with God's grace to be wiser and much stronger in the faith of Christ, than that your godless and foolish sect may deceive us with flattery, as a great hope has always made you, I do not know which impudent liar or, that I believe more, some one or two apostate brothers and apostates, who, driven out of my kingdom and fled from the faith of Christ, live with you of their lust with splendor and unchastity; From which sect my kingdom (as I respect) is so purified that, although there are still some others of the same small 3) ones (of which, however, I hope there are not very many), nevertheless, 4) so many of them remain, I would that you had them all with you.

(5) You call this a gospel, that is, a glad tidings to your heart, that I have now begun to be favorable to the gospel, as if I had never been favorable to it before. But the fact that I did not begin to love the gospel and read it with reverence as recently as you think indicates (how much you deny this) that I have overcome much of your harmful heresy with the open testimonies of the gospel, which you (as you do) have not yet understood.

3. With Walch: Kleüen.
4. Instead of "nevertheless" in Walch: "nach denn".

388 82 Henry VIII's. Reply to Luther's epistle. W. xix. 177-430. 389

I have said) sufficiently indicated that I do not only now begin to act the gospel. Therefore, you should know that our primary concern has long been and should always be for the gospel, as I know its teachings to be wholesome, but only for those who deal with the gospel differently than you do. For you, in your interpretation of the Scriptures, are always against the whole world, based only on the fictitious findings of your dreams, and you disregard the advice of the wise man, Proverbs 3, namely: "Son, do not rely on your wisdom, and do not consider yourself wise in your own eyes. But as far as I am concerned, I know well and freely confess how inadequate I am to hear the holy Scriptures from myself, for which reason I humbly ask for the help of divine grace, and wholeheartedly submit myself first to the statutes of the Christian church, which are to be considered great; Then also to the interpretations of the Christian fathers, whom the goodness of God has mildly instructed in the Scriptures, enlightened with graces, confirmed in faith, adorned with good works, and finally declared by miraculous signs that their faith and life are pleasing to Him. If, on the other hand, you despise reported holy fathers, carelessly desecrate their memory and (as much as you can and may) cut off their honors; lest the pretense and reverence of so great holiness should shine before your insolent heresies, you praise none but your own ingenuity and art, and though you publicly defend manifest folly for wisdom and false heresy for truth, yet you have nothing else, on which you may rely entirely, except that you cry out as a stentorian 1) that the Scriptures are bright and clear enough for you and that all those who ever held otherwise were vain stones, sticks and blocks, however much of them and with whatever ingenuity, art or holiness they ever seemed. Moreover, as you have gloriously raised the cause with words, you incite and drive the coarse and unruly peasants to rage unbridled under a semblance of evangelical freedom and to champion your nonsensical sect. If anyone would be so foolish as to waver or doubt which way he should take, namely this new way of yours or the old way of the holy fathers, our Sustainer Christ solves all questions for him when he says in Matthew 7: "By their fruits you will know them," for by their fruits you will know them.

1. Stentor was one who was in the war before Troy and had such a great voice that he shouted as loud as fifty men otherwise.

No one doubts that the reported holy fathers were pious people and of an irreproachable life, who were determined to serve God with fasting, praying and chastity and whose writings all smell of love. Of you, however, there is much less doubt, because it is publicly seen that you have done everything that you have subjected yourself to, beginning with envy and hope, proceeding with anger and ill will, continuing and exalting yourself by the mere application of a little cry or praise, and finally falling into the most shameful pleasure of the flesh. Because of how much you always cover up this doctrine of yours with the appearance of evangelical freedom, and although I know myself well enough how thin my art is, it is not so thin that you will persuade me to believe that your presumption is good, because you, always preaching about the Spirit, are wallowing in carnal pleasure and pretending to exhort the world to the way of an evangelical life, while turning people away from solitary chastity, which the gospel diligently praises us for. Finally, you throw away your chastity (which you promised with vows and surrendered to God) even from yourself, which all the power of the holy scripture binds you to keep.

(6) You also write, Luther, that you are very ashamed to lift up your eyes against us, that you have so easily allowed yourself to be moved by the operarios of wickedness (as you say) against us. But I am indeed very much surprised that you are not seriously ashamed to raise your eyebrows against God, or to look at any pious person, that you have allowed yourself to fall into such recklessness by inspiration of the devil, that you have weakened and deprived of her honor a nun, who was sanctified to God, with sinful embrace, for the sake of foolishness of the flesh and shameful pleasure (since you are an Augustinian brother). How is it that you not only recognized her carnally (which vice, if you had shown this to the Romans and pagans, she would have been buried alive and you would have been punished to the death), but you have publicly taken her as a wife with a defiled wedding, and so you obviously abuse her by wickedness to a daily whore, with the highest astonishment of the whole world, with the highest disgrace of both of you by the whole world, with the highest contempt of the holy matrimony and the highest reviling of the most holy vows.

7. further, that which is most to be hated among all, if thou art guilty of such an abominable misdeed.

2. With Walch: "inheritors".

Z90 XIII Luther's Dispute with Henry VIII. W. XIX. 480-482. 391

and you should be sorry, then you pretend, instead of repentance, an impudent glory, and flee so much from invoking forgiveness that you also publicly irritate the other monastics in the pursuit of your vice by writing and books. Therefore, Luther, since you begin this, we are not very surprised that you would so gladly cut off the honor and service of all the saints; namely, that you realize that from their honor and reverence grows the disgrace of your vices; for whoever believes that they were pious must necessarily consider you the most wicked, who teaches and acts so outrageously repugnant to the teachings and works of the dear saints. For who can praise the marriage of a monk who thinks anything of the most holy and learned father Jerome? For as he says: "It is not only condemnable to those who have vowed chastity to be free, but also to desire to be free. Read, Luther, and read this pious father's epistles to the 1) nun who had fallen, and the like to the deacon who had put her to shame, and learn, poor man, from these and other of the holy fathers' writings, to do more penance for your sin, than to draw the unfortunate companions of your damnation to you by an evil example and sinful counsel with obviously nonsensical books in defense of your vice, which one cannot excuse.

(8) Again, I am utterly astonished how thou (who dost everywhere boast so proudly and strongly of thy knowledge of the Scriptures) dost so utterly despise thy vows, when thou hast read in the Scriptures, "If thou hast vowed anything unto God, forbear not to perform it. "For God dislikes an unfaithful promise," Ecclesiastes 5. Item and this, "Vow and keep your vows to God your Lord." How then? If thou hast promised a vow unto God thy Lord, thou shalt not be ashamed to perform it; for God thy Lord will require it of thee; and if thou be forgiven thereby, it shall be counted unto thee also for sin. But thou (as I perceive) thinkest that the vows of chastity, fasting, poverty, and obedience are to be numbered among the servile ceremonies of the law of Moses. For your customs and books give evidence enough that the evangelical freedom (who would believe you) is in nothing else than in freedom of carnal pleasure. But the prophet Isaiah has a far different opinion, because "at that time," he says Cap. 9 (indicating the time of the law of Christ), "they will

1. Walch: to which.

Vows promised to God, their Lord, and they will perform them," so that he undoubtedly indicates that the vows of the Christians have more power in the course of the evangelical laws and are kept more sacredly than they were ever kept in Mosiah's law. Which thing God tells us Apost. 5. 5. held up an example to us, since he punished the transgressed vow of Ananias and Sapphira so severely in the part of the stolen money; of which St. Gregory 2) (as if he were addressing you, Luther, and your whore with it, since your union is not a conjugal being) admonishes the monks, thus reading: Ananias would have pledged money to God, which he then (overcome by the devil's inspiration) alienated again; but you know with what death he was punished. If, then, he was worthy of death for having again alienated the money he had given to God, consider what peril you will be worth before the divine court, who have alienated not money but yourself from the almighty God (to whom you pledged yourself under the spiritual garment). What do you want, Luther, what does your poor wife want to say to this? If you now recognize your sin or are sorry for it (even if you sin something in addition to it out of stupidity of the flesh), there is hope for your correction, as happened with Magdalene, David, and many others like them. But now, what hope shall we have of you, if you persist in defending your wickedness, and brazenly boast that you ought to be ashamed of yourself? If thou call thy vices virtue, and thou call the virtue of others vice? Do you not plunge into the pit of malediction, which the prophet Isaiah, Cap. 5, mourns in the like of you, saying: "Woe to you who call good evil and evil good; who take darkness for light and light for darkness, bitter for sweet and sweet for sour and bitter"? Because you do not respect these scriptures at all, because you twist and turn them to your liking, spurning their most holy expounders and rejecting their most wholesome teaching, which has been proven by the holy lives of the holy fathers; and because you oppose all these things with nothing but sacrilege, presumption, and rage against the vows with utterly animal arguments and nonsensical babbling, which is such a manifest heresy that no greater nor more manifest is easily unheard: nor pray God never to let my ears be taken in by the poisonous voices of the sirens, who can do nothing but Luther.

2. in r6K. lid. I. 6. 33. aä Venantiurn ^xostatarn.

39282 Henry VIII's. Reply to Luther's epistle. W. xrx, E-LM. 393

for a heretic. I truly hear no brighter voice in this place than your books, which scream nothing to my ears except that Luther is a heretic; so much so that I am truly astonished at the unashamedness with which you may boast to me that you teach nothing except that one must be saved through the faith of Jesus Christ, the Son of God (who suffered for us and was raised again). And on this foundation you then build love towards the neighbor, obedience to the worldly rulers' and crucifixion of the body of sins.

9 If God, Luther, would that these words of yours were as true as I know them to be false! For, dear one, how do you build love on faith, when you teach that faith alone, without good works, is enough for salvation? Then even though in the booklet in which you raged against me (since shame so oppressed you that you were disgusted to hear anything more about this matter) you charged us that we had turned your words against you: Not only did you not answer at all to the same words of your own, which we reproached you with in defense of the sacraments, and by which we so bound and entangled you with this so atrocious heresy that you could neither escape nor flee; but you, you shamefaced and prudent man, immediately spoke the same words again, and immediately in the same book, in which you falsely complain that such things had been falsely brought to your attention before, through misrepresentation. For thus you write: It is a robbery of the church and ungodliness, if one wants to please God by works and not by faith alone. Which words are no less clear and evident than those you wrote before in the "Babylonian prison," thus: "So you see how rich a Christian man or a baptized man is, who (even if he wants to) cannot forfeit his blessedness, however great a sin he always commits, because he does not want to believe; for no sin can condemn him, but unbelief alone; all the others (if faith stands or returns) will be forgiven him through the divine promises.divine promises made to the baptized, are swallowed up in a moment by reported faith. These words of yours indicate your opinion so publicly that they neither need nor permit any gloss: for no color can be painted here, except that you, against the words of Christ, Matth. 7 (namely, "narrow is the way that leads to the kingdom of heaven"), make the way reported to us broad and easy with your evangelical freedom, so that you may take the easy way out of your own hands.

You make a friend of the rabble by teaching that it is enough for salvation if one believes the promise of God alone, without any effort of good works. Which faith is far from the opinion of St. Paul, Gal. 5, who praises "the faith that worketh by love"; who also gives the testimony 2 Cor. 13: "Whether ye be in faith or not, test ye yourselves." But how can this testing be done but by good works? For he who does righteousness is pleasing to God. Yes, the holy evangelist John also says against such deceivers, who deceive the people with such vain, idle and dead faith: "Children" (he says 1 Ep. 3), "let no one deceive you! He that doeth right is righteous." And truly, Luther, to believe according to your teaching that one may live without fruits of good works, and wallow in sins without all fear, and rely solely on this hope and too much proud presumption, that faith alone may wash away or swallow up the filth of so many hardened sins: this is a faith that is undoubtedly worse than the devil's faith. For, as St. James Cap. 2. says: "You believe that there is a God; the devils also believe this and tremble before him," the devils are not so bad in this as you are, because you fear nothing at all. But do you not think, Luther, that the apostle spoke these words especially to you? who by this heresy of yours (by which you argue that mere faith alone is enough for salvation) repel and prevent all fear of God. For since you say that a baptized person is so rich that he cannot forfeit or lose his salvation (even if he wants to, and however great sins he is always burdened with), because he does not want to believe: It follows as soon as that all fear of God is in vain, it is now drawn by his just judgment and terrible chastisement of hell (from which fear we irritably accept the path to virtue), or is now the fear that comes from the fact that we fear to offend the one whom we love as a father, even as children. For what need is there of fear (but to do a bitter and hard thing), when the only thing that would make a man blessed is sweet and pleasing faith? Or why do we torment ourselves with the fear of God, or fright of hellish fire, when mere faith alone is enough without any burden? And indeed, Luther, because in your assertion you separate all fear of damnation and hell from the preparation for repentance, and say that one should seek it through love alone, you do indeed

394 XIII Luther's Dispute with Henry VIII. W. xix, 48s-4ss. 395

This place is a great injustice to the poor sinners, of whom you take care with such tender favor to be considered merciful; for you are working to take from them that which the good God has ordained for them, as a special means by which they might come to love: for love itself (while we live in this pilgrimage) is not sufficiently preserved, namely, where it is too secure without fear; for "where you yourself" (says the Scripture, Sir. 27.) "keep not always the fear of GOD, thy house shall soon fall." Whoever examines the holy Scriptures will find that sinners are not drawn by one way alone, but by many, among which is also counted reported fear, although they all have one end in view, namely, improvement of life, without which means and ways the sinner may not by all means so soon attain to beatific love. Therefore, how could you give sinners any worse advice than to advise them to flee from the reported means by which they, having turned away from sins, would be blessedly drawn to God?

(10) Now there is almost no other way that we are so often and so strongly drawn in the beginning than by this fear, which is driven into us by the cruelty of hell. For which reason also Christ, the Most Gracious, holds this terror before the eyes of His disciples, when He says Matth. 10.Fear him who, after he has killed, has power to cast into hell fire, lest anyone should think that poor sinners are not concerned in this matter, who do not yet repent, nor have any intention of repenting; and what can be more useful to them than this fear, which (as the Scripture says) "casteth out sin"; and he who is without fear may not be justified. Therefore, not only do you take away the fear of the last judgment and of punishment from repentance (which fear is the best way for us to escape from the snares of sin), but also (so that we may persist in our sins all the longer out of faith) you must completely remove all fear from the love of God, even though the Scripture says: "The fear of God is the beginning of love. Yes, it also afflicts us (as I said above) Isa. 25: "Unless you always keep to the fear of God, your house will soon fall down." The Scripture is not silent about how great power fear gives to faith: "Those who fear the Lord," says Sir. 2, "will not disbelieve His words; those who fear Him will seek the things that are pleasing to Him. How the Scriptures

teaches that wisdom also is to be raised by fear; "for the beginning of wisdom" (says Ps. 111. Prov. 9. Sir. 1.) "is the fear of the Lord." So now you see how the holy Scriptures, of which, as you forgive, you think so much, attribute fear (which you thus diminish) not only to wisdom and faith, but (since we are still on the way and pilgrimage) also to love, and indeed not unreasonably; for he who, out of fear of the last judgment, has begun to avoid and shun sin (which alone had turned his mind away from God) must, for necessity's sake, become the more skillful. Therefore, when the prophet noted the usefulness of this so needy fear, he asked not only that it be given to him badly, but that it be driven into him strongly and shot through with a feeling of pain. "Shoot through or fasten on" (he says Ps. 119, 120.) "my flesh with your fear, for before your judgments I have shunned." And why did God want to admonish us, to frighten us with hell and its torment? Because only that the fear of its torment and torture would be like a halter or bridle, by which he would turn men from sin and draw them to himself, drawing them by his love and favor.

011 For this reason, and because it is quite known and evident that thou annulest this fear, and openly impugnest good works, and despisest the satisfaction of penitents; how then dost thou act so impudently as to write that thou buildest love upon thy faith? when we have publicly proved, and that with your own clear and bright words, that you build on your faith nothing but evil works, because you teach that faith alone without works is enough, and despise good works, being a great teacher and cause to dare all things freshly without fear, because you promise that all sins will be swallowed up in a moment by faith alone, before you discuss faith when you write: It could by no means be faith, except a living and undoubted delusion, by which a man is certain, beyond all certainty, that he is pleasing to God, and that he has a gracious God who forgives him all things that he does or acts. With which words you forgive a very proud faith, and advise that a sinful man should thus pardon himself, as if he were not only certain of divine grace and favor in himself, but also certain of it in God, and as if he were God's own joy or pleasure, in such great favor with him that he should not forgive him.

396 82 Henry VIII's. Reply to Luther's epistle. W. xix, 488-49." 397

could be angry with whatever great vices he displays: as if God had promised freedom from all sin for the single merit of faith; perhaps because faith (as you write in the "Babylonian prison") swallows up all sin in an instant.

(12) But as much as this hopeful and idle faith is pleasing to you alone, it was displeasing to the ancient fathers. That is why St. Isidore says: In vain does he flatter himself of mere faith, who does not practice good morals. St. Augustine also writes the same, and immediately takes a cause from the interpretation of the word fides; that is, faith (he says) is called by the word fit (that is, it happens). Two syllables, if one speaks, are fides; the first comes from doing, the other from speaking: therefore, if I ask you whether you believe? and you say: yes, I believe; ei, so do that which you say: then fides, that is, a faith, becomes of it. But what are the words of your patron, from whom you have now shamefully fallen away as a fugitive, valid for you? or what old father's words are valid for you, because you destroy them all and are allowed to argue against them, that there is no other way to faith, indeed that there is no other faith, but only that which you falsely discuss and interpret? Even though you want to take it as if it were adorned with love, you can never maintain it before the scholars who know what Christian faith is, because you make your faith so lacking in good works and so devouring sin that it gives the bad guy the rotten security of the shameful evil life. For contrary to this, the holy apostle Gal. 5. holds this to be true faith in adults, "which worketh by love"; so saith St. John, Cap. 14: "he that loveth God hath also his commandments, and keepeth them." So that, according to both of them, one from faith, the other from love, you should turn away from evil and do good, and not persist in this idle, hopeful faith, by which you are sure of all certainty that you please God, and that he must praise and forgive you for all that you do. If this were so, the good and (as God Himself testifies) so righteous pious man Job, since there was no equal of him on earth, would not have been so fearful as to say, Cap. 9: "I am afraid of all my works, for I knew that you would not spare the sinner."

(13) I confess that you write that faith must be alive, but it cannot be alive without love; so (as the evangelist says) he who does not keep the commandments of God does not love, John 14, and no one who has grown up and come to reason and does not strive in good works keeps them. From this it follows that your faith, which despises good works, cannot be alive, but is bad faith, like that which the apostle Jacob condemns in Cap. 2, when he says, "Faith without works is dead."

(14) Fuerder, where that is true which thou affirmest in the discourse of the ten commandments themselves, namely, that the commandments of God, first of all the ninth and tenth, may by no means be kept by anyone, however holy he may be (against which Christ seems to me to hold, since he says Matt. 11: "My yoke is easy, and my burden is light"), and if God is not loved, his commandments are not kept, and there is no life of faith where love is not involved. says: "My yoke is easy and my burden is light"), and if God is not loved, His commandments are not kept, and there is no life in faith where love is not present: do you not see how from your own words the speech again comes to the conclusion that the faith you want to consider alive cannot be alive, nor may it be?

15. But as you write these things, you make it clear enough where you want to go: For your books leave no one in doubt that among these two you intend and want to contend for one thing, namely, that you either persuade us of the hopeful and dangerous faith, from which trust anyone who relies on it needs to do good works, and make faith a thorn or spur to sin all the more freely than he who believes that it alone will swallow up all sins, however great and horrible they may be. Against which faith (where such intemperate hope may otherwise be called faith 1) the holy Scripture, Sir. 37, cries out strongly, "O thou mischievous presumption, who created thee?" Or do you raise faith so high to the top (though you cover the matter with words), so that few or none of them may come up, and you bring the common people into another and disgusting vice, namely, into despair of attaining salvation and faith; which despair, once it is rooted in, and the care to live rightly and well is completely laid aside, falls upon all the pleasures of the flesh, as the apostle writes Eph. 4: "Despairing, they have given themselves up to the unpleasantness of life.

1. In the old edition: for one faith.

398 XIII Luther's Dispute with Henry VIII. W. xix, 490-493. 399

chastity, to work all impurity." To which saying also falls that which is read in Job on the 15th: He does not believe (deceived by forgiven error) that he can be redeemed with some reward.

16. Therefore it is public enough in the day that your doctrine is wicked and most wicked, which shuns all means, and gives no credence to the promise, but either to that which even a blind man would see to be wicked, or to that which even an angel would scarcely reach, and that you seek nothing else by these two means, but that either the certainty of the attained faith, or else the despair of attaining it, plunges men into the freedom of a sinful life, which you alone endeavor to introduce under the appearance of evangelical freedom, nor do you build any other love on your faith.

(17) But that you write that you also base obedience to the temporal rulers on faith: who cannot consider this impertinent and ridiculous, since no one is hiding how stubbornly you teach that a Christian is not bound by any human law, of which the rulers are servants and executors? If you also despise all the holy Concilia, in which heresy you have continued so harshly that you, along with other wicked heretics, have burned the saints quite publicly and mockingly, the peasants, awakened by your admonitions, have resisted the rulers with heaps, to their own wretched murder, and to your eternal shame and disgrace.

18. how would you say (if there were some shame in you) that you build on faith the crucifixion of the body of sins, when you build on your dead faith the neglect of prayer, the contempt of feast days, the omission of fasting days, the violation of chastity, and finally all these things, so that Christians, partly from the commandment of Christ himself, partly from the approval of the Christian church, use to crucify the body of sins.
19. about this, how are you not ashamed to speak, that you teach and exhort people to crucify the body of sins? because you so obstinately teach this accursed heresy, that no one has power nor liberty of his will, so that he may do no good. For who will undertake to do what is good? or will care what he does that is evil? who has himself once wholly imagined that he is neither sufficient for himself, nor could cooperate with the grace of God in doing what is good, or in doing anything, and that

Even the evil deed that is done by him is not his, as in which he does nothing at all out of his will, but in which the eternal and unchangeable necessity of the divine will (which he could neither promote nor hinder) works all things.

(20) This very worst of all heresies that have ever arisen, and which also blasphemes the justice of God in the most dreadful way, seems to me to be the root from which all sins spring, which your mob commits in such a manifold and harmful way, which mischievous audacity (so that they will not shy away from anything out of the conscience of their unrighteousness) you diligently take upon yourself to arm yourself with the excuse of the unalterable necessity of the divine will. Which false opinion you also take care to disguise and color with some passages of Scripture, some of which are obscure in themselves, some of which are publicly misrepresented by you, some of which also show the contradiction clearly enough, which you insolent one nevertheless shout that they are clear and bright for you. In what matter, where thou hast any drop of sense or shame, I marvel at thy presumption, that thou mayest preach such an abominable heresy against so many words of the holy fathers, against the consensus of all ages or times of the whole Christian church, against so many innumerable, evident, clear and bright passages of holy scripture, that they leave no color at all to the adversary; Which, because the Scriptures are full everywhere, it would be in vain to recount many here, but let us be content with one or two as an example. For what can be clearer than these most plain words, Deut. 30: "I have set before you life, and good, and blessing, and punishment: therefore know thou life, that thou mayest live, and thy seed"? Dear one, how is the choice given to us, where freedom is denied to us? Or how can the choice stand with necessity? Because in the person of God (who puts punishment and reward for good and evil at the door of man's will) it is publicly said to man: "He has set before you water and fire; stretch out your hand to whichever you wish. Item: "Before man there is life and death; whichever he pleases, that shall be given him," Sirach 15? What does the will do here? what does the stretching out of the hand do, if he has no free will? To what end did John the Baptist exhort the Jews to repent? Matth. 3. Why did Christ tell the adulteress to sin no more? John 8: For what purpose did he command men to keep his commandments, when they keep them neither for themselves?

400 82 Henry VIII's. Reply to Luther's epistle. W. XIX, 493-495. 401

nor with the help of his grace may contribute something to the attitude of the same?

(21) Since God told man that good and evil were in their hands, did He tell them true or false? If you argue that he spoke falsely, you subtract faith from all his promises, in which alone you want to place salvation. Again, if you confess that he has spoken truly, you must also confess that you have spoken falsely, because you publicly teach the contradiction. Therefore, in this matter there is no further question to be asked, except: whether one should believe Christ or you? you then want to say - as nothing can be so strange or oddly conceived that you (where you are a little stout) are not allowed to speak - that God has spoken these words in a joke. Such, however, does not befit the valor of His Majesty; He spoke especially seriously in this matter, indicating to them the freedom of the will, as a certain cause that they would be justly punished if they did contrary to his commandments, so that he openly declared, without doubt, that there was no guilt in his righteousness, so that no one would take such an ungodly opinion of his mercy, nor be persuaded of that which you are now publicly preaching, namely, that the most gracious God is of such a tyrannical nature that he torments even the poor man, who has done nothing wrong, with a horrible and unending torment, solely to satisfy the tyrannical desire to torment people.

22 Because of this, and because you have fallen so deeply into the well of this poisonous heresy, that you may think this of God, which no pious man would lead into his mind to think or believe, not only of any pious man, but also of no one who would be moderately wicked, I consider that no further proof is needed of how dilapidated the building is that you have built on the watery foundation of such an unbelieving faith. Nor have these heresies of yours inspired the opinion that I would have thought to dispute them, for I recognize them in such a way that one would like to raise so much against each of them that one would fill not only a letter, but also several large books with them. Thus they have long since been so publicly overcome, so justly condemned everywhere, and so annoying to all pious and Christian people to hear that they should no longer be disputed and much less believed, even if an angel preached them from heaven,

because they are so utterly repugnant to the gospel and faith that Christ has taught His Church for so long.

(23) But even if they were as disputatious and doubtful as they undoubtedly are against you, I have long ago resolved that I would not dispute with you any further, having experienced how you, without all reason, give yourself entirely to frivolous bickering and quarreling. From which time on I decided (which I also want to keep), as far as the quarreling with words is concerned, to leave your lost head to its own malice and to let it manage its own. Although I see that there was no lack of others who answered from England and other places to what you wrote against me, and some also adorned you according to your merit, and dealt with you with your own arts, only that they used reason in addition to the spiteful words with which you alone disputirst. To them you have not yet answered anything at all, and would certainly not have remained silent for so long if you (who have so often overcome in public) had not been crushed by shame. But where your insolence will again move you to write, I am sure that someone will be found from among them who will once again denounce you. But for myself, I truly do not want to write to you anymore, nor would I have written to you now, if I had not been moved by the deceitful advice of your letter, by which you subsequently claim that your followers believe that I have begun to fall to the part, to which you would nevertheless have received a short answer from me; I would not have touched any of your heresies if you had not so insolently pretended that you teach nothing else than that men must be saved by the faith of Jesus Christ, and based on this love for one's neighbor, obedience to the worldly rulers, and crucifixion of the body of sins. For this your so impudent presumption has forced me to bring forth one or two of your erroneous doctrines, that every one may the more easily see that they are much of another kind, than some of those things of which you so falsely boast that you alone teach them.

(24) Nevertheless, I have not yet mentioned your other heresies, which sufficiently show the insolent presumption of your vanity. For since you condemn the solitary chastity of priests, reject holy consecration, mix up the bread with Christ's Corpus Christi, and so horribly violate the canon of the holy mass, you are not yet able to show the truth of your heresies.

402 XIII Luther's Dispute with Henry VIII. W. xix, E-4S8. 403

You call women confessors, and grant them all the sacraments, and call them consecrators of Christ's Corpus Christi; you make so little distinction between the immaculate God-bearer and your whore, you blaspheme the holy cross of Christ, and teach that there is no purgatory, but that all souls sleep until the day of judgment, so that you give people hope that their torment will be long delayed, so that the wicked may sin all the more freshly: Because thou teachest these and a thousand other impudent heresies, art thou not afraid to write of thyself, that thou teachest nothing else, but that man must be saved through the faith of Jesus Christ? since you do nothing else in the truth, except that you might eliminate the faith of Christ, who, if he had come to teach the things you now teach, would not have come to turn men away from evil, nor would he have been (which he was) a master of virtue, but a public patron of vices, which, far from being true of him, he has given in this a noticeable enough indication, that he suffered such a cruel torture on the cross, that he might redeem us from the chastisement of sins. If there were any shame in you, you would not be able to teach such things: 1) How can I then tolerate that you write such things to me? since you know well that I have not only read these unchristian heresies of yours in your books, but also, according to the knowledge of highly learned people, have overcome many of them. . 25 Since this is the case, it is a wonder to see how impudently you fall on it again and desire to be "heard", as if you had never been heard before, and act as if you are surprised that you should be condemned, unheard and unconquered. Have you, Luther, never been interrogated by the most reverend father and Cardinal Sancti Sixti, the Pope's legate in Germania? have you never been allowed to dispute publicly? Have you not been interrogated in Saxony in the presence of the public 2) scribes? Have you not been heard more than too much by the whole world with your unchristian and blasphemous books, which, scattered everywhere, have spread the pestilential poison of your heresies far and wide? Nor are you ashamed to complain that you have not yet been heard, but-

1. In the old edition: redeemed, now that there is any shame in you, how can I endure it that 2c.
2. Walch: open.

of all things have been condemned without being conquered. But as far as your condemnation is concerned, you may well sleep securely, if you do not want to be condemned in any other way, if you are overcome first, so that you yourself confess to be overcome; otherwise you have truly been overcome often enough, "also by some other highly learned men and also by us, which not only the most learned all testify, but also the holy apostolic see has judged and recognized. Which, even though you do not want to recognize it in the face of hope, you yourself confess sufficiently by the fact that you have not found anything so far that you would be responsible for, except frivolous gossip and malicious words.

26. But if I, Luther, were to understand nothing at all of the matter for which you are condemned, I could certainly not doubt it, for you would be rightly condemned, since I see that the highest bishops with the whole collection of the most venerable cardinals have condemned you, which justice and respectability no pious person should suspect for the sake of a monastic brother's frivolous gossip, who rages and rages intemperately because he has been condemned, first of all because he is such a one for whom no reasonable cause is sufficient, who is not moved by any testimony of Scripture and who does not believe anyone but himself, whom 3) he also believes alone in all things, against the counsel of the wise man who writes Proverbs 3. 3: "Thou shalt not be wise in thyself." Which generation of men, as of a desperate kind, this is, note from Sirach 26: "Thou hast seen" (saith he) "a man that thought himself wise, but the unwise man hath more to hope for than he."

27 Since I also saw that many of your heresies were condemned with the agreement and consent of several highly famous high schools, why should I hold so many and such great men's judgments suspect, even though I myself (as I said) understood nothing at all about the matter they had discussed, since one of them was also the most renowned school in Paris, in whose opinion and judgment you had promised to remain. But after you noted that your errors were so obvious that nowhere was there a pious and learned man in whose knowledge you might place your trust: on the day at Worms, where the emperor condemned you with all the counsel of the rulers, you well addressed yourself to the people.

3. Walch: which.

404 82 Henry VIII's. Reply to Luther's epistle. W. xix, 498-5oo. 405

But to submit that which would be disputed to any man's judgment, who would decide whether you were right or wrong, you have most vehemently refused and rejected.

28. Because I see you as such a one, and act in such a way that you will neither grant into other judges, nor obey those whom you had promised to obey, and neither spare nor fear imperial majesty's judgment (who had so many highly learned men in his council), nor the apostolic chair and holy assembly's sentence, but as a wicked scoffer appeal to the next common council, and then not even badly to the next one, but a secret passage by which you may escape, namely, that which will be most closely gathered in the Holy Spirit, so that you, in which you would be condemned, may always say that the Holy Spirit was not present, and yet as soon as afterwards despise all common conciliums, so that no one may doubt that you will finally be obedient to no one at all; Since you (I say again) hold yourself in such a way, how should the verdict passed against you be suspicious to me, if I understood nothing about the whole business, nor heard anything different?
29. But now, since I understand your matter as it is in itself, namely, vain obvious and undoubted heresy, of which I have told you several, just as you then pretend: You are astonished that you have not been heard so far, so we are even more astonished how you could speak this and that someone could be found who wants to hear you, as if the obdurate impudence of a monastic brother were reason enough that one must first doubt whether the things are finally true, which the whole common Christian church holds to be articles of faith and has always believed and held for more than fifteen hundred years, as seems clear from the teachings of Christ and his apostles, as well as from many blessed teachers 1) of the church, each of whom wrote in a different time and place than the other, and yet all of whom have been united in one faith, from the birth and passion of Christ until your unfortunate preaching: Which most holy fathers and approved interpreters of the holy scriptures, because thou despisest their writings, I can see no cause at all why thou shouldest desire that they should believe thine, or what fruits thy writings may bring us, which the approved interpreters of the holy scriptures have given us.

1. In Walch: "Teachings.

Teaching of all holy men from so many years ago are so quite repugnant.

(30) Therefore, if you write that the gospel and the glory of God would have great hope of not a little fruit from it, where you have been given free power to write to us about the business of the gospel, you would indeed have to take away everything that you have given or written so far, and write far differently, because close to everything that has been written by you so far, or, as I can note from your letter, you will still write from now on. For from the things that you have written to this day, the gospel of Christ has received no fruit at all, so that from the pestilential air of your poisoned mouth, much beautiful fruit has departed from it, and the most lovely and fruitful vine, which had ripened and grown to the sweetest fruit, where this caterpillar would not have crawled over it and eaten it away, has been spoiled.

(31) That you now again like to desecrate and blaspheme the Roman churches and their priests so frivolously is not my opinion, to quarrel with a monastic brother about this matter. But as they always are, you truly show yourself enough what kind of man you are. But since you want to be considered a perfect evangelist, you would do much better if you had learned from the Gospel to pull the beam out of your own eye before you attack the splinter in someone else's. You should also diligently try to be a good evangelist. You should also diligently judge, in the case of those who murmur and hurl abuse out of envy and malice, in the case of Moses and David, what end must await those who revile those to whom they are indebted to be submissive and obedient with reverence. Also, if you think that the church is wavering a little, you should learn to moderate yourself and be careful not to be so insolent and impudent that you presume to attack it so boldly and want to guide it with your crooked and impudent fingers, lest God teach you morality and remind you of your office, just as he taught him who presumed to lay hands on the sinking ark of the covenant 2 ).

32. Although there is no doubt that you have a desire to rage against the Roman court so frivolously, your teaching and your life both testify sufficiently that the reported court (even if it were as bad as you make it) could still not displease you, since the most important things of all are also in your hands.
33. In Walch: "Archen des Gelübdniß.

406XIII Luther's Dispute with Henry VIII. W. xix, 500-503. 407

The most wicked boys and apostates, who despise their vows, throw away a better life, abandon spiritual practice, and completely surrender themselves to the pleasures of the flesh, are the most pleasing to you, and in turn the pious and spiritual people (who would have chosen to spend all their lives in divine service with prayer, fasting, and chastity) are miserably driven out of their monasteries and houses daily by you and your wicked mob, fasting and chastity) are daily and miserably driven out of their monasteries and houses by you and your wicked mob, and the holy temple, which was ordained for the venerable company and company of virgins, is now given over to the impure harlots to defile and desecrate. But does this not prove more than enough that you hate no one because he is a scoundrel, but that you are truly hostile to all those who are pious and love virtue, that is, those who are opposed to your ways and teachings? So indeed you murmur against the Roman see for no other reason than that you see, and are therefore angry, that your ungodly heresies have been condemned by it, so that it may not answer you unkindly: your murmuring and crying is not against us, but against the Lord, Exodus 16.And if the reported chair lifts up its eyes in Christ (instead of which it decays 1) and is graciously heard against your presumptuous hope, it will cry out: Those who think themselves great and boast of their power, you humble them; for hardly anyone was ever born who ascribes so much to himself, and yet by right so little is due to him, as you ascribe to yourself, and you, 2) if you were so wise as your good judgment has persuaded you, you would not have sent yourself into revenge, so that you, punished by the supreme bishop, would have taken it upon yourself more to murmur against it than to improve yourself because of it. A wise and chaste man does not murmur when he is punished, Sirach 10. Therefore I hold it completely for this, because you please yourself so well 3) and think yourself wise in your eyes, you will recently feel how that rhymes with you, which the apostle said to the pagan philosophers Rom. 1: "They have become vain in their thoughts, and their unwise heart is darkened; and saying that they were wise, they have become fools."

So your arrogance grows, that you now count yourself very rich in friends with great fame, previously great princes in German lands,

1. In Walch: "vorweiset".
2. Instead of "and you" in Walch: "which".
3. Walch: sowol.

who, as you boast, are on your side. But I believe that you will find out how true it is that God, in the secret revelation, has threatened a man who (if you do not overpower him with malice) would be very much like you, "you say" (he says), "I am rich and powerful, and may do nothing, and do not know that you are wretched and miserable, poor and blind. (I am rich and mighty, and may do nothing, and know not that thou art wretched and miserable, poor, blind, naked and bare. Revelation 3. But I believe for certain that not long after this Christ, which gospel you presume to extinguish (though you pretend great favor), according to the kindness he bears to his church, will appoint you 4) some hussy by which he will break the horns and crest of your foolish hope, and leave you so bare of friends, 5) as he has now forsaken you of his grace, because you, so often and so graciously offered to you by it yourself, always cast it out for and for and throw it away, yes, he has also now long begun to prove this to you noticeably, where your hopefulness has not so blinded you that you do not want to notice it; For although you boast very much that you have the favor of great princes, the matter proves the contradiction of that, that the poor wretched peasants, so seduced by your doctrine, have been slain with their pernicious harm and miserable defeat, by the power and victories of the most noble princes, who, with the highest reward from God, and praise and honor of all pious people, have resisted your rebellious mob and sect.

34. But that you say that it is no wonder that the emperor and some princes persecute you, and allegirst that from the prophet, "the nations have raged, and the peoples have begun useless things, the kings have come together, and the princes have united against the Lord, and against his anointed ones", these words fall on your head, if what you say is true, the German people and princes stand with you, because there is no doubt that your whole group and following is opposed to Christ, so let whoever wants to join you; But he that dwelleth in heaven shall laugh them to scorn, and the LORD shall mock them. 2. as he has now proved long enough, since more than seventy thousand or so of those who have sworn to your sect (in vengeance of God, who sends the princes to them) have been slain in a few months.
35. but that you so sacredly desire that God may so cooperate with your words with me that I may be converted by a miraculous sign to the gospel.

4. In Walch: "the".
5. Walch: befriend.

408 82 Henry VIII's Response to Luther's Letter. W. nx, sog-sos. 409

I freely confess that I am favorable to the gospel, and that this mind has not only always been with me, but also grows daily; but because I do not know that you mean the matter as if all those were unfavorable to the gospel who are not inclined to your sect; because I also know that God does not use miraculous signs against the faith of His Son, before the devil does such a miraculous sign in me, that I become favorable to your ungodliness from the bottom of my heart, under the name of the Gospel: I would truly rather that you, Luther, and all of yours be led beforehand to where you (where you do not mend your ways) shall be led in good faith.

36. But that you do me so much honor, and offer yourself so mildly against me, that you should not complain (where you realize that it is to my liking) to write another book, in which you praise me mildly, and at the same time revoke all the things, and take away again, which you would have written before on the contradiction: I will very gladly do this work for you, Luther, because I am not so hungry for fame that I desire your books for my praise, but rather desire and wish something better for you, namely that you recognize your errors, revoke your heresies, and improve yourself at times, and return to the faith, and thus prove it with writings and good works, so that you may give praise and glory to God. Otherwise, when you continue (as you have begun) with your ungodly heresies and evil lives, you truly cannot praise me more and more vehemently than when you reproach me. And again, more and uglier you cannot revile me, than if you exalt me to the highest you are able, where else that is true (which is certainly true), as it is read in Seneca: So shameful shall it be to thee, if thou be praised by shameful men, as if thou wert praised for shameful things.
37. Therefore, when you write that you are very ashamed of your book, which you wrote against me, and lay the blame on other people, I do not know which ones, whose blowing you followed and humbly fall at my feet and ask for mercy, hoping that because I know myself to be mortal, I will not want to carry immortal enmity with me; Truly, Luther, although you, holding yourself in such high esteem, have always considered yourself a great man, that you have not been ashamed to confess in your writings that you are not alone, but want to be from now on, not only while you live, but also after your death, "yes,

even if you were burned to ashes and thrown into a thousand seas," a mortal enemy of the pope, which height, how far kings depart, is unknown to me: yet I have never considered you so great that I ever intended to be your enemy, even though I am as hostile to your heresy as anyone else can be to it. Nor have I ever been so moved by any of the insults with which you have recklessly raged against me that you could not have asked me to do so with much less prayer than you are now using, if you meant the matter from the heart and amicably. But since I see that you proudly scatter these humble pleas of yours everywhere in defense of your heresy, I, Luther, am not so blind that I do not see and understand sufficiently 1) where this deceitfulness of yours (which you have not hidden wisely enough) is leading. By which you (although you do not refrain from your foolish blasphemy) diligently endeavor to gain favor and free power with us by flattery, that you might write to us of your heresies under a semblance of evangelical commerce, just as if 2) this had been done with our favor. But if the German princes had so well noted and foreseen the opinion and end of your undertaking as soon as in the beginning (God wanted it to happen), you would certainly not have been able to cause them so much harm under the appearance of freedom.

38. Therefore, just as you, Luther, with fictitious words ask me to forgive your guilt against me through the holy and venerable cross of Christ (which, how honestly it is held by you, your writings sufficiently indicate, in which you not only act unchristian and blasphemous, but also wantonly and with insufferable levity), so I again truly and from the heart admonish you to fall down not before me, but before the feet of God, and by his grace (which is always ready for those who do not wantonly cast it out) with requests for the freedom of your will (which you, I do not know whether you do this more out of foolishness or out of 3) malice, even deny) diligently , so that you may obtain 4) the help of divine graces, and if this is bestowed upon you by your petition and increased by steadfastness of humble prayer, then make every effort to cooperate with it in such a way that you first do away with any

1. With Walch: "versehe".
2. With Walch: "we".
3. Walch: also.
4. These insertions seemed necessary to make sense.

410 Erl. 30, s. XIII: Luther's dispute with Henry VIII. W. XIX, 505-507. 411

again into a monastery, the poor woman (who would have been a bride of Christ), of whom you now, to damn you both, abuse yourself under the name of a conjugal being according to your sinful lust. But all your life you would lament and weep for the manifold errors into which you have fallen, the great pile of evil and wickedness that your books have caused in so many places, and the miserable damage to so many innumerable bodies, which have been miserably deprived by your adverts, but above all and before that, the miserable and unending torment of the poor souls, of whom your evil teachings have plunged countless numbers into hell, and God wanted you to have so much grace and strength of spirit, that no terror, no peril, nor no fear of death would be able to ward you off, that you would not freely let yourself in among the heaps and, speaking the truth publicly, condemn and curse your shameful heresies yourself, with which you have poisoned the world with words, and even more 1) with your deadly pen, and yet have not yet exhausted them, but keep the most atrocious filth of the same quat 2) hidden in your heart. How much freer and bolder you would do this, how much better you would do it, and how much more you would thereby pander to the gospel, to which you have hitherto been so harmful, and would do enough with it.

1. Walch: less.
2. Quat-^Koth.

for what you have so wickedly committed; But if you do not have so much grace, and the stupidity of the flesh prevents you, that for fear you may not at present recant your heresies and errors to those whom you have vexed with them, then do not be ashamed to follow the apostle Peter (though you despise his followers), and therefore, if you may not confess the truth to them, and deny and conspire against Christ, come out from among those whom you (in whom you are not like St. Peter) have yourself made wicked. Peter), and bitterly weep over your sin, and turn yourself away to some spiritual monastery, where you may have recourse to the Borne (3) of grace and forgiver of sins, that is, to Christ, and do salutary penance for your committed sins, where you may also recant your errors, for the salvation of your soul and without all danger to the body. There, with recantation and lamentation of your poisonous heresies and blasphemous misdeeds, procurire and procure for yourself forgiveness of your past sin with the open sinner's humble and not so proud hope, mind, word and heart through wholesome fear of constant repentance. What transformation and correction of you and others, according to your example, I would truly much rather hear, because I have heard so far unwillingly, you and through you so many miserably corrupt.

3. Walch: the Bornen.

*83 D. Mart. Luther's Response to the King of England's Blasphemy Title. )

February 1527.

To the King of England's blasphemy title D. Mart. Luther's Answer.

1. a booklet has now gone out against me, a poor sinner, in this new year, under the name of the King of England, together with my letter, which I had so humbly written to the same King; for this I have not without cause, nor not without reason, written to the same King.

was moved by small people. Now it is certain and there is no doubt that such booklet was not made by the king himself, and it should be quite secret who made it, but so that one should grasp the master in his words, who he is. 4) He also touched

4. Luther considers Erasmus to be the author, as can be seen from the letters given in the appendix under No. 2 and 3.

*This writing appeared first, probably already in February 1527, with Hans Weiß in Wittenberg; then in the same year without indication of the printer. Translated into Latin, it is found in the Latin Wittenberg edition, Dom. II, lol. 534 (with the date 1525 reversed). Then it is also translated into Low German. In the editions it is found in German: Wittenberger (1553), vol. VI, toi. 448; Jenaer (1556), vol. Ill, col. 361 d; Ältenburger, vol. Ill, p. 686; Leipziger, vol. XIX, p. 561 (also with the wrong year 1525) and Erlanger, vol. 30, p. 1. We give the text according to the Wittenberg edition with comparison of the Jenaer.

412 Eri. so, 2-t. 83. reply to Henry VIII's blasphemy. Blasphemous title. W. xix, 807-sos. 413

I have written my booklet against free will with words of shame, which Erasmus Roterodamus, one of the king's best friends, had to leave unbitten and still should leave unbitten; although he has more art and reason in one finger than the king of England with all his clowns. And despite, not only the king and Erasmo, but also their God and all devils, that they give me the same booklet rightly and honestly. But I truly do not condemn the king, because he gives so many angels 1) to such fellows yearly, that he also needs their artistry, superstition and hypocrisy, and I wish him that he would recognize what they are looking for in him. Angels may well make clever and eloquent people, as Persius says, that even the magpies should learn to talk at last, if only money were available.

I would have kept quiet about the booklet out of great pride and, as I am wont to do about such poisonous books, have a good cheerful courage, if my letter (I don't know who wrote it) had not been interpreted by such a booklet as if I had whistled at Palinodian, that is, as if I had revoked my teaching. This is not to suffer me in any way. For this does not concern my person (which should be silent and suffer), but my teaching (which should shout and throw). Here God gives me neither patience nor gentleness. Here I say no, no, no, because I can stir a vein, it displeases king, emperor, princes, devils, and whom it wills.

Help God, how accurately and with swift grasps I am sought! Am I not a noble man? Yes, indeed, in a thousand years there has hardly been a nobler blood than Luther. How so? You do the math: There have been three popes, as many cardinals, kings, princes, bishops, priests, monks, great merchants, scholars, and the whole world, who are all traitors, murderers and executioners of Luther's blood, or ever wanted to be, and the devil also with the

1. The angel lot, an English gold coin. Erasmus received an annual salary from King Henry VIII.
2. Leo X, Adrian VI and Clement VII. (Marginal gloss of the Jena edition.)

His. Fie on you, I am hostile to my own blood when I think that I should have such glorious, delicious executioners and murderers. The Turkish emperor should have such honor, not such a poor beggar as I am. But because they want to be, I must suffer such honor and make joy and play out of their anger and rage of my heart. Otherwise, this Shrovetide might not be joyful enough for me, if I had such powerful, high-born, erudite larvae and fools courting me. I do not know how to give them any other drink money this time, because of my great poverty, except that I ask them to make it more.

4 Accordingly, I do not begrudge the king of England and the devil that they become such poor, miserable beggars above me and have to mend their ways so that they may gain the praiseworthy honor from me, that is, that I have them for my masters and hucksters 3). They do not want it any other way. For as God lives, soft king or prince thinks that Luther humbles himself before him, as if his teaching repents him, and has taught wrongly and seeks mercy, he deceives himself thoroughly and makes a golden dream for himself, since he will find nothing but dirt as soon as he wakes up. For the sake of teaching, no one is so great to me, I consider him a water bubble and even worse, there will be no different.

5 Seriously, however, this is the opinion that I ask all pious gentlemen and friends in Christ, to whom perhaps the fool's book of the king of England appears with my letter, not to turn back on the title that they have printed on it with great courage, and now shout and cheer: Luther has recanted. Let them have their shouting and rejoicing and let them go as high and as far as they want. For behind great fame there is always nothing, just as many a fame has become dirt to the papists in my case. But that I should recant in secret letters something that I teach in public writings is nothing; and it should be more credible that he who is afraid rather shuns to boast of his teaching publicly,

3. d. i. Jugglers.

414 Erl. 30, 4-6. XIII Luther's dispute with Henry VIII. W. XIX, sos-512. 415

and preferred to chatter about it secretly, but I have now presented my teaching publicly for so many years, certainly enough. But these are royal and princely antics, yet so lame and loose that they might well be ashamed of them.

(6) For I was not so foolish, praise God, that I hoped my letter would remain secret with the king alone, on which they completely rely and think they have failed. Therefore, I have with all diligence reprobated 1) in the same letter, that with my humility I have not wanted to forgive anything of my teaching. And only read the same letter, where it is printed correctly, if you do not find in it that I have exempted my doctrine and reserved it in such humility against the King of England, then freely call me a wicked man, a denier and a betrayer of Christ. But if you find it inside, then you judge what kind of fellows these are, who may interpret it Palinodian 2). I once wrote a humble letter to Duke Georgen; but the little piece had to be inside, so that I would not humiliate myself for the sake of my doctrine. Not much recanting or humbling of doctrine for me!

7 In sum, my teaching is the main thing on which I defy not only princes and kings, but also all devils, and I have nothing else to keep my heart, to strengthen it, to make it cheerful and the longer the more defiant. The other part, my life and personal being, I know well myself that it is sinful and not defiant: I am a poor sinner, and let my enemies be vain saints and angels; good to them, if they can keep it. Not that I want to be such before the world and the unbelievers, but before God and His dear Christians. I also want to be pious before the world, and I am, so much so that they should not be worthy to untie my shoe laces, nor should they teach me with the truth that I live or act too close to anyone before the world, as I want to teach them. In short, I am not too humble for anyone.

1. i have the degenerate ----- i have pre-empted this.
2. d. i. Revocation.

and no one is too arrogant, just as St. Paul says: "I can be hopeful, and I can also be humble; I can lack, and I can also have enough". [Phil. 4, 12.) For the sake of my doctrine I am much, much, much too proud, stiff and hopeful for the devil, emperor, king, prince and all the world, but for the sake of my life I am also humble and subject to every child. Whoever has not known this, let him hear it now.

8 Therefore, when I was persuaded that the king of England had turned back and was inclined to the gospel, I went and wanted to excuse my person against his person. Just as every Christian, for the sake of his person and work, should humble himself before the other and ask for mercy, according to the teaching of St. Paul Phil. 2:3, Rom. 12:3: "Each one should esteem others more highly than himself," and St. Jacob Cap. 5:16: "Confess your sins to each other and pray for each other. Otherwise I would not have regarded this or any other king. What should I celebrate and ask for mercy from him whom I would have considered an enemy of God? But now that I had attacked the king of England according to his merit, since he attacks me so venomously, I wanted to keep to the teachings of St. Paul, to humble myself and ask for mercy, as another man had preached to me than before; I also thought that he would do the same toward me and show Christian humility toward me; but there is no other thought than: I am a king, so the monk is a beggar. So I have lost my humility then and am deceived, but without harm to me. He sits above, looking at the beggars with the same eyes as he looks at kings, and he may be so bold as not to look at a king and look at a beggar.

9 But it is truly right for me, and would be wrong for me to do otherwise (if I follow human suggestions) than to follow the path of cancer. My dear Doctor Justus Jonas left me no peace with an-

3. Also in this writing, the Erlangen edition reprinted three passages misquoted by Walch. Cf. Walch, St. Louis Edition, vol. XVIII, 885, note 2; vol. XXII, Introduction, p. 38 f. and in this volume Col. 240.

416 Erl. 30, 6-8. 83 Response to Henry VIII's blasphemy. Blasphemous title. W. XIX, 512-514. 417

I should attack Erasmum honestly 1) and write humbly against him. Domine Doctor (he said), you don't believe how a fine venerabilis Senex 2) he is. Similarly, the fine man Wilhelm Nesenns 3) did the same: oh, how those two praised Erasmus to me, how utterly vain an eugelian thing I had to hear and believe, although the apologia against Stapulensem 4) told me much differently. Well, how well did it succeed? I think he thanked us all well, especially the innocent, his favorable and friendly Nesenus. But a wise man should not do a little foolishness. They can be quite angry (I can see that), if they are properly hit, which otherwise teaches everyone patience, composure and litter and move up.

10 Similarly, my most gracious lord King Christian, King of Denmark, made me so full of good hope, for the sake of the King of England, that I immediately dune; 5) also did not let up with words and writings, poured me so many good words, I should only write humbly, it would create benefit 2c., until I got drunk on it, and staggered hssi myself so: Who knows then? There are twelve hours in the day, if you could make a good hour, in God's name, and win the king of England, you would be guilty of doing it, and where you should lack, you would be sinning. So I poor drunkard spit out the humble lost letter: now the swine eat it and tear me apart; and yet I wept that they were vain saints. Unfortunately, I have not kept Christ's admonition, Matth. 7, 6, "not to cast pearls before swine.

11. that I also humbled myself before duke Georgen of Saxony (is it worth it)

1. honestly - with all due honor, reverently.
2. i.e. venerable old man.
3. Wilhelm Nesen drowned in mid-1524. Cf. de Wette, vol. II, 529; vol. VI, 564 f.
4. A writing of Erasmus Wider Jakob Faber 8tnpulsuKis lw I'övrs ä'l^taplss).
5. Dietz in his dictionary of Luther's writings says that "dunen" and "dünen" (which the Jena edition offers) is the same as "dohnen" and "döhnen" - to expand, to swell. - In Low German, "duhn" is still used for "full", "drunk". - In the old Walch edition, instead of "dunete" it is "dienete," which De,Wette III, 23, note 2 also took from Walch. '

I, a simple and poor man, let my conscience be impressed upon me, so that I would not be the cause of such harm and hindrance. Then I also met with great success. At Augsburg An. 1518 I also had to humble myself, when the Cardinal thought that I was crowning to the cross and already shouted: Io Triumph!

12. in Worms An. 1521, the more I humbled myself, the less became of it. Wouldn't it be better, 6) if I also humbled myself before the Elector of Brandenburg? Or what harm would it do if I recanted in the same way before the Dukes of Bavaria and the Archduke Ferdinand? I hope that such a court soup 7) will also be given to me; it would have been easy for someone to whistle at me if I had done so; so it would also serve me right that I would be given such a haircut 8). What do I seek sooty Cinderellas in royal and princely courts, since I know that the devil sits on top and is his highest throne? I will make the devil pious without his thanks, and find Christ with him: then he will give me such a reward. Come again, dear Luther, and look for another John the Baptist in the courts of kings, where they wear soft clothes; I think you will find him.
13. I am a sheep and remain a sheep, that I so easily believe, let myself be led and guided to court such noblemen, and do not rather follow my sense, that if I had given a stitch to a tyrant or high scholar, and they were angry about it, they would know how I recanted my teaching, since I know that the tyrants can take nothing but the poor maggot sack, my body, and the scholars my honor, which are otherwise not mine for a moment. The world does not want to be anything else but despised and treated with contempt, or it is fooling itself.

14 Nevertheless, I am not sorry for what I have done, because I have done it for the sake of the gospel.

6. d. i.: Should it be no good?
7. namely ingratitude.
8. i.e., a severe defeat.

418 Eri. 3o,8-io. xIII Luther's dispute with Henry VIII. W. xix, 514-S17. 419

I have done service, which I do and want to do more by God's grace, and I am very pleased that such a heartily good simple opinion of me has happened, and is accepted so shamefully and blasphemously by the world. For this is a sure sign to me, how it pleases God so well, who does not want to have it repaid here on earth, but rather rolled, tortured, crucified (as befits a Christian work). What comes from God must be received in the world. His own Son was also received in this way. But the verdict is that we lose nothing in it, but gain everything; they gain nothing in it, but lose everything.

(15) I have done my part, and am innocent of their blood and damnation. And if it could go without harm to their souls, I would like nothing better than for everyone to deal with me as they do: for this is my food, and I grow fat on it, and I also fear that I would have pined away like a spider long ago, if the blasphemers had not strengthened and sustained me so. It is said: Omnia cooperatur Spiritus in bonum electis, Rom. 8, 28. That is so much said: my enemies' anger and rage is my joy and delight, despite that they resist me or turn it against me.

16 All this is not without cause. For if we believe that our Lord Jesus will judge us all on the last day, how can a more wretched man be than Luther, if he is wrong and teaches falsely? Such faith in judgment will certainly not leave him many good hours. Again, how can a more blessed man be than Luther, if he is right and teaches Christianly? Such faith in judgment cannot leave him many evil hours. Since it is certain that either Luther or they must burn and roast eternally in the hellish fire, those who are certain that they are right must be happy, and those who are uncertain or know that they are wrong must be frightened. For as certain as Cain and Judah must be in hell, so certain is it, as if it were already there, that Luther or his enemies must be in hell, who are wrong; nothing else will come of it, that is known.

I forsooth. But enough of that, because you don't believe it, it is too high and too far away.

17 But I ask, advise and say to myself: How should I stand against such heads? If I write sharply and harshly, they take cause to condemn my teaching with such color and appearance that I am proud, hopeful, biting, impatient. Again, if I humble myself, they have 1) cause and say, I flee, I am afraid, I am hypocritical, my doctrine has caused me to repent and cry out. It is just as Christ says Matth. 11, 17: "If I whistle, they will not dance; if I complain, they will not mourn." They are burdocks and thistle heads, as one throws them, so they sweep the. Spikes about them and around them, and must sting. Only into the infernal hay with such flowers and fruits, there they belong. You noble, tender world, what a lovely, sweet little bit you are! Blessed be he who hungers for you.

18 But this I will do: for the sake of my person and life, I will humble myself before anyone, even a child, and ask for mercy and favor, provided they are not hostile to the gospel. For for my life nothing is due me but the abyss of hell, that I know for certain, if it is judged severely. But for the sake of my ministry and doctrine, and as long as my life is like it, let no one of patience or humility wait, especially the tyrants and persecutors of the gospel. For there they shall take me for a living saint, and nothing else shall come of it. If they do not want to, they must, as long as I am attached to it, help me God to the end, otherwise it is lost. Yes, if my doctrine had no other enemies than the King of England, Duke George, Pope and their companions, poor water bubbles, I would have advised the matter long ago with a piece of the Lord's Prayer.

(19) But because there are others, I regard such enemies as young nits, which, before they become lice, must be dry, single skins. But I allow the same nits to boast and sing: Here we nits sit on the head of the noblest animal on earth, in its hair, are

1. i.e. again.

420 Erl. so, 10-12. 83 Response to Henry VIII's blasphemy. Blasphemous title. W. xix, 517-sis. 421

not of little origin. Lice are our fathers, the great giants who also killed the Roman emperor Sulla and many others: what should the beggar Luther be against us?

It is true that you are nits, but you have not yet become lice. Ah, what is the world against God and God's word? "A little dust it is" (says Isaiah Cap. 40, 15.], that is, even lesser than Nisse. What is Pilate, Herod, Annas, Caiaphas against Christ? What is Nero, Domitianus, Maximianus? What is Arius, Pelagius, Manichaeus? Exactly that, which our tyrants and high scholars shall soon also become, and Christ nevertheless remain. But the best thing in this for them and for us is that they do not believe it. If they believed it, Christ would never come to such honor, and they to such shame.

(21) But why should I be angry with the papists, who are my public enemies, and what they do to me, they do according to the law of the enemy, as they should. But these are first and foremost the innocent ones, my tender children, my little brothers, my golden friends, the red spirits and enthusiasts, who (as methinks) would not have known anything brave either of Christ or of the Gospel, where Luther had not written before, and certainly would hardly have worked their way out of the Pope's tyranny into such freedom and light by their art; or, if they could have done it, they would not have been allowed to attack it nor dare to do it.

For at the time when I stood alone in battle, having to suffer the bulls and the ban of both Popes and Emperors, as well as all the Papists, they were out of measure, bold, joyful, undaunted heroes, to remain silent and to let me work alone in the mud. But now that God has graciously helped me to give myself and them a little space, and they should stand by me and help me to carry out the dispute, as I relied on them and put them off, they fall full back on me poor, well-martyred people, and attack me more horribly than the papists do. I must be a new pope, they are the ones who preach Christ rightly. The sacraments must be used.

They have become nothing but markers, so that one draws the Christians like one draws the sheep with red heel stone.

(23) How finely I fight, I lie in the field against the papists and think that my brothers are behind me and help: meanwhile they set fire to my city and murder everything inside, and yet they boast that this is a small thing, that they do not care so much about the sacraments, that one should not quarrel about them, and they pretend to have great love, peace, unity and humility. Yes, that they forget nothing, they praise themselves, how great martyrs they are and have to suffer so much, also from Luther; but Luther suffers nothing at all, has also lost his spirit and is walking on vain roses. I think that this is quite a piece of ore, and the very rarest piece that the wretched devil could prove to me. Ah, such a morsel should taste good for a drink. Death is bitter, but life, which should see and suffer such pieces, should not be so sweet. I would not have thought that St. Paul's words would be so serious and so valid, since he speaks of false brothers; I also had to find out what kind of herb it was.

(24) I had been tempted and suffered all kinds of things until now; but my Absalom, 1) my dear child, had not yet driven out and defiled his father David; my Judas, who scattered the disciples of Christ and betrayed his Lord, had not yet done his work on me; this is now also in progress, praise be to God, and may his mercy prevail. I wondered why the verses in the Psalter were so unpalatable to me, since he says Ps. 41:10: "He who ate my bread trampled me underfoot." And again Ps. 55, 14. 15.: "You would be my companion, my keeper and my friend, who were friendly with one another in secret, we walked in the house of God in heaps." They tasted to me like rotten willows at that time: but I mean, I got cooks to season them for me.

1. By this Luther means the Sacramentarians, as can be seen from Luther's letter to Nic. Hausmann of January 20, 1526. Cf. De Wette, Vol. Ill, p. 87. This letter is included in this volume in No. 99.

422 Erl. 30, 12-14. XIII Luther's dispute with Henry VIII. W. XIX, 51S-52I. 423

and have set to the Galreden 1) that they must taste me.

25 Oh, they are the very best of friends! Does this mean that "a man's household will be his enemies"? [Why did I not understand it before? Are these the swine and dogs that turn and tear us apart when we throw sanctuary and pearls at them? Lord God, who knew it? Then, dear Squire Luther, learn another time what it means: Beware of men. Are you a doctor and want to know the devil almost well, and do not know that yet?

All together, as you are together and belong together, devils, papists and fanatics in one heap, only fresh to Luther, you papists from the front, you fanatics from behind, you devils from all ends. Hunt, hunt, drive confidently, you have the right game before you. When Luther lies down, you will have recovered and won. I can see that all is lost; no scolding, no teaching, no admonishing, no threatening, no promising, no pleading, no begging, no patience, no humility, no hypocrisy, no enticing will help; no matter how I try, turn and turn back, it does not work.

27 Well then, let the defiance be in God's name. Let him who is repulsed depart, let him who is afraid flee; my support is strong and sure enough for me, that I know. Whether the whole world would cling to me and fall away again, that is all the same to me, and I think: even before, when I was alone, it did not cling to me. Who does not want, let him leave, who does not stay, let him always go. Who holds the other here? said Rost at the neck iron. I can live and die all the more happily because I live and die with such a conscience that I have served the world for its good with all my diligence and have brought the holy scriptures and God's word to light in a way that has not been done in a thousand years. I have done my part, let your blood be on your own head and not in my hands.

1. i.e. jelly.

But I ask you once again for God's sake, if it is possible for you, do not swear to Luther, it is truly not Luther whom you are chasing; you should and must and will let Luther's teaching stand and remain, if you were ten worlds apart. My body is soon worn out; but my teaching will wear you out and devour you. Indeed, one should almost feel that my teaching is, because it has so far resisted that no one has yet been able to break it off, and has remained undaunted and unconquered before many a storm. The enthusiasts think that if they have Luther down, they will lead on vain clouds. But the papists think, and I almost believe it too, that if Luther were not there, the enthusiasts would soon become thin and crawl to the hole; they are truly standing on weak legs, as much as I have read their writings.

29. Let every pious person take this talk of mine to heart and consider that it has been necessary for me to do so, so that everyone who desires it may have a testimony of myself that I have not revoked my teaching, nor do I want to, as my enemies have done with my letter to the King of England, but rather that I may become firmer and stronger (with God's grace) in my doctrine, because both papists and enthusiasts are writing more and more lame, lazy, loose jokes to protect their error.

(30) Though many are deceived, yet thanks be to God that he gives victory to our doctrine in his multitude, and puts them to shame. All the Jews have fallen away from Christ, except for a small group, and all of Asia from Paul, except for one house, and all of Galatia as well. It is miracle enough and God's grace that eight people remained in the flood and three people in Sodom. We can do no more, if they will not listen, than to confess how we do not hold with them. May God strengthen and keep us in His grace. Amen.

424

A list of some of Luther's writings that are relevant here.

425

A list of some of Luther's writings that are relevant here:

a. About the Babylonian captivity. 1)

Luther's letter to Spalatin. August 31, 1520. Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 715.

"Of the captivity of the church there is still little printed (excusum)."

2 Luther's letter to Spalatin. Walch, old edition, vol. XV, appendix, no. 40.

"The Book of the Captivity of the Church will go out Saturday Oct. 6 and be sent to you."

Luther's letter to Michael Marx, Cistercian in Celle. 20 October 1520. De Wette, Vol. I, 517. '

"That the book of the Babylonian captivity has been banned, I don't care about that."

b. On the writing of the King of England against the Babylonian captivity and Luther's answer to it.

Luther's letter to Johann Lang. June 26, 1522. Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 798, § 5.

"They boast much of the King of England's little book, but I suspect that that Leus Edward Lee is hidden under the Lion's skin."

Luther's letter to Spalatin. Walch, old edition, vol. XV, appendix, no. 91.

"I must answer the fierce lion Lee who has transformed himself into the King of England."

Luther's letter to Spalatin. Walch, old edition, vol. XV, appendix, no. 92, § 2.

He would not proceed against the King of England in a less severe manner than in his book "against the falsely called

1. Köstlin, Martin Luther", Vol. I, p. 365 and 792, assumes that in the two letters of Luther to Johann Lang, of August 18, 1520, and to Spalatin, of Sept. 8, the word classicmm (war trumpet, sign to attack) refers to the writing "of the Babylonian captivity"; not to the writing "to the nobility", as De Wette thinks. This assumption seems untenable to us, because in the letter of August 18 it is reported that 4000 copies of the writing mentioned there are already out of print, while the writing of the Babylonian Captivity could be sent only on October 6; and not only on September 8 Luther announces the last-mentioned writing to Spalatin, but gives him already on August 31 news that still little of it is ready. Kolde, "Martin Luther", p. 266, is also of the opinion that "the war trumpet" refers to the writing to the nobility.

The Pope and the bishops", because he sees that he humbles himself in vain.

Luther's letter to Spalatin. Walch, old edition, vol. XV, appendix, no. 93.

"I knew that many would take offense at whatever I wrote against the King of England, the tasteless and poisonous Thomist. But I liked it that way and it was necessary for many reasons. Now one does not know what I am doing, but will find out later."

Luther's letter to Joh. Lang. Nov. (?) 1522. In this volume, Appendix, No. 1.

"My book against Henry of England has annoyed very many; I have wanted that. For now I have discarded the restraint which I have hitherto used in vain, and will use scolding words Against their incorrigible (deplorata) obstinacy."

c. because of Luther's humble letter to the King of England.

9 Luther's letter to Spalatin. May 15, 1525. Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 974.

Luther sends Spalatin the draft of his letter to the King of England so that he may see and note what needs to be added or changed.

Luther's letter to Spalatin. June 21, 1525. Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 977 f., § 2.

"I am returning the letter from the King of Denmark. But of the letter (libris) of the King of England I know nothing. I will also pray as much as I can, and in his time I will write; now it did not go on. You will remind me when there is time and opportunity by messenger."

d. On Henry VIII's reply to Luther's humble letter.

Luther's letter to Wenceslaus Link. About Christmas 2) 1526. In this volume, Appendix, No. 11.

"The King of England has answered me so hostilely that it has the appearance that he is glad of the opportunity to take revenge on me."

2. In Luther's time, the new year was counted from Christmas on. In Luther's "Answer to the King of England's Blasphemy Title," he says at the beginning: "in this new year 1527," that is, around Christmas 1526.

426 Erl. 27, 28. XIV Luther's dispute with Duke George. W. XIX, 522. 427

e. Concerning Luther's answer to the King of England's blasphemy title.

Luther's letter to Spalatin. February 1, 1527. In this volume, Appendix, No. 3.

"I answer the King of England (who is thought to be the larva of Erasmus) in a short letter, especially for the sake of the title on which they have represented my letter as a recantation. These blasphemies, artifices and unworthiness of the devil serve me for food and make me fat."

Luther's letter to Johann Lang. In this volume, Appendix, No. 2.

"I answer the King of England's blasphemies (if it is not those of Erasmus find), and two sheets are ready."

14 Luther's letter to Spalatin. March 11, 1527. Walch, old edition, vol. XVII, 2696.

"It is marvelous how many people, even of our own, take offense at my little book against the King of England, although it seems to me very necessary against the so great hope of the devil; but Christ will judge."

XIV Luther's dispute with Duke George of Saxony.

a. On the occasion of the Sermon on the Sacrament of the Body of Christ published by Luther.

84. D. Martin Luther's Sermon on the Reverend Sacrament of the Holy True Body of Christ and on the Brotherhoods.*)

December 1519.

A sermon, of the reverend sacrament of the holy true body of Christ and of the brotherhoods, Doctoris Martini Luther Augustiners.

First, the holy sacrament of the altar and the holy true body of Christ also has three things to be known. The first is the sacrament or sign.

The other, the meaning of the same sacrament. The third, the faith of the two; as then in any sacrament these three pieces must be. The sacrament must be external and visible, in a bodily form or shape. The meaning must be inward and spiritual, in the spirit of man. Faith must bring the two together into use and custom.

*This sermon, which belongs closely together with the two other sermons "On the Sacrament of Penance" and "On the Sacrament of Baptism" (Walch, St. Louis Edition, Vol. X, 1230 and 2112), first appeared in Wittenberg at the beginning of December 1519 with Johannes Grunenberg under the title: "Ehn Sermon von dem Hochwirdigen Sacrament, des hehligen waren Leychnams Christi. And of the brotherhoods. D. M. L. A. (Woodcut For the Fiefdoms." In the same Officin again in 1519 and in 1520 the same "Anderweht gecorrigirt". The corrections in this edition refer only to individual expressions; in addition, a short epilogue is added. These three editions just mentioned have a monstrance on the title and on the back of the title also a monstrance with a chalice in the middle. In a short time a large number of reprints appeared: in 1520 by Wolfgang Stöckel in Leipzig; by Valentin Schumann in Leipzig; by Jobst Gutknecht in Nuremberg; by Silvanus Ottmar in Augsburg; by Hans Froschauer in Augsburg; by Jörgen Nadler in Augsburg; by Martin Flach in Strasbourg; in 1522 (without indication of the printer) in Augsburg; in 1523 in Wittenberg (in octavo) and in 1525 in Zwickau. In 1524 a Latin translation was published by Thomas Wolf in Basel under the title: Ve sacramento sueUaristiae eontio cliAnissima. Item: äe kratsrnitatidus, ant soäalitiis Quatenus et Huomoäo Ü8 utendum. DIar. Imtk. Vn. v. XXIIII. Furthermore, this sermon is found in "Martini Luthers mancherley büchlin und tractetlin," edition of May 1520, p. 133 a, and edition of October 1520, p. 126 a, without the epilogue; then in the editions of Luther's works: in the Wittenberg (1554), vol. VII, p. 17d; in the Jenaer (1564), vol. I, p. 201 d; in the Altenburger, vol. I, p. 331; in the Leipziger, vol. XVII, p. 272 with the epilogue; in the Erlanger, vol. 27, p. 25 and in Löscher's Reformations-Acta, vol. Ill, p. 902 without the epilogue. Finally, in the Weimar edition, vol. II, p. 738 with the epilogue; according to this we have included the text.

428 Erl. 27, 28-30. 84 Sermon on the Sacrament of the Body of Christ. W. XIX, S22-S25. 429

The first piece of this sacrament. 1)

Secondly, the sacrament or outward sign is in the form and shape of the bread and wine, as baptism is in the water; so, however, that the bread and wine are drunk with food and drink; just as water is drunk with baptism and poured or poured into it. For the sacrament or sign must be received or ever desired, if it is to bring benefit. Although both are not given to the people every day, as in former times; nor is it necessary: nevertheless the priesthood shall eat them every day before the people, and it is enough that the people desire them daily, and receive them at the time of one form, as much as the Christian church ordains and gives.

Thirdly, it is considered good by me that the church in a common concilio again decreed that all men should be given both forms, like the priests. Not because one form is not enough, but only the desire of faith is enough, as St. Augustine says: "Why do you prepare the belly and the teeth? Only believe, and thou shalt have already partaken of the sacrament"; but that it would be quite and fine if the sacrament's form and shape or sign were not given piecemeal in part, but whole: just as I said of baptism that it would be more fitting to immerse in water than to pour with it, for the sake of the wholeness and perfection of the sign. Since this sacrament signifies a whole union and undivided communion of the saints (as we shall hear), which is shown badly and unpleasantly with a piece or part of the sacrament. Nor is there so great a danger with the chalice as is considered, because the people seldom go to this sacrament; especially because Christ, who knew all future danger well, yet willed to use both forms for all his Christians.

The other piece of this sacrament, namely the meaning of the same. 3)

Fourth, the meaning or work of this Sacrament is communion of all the Hei-

1. This caption is from the Jena edition.
2. nießen-serve a thing, use it.
3. This caption is from the Jena edition.

Therefore it is also called by its daily name synaxis, or communion, that is, fellowship, and communicare in Latin means to receive this fellowship, which we say in German: to go to the sacrament; and comes from the fact that Christ with all the saints is a spiritual body, just as a city people is a community and body, every citizen of the outer member and of the whole city. So all the saints are members of Christ and the church, which is a spiritual, eternal city of God, and whoever is taken into the same city is called taken into the congregation of the saints and made members of Christ's spiritual body. Again, excommunicare means: to do away with the community and to separate a member from this body, and that means in German: to put under ban, but differently, as I will say in the following sermon about the ban.

So this sacrament received in bread and wine is nothing else but a sure sign received of this communion and incorporation with Christ and all the saints. Just as if a citizen were given a sign, handwriting, or other slogan that he is certain to be a citizen of the city, a member of the same community. So St. Paul says 1 Cor. 10, 17: "We are all one bread and one body, partakers of one bread and of one cup."

Fifth, this communion consists in the fact that all spiritual goods of Christ and his saints are shared and become common to the one who receives this sacrament; again, all sufferings and sins also become common, and thus love is kindled and united against love. And that we remain on the rough sensual likeness: Just as in a city every citizen has in common the name, honor, freedom, commerce, custom, manners, help, assistance, protection, and the like of that city; again, all danger, fire, water, enemy, death, damage, essays, and the like; for he who wants to enjoy with, must also apply with 4) and compare love with love. Here it is seen that whoever does harm to one citizen, does harm to the whole city and to all citizens; whoever does good to one, deserves from all.

4. to apply, that is, to give a consideration, to perform something in return.

430 Erl. 27, sa-32. xiv. Luther's dispute with Duke George. W. xix, 525-527. 431

other's favor and thanksgiving. So also in the bodily body, as St. Paul says 1 Cor. 12, 25 26, when he explains this sacrament spiritually: "The limbs are careful for one another; where one suffers, the others all suffer with it; where one is well, the others rejoice with it." Thus we see that if a person's foot hurts, or even the smallest toe, the eye looks at it; if the fingers grasp it, the face bows, and the whole body bends over, and all have to deal with the small limb; again, if one is well, all the limbs are well. These parables 1) must be kept in mind if one wants to understand this sacrament. For the Scriptures require them for the sake of the simple.

Sixth, in this sacrament a sure sign is given to man by God Himself through the priest, that he shall be united with Christ and His saints and that all things shall be common, that Christ's suffering and life shall be his own, and the life and suffering of all saints. So that whoever does him harm, does it to Christ and all the saints, as he says through the prophet Zech. 2:8, "Whoever touches you touches the apple of my eye"; again, whoever does him good, does it to Christ and all his saints, as he says Matt. 25:40: "Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me." Again, man must also let be common to him all the afflictions and accidents of Christ and his saints, count them equal with them, and eat them. Let us look at these two in a different light.

To the seventh, now suffering does not do us the same counterpart. First of all, there is the remaining and lingering sin in the flesh after baptism, the inclination to anger, hatred, pride and unchastity, 2c. which affects us while we are alive. Not only do we need the help of the church and Christ to fight against it with us, but we also need Christ and His saints to stand up for us before God, so that sin will not be imputed to us according to the strict judgment of God. Therefore, to strengthen and strengthen us 2) against

1. In the Weimarschen: gleichnüß.
2. Thus the Weim. Edition. In the Wittenberg and Jena: "ermanen"; in the Erlangen: "ermahnen".

God gives us this sacrament as if He were saying: "Behold, you are afflicted with many sins; receive this sign, that I may assure you that sin does not afflict you alone, but my Son Christ and all his saints in heaven and on earth. Therefore be thou refreshed and confident; thou art not alone in thy strife: great help and succor is upon thee."

Thus King David speaks of this bread Ps. 104, 15.: "The bread strengthens the heart of man"; and the Scriptures also give this sacrament the kind of strengthening in more places than Apost. 9, 19. of St. Paul: He was baptized, and having received the food, he was strengthened. Secondly, the evil spirit torments us without ceasing with many sins and repulsions. Third, the world, which is full of wickedness, provokes and persecutes, and is not good on any side. Lastly, our own evil conscience of sins committed; item, the fear of death and the torment of hell, all of which make us weary and faint, if we do not seek and have strength in this fellowship.

Eighth, whoever is despondent, weakened by his sinful conscience, or frightened by death, or has some other affliction of the heart, if he wishes to be rid of it, he should go cheerfully to the sacrament of the altar and lay his sorrow before the congregation, seeking help from the whole body of the clergy. In the same way, 3) as when a citizen in the countryside suffers damage or an accident at the hands of his enemies, he complains to his councilors and fellow citizens and calls for help. Therefore, in this sacrament we are given the immeasurable grace and mercy of God, so that we may lay all sorrow, all affliction, on the church, and especially on Christ; and man may cheerfully strengthen himself, comfort himself, and thus say: "If I am a sinner, if I have fallen, if this or that calamity befalls me: well then, I will go to the Sacrament and take a sign from God that Christ's righteousness, His life and suffering are for me, with all the holy angels and blessed in heaven and pious men.

3. i.e. in the same way.
4. i.e. I have made a case.

432 Erl. 27, 32-34. 84 Sermon on the Sacrament of the Body of Christ. W. XIX, 527-530. 433

on earth. If I die, I am not alone in death; if I suffer, they suffer with me. All my sorrow has become common to Christ and the saints, so that I have a sure sign of their love toward me." Behold, this is the fruit and custom of this Sacrament, from which the heart must become joyful and strong.

Ninthly, if you have enjoyed this sacrament or want to eat it, then you must also bear the community accident, as has been said. But what are they? Christ in heaven and the angels with the saints have no accident, but only if the truth and God's word are harmed. Yes, all the sorrow and love of all the saints on earth befalls them (as I said). Then your heart must surrender to love and learn how this sacrament is a sacrament of love, and, as love and assistance have happened to you, show love and assistance to Christ in his neediness. For here you must be sorry for all the dishonor of Christ in his holy word, for all the misery of Christianity, for all the unjust suffering of the innocent, of which there is so much in all places of the world; here you must defend, do, ask, and, if you can no longer do so, have heartfelt compassion. Behold, this is then again bearing Christ's and his saints' calamity and adversity; there then Paul's saying Gal. 6:2, "Bear one another's burdens, and ye shall fulfill Christ's commandment." Behold, thus thou bearest them all; thus again they all bear thee, and all things are common, good and bad. Then all things become light, and the evil spirit may not stand against the church. So when Christ instituted the sacrament Luc. 22:19, he said, "This is my body, which is given for you; this is my blood, which is shed for you: as often as ye do this, remember me." As if he said, "I am the head, I will be the first to give myself for you, I will make your sorrow and your calamity common to me and bear it for you, so that you also in turn may do so to me and to one another, and let everything be common to me and with me, and let this sacrament of all this be a certain sign to you that you do not forget me, but practice it daily and remember what I have done.

I have done and do do for you, that ye may strengthen yourselves, and that ye may bear one another.

Tenthly, this is also a reason and the first reason why this sacrament is used many times, when baptism is needed only once. For baptism is a lifting up and entrance into a new life, in which many adversities are hurled at us with sins and sufferings, both our own and those of others. There is the devil, the world, his own flesh and grapes, as I said, which do not cease to chase and drive us without ceasing. For this reason we need the strength, support and help of Christ and His saints, which is promised to us in this, as in a certain sign, by which we are united and incorporated with them, and all our suffering is placed in the church.

Therefore, this sacrament is of no use or little use to those who do not have an accident, or are without fear, or do not feel their misfortune, because it is given only to those who need consolation and strength, who have dumb hearts, who carry frightened consciences, who are tempted by sins or have fallen into them. What effect should it have on the free, secure spirits who neither need nor desire it? For the Mother of God says: "He only satisfies the hungry", and comforts the afflicted.

For the eleventh reason, so that the disciples would ever be worthy and sent to this sacrament, he makes them grieve beforehand, holding out to them his departure and death, in which they suffered pain and sorrow. He almost frightened them by saying that one of them would betray Him Matth. 26, 21. f.. Since they were so full of grief and anguish, grieved with sorrow and sin of treachery, they were worthy, and he gave them his holy body and strengthened them again. From this he teaches us that this sacrament is a strength and consolation to those who 1) grieve and fear sin and evil. St. Augustine also says: "This food is sought only by a hungry soul, and nothing so nearly as a full and sated soul, which must not be. So

1. d. i. which.

434 Eri. 27, 34-36. XIV Luther's dispute with Duke George. W. XIX, 530-532. 435

the Jews had to eat the paschal lamb with bitter lactuces 1) hurriedly and standing Ex. 12, 8. 11., which also means that this sacrament snows eager, meager and sorrowful souls. Now, whoever wants to and should make Christ and all Christians' misfortunes common to him, whoever stands by the truth, fights injustice, asks for the misery of the innocent and the suffering of all Christians, will find misfortune and repugnance enough; without which the evil nature, the world, the devil and sin will be put on him daily. And God's counsel and will is also that He chases and drives us with so many dogs and prepares bitter lactuaries everywhere, that we should long for this strength and become glad of the holy sacrament, so that we may be worthy (that is, eager) of it.

In the twelfth, he will have used it many times, so that we remember him and practice his example in such fellowship. For if the example were no longer held up, the fellowship would soon be forgotten; as we now unfortunately see that many masses are held, and yet the Christian fellowship, which should be preached, practiced, and Christ's example held up to them, is completely lost, so much so that we almost no longer know what this sacrament is for and how it should be used; indeed, unfortunately, through the masses the fellowship is often destroyed and everything is perverted. This is the fault of the preachers, who do not preach the Gospel nor the Sacraments, but their human poems of various works and ways of living well. But in the old days this sacrament was practiced so well, and the people understood this fellowship so well, that they also gathered the external food and goods into the church and distributed it to those who were poor, as Paul writes in 1 Cor. 11:21. Hence the little word Collecta in the mass, that is, a common collection, like one collects a common money to give to the poor. There were also so many martyrs and saints. There

1. i.e. lettuce, salad. In the explanation of the 2nd book of Moses, Walch, old edition, Vol. Ill, 1254, § 28 it says: Salsen or bitter Lactuken". In the Weimar Bible rst to "Salsen" the interpretation is given: "a tunke, made from bitter herbs".

were fewer masses and much strength or fruit of the masses. There, one Christian took care of another, one stood by another, one had compassion on another, one bore another's burden and accident; this has now faded away and are only many masses and much of this sacrament reception without all its meaning, understanding and practice.

To the thirteenth, one finds them well, who gladly want to eat with, but do not want to apply with: that is, they gladly hear that in this sacrament they are promised and given help, fellowship and assistance of all the saints; but they do not want to be mean in turn, do not want to help the poor, tolerate sinners, care for the miserable, suffer with the suffering, pray for others; Nor do they want to help the truth, to seek the betterment of the churches and of all Christians with body, goods and honor for the fear of the world, so that they do not have to suffer disfavor, harm, dishonor or death, if God wants them to, so that they are urged to desire such great grace and strength of this sacrament for the sake of truth and neighbor. These are selfish people, to whom this sacrament is of no use, just as the citizen is untrustworthy, who wanted to be helped, protected and liberated by the community, and yet he in turn does nothing for the community, nor does he serve it. No! We must let the other's evil be ours again, if we want Christ and his saints to let our evil be theirs, then the community will be whole and the sacrament will be done enough. For where love does not grow daily and change a man so that he becomes common to everyone, this sacrament has no fruit or meaning.

For the fourteenth, to signify such fellowship, God has also instituted such signs of this sacrament, which are everywhere added to it, and with their forms provoke and move us to such fellowship. For just as the bread is made from many grains that are pushed together, and many grains become the body of one bread, in which each grain loses its body and form and takes on the common body of the bread: in the same way, the grains of wine, with the loss of their form, also become the body of the bread.

436 Erl. S7, 36-38. 84 Sermon on the Sacrament of the Body of Christ. W. XIX, 532-835. 437

The body of a common wine and drink; so shall we and are we, if we use this sacrament aright: Christ with all the saints by his love takes our form, contends with us against sin, death, and all evil, whereof we, being inflamed with love, take his form, rely on his righteousness, life, and blessedness, and are therefore by communion of his goods and our misfortunes One cake, One loaf, One body, One drink, and are all things common. O! this is a great sacrament, says St. Paul Eph. 5:32, that Christ and the Church are One Flesh and One Bone. Again, by the same love we are to transform ourselves and let ours be all other Christians' infirmities, and take their form and need upon us, and let theirs be all the good we are able, that they may enjoy the same: this is right communion and the true meaning of this sacrament. Thus we are transformed into one another and become common through love, without which no change can take place.

To the fifteenth, he has set these two species of bread and wine before others, further indicating the same union and communion that is in this sacrament. For there is no union more intimate, more profound, more sacred than the union of the food with the one who is fed. Since the food goes and is transformed into the nature and becomes one being with the fed. Other unification than by nails, glue, tape, and the like, do not make one being unseparated from the united things. So also we are united with Christ in the sacrament and incorporated with all the saints, so that he takes care of us, does for us and leaves for us, as if 1) he were who we are; what affects us also affects him and more than us; in turn, we may take care of ourselves as if we were who he is, as then it will also finally happen that we are conformed to him, as St. John says. John says 1 John 3:2, "We know that when he shall be revealed, we shall be like him": so deep and complete is the communion of Christ and all the saints with us. So our sins fence him; again, us his righteousness shields. For the

1. Thus the Wittmberg and Jena editions; Weim.: also.

Unification makes it all common, until he completely eradicates sin in us and makes us like him on the last day. So also we are to be united in our neighbors and they in us by the same love.

Sixteenthly, over all this he has not merely instituted these 2) two bodies, but has given his truly natural flesh in the bread, and his naturally true blood in the wine, that he might ever give a perfect sacrament or sign. For just as the bread is changed into his true natural body, and the wine into his true natural blood, so we also are truly drawn and changed into the spiritual body, that is, into the fellowship of Christ and all the saints, and through this sacrament are placed into all the virtues and grace of Christ and his saints, just as it is said above of a citizen who is drawn and changed into protection and freedom in the city and whole community. For this reason he has not only put on one form, but has put his flesh under the bread and his blood under the wine, so that not only his life and good works, which he displayed through the flesh and did in the flesh, but also his suffering and torture, which he displayed through his blood, in which his blood was poured out, are all ours, and we, being drawn into it, may eat and use it.

The seventeenth, from all this it is now clear that this holy sacrament is nothing other than a divine sign, wherein is promised, given and assigned Christ, all the saints with all their works, sufferings, merits, graces and goods for comfort and strength to all who are in anguish and distress, persecuted by the devil, sins, the world, the flesh and all evil, and to receive the sacrament is nothing other than to desire all of the same, and to believe firmly that it is thus done.

The third piece of this sacrament. 3)

Here comes the third part of the sacrament, that is, the faith in which the power lies. For it is not enough to know,

2. Thus the Wittenberg and Jena editions; the Weimar edition: dißer zwo gestalt.
3. This caption is from the Jena edition.

438 Erl. 27, 38-40. xiv. Luther's dispute with Duke George. W. XIL, 535-537. 439

what the sacrament is and means. It is not enough that you know it to be a communion and gracious change or mixture of our sin and suffering with Christ's righteousness and his saints; but you must also desire it, and firmly believe that you have obtained it. This is where the devil and nature struggle the most, so that faith will not stand. Some practice their art and snobbery, seeking where the bread will remain when it is changed into Christ's flesh, and the wine into his blood, even as under such a small piece of bread and wine the whole Christ, his flesh and blood, may be decided. It does not matter if you do not seek this. It is enough that you know it is a divine sign, since Christ flesh and blood is truly inside; how and where, let it be ordered.

To the eighteenth, here see that you practice and strengthen faith, that when you are distressed or driven by your sins, so go to the Sacrament or hear Mass, that you heartily desire this Sacrament and its meaning, and do not doubt it, If thou dost not doubt the meaning of the Sacrament, let it be done to thee, that is, let it be certain that Christ and all the saints come to thee with all their virtues, sufferings, and graces, to live, do, leave, suffer, and die with thee, and want to be all thine, to have all things in common with thee. If you practice and strengthen this faith, you will feel how a joyful, rich, wedding feast and good life your God has prepared for you on the altar. Then you will understand what the great feast of King AhaSveri means Esth. 1, 5. ff.; then you will see what the wedding is, when God has taken away His oxen and fatlings, as it is written in the Gospel Matt. 22, 2. ff.; then your heart will become quite free and secure, strong and courageous against all enemies. For who would be afraid of all accidents, if he were sure that Christ was with him with all the saints, and had all things in common with him, whether evil or good? So we read, Apost. 2, 46, 47, that the disciples of Christ broke this bread and ate it with great gladness of heart. Since the work is so great that the littleness of our souls could not desire it, let alone hope for it or wait for it, it is necessary for us to be able to do it.

and it is good to go to the sacrament many times, or to practice and strengthen such faith daily in the mass, in which everything lies and is also instituted for his sake. For if you doubt this, you do God the greatest dishonor and consider Him an unfaithful liar; if you cannot believe, then ask for it, as is said above in the other sermon 1).

To the nineteenth, then see that you also yield yourself to be common to everyone, and never separate anyone in hatred or anger; for this sacrament of fellowship, love and unity cannot tolerate discord and disunity. You must let others' afflictions and needs go to your heart as if they were your own, and offer your wealth as if it were their own, just as Christ does to you in the sacrament. This means to be transformed into one another through love, to become one bread and drink out of many pieces, to leave one's form and take on a common one.

Hence it comes about that offenders, judges of iniquity and other people's despisers must receive death in the sacrament, as St. Paul writes in 1 Cor. 11, 29. For they do not do to their neighbor as they seek with Christ and as the sacrament shows, do not grant them anything good, do not have compassion for them, do not accept them as they want to be accepted by Christ. Then they fall into blindness, so that they know no more to do in this sacrament than to fear and honor Christ with their prayers and devotion. When this is done, they think it is well done; but Christ gave his body for the purpose of practicing the meaning of the sacrament, communion, and the walk of love, and he gave less importance to his own natural body than to his spiritual body, that is, to the communion of his saints; he is also more concerned, especially in this sacrament, that the faith of his and the saints' communion should be well practiced and strong in us, and that we should also practice our communion well according to it. They do not see this opinion of Christ, and go daily, keep and hear mass in their devotion, remain

1. Of the Sacrament of Penance, Walch, St. Louis Edition, Vol. X, 1241, § 18.

440 Erl. 37, 40-43. 84 Sermon on the Sacrament of the Body of Christ. W. XIX, 537-840. 441

One day like the next, yes, they get worse every day and don't feel it.

Therefore, look up! It is more necessary for you to pay attention to the spiritual than to the natural body of Christ, and more necessary to have faith in the spiritual than in the natural body; for the natural without the spiritual is of no use in this sacrament, a transformation must take place and be practiced through love.

To the twentieth, there are many of them who, in spite of this change of love and faith, rely on the fact that the mass or sacrament is opus gratum opere operati, that is, such a work as is pleasing to God Himself, although those who do it are not pleasing, from which they conclude that it is nevertheless good to have many masses, however unworthily they are kept; for the harm is to those who keep or use them unworthily. I let everyone have his own mind, but I do not like such fables. For so to speak, there is no creature nor work that is not pleasing to God from Himself, as Gen. 1:31 is written: God has looked upon all his works, and they have pleased him. What fruit comes from using bread, wine, gold and all other goods badly, even though they are pleasing to God in themselves? Yes, condemnation follows. So also here: the more noble the sacrament is, the greater the harm that comes to the whole community from its misuse. For it is not instituted for its own sake, that it may please God, but for our sake, that we may use it rightly, exercise faith in it, and through it become pleasing to God. Nothing works anywhere if it is opus operaturu alone, for harm; it must become opus operantis. Just as bread and wine do nothing but harm if they are not needed, they please God in themselves, however much they may: so it is not enough that the sacrament be made (that is, opus operatuui); it must also be used in faith (that is, opus operantis). And it is to be feared that with such dangerous glosses of the sacrament strength and virtue will be turned away from us, and faith will perish altogether through false certainty of the sacrament made.

This all comes from the fact that they regard Christ as the natural body in this sacrament, rather than the community, the spiritual body. Christ on the cross was also a work done that was pleasing to God, but the Jews have fallen to this day, because they did not make it a useful work in faith. Therefore see to it that this sacrament be to you an opus operantis, that is, a useful work, and that it be pleasing to God, not for its own sake, but for the sake of your faith and good custom. The word of God is also pleasing to God in Himself; but it is harmful to me where it does not please God in me also. And in short, such chatter, opus operatum, opus oporantis, are vain words of men, more hindering than helping. And who would like to tell all the cruel abuses and misbeliefs that multiply daily in this reverend sacrament, some of which are so spiritual and holy that they could tempt an angel? Finally, whoever wants to recognize the abuses, let him only set before him the aforementioned custom and faith of this sacrament, namely, that a sorrowful, hungry soul should sincerely desire the love, help, and assistance of the entire congregation, of Christ, and of all Christendom, and not doubt to obtain the same in faith; after which, in the same love, he also makes himself common to everyone. Therefore, whoever does not hear or read mass and receive the sacrament in a proper manner, errs and does not need this sacrament for salvation. For this reason the world is overrun with pestilence, wars and other dreadful plagues, so that with many masses we only arouse more disgrace.

Now, for the first and twentieth time, we note how necessary this sacrament is for those who are to give themselves body and soul in death or other danger, that they may not only be left therein, but be strengthened in the community of Christ and all the saints. For this reason Christ also instituted and gave the same in the last trouble and peril of his disciples. Since we are surrounded by all dangers every day and must die in the end, we should thank God with all our strength, sweetly and humbly, that He gives us such a gracious sign, in which He gives us a sign of peace.

442 Erl. 27, 43-45. XIV Luther's dispute with Duke George. W. XIX, 540-543. 443

leads and draws (if we hold fast to it by faith) through death and all peril to Himself, to Christ and all the saints.

For this reason it is useful and necessary that the love and fellowship of Christ and all the saints be hidden, invisible and spiritual, and that only a physical, visible, outward sign of it be given to us. For if the same love, fellowship and assistance were public as the temporal fellowship of men, we would not be strengthened by it, nor would we be trained to trust in the invisible and eternal goods, or to desire them, but would rather be trained to trust only in temporal visible goods, and would become so accustomed to them that we would not gladly let them go, and would not follow God any further, for as far as visible and comprehensible things were before us, they would prevent us from ever coming to God; For all temporal and sensible things must fall away, and we must be completely deprived of them, 1) so that we may come to God.

Therefore, the Mass and this Sacrament is a sign/by which we practice and become accustomed to leave all visible love, help and comfort and to seek invisible love, help and assistance in Christ and His saints. 2) For death takes away all visible things and separates us from men and temporal things; so we must have the help of the invisible and eternal ones, and these are given to us in the sacrament and signs, to which we cling with faith until we also receive them sensibly and publicly.

Thus the sacrament is for us a ford, a bridge, a door, a ship and a stretcher, in which and through which we pass from this world into eternal life. Therefore, it is all a matter of faith: for he that believeth not is like unto a man that should pass over water, and is so despondent that he trusteth not the ship, and so must abide, and never be saved, because he sitteth not down, and would not pass over. This is what sensuality and unpracticed faith, to whom

1. wean - to become unweaned.
2. Here is to be bold - to trust.

the journey becomes sour over the Jordan of death, and the devil also helps cruelly to it.

The second and twentieth. This is Joshua 3, (v. 7 ff.) when the children of Israel had passed through the Red Sea with dry feet, wherein baptism was evidenced, 3) they also passed through the Jordan; but the priests stood with the ark in the Jordan, and the waters under them flowed away; which rose up above them like a mountain, wherein this sacrament is evidenced. The priests carry and hold the arca in the Jordan when they preach to us and give this sacrament, Christ and all the saints fellowship in dying or perishing. If then we believe, the waters that are under us pass away, that is, the temporal visible things do not do us harm, but flee from us. But those that are above us rise up high; these are the horrible shocks and images in death from that world; they frighten us as if they wanted to overtake us. But if we do not turn away from them, and pass by with a firm faith, we shall enter into eternal life with dry feet and without harm.

Thus we have that two principal sacraments are in the church, baptism and bread. Baptism leads us into a new life on earth; bread leads us through death into eternal life. And these two are signified by the Red Sea and Jordan, and by the two countries, beyond Jordan, and this side Jordan. Therefore the Lord said in the supper, "I will drink this wine no more, till I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom" (Matth. 26, 29.): so even this sacrament is directed and ordered for strength against death, and for entrance into eternal life.

To conclude, the fruit of this sacrament is fellowship and love, by which we are strengthened against death and all evil, so that the fellowship is twofold: one, that we enjoy Christ and all the saints; the other, that we let all Christian men enjoy ours also, as they and we may, so that the selfish love of himself, eradicated by this sacrament, may let in the charitable love of all men, and thus

3. to show - to indicate, to model.

444 Erl. 27, 45-47. 84 Sermon on the Sacrament of the Body of Christ. W. XIX. 543-545. 445

through the transformation of love become One Bread, One Drink, One Body, One Community, that is, the true Christian brotherly unity. Therefore, let us now see how the great, glittering brotherhoods, of which there are now so many, resemble and rhyme with each other.

From the brotherhoods.

First, let us look at the evil practices of the brotherhoods, one of which is that they make eating and drinking, have a mass or several masses; then the whole day and night and other days are given to the devil; nothing more happens than what is displeasing to God. The evil spirit has brought in such a furious way, and lets it be called a brotherhood, so that it is more of a hooliganism, and quite a pagan, even an evil being. It would be much better that there were no brotherhoods in the world than that such mischief was tolerated. Secular lords and cities should work with the clergy to stop such things, for it does great dishonor to God, the saints and all Christians, and makes a mockery of God's service and the holidays to the devil. For the holy days should be celebrated and sanctified with good works; and the brotherhood should also be a special assembly of good works: so it has become a collection of money for beer. What should Our Lady, St. Anne, St. Bastian or other saints' names do in your brotherhood, since there is nothing more than eating, drinking, wasting money, yelling, screaming, chatting, dancing and wasting time? If you put a sow as a patron of such a brotherhood, it would not suffer. Why then are the dear saints so highly tempted that their name is misused for such disgraces and sins and their brotherhoods are defiled and blasphemed with such evil plays? Woe to those who do this and impose it!

Secondly, if one wanted to keep a brotherhood, one should join together and feed a table or two of poor people, and let the same serve for God's sake, fasting the day before and staying sober the holiday, with prayers and other good works.

The brotherhood of the brotherhood of the saints would be a good example to others, or the money that one wants to waste should be pooled and a common treasure collected, each craft for itself, that one could help and lend to a poor fellow craftsman in need, or a young couple of people of the same craft from the same common treasure could be set apart with honor; These would be true brotherly works, which would make the brotherhood pleasing to God and his saints, and they would gladly be patrons. However, if one does not want to do this and follow the old pattern, I urge that one does not do this on the feast of the saints, not even under their or the brotherhood's name. Let another working day be taken, and let the saints and their brotherhoods be named in peace, so that they do not even sign. 1) Although no day is spent without dishonor with such beings, one should nevertheless spare the names of the festivals and saints more. For such brotherhoods let themselves be called the brotherhood of the saints and do the devil's work among them.

Thirdly, there is another evil habit in the brotherhoods, and is a spiritual wickedness, a false opinion, which is that they think their brotherhood should benefit no one but themselves, who are listed in their number and register or give to it. This damned evil opinion is even worse than the first wickedness, and is a cause why God decrees that the brotherhoods become such a mockery and blasphemy of God with eating and drinking and the like. For therein they learn to seek themselves, to love themselves, to mean themselves alone with faithfulness, to disregard others, to think themselves better than others, and to presume greater advantage with God over others. And so the communion of saints, Christian love, and the thorough brotherhood instituted in the holy sacrament, goes among them: thus selfish love grows in them, which is nothing else than that one with the same many

1. zeychen" is probably as much as "to testify, to bear witness". But it may also stand for "to accuse", i.e. to accuse.

446 Erl. 27, 47-49. xiv. Luther's dispute with Duke George. W. XIX, 545-548. 447

The first is the one that strives for and interferes with the one, inward, spiritual, essential, common brotherhood of all saints.

If then God sees the perverse being, He also perverse it again, as in the 18th Psalm, v. 27.It says: "With the perverse you consort," and thus sends them to make themselves a mockery and a disgrace with their brotherhoods, and to cast them out from the common brotherhood of the saints, which they resist and do not work in common with, into their devouring, lewd brotherhood, and lewd brotherhood, so that they may find their own, who have sought and meant no more than their own, and yet blinded them, so that they do not recognize such displeasure and disgrace, adorn such mischief under the saints' names, as if it were well done; And they let some fall so deeply into the abyss that they openly boast and say that whoever is in their brotherhood may not be condemned, just as if the baptism and sacrament instituted by God Himself were less and more uncertain than what they have devised out of their blind heads. So let God disgrace and blind those who revile and blaspheme His feasts, His name, His saints, to the detriment of the common Christian brotherhood, which flowed from Christ's wounds, with their madness and the sour customs of their brotherhoods.

Fourth, to learn a right understanding and custom of the brotherhoods, one must know and recognize the right difference of the brotherhoods. The first is the divine, the heavenly, the most noble, which transcends all others, as gold transcends copper or lead, the communion of all saints, of which it was said above, in which we are all brothers and sisters, so close that no closer can ever be conceived, for there is One Baptism, One Christ, One Sacrament, One Food, One Gospel, One Faith, One Spirit, One Spiritual Body, and each one the other's member. No other brotherhood is so deep and close. For natural brotherhood is one flesh and blood, one inheritance and one house; but it must divide and blend into other blood and inheritance. The partisan brotherhoods have one register, one measurement, one good and one bad.

Work, One Time, One Money and, as it now goes. A beer, a meal and a drink, and none of them goes so deep that it makes a spirit, for Christ alone makes brotherhood, therefore also, if it is greater, meaner and wider, the better it is. Let all other brotherhoods be so ordered that they always have the first and noblest in mind, esteeming it alone great and seeking nothing of their own with all their works, but doing the same for God's sake, asking God to preserve the same Christian fellowship and brotherhood and to make it better from day to day. So where a brotherhood rises up, they should let themselves be seen to be doing something special for other people for Christianity by praying, fasting, almsgiving, good works, not seeking their own benefit or reward, nor refusing anyone, but serving the whole community of Christianity as free servants.

Where there was such a right opinion, God would also give a right order so that the brotherhoods would not be disgraced by gluttony. Giving would follow, so that a common treasure would be collected, so that other people would also be helped externally; then the spiritual and physical works of the brotherhoods would be in their proper order. And whoever does not want to follow this order in his brotherhood, I advise him to jump out and leave the brotherhood standing, it will harm him in body and soul.

But if you say: Should I not get something special in the brotherhood, what does it help me? Answer: Yes, if you are looking for something special, what will the brotherhood or sisterhood do for you? If you serve the community and other people with it, as the kind of love is wont to do, then your reward for the same love will be found without your seeking and coveting. But if the service and reward of love be little to thee, it is a sign that thou hast a perverse brotherhood. Love serves freely for free, therefore God also gives it all good freely for free. Since all things must be done in love if they are to please God otherwise, the brotherhood must also be in love. But what is done in love

448 Erl. 27, 49 f. 84. Sermon on the Sacrament of the Body of Christ. W. XIX, S48-530. 449

The way he does it is that he does not seek his own or his own benefit, but that of others and first of all of the community.

Fifth, to return to the sacrament, since the Christian community is now in a worse state than it has ever been, and is decreasing more and more every day, most of all in the rulers, and all the oters are full of sins and disgrace, you should not look at how many masses are said or how often the sacrament is administered. For from this it becomes worse rather than better, but how much you and others increase in the meaning and faith of this sacrament, in which the correction lies; and the more thou findest thyself incorporated in Christ and his saints, the better thou standest, that is, if thou findest thyself growing strong in the confidence of Christ and his dear saints, that thou mayest be sure they love thee, and stand by thee in all thy troubles of life and death, and again, that you may be concerned about the decrease or fall of all Christians and the whole community, and that your love may become common to every Christian, and that you may gladly help everyone, hate no one, suffer with everyone, and pray for them; behold, if the sacramental work goes right, you will mourn, lament and grieve many times over for the wretched state of Christianity today. But if you do not have such confidence in Christ and his saints, and if the need of Christianity and of every neighbor does not concern or move you, beware of all other good works, otherwise you will think you are pious and will be saved; they will certainly be all shine, pretense and deception.

because they are without love and fellowship, without which nothing good is. For Summa Summarum: Plenitudo Legis est dilectio, love fulfills all commandments Rom. 15, 10., Amen.

Afterword in the Wittenberg edition of 1520.

There are some who have rejected this sermon without any necessity, because I said in the third article: It seems fine to me, where a Christian concilium decrees to give both forms to everyone; they have also opened their mouths so much that they say it is error and annoying. May God in heaven have mercy on us, that we have lived to see the time when Christ, the noble Lord and God, is so publicly reviled and blasphemed by his own people that his order is called an error. It would have been enough to let it remain a restrained order, and if one did not want to make a commandment out of it, that it would not be considered a prohibition or error. But I ask you to take a good look at the other and third article, in which I clearly said that one form is enough. I have also learned that my writings are only rejected by those who have never read them nor want to read them; to them I send my greetings and let them know that I do not respect their blind, sacrilegious judgment and am not willing to suffer them to condemn and blaspheme my Lord Christ so insolently as an erroneous, angry, rebellious master, because God allows me life; they may judge themselves accordingly.

450XIV Luther's dispute with Duke George. W. xix, söv-sss. 451

85 Duke George of Saxony's letter to Elector Frederick of Saxony,

Luther's Sermon on the Sacrament of the Body of Christ. *)

December 27, 1519.

To the Highborn Prince, Lord Frederick, Archmarshall and Elector of > the Holy Roman Empire, Vicario, Duke of Saxony, my friendly dear > cousin, into his hands.

Highborn Prince, friendly dear cousin, a printed booklet arrived to me on Christmas Eve, which contains a sermon, which Doctor Martin Luther let go out, from the holy reverend Corpus Christi of our Lord. If I overlooked it and somewhat overread it, and especially if it came before other scholars, 1) it was considered to be almost pragmatic, and basically to bring much heresy and annoyance with it; especially because it is Germanized, and thus brought among the common, poor and simple man, it is considered more to break than to build.

2 Because I know that your beloved would not like that our holy faith should be subverted by strangers, I rather think that your beloved would like to have it much more disliked by those who are in your small towns and cities, and especially because Doctor Martin is a highly famous man in E. L. University in Wittenberg, he would like to bring a great rumor to E. L. and all the lands of Saxony where something should arise that would be contrary to our holy faith and a strength of the Bohemian faith. L. University in Wittenberg, it would bring a great rumor to E. L. and all the lands of Saxony, where something should arise that should be contrary to the Christian faith and a strength of the Bohemian heresy.

3. for it is considered by many that the figure of the two monstrances and the writing are supposed to give indications of a coincidence to those who, under both figures, with many other articles, are considered so unchristian.
4. i am also credibly reported that the

1. Wittenberger, Jenaer and Löscher: would.
2. together with two burghers of Leitmeritz, have been with Dock. Martin, also had many times message with him; which are nevertheless arch-heretics. So I am also credibly reported that over six thousand people in Bohemia have been under both figures more than before the time of his preaching.

(5) Therefore I am very worried by his coincidence and his great presumption, which he shows by always printing his sermons. Sermons, as if there had never been anyone of this mind, and no one had had the grace to speak the truth, because he he would thereby also introduce a damage in my and all countries, which would hardly be repaired, and if E. L. thought that E. L. had the Doctor Martin at Wittenberg, then he would be Bishop or Heresiarcha at Praga; which I would be faithfully sorry for, and would especially not like that it should happen with E. L. in my last days.

6 I have no doubt that E. L., as the oldest and most Christian Elector, will understand and take note of this deal as well as I can write about it, and will take note of my letter, which I truly mean in good faith and good, for the best, and will undoubtedly do what is best, so that there will be no annoyance and damage in Christendom.

7 I will have kindly asked for this in abundance and will earn it in a very friendly way, to which I am willing to render friendly service. Given hastily on the day of John in the holidays at Dresen in 1520. 3) Year.

George Duke of Saxony.

2. In the old editions: Leitmaritz. The city of Leitmeritz in Bohemia is located approximately in the middle between Prague and Dresden.
3. Dec. 27, 1519, according to the custom of beginning the new year with Christmas.

*) This letter of Duke Georg together with the following number, the answer of the Elector to it, is found in the Wittenberg edition (1569), vol. IX, p. 87; in the Jena edition (1564), vol. I, p. 209; in the Altenburg edition, vol. I, p. 545; in the Leipzig edition, vol. XVII, p. 281; and in Löscher's Reformation Acta, vol. Ill, p. 920. As both Löscher and Walch have noted, the year 1520 is set in both letters because, according to the old chancery style, the new year began with the day of Christ's birth. We have followed the Jena edition.

452 Erl. 27,71. 86. Prince Frederick's answer to Duke George. W. LIX, 552-554. 453

*86) Prince Frederick of Saxony's answer to Duke George. )

December 29, 1519.

To the Highborn Prince, Lord George Duke of Saxony, my friendly dear > betters.

1. highborn prince, kind dear cousin, I have E. L. letter, concerning a printed booklet, so D.. Mart. Luther has sent out, which contains a sermon on the most reverend sacrament of the true body of our Lord Jesus Christ, together with your kind opinion.
2. the L. does not want to behave in this way, that I have never submitted to D. Martinus' preaching or disputing. Martinus' sermons or disputes, nor have I ever submitted to them, nor do I yet submit to them, nor have I completely renounced such matters; as I have then indicated to Papal Holiness' Legate, the Cardinal, and also to Her Holiness Nuncio, Mr. Carl von Miltitz, in writings and words.

3. And although I can not consider what the booklet in question wants to be considered for, I nevertheless hear that up to now Martinu's teaching has been respected and considered Christian by many scholars and persons of understanding, which I leave at its value and its responsibility; after E. L. know that D. Mart. Luther's action and disputation is based on knowledge, for which he also

has offered before papal commissaries, who also ordered him to come forward and be instructed in equity, as his inheritance can be.

4. from all this (if God wills) it shall be found that with fairness some imposition of no one shall happen to me 1). For I should be truly sorry, where in my newspapers 2) misconception of faith should arise in my brother, E. L. and my countries, or also at other ends, and much more troublesome, if it should be promoted by me, for which God will protect me!

5 And please kindly ask E. L. to understand this announcement of mine very well, because I am writing about it, because it is also meant by me faithfully. I did not want to leave this unopened to E. L., whom I am kindly willing to serve. Date at Lochau, 3) on Thursday after the innocent child's day, Anno 1520. 4)

Duke Frederick Elector.

1. In the old editions: beschehen.
2. d. i. times.
3. Jenaer: Loch; Wittenb.: Locha.
4. d. i. the 29th Dec. 1519.

*The following is a list of the articles in Luther's Sermon on the Reverend Sacrament of the Holy True Body of Christ? ) After mid-January 1520.

I have sent forth a sermon on the reverend holy sacrament of the altar, in which, among other words, I have let it be known that I think it good to give both forms to anyone who desires them. Here my dear friends, who thirst for my blood, have thought that they have

They may have neither appearance nor reason to oppose me, since they have lost considerable effort, diligence, time, and money, but now they cry out and whine: "We've won!

2. although I know that my Satan does not do anything good against me, who also

*) See the first note to the previous number.

**In the Erlangen edition, five individual printings are given, all without time, place and printer. This writing is found in "Martini Luthers mancherley büchlin und tractetlin", 1520, p. 146 a. In the collections: in the Wittenberg (1554), vol. VII, p. 27; in the Jena (1564), vol. I, p. 2I0d; in the Altenburg, vol. I, p. 546; in the Leipzig, vol. XVII, p. 282; and in the Erlangen, vol. 27, p. 71. We give the text according to the Jena edition, comparing the Wittenberg. The readings of the Erlanger edition are several times not good.

454 Erl. 27, 71-73. XIV Luther's dispute with Duke George. W. XIX, 554-556. 455

If such stormy winds raise me to love, then I know again that Christ still lives and reigns, and I am certain of it and do not let it deter me in any way, let all things be subject to him Ps. 8:7. I had also, in such a haughty, defiant mind fortified in Christ's power, intended to despise such clamor and to hold it like the sound of a dry pig's bladder; nevertheless, I have allowed myself to be moved to give a brief instruction and reason for my words to the common simple-minded people's piety, to whom some shallow-scholarly chatterers have blabbed such things to great annoyance.

(3) I have not said nor advised, nor is it my opinion, that one or some bishops by their own authority should begin to administer both forms to anyone, unless it were thus established and commanded by a common Christian council, which I have expressed. But it has been necessary for me to say, and it is also necessary for a Christian man to know, how it is done about the same Sacrament, one should know and interpret the Gospel differently, so that one does not stand against the heretics with disgrace, if we were found as those who do not know thoroughly the cause and form of our faith.

This is not the case, however, for which the Bohemians are called heretics for enjoying both forms; nor has the Roman church ever considered it heresy; and we would gladly hear and cheerfully look upon him who may say otherwise, however low and high, broad and long he may be learned. For the Roman church has allowed the same thing to the Bohemians in the past, as is known; but what may be allowed is not and will never be heresy; for one would want to accuse the Roman church of blasphemy, as if it had decreed and permitted heresy to be held; so be it to God forever!

(5) I say further, that to regard both forms as heresy is to dishonor Christ, and is a blasphemy of the holy gospel and of the same sacrament. For Christ Himself instituted it in both forms, and the whole church throughout the world has used it in this way for many hundreds of years, which no one can deny. Therefore, one should speak more sensibly about these things and not so quickly denounce Christ and the sacrament.

Calling his church heretics. I also fear that such a heresy has been accused by some unlearned people who were too weak to fight with the Bohemians in the Scriptures, so they have smelled themselves with malicious words and have driven the same into the common people, especially on the Bohemian border.

(6) This is true, because Christ did not command that the sacrament should be administered to everyone, not only one but none may be received, as some of the old fathers did in the desert. Therefore I do wrong to the Bohemians, because they did not follow the house, obey the authority, let them be satisfied with one form. If the Roman church does right or wrong, such an order does no harm, because no form is commanded by Christ. Again, if the Bohemians were so weak in their faith and conscience that they could not be kindly rebuked, we should, with the Roman Church according to the example of St. Paul, Romans 14:1 and 15:1, bear and allow their weakness, and not call it heresy, which they themselves did not devise in the Gospel, and publicly denounce to Christianity.

(7) They are not right in thinking that it must be so, nor are we right in thinking that it is heretical. But it is not heresy on either side. But it is a schism, a discord; there both parties should get along amicably: or, if that is not possible, each should walk in his own way with the other's peace and will, as in former times the Easter Day celebration was held in discord and yet with peace and unity. And still today no collegiate church or order agrees with the other in all matters, and yet unity remains among them.

8. For the Bohemians to dwell 1) on the saying of John 6:53: "Except ye eat the flesh, and drink the blood of the man child, ye have no life in you," is inferring nothing. For the Lord does not speak of the sacrament in that place, but of faith in God and in the child of man, that is, Christ. Again, that we Romans reproach the perilousness, or of the
9. d. i. support.

456 Erl. 27.73-7p. 87. explanation of some articles in the previous sermon. W. XIX, 556-559. 457

Wine in many countries infirmities, also does not close. But this concludes that St. Paul says Eph. 4, 3: "You should all be of one mind, one will and one opinion, and carefully maintain spiritual unity, in the bond of peace", as is meant by the sacrament. Since it would be fine to have both forms, but if it is not necessary to do so, the peace and unity that are necessary to have should be allowed to prevail and be used above the form.

9 To say of the Bohemian heresy, I hear that there are three parties in Bohemia. The first, the Picards, who declare themselves by an omitted book that I have seen, that they do not only miss both forms (since they are not so great), but also do not believe that Christ is truly flesh and blood, and have some more heretical pieces. I consider these Bohemians to be heretics. God have mercy on them! I have also condemned them many times in my writings.

Some call the other party the Grubenhainers. What they believe or hold, I do not know, so I cannot call them heretics or Christians.

(11) The third party is called the two-formers, whose life I do not know otherwise than that I now hear from my opponents in this case that there is no part in which they believe and walk differently than we do, except the two-formers. If such a speech of my opponents is true, then I say, and conclude from their own words, that these same Bohemians are not heretics, but only schismatici, that is, ambiguous and ambivalent, which vice also reigns on our side more than in a hundred pieces, yes, even almost vain schismata reign among us, unfortunately!

(12) It is considered a great sin to let a little or a drop of the sacrament fall without any will, but the fact that many of them have received the sacrament into a stinking, evil soul is not considered a sin; as if such a soul were not a thousand times more dishonest to the sacrament than all the mud on earth. Who

1. Wittenb. instead of "all" - "as".

Do you resist the journey here? Or who leaves the sacrament after 2) for the sake of this cruel, terrible journey, which happens not only by chance, but daily.

Therefore my request would be that both, Bohemians and Romans, would step away from their hard senses, and either one way, it would be one or both shapes, or else two ways, would keep friendly unity. And here the love on our side should seek the blessedness of the Bohemians more than their own power and rule; in turn, the Bohemians should follow unity, obedience and submission to the power more than their own discretion and freedom. For although they have power and freedom from the Gospel in both forms, they are more indebted to unity, which is the meaning of the sacrament. Again, though we have the power and 3) the heap, yet we are more indebted to love. Omnia mihi licent, sed non omnia, expediunt, says St. Paul 1 Cor. 6, 12.: One must not do everything that we have power to do, but what the love of one's neighbor demands.

14 But I hear that the greatest thing is that the Bohemians have taken spiritual goods to themselves in the schism, and they want to have them back again. If this is true, it is a pitiful thing that one may rather suffer discord and heresy than leave the temporal damned property. And here, however, I am wrong for both parties. For the Romans and the Bohemians should also 4) let the cloak go with the skirt, according to the Gospel, and it is a sin that the great heads do not seek to tolerate this kindly.

15 My friends search for me so closely that they cry out that I was born in Bohemia, educated in Prague, instructed in Wiklef's books, and that my father confessed this. And so that they never let up, they have interpreted my name Luther in Bohemian; in addition, they have drawn the two monstrances, printed on the sermon, as if I had given it to the Bohemians as a sign to receive both forms. About that,

2. So put by us instead of "yet" in the issues.
3. Thus the Wittenbergers. In the Jenaer: or.
4. "also" is missing in the Jena.

458 Erl. 27, 75-77. xiv. Luther's dispute with Duke George. W. XIX, 359-561. 459

so extremely perceptive, since they have seen two geese from the one monstrance, that is why John Hus is called John Goose in Bohemian.

How could I encounter more beautiful carnival larvae than such high-minded, profound prophets? Truly, it is fair that those who resist the truth write such frivolous, ridiculous and foolish things and believe them firmly, seriously. And even though such shameful foolishness almost makes me brave, and my opponents completely contemptible to me, as those who pretend that they have no reason against me, and must justify my things in their own conscience with great displeasure; yet, because they do this so almost that it is declared to be truth even in high places, I must have mercy on them, and tell my birth. 1)

D. Martin Luther was born in Eisleben, in the county of Mansfeld. 2)

There is a noble, famous county in the bishopric of Halberstadt and the principality of Saxony, which is called Mansfeld, and almost all my gracious lords, Count Günther, Ernst, Hoyer, Gebhard and Albrecht, know my father and me personally. I was born in Eisleben, educated in Mansfeld, taught in Magdeburg and Eisenach, became a Master and Augustinian in Erfurt, and now a Doctor in Wittenberg, and have been closest to Bohemia in Dresden my whole life. I did not want to save such lessons for this new year from my dear prophets, the monstrance makers and goose cuckoos, of good opinion.

1. Luther recounts almost the same circumstances of his life also in the letter to Spalatin, Appendix, No. 4.
2. This caption is from the Jena edition.

18 But that two monstrances are printed, I ask my high-minded ones, these dear ones, that they would be merciful to me. For I certainly do not have the time to see what the printer takes for image, letters, ink or paper, and it has never happened to me before, nor have I provided for anyone to request such from me.

19 They also cry out, as the Bohemians have been with me, and have written to me. But I am sorry in my heart that the Bohemians do not come to me confidently and write, I wanted to receive them cheerfully and kindly; I wanted to do the same to Jews, Turks and pagans, yes, even to them, my enemies. I hoped that I would be well off, and I did not want to contest their poisonous suspicions by a hair's breadth.

20 Yes, if I were as learned and holy as the dear goose-suckers make themselves believe, I would personally go into Bohemia, try to bring them under the unity of the Roman See and to the heap. And I would not attack them with nasty, sharp words, heretics, blasphemers, cursing, as we have attacked them so far to convert.

Now, please, every devout Christian man would like to see with what kind of opinions and things my dear friends attack me; what would they do if they wanted to have a right cause? Therefore, I hereby warn everyone to be aware of his soul, to beware of the evil, poisonous tongues, which unfortunately have grown up about me, without harm to me, even to great piety, and to their own miserable destruction. May God have mercy on us all, amen.

3. The expenses: waser.

460 L. V. L. IV, 139-141. Z8. Des Bischofs zu Meißen Ausschreiben 2c. W. XIX, S61-863. 461

88) The Bishop of Meissen, Joham von Schleinitz, with the advice and consent of his chapter, against Luther's preaching of the reverend Sacrament.

January 24, 1520.

1. We John, by the grace of God and the Papal See, Bishop of the Free Church of Meissen, are obligated by reason of our episcopal office, so commanded, to administer and do the office of a true pastor and shepherd, and not of a transient hireling, and to protect and manage the shepherding of the Lord, so commanded, not only from the present, but also from future dangers of the souls, and to prepare medicinal remedies in the time of safety, with which, when the same diseases break out, we maintain and keep the said shepherd's house for the poisoning and attachment 1) of the souls.

2 Because a booklet or sermon in German on the Most Holy Sacrament of the Corpus Christi of our dear Lord Christ, under the name and title of D. Martini Luther, Augustine, contrary to the statutes of the recently held Lateran Council, is now publicly available in our cities and diocese. Martini Luther, Augustine, contrary to the statutes of the recently held holy Lateran-Concilium generals, is now and then publicly available in our cities and diocese, in which, among other things, it is understood and written that the teacher of the same booklet considered it fine, useful and convenient that the Christian Church, by means of a common concilium, establishes that all Christian believers of spiritual and secular status, under both forms of bread and wine, are to be informed and communicated with the reverend Sacrament; so that the Sacrament may be administered and given, not in part or in pieces, but entirely, to the faithful. And many other things more, which give the simple, who keep and compare themselves to the harmony of the holy Christian church, with the reception of the reverend sacrament only under one form of bread, reason to doubt the sacrament of the holy Corpus Christi, and the reception of the same, and finally cause many an annoyance, error and division in the church of God, and especially in the Church of God.

1. i.e. infection.

Our diocese, which borders on the lands of the same schism, separation, or misrule and damnable error, would like to arouse.

3. If we now wish to face the same aversions and dangers as we are obliged to, with the foreseen counsel and approval of our worthy Chapter, we command in virtue of holy obedience, and in the case of penalties from the right, and earnestly command all and every lord, We earnestly command all and every lords, abbots, deans, archdeacons, priors, guardians, canons, parish priests, preachers, altar servers, lecturers and all other priests, clerics and clergymen to be exempt, 2) also both sexes, male and female, clerical and secular, believers in Christ; But we remind you, living in unity and purity of faith, by the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ, and because of your devotion and love for the Holy Papal See and the Christian Church, we exhort you to diligently gather the same booklets or the same sermon everywhere, and to keep them with you until our further command.

(4) And in order that the offences arising from the publication or public distribution of this booklet among the simple in our diocese may be averted and eradicated, we command, enjoin, and remind you that in your sermons you shall instruct the people, as you are commanded, diligently and actually, so that they may believe, beyond all doubt, most firmly and unwaveringly that under every form is the whole Christ, our Lord and Savior. That even to those who take the reverend Sacrament under one form alone, the Sacrament is not given and administered piecemeal and in part, but wholly and completely.

2. religiosis non exemptis. The thread in this intricate sentence is this: to all non-exempt clergy 2c. we command; but to all exempt we remind and admonish, that etc., etc., etc.

*This decree of the Bishop of Meissen is found in German in the Wittenberg edition (1669), vol. IX, p. 88; in the Jena edition (1564), vol. I, p. 213 k; in the Altenburg edition, vol. I., p. 344 and in the Leipzig edition, vol. P. 344 and in the Leipzig, vol. XVII, p. 285. It is inserted in Luther's Latin reply to this decree m the Wittenberg edition, Dom. II, col. 30; m the Jena (1579), Dom. I, col. 460k; and in the Erlangen, oxx. var. arZ. Vol. IV, p. 139. We have reproduced the text of the Jena edition.

462 D. V. L. IV, 141. XIV Luther's dispute with Duke George. W. XIX, 563-565. 463

And that the holy Christian church, in a holy common council in the Holy Spirit, the time being duly assembled, by the divine inspiration of the same Holy Spirit, has suspended and decreed that those who do not confess the reverend sacrament, or walk and act, shall receive the reverend sacrament in the form of bread alone; For the sake of which suspension 1) and order, the reception of the reverend Sacrament under both forms is also sacrilegious, avoidable, annoying, detrimental and saddening to Christian ecclesiastical practice, and consequently an introduction of eternal damnation.

5. and because obedience is better than sacrifice 1 Sam. 15:22, that those who have the Sa-.

1. i.e. appointment.

crament do not act and walk more deserving of the taking of the one form of bread than of both forms, and that therefore all and every one, as faithful children and Christians of the whole Christian Church, will follow the same of their mother's leprosy and order, and order, also of the holy fathers and chosen ones of God, to firmly and faithfully keep the faith in pure unity, and to prove yourselves in this way, so that you may receive reward from God, the rewarder of all people, and be praised for your dutiful devotion to the Christian faith. Date Stolpen, in the year after the birth of the Lord one thousand five hundred and twentieth and on the fourth and twentieth day of June, with the seal of the Official Office of our Court impressed on the present letter.

*89a. D. Martin Luther's answer to the note that went out under the official's seal at Stolpen, )

Mid-February 1520.

To any devout Christian to whom this booklet comes, I offer Martinus > Luther, Augustinian, Doctor 2c., my poor fortune and all blessedness > in Christ our Lord.

(1) A note has gone out under the name and title of the most reverend in God Father and Lord, Bishop of Meissen, but only under the official's seal at Stolpen, commanding that my sermon on the Holy Sacrament be repealed and enclosed, for many reasons, as it reads 2) especially that I wrote: It seems fine and good to me, if by a common Christian concilium it were decreed that both forms of the sacrament should be administered to everyone; and that the same should be the-

2. namely, the Zettel. In the editions "she" is written instead of "he", because "the Zeddel" is female in Luther.

Because they do not like to reproach as heretical nor erroneous in the Christian faith, as they would like to do, they do not like to hide the miserable envy and hatred, and invent a new dream, that it is annoying, seditious, sacrilegious, written in a presumptuous way. For whoever wants to be a devout Christian in our times must be forbidden by these new teachers to reject, deny and blaspheme even those things which they themselves must confess to be neither heretical nor erroneous. Such time shall have such teachers.

2. although I know, and consider it certain, that the same reverend in God father and lord of Meissen is much too learned and pious, that he should let such unfounded, insulting and malicious writing, sealed with many public lies and blasphemies, go out of knowledge and will; and I would also not be interested in it, it should be put up, put down, and put down.

*Luther completed this writing on Feb. 7, 1520, and already on Feb. > 16 a printed copy came into Miltitz's hands. In the Erlangen edition > four individual editions are given, all without place, time and name > of the printer. In the German collective editions, this answer is > found: in the Wittenberg (1554), vol. VII, p. 25; in the Jena (1564), > vol. I, p. 218; in the Altenburg, vol. I, p. 346; in the Leipzig, vol. > XVII, p. 286 and in the Erlangen, vol. 27, p. 77. We give the text > according to the Jena edition with comparison to the Wittenberg. The > text of the Erlangen edition seems to us to be from a corrumpirte > reprint.

464 Erl. 27.7S-81. 89 a. Luther's response to the previous scripture. W. XIX, 565-567. 465

tear down, tear up or keep this and all my other writings, whoever would do it or leave it. The judge is not far away. It is not strange to me that the truth is rejected, mostly by those who are its own and boast of it, because Christ, the truth itself, had to be killed by his own people. But for the salvation of the truth, as much as I have in me, I am obliged to warn every Christian man against the poisonous, treacherous tongues, especially those which may adorn themselves under such a great and pious prelate's name; and will also herewith humbly excuse and undress the same my gracious Lord and Father 1).

3. First of all, the highly learned master of this note confesses and must confess that I have not taught that one should serve both forms, whether it seems good to me or not; for I have not set my own opinion as a rule or doctrine for anyone: but with expressed words I have preferred a common Christian concilium, where the same would prescribe such, so that then both forms would be served obediently, according to the same concilii order. Since this master of the notes himself has no other reason for his opinion in this case than the order of a concilii, I would like to receive instruction from his groundless wisdom, why his concilii order is better, and my concilii order annoying? Or who allowed him to confirm one Concilii order and to condemn and blaspheme the other? Therefore, I hereby ask him to write another time on the sober morning notes, and not fence against me by order of one Concilii, which he imposes on me by another Concilii 2) order for annoyance, sedition, discord, so that I do not have to suspect that he has lost his brain in the Kötzschberg 3), and does not know himself what he is saying.
4. d. i. excluded.
5. The words: "so er mir durch eines andern Concilii" we have inserted from the Wittenberg edition. In the Erlangen edition meaningless: "by order of a concilii order."
6. Marginal gloss in the Jena and Wittenberg editions: "Kötzschberger Wein." The Erlangen edition offers the reading "Gecksberg."

Nor is this a small diminution of his own authority, indeed, a great abrogation of Roman authority, and strength of Bohemian ambivalence, that the poor, bare, naked Zetteler imposes nothing else on his cause than the last Roman Council, which is not yet ten years old, has been considered by many in Rome itself to be nothing, and has also gained little honor in German and all countries. So much so that I doubt very much whether this scribbler has done such a thing, to the honor of the Bohemians and to the shame of the Roman See, willfully or unknowingly. And even though the same council stands strong, this wretched tittle-tattle gives the Bohemians right from a hundred years ago to the same council. Should not such a holy teacher in such a great matter indicate, either Scripture or some other reason, so that the Bohemian error would have been criminal not only in these ten years through a new Council, but from the beginning a hundred years ago?

I am annoyed that such people want to write against Bohemian error, and do not think that there are also people on the other side of the mountain; but with their childish chatter they make the Bohemians stiff-necked and our group contemptuous. And if I myself were a Bohemian, so such lazy and unhappy grimaces 4) would be presented to me, under such a great name, how would I like to do to him, I could not leave that, I thought the Germans would be drunk, as one blames us. I also think that such notes are considered especially to Rome and by all reason more foolish than foolish.

(6) After this, he cites the saying of Scripture that it is better to obey than to sacrifice 1 Sam. 15:22, therefore only one form should be given according to the order of the concilii. I also praise the same obedience, and have never said anything against it; but it pities me that we build obedience on our fur sleeves by such stumbling blocks, and make a carnival play of ourselves for our adversaries, the Bohemians. For the Bohemians also use the same slogan against us, and more strongly than we, and reproach us as the disobedient ones.

4. i.e. antics, silly talk.

466 Erl. 27, 81-84. XIV Luther's dispute with Duke George. W. XIX, 567-S70. 467

The two figures of Christ are arranged in the gospel. But I notice that this master wants to teach us to fence in such a way that we give the sword into the hands of the Bohemians and strike the blows with bare heads. I have also written against the Bohemians and am still willing to write; but the fine scribbler falls into my work and bogs it down with each other.

(7) But it pleases me that he commands and teaches that one should be content with one form and firmly believe that Christ is not piecemeal, but wholly and completely under each form of the sacrament. This I also believe, and also ask everyone to believe this note, and is also not different in my sermon. But see, how denouncing and cautious Junker Neidhard is. Who has ever doubted that Christ is whole under any form? Which Bohemians have ever believed or said otherwise? Or against which enemies does this undaunted scribbler fight so diligently with so many useless words? Who could not become a knight in such a quarrel, since no enemies are not, and the iron eaters fence so manly with their own dreams? Indeed, it would have been a pity, where the note would have gone out at the other, because carnival time.

8 But do you want to know why he takes such great care to teach this? listen to me. He could not publicly call me a heretic, because he did not like to prove it, and yet he wants to bring it across. His love has been advised, among other things, of my blasphemy and disgrace, to introduce such a point, so that whoever reads it should think that I, Luther, teach much differently than this disparaging note, and the simple-minded man, poisoned by such a treacherous sting, should say: O woe, does Doctor Luther not think that Christ is completely under both forms; now he must truly be a heretic: O to the fire, to the fire.

9 Caiaphas also poisoned the people against Christ Matth. 26, 65. For this scribbler seeks to strengthen the poor people's suspicion of me, his artless envy. But he has reserved an excuse for him, so that he can say that he did not mean it like the prostitute, Proverbs 30:20, when she

When she had killed a lot of them, "she wiped her mouth and said: I have done nothing wrong." So does my scribbler, who desires of me with many of his peers that I should write clear, correct, plain words. That I also refrained from doing, and was much too clear to them; but they have the freedom to grind wash blisters, and with assassins to make the poison into honey.

(10) It is true that I have said that the sacrament would not be given piecemeal; the master of the paper, like everyone else, has well understood that it is not said of Christ's body, but of the form of bread and wine. That must draw his love from the right mind, where he wanted to go, and does not want to be a liar nor blasphemer. For he himself must confess that both forms are a whole sacrament, and although he receives the whole of Christ, he takes only a part of the whole sacrament, that is, only one form of the two. But if he has not understood this, he should have gone to school and learned what it means to give the sacrament in pieces and the body of Christ in pieces, which are more differentiated than going out and coming down, and should not drive his mad mind into the poor people under such a bishop's name.

Summa Summarum, dear Neidhard, if it is possible for you, then change. If you do not change, then do what you want, I do not respect you. You are too small for me, God wills it; if you take away my body and my honor, you will let Christ remain with me. But I am not hostile to you, I can credit you with such a blasphemous note, considering your pious nature and good opinion.

12 For just as your comrades were accustomed to drive poor people around and to torment them with bannsheets, and also to rebuke married women innocently, thereby causing lamentable discord and often murder in the marital state, and they could not protect themselves from their violence and outrage; so, according to the same simple-minded opinion, you also hoped to find Doctor Luther, according to your will, without protection and answer to your murderous, secret, poisonous cue and blasphemy. But now that you have failed, so that you do not yet despair, I have given you my faithful counsel, and

468 Erl. 27.84. 89 a. Luther's response to the previous scripture. W. XIX. 570-272. 469

think that you have more help; for that, since you have no brain at all, I will show it to you.

The first, that you drop the main matter and, as you began, change to the bishop of Meissen's person and name, complaining with a great cry that Doctor Luther is proud and hopeful, that he has written against great prelates; and see to it that you do not say that he alone has written against you, Neidhard. Also keep silent about all the causes of his writing. For if you had the bishop's persons and names torn from you and told the matter, you would not long be playing the carnival game, but would be seen before everyone as a shameful, evil Neidhard.

14 Or, if that is not enough, remember what your Cologne people did with Doctor Reuchlin: burn his books and say no more.

for they are false, and do not go to the trouble of proving the same, but you might 1) fail. For where one cannot resist the clear truth and yet does not like it, fire is the best patron against books, and death against poets. By such means you might truly be considered more learned than Doctor Luther, since your breath almost stinks. Just as the cook is much more learned than the coals and wood he burns; so you too, just burn, then you are already the most respectable, most learned doctor and have resolved all arguments with short effort. Herewith go, dear Neidhard, and if you purr and purr a lot, then remember, there are some who give nothing for it.

1. i.e. again.

*89b. Luther's above answer translated from Latin. )

End of February or beginning of March 1520.

To the prohibition note, which went out under the name of the Bishop of Meissen, because of the sermon on the Sacrament of the Supper, D. Mart. Luther's, Augustine's, answer.

JEsus!

To the Christian and godly reader wish Martin Luther, Augustinian, salvation in the Lord Christ!

1. these days a note has gone out, under the name of the venerable in Christ father and bishop of the church at Meissen, (as it is said) with previous advice and consent of his chapter, also with enclosed seal of the official office at Stolpen,

In which they decree and command that my preaching of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper be collected and preserved, because of the mobs and aversions and many other dangers which they claim might arise from it, merely for the sake of the one word that I have said: "It would seem good and beautiful to me if by decree of a common concilii it were brought about that the laity also be served both kinds."

Now, if they did nothing else but suppress my little books, I would gladly keep quiet, because I am of such a mind that I do not care whether someone acquires my things or leaves them lying around. I have served and benefited everyone for free and in general.

*) Luther made this more detailed Latin answer shortly after the German one, because he was already working on it on February 11, 1520. It appeared under the title: ^d seüodulam inkiditioms sud uommo opisooxi Misuousis editam supor sormouo do suorumouto ouokuristiuo Nurtim ImtUori ^nZusti. rospousio. The decree of the Bishop of Meissen is, in the original edition, appended to this writing, as Luther writes to Spalatin on February 11, and the Erlangen edition, opp. var. arZ. Vol. IV, p. 139, notes about the copy it uses. In the editions it is inserted under the heading Sotmdnlao touor the answer, after the fourth paragraph. This answer is found in the Latin editions: in the Wittenberg, Dom. II, toi. 30; in the Jena one (1579), Dom. I, col. 460 and in the Erlangen, oxx. var. arx., vol. IV, p. 138. We have translated from the latter by comparing the Jena edition.

470 L.?. L. iv, i38.142 f. XIV Luther's dispute with Duke George. W. xix, 572-574. 471

give what I have received, without forcing anyone to read it. For what should I be deprived of, if many also reject the gospel itself? should I become mad because of it?

3. But since the author of this note, whoever he may be, has become so nonsensical that he is not satisfied with muting my things, but also presumes to accuse them of being redolent, vexatious, dangerous, sacrilegious, presumptuous, confusing, and bringing eternal death, which I have neither commanded nor advised, but have committed to the authority of a common concilii; which, moreover, are in the express text of the holy Gospel, and by long usage of the churches are common throughout the world: I have been forced to confront this raging Cananite and to receive his rage against the holy doctrine and life of Christ and against the reputation of the whole Church.

4 And here, you, my reader, are a witness, I exclude and want to exclude herewith the venerable in Christ Pater, the Lord Bishop of Meissen, whose scholarship as well as his life is unanimously much too famous for even a foolish person to think that he is the author of this atrocious writing. I have the same good opinion of the other canons of the same chapter. But there are only about two or three lickspittles, to whom I must answer, because they misuse the name of such a great bishop and that of the church as a cover for their ignorance and their envy, whom I do not name until they betray themselves, although I know very well that they do not stand in the same place, but nevertheless have the same mind and intention. 1)

(5) And that I begin with what they say is true, I am quite content that the decisions of the last Council be obeyed and that the laity be given only One Form. I also agree that Christ should not be in pieces, but entirely under each form, both of bread and of wine. And I ask all readers of this

1. The decree of the Bishop of Meissen is inserted here in the editions.

The people of the world are highly interested in hearing the note and following it in order to keep the bond of unity, which is much more important than the sacrament by which it is signified than by a sign. And who has ever read anything else in my books? Who has ever heard anything else from me? Does this sermon of mine teach something that is contrary to that?

Stand up, you excellent men, let your wisdom be seen, refer to Luthern! Where have you read what you are accusing me of? On whom, then, do you hurl these atrocious blasphemies and accusations? On a Luther whom you have invented in a fever or a dream? Certainly the pugnacious men, who are too well aware of their bravery, must neigh like a horse after a quarrel! And since there was no one against whom they could break out, they made up an adversary. Must you, scribblers, rage against the honor of an innocent man with such insolent lies?

7 But, they say, you approve of both being given shape; that is annoying and redolent. I answer: I have approved of it, but only if it were done by order of a common concilii. I have expressed this so clearly that envy itself is forced to include my words from the very Concilium. Is then with you, you stupid and unlearned envy, what a concilium has decreed, or will decree, or can decree, rottirerous and annoying? Why then callest thou not thy concilium redolent and vexatious? But, you say, my concilium is already ordered, but yours is not yet. What do I hear? but with such coarse heads one must act coarsely.

8 So I ask: is what a future concilium can decree redolent and vexatious? No! you will say. How, then, is speaking and writing of such a council's power, and wishing such things to be done, redolent and heretical or not? What do you answer here? Are you silent now, Envy? Answer, I say. If talking and writing about the power to decree something in the future Concilio is red-blooded and heretical, then all divine and legal scholars are condemned by these note writers, yes, even they themselves are red-blooded and heretical through

472 L. v. a. iv, 143-145. 89 b. The same answer according to the Latin. W. xix, 574-577. 473

the testimony of their own mouths, who speak, write, boast so much about the painting of the pope and the conciliar, which has not yet happened, nor may it happen until it is ordered.

9. It will also follow, according to the testimony of these learned people, that Luther has so far happily and holily fought against no one other than the red spirits and angry people, namely those who extend the Pope's power into purgatory, into heaven, into hell, over the council and over everything in the world: and they do this not only with letters, but also with explicit assertion and teaching of that which is not yet decreed, nor perhaps will ever be decreed (which I have not done in this transaction, but merely indicated my desire and expected a concilium). And in short: according to this most learned theologian's doctrine, because it is not permitted to speak of future and possible things, one is also not allowed to wish for anything. Let us then stop preaching Christ and God, so that we do not become red-faced and angry at some point! Then it must also not be permitted to wish and ask what God can do in the future. For I have done nothing else than to wish that what the Church can do in a future Concilio should happen; and through this new fault I am angry, rebellious, sacrilegious, presumptuous, a turbulent disturber of the peace. There you see, O Envy! how wise and learned you are.

(10) How? if I say: it seems good to me that the priests should be allowed wives again by a concilium decree? am I also red-blooded and angry if I say that I wish what the church can do, merely because it is not yet so decreed and is now done differently? But then you will have to call Pins II, whose word this has been, red-faced and angry. And in this way one will not be allowed to say anything about the things that can be decreed in any future concilium, and these people, who otherwise are so excessively defiant of the power of the concilia, will all at once abolish all concilia, or at least impose a constant silence (which is much worse) on us, so that one cannot speak further of a concilium.

cilii power should speak. Thus must fall those who prefer Christ's most holy decrees to the vapor of their head. But since they are perhaps too stupid to understand this, I must act with them according to their bald conclusion, which they themselves have never understood.

(11) I therefore ask: If the donkey had feathers and flew, could I not say without sin: I would that the donkey flew, if it had feathers? So also here: If the Concilium decreed that both should be given form, then both would be given form. So then I ask: Whether I may not say, then, that I wish both to be given form, if a concilium so pronounced it? And what does my sermon speak but this conditional wish? And what does this tasteless and clumsy note call heretical, annoying, presumptuous, sacrilegious, other than this quite true and godly conditional sentence? But that's what scholastic and philosophical theology is coming to! This is the way they treat the best minds of youth, so that, as soon as they are presented with something other than their usual example, they understand so little of their art of reasoning that they declare a reasoning of one kind in one example to be just, Christian, catholic, and wholesome, which they condemn in the other as redolent, vexatious, seditious, and guilty of eternal death. Perhaps, just as there is no difference between them in any things or arts, so also error and truth, eternal life and eternal death are one and the same. So perhaps they will also know this conditional proposition: If the ass had wings, it would fly; or it is quite hackneyed with them through frequent use. But lead them with the same rule of reasoning into serious matters, namely into the holy Scriptures, and they will immediately make a devil out of Christ, a hell out of heaven, a heresy out of faith. And yet it is marvelous how they rage when we sigh that they corrupt the finest minds of young people by these useless studies of theirs, by which they dampen rather than promote good dispositions.

But let us come to the other piece (cornu) of the conclusion: When crying

474 L. V. a. IV, 145 f. XIV Luther's dispute with Duke George. W. XIX, 577-579. 475

If you are neither red-blooded nor angry in your desire, speech and wish of such things, which an artificial Concilium can decree, where then will you appear, you poor slips of paper? where your artists? where the right to forbid? where the satisfaction for the injustice, which has happened to Luther by this? Where will it end with the violence, the deceit, the treachery, the malice against the reputation of the conciliar and the obedience of the church, which is so highly respected even by yourself? Where is the account for so many souls, which this godless blasphemy has infected? Where the atonement (restitutio) for the godless obedience, which you have forced from the members (subditis) of the church of Meissen? Do you see your reward, you sacrilegious ignorance, which you had to receive cheaply, namely a wrong sense, to do what is not fit?

13 But, you may say, we feared that the Bohemians would rejoice at your preaching. I answer: the wicked must fear where there is nothing to fear. So be it, you wanted to keep the Bohemians in check, but for that reason you should not have condemned our freedom to speak of the power of the conciliation and our desire for it. For that is to fear the frost and to be showered with snow. Condemn the Bohemians in their schismate, that shall also be dear to me, but arrange it in such a way that this is done without injury to love and truth, so that the Bohemians do not mock you and say that you cannot attack a lesser evil without causing a greater one, nor escape the Romans without killing Christ, after the example of your father Caiaphas. Is this not more than being foolish and destroying your house in order to ward off foreign things, and yet not winning?

(14) Behold, the Greek priests have wives; may it not therefore be said and desired that by a concilii decision our priests also be given wives, because with such speeches we would be right with the Greeks? or who, for this reason, has ever been thought a Rottirer or an angry man, that in this he had the same opinion with the Greeks and desired the same for ours, although he could not do it, because the statute and custom of the church now prevented him from doing it?

For who is there among honest men who, out of pity for our priests' great danger and annoyance, would not gladly wish them this freedom of the Greek priests today? And you, wretched note, wanted to turn them into the spirits of the mob because of this Christian wish, for no other reason than because, if the Greeks heard it, they would want to strengthen themselves from it and rejoice over it? What are you raving about, most nonsensical larval face?

See then, my reader, my happiness. Until now I have been punished for talking about faith, hope, love, mine, knowledge. Now I am punished for wishing and desiring. For these dear people go about that I should not wish and desire anything; perhaps they will even want to forbid me the Lord's Prayer and all wishes, so that I wish neither good nor evil for themselves. But what shall I do? I am a human being, have a spirit whose desire, because it is immortal, cannot be subdued. And because of great love they do not allow me to wish evil, but they do not want to wish good either. What shall finally become of it? They will probably still forbid to have thoughts, or to write and talk about thinking? Finally they will even make a heresy out of the fact that I am alive, and yet they will not consider dying good: so much is taken by the exceedingly scientific (scientificissima) theological bungling that has arisen from the puddle of their philosophy. And yet these are the people who govern the nations, ward off the aversions, and lead Christ's sheep to eternal life, as it is written Matt. 15:14., "One blind man leadeth another, and both fall into the pit." O how furious and mad would these stolts, or rather dolts, 1) run upon me, if I had pronounced with such blasphemous and impious doctrine: that one might not speak of the power of the concilia, nor desire an ordinance from the same power! And indeed justly, for what could there be, according to their own judgment, more annoying and blasphemous?

1. In Latin stolpenses-ssu potius lalpenkss.

The latter word from talpa, the mole.

476 L.?. a. iv, 146-148. 89 d. The same answer according to the Latin. W. xix, 879-sW. 477

the? Armed with such weapons, the brave war heroes not only teach the Catholics, but also defeat the Bohemians and the red spirits, who, through the prince of devils, are taught to cast out devils!

16 After we have seen with how much godliness and erudition they have refuted my things, it is also worth the effort to see with what strong reason they prove theirs against me. They will no doubt teach us what it means to fight for the honor of the holy church and for the salvation of souls.

First of all, they say: It is the statute of the last Lateran Council that only one form is given to the laity. When the Bohemians read this, what do you think they will say? For the very learned idea (idea) of this note must consider the Bohemians not as men, but as mere blocks and sticks. For what can be more mundane and foolish against a schism or (as they call it) an error of a hundred years, than a decree of scarcely ten years? and that from such a concilium, which the Romans themselves mock and almost the whole world? And even if it were as valid as that at Nicaea, would it not still be ridiculous that the error could not be refuted with evidence older than itself? What heresy, what error has been overcome only from doctrines that arose after it, and from which it did not arise? But what glory of victory is this, if you do not overthrow an old heresy with greater power than by setting up an opposing human opinion of quite recent times? And yet this custom of refuting errors prevails at the present time. That is why we argue so happily, that is, we are laughed at most disgracefully.

(18) I do not say this to reject the statutes of the Concilii, but that I am angry with these coarse heads who, with their untimely and vain refutation of the errors, make a mockery of us all among the Bohemians, of whom we know that they want to have testimonies of the Scriptures and of the old fathers, and yet we hold nothing against them but the newest balderdash of the newest men. However, I do not want

The Bohemians defy, nor do they all laugh at these two or three completely unlearned lickspittles. There are others who advise the use of one figure and have better reason for it than these rascals.

19 But now they secondly go along with their main reason, namely with the word of that wise man 1 Sam. 15, 22.: "Obedience is better than sacrifice." From this they conclude, according to their marvelous inference: one must obey the latest Concilio. If now here a Bohemian asks: Where then was this obedience ten years ago? Do you then admit that we have been obedient for such a long time before until this your Concilium? What will they say here? I know they will not be silent. But I think they should not have made such ridiculous fool's talk because of the adversaries with the words of the Scripture in this note. For if once the Bohemians turn this saying more strongly against us and claim that they obey the Gospel, but blame us for not obeying it, since Christ has instituted both forms in it, and this is also confirmed by long use in the church, and say: Obedience is better than sacrifice, and the obedience of God must take precedence over the obedience of men; what then will our patrons, the glorious conquerors of the mobs, answer for us? 1) Perhaps they will be sorry that they have cited this scripture and given the sword into the hands of the adversaries; unless they wanted us to offer the bare head to the sword of the enemies. So these people write that they are satisfied that it is only written, but what, why and to whom they write is not their concern.

(20) But it grieves me exceedingly that a matter of faith and church should be undertaken by such unskilful people, and should be acted upon in such a lukewarm manner, that one feels nothing in them but envy and malice, because all that they write is so bare, dull, and ineffectual. What should they do against the devil's mighty cunning?

1. Here we have followed the Jena edition: rssxonäeduut. In the Erlangen: ässxonäsdunt.

478 V.". IV, I48-IS0. XIV Luther's dispute with Duke George. W. XIX, 582-S84. 479

and thoughts are able to play for the church, which are so weak in bad things, yes, so? So the whole paper, which wants to argue against errors, has only this single scripture, which it attracts very unhappily. Everything else is human slander and blasphemy, since such a one who goes out under the bishop's name should also present the bishop's person, that is, be full of scripture. I therefore consider the obedience of the council to be good, but I would like it to stand on its right and certain foundation, so that it does not gain the reputation among the adversaries, as if we neither knew about what is ours, nor could defend it rightly, as these unfortunate scribblers bring us into disrepute.

After that, one comes to the quite flush art, which I would have believed to find neither in Meissen, nor Leipzig, nor Dresden. Dear reader, you would think that Orpheus was playing here. Therefore, dear reader, stand up and open your mouth wide, for it is truly no small matter, namely: that Christ is completely present under both forms. With what faithful care for the people and with what wordiness do these careful people teach! Do you wonder why? I wonder myself also. For it is certain that neither the Bohemians, nor Luther, nor any heretic ever taught the opposite. For although the Picards deny that Christ is under either form, they do not say that he is only under both forms at the same time, either completely or in each of the two forms, as they dream.

22 Since these wise and highly learned people do not seem to speak completely into the wind, nor to argue with larvae, it must also be believed as an article of faith that they have known and still know against whom they speak, especially (as said) with such noise. And it is not believable that they argue against night ghosts and their dreams, by which their reputation and their wisdom would suffer a terrible blow. So who can pronounce these miraculous things of men?

23. it remains only that they wanted to prove in this way their wit and their art quite clearly, but about it also a cowherd would like to laugh. First has

they alone were driven by the mad rage to make Luther highly hated by the people under this pretense, as if he taught by a new heresy: Christ is not completely under either of the two figures. In order to hide this mad desire and not to seem so malicious, they have devised this beautiful way of speaking, yes, this trick, probably for a carnival antics, not obviously to accuse me of this heresy, but nevertheless under the accusation to indicate the Catholic counter-teaching, so that the people under the accusations would also draw the poison of this suspicion.

(24) And this, of course, was a clever trick and a little piece that could have moved a simple-minded person, if not (as Hilarius says), by God's government, prudence could do as much as ungodliness takes the liberty of doing. For since they wanted to fulfill what is written in Proverbs 26:18, 19: "As the man does harm who shoots spears and arrows to death, so does the man who deceitfully harms his friend, and when he is afflicted he says, I was joking," what is written in Cap. 11:6: "The wicked will be caught in their wickedness," and the saying in Ps. 9:17: "The sinner is entangled in the works of his hands," has happened to them. For if I ask, Why they have dragged me through the worst under the name of this outrageous heresy? they will answer: We have not done this, but have taught the people wholesome things, and have casually adduced this, that is, we have done it in jest. So they hope that they have done it in such a way that they have made me an abomination at the same time, and yet I cannot blame them for such a scoundrel.

(25) But the wretched and stupid people have not begun wisely enough to cool their heads in this; their own speech convicts them of this. For why have they so fearfully raised up and dragged out my word, which I used in German: "stücklich," which they give in Latin: partialiter, so that the people should not understand that Christ is only in bits and pieces under one form, but that they thereby clearly indicate that they not only speak to the people, but at the same time want to defile my sermon with this tremendous heresy: as if it were a matter of the law.

480 L.v. a. iv, iss f. 89 b. The same answer according to the Latin. W. xix, 584-586. 484

I would never have thought this in my heart, or they could take it from my words in any way. Yes, rather, I am sure that they have not understood my words in any other way than from the figures, because it is quite obvious that they speak of the sacrament or the figures, but not of the body of Christ, and yet they twist them in this way to the essence of the sacrament or to the body of Christ out of tremendous impudent malice in order to make me hateful. Who, I pray you, should not be surprised at such very honest people? Who should not praise their excellent art? who have no compunction about deceiving the people so diligently with the very worst lies, to their neighbor's undoing.

26 Now, my reader, see what kind of people I have to deal with; I have to endure such treacherous, malicious, deceitful and godless instructors. The church has such fighters, protectors and defenders, the faith has them, the Roman pope has them.

27 But as envy is slippery and wants to be wise, they will say, We did not say this deceitfully to harm you, but have thus forestalled it, that people might not misunderstand your ambiguous word. I answer: Why did they not also take care in their note that people would not misunderstand their ambiguous word to my detestation? Why do they tolerate so little in my words, since they are fast asleep in theirs? Yes, why do they demand from me what they diligently avoid? Although my words are so clear, then also the sacrament and the body of Christ, which everyone can understand, are so widely distinguished from each other that here not even

the slightest ambiguity can be assumed. But this Zettel's fury is so obvious and the words so slippery and ambiguous that no man's mind can take anything from them but the utmost malice and the most shameful desire to harm.

(28) Further, if they are so ignorant that they cannot distinguish the sacrament given piecemeal from the body of Christ given piecemeal, why do they not rather herd swine than write notes to instruct the people? For since a note going out in the name of the bishop must also indicate a perfect knowledge of the Old and New Testaments, according to the shape of the two-pointed bishop's hat 1): it cannot be other than the highest shame and disgrace if only one bishop were found who did not know how to distinguish the Sacrament from the Body of Christ, which are so distinguished that not even the morning and the evening can be so widely distinguished from one another.

29 Here you see, my reader, what it is to confess the truth at this time, at least in my example. What is left now but that these highly learned men, as is their custom when they answer me, pass over the matter and do not touch it at all, but only attack me with invective? I expect this and will, God willing, show how a note must be composed that wants to come to light under the name of a Catholic bishop. However, take good care, godly reader, and beware of people.

1. The two points of the bishop's miter should signify the Old and New Testaments.

482 L. Br.-W. II, 327 f. XIV Luther's dispute with Duke George. W. XIX, 586-S88. 483

*90. Luther's defense of his answer from the notes of the Bishop of Meissen in a letter to Spalatin. )

Between 12 and 18 February 1520.

Translated from Latin.

JEsus.

1. hail. Dear God, how much you, my dear Spalatin, have come into heat, so that you seem to far surpass even me and others. I have written to you before that you should not think that this matter was started or conducted according to your, my, or any other man's mind. For if it is of God, it will be carried out far against, beyond, above and below your and my comprehension.

2 And that I tell you again, I did not want that even the slightest thing in this matter should happen according to my or your determination; I have also never feared anything else in this matter than that I would once, left to myself, write that which is pleasing to the opinion of men; and you must fear just as well that you are not too clever as I am that I do not act too foolishly. Too much foolishness displeases men (I confess), but too much prudence displeases God even more. For what is foolish he has chosen to destroy what is wise 1 Cor. 1:27.

3 Do you not see that my patience, after which I did not answer Emsern and Eck to five or six wagons of abuse

has been the only cause by which puffed up these note-makers have dared to poke me with their so tasteless and ridiculous antics?

4 Then you know how I did not care that my sermon 1) at Leipzig was rejected and suppressed by a public edict; how I despised suspicion, insult, injustice and malice. Of course, one would have had to allow these bold people to add to this frenzy of theirs pasquilles that are not only full of lies, but also full of blasphemies against the evangelical truth! Do you also forbid barking against these wolves?

5 The Lord is my witness how much I have kept to myself that I did not show disrespect against this vituperative and completely empty note under the name of the bishop. Otherwise I would have said what these heads should have heard, which I will do as soon as they acknowledge the issue and start defending themselves. I will sit down against the hostile people and will not refrain from attacking them, who are so much against the law, against the Gospel and against

1. This is the Sermon on the Sacrament of the Holy Body of Christ, No. 84 in this volume.

*) This letter is handwritten in the Ooä. Ion. a. toi. 315. then in Aurifaber, vol. I, toi. 290 d; in De Wette, vol. I, p. 416 and in Erlanger Briefwechsel, vol. II, p. 327. Our translation is according to the latter edition. - In determining the time for this letter, we were guided by the following: On February 12, Luther wrote to Spalatin that he had come too late with his warning, that the answer to Stolpen's note was already in print. Luther recalls this in the postscript to the present letter, saying that his little book was "almost finished printing (absoluti8)" at that time. Therefore, it is incorrect when Aurifaber remarks on Luther's letter of February II that Luther sent the German answer to the note to Spalatin on that day. But also the assumption of Köstlin (1, 314) and Enders (Erl. Briefwechsel II, 322) that Luther sent the manuscript to Spalatin is not tenable, because Luther promised Spalatin on February 18 that he would send the manuscript of the Latin answer to him, and would have done so also with the German one, if it had not already been in print. Cf. De Wette, Vol. I, p. 414. The German manuscript has thus not been sent to Spalatin. All that we know with certainty of the going out of the German answer is that the same was brought on February 16 by the Mainz secretary, Licentiate Reysch, from Pirna to Stolpen to the bishop, with whom Miltitz was present, and that it was delivered on February 17 to Duke Georg in Dressen by Miltitz. (Cf. Seidemann, "Miltiz", p. 22 f.; Cyprian, Vol. I, p. 429 s.)

484 D. Br.-W. II, 328-330. 90 Luther's defense of his answer 2c. W. XIX, 588-5S0. 485

all reason go off, in a future writing so that they shall see how neatly I have dealt with their ignorance or wickedness.

You have not, I see, read the note properly, which (if they are not more ignorant than all donkeys) could not have been written more poisonous, harmful, malicious and lying against me, yes, not against me, but against the word of God. If I am to be expelled for this, or go elsewhere, or even suffer something else, you know how much I despise this kind of trouble.

7 I beg you, if you have the right opinion of the Gospel, do not think that the matter can be handled without rebellion, trouble and unrest. You will not make a feather out of the sword, nor peace out of war: the word of God is the sword, the war, the fall, the trouble, the destruction, the poison, and (as Hosea 1 13:7,8 says) like a bear on the road and a lioness in the forest, he meets the children of Ephraim. Against Emser, Eck, Tetzel I have written much more vehemently and you have not complained about it. How? if the official 2) or even the bishop himself does not want to know anything about the issue?

They write with greater danger than I, since they have so completely forgotten the Gospel, rights, natural reason and all understanding that they have not even bothered to condemn me without calling me, or reminding me, or instructing me, and have done what they would never let me do, which I have not done either, at least to the bishop and official.

They may appear only if they wish, and if they are no longer mindful of what is proper to an episcopal person or even to an official, then I certainly believe that I will remind them finely of what is due to them with the attraction of Scripture. I can protect myself from this hasty and un-

1. In the text "Amos.
2. Christoph Beczschicz appears as Official von Stolpen in a document dated January 14, 1520. (Erlangen correspondence.)

If I do not fear the envy of the learned, God will take me away. He may see what he wants to accomplish through me, because I am sure that I have neither sought nor demanded anything through this, but everything has been wrested from me through the frenzy of others.

(10) Be of good courage, and look not on that which is before the eyes. Faith does not doubt what is not seen Heb. 11:1, so why do you judge by what you see? Another thing, my dear Spalatin, is what is done in this matter, another thing is what is seen. I seek nothing, but there is one who seeks it. It may now stand or fall, so I gain or lose nothing. There you have my opinion.

(11) But even our people do not dislike what I have written as much as you do. Even the Lord Prepositus 3) himself thinks that it has been done right by me to these chatterers. If one is to accept everything that comes out in the bishops' name, dear, what a great tyranny would not prevail there! And it is not doubtful to me that the bishop of Meissen is not only not the author of this note, but I also firmly hope that he will not recognize it as his own. And even if he recognizes it for his own, I believe that he will let this serve as a warning to act more wisely and intelligently in the future.

But I cannot deny that I am much more violent than I should be. Since they knew this very well, they should not have provoked the dog. You can see for yourself how difficult it is to moderate the heat and keep the spring in check. That is precisely the reason why I have always been unwilling to get involved with anyone publicly, and the more unwilling I am about it, the more I am drawn into it against my will. And that is only through the most horrible wickedness with which they go against me and the word of God. Therefore, if I were not carried away either by the heat or by the pen, even a stony heart could be moved to rebellion by displeasure at such a procedure; but how much more I, who am hot-tempered and not quite a man, could be moved to rebellion?

3. D. Henning Göde. (Erl. Briefw.)

486 L. Br.-W. ii, 33v. XIV Luther's dispute with Duke George. W. xix, ssof. 487

I have a blunt pen. Through these monstrosities, I am brought to go beyond well-mannered modesty.

(13) And since I also wonder where the new reverence (religio) has come from, that everything that is said against his adversary should be called blasphemy, what do you think of Christ? Has he been a blasphemer, when he calls the Jews an adulterous and perverse generation, breeders of vipers, hypocrites, children of the devil? Then also Paul, who calls them dogs, those who speak vain things, deceivers, unlearned, who calls Apost. 13, 10. attacks a false prophet in such a way that he could be considered nonsensical and says: "O child of the devil, full of all cunning and mischievousness, and enemy of all righteousness"? Why does Paul not rather modestly flatter this man here, so that he may convert him, than that he so

very thunders? Namely, the truth of which you are aware cannot exercise patience against stiff-necked and unruly enemies of the truth.

14 That is enough of these trivial things. I see that everyone desires more modesty from me, especially my enemies, who observe it least of all. And even if I am not at all reserved, I am still simple-minded and open-hearted, in which I believe I am a little ahead of them, since they are only in the habit of disputing in the most disingenuous manner. Fare well and do not be afraid. Wittenberg 1520.

Br. Martin Luther.

You write, among other things, that your advice was despised, and you no longer think of what I wrote, that your advice came too late, since my little book was almost finished.

A list of some of Luther's writings that are relevant here:

1 Luther's sermon on Holy Communion on Maundy Thursday (April 17) 1522: The Principal Part of the Eternal and New Testaments. Walch, St. Louis Edition, vol. X, 2164.

2 The sermons of Luther, which have been cited there, Walch, St. Louis edition, vol. X, 2168 f.

3 Luther's letter to Spalatin, Nov. 29, 1519. Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 653.

The sermon of the reverend sacrament is under the press.

4 Luther's letter to Spalatin, January 10, 1520. Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 664 f.

Luther sends letters to Spalatin, from which he can see that the Leipzig theologians claim that communion under both forms, which he does not command, but leaves to a concilium, is error and heresy, and also accuse him of being a Bohemian because of his origin, upbringing, and so on.

Luther's letter to Spalatin, January 14, 1520, in this volume, Appendix, No. 4.

Luther's enemies accuse him of demanding communion under both forms and of being "Bohemian by birth. Luther gives news about his origin.

6 Luther's letter to Spalatin, January 18, 1520. Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 667.

A "Schutzrede" for Luther's Sermon vom hochwürdigen Sacrament by Lazarus Spengler in Nuremberg has been published and also Luther wants such a German writing

(the "Declaration", No. 87 in this volume) because of the atrocious things which his enemies have brought forward about the Communion under both forms and its origin.

7 Luther's letter to Johann Lang, January 26, 1520. Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 668.

Luther sends him a copy of his "Declaration of Several Articles" etc.

8 Luther's letter to Spalatin, February 5, 1520. Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 670.

The Bishop of Meissen has forbidden Luther's sermon in a public note. Luther wants to answer him. He sends the note.

9 Luther's letter to Spalatin, February 8, 1520. Walch, old edition, vol. XV, appendix, no. 55.

Luther wrote yesterday the German answer to the note of the Bishop of White.

10 Luther's letter to Spalatin, February 11, 1520. Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 672. (Because Walch here identifies the Tessaradecas with the reply to the note of the Bishop of Meissen, compare De Wette, vol. I, 408).

Spalatin should not be surprised about the well-deserved vehemence in Luther's answer. The Latin answer (No. 89 b in this volume) is in progress. Luther asks for the note of the Bishop of Meissen back, because he needs it tomorrow or at the latest the day after tomorrow, in order to attach it to the Latin answer. '

488 91. mandate of Duke George of Saxony. W. xix, ssi-sss. 489

Luther's letter to Spalatin, February 12, 1520, in this volume, Appendix, No. 5.

Spalatin had come too late with his warning (Luther should not write violently against the bishop of Meissen); the writing (No. 89a) was already under the press.

Between this and the next letter, i.e. between February 12 and 18, 1520, Luther's letter to Spalatin, which is included under No. 90 in this volume, is to be placed. (Cf. the note to No. 90.)

Luther defends himself against Spalatin because of the accusations of vehemence made against him in his reply to

dm Stolpen's note. He repeats in the postscript that the German reply was almost ready printed (absolutis) when he received (on February 12) Spalatin's warning. Spalatin's advice had come too late.

13 Luther's letter to Spalatin, February 18, 1520. Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 673.

Luther is of good cheer about the Stolpen affair. He wants to arrange the Latin answer as gently as possible and send it to Spalatin for review before it is printed. This would also have been done with the German answer, if it had not already been in print.

d. Because of Luther's translation of the New Testament.

*91. mandate of Duke George of Saxony to hand over the New Testament translated by Luther. )

November 7, 1522.

George by the Grace of God Duke of Saxony, Landgrave of Thuringia and > Margrave of Meissen.

1. to all and any of our subjects and relatives of whatever 1) rank, dignity or nature. Dear faithful! When we commanded you before, by order of Papal Holiness and Imperial Majesty, our most gracious Lord, with special earnestness, that no one, whether woman or man, should dare to read Martin Luther's books, to buy or sell them, or to have them with him, we had taken it for granted that you would obey the same, Papal Holiness, Imperial Majesty, and our commandments, and that you would keep the same unbreakably.
2. But it has come to our attention, and we also find this publicly on the day, that the New Testament has now been Germanized at Wittenberg by Martin Luther, for whom it is manly respected, with special postillions in the margins, and also with some disgraceful figures, The New Testament was printed by Martin Luther in Wittenberg, with special postures in the margins, and also with some abusive figures of papal sanctity, to mock and ridicule, and to confirm his teachings, and it has gone out that many of our subjects and elsewhere in our lands and principalities are subject to buy the displayed New Testament (so both, Old and New Testament,

1. Thus the Wittenberg edition; Jenaer: was.

without the previously sufficiently Germanized), which all predetermined papal sanctity, imperial majesty, and our commandment to special contempt and disobedience, us also such in no way to tolerate leidlich.

3. Therefore we command and order all of you and each one in particular herewith seriously and want, if you have such new German books in your hands, that each one hand over and answer the same in the next our office, which is convenient for him, to our steward of the end, since we have nevertheless out of abundance, so that no one has to complain because of this, ordered to give him his laid out money for it again: but that each one, in his duties, report where and from whom, also how much, he has received or bought the books in question, and that this be done between here and Christmas.

(4) But if we should find anyone, whether woman or man, who has the same books or their imprint and writing about this commandment of ours, we will not let them go unpunished, and we will show ourselves to be manly in noting from it that we want to handle the obedience of the Christian church and of its supreme leaders as much as we can. Let everyone be guided by this. Given at Dresden, Friday after All God's Holy Day. 1522.

*) This mandate is found in the collective editions: in the Wittenberg (1569), vol. IX, p. 143; in the Jena (1585), vol. II, p. I60b; in the Altenburg, vol. II, p. 224; in the Leipzig, vol. XVIII, p. 284 and in Hofmann's Reformatronshistorie der Stadt und Universität Leipzig, p^I72. We give the text according to the Jena edition.

490 XIV Luther's dispute with Duke George. W. xix.sWf. 491

Initiated by Duke John of Saxony (see the introduction) and with reference to the above mandate, Luther wrote his treatise Von weltlicher Obrigkeit, wie weit man ihr Gehorsam zu leisten sei. Walch, St. Louis Edition, Vol. X, 374. In this writing, he calls all such princes who make such commands tyrants. It appeared on New Year's Day 1523.

c. Because of Luther's letter to Hartmuth von Cronberg.

The writing that prompted this dispute with Duke George is Luther's missive to Hartmuth von Cronberg, in March 1522. Walch, old edition, vol**.** XV, 1979.

Hartmuth von Cronberg's Response to Luther's Missive

is located in the same place, Col. 1991.

*92 Duke George of Saxony's letter to Luther concerning his missive to Hartmann von Cronberg. )

30 Derember 1522.

Doctori Martino Luther For the attention of.

We, George by the Grace of God, Duke of Saxony, Landgrave of Thuringia and Margrave of Meissen, inform you, Doctor Martin Luther, that two days ago we received an imprint of a letter, which is said to have been written and sent out in your name and by you to Hartmann 1) von Cronberg des Lauts, when we enclose a copy of it. And so we in the indicated letter in the fifth article, which begins: Such joy and gladness 2c., especially named, and

1. Hartmuth and Hartmann, both names occur at the same time, since one did not take it so exactly with names at that time. (Seidemann, "Erläuterungen," p. 59.)

with shameful words and important infractions, affecting our soul, honor and good reputation, which we have also immediately taken to heart, and if we have not given you cause to do so due to our oversight.

It is our request that you inform us by means of your minutes whether you have sent out a letter to Hartmann von Cronberg, and what you want to confess about it, so that we may know how to judge our honorable need for it. Given at Dresden, Tuesday after Innocentum, Anno 1523. 2)

2. According to the old way to start the new year with Christmas.

*This letter and Luther's reply can be found in the German editions. In the Wittenberg (1569), vol. IX, p. 169; in the Jena (1585), vol. II, p. 171 d; in the Altenburg, vol. II, p. 257 and, Luther's reply by mistake again vol. VIII, p. 964; in the Leipzig, vol. XVIII, p. 235 and in Seidemann's "Erläuterungen zur Reformationgeschichte" p. 61. Luther's answer then still in De Wette, vol. II, p. 284 and according to the original vol. VI, p. 37 and in the Erlangen edition, vol. 53, p. 158. - The date of Duke George's letter is 30 Dec. 1522 (not 28 Dec. as Seidemann states in the "Erläuterungen"). Innocentum (Dec. 28) fell on a Sunday in 1522, thus Tuesdays after Innocentum, which is found in the original, Dec. 30, 1522. We give both letters according to Seidemann's "Erläuterungen".

492 Erl. 53, 158 f. 93. Luther's reply to previous letter. W. XIX, SSL f. 493

*D. Martin Luther's answer to the previous letter of Duke George of Saxony. )

January 3, 1523.

To the illustrious, highborn prince and lord, Mr. Georgen, Duke of > Saxony, Landgrave in Thuringia, and Margrave of Meissen.

JEsus.

To stop raving and raging against God and His Christ, instead of my service before. Ungracious Prince and Lord, I have received Your Honor's writing together with the booklet or letter I am supposed to have written to Hartmann von Cronenberg, and I have especially had the place of which Your Honor complains read to me as concerning important infractions, soul, honor and reputation, since the same booklet is printed here and also elsewhere. Because E. F. U. now desires to know what I want to confess in it, my answer recently is: That it is the same for E. F. U., it will be taken for confessed, lain, sat, or run. For whatever I do or say against E. F. U., whether secretly or publicly, I offer myself up as right, and, whether God wills it, I will also receive it as right. But God will find the power. For where it is E. F. U. 1)

1. Luther first wrote G here, but corrigirte U. (Seidemann.)

If I were serious and did not lie so rudely that I was too close to E. F. U.'s soul, honor and good reputation, she would not blaspheme and persecute Christian truth so shamefully. However, this is not the first time that I have been lied to and maliciously exposed by E. F. U., so that I would have just cause to complain about the infractions concerning my soul, honor and good reputation. But I keep silent about all this, because Christ commands me to be favorable even to my enemies.

Which I have also done so far, with my prayer to God for E. F. U. And I still offer to serve E. F. U. with what I can, without any false request. If this is despised, I cannot go; therefore I will not fear to death for any bubble of water, whether God wills and my Lord Jesus Christ. May He enlighten E. F. U.'s eyes and heart and please Him, and make me a gracious, favorable prince, from E. F. U. Amen. At Wittenberg on the eighth of John. 1523.

Martinus Luther

By the Grace of God

Evangelist at Wittenberg.

2. In the original: leumat.

Some of Luther's letters concerning this section are found in the appendix to this volume, viz:

a. Luther's letter to Wenceslaus Link, January 7, 1523. Appendix, No. 6.

Duke Georg wrote to Luther, confronted him about the injustice done and questioned him about the letter to Hartmuth von Cronberg. Luther answered him in such a way that he will not like it.

b. Luther's letter to Spalatin, January 14, 1523. Appendix, No. 7.

Duke George will probably have already made his letter to Luther (No. 92) public, especially before the Elector Frederick and the Imperial Regiment. Luther does not want to publish it first, but he sends it to Spalatin. He also wants to send him his answer to Duke George, if Spalatin has not yet seen it.

c. Luther's letter to Spalatin, end of March

or beginning of April 1523. Appendix, No. 9. (Cf.

Seidemann, "Erläuterungen," p. 75, note).

Nothing new had happened between him and Duke Georg after the first letter. Count Albrecht von Mansfeld had cried out to Luther in this matter, not in the name of Duke George, but for himself, and had tried to persuade him to appease the Duke by a milder letter.

d. Luther's letter to Spalatin, April 25, 1523.

Appendix, No. 8.

Luther sends to Spalatin the letter that Duke Georg sent to Count Albrecht von Mansfeld Wider Luthern (which is full of rages, bluster and threats), which a friend had sent to Luther in confidence (on April 3) with the condition that he would not allow anyone to copy it. (Cf. De Wette, vol. II, 317 f.; Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 831 f.).

*) Where this letter is found is indicated in the previous number. We give it after De Wette VI, 37.

494XIV Luther's dispute with Duke George. W. xix, 5W-598. 495

d. Because of the privilegii and the preface of Duke George before Emser's New Testament.

94 Preface of Duke George of Saxony to the New Testament, by the worthy and highly respected Magistrum Hieronymum Emser, the licentiate of law, emendirt anew, restituted everywhere and brought right 2c. *)

August 1, 1527.

1. We George, by the Grace of God, Duke of Saxony, Landgrave of Thuringia, Margrave of Meissen, do publicly confess and make known to all and sundry to whom this our writing comes, now and forever, and in remembrance of these things: that after Martin Luther, then an Augustinian monk, was not satisfied with his own condemnation, but also undertook with great diligence and earnestness to lead other people together with him to the same condemnation and to his godless sect, How he then in a short time has not only taken over and seduced the poor simple-minded and unintelligent common people, but also several great potentates, communes, and heads of the German nation by his glaring and heretical teachings, sermons, and writings.
2. Especially, however, by his presumptuous interpretation of the entire New Testament, which, contrary to the order and content of the holy Christian church, he has perverted, added to, and detracted from the proven texts in many places, riddled it with poisonous and heretical glosses, 1) rejected several entire books from it, and has reviled and rebuked the canonical writings of the holy apostles with shameful words, as for brazen letters, which held neither apostolic office nor kind in them, so that he alone might cover up his presumption and ungodly doctrine under the appearance of the Gospel and Word of God, and teach and authorize the people all the better. As such his false interpretation, printed in many thousands of copies, small and large in form, has been presented to the common man as the righteous gospel and word of God, and has been preached, read and held for it, thereby deceiving and seducing many a pious simple-minded person.

1. d. i. provided in the margin.

3. for this reason we, with temporal well-considered advice, and also, by order and command of the Roman Imperial Majesty, Caroli V., our most gracious Lord, we have forbidden the reported Luther's Interpretation and New Testament to our dear and faithful subjects, to avoid punishment and harm to body and soul, and have had it taken out of their hands, in a completely fatherly, guilty and good opinion, which the much-named Luther, together with some of his followers, have also most severely perverted and scolded us as a tyrant, persecutor and enemy of the holy gospel and word of God, and which we would not allow to be read and preached freely in our lands. Therefore, they harassed us to the point of unreasonableness.
4. For we hope to God that all those who know us well have never noticed or recognized otherwise than that we have gladly heard the Gospel and Word of God as accepted by the Christian Church, and that God would have us follow it in deed, and that we are not inclined to suppress the true Gospel and Word of God, but only Luther's and the other falsely named evangelical preachers' deceitful doctrine, preaching and writing in our lands. If God wills it, we also want to rest on this steadfastly and, by means of divine grace, persevere to the end of our lives. We trust and hope that even those to whom we are unknown, and those who will come after us, will have excused us from the following credible information and narration of the Lutheran and the other up-and-coming fanatics' doctrine and fruits that sprang from it.

*This preface of the duke, together with the writings included in the two following numbers, is found in the collective editions of Luther's works, namely in the Wittenberg (1569), vol. IX, p. 301; in the Jena (1566), M>. IV, p. 542; in the Altenburger, vol. IV, p. 639; and in the Leipziger, vol. XXII, p. 16. In all these editions the year 1528 is erroneously given, which, as Walch says in the introduction, p. 41, "is to be regarded as a printing error. Cf. Seckendorf. Rist. Luttt., ILb. I, p. 209. We have followed the text of the Jena edition.

496 94 Preface of Duke George to the New Testament. W. xix, Ms-eoo. 497

5. For although Luther first began the matter with a semblance of a supposed reformation and improvement of the abuses that were supposed to be ingrained in the clergy and the secular, he subsequently let himself be heard with words and works that his mind was not to improve things, but even to overturn them; As he then famously said many times that he wanted to do it, he also spared no effort in it and very much dared that in a short time no church, monastery, church or monastery, no priest, monk or nun, and neither prince nor bishop should remain under heaven. He was not content with this, but also, partly through his subsequent fanatics and falsely named evangelical preachers, undertook to completely eradicate the entire Christian church and our holy faith, and to expel not only the dear saints, but also Christ Himself from heaven; as they then attacked, despised and abandoned one after the other.
6. first the Doctores scholasticos, then also the old holy teachers, who are called Ecclesiasticos. Which scriptures, canons, and decrees (given to them by the Holy Spirit for the betterment of the churches) they publicly burned with fire, had the holy images and crucifixes (which did not stand for idols, but only for the memory and remembrance of the simple people) broken and smashed in churches and in the streets.
7. all good works, namely: virgin chastity, fasting, praying, celebrating, going to church, processions, cloisters, litany, vespers, masses, matins and the other horas. In addition, the vigils, masses, funerals, thirtieths, anniversaries, and everything that is kept by the church for the benefit of the dear departed souls, along with all Christian and traditional and praiseworthy practices, not only blasphemous promised, but also even abolished and omitted.
8. they have become so completely carnal and savage that even on holy Fridays and the required feast days they eat and eat meat, not out of necessity but solely out of spite and contempt for the church, asking and demanding that after their death they not be buried in a consecrated place but like another unreasonable animal, that no good be done to them, nor that they be prayed for. And in order that they might remain free and unpunished in all this, they have for this reason also struck down the holy councils and all the power of the church, and have granted the common rabble the power, not only over the Scriptures and councils, but also over the church.

also to judge and punish the authorities, spiritual and secular.

9. Consequently, they have also been unintentionally subjected not only to the discontinuation of ceremonies and sacramentals, such as consecrated salt, water, spices, candles, and other things, which, as St. Paul says, are sanctified in the church through prayer and the Word of God, but also to the disrespect of the holy sacraments themselves, some of which they even reject and do not want to have for a sacrament, such as Confirmation, Holy Unction, Priestly Ordination, and Confession, together with Penance and the Repentance of Sins.

(10) Others, however, pervert and change it in various ways and forms, baptizing differently from what the Christian church has ordered and hitherto held praiseworthy, one in this way and another in that way, and some tell it that baptism is not at all necessary. Item, the sacrament of holy matrimony, which has been held in dignity and honor by males since the beginning of the world, they also tear apart in an unchristian way, allowing and giving two or more wives to a man and two or more husbands to a woman.

They have proclaimed the holy mass an abomination and idolatry, now in German, now again in Latin, and in various ways, contrary to the old Christian order, on none of which it is finally based, and even today the matter is not one among themselves. But beyond measure unchristian and in many ways they act and destroy the reverend sacrament of the tender Corpus Christi and blood of our dear Lord Jesus Christ. Which some, contrary to the order of the holy Christian church, want to have under two forms, some under none at all, some consider only the flesh and blood of Christ and not Christ Himself, some say that Christ is indeed there, but only as a man and not as a God. Some say that bread and wine together with the flesh and blood, others that it is only bread and wine and a bad sign, like a seal on a letter; as if we should not trust God, nor believe, without a letter and seal.

(12) For this reason, they do not show honor or reverence to this reverend sacrament, but turn their backs on it, stare like logs, and will not bow down to it, in whose name all knees in heaven, on earth, and under the earth must bow. Some go to it without any repentance and confession, touching it themselves with sinful hands, eating and drinking as if it were otherwise a common food or drink. They push the hosts into their pockets and play with them, which is an abomination to Christian ears.

498 HV. Luther's dispute with Duke George. W. xix, eoo-eos. 499

When they hear this, they call it an idol and a devil, and trample it underfoot, some of whom are also punished embarrassingly for it.

This is undoubtedly because they do not consider Christ to be God, but only a bad man and prophet (as was recently publicly disputed by two apostates in Nickelsburg), and some do not consider him to be anything at all. They say that he was conceived in original sin, much less that he could have taken away other people's sins, with outrageous abuse of his most holy mother, the immaculate virgin Mary, who is held in greater reverence and honor by Turks and pagans than by these unchristian sacrilegious people.

14. From which ungodly teaching, preaching, disputation and writings nothing else sprang but these following tender fruits, as from a muddy quat or dung an unclean poisonous worm, namely not only a carnal, but also an animal and devilish freedom, self-will, sacrilege, disobedience and bloody rebellion of the poor seduced subjects, contempt, disgrace and blasphemy of all ecclesiastical and secular authorities, apostasy and wretched fall of the clergy, discarding of their habit, together with all discipline, shame and fear of God, forgetting their vows and oaths, the unseemly marriage of monks, priests and nuns, the dispossession of their goods, the destruction of their monasteries and churches, from which the vestments, chalices, monstrances, gold and silver censers and other sacred jewels, item stone, iron, stained glass windows and others, given for God's service and glory, have been have been sold on the open market, used for worldly pleasure, and the houses of worship have been turned into stables and other unseemly buildings, all worship and devotion of the people to God and His saints has been extinguished, and our holy Christian faith has been completely extinguished in many places.

(15) We are silent about many spiritual, pious virgins who were forcibly taken out of their monasteries and deprived of their virginal status and honor against God, honor and justice: although this is to be considered minor compared to the miserable murder, death and bloodshed of the poor deceived subjects and so many miserable widows and orphans, to which they have wantonly forced the authorities by their obdurate sacrilege and disobedience. But what is this to be counted against the damage and loss of so many Christian souls, whom Christ bought with his precious blood, and whom Luther and his adherents and subsequent false evangelicals have condemned to death?

The people of the city have again alienated themselves from the preachers, hawkmongers, and the spirits of the red men through their seductive teachings, and, as is unfortunately to be feared, have caused them to be eternally damned.

16 Since all this is publicly known and undeniable, for Luther has recently made himself famous in the booklet against the King of England's epistles, that none of the fanatics and the pagans knew anything special about Christ or the Gospel if Luther had not written and brought us into this freedom and light, or, even if they were so skilled, they would not have been so bold or thirsty to take up the matter.

17 Thus, every man of good character and constant pious Christian can well judge for himself whether we, as a Christian prince, did not have reason enough to forbid Luther's interpretation, teaching and writing to ours, and whether we did not justifiably bear a heartfelt displeasure and grievance over such unchristian conduct, pernicious damage and downfall of the noble German nation, contempt of God and eradication of our holy Christian faith. And, in the undoubted hope, only men who do not adhere to this sect will have excused us from the accusation 1) made by the Lutherans, now and for eternity.

18. For such dishonor and reproach was not encountered by him alone, but just as Jannes and Jambres Most, Simon the Magician Petro, Alexander and Hymenaeus Paulo, Ebion and Cerinthus Johanni, and Hermogenes Jaeobo resisted and murmured against them: Thus Luther has rebelled against the heads of the holy Christian church and all ecclesiastical and secular authorities, not only with outrageous invectives and words of shame, so that his mouth may well be called the mouth of the beast of which John writes in his Revelation on the 13th chapter. [V. 2.)
19. Finally, for further proof and clearer indication that we alone want to prevent the heretics' damned and deceitful word and doctrine, and not the true Gospel and Word of God, or to read or preach it, we have our dear devout, the worthy and highly esteemed Magistrum Hieronymum Emser, the right licentiate, to this end (because he earlier wrote Annotationes on Luther's interpretation, and indicated several hundred false passages therein), that he has now also taken this trouble upon himself, and read the entire New Testa-

1. d. i. Accusations.

500 94. preface of duke george to the new testament. W. XIX, 6O3-60S. 501

The author, with his utmost diligence and ability, has emendated, restituted, and restored to its rightful place, in accordance with the order and the soundness of the proven old text and the description of the holy apostles and evangelists, and has also, as follows, let it go out in a manly manner by means of an open print.

(20) Which we have all the more graciously encouraged, so that henceforth no one among us may complain that the Gospel or Word of God is withheld or denied to him, and that every devout Christian may stand by the true and righteous Word of God, and may recognize Luther's and the other heretics' perverse interpretation, glosses and interpretations with the greatest care and guard against them.

(21) Those of us who will obediently accept and read this justified New Testament and true Word of God will be so much more pleased to know in grace and all good things, so much greater will be the benefit and piety of their souls' salvation that they will derive from our hope.

(22) But so that the reported emendation and justification is not perverted or changed by the heretics as soon as in the beginning by false emphasis.

We give the reported Licentiate Emser this freedom and privilege that in the next two years after the date of this open letter, no one in our lands, territories and principalities may reprint it and, even if it is printed outside, sell it, without his favor, knowledge and will, at the penalty and loss of two hundred Rhenish gülden, half of which any violator shall pay to our chamber and the other half to the above-mentioned licentiate Emser, in recompense for his toil and labor, and shall be obliged to answer. According to this, each one of them is to direct himself, and to prevent any damage. Given in our princely city and court Dresden, on the first day of August, after the birth of Christ our Savior, a thousand, five hundred, and in the eighth and twentieth year, 1)

1. This preface belongs, as has already been noted above, to the year 1527. For it follows from § 19 that Emser was still alive. The old editions may have reprinted this preface from the edition of 1528, and in this edition, the year of the earlier preface may have been changed to 1528, which was not uncommon at that time. Cf. Walch, St. Louis Edition. Vol. XXII, Introduction, p. 24.

*95 Duke George's privilege for the new printing of Emser's New Testament. )

January 25, 1528.

We, George by the Grace of God, Duke of Saxony, Landgrave of Thuringia, and Margrave of Meissen, do hereby publicly declare and confess before all men. After 2) we have long since decreed that the New Testament be printed according to the interpretation and interpretation of the proven old texts, doctors and teachers, and now, to the praise of God, the same copies have almost all expired, we have caused the same New Testament to be printed, but with a noticeable improvement elsewhere, and in a smaller and more convenient form.

2. We have deleted "and" after "after" because it seemed too much; it is not in the Wittenberg edition either.

2. However, because those who have undertaken to present such things, 3) are also worthy of a pardon and freedom for the realization of their applied work and presentation, and so that not many heretical interpretations and additions may be imagined under a uniform title and heading (as we otherwise find to be the case), and additions may be imagined by the poor simple-minded layman, we seriously command all our relatives, subjects and other males who wish to engage in trade in our lands and principalities 4) to do so without any special

3. i.e. undertaken at their expense.
4. i.e. trading.

*) Where this typeface is found in the editions is already noted in the previous number. - Also this writing has, like the previous one, an incorrect year at the end. Not in the year 1529, but in 1528 Pauli's conversion fell on Saturday.

502XIV Luther's dispute with Duke George. W.nL, 6os-ko7. 503

that this New Testament, as it is now printed or has been printed, shall not be reprinted in any way or form, or brought into our country and principality, sold, or otherwise dealt with, with penalty and forfeiture of the said reprinted New Testaments, and two hundred guilders, which each of the violators of this commandment of ours shall pay and be obliged to pay half to our chamber, and the other half to those who have published and produced this print.

3. and accordingly command all our officers, councillors, mayors, judges, and all other court administrators, so often and so thickly with this

Our letter, which is attached to our secret, is to be applied to them, so that they may faithfully and diligently observe this pardon and privilege of ours, protect it, handle it, and help those who, as indicated, will be confronted with it, so that they may as soon as possible collect and obtain the forfeited penalties from the transgressors, while avoiding our disfavor.

4 And that it may be known by men, we have ordered this letter of ours to be printed beforehand, so that everyone may be guided by it. In witness whereof we have hereunto set our seal, and give it at Dresden, on Saturday, the day of the Conversion of St. Paul the Holy Apostle, after the birth of Christ, a thousand, five hundred, and nine and twentieth years.

*The short, common preface to Emser's New Testament. )

First, you will find the preface of the Serene, Highborn Prince and Lord, Mr. George, Duke of Saxony, Landgrave of Thuringia and Margrave of Meissen 2c.

2. by which this book is given an ornamental decoration, authority and faith are granted, and the entire heresy that is now pending is condemned therein in such a way that it is not unreasonably called the Summarium, even of the Lutheran heresies and other heresies that have sprung from it. Not only the subjects of this praiseworthy principality, who by God's mild grace, through this their sovereign and lord, have abstained from pestilent heresies for this, but also the foreigners, who by His F. G.'s pre-commission of the Bavarian and from the realm of the Lutheran heresy flowed out rebellion, shall be preserved in body and goods, and whether God wills it, also much of the harmful errors shall have been prevented and averted.
3. and especially the clergy and monastics

(who, because of this, are the more skilled in prayer and separated from the temporal) praise our merciful God and over-giving Lord with heartfelt gratitude, and that He would strengthen us in the good, protect us from the evil, and graciously live out their temporal life for the benefit of the poor subjects, the same and other Christian princes who like to eradicate evil and plant the good in these annual and evil times. That we may remain in peace, unity and true Christian faith, and finally obtain and possess with them the inheritance of Christ (which is promised to the good and denied to the evil), amen.

4. following and for the other you will find the privilege, so Hochgedachter Fürst (in order to avert the false text and glosses, which nowadays, like the false pennies and pfennings, are coined on just strokes, mixed under and into the truest Scriptures) has extended to Emser's blessed translation of the Testament, and has graciously given for this printing anew 2c.

To this section belongs the letter of Luther to D. Justus Jonas of December 10, 1527, which is included in the old edition in the appendix of the 17th volume, no. 4.

Luther had intended to send a letter of condolence to Duke George because of the eternal shame with which those who live under his protection have sullied him by misusing his name for the preface of Emser's New Testament. But because Emser had died and Duke Georg was ill, he had changed his intention.

Cf. the first note to No. 94 - The year we have set is a conjecture. In the Wittenberg and Jena editions, the year 1529 is written above it; however, we consider it probable that the edition of 1528, to which the privilegium given in the previous number was first added, was also preceded by this preface.

504 Erl. SS, 338-340. 97 Luther's Humble Letter to Duke George. W. XIX, 607-609. 505

e. Because of his humble letter to Duke George.

*S7. D. Mart. Luther's Christian, heartfelt, humble letter to Duke George of Saxony. )

December 21, 1525.

1. grace and peace in Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior, and my servants before, Most High, Most Gracious Prince, Most Gracious Lord. We know, as all Scripture says of God, that He first deals harshly and harshly with men, but afterwards kindly and fatherly. Thus He first afflicted and cursed the whole Israelite people through the severe law of Moses, before He blessed them through the Gospel and comforted them kindly, as it is written 1 Sam. 2, 6: "The Lord kills and makes alive" 2c. Accordingly, I have dealt with many others, including E. F. G., and have attacked them with hard, sharp writing. I have also kindly asked that God would make E. F. G. a gracious Lord to me and otherwise let many lovely sermons and books go out, in which everyone might well grasp how I mean no harm to anyone, but would gladly serve everyone for the best.

But as I notice that E. F. G. does not turn away from the disgrace at all, but always continues, I have been advised to humbly and kindly ask E. F. G. once again, with this writing, perhaps for the last time. For it almost looks to me as if God our Lord should take our part away from us very soon, and then there is the worry that Duke Jürge and Luther would also have to go.

3. but what I do, I appeal to God, as much as my heart can tell me, that I do it for the best of E. F. G. out of my duty and guilt, which urges me to prevent and protect E. F. G. souls.

blessedness; which I also recognize that I owe to my enemies. Now let E. F. G. accept (that God gives) or not (that God is for), so E. F. G. shall learn in a short time that I meant better with my hard writing and still mean it, because all those who now praise E. F. G. highly, also hypocritically.

I now come and fall at the feet of E. F. G. with all my heart and ask most humbly that E. F. G. will desist from his ungracious intention to persecute my teaching. Not that much harm may come to me through E. F. G.'s persecution: I have nothing more to lose than the maggot sack, which now hurries daily to the grave. So I have a greater enemy, namely the devil, with all his angels; and God has given me the courage so far (although I am a poor, frail, sinful man) that I remain before him. And if I should seek my profit, no evil can befall me, except that I should be severely persecuted. For how splendidly the persecution has benefited me so far, I cannot tell that I should thank my enemies for it. And if E. F. G.'s misfortune were dear to me and did not care for E. F. G., I would continue to provoke E. F. G. and wish to persecute me more and more. But that has been enough, E. F. G. has proven himself well; now it is time to do otherwise. For although E. F. G. does not want to believe that my teachings are the word of God, for then she would know how to guide herself and would not need my admonition. Because I

*This letter appeared especially under the title: "Ein Sendbrief Doctor Martin Luchers an Herzog Georg zu Sachsen 2c., darin er ihn freundlich exhortt, zu dem Wort Gottes zu treten. A reply from He^og Georg zu Sachsen 2c. to Doctor Martinum. 1526." German along with Duke George's reply in the Wittenberg edition (1569), vol. IX, p. 230; in the Jena (1556), vol. ill, p. 208; in the Altenburg, vol. ill, p. 302.334; in the Leipzig, vol. XIX, p. 360. Without the duke's reply in De Wette, vol. Ill, p. 54; in the Erlangen, vol. 53, p. 338. Latin in the Wittenberg, lom. II, toi. 531. we share the text according to De Wette, which is Luther's own handwriting in Oocl. otrart. 379, Lidl. 6olU.

506 Erl. 53, s4o 5 - XIV Luther's dispute with Duke George. W. xix, sos-sn. 507

But I know and I am certain that, if my souls are in danger, I must take care of E. F. G.'s soul, beg, plead and exhort if I could do something.

(5) E. F. G. did not want to look at my little person; for God also "once spoke through an ass" 4 Mos. 22, 28. 30., so he scolds in the 14th Psalm, v. 6, "those who spurn the poor man's counsel". Neither E. F. G. nor any man will dampen or hinder my teaching; it must go and shall go, as it has done until now; for it is not mine. But I am sorry that I should see how F. F. G. so horribly approaches the "cornerstone Christ" Eph. 2:20, when God has otherwise given F. F. G. much more virtue and kindness in other things. May God Almighty grant His grace that I may now come to a good hour and that my writing may find a gracious place in E. F. G.'s heart. F. G.'s heart. For if God (since He is for me) would not accept my humble and heartfelt admonition, I would have to command God.

6. but I hereby want to apologize before God and E. F. G.'s conscience. F. G.'s conscience that I have done what is mine and am still willing and ready to do and leave everything that I know would please E. F. G.; except for my teaching; I cannot leave this before my conscience. Otherwise I ask and submit myself and seek mercy, in which I have neglected E. F. G., be it with writings or words. I also forgive from the bottom of my heart everything that E. F. G. has done against me, and I will ask and certainly obtain forgiveness from my Lord Jesus Christ for everything that E. F. G. does and has done against his word. But E. F. G. let himself be softened in the one piece, then it is all bad, that Christ's word, which comes to day through me, is free: of this without a doubt all the angels in heaven will rejoice over E. F. G.

rejoice Luc. 15, 10. Let it also be known to His Holiness that I have so far pleaded diligently for His heart, and still plead, and would gladly precede it with this writing, so that I would not have to plead against His Holiness out of necessity. For even though we are a small, poor group, if we were to petition against E. F. G. (as we do not like to do at all, and yet the unceasing pursuit of the gospel and its preachers will force us to do so), it would be obvious that E. F. G. would not succeed; for we know that what Christ has promised us, He will keep.

7 And perhaps E. F. G. would like to realize that it is not the same thing to strive against Münzer and against Luther. But I would rather that E. F. G. did not have to experience this. I keep my prayer and mine stronger than the devil himself, and if that were not the case, things should have been different for Luther long ago; although the great miracle of God is not seen or noticed in me.

I want to have written this, as I said, to E. F. G. (God grant Not for Last) in the most humble and faithful way, and God grant that E. F. G. will answer me graciously and Christianly, more with living action than with dead letters, Amen. On the day of St. Thomas, 1) Anno 1525.

E. F. G. > > willing, unhearted Martinus Luther.

^2)^ To the Sublime, Highborn Prince and Lord, Mr. George, Duke of Saxony, Landgrave of Thuringia and Margrave of Meissen, my gracious Lord.

1. So in the original. Why De Wette did not include this reading in the text, but relegated it to the margin, is not known to us. He brings instead the ordinary text: Fridays after St. Thomas.
2. This inscription is not in the original.

508 98 Duke George's harsh reply to the previous letter. W. xix, 6ii-si3. 509

*98 Duke George of Saxony's harsh and unfriendly answer to Luther's previous letter. )

December 28, 1525.

We George by the Grace of God Duke of Saxony, Landgrave in Thuringia > and Margrave of Meissen 2c.

1 Your writing came to us on the day of this year of the birth of Christ, which peace and grace we wish for you, as you have done for us, and also knowledge of yourself. And we want to make a commitment for the first, knowing that we are also free in our conscience with God, our Savior, because we are now tempted by you with writings, so that we do not make our response out of an ugly disposition, but out of an eager will to bring you to the knowledge of yourself, without any hypocrisy, because we suspect you as if we would like to deal with hypocrites and be filled with them. And give thee this lot: Where we shall hypocrite thee in this our writing, speak freely, that our wine taste after the barrel; but if we shall not do this, seek the hypocrites in the places where they call thee a prophet, a Daniel, an apostle of the Germans, an evangelist. You will not find them there who give hypocrites when thirty or forty people were feeding on them thirty or forty years ago.

2. For the other thing, we also charge thee, as a layman, to disputation of the scriptures, that we be not minded: for we have heard in time past, that when David was to fight with Goliath, Saul would arm him with his armour, and with his own weapons: But David was not accustomed to it, nor practiced, and laid aside his armor, and made use of his leather sack, and his sling, and stones, which he heaped in the field; which he was accustomed to, and with which he overcame Goliath. So we will use only what we are accustomed to in this scripture, so that we may be educated and circumvented, and so that it is not unchristian or unjust.

(3) Therefore, above all, we cannot leave undone that which pertains to the glory of the Most High and to the law, respecting the entrance of your Scripture and the like, so that it will not be drawn to where you point it; but we will command the scholars to do so.

(4) But that you have touched us harshly against the order of divine and evangelical law, there is no untruth in that; for you know how God has told you that you should act when you have something against your neighbor. You have, however, without truth, named us also in opposition to Hartmuth von Kronberg (which action, however praiseworthy it may have been at the time, has proven to be) as a tyrant and denier of the Gospel, with shameful denigration of our person, with promises of our body and soul, with many frivolous, sophistical words, which you have not found in the Gospel, nor even in the Scriptures, to which you compare such your rebuke.

(5) We have graciously written to you enough in the nature of things to ascertain your guilt or innocence, and would much rather that you had been innocent than that we had found otherwise. So you gave us such a quick answer out of your anger and impropriety, attacked us further with more untruths, and called us your ungracious lord; so we gave you no cause for this with our simple letter, nor in any other way. Would it not have been proper for you, before you wrote to Kronberg, to request us in writing to hear our answer? as God says and gives order, how Christian people should act.

(6) What is the matter with thee, that thou hast called us liars, when thou hast heard no lies from us all thy days? And if neither you nor anyone else can say with truth that we overcame with lies, it would have been proper for you to be kind to your neighbor, because you acted against us with such impetuosity. And in order that your impetuosity might be further revealed, your writing to us has been printed, so that our disgrace, which you have attributed to us without cause, might be further brought to the attention of the people. Whether this is according to the gospel of Christ, consider.

7. it is not less such harassment from you, as a committed and convicted, declared-

*) Where this writing is found, is already indicated in the first note to the previous number. We give the text according to the Jena edition.

510 XIV Luther's Dispute with Duke George. W. xix. sis-E. 509

1. It has been difficult for us to tolerate this man; and do not think 2) that we felt so little for the old Adam, when we did not think that God promised special mercy to those who suffer persecution for righteousness' sake, and that we would not have surrendered to him out of his grace, as you did, if we had long since made another father for the child, which 3) you and all your apostates should not have refused. If you have now asked God to make you a gracious Lord, he has long since heard you.

(8) But that we, because thou hast so shamefully and blasphemously reproached our most gracious lord, the Roman emperor, to whom we are sworn, and so wilfully despised his commandment, shouldst be thy gracious lords; how shall that befit us? For this purpose, you have set up an asylum in Wittenberg, so that all the monks and nuns who rob us of our churches and monasteries by taking and stealing have refuge with you, sojourning as if Wittenberg were, to be polite, a house of all the renegades of our country. 4) The monks of Wittenberg have been given a place to stay.

We have no doubt that our holy father, the pope, has never given an indulgence that you respect more than the one that your Wittenbergers earn by robbing the monastic virgins brought to you from our monasteries. In what misery and damnable wretchedness you brought them, and how they are kept and for what purpose, is in the day. We do not believe that the devil is hostile to you for this reason, because if he did something bad to you (he would have to do it out of God's decree and power), he would be accused of rewarding you as the executioner does to his servant.

(10) That even such a thing should move us to mercy toward thee is not. For if the least farmer had his cows stolen from our lands, we would be displeased: much less, if we are a servant of Christ, could we suffer that his own herd should be stolen from him, body and soul.

(11) You praise how you have made many lovely little books, together with other writings: we do not want to hide from you that we were partly pleased with your writing when it first went out. We have also not unwillingly heard that the disputation happened in Leipzig; for we have hoped for the improvement of the abuses among the Christians.

1. This "is" seems to be too much. The soon following "halt" is probably to be taken as imperative.
2. "it" is missing in the Wittenberg edition.
3. In the old editions: the söltu.
4. A public house open to everyone, in which everyone has a share or inheritance. In the old editions: Janerbenhaus.

We have also known that you were accused by D. Eck of being a patron of the Bohemian sect; you have vigorously contested this with great impetuosity: although you let yourself be heard to say that some of Hussen's articles, in which he condemns, are most Christian.

We have acted as one who would like to see your cause well, and have truly called you to us out of a loyal heart, talked to you alone, told you about your misgivings and misunderstandings of our understanding, admonished you fraternally, because you do not love the Bohemian sect at all, that you would write against it, so that you would get out of all suspicion. You said you would write. Soon after that, you sent out writings in which you praised and confirmed all the errors of Hussein, Wikelf and all the other Picards, and blasphemously disdained all our ancestors of the holy Concilii at Costnitz; from this we could not have assumed otherwise than that Doctor Eck did not lie, as you proclaimed him a liar on the cathedra.

(13) We have never been in favor of your opinion. For we have been educated and it has been inherited by us that all who act and do contrary to obedience and separate themselves from the Christian church have been and still are considered heretics and seceders. For they are thus declared by the holy Concilia: to all of which you contradict, which is not yet proper for any Christian.

14. Since, then, by the providence of the Almighty, some wicked, some lost, and also some scholars, as you called them, among whom Carlstadt was not the least, happened to you by chance, and you led them to the slippery mountain, they slid without stopping; [We are well aware that they did not do you any good in this, but nevertheless, in order to preserve their loyalty, you let them slip; if you would have liked to endure them, it is not in your power.

(15) And we may also say that we care little for your gospel, because it is unworthily recognized by the heads of Christendom. But we have taken care that, as much as possible, it should be destroyed among us. The evil fruits that have come from it have given us cause to do so, for neither you nor anyone can say that anything other than blasphemy against God and the holy reverend Sacrament, the most holy Mother of God and all the saints, has its origin in your teaching.

10 For out of your teachings and your disciples all the old rejected heresies are renewed, all honest worship is destroyed, which is

512 98 Duke George's harsh reply to the previous letter. W. XIX. 616-618. 513

Since Sergii times never happened so big. When have more sacrilegia happened of befallen persons, than since your brought forth gospel? When have there been more outrages against the authorities than from your Gospel? When did more robberies of poor spiritual houses happen? When have there been more thefts and robberies? When have there been more lost monks and nuns in Wittemberg than now? When have wives been taken from husbands and given to others, because now it is found in your Gospel? When have there been more adulteries than since you wrote: If a woman cannot be fruitful by her husband, let her go to another and beget fruit, which the husband must nourish? so the husband does again. This has brought the gospel that you pulled out from under the bench.

017 And thou shalt indeed give it a right name, that thou hast brought it forth from under the bank: it were well that it were yet under it. For if thou bringest forth another such, we shall not keep a peasant. If Christ had wanted such a gospel, he would not have said so often: Peace be with you John 20:19, 21, 26. St. Peter and Paul would not have said: One should be obedient to the authorities Rom. 13, 1. 1 Petr. 2, 13. 14.. Therefore the very fruits make us greatly abhor and detest your doctrine and gospels. We want to support the gospel of Christ (if God wills it) with body, soul, goods and honor; His grace shall help us to do so.

(18) You remind us of death, of which we are certain: how will it be if we accept your gospel and die? Would not God speak: When shall we have him who brings a new gospel with so many evil fruits? Did I not say to you, You shall know the tree by its fruit? Matth. 12, 33. If we said, Luther said, It would be the gospel that lay under the bank; and God said, But unto thee hath the Christian church said otherwise. Because you say every day that you believe in the Christian church, why do you believe Luther and not the church? My Luther, you keep your gospel that came out from under the bench, we want to stay with the gospel of Christ, as the Christian church has accepted and holds; God should help us.

19. you may think: God sent his prophets and his teachers before times, who converted great princes and lords (when we were great enough in person) by their teaching; so you were sent to us by God. We know that Moses was sent to Pharaoh (2 Mos.

3, 10.], Samuel to Saul 1 Sam. 13, 13., Nathan to David 2 Sam. 7, 4. 5. 2 Sam. 12, 1., Isaiah to Ezechia 2 Kings 20, 4. ff., John the Baptist to Herod Matth. 14, 4. Luc. 3, 19., Ananias to Paulo, Philip to Eunucho Apost. 9, 11. ff. 8, 26. 27.. Among all of them we find no apostate, they are all steadfast. They have been truthful and pious men, not greedy, not stingy, not unchaste. And even though we are not worthy of it, we are usually visited, praise God, by the word of God, by such pious people who tell us to stay in the Christian church; we follow them as much as God gives us grace.

20. where we should hear your apostles, who are commonly apostates, we will not find this teaching. For we are told, apostates counterfeit the Scriptures, and walk with a perverse mouth, as Solomon describes them, than we unfortunately find with thee. For if we have written to thee graciously, thou hast called us thy ungracious lord. If thou sayest we are ungracious unto thee, when thou hast given us a cause of ungraciousness, then callest thou us a gracious lord.

021 Neither do we give much heed to prayer, both thine and thy congregation's. Nor do we almost fear your cursing. For we know that God hates the assembly of your apostates. We also know well that Luther is not Muenzer. That God punishes Muenzer for his wickedness through us is something he can also do to Luther: we also want to be used as an unworthy witness according to his will.

(22) But if you ever want us to obey your words, we will still give you our advice without being asked, out of a good heart. For we have such a merciful, mild God that no sinner can despair of Him unless he wants to be with Him.

23. and so return and do not let the spirit that seduces Sergium the apostate lead you further. The Christian church does not close its doors to those who return. If your enemy has led you into a puffed-up hopefulness, as art is wont to do; look at the hopeful Arian, your master Augustine, whose rule you vowed and swore to uphold. Return with him, still keeping your loyalty and oaths, and become with him a chosen light of Christendom.

24. If the wicked covetousness of honor and goods has deceived thee; leave it with Matthew, and until 1) for an apostle and evangelist. Has thine enemy and sting of the flesh deceived thee; why prayest thou
25. d. i. be.

514 De Wette HI, 87. XIV Luther's dispute with Duke George. W. XIX, 618-620. 515

not with Paulo? and God would have given you grace. If you can abstain from womanizing for a while to please a man, why not for God's sake? If the beautiful form of Eve has deceived you, let it be. We would gladly name thee one to whom thou wouldest cleave; but none will fall to us, for he that took a wife said he would not come to the even.

(25) But because you are a good woman, hold on to the noble penitent, when God drove seven evil spirits away, fall with her at Christ's feet, admonish your Eve to do the same, and then, by the grace of God, the monk will come from the nun. Do not be mistaken that God says: What God has gathered together, man cannot but gather together. For your marriage is not ordained by God, but by your enemy. For God says, "He who is not with me is against me." Since you both swore by your oath that you would not be helped by God when you committed unchastity, see for yourselves what you have done.

(26) How strong also be thy prayer against the devil, that God hath hitherto restrained thee, and not

1. with Dathan and Abiron Num. 16, 31. 32., there you will find his causeless mercy. But where thou wouldst not relent, it is to be feared that he will compare the harshness 2) with severity of chastisement. 2)

This is what we want to give you for the new year; if you follow this and remain steadfast in our instruction, we promise you eternal reward and blessedness from God. We also want to appeal to our most gracious Lord, the Emperor, for mercy, as much as we can, not to spare any diligence here in time, and you may then, of all the past misdeeds against us, provide yourself with no evil, but all good: that this will be done by you, we wish, Amen. Given at Dresden, Thursday Innocentum. After the birth of Christ, our dear Lord, 1526. 3)

Martino Luther

at Wittemberg to hand.

1. This is the name in the Vulgate instead of: Abiram.
2. i.e. the length of time. - Compare - balance.
3. The date is set according to the old style, since the new year began with Christmas. According to the new style, this letter still belongs to the year 1525.

*S9. D. Martin Luther's letter to M. Nicol. Hausmann, concerning Duke George's answer. )

January 20, 1526.

Translated from Latin.

Mercy and peace! I have written to Duke George in good hope, but I have deceived myself and humbled myself in vain; I will not answer him either. His lies and his insults do not challenge me. And why should I not suffer him (ferrem), since I have to suffer the children of my body, my Absalom, who resist me in the most furious way? namely, those sacramentalists, against whose nonsense I have to consider the papists as gentle people; that is how Satan attacks me through them. I did not believe before that Satan is such a malicious spirit, nor did I understand Paul's word Eph. 6, 12: "with the

evil spirits" 2c. But Christ lives. Now Theobald Billican, 4) preacher at Nördlingen, writes against Zwingli, Carlstadt and Oecolampad. 5) God is awakening his primeval against the new heretics. It is good hope; may Christ prosper. I too would write against them if I had time, but I will first see what this Lord will do.

I am glad that you like my book "that free will is nothing", but I expect the same or even more aerge- from that Erasmus.

4. Born in Billigheim near Landau (Burkhardt p. 101).
5. This refers to Billican's letter to Urban Rhegius and his answer from it. Walch, old edition, vol. XVII, 1922, 1945.

*) This letter is found in Latin in Aurifaber, vol. II, lol. 310d and in De Wette, vol. Ill, p. 87. German in the Wittenberg edition (1569), vol. IX, p. 234; in the Jena edition (1556), vol. Ill, p. 214; in the Altenburg, vol. Ill, p. 337 and in oer Leipziger, vol. XIX, p. 365. We have retranslated according to De Wette.

516 De Wette III, 87. Luther's letter to M. Hausmann. ' W. XIX, 620. 517

res than from Duke George. For the poisonous snake will feel that it is hit and grabbed by the throat, and will not be moved by my modesty either. God grant that I am wrong, but I know the nature (ingenium) of man.

This section includes the following

Luther's letter to Amsdorf, January 2, 1526. In this volume, Appendix, No. 12.

Luther reports that he had written a humble and completely sincere letter to Duke George, but that he had received an extremely foolish answer, in which the boorish crudeness was revealed, which the Duke had inherited from his Bohemian blood and which was entirely worthy of him.

and the devil's tool, unless GOD changed him. Otherwise, there is nothing new here. Farewell and pray for me. Saturday after Antonii, in the year 1526.

Martin Luther.

two letters:

Luther's letter to Wenceslaus Link, about Christmas 1526. In this volume, Appendix, No. 11.

Luther's humble petition to the King of England had been answered by the latter in such a hostile manner that it seemed he was looking forward to an opportunity for revenge, as was Duke George.

f. On the occasion of Pack's Handel.

List of some of the writings that have an impact here:

a. Luther's letter to N. von Amsdorf, June 8, 1528, in this volume, Appendix, No. 14.

Luther believes that Amsdorf will have seen the writing of the alliance and the quite cold and slippery letter of apology from Duke George.

b. Luther's letter to N. von Amsdorf. June 13, 1528. Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 1112.

Luther hopes for peace, because the bishops of Würzburg and Bamberg have already made peace with the Elector. The same is expected of the bishops of Mainz. Luther does not believe their excuses any more than those of Duke George; he holds them guilty of the bloodthirsty alliance because of their enmity against the gospel and Duke George for the author of it.

c. Luther's letter to Johann Hess. Probably around mid-June 1528. In this volume, Appendix, No. 13.

Similar in content to the previous letter and to the two immediately following, and therefore probably at the same time as them. In De Wette, Vol. Ill, 351, it is assigned to the month of July (?). We consider this date too late, because in the letter the news is given that the Landgrave is still under arms against the Archbishop of Mainz, which probably no longer took place in July.

d. Luther's letter to Abbot Friedrich at Nuremberg. Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 1110.

The news of the alliance of the godless princes will probably already be something old with him.

e. Luther's letter to Wencesl. Link. June 14, 1528. Walch, old edition, vol. XVI, 507.

The alliance of the godless princes is not a mere fantasy. Luther interprets Duke George's very feeble apology in such a way that it is almost a confession. For everyone knows that up to now they have dealt with such things in order to destroy the gospel. (This letter is the original of which Duke Georg tried to obtain from the council of Nuremberg, when this did not succeed, through his secretary Thomas von der Heiden Miricianus von Scheurl and which became the cause of this dispute. Duke Georg received a copy on Tuesday, October 27, 1528).

f. Duke George's letter to Luther. Walch, old edition, vol. XVI, 509.

The duke asks Luthern whether he has written the above letter to W. Link.

g. Luther's Answer to Duke George. October 31, 1528, in No. 100 of this volume and Walch, old edition, Vol. XVI, 510.

Luther wants to be satisfied with such slips of paper or copies. Those who have prepared and handed such slips of paper will probably be able to give information as to what the Scripture is.

h. Luther's letter to John the Prince Nov**.** 25, 1528. Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 270.

Luther defends himself against the accusation brought by Duke George against the Elector because of the previous answer of October 31.

518 Erl. 31, s f. XIV Luther's dispute with Duke George. W. XIX, 621 f. 519

i. Duke George's responsibility for the alliance. Walch, old edition, vol. XVI, 506 ff.

k. Luther's letter to W. Link. Toward the end of December 1528. In this volume, Appendix, No. 15.

Of Duke George's responsibility, 8000 copies are said to have been printed, which he will leave out for the New Year's Fair and send everywhere. Luther has secretly obtained a copy and, quite unexpectedly for the Duke, will publish his answer at the same time.

l. Luther's Letter to the Elector Jo

hannes. December 31, 1528. In this volume, Appendix, No. 22.

Luther informs the Elector that in the next New Year's Mass he will let go out his answer "of secret and stolen letters" next to the great booklet of Duke George, and consoles him for his worry about it.

m. Luther's letter to Martin Goerlitz, preacher in Brunswick. Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 1142.

Luther bravely replied to Duke George and thinks that Goerlitz will have already seen the answer Wider den Herzog.

100. Luther's writing of secret and stolen letters, together with a psalm interpreted,

against Duke George of Saxony. *)

New Year 1529.

Martin Luther to all devout Christians grace and peace in Christ.

1. A booklet has recently gone out under Duke George of Saxony's name, in which I am attacked for a letter that I am supposed to have written to the worthy, highly learned D. Wenceslaus Link, preacher at Nuremberg. And it is true that for the same letter, the aforementioned Prince Duke George has requested me in writing 1) and, as his printed booklet shows, immediately demanded such with proud insistence and defiance; to which I replied as follows:

To the Sublime, Highborn Prince and Lord, Mr. George, Duke of Saxony, > Landgrave of Thuringia and Margrave of Meissen, my gracious Lord.

Grace and peace in Christ. I have received E. F. G.'s letter, in which E. F. G. requests a note or copy from me. F. G. requested from me a note or copy of half an answer, whether I am aware of such writing.

1. by the letter listed in the sud k. directory above.

and such, as if I had to sit here waiting like the least, obligated or prisoner. To this is my short answer, after which E. F. G. is well aware of my great patience, which I have borne so far over the preface to the New Testament of Emser, and to the answer of my heartfelt, humble writing. 2) Therefore, I will also have patience this time over this piece, which E. F. G. considers to be a great and difficult challenge.

And I humbly ask E. F. G. to leave me untried with such notes or copies. Without a doubt, E. F. G. will know to inquire from those who have given and handed such notes 3) (even without Luther's help) as to what such writing is, which E. F. G. more than

2. countered - which has been reciprocated.
3. In Duke George's "Responsibility," "made" is found instead of "handed. Cf. Seidemann, "Erläuterungen," p. 134, where this letter is included. "gereicht" is the correct reading, as follows from Luther's letter to the Elector John of Nov. 25, 1528 (cf. Seidemann, "Lutherbriefe," p. 36) and from § 4 of the present writing.

*This text was first published in Wittenberg by Hans Luft at the New Year's Fair in 1529; in the same year it was published again without indication of the printer and place of printing. In the collective editions: in the Wittenberg (1569), vol. IX, p. 291; in the Jena (1566), vol. IV, p. 532; in the Altenburg, vol. IV, p. 628; in the Leipzig, vol. XXII, p. 5, and in the Erlangen, vol. 31, p. 1. The letter to Duke Georg once again vol. 54, 48 s. We have followed the latter, which brings the text of the original edition, comparing the Jena edition.

520 Erl. 31, 3-5. 100 Luther's writing of stolen letters. W. XIX, 622-625. 521

I am related to or affiliated with. I do not want to have written anything harder this time against such pious people, because I would be Christianly inclined to have mercy and to ask for E. F. G.'s challenge, if E. F. G. could suffer it. Hiemit GOtt.befohlen, Amen. At Wittenberg, Saturday of the last of October, 1528.

E. F. G.

Williger

Martinus Luther.

2 And I would have truly hoped that he would be content with such a kind, humble answer. But because he cannot rest, and nothing wants to resist his evil temptation, I kindly ask every pious heart not to blame me if I speak my need, but to look at my need, where the restless man presses and drives me. For God knows that I would gladly have spared Duke George, not only for the sake of his own peace and quiet, but also for the sake of the entire noble house of Saxony. That is why I have so far not replied to the shameful unchristian preface of the New Testament, then to his princely and clumsy answer to my heartily humble letter, but have eaten into myself with great patience, so that no disgrace would remain with our descendants to the noble house of Saxony. Likewise, I would have known how to hit him over the muzzle with such an answer to the next request for my letter, so that he would have been atoned for the pleasure of such a search, if I had not wanted to spare him. Well, the fault is not mine, everyone sees that Duke George wants it that way; so let it go, God willing.

First, he complains that I did not want to answer correctly, to say yes or no, when he had sought nothing but the truth 2c. Then I answer: What need or right he has to inquire into such truth, I will indicate afterwards. But I do not know any other way this very day, than if I should give an amicable and kind answer to such inquiries, that it is due to me to say neither yes nor no, which his reason, if it were out of the contest, would be able to do for itself.

For since this is supposed to be a secret writing, written to a certain person, not going out publicly by printing, nor sent to many people (as he accuses me of untruthfulness), and I do not have the main letter, nor did I have a copy of it with me, how should it have stood to me? Yes, how would my conscience have stood, where I would have concluded yes or no in such a matter, since I myself was neither certain nor could conclude yes or no?

4. For if I had denied the letter and said no, I might have been convinced by the handwriting and seal; but if I had said yes to it, and the letter had passed through many hands, fearing that it might have been improved or changed (as also happens to my printed books), I would have been fine again: Therefore I considered it best to act smoothly, if I directed him to the pious people, who would have handed and prepared such writing for him; with whom it would have been more princely and reasonable for him, and he was also obliged to inquire, and not to demand from me, that he had no right nor justification to demand; in addition, he should have reasonably assumed that he would demand an impossible thing, let alone an unjust thing, from me.

But now my kind glimpse is in vain, and should and must be valid; so I say now, I would give ten guilders, that Duke George would have received my handwriting and seal, so we would have arranged a fine game for this carnival. But what shall I do now? The main letter is not there (I hear him say) and the restless man goes out, bases himself on such writing, of which neither I nor he himself is certain nor can be certain; interprets and carries the same play to adorn himself with it, and to disgrace and denigrate me with it. How very fine and praiseworthy it would have been for a wise prince not to lead out so lightly with uncertain writings, but to think: the letter is uncertain and a secret letter's copy, let it go, what can you make of it?

6. i know excellent people, so far duke george of the princely alliance or

522 Erl, 31, s-7. xiv. Luther's dispute with Duke George. W. XIX, 625-627. 523

The fact that he is held quite innocent in the case of a riot, starts to doubt, and is challenged with suspicion, is why he seeks to adorn himself so anxiously and precisely, also unnecessarily unfairly; and if it were not forbidden to judge by suspicion, I would almost be like that too. For guilty consciences are, among others, also of this kind, that they tend to betray themselves with too industrious and too high unnecessary excuses. Hence also comes the proverb, when one speaks of such apologists: "How white does he hear himself? Happy, secure consciences leave it at simple and necessary excuses; but I leave that to God's command, who will find it well. Suspicion and suspicion, plus his own conscience, I let do what they do.

If then Duke George considers such a copy to be his own, and leaves it out of the print as mine, then I will do according to the teaching of Christ, as he says in the Gospel Matth. 12, 37: Ex verbis tuis justificaberis, et ex verbis tuis condemnaberis. And again Luc. 19, 22: Ex ore tuo judico te, serve nequam. Accordingly, I accept this letter as mine, but with such a measure and difference that I want to keep my conscience, as it cannot be sure before God that such letter is mine, because the main letter is not present; but based on Duke George's conceit and delusion, because he thinks it is mine, I call and accept it as mine, and no more: for this bargain shall not be based on my conscience nor confession, but on Duke George's conceit and delusion.

8. From this it follows that if this letter, in Duke George's opinion, is mine, then the said Duke George should and must consider that he has mine with him against my knowledge and will, and should and must have a conscience malae fidei. 2) For who has given Duke George the power to keep other people's property with him against his knowledge?
9. börnet - burns.
10. i.e. the breach of trust.

and will of him who is the Lord? Yes, who has given him the power not only to keep such foreign property with him, which would still have to suffer, but also to act with it and to give it away with sacrilege and violence, as with his own, according to all his will, to the insurmountable harm and disadvantage of his master or owner? For he lets this stolen, robbed and captured letter go out by pressure to oppress me with it and to rise up. I must give a likeness so that he understands.

(9) If I had received a letter from Duke Georgen's canteen, against his knowledge and will, and acted with it against his honor and glimpf, how should that please him so warmly? And if he allowed me much mercy, he might let me have such a letter secretly, but I would not be allowed to do anything with it or on it; 3) otherwise I would have to lose my head, if the neck were like iron and steel. Or, if I had a thousand guilders in the possession of a merchant, against his knowledge and will, and not only confessed the same, but insisted and defied to ruin him with it in the ground: Let Duke Georgen himself judge here, what such a one would have deserved. Yes, letters are not goods! Dear, how? if it should happen that I or you would be more interested in a letter than in a thousand guilders? should not such a letter be as valuable and dear as a thousand guilders? A thief is a thief, whether he steals money or letters.

10. Now I, Doctor Martinus Luther, stand on Duke Georgen's conceit and conscience, publicly call and complain before all the world that the same Duke Georg has received my letter, against my knowledge and will (which I would nevertheless like to suffer, if he has such a great desire for secret foreign letters), in addition to which he has publicly and unabashedly shown his will to suppress my glory and honor: for he can easily reason with himself that Doctor Luther, by the grace of God, can write so much German and Latin, where he wanted to send one of his letters to Duke Georgen, that he could

3. So the Wittenberg and Jena edition. In the Erlangen: "but act with it or nothing on it."

[524]{.underline} Erl. 31.7-s. 100. Luther's writing of stolen letters. W. XIX, 627-630. 525

The superscription would and could be put to Duke George, and to the same such letter to own. He would give the Duke of George the power to have and use it publicly, and not attribute or make it for someone other than D. Wenceslao Linken; for Duke George himself confesses in his writings that such a letter was attributed to Wenceslao Linken, and not to Duke George. I must understand this as if he said: I, Duke George, have Martin Luther's letter, which neither belongs to me nor is due to me, against his knowledge and will, but belongs to Wenceslao Linken, and yet I publicly act with it against both of them. Ei! Thank you, dear Lord!

(11) Now here is the right judge, Jesus Christ, and what a man does when he is in temptation and rages against Jesus Christ. Here it is found that my angry nobles, who protect the Christian church and drive out the heretics, defend the faith, when they fence and thump for a long time, fall down and stagger so that it would be necessary to lead them to school and teach them the Ten Commandments, since God says: "Thou shalt not steal. That is (I mean) finely run up against the rock of trouble. Where were the scholars of the law and the Scriptures who would have advised their master (as they are obliged to do for their rich wages) to act differently in this matter? and let him fall into such disgrace.

12 But Duke George, if he had wanted to do so in a princely and wise way, would have approached the fellows who brought him this letter of mine and provoked them against me with princely earnestness and said, "What do you bring from this? Do you want to bring me into such disgrace that I should handle other people's letters, act on them and fool them? even if I did not want to let it happen for the monk's sake, I still wanted to be on my word with such letters for God's sake; because he says that one should not steal, nor have stolen goods in one's possession. This would have been a noble and princely virtue, of which Solomon Proverbs 20:8 says: "A prince who sits on the chair of right drives out all wrong with his sight." .

13 Or, if he wanted to be so lecherous, to deal with other people's secret letters,

he should keep them secretly with him, and not openly show them and act on them: for what is secret should be kept secret; until he is commanded or gains the right to make them public. There is a great difference between a secret and a public letter, between a foreign letter and one's own; indeed, there is no greater forger of letters on earth than he who makes a secret letter public against the knowledge and will of his master, or makes it his own to a stranger: For he who makes a secret letter public 1) does not falsify four or five words in it, but the whole letter; so that it is no longer the same letter, nor can it be called or be, because the form and nature of the whole letter and the opinion of the writer is all the same reversed and changed; and his own is taken from him by force and publicly stolen and disgraced, as the imperial laws also teach.

For this reason, Jerome also writes of such secret letters, which were also stolen from him, that they are to be considered void letters: and even if there are blasphemous words in them (he says), they should still not be taken for blasphemous words. And what are secret speeches and letters but vain thoughts, which have not yet come to day, and perhaps shall not come to day? Rather, wiser people belong to secret letters, as Duke George is with his Cibiters and Doegiters 2 Sam. 16, 3. 1 Sam. 22, 9. 22.. I have also received secret letters from my enemies, both with seal and handwriting, so that I might have wanted to make the world too narrow for them, if I wanted to have followed Duke George's example; but I let them remain secret and despised them, or tore them up without accepting the warning of good friends. I also write secret letters, but always with the thought that the devil (who pursues me in all ways) might betray and reveal them, therefore I keep an ambush for myself, if they would be revealed, so that I can fool the devil.

1. The words from "denn" to "macht" are in the Jena and Wittenberg editions, but are missing in the Erlanger.

526 Erl.3i,s-is. XIV Luther's dispute with Duke George. W. XIX, "30-632. 527

that he has to reassure himself in his prudence. It is said: beware of Luther's secret letters, they are full of leg-irons and ropes; he who does not believe it is tempted.

But what does my dear Duke George do? he not only accepts my secret stolen letters, which are not his to have, which I could still suffer; but he rumbles and proudly demands them from me himself, and wants to be a lord over my secret letters, if he does not rule over me bodily worth a penny; just as if he had the right and power to steal mine at once and to force me to consent to such his robbery. Not content with that, he takes the laudable pious Elector of Saxony by surprise, wants to make his robbery demand on me through him, as through his poor servant, as if the Elector were sitting there at his pleasure and service, that he would have to demand and help Duke Georgen to steal my stolen letters. And that there should be no measure of the sacrilegious arrogance, he leads over the fine gentlemen of the council at Nuremberg, also almost as an emperor over his poor subjects, brooding, seeking and demanding the manuscript through them from Doctor Wenceslao Linken; although neither Nuremberg nor Wenceslaus are his subjects, let alone that they should recognize themselves guilty of being helpful to his sent thieves and robbers.

(16) Where will the restless man finally go out with such Moabite pride and arrogance Isa. 16:6, Jer. 48:29, who refuses to be so mighty on earth that no one, not even his enemies, should secretly speak, write or think of him, because it pleases him? Yes, that would have to be ordered for him, soon before Essen. I know well that he is Duke of Saxony, Landgrave of Thuringia and Margrave of Meissen, and indeed, God has given him a fine land and beautiful dominion; but unfortunately, as Solomon says, it is not given to him that he could use it with sufficiency and tranquility of heart. But that he should be duke over foreign letters, landgrave over secret speeches and margrave over thoughts, I will not believe nor suffer this year, God willing.

(17) And if he would be so rude and thirsty that he would rule over me through the Elector, as through means or servant, I will not have it nor approve it, for I will not have or approve Duke George as my lord before God makes and sets him as my lord. He is my renounced enemy, and he shall keep his word against me; so I will also wait for him, even though I am not his enemy, but have heartily and humbly sought and asked for mercy, and have wished for all good. If he now has something against me, then my sovereign shall set judges and he and his scholars shall sue me in the strongest and best way he can; if I do not answer, then I do not ask for mercy. But I do not advise him to do so: Yes, he also feels well that he would not win much with justice, therefore he wants to break into my house with outrage and violence.

18 And what would H. G. make of it if I secretly talked to a good friend today or tomorrow, or wrote to him, how I considered Duke George's apology to be nothing, but thought badly that he was guilty of the prince's sedition, and showed all the pieces from word to word, as they are written in the stolen letter? what would he do to me by right? I would have (said his doeg) dishonored his honor and glory. Where there, my beautiful love? The letter would be secret, the speech would be secret, the thoughts would be secret. De occultis non judicat Ecclesia, inulto minus judicat de eisdem Magistratus. 1) How can his honor and glory be taken, if no public speech, writing, witness or judgment may be had? Or should one still teach the hosschranzen at Dresden what it means to take honor and glory? they shall let secret things be done to me and have no thanks for it.

Yes, I would have secretly talked to my neighbor about it. Ei! Dear, let God and my conscience be the judge, whether I do well or not, since it is not your place to know or to judge. But Duke George made such secret letters public,

1. The church does not judge secret things, much less does the secular authority judge them.

[528]{.underline} Srl. 31, 12-1t. 100. Luther's writing of stolen letters. W. XIX, 632-635. 529

I say: He has it for him, he disgraces himself with it, and leave me undisgraced with his revelation. Yes, how? if I had let it be known in public print that I thought Duke George was a fool and, regardless of his excuse, still did not believe as my enemy that he was innocent of the seditious alliance: what would he do? how would he force me to believe him? especially if he is not a god over my heart, nor lord over my tongue and pen, but my enemy.

20 It would be a strange new right for me, since my enemy would force me to believe him. How must I do, since he blasphemes so shamefully in the preface of the New Testament and in his answer to me, more to the everlasting shame of the noble house of Saxony than to me? If I were his overlord, he would perhaps let it go; but now that he is my enemy, I must suffer it from him. But here, since I do not believe him, he wants to be angry and rage, because he thinks he is my lord, even the lord of the Elector; and he cannot think that he is not lord, but enemy, and should not act in a glorious, but in a hostile manner.

21 Well, enough of that. Let us get down to business and finally conclude. If the letter to D. Wenceslaum is not mine, then it is a fictitious, false, lying letter, which shall be without harm to me. If, however, it is mine, as I have accepted Duke Georgen's confession and deed above, then Duke Georgen is my earnest demand on my account, but on God's account his earnest and strict commandment that he return the said letter together with all copies copied or printed from it to me or to D. Wenceslao in the event of a mortal sin and loss of divine graces and his blessedness. Wenceslao, as stolen and robbed property to his rightful lord and owner; and thus, with full restitution, make the letter secret again and put it where he took it; for there is God's commandment, "Thou shalt not steal," to which G. must be subject as well as other people. And he knows well that he can steal such a letter, as our money and goods, against our knowledge and will.

according to his own confession and this public writing of mine. In addition, also repay both of us for our deprived honor and glory, and other damage and harm, which has arisen to us through him, from such a revelation of our letter, and apologize for it, as a Christian should, for forgiveness, Matth. 5, 23: "When you bring the sacrifice to the altar, and there you will find it" 2c.

(22) With such a burden we want to weigh down Duke George's conscience: not we, who have no power over him, but God's command (as all the world knows) compels and demands such from Duke George. If he despises this, see whom he despises. And the priests or confessors may also take care that they do not absolve him, nor pass the Sacrament, so that they do not participate in such a sin against God's commandment; he himself also does not pray or sacrifice, for he has previously done enough according to God's commandment and the Gospel of Matth. 5, now indicated. We want to be excused; we have denounced it and done our part: will it help them that we are heretics or lowly esteemed, their conscience shall feel it well with time; and experience shall make it clear which part banishment or excommunication is strongest, whether it is the one who breaks God's commandment and thereby drives it, or the one who makes people dream without God's word; for we are also included under the word neighbor, we know that.

(23) In the same way, we want to have indicated such a commandment of God to all his officials and servants who have advised, helped and served with such a letter, and admonish them not to make a joke of it. For though we have neither authority nor power over them, yet we, as their neighbors, point to him who is over them and requires such of them by his commandment, which says, "Thou shalt not steal." From which commandment we reclaim our stolen letter. They may also see to it that they are not deceived by useless complainers who might say that one cannot do wrong to a damned heretic. For even if I were a damned heretic, God's commandment wants to be undamned.

[530]{.underline} Erl. 31, 14-I". XIV Luther's dispute with Duke George. W. XIX, 635-638. 531

24. Doctor Wenceslaus has not yet been condemned or sentenced by name, to whom this letter is primarily due; also, at the Imperial Diet at Speier, I was again exempted by a public imperial decree, or at least limited in time, so that I cannot be called a heretic; because there it was decided by all in unison that each one should and may believe as he knows how to answer to God and imperial majesty; and I, as the disobedient to the empire and rebellious, would justly deplore all those who call me a heretic. If the commandment at Worms was valid, since I was condemned without the consent of the best and highest estates of the empire: why should the commandment at Speyer not also be valid for me, which was unanimously decided and accepted by all estates of the empire?

(25) Therefore, I say, let them beware and fear the commandment of God, "Thou shalt not steal. For now, even before the world, I am not a heretic; but that some princes and bishops rage against such a decree issued by the kingdom at Speyer, and nevertheless force the people to believe their pleasure, happens because today or tomorrow, when their hour comes, they will perish without all mercy, as they have not only vowed against God's word and commandment, but also acted against the commandment of worldly authorities and their own vow, as the disobedient and rebellious murderers. Therefore, beware of their example.

26. We also admonish and warn all printers, typesetters, proofreaders, and those who work with such letters in the printing office, as well as all bookkeepers, buyers, and those who receive or read such copies, that they should all and everyone be warned that they have our stolen letter with them, contrary to our knowledge and will. Therefore they may beware, and keep themselves against stolen goods, as their conscience teaches them, lest they be tainted with Duke George's sins, and become partakers of his guilt; for there is the commandment, "Thou shalt not steal"; and if such should want to steal ours, they must be warned.
27. d. i. booksellers.

accept faithful admonition with good will. For we do not hereby arrogate to ourselves any power or authority over anyone. We would not want such a stolen letter to be with anyone, but out of brotherly Christian duty we do this admonition to faithfully warn everyone's conscience, as much as is in us, against sins and God's wrath. For it is not dear to us, indeed not to be suffered, that on our account someone should entangle himself with other people's sins against God; it is already too much of one's own sins.

27 I want to have based this answer, as said above, on Duke George's confession, as if the letter were mine; although I have done it reluctantly, because I would rather have seen that Duke George would have let him be satisfied with the first kind answer, in which I sufficiently indicated that he should leave me untried with such a letter, and that he would not be my lord. But he did not want to accept it nor understand it, so hard was he afflicted with the temptation to dampen and disgrace me. And methinks that I have nevertheless herewith kept my Adam entirely in check, and acted mildly enough against Duke Georgen, my enemy. For if I had been sure to demand my handwriting and seal from Duke Georgen, and had not had to act on an uncertain copy, it would have been feared that I would have given him the spur differently and taught him how he should pore over foreign letters 2) and defy them.

28 Moreover, I have also abstained, and still refrain from answering the preface of the New Testament, and to his answer done to me, whether I could obtain something with patience with the challenged restless man: for if he will continue and not leave the sleeping dog with peace, then it may truly happen once that I push out the bottom of the barrel and pay one with the other. I want to be enough of a man for Duke George and all of his supporters in terms of justice and art, as has been done so far by the grace of God, and my God and Lord Jesus Christ will help me to do this, as he promises and says to us:

2. i.e. research.

532 Erl. 31, 18-18. , 100. Luther's writing of stolen letters. W. XIX, 638-640. 533

I, will give you mouth and wisdom, which all your adversaries shall not resist Luc. 21, 15..

29 For I do not want Duke George to suffer nor have him as my judge, any more than I want him as my lord or suffer, as he defiantly misses and refuses both. He shall seek justice from my overlord, and not thus defy and rumble: I, Duke George, have judged Luther and the left, and found them wrong. Therefore think thou Elector or City of Nuremberg, and be my executioner and servant! attack them, and command them what I command thee! Not that he speaks such words, but in fact he presents himself as if he would like to speak so. For what else is it when he writes so defiantly, and demands of the Elector and of the Council of Nuremberg, also of myself, that we should deliver the letter to him, confess and fear 2c., because so much has been said: Do what I command you; I will teach you the right, and will not seek it nor get it from you?

30. The laudable Elector of Saxony is, by the grace of God, still so wise, and has so many intelligent people with him, that he does not need Duke George as a guardian or as a legal authority to govern his land and people: so is an Honorable Council at Nuremberg, so appointed by God's grace with wisdom and justice, that Duke George shall not be their master; and I Luther will, if God wills, give him and his clergymen three more years to counsel; for God's commandment, saith David Ps. 119, 99. 100., makes me wiser than all my masters, than all wise men and than all old men. So again, it must follow that whoever despises God's commandment and transgresses it, that he must be the greatest fool above all fools; that I cannot lack, that I truly know.

(31) And if the devil himself with all his angels should set such a letter against me, which can make all things evil, yet would I wait for him in Christ, and see what he would do with it. Christ, and see what he would do to me with it. For although the letter is almost similar to my thoughts, so that I myself think it is mine, yet in my conscience I do not know.

(as I said) cannot be certain, because I do not have my handwriting, it is nevertheless not a treacherous letter: for nothing of sedition, treachery, ravaging, or such like evil undertakings is dealt with therein, 1) from which one could have cause to act against me; but only Duke George is secretly judged therein, what I think of him, as my enemy, before God and in my conscience.

Now Duke George shall leave me free to judge him secretly with thoughts, writings, and speeches, as I know how to answer to God, and I shall have no thanks for it; but if he broods about it behind my knowledge and will, and lets me steal it, and then finds that it upsets him, then he shall have it for him, and a good year for it, and leave the Elector, those at Nuremberg, and me satisfied with his pride and thumping and masters. What business is it of his, or who has ordered him, to puzzle out and steal such things? Let him be content that I publicly spare his life before the world.

And who will blame me for thinking, speaking or writing evil of Duke George, as of my most poisonous, most bitter, most hopeful enemy? Although I speak too much good of him all the time, he thinks, speaks and writes nothing but the worst of me, both secretly and publicly, if I am not his enemy; and he should force me not to speak or write evil of him secretly? If he should find out and learn everything that is secretly spoken, written and thought of him, yes, what I alone have heard and read, I mean yes, the tickle and air of finding out secret letters and speech should be atoned for him. I am glad that I did not learn all-

1. This suspicion must have been harbored by Duke Georg and expressed against Scheurl, because the latter wrote to Duke Georg on December 5, 1528 (Seidemann's "Explanations" p. 144) that he had willingly offered against Thomas von der Heiden to compare the copy of the letter against Luther's "handwriting", especially in order to enrage the Duke that Luther had not written to Wenceslas to cause a stir with us i.e. in Nuremberg. Scheurl had dictated a copy of the letter for the Duke to his own servant. (Seidemann, 1. o. p. 143.)

534 Erl. 31, 18-20. xiv. Luther's dispute with Duke George. W. XIX. "40-642. 535

I will keep silent about what is said and written against me in public, that I should seek or wish what is done about me in secret. That is enough of it.

34 Of the princely alliance or rebellion, of which he now excuses himself for the third time, I say thus: I consider myself to be the one who has been led to believe such an alliance and to consider it null and void, and I could bet a finger that my defense would have done more than that, because to this day all three excuses do Duke Georgeus. And if I had had nothing else that would have moved me to consider such a covenant null and void, but all three of Duke George's excuses, I would certainly not have built anything on it, yes, I would have given my coat for it, that I would be so sure that Duke George himself believed before God in his conscience that such a covenant was indeed null and void and fabricated.

35 Not that I would have thought Duke George's apology incredible; for I am glad that such apologies have come forth, even if Duke George himself thought them false and fictitious. There would have to be no good in his heart who would not rather consider such an alliance as nothing and false than as true and certain and believe it, if he can only come to such a belief; as by such an excuse everyone comes to it well and easily.

But there is a little word called "but" that has a belly full of many strange glosses. This "but" makes it so that you and I must sometimes neither believe nor know that we do believe and know, and again believe and know that we do not believe nor know. Therefore, it is still my advice and request that everyone consider such a covenant null and void, as it has certainly not been proven with any public evidence so far, and faithfully ask God that it remain so null and void forever, which has truly been and still is my heartfelt prayer and wish. For what could the devil do more abominably on earth, if this covenant were to be considered true and certain? The peasants' revolt would have been a joke and a game against this

Rebellion of princes. We also want to hope that God will graciously hear such a prayer and not let such an alliance be and remain.

But that I should therefore be forced to believe of Duke George or some others that they were secretly innocent, if I had great cause and reason against it, no one will persuade me; for thoughts are duty-free, and I may well speak secretly of this to myself and good friends. Of course, there was no lack of good will on the part of Duke George and this N., for such and such reasons, which I will not tell; for I cannot speak publicly of secret things.

So I can also think and speak secretly: Duke Georgen's apology is out of all measure cold, lazy and loose, as I still today secretly hold them all three cold, lazy and loose. Now I speak for myself alone and secretly of the secret faith of my conscience, so that no one is publicly forbidden or told what he should or may believe; indeed, publicly it is fair and right that one believe and hold that his excuse is vain heat, strength and earnestness, to which I admonish and ask everyone, as said above.

39 In summary, I publicly believe and know that Duke George is deadly hostile to my doctrine, which he confesses with joy, and wants to have honor and glory as he has. So I know for myself that my doctrine is God's word and gospel; he denies this, and is also held before the world as he denies. From this it must follow that he thinks nothing good of me, and I, in turn, can provide no good for him, but must believe where he can, as he also boasts in his answer that he wiped me out with my doctrine, along with all who adhere to it and believe, as is also partly proven by deeds and works in the day. But praise be to God that he cannot do it, nor will he accomplish what he has in mind.

(40) If he rages against God's word in My conscience, I must secretly believe that he rages against God Himself and His Christ. If he rages against God Himself, I must secretly believe that he is possessed with the devil. If he is possessed with the devil, then I must

536 Erl. 31, 20-22. 100. Luther's writing of stolen letters. W. XIX. S42-04S. 537

I secretly believe that he has the worst in mind. I now speak this secretly from the secret faith of my conscience, which is not necessary to prove publicly or to believe others, so that Duke George does not have cause to brood again and to steal my secret speech. For from all this it does not follow that Duke George is to be blamed for the covenant, or that such a covenant is something, but only how I secretly believe for myself and know that there is no lack of good will even today, although such are not yet the right nodes even with myself that move me to secretly believe the covenant. Whether I believe rightly or wrongly is for no man to judge, but for God alone, who searches and tests the hearts and kidneys, Ps. 7, 10.

Therefore, I am amazed at the audacity or rather blindness of the people that they presume to omit my letter before they are certain that it is mine; and they act even more foolishly by presenting it as a public letter that has gone out, when they themselves confess that it was written secretly to D. Wenceslas. There should not be such an ass as chancellor in a princely chancellery, who called secret letters omitted letters. But the furious, restless, vengeful hatred and envy drives and chases them, that they neither see nor hear. For Duke George calls me a desperate, dishonorable, perjured villain, so I say Deo Gratias, that should be my emeralds, ruby and diamond, so that princes should adorn me for the honor, so worldly authority has from the Gospel. For since Duke George considers my doctrine heresy, I may well have excused him from it; but Christ will find it well.

42. but this is not to suffer me, because I have taken care of the stolen letter, that they translate the piece, Deus confundet μωρό- *τατον *1) μωρόν*,* so, God disgraces the most foolish fool; although the coarse donkey heads, whoever they are, have almost nothing well Germanized, so this piece is not only bad, but also harmful ver-

1. In the Erlangen edition: xxxxxxxxx. The from

The reading given to us is according to Seidemann, Erläuterungen, p. 131.

deutscht. For I do not think that Duke George himself has Germanized; 2) every German must testify to me that in the German language this is a curse when I say that God is desecrating, and, as I respect, the most terrible curse that is in the German language. Therefore, the devil and a knave have joined forces to make me appear before the world as if I had cursed Duke Georgen most severely, so that he would nullify all my teachings on secular authority, when he knows well that no doctor has taught and written about the majesty or secular authority so magnificently almost since the time of the apostles as I have.

43 For although Duke George is my enemy, yet because he sits in majesty, I have certainly never had in mind to curse either him or some of the authorities, but I know that one should bless them and pray for them; they also need it. I did not want to curse the devil himself like that. It has been Pabst's work to curse kings and princes to the third, seventh and ninth generation, as 2 Petr. 2:10 ff. 3) is said of him. Rather, through my gospel I have removed this and all curses from them and set them in honor: not I, but God's word, through me and my helpers. But that I punish and judge them for unrighteousness or ungodliness is also done by God's word, and I by 4) my office.

44 Confundere means pudefacere, Confundi pudefieri, that is, Confundere means to disgrace or to bring to nothing, Confundi to stand with disgrace or to be disgraced, as Rom. 10, 11: He who believes in him will not stand with disgrace. Therefore hear, thou ass's head at Dresden in the chancery, Confundet non est optativi vel imprecantis, sed indicativi praedicentis. Confundet legis, et transfers *Confundat. *So you should do it right

and have well Germanized, God will put the great fool to shame. Want

2. The letter is Germanized by Duke George himself, according to: Ein kurzer bericht, So wir Georg 2c. 1529. sheet B ij; not by the chancellor Pistoris. Seidemann, Erläuterungen, p. 132.
3. In the old editions erroneously 1 Petr. 2. The Erlangen edition has reprinted here again from Walch: 1 Petr. 2, 17.
4. Thus the Wittenberg and Jena editions; "of" is missing in the Erlangen edition.

538 Erl. 31, S2-24, XIV. Luther's dispute with Duke George. . W. XIX, 64S-647. 539

do you know how? Namely, that Duke George acts foolishly, that he goes against me and my word, therefore also God attacks him, that he disgraces himself over this letter, falls into a public theft, in addition lets the letter go out that he is uncertain and has neither seal nor handwriting, and writes against me in such a way that he causes great disgust, contempt and suspicion for himself among reasonable people: to this you have perhaps helped and advised him; so both of you also have what you gain from it.

45. Finally, my humble request to Duke George and all his followers is that they stop for once and leave our doctrine in peace, especially because they know that we are allowed to believe at the Speyer Imperial Diet, as we trust to answer to God and the Imperial Majesty, and do not want to fight themselves over and against such a decree of the entire Empire; we will, as we have done hitherto, again serve them in all peace and quiet, sincerely pray for them against God, help, advise, carry and lift, according to all our ability. Let us ask for nothing more than peace and silence, as it is, praise God, in the Electorate to be silent with doctrine and life. We ask, I say, one more thing for God's sake, that you would be our dear gracious lords, if it is possible to ask; and as a sign of my earnestness, I hereby sincerely forgive Duke Georgen and all my comrades, and have relieved him of the burden that I witnessed above by God's commandment to him, and have burdened myself with it before God, for the sake of the more certain acquisition of God's graces, and everything that has happened to me through this letter shall be bad and gone, forgotten and erased.

If that is not enough, then let the right go; my gracious lord send to Altenburg or Eilenburg two from the Electorate, two from Duke George's Electorate, two from the Palatinate, two from the Margraviate, two from the Mainz Monastery, or however many one wants, and let Duke George sue me as best he can, I want to suffer my right, what more should I do? Not that I offer myself for such a right.

For the sake of my secret letters or speeches, I want to leave them in the secret court of God and have them used by all the world without being accused and judged, but freely, yet secretly, although, where it could or should be, I would not be afraid to have them come before the public courts; but because it is not necessary nor appropriate, I do not want anyone to be justified with them, and I want to be unchallenged and unconcerned by Duke George and everyone else because of them, that and no other.

But if Duke George has something against me in this regard, such a right shall be open to him. For, as I have said, I do not want Duke George to be my judge, legal advisor, master or lord, but my enemy, accuser and adversary. Duke Johannes, the Elector, is my lord, and Emperor Carl; the same Duke Johannes is by God's grace prince enough to take care of Duke Georgen and everyone's rights over his subjects; furthermore, I do not grant anyone any rule on earth over me this year. But if they do not want such grace and right, then let them remain my ungracious lords and be angry until the gray skirts pass away, and may well cut off both cones and tubes of their favor and grace, and keep the barrel and well alone, God grant that it may become vinegar or leach 1), is worth the same to me.

For I see that the more you humble yourselves and plead, the more proud and defiant they become, and make believe that you humble yourselves and therefore give such good words that you should fear them to death and not know how to stay in front of them. No, dear angry nobles, they give you such good words because they hope that the devil who rides you will leave, and that a good word will find a good place; and it happens to you too well whether they could protect you from sins and prevent your harm, which you neither can nor want to see. One knows almost well that you will not eat the world as raw as you think. There are also people on the other side of the mountain; so Christ is also still king and lord on earth, even if he presents himself weakly. But beware of him, for it is truly said, "Beware of him.

1. In the old editions: Lawer, that is, tart wine.

540 Erl. 31, 24-26. 100 Luther's writing of stolen letters. W. xix, 647-650. 541

Cannot, and still waters are deep, the rushing waters are not cruel. Because they want to play with me the saying: Whoever flees is hunted down, and interpret my humility as a flight, then I would have to rise again with Christ and play the saying on them: If one pleads with a farmer, his belly grows.

Is it not the wretched devil who does not let him be content that he is also God on earth, but wants to be God alone, and does not accept the right God as anything bad. Then the decree of the whole realm at Speyer is decided that everyone may believe as he trusts to answer to God and imperial majesty, to which Duke George and his companions not only live and strive contrary, but also want to force us and everyone to strive contrary, to rage, murder, chase away, persecute, rob and forbid interest and goods that they have not founded nor have the right to do so; Nor shall they be called rebellious, disobedient, nor murderers.

50 Therefore, as if they were over the whole realm, no one is subject to them: I, Junker of all Junkers, am the only lord and prince over all princes of the German land, over the whole realm and all its commandments and order; I alone am to be feared, I alone am to be obeyed, what I will, that shall be right. Defy whoever thinks or speaks differently. Rather, where shall such a puffed-up Moab go out at last, but that he may also go to heaven, to God's chair and office, and begin to investigate, judge and punish secret speech and letters and thoughts? And in all these things he will be praised and honored, feared and worshipped, my lord.

51 Therefore I will henceforth do this: First, I will let the seventh commandment of God, of which I have spoken above, remain on the conscience of Duke George and his courtiers, with all the burdens and obligations it entails, so that nothing will help, neither humility nor supplication, neither favor nor mercy, neither good words nor kind offers, neither equity nor justice. So I will also, as Moses did against his Korah, turn my prayer, which I have done for them up to now, against them; if Duke Georgen meets with it, he will have it for him, he is

sufficiently warned. And lest he should send out thieves to steal my prayer in secret, I will herewith publicly declare it, and it shall be the 7th Psalm, which reads thus:

V. 2. "In you I trust, O LORD my GOD, save me from all my persecutors, and deliver me."

Yes, dear Lord Jesus Christ, you know that just as the boy Shimei blamed the pious David and cursed him as a bloodhound who had taken the kingdom from Saul 2 Sam. 16, 7. f.: so now evil mouths also reproach me, as if I had disgraced the pope's kingdom through sectarianism, rebellion, bloodshed. How shall I do? They are too many, I know neither counsel nor help, but only in you: therefore I trust in you, help me, my Lord and my God, from such tyrants and persecutors, who know well that they lie to me falsely, and are themselves vain bloodhounds and murderers.

V. 3. "Lest, like lions, they devour and tear my soul, because there is no Savior."

They truly have it in mind, dear Lord, and rage like lions against me; no matter is so hard for them as Luther, if they had torn him apart, they would be blessed. Here, no humility or reverence, no pleading or praying helps, but there is only lion's fury and rage, only strangleholds and harm.

V. 4. "Lord, have I done these things, and is wrong in my hands";

V. 5. "Have I recompensed evil to them that were peaceable unto me, or stripped mine enemies without cause:"

V. 6. "So my enemy persecutes my soul, and captures it, and tramples my life into the ground, and lays my honor in the dust."

Yes, my Lord and God, is my teaching seditious and red or heretical, as they say, and have I not rather taught the right unity of faith and love, and have I not rather taught the right unity of faith and love?

1. Thus the Erlangen and Jena editions. The Wittenberg edition: erbieten.

542 Erl. 31, 26-28. xiv. Luther's dispute with Duke George. W. XIX, "50-652. 543

If I have also weakened and stripped the papacy of its tyranny wilfully and not through their own activity and agitation, then be thou judge and punish me without mercy, let my enemies be honored and me put to shame, let their thing fall up into heaven and my doctrine into the abyss of hell. But if he be none, and my doctrine be right and acceptable in thy sight, and yet they will not cease from raging and raging:

V. 7. "Arise then, O LORD, in your wrath, and lift up yourself above the wrath of my enemies, and raise up to me the judgment which you have commanded."

Let it be seen whether thy wrath be higher and mightier than their fury; let them run and thrust themselves, that they fall and tumble, and confirm thereby the judgment and ministry of the word which thou hast commanded me and appointed me to do: For thou knowest that I myself have not entered into such an office and work against the pope and mine enemies, nor sought the same; but thou hast brought me in upon and against my thoughts and knowledge, by their turbulent raving and bloodthirsty raging.

V. 8. "And let the congregation of the people be gathered about thee, and for their sakes come up again."

My heartfelt request and wish, my diligent teaching and writing, is not directed to anything else but that the wretched multitude of your people, so miserably divided and chased by human dreams and sects, and scattered and lost like a flock of sheep, would be gathered to you again, and converted to you in the unified faith and spirit by the sects everywhere, recognizing you as their unified shepherd and master and bishop of their souls Ezek. 34, 23. 1 Petr. 2, 25. For whose sake I also beseech thee, that thou wouldest exalt and sustain thee and thy word through our ministry, that they may abide with thee and around thee in such united faith. For I have not sought that they should cleave unto me, or that they should cleave unto me.

I have directed them to you, and have hanged them on you, that you may be high and lifted up, glorious and praiseworthy among them.

V. 9. "The LORD judges the people."

Thou alone art judge, master, teacher, preacher among the people; but we are but thy instruments: we plant and water; thou givest the flourishing 1 Cor. 3:6.

"Judge me, O Lord, according to my righteousness and godliness."

Though I am a poor sinner before thee, and cannot suffer thy judgment, yet I know that I am right against mine enemies, and pious, for my doctrine is right and blameless: so also in life I do them no harm, but all good, for I seek peace; I pray for them, teach them, but they will not, and condemn both my doctrine and life. Therefore I ask for justice; judge, judge and prove that they do me wrong, both in life and doctrine, amen.

V. 10. "Let wickedness come to an end, and promote the righteous; for you, righteous God, test hearts and kidneys."

If they will not cease, make them cease their raging and persecuting, and confirm our doctrine and actions, which are right, by thy word and spirit, and expose and disgrace their false doctrine and life; for thou knowest that their heart and kidneys are full of deceit and mischievousness, though they adorn themselves outwardly with all hypocrisy and good appearances, to find favor and chance with the poor man. I know that you will do all these things. For

V. 11. "My shield is with GOD, who helps the upright from the heart."

I know that you will defend me and protect our doctrine, and should the tyrants burst and become mad: for our God helps the sincere from the heart, and not the false-hearted and mocking saints. For

544 Erl. 31, 28-30. 100 Luther's writing On Stolen Letters. W. XIX, 652-M4. 545

V. 12. "GOD is a righteous judge, and a GOD that travaileth daily."

Yes, indeed, a right judge for us poor innocent, who have his word purely simple, so that we are redeemed from the tyrants' rage. Again, also a God, 'who daily dreads such tyrants, who rage against his word and against his own without ceasing. He still forbears and is longsuffering over them, whether they want to convert and fear him. If not, he will certainly not give it to them and will not fail to do so. For,

V. 13: "If you do not want to convert, he has sharpened his sword and drawn his bow and is aiming,

V. 14. "And hath laid deadly projectile upon it; his arrows hath he prepared to destroy."

He is soon armed and now wants to fight against them, and destroy them with sword and arrows, all kinds of plagues, to death. Oh, that the tyrants and the scoundrels could believe this! But nothing will come of it; they must, shall and will know it. But we believe it, and are sure of it, and say Amen to it; for they will have it no other way.

V. 15. "Behold, he hath evil in his mind, with mischief he conceiveth; but he shall bring forth a defect."

This is said for our comfort; here we have certainty and are sure that the tyrants may well undertake many evil deeds and alliances to do us misfortune and harm who keep God's word; but they shall not lead it out, as has often happened until now, unless God lies, which is impossible Ebr. 6, 18, but the end of their raving and hearing shall be called fault, they have failed, they have failed the angry squires, they have born a fault. The fruit of their angry mind shall be called fault. And not only this, but that they also may have harm for mockery, and mockery for harm, their wrath and malice shall go out upon themselves, and what they think and do against us shall fall upon themselves, even upon their heads, as follows.

V. 16. "He dug a pit and carried it out, and falls into the hole he made."

V. 17. "His calamity shall come upon his own head, and his. iniquity shall fall upon the top of his head," Amen.

So shall it be, we shall hope, we shall believe, and we shall pray. That they think and intend evil and wickedness against us, they may secretly hold: but this verse is our spy, and betrayeth us also their heart and mouth, let their letters and seals be silent. For this verse is also with them in their chambers and council chambers, sees and hears everything they do: after that, when we read it, it speaks to us through a long reed, and secretly tells us what they are doing, so that we know and experience it, and prepare ourselves with prayer against them before they become aware of it; and so their thing goes back, as they have often found before, and also complain that so many attempts have been made against Luther, and all of them have come to nothing. Yes, why do they not leave this verse out of their counsel, and keep their heart and mouth more secret? Yes, how can they? Therefore we praise God our Lord and sing joyfully:

V. 18. "I give thanks to the Lord for His righteousness, and praise the name of the Lord Most High," Amen, Amen.

He judges righteously, and overthrows both tyrants and hypocrites, but rescues us from their iniquity and wickedness; thanks be to him, praise and glory be to him forever and ever, amen.

I will have prayed and set this psalm against Duke George, along with all his letter thieves and followers, if they do not mend their ways; in addition, I ask all my friends to help me pray this psalm, and unanimously say Amen and take comfort in the glorious promises that are written in it for us against them. Let us see what the devil, together with his ravagers and his boys, can do. Peace is with us, but they do not want to have peace, so let them have trouble, and what this psalm forebodes, amen.

Other interpretations of Luther on the 7th Psalm can be found in the old edition, Vol. IV, 688. 1908. 1916 and Vol. IX, 1526.

546XIV Luther's dispute with Duke George. W. xix, sSs f. 547

g. Because of Luther's answer to the question of some citizens of Leipzig, concerning the communion under one form.

The related writings can be found in the appendix of this volume, No. 23-30.

h. As, however, Duke George, on another occasion, gave testimony to the truth of Luther's ignorance.

This took place during Luther's concern whether men of war can also be in a blessed state. Walch, St. Louis Edition, Vol. X, 488.

Here also belongs:

Luther's letter to Michael Stiefel. January 1, 1528. In this volume, Appendix, No. 16.

Luther sends the aforementioned scripture to Stiefel.

*101 M. Cyriaci Spangenberg's report, what happened once with Luther's above concern. )

M. Cyriac. Spangenberg in the first part of the Adelspiegel in the 8th book, Cap. 3, p. 131 writes:

It can be read the beautiful booklet, which D. Martin Luther wrote in 1527 to Asche von Kramm, knight, and to be found in the third Jenische Theil of Luther's books, 1) under this very title: Ob Kriegsleute in seligem Stande sein können? When this booklet was printed for the first time in Wittenberg, it was ordered that in some copies Luther's name and also the name of the city of Wittenberg, along with the preface, and some few words were omitted, and then copies of a Duke Jörgen of Saxony were added, as is customary from other distant places. When he now read the booklet, it pleased him splendidly, and praised it highly, especially against Lucas Maler 2) the Ael-

1. In the 1556 edition, sheet 3436.
2. Lucas Cranach.

He said to the painter who was working for him in Dresden at the time: "Look, Lucas, you always praise your monk in Wittenberg, Luther, how he alone is so learned and can speak good German and write good books; but you are wrong both in this and in other things; look, I also have a booklet that is so good and better than Luther could ever make. He pulled it out of his bosom and threw it to the painter, who looked at it and said, "My lord and master, Luther made this booklet, except that his name is not on it; for I also have one here with me, which he himself gave me, with his name printed on it. When the duke inspected it and found nothing else but that it was Luther's work, he became quite angry about it and finally came out, cursing and saying: "It is a pity that such a hopeless monk should have made such a good little book. 2c.

*) This report by Spangenberg precedes Luther's concern in the Leipzig edition.

548 Erl.53. 95 f. 102. Luther's writing to the Cardinal at Mainz. W. XIX, 686 f. 549

XV Luther's dispute with the Elector Albrecht of Mainz.

This is the first time that the author has written a book about the history of the Church of God,

Concerning the indulgence, which he again had erected in Halle after Tetzel's death 2c.*)

December 1, 1521.

1. my willing services are E. C. F. G., most gracious Lord, before. There is no doubt that C.F.G. has in good, fresh memory how I wrote twice in Latin to C.F.G., only 1) in the beginning of the lying indulgence, which went out under C.F.G.'s name, in which I faithfully warned C.F.G., opposing out of Christian love the wild, seductive, money-addicted preachers and the heretical, disbelieving books.

2. And although I might have driven the whole storm, where immodesty pleases me, on E. C. F. G., as on him, who handled such under his name and knowledge, with printed title, written on the heretical books 2), I have nevertheless spared E. C. F. G. and the House of Brandenburg. C. F. G. and the house of Brandenburg spared, thought, E. C. F. G. thät solches ans unverstand und Unerfahrung, durch andere falsche Ohrenbläser verführt, an denen ich mich allein angehängt, wie mit manchen Mühe und Gefahr, ist E. C. F. G. wohl wissend.

3. but such my faithful admonition has brought ridicule, and at E. C. F. G. ingratitude for

1. On 31 Oct. 1517. Walch, old edition, vol. XV, 479. There with wrong date: I. October.
2. This refers especially to "The summary instruction of the Archbishop of Mainz and Magdeburg for the sub-commissioners, kosuitsutiarios and confessors, who would like to be appointed for the execution of the gracious indulgence...". would like to be ordered." Walch, old edition, vol. XV, 370.

Thanks received. I have written the other time 3) most humbly, offering myself to take instruction from E. C. F. G. I have received a harsh, naughty and unchristian answer. To take instruction from E. C. F. G., I received a harsh, naughty, unbishoply and unchristian answer, which pushed the instruction to me to higher power.

4 If the two writings did not help, I still do not let up, and according to the Gospel I will also do the third warning to E. C. F. G. in German, if it will help, so superfluous, unobligatory warning and pleading.

5 E. C. F. G. at Halle has now raised up again the idol who deprives the poor simple-minded Christians of money and soul, so that it may be freely publicly known how all the clumsy rebukes, 4) done by Tetzel, were not his alone, but the Bishop of Mainz's will, who also, regardless of my sparing, wants to attribute this to him alone.

6 Perhaps E. C. F. G. thinks that I am now of the plan, now wants to be safe from me and to dampen the monk by the imperial majesty. I let that happen. But E. C. F. G. should still know that I want to do what Christian love demands, not even the infernal gates, let alone unlearned men, popes, cardinals and bishops.

3. On 4 Feb. 1520. Walch, old edition, vol. XV, 1640.
4. The Wittenberg edition "Thaddel"; in the others: "Taddel". The meaning is: tadelnswerthe things.

*) This letter is found in the Wittenberg edition (1569), vol. IX, p. 129; in the Jena edition (1564), vol. I, p. 556; in the Altenburg edition, vol. I, p. 925; in the Leipzig edition, vol. XVII, p. 603; in the Erlangen edition, vol. 53, p. 95 and in De Wette, vol. II, p. 112. We reproduce the text of the Wittenberg edition.

550 Erl. S3, gs-98. XV Luther's dispute with Churf. Albrecht zu Mainz. W. XIX, 657-660. 551

I will neither suffer nor be silent that the bishop of Mainz should pretend that he does not know, or that it is not his duty to teach, if a poor man desires it of him and wants to know about it, and impudently 1) drive for and for, if it is to carry him money. I do not want to be scolded; one must sing and hear about it in a different way.

Therefore, my humble request to C.F.G. is that C.F.G. would leave the poor people unguided and unrobbed, that he would show himself a bishop, not a wolf. It has been made clear enough that indulgences are mere fraud and deceit, and Christ alone should be preached to the people, so that C.F.G. cannot be excused by ignorance.

E. C. F. G. want to be mindful of the beginning, what a terrible fire has become out of the small despised little spark, since all the world was so sure of it and thought that some poor beggar would be immeasurably too little for the pope and would not be able to do anything. God has still passed judgment, given the Pope with all his own enough to create, against and above all the world's opinion, led the game to such a point that the Pope can hardly be restored; it is also getting worse with him every day, that one may grasp God's work in this.

The same God is still alive, but no one doubts that he can withstand a Cardinal of Mainz, even though many emperors held him in high esteem. He also has a special desire to break the high cedars Ezek. 31, 3. 10. and to humble the arrogant Pharaohs Ex. 14, 28.. The same, I ask, would not want to try E. C. F. G. nor despise, his art and power is no measure.

10. E. C. F. G. only do not think that Luther is dead. He will insist on the God who humiliated the pope, so freely and cheerfully, and start a game with the Cardinal of Mainz, which is not much provided for. Do, dear bishops, together, young lords you may remain; you shall not yet silence nor deceive this spirit. If, however, any disgrace should befall you that you do not now reassure yourselves of, I hereby warn you.
11. therefore be E. C. F. G. finite and

1. Thus the Jenaers; Wittenbergers: freely.

I have to let it be a necessary, urgent and unavoidable reason for me, for the sake of divine doctrine and Christian blessedness, to publicly attack C.F.G., as well as the pope, to cheerfully persuade such an authority to bring all the previous abominations of Tetzel upon the bishop of Mainz and to show all the world the difference between a bishop and a wolf. Then E. C. F. G. may know how to judge and how to keep.

If I am despised, one will come who will despise the despiser again, as Isaiah says 33:1. I have admonished E. C. F. G. enough; it is henceforth time, according to St. Paul's teaching 1 Tim. 5, 20., to publicly revile, ridicule and punish the public evildoers before all the world, so that the offense may be driven from the kingdom of God.

13 Secondly, I ask that the C.F.G. abstain and leave in peace the priests who, in order to avoid unchastity, have entered or want to enter the conjugal state, not to deprive them of what God has given them, since the C.F.G. has no reason or justification for this, and all wanton sacrilege is unbecoming of a bishop.

(14) What is the use of you bishops, that you ask so insolently by force, and make hearts bitter against you, and will not nor may not prove the cause nor the right of your doings, what think ye? Have ye become vain giants and nimrods of Babylon? Deut. 10:8, 9] Do you not know, you poor people, that iniquity, tyranny, 2) because it has no semblance, because it denies common prayer, cannot long endure? How do you hasten to your accident, as the foolish, which will come all too soon for you yourselves!

15 E. C. F. G. sees from this that if this is not stopped, a cry will arise from the gospel, saying how fine it would be for the bishops to tear their beams out of their eyes first Luc. 6, 42., and that it would be fair for the bishops to drive their whores from themselves before they divorced pious wives from their husbands.

16. I ask, E. C. F. G. want to take care of themselves, to give me favor and space to weld.

2. sacrilege, tyranny - frevele tyranny.

552 Erl. SS, 98 f. 102. Luther's writing to the Cardinal at Mainz. W. XIX, 660-662. 553

gen. I have no love nor desire in E. C. F. G. dishonor and dishonor; but yet, where there is no cessation of dishonoring God and dishonoring His truth, I and all Christians are guilty of holding on to God's honor, although all the world, I remain silent, a poor man, a cardinal, would have to be disgraced by it. I will not be silent; and even if I do not succeed, I hope that you bishops will not sing out your little song with joy, because you have not yet exterminated all those whom Christ has awakened against your idolatrous tyranny.

17. To this I ask and wait for E. C. F. G. correct, prompt answer within fourteen days.

days. For after certain fourteen days, my booklet against the god in Halle will go out, if a mean answer does not come. And if this writing would be undertaken by E. E. F. G. councilors, that it would not come to hand, I will not let myself endure that. Councillors shall be faithful; so shall a bishop order his court, that what is to come before him may come before him. May God grant E. C. F. G. His grace for a right mind and will. Given in my desert, Sunday after the day Catharinä. Anno 1521.

E. C. F. G. willing and subject Martinus Luther.

*The Cardinal Albrecht, Archbishop of Mainz, Answer to Luther's Letter. )

December 21, 1521.

Dear Doctor, I have received and read your letter, which is dated on the Sunday after 1) Catharina, and have accepted it with grace and all good; but I completely understand that the cause has long since been removed, which moved you to write such a letter.

2. and, if God wills, will keep me like this.

1. Thus the Wittenberg edition. In the Jena edition, there would be: "on the day Catharinä". From this it seems to us that copies of the previous letter existed, which were provided with this wrong date "November 25" instead of "December 1", as Walch in the old edition, Vol. XIX, 656, also put this wrong date above it. Since it is clear from Luther's previous letter that it was the third letter he wrote to the Cardinal, there seems to us to be no room for the assumption that Luther wrote another letter to the Cardinal on November 25, 1521. Therefore, it seems to us to be erroneous that Seidemann in De Wette, Vol. VI, p. 37, and Burkhardt p. 43 refer to the same as a "missing letter". The earlier copy had a wrong date, and as it seems, also the wrong year 1522, which Seidemann 1. above has already provided with a question mark.

and show myself as a pious, spiritual and Christian prince is entitled to, as far as God gives me grace, strength and reason; therefore I also ask faithfully, and will let myself ask. For I am not able of myself, and I confess that I am in need of God's grace; how then I am a poor sinful man, who can sin and err, and daily sin and err, I do not deny. I know well that without the grace of God there is nothing good in me, and I am as much a useless stinking muck as any other, if not more.

(3) I did not want to take this into account in response to your gracious letter. For I am more willing than willing to show you mercy and goodness for Christ's sake. I can well suffer brotherly and Christian punishment. I hope that the merciful God will grant me grace, strength and patience to live His will in this and in the other. Date Halle on the day of St. Thomas the Apostle. Anno 1521.

Albertus

manu propria.

*) This answer is found in the editions given in the previous number immediately after Luther's letter, but not in De Wette's and in the Erlangen edition. We give the text according to the Wittenberg edition.

554 De'Wette II, 129 f. XV. Luther's dispute with Churf. Albrecht zu Mainz. W. XIX, 662-664. 555

104. D. Mart. Luther's Letter to Wolfgang Fabricats Capito,

of Cardinal Albrecht Preacher and Council.*)

January 17, 1522.

Translated from Latin.

As much as I was delighted by your Cardinal's writing, I was deeply saddened by your letter, my dear Fabricius. Perhaps this sad and unkind beginning saddens you, but through your own fault, since you have taken away the credibility and reputation of the Cardinal's letter by your so untimely oratory. For among many things that moved me was especially this, that you write that you 1) have taken a different way than we to promote the Gospel. For what is this but that either your way or mine is damnable, whereas the Spirit's ministry need not in the least be contrary to itself? For St. Paul also commands Titus 2 Cor. 12:18 to the Corinthians, because he walked in the same footsteps with him. I would have gladly, because I am favorable to you, alleviated this word "another way" by some interpretation in your favor, if you had not forced me to understand it this way yourself by your own interpretation: The gospel would be promoted if the princes were given credit for something, if they were spared, if their deeds were excused, and (as your words read) if we held ourselves in such a way that we did not

1. We have adopted here the reading of the Wittenberg edition: te instead of euin in De Wette. That this is the correct reading is not overturned by the fact that Seckendorf, lib. I, 175, reports that Capito wrote, "der Churfürst" nähme eine andere Weise vor 2c. For on the one hand, the Elector wrote on Capito's input; on the other hand, Luther calls this way of promoting the gospel "your way" even further in this letter.

wantonly challenged to a quarrel. This way of yours is, in my opinion, a real hypocrisy and denial of Christian truth, and actually "the reputation of the person" (προσωποληψίή), which Scripture so abhors that it rejects nothing more vehemently. Neither would I wish my enemies to put up with this opinion of thine; and so much is lacking in it, that I should wish the gospel to be promoted by this manner of thine, that rather I should not seek to avert anything more vehemently. And Christ grant, not that thou mayest do nothing, but that he may so keep thee with us that thou mayest do no harm.

You desire meekness and kindness, I know that, but what fellowship can a Christian have with a flatterer? Christianity is something open and completely sincere; it looks at things as they are in themselves, and that is how it speaks. Even the heathen wish all misfortune to those who flatter their friends' faults, and the truth of Christ should flatter vices and ungodliness?

But we also want to show you our way and confidently put it under your and the whole world's judgment, without any hesitation that you write that the common people get angry when people bite each other so violently. For whom did Christ not offend, or whom did he not punish? Also the spirit of truth does not punish or flatter. But he punishes not only some persons, but the whole world. Therefore, this is our opinion,

*This missive appeared in print under the title: Lpistola Imtberi utt VolkKunA Cabriciuru Oaxiutilissima. Also in German, but not by Luther himself, in the collection: "Urtheil D. M. Luther and Phil. Melanchthonis by Erasmo Roterodam. A Christian epistle from D. M. L. to D. Wolfg. Fabnt. Capitonem 2c. Christus Ablaßbrief" etc. For another edition with South German orthography, see Panzer, Annalen der älteren deutschen Litteratur, II, p. 70, no. 1324. In Latin, the letter is found in Aurifaber, vol. II, col. 36, and in the Latin Wittenberg edition, lom. II, iol. 305. German, however, completely deviating from zener first translation, in the Wittenberg (1569), vol. IX, p. 130b; in the Jena (1564), vol. I, p. 558; in the Attenburg, vol. I, p. 927 and in the Leipzig, vol. XVII, p. 606. Then still Latin in De Wette, vol. II, p. 129; thereafter we have retranslated the letter.

556 De Wette II. 130-132. 104 Luther's letter to Capito. W. XIX, 664-666. 557

that everything should be blamed, punished, disgraced, nothing should be spared, nothing should be seen through the fingers, nothing should be excused, so that the pure truth may keep the field freely and publicly.

Furthermore, it is something else if you receive those whom you have punished with the greatest gentleness, tolerate them and stand by them. This then belongs to the example of love and service, not to the ministry of the word. For even Christ, after punishing all most severely, still desires to be a hen and gather them under his wings Matth. 23, 37. Luc. 13, 34.. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things 1 Cor. 13:7. But faith, or the word, suffers nothing at all, but punishes and devours, or, as Jeremiah Cap. 1, 10. says, tears out, breaks, disturbs, corrupts, and Cap. 48, 10.: "Cursed be he that doeth the work of the LORD recklessly."

It is, I say, another thing, my dear Fabricius, to praise or belittle vice, and another to cure it with goodness and kindness. One should say before all things what is right and what is wrong; then, when the hearer has accepted such, one should tolerate him and, as Paul says Rom. 14:1, receive the weak in faith. But your way makes it so that the truth is never recognized, and yet out of flattery and false kindness it is thought to heal the hurt. Thus is fulfilled the saying of Jeremiah 8:11, "They comfort my people in their calamities, that they should esteem them little." And again Cap. 23, 14.: "They strengthen the wicked, lest any man turn from his wickedness."

Nor do I hope that we have ever shown ourselves in such a way that we could be accused of lacking love in welcoming and tolerating the weak, nor do we lack meekness, kindness, peace and joy when someone accepts our word and cannot be perfect immediately. We are content for a while that he has known the truth, has not resisted it, and has not condemned it. What we do after that is a work of love, which exhorts him to do what he has known. For if your cardi

nal had written this letter from the heart, I pray thee, how gladly, how humbly would we fall at his feet, and not count ourselves worthy to kiss the dust of his feet! Are we not also unclean and an impure pit of sin? Let him only accept the word, and we will serve him as servants.

But for those who despise or condemn the doctrine and ministry of the Word, or cunningly persecute it, we have neither grace, love, nor kindness, even though this is also the highest love, that their raging and ungodliness should be resisted with all our might in every way.

But if (as I suspect) your Cardinal has shown himself to be such a tremendous hypocrite according to your instruction, you see for yourself that we must not be moved by it. But you have not been able to deceive us either, because we also know the devil's thoughts very well and can both justify and condemn anyone from his words. Your Cardinal writes: he wants to do with God's help what is due to a pious, spiritual and Christian prelate. Well, if he says this in good faith, without hypocrisy, and you have not given him this, then his heart is certainly of such a mind that he wants to take off the cardinal's robe and the episcopal splendor and go to the office of the Word. But who will persuade us to believe this? It is impossible that he is on the way to beatitude until he has become a bishop of so many churches, while he is hardly able to administer a small parish. But it is hard that he should resign his office and become a parish priest. Say you, who would dare to ask such a thing of him? I answer, how then wilt thou be sure, unless thou reveal this truth unto him? Afterward show him favor and see through his fingers, but first show him, that he may know wherein he may sin or not sin. Afterward also diligence that he sin not, or if he have sinned, forbear him. But do not look through the fingers, nor forbear until you have made this known to him (ante scientiam). For so acts the cruel flattery which Christian or human leniency falsely invents.

558 De Wette II, I32-IS4. XV Luther's dispute with Churf. Albrecht zu Mainz. W. XIX, 666-669. 559

Further, how can I also believe as true what you also write: the married priest is set free, and what he the Cardinal writes: the cause for writing my little book has long been stopped? Truly, a beautiful liberation! As if it would not have been better if he had been killed. You have forced him to conspire against his wife, against his conscience, about which he has now fallen into sadness. For God's sake, will you also tempt the Holy Spirit? Do you not persist in hating the priestly marriage as long as you do not revoke the forced abjuration and the tyranny of the executed divorce?

Here you may say, you excellent speaker: it was a whore. But you should have inquired about that before. And even if she had been a whore, why do you rage against him alone and walk past your Halberstadt, Mainz, Magdeburg and other innumerable whorehouses as if your ears had grown shut? You see, Fabricius, that your oratory is nothing in this matter. You should have been satisfied with him, since he confessed that she was his wife; or you should have refuted Paulum, who most clearly condemns such celibacy and calls it a doctrine of the devil 1 Tim. 4, 1. 3.. But if he had lied that she was his wife, the danger would have been with him, but you would have been excused.

That you further pretend that in this new marriage a divorce would have been to worry about, if he had become tired of the marriage: I also do not consider such a pretension to be serious. For what does it matter to the purity of doctrine that wicked people abuse it? We do not ask you to provide us with a marital state in which there is no difficulty, but only that you do not condemn such doctrine and examples. We say nothing of priestly marriage, except that priests may live in wedlock according to God's word. Now the provost of Kemberg 1) is a man, to whom

1. Bartholomäus Bernhardi from Feldkirch. Cf. Walch, St. Louis edition, vol. XVIII, introduction, p. 3, first columne.

To whom all things are praiseworthy, how then shall he be lightly reproached? Unless people have to be frivolous because you are afraid that they will become frivolous. But for the sake of your fear or my hope, nothing more or less happens to people, much less is anything changed in the words of God. Otherwise, we would not have to do anything according to the divine commandments because of this fear.

From this, my dear Fabricius, you can see how great causes trouble me, which is why I cannot believe that your Cardinal writes from the heart. Here I will remain silent about the great tyranny by which he pushed Andreas Kaugsdorf in Magdeburg from the preaching chair with such great shame, such a man whose equals the Cardinal hardly has in his entire country; you are not even sorry yet.

I ask you, dear Fabricius, do you look for such a man at Luther, who sees through the fingers to all that you undertake, when he alone is smeared with a letter of flattery, although you undertake such unspeakably evil things and do not let it suffice you that we are ready to forgive you for the sake of love and to have patience with you? Yes, you even demand that we should also judge you, that is, be so ungodly that we deny the doctrine. You tempt me, my Fabricius, enough and more than enough. ' I also answer you kindly enough and overly enough, for you see how much harsher an answer you deserved, because you not only do not do what I asked, but also mock and ridicule it, as you think yourselves to be, with excellent euphemisms, but to my mind with ridiculous and ludicrous pretexts. But in order that they these pretexts may obtain something, I will do myself violence beyond measure and not demand that you publicly recant your wickedness committed against me; you may see to it that you give Christ an answer for it. I will be silent and content if you henceforth do not engage in similar tyranny and let the doctrine of godliness be free. If you do not simply confess Christ and want to follow him, then follow your own things and only make yourselves miserable. Otherwise

560 De Wette ii. 134. ivs. 104. Luther's letter to Capito. W. XIX, 669-671. 561

We let the reins of our ministry flow and defend the divine doctrine with all our might, may heaven or earth or hell be angry.

Therefore, in Luther, as before, you always have a completely obedient servant, as long as you hold divine doctrine dear; on the other hand, you have a powerful despiser, where you and your Cardinal will continue to mock the sanctuary. Summa, let it remain so: My love is ready to die for you; but he who touches the faith touches the apple of our eye. Love shall be abandoned to you, you may mock it or honor it as you wish; but faith and the word, that is what we want, you shall worship them and consider them the holy of holies. To

Our love gives you all kinds of things, but our faith is always feared.

I will not answer your Cardinal, because I do not want to be able to walk the middle road safely, neither praising nor scolding his sincerity or hypocrisy. But from you he will hear Luther's spirit. And I, when I learn that he acts sincerely, will immediately pour myself out completely before him and fall at his feet. Farewell, my dear Fabricius, and do not doubt that my heart is righteous toward you. As you see, the matter is great and holy. We must be guided by this, so that we do not prefer our brothers and sisters to Christ. From my desert on the day of Antonii, Anno 1522.

*105. D. Martin Luther's letter to Spalatin. )

Approximately between December 5 and 8, 1521.

Translated from Latin.

He complains harshly about Spalatin, that either his letters and works had been intercepted, or that he himself had suppressed them so that they would not be printed. He then asks that he recommend him to the prince and not think anything against him from his trip to Wittenberg.

To the servant of Christ, Georg Spalatin, his dear friend.

Hail. In addition to letters, I also sent you my little books on the vows, on the mass, and against the tyrant of Mainz, and hoped that everything would be delivered to those to whom it should have been sent. But now, since I find everything quite different, I must have all sorts of thoughts. For I worry that they might have been intercepted on the way or lost in some way by the messenger. But if I should know that they have come to your hands

If I were a prisoner with you, nothing could be more burdensome to me at this time, because I have done in these little books what should be hastened the most.

Therefore, if you have them with you, set a goal for your restraint and prudence, of which I suspect you. For you are not doing anything by rowing against the current. I want to have printed what I have written, if not at Wittenberg, certainly elsewhere. If the copies would either be lost, or if you should withhold them, my spirit will become embittered, that I would

*This letter is found in Latin in Aurifaber, Vol. I, p. 366b and in De Wette, Vol. II, p. 109. We have translated it according to the latter. In the old edition of Walch it is twice, namely here and vol. X V, appendix, no. 98. The time determination, which was given so far in the editions either wrongly, namely "end of November 1521", or not at all, results from the time of the secret visit, which Luther paid in Wittenberg. On December 3, Luther was on the outward journey in Leipzig and about eight days later on the return journey to the Wartburg again there. If we now assume two day journeys between Leipzig and Wittenberg, Luther will have arrived in Wittenberg on December 5, stayed there for three days and was back in Leipzig on December 11. Accordingly, our letter would have to be placed between December 5 and 8. Cf. Köstlin, Martin Luther, Vol. I, p. 510 f.

562 De Wette n, 109 f. XV Luther's dispute with Churf. Albrecht zu Mainz. W. XIX, 671 f. 563

Nevertheless, I will use much stronger means in this matter. For he will not also destroy the spirit that destroys lifeless paper.

I have come to Wittenberg, and among the most pleasant amusements of my friends I have found this wormwood, namely, that no one has neither heard nor seen anything of the little books and the letters. Judge for yourself whether this pain is not to be considered well-founded. What I see and hear pleases me very much. May the Lord strengthen the spirit of those who wish us well; but since I have heard various rumors on the way about the impetuosity of some of our people, I have resolved to make a

public admonition 1) as soon as I will have returned to my solitude. About the rest another time.

Command me to the Most Serene Prince, to whom I would like to keep my arrival in Wittenberg and my return hidden; for what reason? you know yourself. Farewell. Wittenberg at my Philip in Amsdorf's house. Anno 1521. Martin Luther.

Philip will have the Latin Bible sent to you and through you to me, which I ask you to accept and faithfully provide.

1. This probably refers to the writing that appeared on January 19, 1522, under the title: "A faithful admonition to all Christians to beware of sedition and outrage." (Cf. Köstlin, I, 511.)

The following writings still belong to this section:

a. Luther's letter to Nie. Walch, old edition, vol. XV, appendix, no. 71, § 5.

"I have finished a public punishment against the Cardinal of Mainz, because he has erected anew the idol of indulgence in Halle."

b. Luther's letter to Spalatin, Nov. 11, 1521. Walch, old edition, vol. XV, appendix, no. 80.

Luther is reluctant that the court wants to prevent him from writing against the Archbishop of Mainz because of the renewed indulgence fuss in Halle, declares his firm will that he does not want to be hindered, and sends the finished writing.

c. Luther's letter to Melanchthon, January 13, 1522. Walch, old edition, vol. XV, appendix, no. 103.

The Cardinal's falseness in his answer to Luther has come to light through Capito's letter, which was received at the same time, defending the Cardinal and indicating that he had only admitted his personal sins.

d. Luther's serious letter of reprimand to Cardinal Albrecht for murder and persecution. In this volume, appendix, no. 31. Cf. Tischreden, cap. 76, § 24. Walch, St. Louis edition, vol. XXII, 1626.

e. Luther's severe punishment and warning to the Cardmal. Before January 12, 1536. In this volume, Appendix, No. 33.

f. Luther's letter to George, Prince of Anhalt. Erlanger Ausgabe, Vol. 56, p. 199. De Wette, Vol. VI, p. 166.

The Bishop of Mainz wants to put the case of Antonius Schenitz (brother of Hans Schenitz) in default.

Luther asks the prince to let the matter go and come to an end. "Without that," Luther continues, "I have to let something go out now, so I will take the Cardinal with me, God willing, amen.

g. Luther's letter to Brück. Dec. 10, 1536. In this volume, Appendix, No. 32.

The Elector, moved by a letter from the Elector of Brandenburg and his cousins, asks Luther how he is doing with his letter against the Cardinal of Mainz. Luther answers that he wishes the princes all the best and would prefer that they ask their cousin, the Cardinal, to improve himself. They would also consider that it would not mean a tribe reviled if Luther had to tell the truth to a boy.

h. Luther's letter to Duke Albrecht of Prussia. August 15, 1538. De Wette, vol. V, p. 123. Erlanger Ausgabe, vol. 55, p. 208.

To defend himself against the Duke's accusation (July 24, 1538) that he had attacked the Elector of Mainz too harshly in the Epigrammata of M. Simon Lemnius, Luther wrote: "It is not a disgrace to have boys of one sex, but honest that they should not be praised nor defended."

i. Luther's writing "Against the Bishop of Magdeburg, Albrecht, Cardinal," concerning the innocently hanged Hans Schenitz. In this volume, appendix, no. 34.

k. Luther's letter to J. Jonas concerning his mocking note of the Cardinal's sanctuary at Mainz. November 6, 1542, in this volume, Appendix, No. 35, -The "Mocking Note" there.

l. Luther's Urtheil vom Cardinal zu Mainz in the Tischreden, Cap. 31, § 2. Walch, St. Louis Edition, Vol. XXII, 970 ff.

** 564**De Wette ll, 287. 106 Luther's letter to Brismann. W. XIX, 672 f. 565

Luther's dispute with Duke Henry of Brunswick

(1540 and 1541)

is recorded by Walch in the 17th volume. This includes the following two writings:

Duke Henry of Brunswick's writing against the Elector of Saxony's behavior against him, in which he blames Luther, as if he should call the Elector, his sovereign, Hans Wurst.

Walch, old edition, vol. XVII, 1549.

D. Mart. Luther's writing opposed to Duke Heinrich of Brunswick under the title: Wider Hans Wurst.

Walch, old edition, vol. XVII, 1645.

XVI Luther's dispute with Caspar Schatzgeyer.

*106 D. Mart. Luther's letter to D. Johann Brismann. )

Perhaps in January 1523.

He admonishes Brismann that, as Luther had asked him earlier, he should publicly refute the tasteless booklet of Caspar Schatzgeher, a Minorite monk, which he had issued against Luther's booklet of vows, for which he gives him some reasons.

Grace and peace in Christ! The other day a man of your order, Caspar Schatzgeyer, appeared against me in a booklet published against me about vows and masses, who had also previously published the wretched and clumsy booklet which he called Scrutinium^1^ 1) Examination.

1. The title of this writing is: Lcrutiniura divinac scripturac pro conciliationc dissidcntiura dogmatuva circa sudscriptas inatcrias, dc ^ratia ct lidcro arbitrio, dc üdc ct opcridus, dc pcccnto in kono opere, de exordio verae poenitentiae, de rneritorio actu lideri arkitrii, de sacriücio novi tcstanacnti, de

and tried to unite Christ and Belial, that is, the godless scholasticism and the holy scripture. Since this turned out badly for him, he thought of another way to gain fame, and now he gives birth to Indagines researches and Conatus experiments and I do not know what kind of whimsical stuff is written in words.

saccrdotio novac Ic^is, de e'oiroEidonc sub utruHUo spccic, dc baptisino ct libcrtatc ctiristiana, dc votis ct statu oaonacliorum. Without place and time. Quarto. 102 leaves. (Wiedemann, Eck, p. 419.) One can see that Luther could not possibly answer all that was written against him.

*) This letter is first printed with Brismann's book; then with Aurifaber, vol. II, p. 113; in the Wittenberg Latin edition, Dona. II, col. 323, and in De Wette, vol. II, p. 287. According to the latter we have translated.

566 De Wette II, 287-28 pp. XVI. Luther's dispute with Caspar Schatzgeyer. W. XIX. 873-875. 567

and things. But you know yourself how people have the way or even the fate (I am talking about those who are only Minorites and not Christians) to use new and strange words, just as they also live according to new customs. Thus one writes swords, another syrup, another plaster, 1) but this one, as I have said, researches and experiments, so that they namely have no communion with men in words and things. In addition, there is also a certain own and minoritic way of expression, which is such that it cannot be called anything else than minoritic, which has its main strength in that it is highly annoying, in that it wants to seem new and yet is neither new nor old, but also not even in the middle between new and old.

(2) But to come to the matter itself, I have asked you to take upon yourself the trouble of answering, not that I think you worthy, who with the gift of God can serve better things, to argue with such larvae, but because I have too much to do to be able to answer myself. For although I despised the unlearned man in so holy a matter, and thought that such people, who are moved by such trifling writings to decide against my book of the vows, which, as I must say myself, of all that I have written is the strongest and, as I may well boast, irrefutable, would not be able to be fortified, even if I repeated my answer a thousand times: I have nevertheless yielded to certain friends who insisted and pressed me very hard, and consented that he should be answered.

3 Continue happily in Christ, since you know the sect of the Minorites very well and understand very well in how many places "the treasure vulture" (Thesaurivora), that "explorer" and "tempter", lies; trying to persuade us to believe that among the monks faith and chastity are as common as the monks themselves are common, especially the Minorites, although his own conscience and conscience of the monks are very good.

1. This refers to Alveld's writing MaiaAlHÄ. Cf. the introduction to the 18th volume of the St. Louis edition, p. 32, second columne.

experience teaches him far otherwise, except that a mere minorite must be a mere hypocrite. For he speaks on the very beat as they have lived hitherto, believing that there will be no one to perceive that he is lying, as there has been no one hitherto to believe that they are mere comedians, and, as Paul says 2 Tim. 3:5., "who have the appearance of a godly being, but deny his power."

(4) Although you do not need me to show you what is most to be refuted in it, yet, in order that he may see how we condemn such things in one sense, I will also remind him of this, of which no doubt Christ, who teaches you, will remind you. But it is this, that in the whole book that man does indeed draw on a great deal from Scripture and shows it off in the margins with more boastfulness than befits a Minorite (unless hypocrisy were involved). Meanwhile, the blind and nonsensical researcher does not see how all this serves nothing to the point, which is so obvious that he must confess it himself, if it is shown to him only a little tangibly, in the following way:

(5) Are not all the words and deeds of the Scriptures testimonies that concern all Christians, as Paul says in Romans 15: "What is written is written for our learning"? What nonsense, then, is it to refer what is said to all Christians in general to a single sect alone? For what else could a fool conclude in regard to the whole pompous book of the researcher than this corollary: since you justify your particular sect with general scriptural passages, it must truly follow that either all Christians must be Minorites, or, if they are not, they cannot be Christians, since to these alone is said what you adduce for the Minorites? What will "the treasure vulture" (Thesaurivora,) do here? Will he not be ashamed, if there is still a speck of shame in him, that he has ever disgraced himself before men, as one who has so ungodly and blasphemously done such violence and wrong to the holy Scriptures and to Christians? so that, if his things are true, either the Christians cannot be Christians, or they cannot be Christians.

568 De Wette II, 289-291? 106 Luther's letter to Brismann. W. XIX, 675-L78. 569

or the Scripture does not have to be Scripture. Behold, there you have the reward for error, which those must receive who argue against the known truth!

(6) But so that he does not blaspheme: I only said this, but I do not prove it with any example, although the books are available and he cannot make any excuses, so I at least state with you what you also state as your opinion about the preface of the same. Is therefore the monastic state 1) not beautifully and quite minoritically proven from the passage of Luke, in which it is written that the Lord went into the house of Martha and Mary? that is, as Schatzgeper says, into the monasteries, in which an active and contemplative life is going on? 2c.

(7) But to pass over the unlearned things of the monks, which almost no one understands (as few hear these words of the active and contemplative life, let alone that such a house is with them), is it not certain that this doctrine, which the Lord taught by his entrance into the house of Martha, of whatever kind it may be, is common to all Christians? Unless such entrance was not a part of the gospel, or the gospel was not common to all Christians.

(8) Dear! what does the wretched treasure-keeper do, in putting the Scriptures in favor of the monastic state, other than that he himself says by deed: Dear! laugh, hiss, and mock me, an unskilled and tasteless man, who has put the sayings that apply to all Christians in general on my lousy robe? For he himself admits outright that there is nothing in Scripture about monasticism, and consoles himself only with the one thing that monasticism does not seem to be contrary to Holy Scripture. Nevertheless, he forgets this statement again and again and does nothing else than citing the Scriptures for the monastic state, until he also makes Christ a monk and Mary a nun, who was at least an engaged wife, which is a theft from God for the nuns of this great tempter.

1. In Latin monastles, which must be resolved with xxxxxxxxx, as follows from the beginning of § 8 and other places.

9 But I beg you, dear Brismann, not to be annoyed by the foolish sacrilege of so many monstrous things. Continue as you have begun, and show this blind researcher, if he can grasp it, even from his Aristotle, that it is something else to say general things and particular ones. Call to his mind even Porphprius, who makes something quite different out of a general and a particular accidental property. I confess, of course, that I am overcome by weariness and disgust while reading, not so much by the bad Latin, even non-Latin, but I am especially overwhelmed by the exceedingly unlearned impudence of the man, who contradicts himself in almost every line to the very highest degree. But so that you do not eat up this annoyance all by yourself, I want to override it in one or the other piece, so that the excellent tempter does not get angry that with so many books no answer could have been brought out of me. He also wants to become a famous man.

First I accept this main sentence of his booklet, 2) since he boasts: the monastic state is not against the Scriptures, not even in one point, therefore, according to the words of Christ, one must accept this as the right thing: He who is not against us is for us. Thus he says.

(11) Behold, I beseech thee, how diligently this tempter hath read my little book, wherein I have done this one thing, to prove that the monastic state is by its nature contrary to the Scriptures. He refutes all these reasons like this: he is not against it, therefore he is for it. He forces me to understand it like this: the holy scripture does not call the monks by their names, and does not even think of them with one letter of this word: Minorite, Augustinian, Carthusian 2c., therefore it is not against it. In this way neither Arius, nor Pelagius, nor any heretic is against the Scripture, but all for the Scripture.

(12) But in order that I may speak roughly with a rough head, I divide man's life into two parts. For he has to do either with things that are below him or with things that are above him. With those that are below him, God lets him operate freely (agere), also with those that are above him.

2. How this is to be understood follows from s 14.

570 De Wette II, 291 f. XVI. Luther's dispute with Caspar Schatzgeyer. W. XIX, 678-681. 571

Such things, which he does not order in the holy scripture, as: building, herding, buying and, as Peter 1 Ep. 2, 13 calls them, human orders, that is, making orders. In these things it is not necessary to wait for a word of God, but also the heathen Jethro can teach the holy Moses, because (according to Gen. 1.) man has been made lord over things, so that he may dispose with reason, according to his pleasure, of what is under him. For in this there is no service of God, and it is done both by the wicked and the pious. All this is given out in vain, both to the good and to the evil, as it is said in Matt. 6.

13. But with the things that are above him, that is, with God, God has never permitted, nor does God permit it yet, but what is to happen here must all be done at a certain and explicit command of God, because man does not know in himself what is above him, that is, what God wants, if He has not revealed Himself in His word; just as the "creatures" that are under man do not know what man wants unless he makes himself known to them by a sign, as by striking, restraining, slackening 2c. Therefore it is not enough here to say: it is not forbidden in Scripture, but one must say: it is commanded, yes, precisely because it is not commanded, it is truly forbidden. For man must not rule himself above where it is God's alone to rule, for just by doing so he usurps God's throne with Lucifer and wants to be like Adam. That is why in Moses, when what is due to God is to happen, it is repeated so often in so many words, but out of utmost necessity: The Lord has spoken it, the Lord has said it, the Lord has commanded it, the Lord has commanded it. And there nothing happens at all unless a word of the Lord has gone before. Yes, Deut. 12:8 says: You shall not do against the LORD your God what seems right to you. Thus Nadab and Abihu were consumed by the fire of the LORD without any other sin than that they did the best work without the commandment of God, as Moses writes.
14. and what is the content of all the prophecies

and the whole Scripture, as: That we should do nothing good before God without a certain commandment of God? So let the wretched treasure hunter leave his boast: that the monastic state is not against God; for if it is not against God, we also confess that it is for God. But now it is against God precisely because it is without the word of God. Therefore, he should not have proved that nothing is actually said about the monastic state in Scripture, but that something is said about it; he should have stated the affirmative sentence, not the negative sentence. For if they let the monastic state be something like that of which we have said that it is among men, I have said more than in one place, even in the booklet of vows, that it should be tolerated. Now, however, they count it among the things that are above man, as a special worship, which is piratical, abominable and a complete perversion, as I have said enough.

(15) But if this word makes Schatzgeyern so courageous that Christ says, "He who is not against us is for us," why does not the word of the same Christ make him despondent, "He who is not with me is against me? But Christ himself did nothing against (erga) his Father, except what the Father commanded him, as he says: "That I should thus do as the Father commanded me. So he is against him who does something without the father's command. For if Schatzgeyer rightly interprets, "He is not against us," that is, it is not forbidden: so also my interpretation is right, "He is not with me," that is, it is not commanded. But this "not being with me" means Christ "being against me": that is, that the "not commanded" is as much as "forbidden.

(16) And he, of whom Christ says: "he is for us", 1) admittedly did not cast out devils at his own will, but at God's call. Christ proves this from the fruit of this, when he says Marc. 9, 39: no one can speak evil of him, who has done any deed in his name.

1. At De Wette vobig. We have adopted the reading Aurifabers uodis, because of Marc. 9, 49.

572 De Wette II, 292-294. 106 Luther's letter to Brismann. W. XIX, 681-683. 573

have. For so many other saints have done many miracles, but none without God's call, inwardly or outwardly, which call was proved by some sign.

(17) See, then, how this tempter evidently treats the Scriptures in such a way as to draw what was done by command and impulse of God (divinitus) to things chosen by human presumption without God's command.

18 For even that which Christ said of him who cast out devils, "is for you," is certainly for all Christians. For "for you" is not so much for religious and monks, but for all. For all Christians must imitate him, not in doing the same work, but in acting with the same faith, the same obedience, and the same spirit. For not all members have the same business, but all have the same mind, the same spirit, and the same life, so that again one sees the stupidity of the investigator, who makes something special for the monks out of the things that all Christians have in common. For he also interprets the "for you" entirely to mean that he wants it to be taken as an example to be imitated. But if he refers the imitation not to faith and spirit, but to the outward work, he is even more nonsensical, because no monk has ever cast out devils. And nothing would have to become of the monastic state but an outward casting out of devils, in order to imitate him of whom he boasts, "he is for you."

19. But if the "for you" is not said of the example of imitation (as I believe), but of the participation in the work, so that "for you" is just as much as co-workers, helpers, as Paul says Rom. 8: If God is for us, who may be against us? and again: All things work together for the good of the elect; so it follows again that it is understood by those who are under the same commandment and driven by the same spirit, but cannot be understood by those who have lived according to their own pleasure without the word of God. Therefore, the unskillful and blind for

He should not have first taught that certain things are against us and certain things are for us, which we knew quite well without his investigations, researches and experiments, but he should have proved that the monastic state is for us and not against us, that it must be considered a service of God and obedience to God. However, one would tolerate it as I myself have said, 1) if it were held as a free exercise of the body for a certain time or forever. That is enough of the first!

(20) But I will also speak of the other thing which he cites from Jeremiah: that the Rechabites, by the command of their father Jonadab, abstained from wine, nor cultivated the land, nor built houses. Therefore, according to this example, one may vow a perpetual monastic state, because God has praised and rewarded them excellently.

21. Behold, I beseech thee, even the minoritical theology, which sees nothing in the Scriptures but robes and their clogs. 2) But let us look at this passage properly. For there the power of parents and the obedience of children are exalted. And this God praises, because he also commanded it so sharply in the Ten Commandments. But, my dear, what is that to do with the god-robbing monks, who almost always take the children against the power of their parents and completely destroy the obedience ordered by God with their cursed, abominable self-chosen obedience?

22. You godless cowl, who taught you to interpret the divine words in such a way that you turn your eyes only to the works and leave God's word in the queue, and what is said of divine commandments always only draws on the monks' presumptuous presumptions and inventions? If you point out to me in your monastic life a father who commands his children, I will say that he must be obeyed, not because the father, a human being, commands it, but because God, with His commandment and order, has ordered the commandment of that human being and demands obedience.

1. The bracketed words are readings of the Wittenberg edition.
2. The Minorites wore wooden shoes, therefore Spalatin calls them "Holzschuhbarfüßer". Cf. Walch, St. Louis Edition, Vol. XVIII, 1419, sub No. 57.

574 De Wette II, 294-296. XVI Luther's dispute with Caspar Schatzgeyer. W. XIX, 683-686. 575

But if Schatzgeyer treats this example rightly in the interpretation, then monks must be bodily parents of their monks; if they are not parents, O how his so stupid tempter mocks himself by drawing the example of paternal authority and filial obedience, both ordered by God, to the fictitious obedience and authority invented by human dreams without God's word! O of the unlearned monks and dumb clods! Do you dare to write books?

(23) Surely the power of parents surpasses all power that is under God. For no one doubts that Isaac did right, since he obeyed his father Abraham to the point of death, while God had said nothing to Isaac but this: Honor your father 2c. Therefore, if the father's authority in case of need also extends over the son's body and life, so that he can kill and sell him, as is written in Exodus 22, what new thing is it that it also extends over food and clothing? But therefore even parents must not immediately follow such examples as the kings of Israel did, when they sacrificed their children to the idol Moloch after Abraham's example and let themselves think that they were doing God a service by doing so. How much less may a man who is not a father, without a special commandment of God, seize foreign children and throw them under himself, and deprive the parents of their authority, and the children of obedience, that is, deny God Himself with His commandment? O cute monasticism, which is so beautifully proven from the example of the Rechabites, and yet is found to be robbery of God, completely contrary to the Rechabite example, and a horrible desolation of the divine commandment, of paternal authority and filial obedience!

(24) There are also other things in monasticism that dispute with the example of the Rechabites. And how should they not dispute, since the main thing itself is against it? First of all, GOD does not praise the works, but the obedience of the Rechabites. For if he their father had commanded other works as well, he God would still have praised their obedience; but the monastic state is entirely in ge

drowned in the knowledge of their works. Furthermore, it is certain that the Rechabites were not commanded by their father to do such things in order to establish some special divine service with such works, for that would have been ungodly, and Jeremiah does not say that either (for nothing need be done for the service of God without a certain word from God, as we have said), but they used such practice freely for their bodies, as another uses agriculture. But our monastic state does not come along so modestly, but the devil leads it, that it walks about in strange and great things, that it makes of its efforts not only a service of God, but almost the sole and highest service of God, without any commandment of God. For if they did not use the service of God, no one would go to it, no one would stay with it. This is the exceedingly impudent Baal Peor, when one sets up a new altar and establishes a special service out of his own boldness.

25. Take to this, that such free and bodily ordinance of the Rechabites was not exalted above spiritual things, which are not in our power. For they were not commanded abstinence from marriage or anything concerning the soul, but it concerned wine, fruits and houses, all of which are in our power. But our monastic state drives quite madly on such things which are not in our power, namely, to chastity. For even Jonadab should not have commanded his children what was not in their power, although he held the paternal power. But these senseless and strange people impose impossible things on those who are not their children, without all power. O madness and abomination! And yet this "treasure vulture" may compare the monastic state with the household, although they are different, like hell and heaven. And he does this because, as a blind man, he falls only on the resemblance of the works, but pays no attention to the reason and the true form of the works, as these monkeys are wont to do, so that he may make his name true and be a right treasure vulture, 1) that is, one who has the noblest treasures, namely, the faithful, the good and the bad.

1. sit, not she. (Walch.)

576 De Wette II, 296 f. 106. Luther's letter to Brismann. W. XIX, 686-688. 577

The new version of the book is a new version of the book.

(26) Yes, it is also certain that Jonadab's commandment was not so sharp that, if a case had arisen, it could not have been dissolved or exempted, as Christ says of the Sabbath, Matt. 12. Far be it from Jonadab, the holy man, to have kept his commandment more sharply than God kept His own, and that he should not rather have commanded such things to be omitted where there was danger to body and soul. It was enough that this excellent example proved how pleasant obedience to parents would be, namely because God foresaw the future abominations of the monks, by which they would introduce an obedience contrary to the divine commandment.

27 These two things are about the strongest, which give the whole book a semblance, so that if these fall, nothing of the other can stand.

(28) But finally I wonder why he does not do more with the example of Samuel, when Hannah pledges her son to the Lord. We want to go through this briefly, so that no weak person will take offense at it. First of all, here too is parental authority, as with the Rechabites, and secondly only over the body and an outward thing, which was in the authority of Samuel. For chastity, which is not in anyone's power, was not vowed by the mother, so that it is again in two respects a vow quite different from the monastic vows. Thirdly, vows of this kind were also prescribed by God and instituted in the last chapter of the 3rd book.

The first vow was the vow of Genesis, which God ordered so that when someone wanted to vow something, he vowed it with such customs (ritu), so that their vows would not be inventions of human presumption without word, like those of the monks; but now that such ceremonies have ceased, there is no vow prescribed by God left but baptism.

This is what I, dear Brismann, wanted to do to you, so that you would not have to endure only the annoyance of this rather overminoritic booklet, in which this wretched man throws all divine and human things into one another in such a way that he seems to be possessed by Satan himself. Dear, who should not attribute this to Satan alone, to twist the divine words spoken to all Christians with such audacity and to refer them falsely to the unchristian sects, and to make things out of what is commanded that are not commanded? Is this not to set one's mouth against Heaven, to blaspheme the Holy One of God, and to deny the whole Scripture? Ah! You wretched and miserable monks should finally learn to treat divine things with fear and reverence, for you have been warned by so many examples of those who have made a mockery of themselves so far, especially this treasure hunter, who could not rest until his foolishness was revealed to all. Namely, wisdom always reveals the liars as those who only attach disgrace to themselves, and yet these rash ones never cease neither to bring shame upon themselves nor to lie. May grace be with you, and may you prosper in it.

Your Martin Luther.

578 L. V. L. VII, 46 f. XVII Luther's dispute with Cochlaeus. W. LIL, 688 f. 579

The Controversial Writings against Miritianus,

sämmtlich vom Jahre 1528, which were not written by Luther himself, but by others, are assigned by Walch to the 14th volume. They are the following:

Aesop's fable of the lion and donkey against Miritianus,

Walch, old edition, vol. XIV, 1336.

*Hieronymus Walthers ) Letter to H. v. B. against the offense of Miritianus.

Walch, old edition, vol. XIV, 1344.

Neue Zeitung von Leipzig, against the MU. Hasenberg and Miritianus.

Walch, old edition, vol. XIV, 1348.

Johann Cochläus' letter to Hieronymus Walther.

Walch, old edition, vol. XIV, 1353.

A letter to Johann Cochläus about this matter.

alch, old edition, vol. XIV, 1354.

XVII Luther's dispute with Cochlaeus.

107 Luther's writing against the armed man Cochläus.)**

Mid-February 1523.

Translated from Latin.

Against the armed man Cochlaeus (Coeleum) Martin Luther.

A skirt suits a woman.

Martinus Luther offers his Wilhelm Nesen (Niseno) grace and peace in Christ.

I will sing the weapons, the man too, who (a fool!)

Recently from the banks of the Main 1) towards Weissstadt (Leuecoream == Wittenberg) and Saxony.

1. Because of the verse measure Mokant instead of Noeni. At that time, Cochläus was in Frankfurt am Main.

Furies plagued him very much and madness because of many offenses,

Because of the endless anger of the shorn over the defeat.

Satanas also tormented him: he was to destroy the little town.

Damage to the studies. Thus arose the gender ban,

Fathers of error risen, the glory of the exalted pope. 2)

2. These verses are a travesty of the first seven verses of Virgil's Aeneid.

*) Walch is mistaken that this letter was written by Luther to his brother-in-law Hans von Bora. Cf. Seidemann, "Erläuterungen," p. 151.

**In 1523 alone, six individual editions of this work by Luther were published in Wittenberg, three in Latin and three in German. The title of the Latin edition is: ^äversus armaturu virum Öokleuva LH,rtinu8 I>utUeru8;

580 n. v. a. vii, 47 f. 107. Luthers Schrift wider d. gewappneten Cochläus. W. xix, 68s-"9i. 581

1. If it seems to you, my dear Wilhelm, as if I am making strange antics at the present Shrovetide, then you must mean that you yourself have caused me to make such antics quite imperiously by compelling me to answer such a person, of whom not only you, with your Frankfurters, have very well recognized that he has long since gone mad from insanity, but it also seems that he himself has let this booklet go out against me for no other reason than to make his madness quite obvious to all the world. For that he now praises the weapons of men, what is that but madness? Namely, after the Lord through me has beaten the pope, the bishops, the monasteries and the high schools, yes, the whole body of the Behemoth and has now also made a mockery of it almost in the whole world, so now finally my cute quick snail 1) comes and demands weapons. The pope feels the wound, the papists lament their fall, and from all sides they have very many images of death, and yet he says: I have no weapons! And that I answer the fool according to his foolishness: Have I had no weapons, why does he howl, why does he sigh, why does the snail lament that I have done such great things? why does he howl so miserably and complain: I have spoiled his Philip, whom he respects so highly? Now, if I have done all this with straws and downy feathers, or, as he fools, with mere blasphemous words, why does he rush upon me with such a great clamor of arms? why does not the great Hector despise Luther, who is so childish and effeminate? Furthermore, if the fool had only a little sense left, he would no doubt have considered with himself how it had fared with those who had hitherto argued against Luther, whom the poor

1. In this whole writing tostucko, Schalthier, must be rendered not by "turtle" but by "snail", which results from the fact that at repeated times the "horns" of the snail (tostudinis) are spoken of.

Kochlöffel (as they say) could not even grab the spurs. At least Eck, who is incomparably greater in the scholastic errors than Mr. Cooking Spoon, and in addition also went after me with papal bulls, yes, with all the power and unanimity of the whole Behemoth, has brought nothing but disgrace. Now the wooden spoon may boast that this happened without weapons. The high school in Paris has made such a mockery of itself in this matter, that it has attached to itself an eternal disgrace by its gauz godless ignorance. Of course, my dear Mr. Kochlöffel, if he had been clever, would have thought what a snail with its retracted horns could do against him whom the Parisians, the Cologneers, the Louvainers, the Romanists and the Pope with all his might could not overcome. But that was his only consoling hope, that he would boast: I have written a book against Luther. For also soust many other books are written against me, which have no other honor and glory than the title: Against Luther. I have come out into the public eye through Christ without and against my will, and must now lift the dirt up with me, as one generally says of excrement that hangs on the wheel, that the useless envy wants to go up all the way.

2 Now behold, what a proof of foolishness this is that he boasts that he spoke to me at Worms in such a way that he moved me to tears. However, I do not want to attribute this to his malice, but, as I said, to his foolishness; for I would rather have him thought to be a fool worthy of pity than a knave worthy of hatred. Otherwise, if he had his wits about him and was so impudent, who would not say that the wooden spoon was an arch-jack? Namely, this Pericles should have moved Luther to tears, who spoke and did everything so childishly at Worms that he even against my will and since I resisted it, from

The German "Wider den gewaffnete" Mann Cocleum D. Martini Luther schöner Bescheid vom Glauben und Werken. In the "Gesammtausgabe": Latin in the Wittenberg loru. II. toi. 438; in the Jena one (1566), lona. II, toi. 567 and in the Erlanger, opp. var. urZ., vol. VII, p. 46; German in the Altenburger, vol. II, p. 905; in dem Hallischen Theile, p. 160; in the Leipziger, vol. XVIII, p. 460. We have retranslated according to the Erlanger edition, which printed the text of the first original edition.

582 L. V. L. vn, 48-so. XVII Luther's dispute with Cochlaeus. W. XIX, 69I-6S4. 583

was ridiculed as a fool by all who were present. I call his own conscience as a witness, if he remembers in a bright moment (sanus) what kind of scorn and noses he got from D. Hieronymus Schürf alone, especially when he wanted to be seen as extremely wise and as the fully armed man Cochläus; because he noticed that and it also annoyed him fiercely.

3 So I will also attribute this lie to his illness, not to his malice, that he boasts of the victory, namely that I refused the proposed duel. As also Cochläus himself must confess, this matter behaves in this way: Cochläus, either out of his own foolishness or through the persuasion of others, asked me to give up the free public escort of the emperor, then he would dispute with me in public. Before I could answer, laughter arose from all sides at this crazy request of man. Some thought him a fool for not wanting to dispute unless I gave up the escort, as if one could not dispute in public. Others, however, accused him of being a malicious traitor who did not wish to dispute, but wanted to hand me over to the papists as soon as I was deprived of my escort. By this word, the wooden spoon has brought upon himself an exceedingly evil name and the hatred of all, which he will not rid himself of for eternity. And yet the beautiful snail now boasts that he offered me a duel, but I would not have accepted it: and sings songs of victory, although I did not refuse him the disputation, nor did I refuse to give a free escort. So you see how credible Cochläus must be considered in his little book, which he begins with such impudent lies, who is also not yet ashamed that he was laughed at so finely at Worms, and still boasts of his own disgrace.

Of course, he wants to decorate his foolishness with this booklet, so that he alone now offers me the fight, and tries with boasting words and threats to make the readers believe that he speaks this from his heart. Dear, why did he do that

not at Worms, where he was fenced in with the emperor's and the pope's protection and covering? but it befits a snail to boast so finely slowly and afterwards, when the victory is already lost. Why doesn't he still come to me here to Wittenberg? or call me to a safe place? why does this snail chatter so much with vain words? Of course, because he knows that it will never happen that he can dispute with me; here the weapons of the man without an opponent surely triumph. You poor snail, what should you dispute? You are a vain snail, and nothing more, and you have snail horns that are distinguished only by beauty and by swift flight; if nothing is in their way, they rise defiantly enough into the empty space; but as soon as they bump even a thread of a spider's web, they flee back.

(5) However, I fully believe that it is God's counsel that the pope and the papists should have almost no other protectors than those who, either through outstanding ignorance or through impudent lies, always make their reputation an oil slick, so that no one will be seduced by the Roman abomination. No one has ever written against me who has not lied in an abominable, public and manifold way. It is truly pitiful for the pope, because his people do not want to step onto the battlefield any sooner; they have well armed themselves with lies, and they do not stop lying, although they see many who have been publicly convicted of this by me; they all continue to lie in the same rage. There you have now, dear Nesen, a part of the weapons that are appropriate for such a man. And to whom should such weapons be better suited than to such a man?

Now let's get down to business and look at the remaining weapons of the armed slug. But I want to imitate Mr. Kochlöffel in order to refute one or two articles that are most important. For he has not attacked the whole of Luther, but only the first three articles, which I have defended against the Eckisch-Leonian 1)

1. Ecclelsoninara. In this expression lies one of his wit, which cannot be rendered in German. There can hardly be any doubt that Luther was

584 L V. L. VII, so f. 107. Luther's writing Wider d. gewappneten Cochläus. W. XIX, 694-696. 585

Bull. Now Cochlaeus insists the most in the whole booklet that he proves it is wrong and heretical that I have asserted here and there that we are justified by faith alone.

(7) And so that you hear something funny here, which rhymes with the present time Shrovetide, see, I beg you, dear Nesen, these most insurmountable (vulcanissima) weapons of the bravest man. After he had taught with many sayings of the fathers that we are cleansed from sins by baptism, that Christ takes away our sins, and that love covers the multitude of sins, and the like, the great speaker finally sums it all up in this very lovely conclusion, that he says: Therefore faith alone does not make righteous, for the Holy Spirit makes righteous, grace also makes righteous, baptism also makes righteous, Christ also makes righteous, love also makes righteous 2c. Now go, Luther, and still deny that Cochläus is not a man of arms.

Dear Nesen, perhaps you would like to burst with anger, or burst with laughter. Nevertheless, because you ordered it, I lose the noble time with this silly and stupid snail, which, while writing against me, did not even use so much consideration that it would have paid attention to the evidential value of the reasons (presented) or, to speak with the snail Aristotelian, to the materia subjecta the thing one has to deal with, so that he would have known what and against what he should write.

9 And I am very surprised that such an industrious compiler did not expand this final speech, since Paul writes Rom. 11, 14 that he strives to make some of the Jews blessed. So also an apostle and a preacher make blessed, and not faith alone. Therefore Luther is a heretic. And I wanted to remind you of the fable of the donkey in the lion's skin. The bull referred to here is the one that Leo X issued at Eck's behest on June 15, 1520, and which Eck brought to Germany the following September. The articles which were condemned in it, Luther maintained as right Christian articles in his writing: Grund und Ursach aller Artikel, so durch die römische Bulle unrechtlich verdammt sind". This was published in Latin in January 1521 and in German (by Luther himself) on March 1, 1521. It is found in Walch, old edition, vol. XV, 1752.

why should we not help the wooden spoon, which works itself off in its armor in such a way? Well then, let us, after the manner of magistraliter, put in good order the ways of making blessed, as follows: The Father makes blessed, the Son makes blessed, the Holy Spirit makes blessed, Christ makes blessed, grace makes blessed, faith makes blessed, love makes blessed, the sacrament makes blessed, the preacher makes blessed, works make blessed. Now here are ten beatifics, so faith alone does not make blessed, not to mention that very well-known beatific, namely the word of God, which is called the word of blessedness, because it can make our souls blessed, as Jacob testifies.

(10) And now, let us look to our wisdom; let us finely distinguish these ways of salvation, with their characteristics and peculiarities, in the most magisterial way. The Father saves by authorship (authoritative), the Son saves as a mediator (mediative), the Holy Spirit by application (applicative), Christ by merit (meritive), grace by reputation (reputative), faith by acquisition (subjective), love by activity (active), the sacrament by significance (significative), the preacher in a ministerial way (ministrative), the word in a doctive way (doctive), the works in a probative way (probative), everything in an armed way and according to the snail's way and Cochlian way, thus not only faith makes righteous, thus Luther is a heretic, thus Cochlian is an armed man.

11 Thus you see that no book is so bad that it is not also good in some part, as Pliny thought. For if Cochleaeus had not taught us here that blessedness also comes through God, through the Spirit, through the sacraments, how should the church exist? like faith? like Christ himself? Thanks be to the new Atlas, who keeps the heaven that now wants to invade from falling with these strong and well-armed shoulders of his.

But that may be enough of a joke against this foolish head, with which I have favored you, dear friend. Now we also want to talk a little seriously about these things.

586 L. V. s. VII, 61-53. xvii. Luther's dispute with Cochlaeus. W. XIX, 696-699. 587

not for the sake of Cochleus, who, as a sow, is not worthy to be reproached with these pearls, but for the sake of those who are greatly offended that I have said that we are justified by faith alone, since the word "alone" is not found in the apostle, and they pretend that I have added it sacrilegiously and impiously in order to assert my error. Therefore, I must now show the cause of this presumption of mine, and I must purify myself in a humble manner, so that they may see how I can also humbly and modestly answer for myself, where there are people who are worthy to hear the word of God.

In the first place, I have tried to give as clearly as possible the opinion of St. Paul, which the Sophists had completely obscured by long and blasphemous misuse of the words. For since in the letter to the Romans he disputes faith and good works, against the righteousness of works, he certainly insists most strongly that he take righteousness away from works altogether and attach it to faith alone. For so his words Rom. 3, 20 read: "By the works of the law no flesh is justified", and again v. 28: "So then we hold that a man is justified without the works of the law, but by faith alone", and again v. 23: "They are all sinners, and lack the glory which they ought to have in God: and are justified without merit by faith". 2c. And Rom. 14:23: "Whatsoever cometh not by faith is sin."

14 Finally, he confirms this with the example of Abraham, who was not justified by circumcision, which was the best and most excellent work, commanded by God, and accomplished in all obedience, but in faith before circumcision. And yet he says that he has no glory before God if he was justified by any works; but the Scripture says that he is justified by faith 2c. Rom. 4:2, 3. These are truly flashes of the divine word.

15 Therefore see if Paul does not assert much more strongly that we are justified by faith alone than I have done, although he does not use the word "alone.

that I have used. For he who says that works do not justify, but faith justifies, certainly affirms much more powerfully that faith alone justifies, than if one says that faith alone justifies, only that the former is clearer than the latter, while through the Sophists both Paul's way of speaking and his opinion have fallen into disuse and have completely disappeared. But that Paul speaks in this passage of spiritual justification, or, as the Sophists speak, of justification according to the thing and the person (de justificatione formali et subjectiva), is unknown to anyone but Cochlæus alone. For Paul is arguing against works and righteousness from the law, and is dealing with the matter concerning consciences, where faith alone is everything, but works are nothing; indeed, works are fruits of the tree, which has already become pious and righteous through faith, so that it is impossible, even according to the common sense of man, to become righteous by works.

(16) Therefore it is quite ridiculous that he makes such sophisms: faith alone makes righteous; therefore the Holy Spirit does not make righteous. Or: the Holy Spirit makes righteous, therefore faith alone does not make righteous, because this disputation does not take place, but it is only a question of faith and good works: whether anything can be ascribed to good works in justification, because since the apostle does not ascribe anything to works, he undoubtedly gives everything to faith alone. Nor do I think that anyone is so nonsensical as to believe that I would have wanted to say that one is not justified by Christ, not by the Holy Spirit, not by the Word, as Cochleaeus, who has sufficiently explained in this booklet how he does not understand at all what faith, grace, Christ, love, sacrament are, and I think that no one understands his book less than he himself.

(17) When I ascribed righteousness to faith alone in my writing Reason and Cause, I at least had in mind that I was refuting the ungodly teaching of the sophists and monks, who seduce the whole world by trusting in works.

588 D v. a. vn, ss-ss. Luther's writing Wider d. gewappneten Cochläus. - W. xix. ess-roi. 589

have. I knew that they certainly do not deny in words that righteousness comes through Christ, through baptism, and through the Holy Spirit; but I saw that they deny that faith alone makes righteous, but attribute almost all the glory of justification to works. If they had not done this, there would not now be so many monasteries, foundations, schools, and other innumerable efforts of those who want to be justified by works. For all this is based on works and not on faith alone, and they invent that faith is, I know not what, a hidden essence (formae) in the soul, which is, as it were, a part, but not the epitome of all virtues. Therefore, it does not take place that you take my word out of the subject matter or out of the matter at hand, and that, when I discuss faith and works in order to give a correct account of conscience, you think of what God is able to do who works faith.

18 Further, if some understand Paul by works of the law not all works, but only the outward (ceremonialia) works, I think that these are not to be disputed, at least not now, because it seems as if they do not want to understand Paul with diligence. Certainly the circumcision of Abraham was a very good work, adorned with all obedience (as I have said), and so completely a work of the already justified Abraham that it must have pleased God to the highest degree, more than any work which they would dare to declare good, and yet Paul denies justification to circumcision.

19 But that Peter says 1 Pet 3:21, We are saved through baptism, who does not see that this proves nothing against me? for it does not follow that it is false that faith alone makes one righteous. To be sure, baptism does not make righteous without faith; but faith without baptism makes righteous, therefore no part of justification can be ascribed to baptism. Otherwise, if baptism in one part justified, it could not be denied that baptism without faith justified. But now, since this is denied to baptism, this is done with

Right left to faith alone. Therefore Peter expresses this as his opinion, that through baptism, as an outward sign, faith is evoked and practiced, so that this makes one blessed. For even God's word itself, which far surpasses visible signs, does not of itself make anyone righteous unless a person believes. Thus says the Epistle to the Hebrews Cap. 4, 2: "The word of preaching did not help them, because those who heard it did not believe.

(20) Although some of the fathers would have held that the sacrament makes righteous by its own power, and even if it were Augustine, as Cochleaeus claims, I do not respect this; they are only sayings of men who often argue against themselves, and teach most things from human opinion without Scripture. We follow the quite certain Scripture, which says that neither word nor sign is of any use without faith. For that which Cochleaeus praises most highly, that the young children, because they have no faith, become righteous through baptism, we most definitely deny, but say with Augustine: Not the sacrament, but faith in the sacrament makes righteous. And again: It makes just, not because it happens, but because one believes it. Although Augustine said the opposite elsewhere, we follow him only where he holds with Scripture, but let him go where he speaks apart from and against Scripture. Therefore, in vain he gathers up so many sayings of the Fathers, as if he wanted to force us under man's word, since we have so often testified that in matters of conscience we hold to no man's word, but only to God's word, because governing consciences is no man's, but only God's work and office.

(21) But we do not say that infants should not be baptized, nor do we say that they receive baptism without faith, but we say that they believe at baptism by the power of the Word, by which the devil is cast out of them (exorcisantur), and by the faith of the church, which brings them to baptism and obtains faith for them by their prayer. Otherwise, it would be a great and quite unbearable lie, if the baptizer were to baptize the child

590 L. V. ". VII. SS f. XVII. Luther's dispute with Cochlaeus. W. XIX. 701-704. 591

asks if he believes and would not baptize him if he did not answer in the child's place: I believe. For if it is certain that they the infants do not believe, as Cochlaeus thinks, why then does the Baptist ask whether he believes? Well, if Augustine sometimes says so, Cochlaeus should be satisfied that it was spoken by a man, but we want this statement to be proved by divine testimony. Yes, we maintain that if it were true that infants did not believe in baptism, they should not be baptized at all, lest the sacrament and the word of the divine majesty be mocked. But even this error, that infants should not be able to believe, we have to thank our sophists, who eat up the sayings of men like unclean animals without any judgment, and at the same time teach contradictory things, since they say that the infant has no faith; and yet nevertheless demand faith from him, so that he may be baptized.

But that grace also justifies, Cochleaeus should have understood this in such a way that he knew that faith is the same grace, and not, as he does, invent a special being (formam) apart from faith and love, or claim it from his inventive and inventive masters, the sophists, so he would not have needed to conclude so foolishly that grace justifies, so faith does not justify alone, at least as they speak of grace. But grace in Scripture means God's grace, according to which he grants us all good things and justifies us here, that is, he gives us faith without merit, through which alone we are justified. Now, in the whole Bible one does not find that justification is attributed to love, since it is rather a fruit of justifying faith, Gal. 5:22: "The fruit of the Spirit is love" 2c. But this extremely widespread error comes from the fact that they do not rightly understand the word of Peter, which is drawn from the Proverbs of Solomon. For when Peter says, "Love covers the multitude of sins," he is not speaking of his own sins, but of the sins of others, so that the meaning is, "Love covers the multitude of sins.

It does not allow itself to be embittered, it bears everything, it thinks no evil, it tolerates everything, so that so much can not be sinned against love that it does not bear everything, cover it, forgive it and let it go. But by these works no man is justified, but if he be not first justified, he bringeth not forth these fruits of love. And that this is the opinion can be seen from the 10th chapter of the Proverbs of Solomon by the contrast v. 12: Hatred arouses strife, but love covers all transgressions, that is, he who hates his neighbor also seeks something in his good works that he may blaspheme; but he who loves his neighbor does the opposite, that he also covers and tolerates all the sins of his neighbor.

(23) By this, I think, enough has been answered in defense of my three articles which Cochlæus condemned, and this doctrine of mine still stands firm and mighty: faith alone justifies. And it will therefore not have to be denied that also the Word, the Sacrament, Christ, the preacher, the Spirit and God the Father make righteous. For God does everything that we may be justified, Christ deserves that we may be justified, the Holy Spirit brings the merit of Christ to bear that we may be justified. The Word of God is the instrument through which the Spirit brings the merit of Christ into pregnancy, likewise also the Sacrament and the preacher. But the essential (formalis) justification is left to faith alone, because without faith neither God nor Christ "nor anything else helps to righteousness. But in what way one can say of works that they make one righteous, of this I have said in the Sermon on Unjust Mammon 1).

(24) Enough of this has now been said in earnest; now let us return to my dear snail, and see at the end of the booklet how she teaches Luther dialectics.

(25) Since I said in my writing "Reason and Cause" that Paul claims that we are justified by faith, I added: Paul does not say that we are justified by the sacrament. Here shows

1. Walch, St. Louis Edition, vol. XI, 1446 ff.

592 L. v.". vn. 56-58. 107. Luther's writing Wider d. gewappneten Cochläus. W. xix. 704-707. 593

my dear snail makes its horns beautiful, as if it understood something in dialectics, but nevertheless does not make a horned closing speech 1) and says: Where did you learn this dialectics, that you draw a conclusion from a saying in a negative way? He Paul does not say: Luther is not a man, therefore he is an ass. Dear, who should not be surprised at the so appropriate and astute rebuke of the snail, that he would lose his hearing and sight? Namely, this so clever dialectic consists in that it can say: So you are an ass. Well, who else could make such a ridiculous donkey out of Luther than this most beautiful snail?

26. But I answer: You beautiful snail, where did you learn to measure theology and Christian doctrine according to your stinking and dirty rules about inferences? Do you consider the holy scriptures to be sophistical antics? Here you, God-changing wooden spoon, clearly show what you think in your heart about spiritual things, because you make no difference at all between these and our things. Dear, how often have I taught and written that one should not assert anything in Christian doctrine that the holy Scriptures do not have! The Scripture also commands this very often. Hilarius also taught this, as did Jerome and Augustine. The latter writes: Only to the books which are called canonical do I attach this honor. Jerome, however, says: What has no proof from Scripture is as easily despised as accepted. Do you see, you slug-philosopher Chrysippus, 2) what excellent men your ass-making and ass-like dialectic attacks with its blasphemies? Therefore, in spiritual matters, it has taken place quite strongly and violently that one makes conclusions from a saying of Scripture in a negative way.

(27) But what an appropriate example the so great dialectician brings forward for this kind of proof (topicae) by saying: He (Paul) does not say: Luther is not a man,

1. eornutuiu kMoZismum - a strong, irrefutable inference.
2. Chrysippus, a famous Stoic philosopher, disciple of Zeno and Cleanthes, from Soli in Cilicia, an excellent dialectician.

therefore he is an ass. Namely, instead of a negative statement he introduces an affirmative one, whereas he should have said as follows: He Paul does not say: Luther is not a man, therefore he is not a man. For this inference holds nothing in this mode of proof. Man is quite nonsensical and mad, as the sophists are wont to be, so that they do not understand their own thing, or if they understand it, yet they are not able to use it rightly. Now go, you dirty spoon, who belong in the kitchen, with your silly and tasteless dialectic, and at least learn to use it correctly in your pots and various things, so that we can credit you when you use it wrongly in holy things. I will teach you this kind of proof by a more appropriate example, namely: The Frankfurters say: their snail has no heart and brain, therefore their snail has no heart and brain. You may see whether this conclusion is valid.

28 But what am I doing here but becoming foolish and nonsensical myself by wasting words and time with such a stupid and foolish head? For what could be done with him who comes forth with such a new abomination and publicly prefers the reputation of the church to the words of Paul, or, as he wants to be regarded as having spoken wisely and cunningly, "your wording of Paul" (sono Pauli)? For he speaks thus: Assuming that St. Paul said thus (which he does not), one should not commit such an outrage against the whole church with Paul's words. The opinion of the church is greater than the words of Scripture. One does not have to follow the word (sono) of Scripture everywhere.

(29) Who should understand zero so little of Christian things that he does not realize what kind of spirit exhales this poisonous breath through this armed snail? namely, they want to make the Scripture suspicious to us, but themselves and their fathers to the church. Such things the worthless angel of Satan slurs, so that they remain safe from the sword of the spirit, and it is up to them what it should mean and say. But thanks be to Christ, who has enlightened the nations and has already taught zero to the whole world,

594 L. v. a. vii, 58-"o. XVII Luther's dispute with Cochlaeus. W. xix, 707-709. 595

to hold fast (sic sapere) to these god-robbing abominations, which publicly blaspheme the word of God: that they do not believe even an angel from heaven, if he should teach differently than the Scripture reads, so that that snail church with its opinion and sound (sonamento) goes to ruin.

(30) If the words of Paul are suspect and not to be followed, why should the words of the church be followed? Does the church sometimes give its opinion to the snail without a sound? Well, let Paul give a sound, let the snail give a sound; let Paul have an opinion, let the snail have an opinion with her church. Now you teach me, which sound and which opinion should we follow? Must now again a new way be invented, so that we also do not follow the sound of the church, but the opinion of a second church? But this opinion of the church will again come to light by a sound. Now a fourth sound will be necessary to make the third opinion certain. Then after the fourth sound a fifth sound will be heard for the fourth opinion. I ask you, when will it then come to an end with the sounds and opinions?

(31) The wicked and godless sophists, having considered the holy Scriptures to be filth, have invented this way of interpreting the Scriptures not by Scripture but by their blasphemous opinions, and then boasting that this was done by the prestige of the church. If they had given themselves entirely to the contemplation of the law of the Lord, as they boast in the title, there would have been no place for this foolish and ungodly distinction between the sound and the opinion of Scripture. There has never been spoken anything more simple, purer, brighter, lighter, than God's word, but how should the snails, slimy animals (limaces), moles, lizards, caterpillars, grasshoppers, bruci (flying locusts), wasps, even vipers and newts, who crawl around in their earthly dung puddles all their lives and perish in their sophistical filth, know that? What's a wonder that you don't know the wordsound of the Greek language?

since you have not learned Greek? For God's word is the light of all men, and therefore it has also come into this world, but men are not the light of the divine word, as the blasphemous Cochläus fools here with his own.

Now let us say as an example: God created the heavens and the earth. Now let the snail come and make a distinction between the sound and the opinion and prove that Moses sounds something else, means something else. But he must prove this. For if it is true that in one place Scripture sounds something different from what it means, then it must be said of it everywhere that it sounds something different from what it means, since there is no reason why this should be the case only occasionally and not everywhere, unless the new dialectic of the snail church argues in an affirmative way from its reputation: We snails, by the grace and opinion of Aristotle, our God, reserve to ourselves, according to the fullness of our power, the right to decide where Scripture reads differently from what it means; thus Scripture reads differently from what it means, where the snails will. But how if we also said: Why then should it not be said that even thy fathers read differently than they mean, because nothing more contradictory has been spoken than the sayings of the fathers, since no one agrees with another and no one with himself? For you will not find in the Scriptures even once that they sound differently than they say, while in the Fathers (who have the opinion of Cochlæus, not the wordsound of Paul) it is said a hundred times differently than they mean it.

But, as I have said, this unclean worm tries everything and tries hard to take the judgment of the Scriptures and to appropriate it to itself; therefore, they attribute to themselves and to their own what should be attributed to the Scriptures, and again, what they should attribute to themselves and to their own, they attribute to the Scriptures. They should judge according to the Scriptures, and behold, they judge the Scriptures! What else can be rightly said to them than the word of Christ: "Wisdom must be justified by her children"? Matt. 11:19.

596 L. V. L. VII, 60. 107 Luther's writing Wider d. gewappneten Cochläus. W. XIX, 709-711. 597

(34) If only they asserted this: The scripture sometimes speaks figuratively; then they could rightly say that the scripture has another sound (but only with the sophists, who admittedly do not know the grammar) and another sense. For when Christ speaks John 8:12 "I am the light of the world", it is of course for the Sophists differently than he means it. For it is not for the sophists to know that here is a metaphor, but they assume that here is an actual meaning (proprietatem) according to the little logic, which is called [lisnatio, or Remotio termini; but for the grammarians the Scripture nowhere and never reads differently than it means, since it speaks in the most simple way.

But now my wicked snails accuse the Scripture of hypocrisy, yes, even of lying, even in the passages where it speaks completely without any figure and even without "actual meanings of the little logic", as in the present passage: "We will be taught the truth.

right by faith"; here my wooden spoon wants it to sound different than it is meant.

That is enough of the joke with the larvae; for just as it is rightly said: God alone created heaven and earth, although the Scripture only says: "God created heaven and earth," because there is no other Creator: so our German way of speaking demands that I must say: Faith alone makes righteous, although Scripture only says: "Faith makes righteous," for it itself proves most clearly that nothing else makes righteous but faith.

(37) Be well, dear Nesen, and tell your snail to stop stealing the time of intelligent people with its opinions and sounds (sonamentis), which are both foolish and utterly ungodly.

Women belong to the skirt, and a skirt suits the women.

Dogmatic-Polemical Writings of Luther

against the papists.

Second Section:

Regarding the Papal Errors, which Luther denied.

I. Luther's writings, in which he attacked the Pabstacy and the errors that were rampant in it in general.

*Luther's booklet "Von Menschenlehre zu meiden" ("On the Doctrine of Man to Avoid") together with a "Reply to Proverbs, so man führt, Menschenlehre zu stärken" ("Answer to Proverbs, so one leads, to strengthen the Doctrine of Man"). )

About April 1522.

To all who read or hear this booklet, may GOD give grace and > understanding, Amen.

I, Martin Luther, have sent out this short booklet for the consolation and salvation of the poor consciences who lie imprisoned in monasteries or convents by the laws of men, so that they can equip and strengthen themselves to stand by the word of God in the face of death and other trials. But besides this, I let know the impudent, lewd heads, who show off their Christian nature only by eating eggs, meat, 1) milk, not confessing, not taking pictures, and not being a Christian.

1. Thus, the Jena edition; Wittenberg: Fish, what the Erlanger has recorded. In this paper, we have exceptionally given several variants of the Erlangen edition to show that the latter often preferred the worse readings.

2c. that I will not have served them with this. For I consider them to be the shameful people who defiled the camp of the army of Israel; even though the people were commanded such discipline that, when something was necessary, they should go out of the camp and bury their misery with earth. So we also have to suffer these unclean hoppers in our nest until God teaches them morality. I want to preach this Christian freedom only to the poor imprisoned humble consciences, so that where there are poor children, nuns or monks who would like to be out, their consciences may report how they can use God and without driving to come out and use such freedom chastely and Christianly. May God give His grace to this, amen.

*The Erlangen edition lists eleven individual editions of this writing, in 1522 alone. In the first editions, only the writing "Von Menschenlehre zu meiden" is included, only later, but still in the same year, Luther added the "Antwort". In the collections it is found: Wittenberger (1554), vol. VII, p. 347 d; Jenaer (1585), vol. II, p. 95; Altenburger, vol. II, p. 135; Leipziger, vol. XVIII, p. 18 and Erlanger, vol. 28, p. 318. We have followed the Jenaer edition by comparing the Wittenberger. The date is taken from Luther's letters to Spalatin of March 24, 1522, Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 771.

600 Erl. 28.320-322. 108. l.'s booklet "Of human doctrine to be avoided". W. XIX, 713-716. 601

That man-teachings find to shun, reason from the Scriptures.

The 1st reason.

Moses, Deuteronomio, that is, in the fifth book, Cap. 4, 2:

"Ye shall add nothing unto the word which I say unto you, neither shall ye do anything of it."

002 But if any man say that Moses speaketh of his word only, because there are many books of the prophets added unto Moses' books, and the whole New Testament. Answer: But there is nothing new added to them, but the same things that are in Moses' books are in the other books. For the other books do nothing more than show the examples of how Moses' word was kept or not kept, and are described with different words and stories, but it is all the same one teaching and opinion. And here is to defy them, that in all books, except Mosi's books, they show one word, which is not found before in Mosi's book. For there is no doubt that all Scripture is directed to Christ alone. Now Christ says John 5:46, "Moses wrote of me"; therefore all that is in Moses' books, as in the main letter, is in other books.

The 2nd reason.

Isaiah, Cap. 29, 13. And the Lord shows him 1) to Matth. 15, 8.

"This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. But they serve me in vain, teaching the doctrine and commandment of men."

Mark the word of Christ, that he calls it vain service, serving God according to the doctrine of men. For Christ is not drunk, nor foolish; and upon his word is all things to be built, above all angels and creatures.

The 3rd reason.

The same Christ, in the same chapter. Matth. 15, 11. speaks again: 2)

1. So the Jena. Wittenberg and Erlangen: it.
2. In the Wittenberg and Erlangen missing: speaks abermal.

"What goes into the mouth does not make a man unclean, but what goes out of the mouth makes a man unclean."

(4) Let this sentence and judgment be well received, for it is powerful, forcibly overthrowing all doctrine, custom, and life concerning food, and freeing all consciences from all laws concerning food and drink, namely, that it is free to eat milk, butter, eggs, cheese, and meat on all days, whether Sunday or Friday, fasting or Advent, and that no one may put in butter money or take a letter for it. For this word stands firm, and is not true: "What comes into the mouth does not make a man unclean.

It follows, first of all, that it is a lie to say that St. Peter instituted fasts. St. Peter instituted fasting, and it is a commandment of the church not to eat eggs, butter, milk, and meat inside in case of mortal sin. For St. Peter or the Church neither sets nor teaches anything against Christ. And if they did, they would not be followed. Not that it is evil to keep it; but it is evil to make a necessity and a commandment of it, which is free, and to pretend that it defiles and is sin, which Christ himself says is not sin, and does not defile.

6. Secondly, it follows that it is pure deception of the devil that the pope sells letters and gives bower 3) to eat butter, meat 2c. if it is freely given and allowed beforehand by Christ in this saying.

(7) Thirdly, it is also error and a lie to make gold fasting, 4) ban fasting, apostles' fasting and saints' evening fasting 5) necessary in case of sin, as a commandment of the church. For all this is contrary to the word of Christ: "What comes into the mouth does not make a man unclean. But the fasting should be free, arbitrary, for the sake of days and food, forever.

8. Fourthly, the orders of St. Benedict, St. Bernard, St. Carthaeus, and all the others, who avoid meat and the like out of necessity and commandment, as if it were sin, against Christ. For their thing says no other, but
9. i. Permission.
10. The four gold fasts or emergency fasts are the fasts on the Quatember days.
11. Erlanger: Apostles and the Holy Evening Fast.

602 Erl. 28, 322-3SS. I. Against Papal Errors in General. W. XIX, 716-718. 603

straightway against Christ's mouth, thus: What enters into the mouth makes unclean. And Christ must be their liar, because he says: "What comes into the mouth does not make a man unclean. And so you see that this one saying of Christ powerfully condemns all orders and spiritual regiment. For if that which enters into the mouth does not defile, how much less will that which is put on the body defile? Be it robes, skirts, shirts, pants, shoes, coats, green, yellow, blue, red, white, multicolored, as one pleases; likewise also the places, as churches, cells, houses, chambers. 1)

(9) Thus it follows that he who considers it a sin for a monk to go outside his order, and would not let it be free, makes Christ a liar once more, and puts sin on it, since it denies Christ, and says yes, since Christ says no. What other kind of people are such monks than those who straightway say to Christ's face, "You deny; there is sin, since you say it is not sin? It does not help that they want to bring up St. Bernard, Gregory, Franciscus and more saints. One must hear Christ, what he says, who alone was made a doctor by the Father on Mount Thabor, when he said, Matth. 17, 5: "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear him." He did not say, Hear Bernhardum, Gregory 2c., but hear him, him, him, my dear Son. Who knows how the saints sinned or did right in this? They did not keep it out of necessity and commandment. But if they have kept it out of necessity and commandment, they have erred, and they are not to be followed, and Christ to be left.

10 Christ confirms all this in the same place where Matth. 15, 11. follows: "That which proceedeth out of the mouth defileth a man." V. 18-20.: "For out of the mouth proceedeth from the heart evil thoughts, fornication, adultery, thievery, lying, blasphemy 2c. These things make a man unclean." Here we ask: If that alone is sin and unclean, which proceedeth out of the heart, as here Christ mightily discusses and exiles; as

1. Erlanger: House Chamber.
2. Erlanger: Order dress.

then can make butter, milk, eggs, cheese impure, which comes not from the mouth nor heart, but from the belly of the cow and hen? Who has ever seen 3) flesh, plates, cowls, cloisters, hair shirt come out of the mouth? The cows would have to sin, that they give milk and butter, and carry calves.

(11) Therefore it is not only blasphemy, lying and deception, but also foolishness and monkey play, the law of all monks and men concerning food, clothing and places and all outward things. It is true that a person can have an evil desire for other food and clothing; but this comes from the heart, and can happen as well with fish as with meat, with gray cloth as with red velvet. Summa Summarum, Christ does not lie in these words: "What goes into the mouth does not make one unclean, but what goes out of the mouth makes one unclean.

12 If this is true, that such things are not unclean nor sinful, if one does what is commanded by men, then again it must not be pure nor meritorious, if one keeps and does it, since only that is pure and meritorious, which is contrary to sin and uncleanness; therefore in all monks' lives is neither pure nor meritorious. This is also what the Lord Christ means when he says Matth. 15, 9: "In vain do they serve me with the commandments of men. Why in vain? Because slackness is not sin, and keeping is not merit, but all is free; therefore they deceive themselves, and make merit where there is none, and fear sin where there is none, as the 14th Psalm v. 5. says: "They fear where there is no fear."

The 4th reason.

St. Paul, 1 Tim. 4, 1. 2. f., speaks:

"The Spirit says, clearly, that in the last times some will step away from the faith, and pay attention to the false spirits and teachings of the devils, through the false talkers in 4) gilding, and who have a brand in their conscience, and forbid to become married, and to shun the food that God has created to take

3. "je" is missing in the Erlanger.
4. Wittenberg and Erlangen: and.

604 Erl. 28, 325-327. 108. l.'s booklet "Of human doctrines to be avoided". W. XIX, 718-721. 605

with thanksgiving to the faithful, and to those who have known the truth. For all God's creatures are good, and nothing is reprehensible that is taken with thanksgiving, for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer. If you present these things to the brethren, you will be a good preacher of Christ, brought up in the words of faith and good doctrine which you have obtained. But abstain from the unconsecrated and old vettelic fables."

(13) O what a thunder and tempest is this over all the works, doctrines and orders of men! First of all, if they boast that their thing comes from the pope and holy fathers, what will Christ judge about it? Will he not thus say: Paul, my apostle, is my chosen armor, as Lucas writes Apost. 9, 15.? Why then have you not accepted his word more than the word of the pope and the fathers, who do not know what equipment they are? How will they stand?

14. On the other hand, we ask them if butter, eggs, meat, milk, and all the foods they avoid on fast days and in ordinances, are not created by God and are God's creatures? Now it is certain that they are those of whom Paul says here that they forbid the food that God created and gave to believers to eat, and forbid the marital state in addition: so that they cannot pass by, this saying applies to them and means them. Now let us see what Paul thinks of them and how he rebukes them.

(15) First, they have apostatized from the faith, for it would be impossible for them to establish such doctrine and works unless they thought by them to be pious and to be saved. But such delusion is already a sure sign that they have apostatized from the faith, since faith alone should do that which they seek in works, as is often said.

16 Secondly: Watch out for erring spirits. He does not speak of false men, but of false spirits; that is, those who pretend to be spiritual, and are called spiritual, and their being is of the Spirit and in the Spirit. Because they are faithless, it is not possible that they should not err in spiritual matters. Therefore it follows finely

One another: Abandon the faith and follow error in the spirit.

Thirdly: He calls their teachings devilish teachings. This must also follow; where faith and the true spirit are not, there the devil gives them the wrong spirit, and leads them with pretty colored teachings and works, so that they make themselves believe that they are spiritual. But because the doctrine does not flow from the Scriptures, it can be no one else's but the devil's.

(18) Fourthly, they are false speakers, for they also sometimes lead and force the holy Scriptures and the sayings of the fathers to their doctrine, as we see in them every day. But this is false and untruthful, since the Scriptures are most contrary to them.

19. fifth: If it is vain glitter, that is true, and may not be glossed over; for all its essence is only a semblance and glitter in the outward change of food and clothing.

020 Sixthly, if they have a brand in their conscience, that is, an unnatural conscience. For when there is no sin and conscience, they make sin and conscience, as it is said above, even as a burn scar is an unnatural mark on the body.

21 The seventh: They forbid marriage, so that they establish such a state, which shall be without marriage, as we see both in clergymen and monks. Therefore, see here the judgment of God on such doctrines and statuses, that they are devilish doctrines, erroneous doctrines, false doctrines, unbelieving doctrines, glib doctrines. Help God, who wants to stay inside when God Himself passes such judgment! What would it help if you had taken a thousand vows and oaths on such teachings? Yes, the harder the vow, the more it is to be torn, because it was made on the devil's teaching against God.

(22) But, behold, how subtly they turn aside, and turn away this saying, saying that it is no business of theirs, but of the Tartians, the heretics, who condemn the married state in all things. But Paul does not say here of those who condemn the married state, but of those who forbid it for the sake of glitter, that they want to be spiritual. But let it be said that St. Paul speaks against the Tatians; but if the pope does what the Tatians did, why should it not also be said of him?

606 Erl. ss, S27-MS. I. Against Papal Errors in General. W. xix. 721-723. 607

Let it be Talian or Pabst, so they are here troffen, which forbid the marriage. The words of Paul condemn the work without distinction of the person. Whoever forbids marriage is the devil's disciple and apostle, as the words clearly state. Because the pope does this, he must be the devil's disciple with all his own, or St. Paul would have to lie.

23. to the eighth: Forbid food that God has created. There you see that the doctrines of men are given to the devil by God Himself through the mouth of Paul. What greater and more abominable do you want to hear about the doctrines of men, than that they are apostate from the faith, erroneous, false, devilish, ghoulish? To whom this saying is not enough, what may be enough for them 1)? But if the doctrine of food prohibitions is devilish and unchristian, then the doctrine of garments, plates, places and all outward conduct will also be devilish and unchristian.

24 But here they turn around and say, "St. Paul is talking about Manichaeans. St. Paul is talking about the Manichaeans. We do not ask anything about that. St. Paul speaks of the food providers: that is what the pope does with his own, that he is a Manichaean or Talian. St. Paul says of the work that we see in the pope. Therefore, we cannot turn the saying away from him. If today or tomorrow another should rise up and also forbid the food, shall it not therefore be said of him whether he is not a Manichaean? In this way, one would freely do what Paul is saying here, and say that it does not apply to us, but to the old Manichaeans. Not so; if the pope is not a Manichaean with his monks and priests, I leave that alone. But I say nevertheless that he does and teaches against St. Paul's teaching, so almost as no Manichaean.

25. ninth, they are ungrateful. For God created food (says St. Paul) to be received with thanksgiving. This they suggest, so that they do not have to be grateful to God's goodness. This means that they are not believers, nor do they recognize the truth. For Paul says in 1 Tim. 4:3: "To the faithful, and to those who have known the truth, they are given with thanksgiving. Are

1. In the issues: because.

But if they disbelieve and do not recognize the truth, as St. Paul reproaches them, then they are certainly pagans, unbelievers, blind and unwise. That is, I mean, ever praise the pope, priests, monks.

26. Tenth, they are evil, harmful preachers rebuked by him; 2) for he says here that Timothy is a good preacher, brought up with words of faith and good doctrine, where he reproaches this to the brethren. So those must be evil preachers and brought up with words of unbelief and evil doctrine, who teach the contradiction.

27 Eleventh, he calls such teachings unconsecrated, old-fashioned fairy tales. Is this not foolish talk? The great teachers go about with fairy tales, as the old cloaks behind the stove of gaping, and is unsanctified, unspiritual, 3) unholy gossip; yet they make vain holiness out of it. Who has ever heard human doctrines so horribly reproached in all ways that they are apostate, unbelieving, unchristian, pagan, erroneous, devilish, false, ghastly, injurious to conscience, ungrateful, contrary to honor and God's creature, harmful fables and old-fashioned gibberish? Flee, who can flee, from this judgment of God.

The 5th reason.

St. Paul, Col. 2, 16.17.18. f.:

"Let no man make you conscience of meat, or of drink, or of any part of the days which are feasts, or new moons, or sabbaths, which are the shadow of things to come; but the body is in Christ. Let no man put away his aim, who walketh by his own choice, in the humility and spirituality of angels, which he hath not seen, puffed up in vain in his carnal mind, and continueth not in the head, out of which the whole body, by the joints and bands, receiveth hand, and revealeth itself one to another, and so increaseth into a stature which God giveth. Therefore, if you have died with Christ from the elements of the world, what do you allow yourselves to do when you live?

2. Wittenberger and Erlanger: "them", which is obviously meaningless.
3. Erlanger: unchristlich. The Wittenberg and Jena editions offer "unspiritual": but the Erlanger has this as a variant of Walch.

608 ed. 28, 329-331. 108. l.'s booklet "On the doctrine of man to be avoided". W. XIX, 723-725. 609

you, with statutes make Gewiffen? Who say, Thou shalt not touch, thou shalt not eat, thou shalt not drink, thou shalt not put on (which is all consumed with hands), according to the commandments and doctrines of men, which have a semblance of wisdom, by self-chosen spirituality and humility, and by not sparing the body, nor feeding the flesh for its need.

28. Does St. Paul speak here also of the Manichaeans or Tatians, or can one excuse here for the Papists? He is speaking against those who trap consciences with the doctrines of men and make consciences about food, drink, clothing, days and everything that is external, which 1) one cannot deny that the pope, monastery and monasteries do with their rules and statutes, since they refuse to eat meat, eggs, butter, wear common 2) and strange clothing. Now St. Paul stands here and speaks:

29. First, "Let no conscience be made, judging, judging, or condemning you in food, drink, clothing, or days. What is this said, then, do not be priests nor monks, and do not keep the pope's law; do not believe him that it is sin or conscience what he says is sin? Behold, therefore, by Paul, God commandeth to despise the law of the pope and of the monasteries, and to keep them free, that they catch not the consciences. This is said: Do not become monks or priests, and whoever has become one, let him return, or keep such a thing free and without distress of conscience.

30 And although this is said of the Jews, who kept such things according to the Law of Moses (for he says Col. 2:17: These things were the shadow and figure of things to come, but the body itself is in Christ), it is much more contrary to the statutes of the priest and the monks. For if that which God has set ceases and no longer binds the conscience, how much more should nothing be set by man?

1. Wittenberger and Erlanger: which.
2. The sense is: they forbid to wear common, i.e. ordinary clothes, and command special clothes.
3. The Erlanger lacks "Mosis," which is in the Wittenberger (whose text it reproduces) and in the Jenaer, and yet "Mosis" is indicated in the margin as an addition by Walch.

What are the laws of man that bind the conscience? The following will also follow from the laws of man alone, namely

31 On the other hand, he says: "Do not let yourselves be diverted from the goal," or be led by the side, to the jewel. What is this but to run from faith, which is the only right way to the jewel of blessedness, to lead to the works, and to strive by other ways to heaven, and to pretend that this is the way to the jewel? as the orders and Pabst's teachings do. But what ways do they pretend? Listen.

In the third, he says: "In self-chosen humility and spirituality of the angels. How could he have hit the orders better? Is it not so, that the pope and all of them make their preaching of their obedience? that is supposed to be the noblest virtue, that is the sacred spiritual humility of the papists. But who has commanded it? They themselves invented it and chose it to seduce themselves. For in so doing they have stripped themselves of the common humility and obedience that God commanded, that each one should humble himself to the other and be subject to him. But they are not subject to any man on earth, but have completely stripped themselves and have established their own obedience and humility, according to their own statutes. Nor do they pretend that their obedience is superhuman, perfect and equally angelic, so that there is no more disobedient, sinful people on earth than they.

(33) Likewise, they also have vows of chastity and poverty, are not at work like other people, but like the angels in heaven, they praise and serve God day and night; and recently, their life is heavenly: yet no more abominable chastity, no greater wealth, no more unsuspicious hearts, no more obdurate people are on earth than in the spiritual state, as everyone sees. They still lead all the world from the path to the bypass, with their self-chosen beautiful spiritual "angelic" life. All this, I think, is not said of the Jews, nor of the "Manichaeans", but of the Papists; the works show that.

34 To the fourth, he says, "he enters in such spirituality and in that which he has never seen". This is the worst thing about human teachings and life, that it is without reason,

610 Erl. 28, 331-333. I. Against Papal Errors in General. W. XIX, 725-728. 611

without the example of Scripture, and they may not know what they do, whether it be good or evil; for all their doings stand on adventure, 1) that if you ask them whether they are sure that their doings are pleasing in the sight of God? they say they know not, they must venture on an adventure: if they succeed, they succeed. They must also say this, since they are without faith, which alone makes us certain that all our being is pleasing to God, not by merit but by grace. So all their humility, obedience and whole spirituality, even if it is the best, is uncertain and lost.

35 Fifth, "They puff themselves up for nothing," that is, they have no cause. For even though they lead an uncertain, unbelieving and vainly damned life, they may still puff themselves up and pretend that their nature is the best and only right way, that all other life stinks before them and is nothing. But such puffed-up carnal sense they do not see nor feel before great angelic humility and obedience. O the fruit of human teaching!

36. sixth, "Do not hold to the headship of Christ. For it is impossible for men's doctrine and Christ to be one; one must cancel out the other. If the conscience is comforted in Christ, then the comfort must fall on work and doctrine. If it consoles itself on works, then Christ must fall. The heart cannot and may not build itself on two foundations; one must be abandoned. Now we see that the whole consolation of the papists is based on their nature; for if it were not based on it, they would disregard it and let it go, or use it freely, as and when they wished.

(37) If there were no other misfortune in the teachings of men, this would unfortunately be all too great, that one must forsake Christ and lose the head and build the heart on such abominations. Therefore St. Peter calls the orders abominable and says: "They are sects of condemnation that deny Christ. And in the other epistle, Cap.

1. In the old editions: aus Ebenthewr, i.e. at random.

2 s Erlanger: all to. In the Wittenberg and Jena "all too , which cites the Erlanger as a variant of Walch.

2, 1, thus: "There shall come among you false teachers, which shall bring in sects of condemnation, and shall deny the Lord that bought them."

38. seventh, is it clear enough how he means our ministers by the words, when he says, "If ye have died with Christ, what do ye suffer your consciences to be made of statutes, that is, this thou shalt not touch, this thou shalt not eat, this thou shalt not wear"? 2c. Who can deny here that God, through St. Paul, forbids to teach and to listen to all doctrines of men, if they are necessary to the conscience? Who then can with a good conscience be a monk, a priest, or under the pope? They must ever confess that their consciences are bound by such laws. So, you see, what a mighty saying this is, against all the doctrine of men, that 3) it is frightening to hear that they must leave Christ as their head, deny the faith, and thus become pagans, if they nevertheless think that the world stands on their holiness.

The 6th reason.

Paul, Gal. 1, 8. 9., speaks:

"Even as we ourselves, or an angel from heaven, declare unto you, concerning that which we have declared unto you, let it be a ban. And as we have said, so say I again, If any man declare unto you concerning that which ye have received, let it be anathema."

Here you hear a judgment of God against Pabst and all human doctrine, that they are under ban. Now this ban is not like Pabst's ban, but eternal and separates from God, from Christ, from all blessedness and from all good, and makes comrades of the devil. O what an abominable judgment this is! Now see if the pope, the clergy and the monks do not proclaim and teach otherwise, and beyond what is taught by Christ and his apostles. It is said above that Christ teaches, "What comes into the mouth does not make a man unclean." Against this and over says the pope, clergy and monks: You deny, Christ, what you say, because eating meat makes a Carthusian unclean and condemns him, so also the order is the same. 4)

3. Erlanger: this.
4. i.e. similar orders.

612 ed. 28, 333-335. 108. l.'s booklet "On the doctrine of man to be avoided". W. XIX, 728-730. 613

Behold, is this not to strike Christ squarely in the mouth, to punish lying and blaspheming, and to teach otherwise than he taught? Therefore it is right that they should be condemned to eternal banishment as blasphemers and condemned in their great holiness.

The 7th reason.

Paul Tit. 1, 14, speaks:

"Teach them not to pay attention to Jewish fables and human commandments that turn away the truth."

(40) Behold, this is a strong commandment, that one should not heed the commandment of men. Dear, is this not bright enough? And gives cause: "they turn away the truth," saith he. For, as was said above, a heart cannot trust in Christ and in the doctrine or works of men at the same time. Therefore, as soon as one falls on the doctrine of men, he turns away from the truth and does not respect it. Again, he who trusts in Christ cannot respect the commandment and work of men. Now see which ban you should fear the most. The pope and his followers will cast you far away into hell if you do not obey their commandment, and Christ tells you not to obey them by his ban. Think now which one thou wilt follow.

The 8th reason.

2 Petr. 2, 1. 2. 3.

"False teachers shall come among you, introducing beside them sects of condemnation, and denying the Lord that bought them, by whom the way of truth shall be blasphemed; and with fancied words by avarice shall they handle about you."

Behold, the orders and foundations are sects of condemnation. From where? Because they deny Christ and blaspheme the way of faith. With what? Because Christ says there is no sin or righteousness in food, drink, clothing, places and works of men; they punish this, teach and live that there is sin and righteousness in it. So Christ must lie, be denied and blasphemed with his doctrine and faith.

They still go about with fictitious words, and pretend obedience, chastity, worship, but only out of avarice, so that they may handle us, until they have brought all the world's goods to themselves, as those who want to help everyone to heaven with their worship. Therefore they are and remain sects of condemnation and blasphemy.

The 9th reason.

Christ, Matth. 24, 23. f., speaks:

"If any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ; or, Here, believe it not. For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; that, if it be possible, the elect also shall err. Behold, I have told you before. If therefore they say unto you, Behold, he is in the wilderness, go not out: behold, in the cellars, believe it not."

(42) Say, how can a monk be saved? He binds his salvation to one place and says, "Here is Christ to me; if I do not remain here, I shall be lost. But Christ says, "No, I am not here. Who will make the two one? Therefore it is clear from this word of Christ, that all doctrines which bind the conscience in place are against Christ. But if he bind not the conscience to the place, neither let it be bound to food, or raiment, or vesture, or any outward thing. That there is no doubt, this saying speaks of the pope and his clergy, and Christ himself here absolves and exiles all priests and monks, in that he condemns all orders and monasteries, and says: Do not believe, do not go 2c.

43 He also says the same, Luc. 17, 20. 21.: "The kingdom of God does not come with outward appearances; and one will not say, Behold, here it is, behold, there it is. For behold, the kingdom of God is within you."

Is this not clear enough? Now, the teachings of men cannot do otherwise than to order things externally. Because God's kingdom is not an external thing, they must be absent and mistaken, both teachers and students.

1. In the Wittenberg "denn" what is missing in the Jena one.

614 Erl. 28, 335-387. I. Against Papal Errors in General. W. XIX, 730-733. 615

It does not help them either, 1) that they say holy fathers have led the orders. For Christ has already overthrown the makeshift, because he says: "The elect may be deceived", that is, they will err, but not remain 2) in it. What else would it be for a particularly great error if the elect did not err? Let the doctrine and example of the saints be as it is, Christ's words are certain and clear: this we must follow, and not the saints, whose doctrine and work are uncertain. It is certain that he says, "The kingdom of God is among you," and not apart from you, here or there.

The 10th reason.

Solomon, Sprüchw. 30, 5. 6., speaks:

"All the words of God find fire and a shield to all who trust in them. Put nothing to his words, lest he punish thee, and be found false."

This is the conclusion for this time; for there is much more in the prophets, especially in Jeremiah, of which I wrote in confession 3). So here Solomon is smuggling that he is a liar who adds something to the words of God; for only God's word should teach us, as Christ says, Matth. 23, 8: "Do not let yourselves be called master. There is one Master in you, Christ," Amen. Let it remain so. 4)

Response to sayings, so one leads to strengthen human doctrine.

The 1st spell.

46 The first is Luc. 10:16, where Christ says, "He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me. He also says the same, Matth. 10, 40. and Joh. 13, 20. Here Christ is to force us (they pretend) that one must receive their human law.

1. So the Jenaers. Wittenberg and Erlangen: not. 2) i.e.: in error.

3. This refers to the text No. 121 in this volume: "Von der Beichte, ob der Pabst Macht hat, dieselbe zu gebieten.
4. The words: "Da bleibe es bei" are in the Jena edition, but are missing in the Wittenberg and Erlangen editions.

47. response. This is not true. For Christ, before he speaks these words, speaks hard before (Luc. 10, 9/: "Go and say that the kingdom of God has come." With this, Christ stops the mouth of all the teachings of men, and gives the apostles orders as to what they are to teach, and puts the word itself into their mouths, saying, "They are to preach of the kingdom of God." Whoever does not preach about the kingdom of God is not sent by Christ, and these words do not concern him, but rather these words compel him not to listen to the teachings of men. Now preaching about the kingdom of God is nothing else than preaching the gospel, in which the faith of Christ is taught, through which alone God dwells and reigns in us. But the doctrines of men preach nothing of faith, but of food, raiment, time, places, persons, and of vain outward things, whereof the soul hath nothing.

(48) Now behold the pious shepherds and faithful teachers, how honestly they have dealt with the poor people. This saying, "He who hears you hears me," they have masterfully plucked out and driven into us with great terror, until they have brought us under themselves. But that which is written before: "Preach of the kingdom of God," they have concealed very delicately, and jumped chivalrously past, so that they would not be forced to preach the gospel alone to us, the noble, dear masters, one should thank them for it.

49. at the last, when he sent forth the disciples to preach, let us hear him commanding them, and setting the purpose of their teaching, and bridling their tongues, saying, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature: he that believeth shall be saved. 2c. [He does not say, "Go and preach whatever you want, or whatever seems right to you, but put his own word into their mouths and tell them to preach the gospel.

50] Likewise also in Matthew at the last he saith, Go ye, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. But behold, he saith not, teach them.

616 Erl. 28, 337-33p. 108. l.'s booklet "Of human doctrine to be avoided". W. XIX, 7S3-7SS. 617

keep what you invent; but "what I have commanded you." Therefore, it must and cannot be otherwise, the pope with his bishops and teachers must be a wolf and the devil's apostle, because he does not teach Christ's command, but his own word.

(51) The Lord also tells us in the parable of the three servants, Matt. 25:15, that the father of the house made the servants handle not their own goods but his own goods, and gave five pounds to one, two to another, and one to the third.

The 2nd saying.

The other saying is Matth. 23, 2. 3. where the Lord speaks:

"The scribes and Pharisees have sat out of Moshi's chair. All things therefore whatsoever they say unto you, that ye ought to have, keep them, and do them."

52. there (they say) we have power to teach what seems right to us.

53 Answer. If this is Christ's opinion, we do not stand well; then every pope would like to make new and more laws, until the world could no longer comprehend the laws. But they carry out this saying in the same way as the previous one. What does it mean to sit on Mosi's chair? Let us ask, what did Moses teach? And if he were still sitting on it today, what would he teach? Without a doubt nothing, but what he taught before, namely, God's commandment and word. He has never spoken any human doctrine, but what God has commanded him to speak, as almost all chapters show. It follows that anyone who teaches anything other than Moses is not sitting on Moses' chair. For this is why the Lord calls it "Moses' chair," so that Moses' teaching should be read and taught on it. This is also indicated by the following words, where the Lord says: "But according to their works you shall not do: for they say it well, and do it not; but they lay heavy and unmistakable burdens upon men's necks, and will not themselves lift them with a finger."

54 Behold, he punisheth their works, that they lay many laws concerning the doctrine of Moses upon men's necks, which they themselves touch not.

and says afterwards v. 16.17. 1): "Woe unto you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, which say, Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple, he is guilty. Ye fools and blind, which is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold?" Is it not clear enough that Christ condemns their doctrine of men? He could not have confirmed it by sitting on Mosi's chair; otherwise he would have spoken against himself. Therefore, Moses' chair must stretch no further than Mosiah's law, and sitting on it no further than preaching Mosiah's law.

55. so also Moses said of his chair and teaching 5 Mos. 4, 2: "You shall neither add nor subtract from the word that I tell you." And Deut. 12, 32: "Do only that which I command you, and neither add to nor subtract from it." They had to teach this doctrine on Mosi's chair, therefore Mosi's chair cannot suffer any commandment of man.

The 3rd reason.

56 St. Augustine's saying in the book against the main letter of the Manichaeans, which should read thus:

I did not believe the gospel if I did not believe the church.

Behold (they say), the church is more to be believed than the gospel.

57 Answer. If Augustine had said the same, who would have given him the authority that we must believe him? by what scripture does he prove this saying? How? if he was mistaken, as it is known that he was mistaken many times, as were all the fathers? Should one of Augustine's sayings be so powerful that it would drive back the previous ones all at once? God did not want that, but St. Augustine should give way to them.

58 Item, if this were St. Augustine's opinion, he would also overthrow himself; for he even in many places the holy scripture.

1. Here the Erlangen edition again asked Walch to reprint the wrong number "V. 13". Cf. Walch, St. Louis edition, vol. XVIII, 885 the note; vol. XXII, introduction, p. 38 s. and in this volume the note to Col. 240.

618 Erl. 28, 339-342. I. Against Papal Errors in General. W. XIX, 735-738. 619

He exalts himself above all teachers' sayings, above all conciliarities and churches' decisions, and wants to have himself and all people's doctrines judged according to them. Why then do the faithful shepherds abandon such sayings of St. Augustine, which are so bright and clear, and fall on this one, which sounds so dark and against Augustine in all places? Without wanting to help their tyranny with lazy loose grimaces.

(59) To this end, they act as deceivers, not only imposing a false opinion on St. Augustine, but also falsifying and perverting his words. For St. Augustine's words actually read thus: I would not believe the Gospel if I were not moved by the reputation of all Christianity. Augustine speaks of the whole of Christianity, that it 1) preaches the gospel so unanimously in all the world, and not the Manichaean main letter, there such a reputation of all Christians moves him, that he considered it to be the right gospel. But our tyrants call this Christianity themselves, as if the layman and common man were not also Christians; and what they teach should be called the doctrine of the Christian church, if they are the lesser part, and we also should be asked beforehand, as common Christianity, what is to be taught under the name of common Christianity. Behold, so finely do they perform St. Augustine's saying; what he says of Christendom in all the world, that shall be understood by the Roman See.

(60) How then does it follow from this saying that the doctrines of men are also to be held? What doctrine has ever been invented that has been accepted and preached by all common Christians throughout the world? None has ever been invented, but the gospel alone has been accepted by all Christians throughout the world.

For this, St. Augustine must not be understood as if he did not want to believe in the Gospel otherwise, because he was moved by the reputation of the whole of Christendom. For that would be wrong and unchristian. Everyone must believe only because it is God's word and that he inwardly finds that it is truth, even though an angel from heaven and all the world preached against it. But its

1. Wittenbergers: the selb; Jenaers: themselves.

His opinion, as he himself says, is that he finds the gospel nowhere but in Christendom, and that the heretics can thus be given external proof that not their doctrine but this one is right, which all the world has unanimously accepted. For Eunuchus, Apost. 8, 37, believed in the gospel preached by Philip, and yet did not know whether many or few believed it. Item, Abraham believed in God's promise alone, since no man knew of it. Rom. 4, 18. And Mary, Luc. 1, 38, also believed the message of Gabriel alone, and there was no one on earth who believed with her. So Augustine also had to believe, and all the saints, and we also, each one for himself alone.

(62) Therefore St. Augustine cannot suffer the understanding which they put upon him, but must be understood by the outward evidence of the faith, that thereby the heretics may be pushed, and the weak strengthened in the faith, when they see that all the world preacheth, and holdeth for gospel, that which they believe. And where this understanding is not in St. Augustine's saying, it is better to deny the saying; for it is contrary to Scripture and spirit and all experience where it retains that understanding.

63. Finally, when they have been pushed by the Scriptures, so that they cannot pass them by, they lift up and blaspheme God, saying: 2) If St. Matthew, St. Paul, St. Peter were also men, therefore their doctrine is also the doctrine of men. But if their doctrine is to be kept, then one should also keep the Pope's. Some princes and bishops, who want to be wise, are now throwing out such blasphemy. When you hear such deeply hardened and blinded blasphemers, turn away from them or stop your ears; they are not worth talking to. If this should be true, then Moses was also a man and all the prophets. So let us go further, and believe nothing everywhere, and consider everything to be the doctrine of men, and follow our own conceit.

64 But if thou wilt speak unto them, do so unto him, saying, Well, let St. Paul or Matthew be the doctrine of men, and we will ask: Where does their power come from?

2. In the old editions: Is.

620 Erl. 28, si2 f. 108. L.'s booklet "Von Menschenlehre zu meiden". W. xix, 738 f. 621

Wherewith shall they prove that they have power to teach and to be bishops? or where shall they know where the church is? if they say that St. Matthew, 16:9, or St. Paul have set it here and there, say, It is not true, they are the doctrines of men, as thou sayest; thou must have the word of God to confirm thee. Behold, thus thou findest how the hardened blasphemers profane themselves, and resolve with their own foolishness, who cannot so much as distinguish that another thing is, when man himself, or when God speaketh by man. The apostle's speech is commanded to them by God and confirmed and proven with great miracles; none has ever happened to man's doctrine. And if they themselves will be certain and prove that God has commanded them to teach such things, we will also believe them, as we did the apostles. If the apostles' speech is uncertain that it is from God, who will make us certain that their teaching of men is from God? O furor et amentia his saeculis diga!

65 We condemn the doctrines of men, not because they are the doctrines of men, for we would bear them, but because they are contrary to the gospel and the scriptures. The Scriptures make consciences free, and forbid to catch them with the doctrines of men; so they catch them with 1) the doctrines of men. We cannot make this discord between the Scriptures and the doctrines of men one. Therefore we let the young children be judges here, because these two doctrines are contrary to each other: whether one should follow the Scriptures (in which the Word of God has been taught from the beginning of the world),

1. "with" is missing in the editions; there: "they the".

or let go of the doctrine of men (which was invented yesterday and changes daily)? and hope that everyone will approve the judgment, that the doctrine of men will be abandoned and the Scriptures kept: for both cannot and may not be kept, 2) because they may not become one and must of course be contrary to each other, 3) like water and fire, like heaven and earth, as Isaiah speaks of it Cap. 55, 9: As heaven is exalted from the earth, so are my ways exalted from your ways. Now he cannot walk in heaven who walks on earth; again, he cannot walk on earth who walks in heaven.

(66) Therefore we entreat the papists to make their doctrine one with the Scriptures beforehand. If they bring this about, we will hold them to it. But they will not do this before the Holy Spirit becomes a liar. Therefore we say again, We do not reproach the doctrine of men because men have spoken it, but because they are lies and blasphemies against the Scriptures, which, though they were written by men, were not written by or of men, but of God. Since they are contrary to each other, the Scriptures and the doctrine of men, one must lie and the other must be true. Now let us see to which they themselves want to ascribe the lies. That is enough of it.

2. The sentence: "denn beide können und mögen sie nicht behalten werden" is missing in the Wittenberg and Erlangen editions. Although it is obvious that the repetition of the words "to be kept" is a printing error in the Wittenberg edition, the Erlangen edition has not added the omitted words to its text, but has given them as a variant.
3. Thus the Jenaers. Wittenberg and Erlangen: "among themselves."

Here follows in the old edition of Walch, Col. 739-782, a writing which has the title: Hauptartikel, durch welche die gemeine Christenheit bisher verführt worden, nebst Nicolai von Amsdorfs Zuschrift.

Why we have omitted the same is stated in the introduction to this volume.

622 Erl. L", 360-362. I. Against the papal ^errors in general. W. XIX, 783 f. 623

The Pabstthum with its members painted and described with Luther's pre and post speech.)

New Year 1526.

Preface.

Here, my Christian reader, before your eyes are formed and narrated the various orders, orders, estates and sects, the most distinguished and famous tribes, without what else are the branches and twigs and nests, on each tribe, with their innumerable differences, also only the male orders, without what are the female orders. All of which have divided and broken up the simple Christianity, which serves and pleases God in one mind and faith, into many pieces and parts. And they have all boasted of chastity, against the marital state: so that, if you look at them rightly, your heart would break for them, if you think how many horrible abominations have happened and are still happening under them, since chastity is such a strange supernatural power and gift of God, and so innumerable are the ones they all use.

I will keep silent about the vices and disgraces they commit with their masses and other worship services, which Satan has set up through them for blasphemy and the seduction of souls. These are the ones whom the pope has praised and extolled, that they are the foundations, rocks, pillars, salvation and comfort of Christianity with their life and teachings, and have devoured the goods of the whole world for it, so that one might think that they are the great people of Gog and Magog, of which Ezekiel 38. and Apocalypsis Cap. 20. write that they surrounded the holy city of God, but were finally slain on its mountains and given to the birds to eat; as now the gospel has already begun.

I beseech thee, for thy husband's sake, look rightly on them; thou wilt find none that boasteth of faith and love. They do not respect such two orders and ranks, but he who wears a plate, this one a cap; this one a coat, this one a skirt; this one white, this one black; this one gray, this one blue; this one a mirror, this one a pair of scissors, and so on with other jugglery, Exodus 10, that one must see palpable darkness there, so that God has afflicted the world. These are the locusts, caterpillars, beetles and more of the harmful evil worms that have devoured and ruined all the lands, Joel 1. And see that you give thanks to God and do not forget such mercies, who has made these things known to you and delivered you from them. Therefore they are also painted here with pictures, that one may remember the good fellows and praise God's miracles in them. Amen.

The Pabst's Stand.

Oh God, to whom shall we lament, How pitiful it is to say. That for a > long time and many a year a great multitude from every country and > nation has been deceived, of whom no number can be known. Deceived by > this pope and antichrist, and with great cunning turned us completely > pious pretense. Forgiven also all guilt and pain, Our sin and misdeed, > But such also not from God's grace: On own work alone led, Human > reason such has heard. The work they considered better, because that > for us God has done enough.

*This writing, which was sent to Luther "by pious people", he let go out on New Year's Day 1526, decorated with woodcuts, with his preface and epilogue. It is not found in the two oldest collections of Luther's writings. We know of four individual editions from 1526. In two of them Luther's name is missing, also place and printer are not indicated. The third was published in Wittenberg, the fourth in Nuremberg by Hans Wandereisen. In the collections it is found: in the Eislebische, Vol. I. Bl. 243; in the Altenburger, Bd. Ill, p. 380; in the Leipziger, Bd. XIX, p. 534; and in the Erlanger, Bd. 29, p. 360. We reproduce the text according to the Eislebische edition.

624 Erl. 29, 362-364. 109 The papacy with its members depicted. W. XIX, 784-786. 625

Therefore no work of theirs 1) were too many (The evil one won the > game), Everybody wanted to be the holiest, Conceived misery and great > pain, Many sects and various orders, The priests, monks, nuns became: > This is all the devil's doing, With him there was no rest nor rest, > So long until he seduced us into his net with these cries. His attack > was closer to him then, Because that God imposed on him, But God no > longer wanted to see nor hear, Such abomination he wanted to destroy, > When he caught it then, Hope, it shall well continue, His holy word is > present, To shame will the Antichrist And all who cling to him, God > will stand alone with his own.

The Cardinal Stand.

For the pope's kingdom to be respected, he must attack it with power, > he must make many lords and servants, who were useful to his things, > as cardinals and others more, such followed a large army, this sect > was dressed all in red, there was not a good hair on the skin.

The Patriarchs Stand.

So that the pope might get money, he divided his members into the > world by good form and pious appearance, Which had to be his fishhame, > The order was dressed all white, Also pray very with all diligence, > Pious patriarchs wanted to be, The matter they gave only a semblance.

The episcopate.

That should be our bishops, Yes, like the wolf over a pig, From old > they took it, That is so far him'n well got. A white dress with a > chasuble, a bishop's crook also in the hand, Wore a two-pointed hat, > Underneath it happened little well.

1. Instead of "their" should probably read "him'n".

The canonship.

Canonici, the bishop's servant, also from Lucifer's lineage. A white > choir robe they wore, Also fur caps they had to wear, Their horas they > pray always. Their hearts were so far gone, They only feasted, lived > in the feast, I hope it's over with them now.

The Monk's Stand.

This' ban thrower the Antichrist, who has never been anything better, > possessed, rules people and country, since it is a disgrace before > God, and seduces us all to the devil, that we have unfortunately only > felt. Hope, God shall turn it around and destroy the devil's dog.

The diak stand.

The bishop couldn't stop it, he had to have a deacon, so that her > mass would be held in great respect only with one splendor. Her dress > must be so adorned, because the figure is formed, in the color was no > difference, Only no pious is not in the dress.

The Benedict Order. .

The Order at Cassin 2) began. After that it went into the whole world. > They wear large black robes, they must also have a bishop's staff. In > great riches always sat, Thereby they forgot God, That the Scripture > does not seduce them, Durft ihr keiner nicht studire.

The Carthäufer Order.

If man's work had made him blessed, Carthusian order would have been > accomplished by praying, fasting, casteia, and the much, which I will > keep silent, the order began from the devil's game, of which to say > would be quite a lot. > > Pointed, white caps had to wear, no one to the other nothing say.

2. The Abbey of Monte Cassino on a mountain in Campania was founded in 529.

626 Erl. 29, 364-366. I. Against Papal Errors in General. W. XIX, 786-789. 627

The Order of St. Bernard. > > St. Bernard, the holy man, this order first began, many have kept his > rule, that the devil must still rule, because they have devised much > mischief, the poor people even made fools. They always wear black > caps, their piety is known to everyone.

The Order of Preachers.

Following four orders of beggars, Which only could murder souls, Their > virtue they showed at Bern, The rumor him'n ewig wird währn. > > Emperor Henry ends his life by this, which forgives him 1) han. White, > above black is her dress, And to beg she urges her oath.

The Order of the Barefoot.

Dressed in gray, with bare feet, they wanted to atone for their sin, > Also girded around a rope with buttons, For this purpose their heads > were shaved, They also fasted and prayed a lot, But their kitchen was > never empty, Made a monk with five wounds, So that they scourged all > the world.

The Carmelite Order.

The pope calls Mary's brothers, I know she never recognized her, On > Mount Heliä 2) was given him to live according to Heliä Weis'. > > Her skirt is black, her cloak white, Only begging is all her > diligence, Her pious appearance has blinded us, I hope it has an end > with him.

The Augustinian Order.

Augustinians dressed all in black, Their order does not hold much > distinction, When one counts a thousand five hundred years To this > nine toes forsooth, From their sect Martin Luther arose in Saxony > Land, God's word he teaches us again, The Pabst's kingdom he has > even devastated.

1. We have put "him" instead of "him" because "forgive" is as much as "poison" which is construed with the accusative.
2. On Mount Carmel, in memory of the prophets Elijah and Elisha, in 1156.

The Premonstrater Order. > > Premonstratenses are called this, Their life everyone knows well, From > foot to foot they are dressed in white, That means their pure > chastity, Yes, when they sleep, I believe it well, Feasting, drinking, > are always full, Is the hardest thing in their order, Otherwise > nothing good has been from them. > > Deutfchherren Order. > > In Germany there were not enough sects, They were also clever of one > order, That had to be called German lords, Other language was unknown > to them, And had to be only nobles, Wore long beards for pious > appearance. White coats their costume and black cross, Could only > Wohlleben and German. > > The Rhodes Lords. > > They were called Knights of St. John, they took big money from all the > land, only to resist the Turk, who watches our faith, first rose at > Rhodes, won many a battle against the Turk, black, with a white cross > on it, is their costume, their wars have come to an end. > > The Josaphatsthal Order. > > Although the pope has forbidden that no order should wear red, because > only his holiness, but money makes solution and breaks oaths, so they > do what they want, so that they fill their satisfaction, all red > dressed is the sect, which is also full of malice. > > The Order of St. John. > > Nor Sanct Johanniter Order, Not nearly long that they have been. Their > sect is in all cities and country, Which to suffer is yet great shame. > The Rhodesian order they lead, As long and him'n that may befit, > Black with a cross they are dressed, Passe, lazy day keeps him'n > their oath.

628 Erl. 29, 366-369. 109 The pabstium with its members depicted. W. XIX, 789-7S1. 629

The Order of the Brothers Zohan.

Nor are the Johann brothers mehe, De Civitate, than I see.

They keep their own rule, to compare is no wisdom here, Their cap and dress is all smelled, In it they suffer great misery, That one knows them, they have lusted, To lead a chalice in front on the chest.

The Antonite Order.

They are called St. Anthony's lord, they are well known in all countries. That makes her always terminiren, The people they shamefully seduce With St. Antoni torment, Begging very, also learns her pig. Black, on it blue cross, is her dress, Are all boys, I swear an oath.

Order of St. Brigitte.

Sancta Brigitta has made. That this order was conceived, With her great miraculous deeds, The devil has succeeded, All gray must only be her dress, A ring and a cross in the middle of it. Black of dye in the middle of the chest, Means only to God's pleasure.

The willing poor brothers.

No riches they did not want, Willful poverty they accepted, No man they did not talk to, With wandering, praying was no rest, All gray clothed without shelter, Wore a cross and walked bare For their sin and iniquity, That they might gain God's grace.

The Order of the Scourge.

They had no trust in God, that he would help them out of their distress, because they suffered great pain for their guilt and impatience with pain, scourges, tortures, to gain honor before God. All dressed in white they always went. In Welsh land they first began.

The Einfiedel Stand.

They are made holy people. Therefore they suffered much day and night,

Roots and herbs were their food. In the forest her life atoned, All > gray clothed her way is. No heavy penance they knew, Their mind was > right without all doubt, However, the devil deceived them.

The Bafilier Order.

A rich man in Basel was, Almost skillful and of high lahr, The > spiritual wisdom saw him well, A new order he started, His property > and money he gave to it, He thinks he has for sins rest. Then the real > sorrow arose, her dress was now white in color.

The Sepulchrites Order.

That the holy grave would be properly preserved, a new species arose > there, Which is called Sepulchri brothers, Who Ordn da anfing, auch > sich endt. Wearing cross, the clothing is great, 1) Great good they > raised alldo By sacrifice, so there fallen Only from the us German > money.

From the Scher Order.

Those who have conceived this order, have made tailors without doubt. > For they wear the sign in front, no hard life they do not complain. > The cap, the skirt is all white, pray, fast little with diligence, so > that, if one died, forgiveness of his sins would know.

The Order of the Sword.

This must ever be a pious sect, Does not otherwise their appearance > concern me, Quite white their clothing is, Deut't their pure heart to > JEsu Christ, On two red swords' made, Means to fight day and night > Against the evil enemy and spirit. Prayer and fasting, that they may > become fat.

The Star Monk Order.

Two sections follow only afterwards. To be completely pious was a > yoke. In the dress was no distinction, Only that the one cap treit, 2)

1. gro will probably stand for rough.
2. v.i. carries.

630 Erl. L9, 369-371. I. Against Papal Errors in General. W. XIX, 791-793. 631

Their rule is almost the same, they have always been rich, one might well call them star monks, for that is how one should recognize them.

The Order of the Star Brothers.

The other sect wears no cap, but dressed honorably and badly, The clothing color is approximate, Fasting, praying and watching very, Always pure shall be their heart's desire, That means the sign on the chest, Black or red, not much lies on it, Only for appearance, the heart it does not concern.

The Nenbrüder Order.

Great has been the mother, who has recovered all the sons and brought so many brothers together, that I believe the evil one has devised it: for new brothers exist send, it will not have an end with them. Black of dye is made their dress, Hold also the preacher's oath.

The Order of the Star of the Cross.

This order dresses in black, where little pious has been found. > Yesterday they wear a cross on their chest, they pray, they fast, they > keep their order very strictly, because they still find their interest > common, so they will go away, it will be shabbat with them. 1)

The Constantinopolitan Order.

At Constantinopolitan first the sect has caught on, then they have > come further, counting themselves also among the pious. Red, including > green, they wear, on which they have to hold two crosses, they live a > strict and hard life, which devils strive for.

Order of St. Sophia.

These brothers of Saint Sophia send, believe, have known each other > well, a rule she has given them, according to which they shall always > live.

1. The shabab is the sweepings, the garbage; shabab - there, past.

A large cap is their costume, On it they made a red cross, That keeps > their heart for piety, For they are otherwise of good kind. > > The Grandimontener Order. Stephen, quite a pious man, started the > order in the past, withdrew completely from the world, flew with many > people into a desert, his body he casteien hard that with guards, > prayers, early and late, armor and cloaks they wear, so that they > complain of their sin.

The Nollertbrnder Order.

Nollert brothers call themselves these, Their order is almost to all > end, With the sick they always care, Of which they receive good > reward, The dying do the eyes and carry them away to the rest. Smoky > gray they all dressed, Underneath a black Scheppler 2) han.

The Ungerer Order of the Gentlemen.

In Hungary was this beginning, That one still has him no thanks, Red, > underneath white is her robe, In front a cross to the right hand On > the cloak of green cloth, Also always carry with him a book, Their > order, however, one does not know well, Only that they send rich > lords.

Schlavoni.

In Schlavonia there is a sect, full of piety, which comes from another > country to teach the people Christ's teachings. But how they taught, > everyone can now well understand. As the Augustinians are dressed, so > they wear red caps. > > The >Mirror Order. Speculariorum Order, Is long that it has only > been. Almost in Welschland it holds, Their mind and courage is only > after money, A white coat they wear, On a black cross must also stand, > A black circle is underneath, Means quite grace to Jesus Christ.

2. Scheppler - scapular, shoulder dress.

632 Erl. 29, 371-S73. 109 The papacy with its members depicted. W. XIX, 793-798. 633

Heremite-Augustine Order.

I do not know where these have been, who also lead the Augustinian > order, the clothing is almost the same. They still have a long time to > become pious, although they want to be called pious lords. They are > known to everyone, if they are not rich, they are sorry, but they are > always ready to take.

The Order of William.

William, Duke of Aquitaine, 1) First started this order, because he > was without heirs, he gave his estate to the monastery. They found a > rule for it, with which they overcame sin, their clothing is made > completely black, as on the Wilhelmian costume.

Weneeslaer Order.

Wenceslaus was a bishop, his people seduced a large crowd, because he > thought up an order, also made a rule for it. A large church he > founded, where they praise God early and late, Whether he hears them, > I doubt, white always dressed goes this crowd.

Minor Brothers.

From the Grey Order of the Barefoot there have been, as follows, more Sects than Minores and Minimi, Observantes and Clarini, Some de Evangelio, More that are de Caputio, And so many more like that, Who hold St. Francis' Doctrine.

The Cistercian Order.

A strange rule they lead, They may well almost beguile one, Great chastity they boast, Their mischievousness with it blush. They wear the shirt over the skirt, Underneath they have a black skirt, A bishop's crook and red shoes, If they are pious, then a cow pokes me.

1. In the editions: "Aquilan". William of Aquitaine initiated the establishment of the monastery of Clügnh (OluniuouiL) in Burgundy in 910.

St. James Brothers.

The devil would not be at peace until he directed his mischievousness > to St. James in England, where the order first arose. Great goods and > money came by Lucifer's trickery and cunning. To pilgrim's gray > color han they desire, A scallop shell on the chest.

From Purgatory.

Great doubt I carry with these, From what cause yet such happened, > That this order came into being. Undoubtedly it was from great > cunning. Their purgatory holding on the world, But such happened only > for the money, Because great good one brought to it. Gray, as I > understand, is their costume.

The Celestine Order.

Celestinus was a pope,

Only a monk from the preachers' flock, The papacy he again let stand, This order of it began, Which still much exists send, The people are nimble to deceive, Black of color is made their dress, For their piety I swear an oath.

The Camaldolese Order.

Camaldulensium Order, Which have been after Benedicto; Must also be > his subject. All white caps they wear. So they keep their order, God > may well rule, hope, their holiness and splendor have soon made an end > with them.

Umbrosä Ballis Order.

Near Florence in the Welsh country was a saint, Gelbertus gnannt, Who > has brought up this order, own rule for it devised, They still keep it > strictly and firmly, feasting, drinking at its best. Gray of color is > made their dress, I know nothing more of their oath.

Gerundine Order.

John, bishop of Gerundin, who at night thought how he should build a > monastery and give all his gold for it.

634 Erl. SS, 373-375. I. Against Papal Errors in General. W. XIX, 7S5-7S7. 635

So this sect has risen, of which there are still many in all lands. Their clothing is made all white, praying, fasting after all diligence.

St. Helena Brothers.

Because Helena was holy, she was the cause of a large group, who wanted to receive God's grace through her, took on brothers for her, and finally became a whole order. Her rule was quite strict and hard, they were dressed quite white, and served her with all diligence.

Joseph's Order.

The order wisely did so, that they worship St. Joseph, hoped to enjoy that, that Joseph was Christ's father. That is why this sect came into being and extended far into the world, their costume white cap, ash-colored skirt, to their piety may happiness.

Gregorian Order.

Gregory Pope first gave great indulgence and grace to this order, founded by him, who only believes his scripture. Then they let themselves be burned, before they would desecrate his teachings, they wear a wide dress of copper color, because they keep their oath.

Ambrosian Lords.

Pious Ambrose might be, But with them it has only a semblance, They would like to be like the saints, So that they could attain God's kingdom, Much differently they have to face, Otherwise they go for heaven into the hells. Their clothes are made quite large, to God their heart is quite raw.

Temple Lords.

Pope Niclas sent two bulls to princes and lords in all the land, A bull commanded to bliss, The other not to know, Before a certain day. Then they were all slain, there was great lamentation. Still today by day none is more. Black skirt has been their clothing.

Canonici Regulares.

To all monks is this sect, Little piety in them is, Half monk, half priest they want to be, Their order they keep very fine With sleep, eat, drink well, As a pious order should do. Black, and a bobbin they wear, Untern Arm denselbgen beat.

Mary's Servant.

These are St. Mary's servants, like the others a pious generation, our women are their subjects, that they hope for great reward. Yes, Kunz Koch's drink money is hellish fire. Warn before the year as pious as Heuer. The skirt is black, the coat white, keeping the women's brothers' wisdom.

Key Lords.

Lords of the keys are quite pious people, yes boys, I mean, in the skin. Two keys lead to the door of heaven, so that they do not stay for it. They want to come in themselves or to the next village.

Black of color is made their dress, Otherwise they keep St. Peter's oath.

Lazarita or Magdalena brothers.

Black, over it white caps they have, Sanct Lazarum they worship, And > Magdalenam also at the same time, Which possessed the kingdom of > heaven, So that they had two mouths, If they wanted to pray to God. > They 1) will be heard much before, who honor all the saints.

Cross Brothers.

Brothers of the cross they call themselves, their good life has almost > an end. A cross they always wear on them; Always of piety they say, > But the heart is far from it, Of becoming received their reward. Black > of color is made their dress; If they are pious, I am sorry.

1. We have put "the" instead of: "this".

636 Erl. SS, 37S-377. 109 The pabstium with its members painted. W. XIX, 7S7-80O. 637

Scotia brothers.

In Scotia there is also a sect that wears gray caps. This order is > founded (as they say) from the holy scripture. Quite wrong they will > be in it; If they only let of it. They keep their rule strictly and > firmly, eat and drink the very best.

Jacob's brothers with the sword.

The brothers of Jacob with the sword, a pope has proven their order, > because they firmly believe that they have a divine life. It may well > be, who wants to believe it, to swear an oath would be too much. Their > skirts are black, their coats white, For other peels they have the > price.

Jerusalem Brotherhood.

Five hundred and thirty and some years, when Jerusalem was destroyed, > many people came together there, they took on a new sect, after the > city they all called themselves, so that they were all well known. > Gray, with a cross on it was their costume, their order's leadership > a great splendor.

Hospital Lords.

The order is not to be reviled at all, An alms he would do to Jesus > Christ, But he applies diligence to the poor, So that they are always > recognized by him. Though not much, yet something was done for the > benefit of the poor, and they have praise for it. Otherwise I say > right, you are dressed black, quite bad.

Decision.

Here, everyone may see the great multitude of monks and sects, who > have ruled for a long time, now think how they have seduced us. They > are not yet present, 1) There is still a great host lacking, who send > everywhere in the lands, whose more part is not yet known. These alone > are shown, which each one can know,

1. i.e.: they are not yet all enumerated.

Although they are not found by order, who each is, is partly told in old books.

Therefore, if there is anything lacking, let him impute it to them, > and if there is anything else unreasonable, let him change it for the > best. So be it resolved at last, God grant us his grace, that we may > have peace before these.

Nachrede D. Mart. Luther.

Now you see, I mean, which is the right gloss on St. Paul, and what he teaches, when he speaks to the Colossians in the 2nd chapter, v. 16-18: "Let no one judge or make judgments about food or about drink, or about one part's days, namely, about holidays, or new moons, or Sabbaths, which is the shadow of that which was in the future, but the body itself is in Christ. Let no man shift his aim, who walketh after his own choice in the humility and spirituality of angels, which he hath never seen, and is without cause puffed up in his carnal mind."

And again v. 20-23.: "If ye be dead with Christ from worldly statutes, why then be ye entangled with statutes, as though ye were alive; (which say:) Thou shalt not touch these things, thou shalt not eat these things, thou shalt not drink these things, thou shalt not put on these things: which are all consumed in the hands, and are the doctrines and commandments of men, which have a pretense of wisdom in their self-confessed spirituality and humility, and in that they spare not the body, neither do they feed the flesh for its need."

Have they not disgracefully misunderstood our goal, so that we have had to make vain and unprofitable efforts with so much singing, praying, fasting, watching and working, for which they have set no other goal than to obtain grace and life. And thus they have lost sight of Christ, who alone was and is the right goal, by which we should attain and gain such grace and life through right faith, and use the above-mentioned works for the mortification of the flesh, so that we may help our neighbor.

638 Erl. 23, 377 f. I. Against Papal Errors in General. W. XIX. 800-802. 639

would be sent to serve. Without which faith such works do nothing but make puffed-up hearts (as St. Paul says here), for they think themselves holy above all others and regard themselves as if the others were vain publicans and sinners against them.

Some people think that we should stop mocking the papacy and the spiritual state, that it is enough in the day, because it is so shattered, written, decomposed, compacted, crushed and disgraced in every way by so many writings, books and notes, that it is well known and can never be overcome. I do not hold with them, but, as the Revelation of John says Cap. 17, 1. 2.The red harlot, with whom the kings and princes of the earth have fought and are still fighting, must be given full and good water, and as much as she has had lust and power, so much pain and suffering must be inflicted on her, until she is trampled underfoot like dung in the street, and there is nothing more despicable on earth than this bloodthirsty Jezebel, 1) and thus the scripture is fulfilled, which proclaimed this about her Kings 18:4, 13, 21, 23.^2)^ 2 Kings 9:37.

Also, that we do not forget and be ungrateful for such great grace, that Christ has led us out of such darkness and devilish nature into his wondrous light; so that we do not do like the children of Israel, who soon forgot the great grace when they were led out of Egypt. Yes, too much is already forgotten among us, and so we live along without any gratitude, as if we had never been under the tyranny of the pope, or had never felt the unbearable sorrow of our heart and conscience, wherein he bound us with innumerable cords of his great commandments, and martyred us with unbearable burdens of useless works, and chased us with false fear of death and hell, tormented us, and turned us away from life and heaven.

1. In the Eisleben edition: Jesabel.
2. In the Erlanger: "28" reprinted from Walch's old edition.

and the devil was driven to it and hurt it quite violently. Such things are no longer thought of, and have become little in our eyes, as if they were small kindness and mercy.

Mostly, however, because now that the rebellious peasants have been defeated, they blow themselves up again and boast as if they wanted to be completely reinstated and achieve greater glory, especially because some godless princes and lords stand by them, on whom they rely and console themselves, and think that they have recovered and been completely reborn. If they do not turn back to the defeat they encountered, and start again, and struggle for more defeats, and want to hear how their devilish nature is to be praised, we want to and shall help them confidently, and stir the dirt, which wanted to stink so much, until they get their mouths and noses full.

Therefore, dear friends, let us begin again to write, to write poetry, to rhyme, to sing, to paint, and to show the noble idols as they deserve and are worthy. Blessed be he who is lazy here, because he knows that he is doing God a service, who has in mind and begun to crush the abomination on the face of the earth and to make it ashes. Let our tongues, feathers, and voices be to him freshly prepared, and serve him; but without a free hand, and with words alone. And for this new year I give, as the first, this booklet, as it is sent to me by pious people. It is not a book of shame nor blasphemy, but a public punishment of the public outrageous abomination and devil play, which God wants to have punished. Our name is written on it, and we are justified in doing so. Defiance, which let us come to interrogation. For the bats shun both light and justice, and want to ride only by force. God grant that they may be recognized, amen. Martin Luther.

3. Gezaue - tools.

The following two writings by Walch are considered to belong here:

a) D. Mart. Luther's warning to his dear Germans and b) D. Mart. Luthers Schrift wider den Meuchler zu DreSden, der vorstehende Warnung widerlegen hat.

Both writings can be found in Walch, old edition, vol. XVI, 1950 and 2062.

640 Erl. 88,98-97. 110 Some articles falsified by the papists. W. XIX. 802 f. 641

110: "Etliche Artikel von den Papisten jetzt kürzlich verfälscht und böslich gegen uns Lutherischen gerühmt, sammt einem Briefe D. Martin Luther"

to the preachers at Soest 2c.*)

About the end of October 1535.

Luther, Melanchthon, Pomeranus, together with their related preachers at Wittenberg, 1) allow that a spiritual police, order and regiment, the Roman bishop, should be the supreme, and under him all other bishops and priesthood; and this is necessary, because this order is required for the promotion of the sound doctrine of Christ; and that the same the bishops should be ordered to stay, 2) also that from the same, 3) to provide for the spiritual things, and be placed in charge.

1. Marginal gloss: Not one excluded, the children, women also not 2c.
2. i.e., to maintain sound doctrine and godly conduct.
3. Instead of "dasselbige" we have put "dass selbige" and instead of "demselbigen" we have put "denselbigen". By comparing the articles of 1539, which Luther and Melanchthon are said to have admitted (Walch, old edition, vol. XVII, 342), it becomes almost a certainty that the reading we have given: "dass selbige" and "denselbigen" (i.e. the bishops) is the correct one. The punctuation of the Erlangen edition is, of course, wrong, and the sentence meaningless. In the latter, this sentence reads: "For this order is required for the promotion of the sound doctrine of Christ, and that the same is to be maintained, also that out of the same, the spiritual things are decreed and enforced. - Ambiguously, as this forgery is, it can also be understood from the last sentence that the "spiritual things", that is, the church goods, are to be placed again under the administration of the bishops. But what could be read out of the text of the Erlangen edition? But things are not much better with the other editions. Although they do not have the wrong comma before "hie geistlichen Dinge", they do not offer anything comprehensible either. In the Jena edition, the text is otherwise the same as in the Erlangen edition, except that "zuvorsehen" is contracted. The Wittenberg has: "Aufs das aus demselbigen zuuorsehen die geistlichen Ding verordent und furtgesetzt werden." Walch has made "Zuvorfehen", thus from the word a noun.

Of people's statutes, which need not be necessary after all.

Since the church cannot be without ceremonies, that is, discipline, order, they would much rather keep the old ceremonies with the old ones than start new ones; and by these means the other nations will easily unite with the teaching of Christ. But that the reported church order does not strive against the evangelical truth.

From confession.

Confession is necessary in the church, and the priest's absolution should be held; Christians are comforted by it, and because of it, the simple and ignorant are instructed and taught in confession. But besides this, the consciences should not be forced with so much anxious and detailed recounting of all sins, which is not even possible for man.

Of making man righteous.

All our righteousness comes from the merciful God, through Jesus Christ, and from faith in Him, and not from our works. In addition, the people are to be taught to adorn their faith with good works, and to make it evident by the fruit of good works that the Holy Spirit dwells in them, and that therefore all glory 4) has its origin in God.

4. Thus the Wittenberg and the Jena editions. Erlanger: "Lehre." This is the only significant variant by which the editions differ from the original print reproduced in the Erlanger Ausgabe. Now, since here it is not the teaching that is spoken of, but to whom the honor is given through the works, we hold that "alle lehre" is a printing oversight instead of "alle ehre."

*) This writing appeared first in 1535 at Wittenberg with Nickel Schirlentz under the title superior to ours. Then in the collections: in the Wittenberg (1559), vol. XII, p. 271; in the Jena (1568), vol. VI, p. 327 d; in the Altenburg, vol. VI, p. 496; in the Leipzig, vol. XXI, p. 85 and in the Erlangen, vol. 65, p. 95. The publication of the manuscript is without any doubt to be placed before November 2, 1535, as can be seen from Luther's letter to Leonhard Beier, to whom Luther sent several copies on November 2, 1535, which has been either overlooked or not correctly understood. De Wette, Vol. IV, p. 647. (Against Seidemann, who, De Wette, Vol. VI, p. 235, places this writing in November 1539). We give the text according to the. We give the text according to the Jena edition, comparing the Wittenberg and Erlangen editions.

642 Erl. 65, S7-SS. I. Against Papal Errors in General. W. XIX, 803-805. 643

About the Mass and both of the Sacrament.

They confess that the Episcopal Mass is no different from the Mass of their predecessors; but they have done away with the peculiar side Masses, because of the enjoyment and merchant's treasure that comes from them. They also say that the mass is a thanksgiving and a remembrance of the sacrifice, as the ancients also called it. However, they deny that they are intended to help the living and the dead with this work, which they call ex opere operato in Latin. And this article they desire to discuss 1) in the next future council. They request in the meantime that the one form of the sacrament be in the hands and power of the pope by human statute, and both forms of the sacrament be in the hands and power of the pope, so that the Roman bishop or pope, until the next future council, may freely use one or both forms of the sacrament.

From the Holy Honor.

The holidays of the saints, such as those kept at the times of Hieronymi, Ambrosii and Neoceni, 2) should be tolerated in the Church, that is, by the Christian people. 3) The good works and contending in the death of the saints are also to be preached to the people, for a following of them, but not to be called for themselves, in any way, because no such example is found in the Holy Scriptures. Since it is certain, however, 4) that the saints in heaven pray for us in common, just as the holy men who are still in this world do, therefore the intercession should not be completely abandoned, but its remembrance may be resisted henceforth], as the Christian church has hitherto directed and made in its petition or prayer to God Almighty, that He may show mercy through the intercession of this or that saint, through our Lord Jesus Christ.

1. Marginal gloss: "Disputing". Why not rather confirm how it has been before.
2. So all editions. Instead, however, "N^ianzeni", i.e. of Gregory of Nazianzus (died 390) should be read. Cf. Seckendorf, List. lid. Ill, p. 299, Li.
3. Marginal gloss: And every day 20 fairs are sold for a penny.
4. Marginal gloss: How can it be uncertain?

From the vows and abstention 5) of priests marriage.

The rich houses of worship or monasteries, which are idle without the practice of doctrine, shall in due time be converted into schools, as they were in the beginning of the church. But the other poor monasteries, where discipline and doctrine are practiced, shall remain, so that, where a lack of learned people is found, skilled ones may be taken from them; they shall be allowed their free exit.

But touching the marriage of priests, because it is abolished by human statute, and is in the Pope's power 6) to change it again, because also few 7) pure chaste priests have been found: so they advise that the freedom be granted to the priests and poor who desire it, and have a heated challenge to it, that the marriage be granted to them in the name of God. However, for the sake of such marriages, there shall not be an abortive police statute and order in the church, so that the church goods shall be taken away by them, but the rich bishops and others, with whom the spiritual church goods are, shall remain without wives and marriages.

If the pope can be compared here in these articles, they say that those in the others can easily be compared with him.

Venerabili Viro

Domino Brixio Thonwerdae

et fratribus ecclesiae Susatensis, ministris fidelibus,

i.e.: To the venerable man, Mr. Briccius Thonwerd, and to the brethren of the church at Soest, the faithful servants of the church.

D. Mart. Luther.

Dear sirs and friends! You should not be surprised if you see or hear that the pope's servants are lying and lying. What have they done against us so far that would not have been unsworn lies? And though they have often been caught in them, and have always been disgraced, they are

5. d. i. Conservation.
6. Marginal gloss: "Violence". Oh, dear, no.
7. Marginal gloss: "Little". Oh, unfortunately, yes.
8. Thus the Wittenberg edition. Jenaer and Erlanger: "that through the church goods"; but the Jenaer makes the remark that instead of "through" perhaps "thereby" would like to be read.

644 Erl. 65, ss-101. 110: Some articles falsified by the papists. W. XIX, 805-807. 645

yet they have never been red for it. They are such strong heroes, and how can they do otherwise, because all their teachings and beings are based on lies and deception, and their God and Lord cannot be served otherwise than with lies and murder? Just as the pagans sacrificed and served the god Hercules^1)^ with cursing. But let them lie and murder, they have not enjoyed it much so far, nor brought it far, but are running away from themselves, and have (praise be to Christ) got a strong consumption; perhaps the drip 2) and death gland will touch them soon. For I hear all doctors say that drinking much blood is death.

Accordingly, I have sent these articles, which you sent to me, to you again under my name, so that you can comfort yourselves and shut the mouths of others. It is true that at the Diet of Augsburg we offered ourselves highly in many things (especially myself), as the booklet "Admonition to the Clergy" testifies; but they would gladly accept if we wanted to offer much, and yet yield nothing that we ask and desire in return. This is the kind of thing that this prankster, or peeler, who wrote these articles, did. They have finely picked out from our writings, or perhaps from some trades, what they would like to have, and have invented more about it than they have read or heard, but at the same time keep quiet about what we have asked for. As, I still want to say and admit, if the pope wants to let the gospel go freely and purely, as he is obliged to do, then I will let him be what he himself wants, what more shall I offer him? But that he likes to hear that I say he should be what he wants; but that he should let the gospel go freely and purely according to his duty, and also promote it, that he does not like to hear. For he smells mice, and tastes the brew.

1. to Lindos on the island of Rhodus. Cf. Walch, St. Louis edition, vol. XVIII, 575, note 2.
2. Probably from a proverbial saying: "Let the drip beat you. According to an old fable, man has three drops in his brain; one on the right, one on the left and one in the middle. If the one on the right side falls, the right side becomes lame; the same is true for the one on the left side. But if the one in the middle falls, the person must die in 24 hours. (Seidemann in De Wette, Vol. VI, 236.)

The Pope, who is well aware of this, worries that he could not remain pope with it.

(2) Therefore you cannot do wrong, because these articles are falsely put forward and carried about or boasted of under our name, for that you again say and boast: If the pope and his own want to let the gospel go freely and purely, they shall have all their will in me. Then you will find out that they would like to have all their will in us and should even confidently boast of this (more than these articles). But to release the gospel, they will have the ears of a magistrate and act as if they did not hear it, because the word "free gospel" is vain poison, death, hell and devil in their ears. They cannot suffer, and yet they must finally suffer. For this, lying and killing will not help them, because it is said: Deus noster ignis consumens est. Et, verbum Domini manet in aeternum.

It looks to me as if the devil would like to cause a discord among us internally, because he realizes that he cannot break in to us from the outside. But my Lord Jesus Christ has so far, over twenty years 3) preserved me in this great matter against so many spirits who want to have me overmastered and subjugated to the pope, that I hope, with the help and grace of his spirit, it will not be necessary. And even if I would not be worthy in his eyes to remain in such a work that I have begun and accomplished so far (since his gracious mercy is in favor of it), my confession of the Christian faith is still there, now printed many times over. On it I have remained and intend to remain, which, if God wills, no one shall take from me. For no one may and shall think or intend that I will become one with the pope and papists, unless he and they become one with the Gospel. I know that they do not consider my gospel to be the gospel, and I do not consider their gospel to be the gospel.

4th Therefore I say, Except they receive that, that, the gospel, which I have

3. This is counted from the time when Luther became Doctor of Theology, namely 1512.

646 Erl.es, im f. I. Against papal errors in general. W. xix, 807-809. 647

and have known it with so much torment and travel, there is no hope of agreement between me, the poorest of sinners, and the most holy Father, let him be as great as he can, and I, as small as I am; for I know that they know it, and I have caught their own conscience, that their gospel is man's teaching, and they must confess that my gospel is God's teaching and the holy Scriptures. And because they know this, that God and His word is against them, and the Scripture with us, it cannot fail that their defiance is a secret despair, and our fear a secret comfort. If it comes to a meeting after that, God will be the right judge and show them publicly what they are now afraid of. But if they could hear, they would be advised to stop blowing into the fire,

and fear God, for they must know that he is angry with them. But if they will not, let them go as God wills, they will find it.

5 But what we do gently in this, we do for the good and service of those who, still imprisoned under the pope, are also to be called by God's word, as St. Paul says, all for the sake of the elect. Our dear Lord Christ, who began this thing of his without my thought and foreknowledge, and who has brought it to this point beyond all my hope, will also continue to promote it and bring it to an end, above all our thoughts and desires, as St. Paul says: "It is he who does more than we can think or ask. Hereby commanded by God, pray for us, as we do for you and all Christians.

*The book is a collection of theological and doctrinal examples of the papacy, with Martin Luther's preface and marginal glosses. )

Translated from Latin.

Martin Luther to the godly reader.

(1) No true Christian can doubt that everything that is said and written for the disgrace and destruction of papist abomination and tyranny serves to glorify the doctrine of Christ. For since the same has devastated and trampled underfoot the kingdom of God and of Christ, we can do nothing more useful, nothing more holy, nothing more divine, than by again devastating and trampling underfoot the destroyer of our blessedness and the defiler of the honor of God, according to the words of Rev. 18, 6. 7.: "Pay her as she has paid you, and make it double to her according to her works; and with what cup she has poured for you, give it double to her.

in. How much she has made herself glorious and had her courage, so much gives her torment and sorrow."

For he speaks of the tyranny of the papal abomination, and he speaks quite differently than those who demand that one should not always oppose the papacy. For he says, "Make it double for him, pay him double," 2c., and with this admonition he wants to make us diligent and eager to torment and destroy such abominations.

(3) Since I am also one of the antipopes, and am called by divine revelation to scatter, destroy, and cut off this accursed kingdom, I zealously and gladly carry out this office, as I have done hitherto.

*) Of this writing, which in the Jena edition is marked with the year 1523, we know a single print only from the year 1531, which was published by Nicolaus Schirlentz in Wittenberg, under the title: Dxernplurn DiiooloZiao st voetrinuo kuxistieo. Latin also in the Wittenberg edition, lom. II, toi. 401 d; in the Jena (1566), lom. II, toi. 561 and in the Erlanger, opx>. vor. ar^., vol. VII, p. 22. According to the Jena edition we have translated, comparing the Erlanger edition, which brings the print of 1531, but almost everywhere offers worse readings than the Jena.

648 v-vii, 23-25, 111. examples of papal theology and doctrine. W. xix, 8os-8i2. 649

I have done. That is why I wanted to publish this sermon, or rather monstrosity, publicly and put it in front of those insolent foreheads and impudent heads of the papists. Although they have filled the whole church with such monstrosities and are publicly convicted of such abominations, they nevertheless have hard necks and unrepentant hearts, that they not only do not want to recognize, confess and correct such things, but also make an effort to conceal and cover them, but then to adorn and decorate themselves, until they (as they hope), having again attained to their old and former form of holiness, would again erect and establish the same monstrosities in the church.

(4) Therefore, let us force them to look at their monstrosities and expose their shame and disgrace and, as the prophet says, let us throw the filth of their festivities in their faces, so that the people, both now and in the future, may see it and always remember this crimson whore, hate her completely, and unanimously detest and persecute her abominable whoredom.

5. But this sermon was preached by a highly famous miserable Dominican (vomiiüeastro) in a monastery of this country to the most miserable maidens, who are called nuns, not long before these times 1) to praise the nuns' state, and it has been praised by all, as if it were a miracle, and by all as if it were the most sacred treasure, pure that it has not been worshipped, even preserved among the holy relics, although, as can be seen, it has only been picked up piecemeal from the mouth of the preacher. In it one can see an excellent sample of the papal theology, and here is truly a flower of the rosary (Rosarii) so famous among them.

(6) It is also useful for all, especially young men and maidens, to know and remember what kind of doctors and masters we have had in the papacy, and by what kind of teaching we have been oppressed, so that we may be able to learn by contrast, or by misunderstanding.

1. i.e. shortly before the time of the started reformation. Walch's translation: "a few days ago" is certainly wrong. Latin: nou multo nute Uos äios.

In this way, the people of the world will be able to see all the more clearly the riches and greatness of God's grace, with which He has looked upon us wretched people anew and enlightened us with His holy and pure word, with all the fullness of His heavenly blessings, and at the same time, so that they will be more careful in the future to avoid the monsters of such a great abomination.

God grant that our hatred and horror of such an abomination may grow as great as our gratitude and love for this mercy given to us in Christ may grow! To Him be glory and praise for all eternity! Amen.

Sermon of the excellent Magister noster J. R., Provincial of the Order of Preachers, in which you, godly reader, see an excellent example of the godless and blasphemous papal teaching against God and Christ. 2)

Subject.

There must be 3) sacrificed to the king the virgins 4) after her 5)^a^ ).

a) That is, they must be torn away from Christ and, after denying the > faith, cast into the monasteries under the yoke of human statutes and > works.

The magisterial gloss interpretation on Prov. 3, 9.: "Honor the Lord from your goods" 2c., speaks: He sacrifices +) well, who from his rightly acquired goods; better, who from his good works; best of all, who sacrifices himself GOtte.

b) because being baptized and believing in Christ is nothing against > these sacrifices.

For there are three kinds of goods according to Aristotle in the seventh book of his statesmanship,^c^ ) namely temporal, corporal and spiritual.

c) Aristotle is taken here for the excellent magistri nostri in the > papacy who invented this distinction, for Aristotle knows very well 6) > what spiritual goods are.

2. This caption is in the Jena edition; in the original: Es fängt die Predigt des Magister noster J. R., Provincials des Orden der Dominicaner, an.
3. We have adopted the reading otkerantur of the Jena edition, instead of otkerontur in the Erlanger, because of the corresponding raxiantur in the marginal gloss. In the Vulgate, Ps. 45:16 reads aäueontur. But after aällueers (to lead) was changed into ottere (to sacrifice), it is not improbable that also oüerentur was changed into otkorantur.
4. i.e. the nuns.
5. i.e. of Mary and Christ.
6. We have adopted the reading of the Jena edition optims instead of valäs in the Erlanger.

650 L. v. L. vii, 25 f. I. Against Papal Errors in General. W. xix, 812-815. 651

It is a great thing to sacrifice temporal things to God for the building of a church 2c. Because thereby^d^ ) one hopes^e^ ) to obtain forgiveness of his sins.

d) By this, that is, not by Christ, nor by faith, but by denial and > blasphemy of Christ.

e) One hopes, that is, a papist.

But it is a greater thing when one offers the soul to God by free will^f^ ) and by his own will, as a religious (Religiosus)^) ^g^), who thereby obtains complete forgiveness, as if he received baptism. And who sacrifices the body (namely)^i^ ) through the greatest gift and jewel of virginity,^k^ ) especially if this sacrifice happens in youth.

f) Grace is not necessary, free will is sufficient.

g) Religious, that is, an adversary of Christ and a wicked desecrator > of the faith. > > h) Look at the boastful Anabaptists! You see how these church robbers > and blasphemers equate their abominable nature with Christ and > baptism. > > i) Rightly strong heroes, who do not receive from GOD, but give such > great things of their abundance! > > k) Namely, because chastity is highly dangerous, even impossible.

So that a god not only gives the tree, but also the fruit through the monastic vow. This vow surpasses all kinds of martyrdom,^l^ ) all vows^m^ ) of pilgrimage, even to the holy land, and all penance.

I) Also of Christ and all the saints, so that in this way alone the > religious are the saints above all the saints.

m) Also everything that is called GOd or that is worshipped.

And because the present maiden, following the example of the holy virgin,^n^ ) who first took the vow of virginity, 1) despises the kingdom of the world and all temporal adornment,^o^ ) she sacrifices herself to live eternally for God in body and soul, yes! that which is most pleasing to God, namely virginity^p^ ): because God especially chooses^q^ ) virgins here and in the life to come. The virginity is the most excellent,^r^ ) because Christ and the holy virgin have led it; the most noble, because there is greater victory^s^ ) and harder struggle; the most useful, because it obtains fruit a hundredfold.

n) For she was a nun and Joseph her abbess. The inn was her cloister > and the donkey her confessor and preacher, the manger her choir, the > diapers her cap and the like from this lection.

1. That is why the papists celebrate the feast of the Sacrifice of Mary (kraosontutionis) on November 21, because on that day her consecration to the temple service and the vow of constant youthfulness is said to have taken place.

o) As can be seen in the religious who strut even in the splendor and > wealth of kings. > > p) As can be seen from the 10th book of physics and the 5th book of > Aesop.

q) He did not choose the apostles so specially.

r) In the very highest echelon, describing it in both negative and > affirmative terms, so that it may be understood that the state of the > apostles is low. > > s) Also greater than the victory of faith, which overcame the devil > and death, so that faith is much worse than chastity.

And is honored in heaven with the company of angels,^t^ ) with peculiar joy,") with Christ's likeness; for the virgins follow the Lamb wherever he goes. "For there is nothing more precious than a chaste soul," Sir. 26, 20. All gold is as little sand against it Wis. 7, 9..

t) Because the other saints are not associated with the angels, but > with the devils, because they are not conformed to Christ, like the > virgins. > > u) This special joy is otherwise called the reward of the wreath of > honor.

Therefore, a virgin must think of what is of God,^v^ ) 1 Cor. 7, 32. what is holy and chaste: all thoughts, speeches 2c. Offer to GOD that she may be undefiled and holy in body and pure in soul, so that Christ, to whom she is betrothed, may say: You are quite beautiful, my friend. If it is a great thing to desecrate the earthly temple, how much greater is it to desecrate the spiritual one; the temple of God is holy, that is you. w)

v) Thinking what is of God, he does not interpret from the word of > God, but from thoughts on chastity, because by this they become holy > and undefiled even without faith and Christ.

w) You, namely monks and nuns alone.

The color of the clothes is twofold. The white x) means purity. The black one means humility. You will go with me in white garments, because they are worthy. See that your clothes are white at all times. ^y^) The dress does not make a religious, nor the name, but the life.

In short, a person living in the spiritual order (religiosus) is an angel^z^ ) on earth.

x) Purity, not of Christian faith, but of vowed chastity. > > y) White because of purity, and yet at the same time black because of > humility, as above. > > z) And a future heavenly archangel. And a nun an earthly angel and a > heavenly archangel!

First, see the subject (as they call it) with how great desecration he picks it out of the 45th Psalm v. 16. and tears it.

652 L. v. a. vii, 26-29. 111. Examples of papal theology and teaching. W. xix, si5-si7. 653

The psalm speaks of the virginity of faith and of the Catholic Church. But here the excellent Magister nostsr twists it to his sects, and declares it to be a work of dishonor to the faith and the Holy Spirit. But this is their constant way and more than canonical canon to corrupt the whole Scripture, as can be seen from this example.

After that, as if by magic, he introduces the gloss of the triple scale of sacrifices, namely, of the rightly acquired good, of the good works, of himself. And he speaks of such things as if not all Christians owed this good, but only his virgins gave it to God in excess or as a surplus (ex supererogatione) (as they call it), although no Christian can love God enough. But such blasphemy serves to destroy and trample underfoot the best sacrifices, namely praise and (patience in) tribulation or death, Rom. 12, 1. 12., so that they can teach sacrifices worthy of them (that is, of the papists).

But this is entirely Magister- and Doctor-wise, that he says Aristotle in the seventh book of the Staatskuust teaches three kinds of goods, temporal, corporeal and spiritual. For this also serves as an example of the papal divine learning, that they use Aristotle, whom they either attract wrongly or do not understand at all, to show their exceedingly great learning, so that they only banish Christ's, the apostles' and prophets' names from their Jewish schools (absque Synagogis faciant).

For at that time among the papists he was the most doctor-like, who could only frequently mention Aristotle and never Christ, the apostles or prophets, namely under the magnificent title: the pagan master. Of course, such great theologians have boasted that they were disciples of the pagan man who knew nothing of God and Christ. And they have not done badly, for they have learned the same ignorance about God and Christ completely from Aristotle and spread it throughout the whole Church.

How surely he blasphemes the blood of Christ, saying: that by sacrifice of temporal things

to build churches to obtain forgiveness of sins. By such quite frightening and blasphemous sermons they have not only filled the church with abominations and errors, but also the whole world with churches and monasteries; and the papacy itself exists through these blasphemies. Yet no bishop nor pope has seen this error, but the church was then called pure and beautiful; and even today they do not repent of it, but rather defend it with force and sword.

This, however, makes the blasphemy utterly frightening, which follows that a religious obtains complete forgiveness, as it were a baptism, through the sacrifice of his vow (which he does by free will). Here you see that we can become blessed and as holy by free will without grace, without faith, as if we were cleansed by baptism and the blood of Christ. In truth, they cannot deny that they have taught thus; there are living examples and written testimonies of it everywhere in the whole church. Now let them collect all the heresies, errors of Luther (as they call it) and compare them with these blasphemies of theirs: then even their free will (however much the devil possesses it) will force them to confess that a papist is not a heretic or erroneous, but altogether the abomination of all devils.

What follows is not unequal to this, namely, that the religious offered the tree with the fruit to God (for they have inculcated and praised this equation in a marvelous way and it is like an article of faith with them). Thus, in this holy theology of theirs, they teach that the holy Church does not sacrifice the tree, but only the fruit, that is, the Church is something small in comparison with the religious, although it is sanctified by the blood of Christ and sacrifices itself completely without ceasing. Free will sacrifices something much greater without Christ than Christ himself sacrificed on the cross.

And behold also this maw of such abomination, when he says: The vow of a religious surpasses all kinds of martyrdom, all vows of pilgrims, also all penance 2c. That is the whole church

654 L. v.". vii. 2s f. I. Against Papal Errors in General. W. xix, sn-Wo. 655

and completely trample underfoot and mock all martyrs of Christ; for with these theologians the martyrs of Christ do not sacrifice the tree when they are killed, and even if they did sacrifice it, they sacrifice something far inferior to the religious, who in the greatest idleness eat up other people's property, but nevertheless surpass every kind of martyrdom through the vow of free will.

Now may Christ go and falsely praise John the Baptist, that no greater among those born of women has risen than he; since the excellent magistri nostri with their pope have found much greater than he is, namely themselves. For here you have that a nun who does not serve God by the service of words, nor with the shedding of blood, nor with fervor of spirit, nor with fervor of prayer, nor with showing any love, by mere chastity offered by free will, surpasses all the martyrs of God. And this was generally preached and believed among them, and it is not corrected even today, but confirmed with fire, sword and all fury.

But what do you think they will think of the state of the bishops and their most holy Lord, the pope? For the religious, as they say, are in the state of perfection to be attained, but the bishops are in the state of perfection to be exercised. Thus, the pope, as the most holy one above all ranks, must be completely in the state of transfigured and crowned perfection. Therefore, if a nun with the vow of chastity and the state of perfection to be attained surpasses all the martyrs, the bishops with their state of perfection to be exercised must surpass all the apostles and prophets. Only the pope remains who, with the state of perfection to be attained, must surpass even Christ and everything that is called God or service of God.

This they also wanted and fulfilled, so that they put the devil into the church as an idol to be worshipped instead of God. For from the same they have learned these and innumerable other abominations and blasphemies, and yet even now they want to

not yet, although they are revealed and they are forced to acknowledge them, mend their ways in any way, but kill those who do not worship such terrible monstrosities.

"But they will not continue (says St. Paul 2 Tim. 3, 9) after their foolishness has been revealed to everyone. By this testimony of the Spirit, our mind becomes quite certain that the papists will not be happy with their pope, nor will they prosper in any way. The matter itself agrees with this and testifies to it loudly, also their attempts, of which they have tried many and indeed great ones at this time, and yet they have learned with their greatest shame that they have all been in vain and useless; but nevertheless the furious people do not cease to try ever new ones, namely, so that they may fulfill Paul's prophecy completely and perfectly 1) and perish the sooner (as they also deserve).

It follows:

"This present maiden despises the kingdom of the world according to the example of the holy virgin (who first made the vow of virginity) and sacrifices herself according to soul and body" 2c. Here again one hears nothing but blasphemies against faith and Christ, one after the other: namely, that virginity sacrifices the body and the soul, namely, as if no Christian sacrificed body and soul and despised the world, not even a martyr, but only the nuns (Nonni^2^ 2)) and nuns sacrificed themselves completely and despised the kingdoms of the world. The other Christians, because they are not nuns and nuns, rather rob God of the body and soul and love and choose the world!

Therefore, these church-robbing theologians have obscured the honor of the faith and the church with these blasphemies, so that the church was absolutely worthless against the religious. And they really have so

1. We have read psrtevte with the Jena edition, instead of irnperksote in the Erlanger, which is probably only a printing error.
2. This word nonnus occurs frequently in later church Latin for "monk".

656 L. V. a. VII, 30-32. 111. Examples of papal theology and doctrine. W. XIX, 820-822. 657

They have also lived in this way and deceived all men with such deception, although they do not despise the world, but rather possess it with all its riches and glory.

Namely, a ragged beggar despises in his father's house bran and legumes, nakedness and the highest lack of all things, but goes to a monastery and becomes a doctor or abbot through foreign fortune, whom even princes must worship. And a girl, who in the world (as they say) should have become a Cinderella or a hungry housemother, becomes in the monastery an abbess and splendid woman, whom even the queens of the world hold in honor.

And even if they remain simple nuns and nuns of lower grade, they have so abundantly food and clothing, house and everything that serves the need, live in the greatest idleness and security, with the highest praise and honor, even with hope of eternal life (as they dream), so that even the whole world, which they despise so sacredly, could not create even royal children so great security and abundance of the world with such great honor and price. There you have the world despisers, according to name and appearance, but the lords of the world according to fact and truth! This is what a religious and a present maiden vows after the example of the holy virgin!

But if you deny or only doubt the article of faith that the nuns' magisters have raised (namely, that the holy virgin first took the vow of virginity), you would certainly become an arch-heretic of all heretics. But from what do they prove such an article? From the Gospel Luc. 2, where the virgin herself says: I know of no man. The "I do not know" 2c. means here after the gloss: I take it upon myself not to know about anyone. Afterwards, "I take it upon myself not to know" means according to the nuns' magisters: I have taken the vow of virginity, I will be a nun who despises the world, so that I may be an example of the nuns 2c. And there is no dispute at all here among the grammarians: Certain is the linguistic skill and good is the inference!

By the same conclusion it follows that Christ was a nonner and a model of all normers, because he can also say: I do not know about any woman, that is, I do not intend to know about any woman; this is just as much as: I have taken the vow of chastity (he could not take the vow of virginity because he was a man and not a virgin or a woman) and I want to be a nun who despises the world, so that I may be an example of the nuns.

But here arises the question: What order were the Holy Virgin and Christ 1) and what kind of dress and robe, and what kind of plate did they wear?

Here the magisters of the nuns are not yet unanimous, but Nicolaus of Lyra, Joh. 2, even probably says that Christ was from the Minorite order of St. Franciscus. He proves it thus: Christ (as the text says) made a scourge of ropes, that is, from the belt of the Order of the Minorites, because in another way it is not clear from where he could have taken ropes so quickly.

But the preachers Dominicans could also claim it for themselves and say: Christ preached throughout life, but whoever preaches is a preacher. But a preacher is of the Order of Preachers.

The Canonici regulares cannot claim him for their order, for they beget many children with strange wives, but Christ has been single and has begotten none.

From Lyra follows another question: whether Christ also sinned by thus cutting the religious belt and turning it into a scourge? for he seems to have offended such a holy order by changing the shape of the religious belt and dishonoring it by turning the most holy religious belt into an ugly scourge, as it were of a torturer or executioner's tool.

To this one can reply with these excellent and profound teachers: I do not get involved in such high and important questions, because without stopping, one always grows out of the other.

1. Here we have assumed tuerint and ^68tav6rint with the Jena edition instead of lusrit and A68tuv6rit in the Erlangen. -

658 a. vii, 32-34. I. Against Papal Errors in General. W. xix, 822-825. 659

It follows:

"Which the world despises" yes! still in addition: "also all the jewelry of the world" 2c. Because to despise the world is not enough, if one does not also despise all the ornaments of the world. Certainly quite eloquent and astute theologians, who make nothing else out of the contempt of the world than contempt of the jewelry of the world! Here again you have another article of the papist doctrine, namely, that to despise the world is as much as to go into a monastery and change the place according to the body. For they have spread this opinion throughout the whole church, that it is to despise the world to hide in a monastery; this they have believed, and under this pretense they have usurped the fortunes of the whole world. Bishops, priests and all those who govern churches do not despise the world, but these are all called secular priests.

But neither wood nor stones, although they are brought to the monastery and always remain in the buildings, enjoy this privilege that was said of them: They despise the world, although they too, in the same way as the monks and nuns, change the place according to the body, and are put from the forest into the monastery, and the nuns and nuns likewise, as wood and stones (on both sides are blocks and stones) move their body to another place, but it must be a rational being (animal), like man, of whom one could say: it despises the world.

Since, then, to despise the world in these excellent doctors does not mean to abandon the vices of the world, unbelief, self-reliance, ignorance and disobedience to God, evil desire, avarice, envy and other works of the devil, but rather to establish such monstrosities through a self-chosen order (reIigionsm). evil desire, avarice, envy and other works of the devil, but rather, through a self-chosen order (reIigionsm), set up such monstrosities, trample faith underfoot and maintain reliance on themselves, darken and defile the whole kingdom of Christ with their abominations (for these abominations reign in the orders, and if they did not reign, the orders could not exist, for that is why people fall into religious works, which they esteem equal to baptism, because they depart from trust in Christ),

So it happens that by the word "despise the world" nothing else can be understood than to despise marriage, the authorities, the offices of the church, because they monks and nuns bring with them and keep in the monastery the same vices, the same flesh, which they have had outside in other places.

Now behold the wisdom of this teaching, which is hidden in a great mystery. They do not despise the vices of the world, but the divine ordinances, as ruling churches, the marital state (even with the greatest danger for many) and the worldly rule, which God has ordered and commanded to be cultivated and honored: but they leave, flee and despise them and then boast that they bring forth a fruit that surpasses any kind of martyrdom.

Nevertheless, this pernicious beautiful appearance of having changed the place and having gone to a monastery has prevailed, so that it has been praised as "contempt of the world" and it has not been seen that this contempt has been quite actually a contempt of GOD and His orders and merely a love and honor of the world and the devil, the enemies of GOD and all their works.

But this blasphemy is much less, that they call "despising the world", which in fact is despising the household, the church and the authorities, namely God's works and commandments. This is much greater, that by entering the order they deny the faith of Christ and condemn the grace of their baptism, and do dishonor to the Holy Spirit. For they do not trust that they will be justified and saved by Christ or baptism, but by the vows and works of their order, and that so abundantly that they sell them to others, and want to make not only themselves but also others saved by them. Behold, this is despising the world. This abomination prevailed among them at that time, and they cannot deny it, and yet they do not recognize or repent of it. O on this accursed contempt of the world! With a greater profanation of God the world could not be honored and its prince, the devil, could not be worshipped than by the same.

The world jewelry but despise nothing can

660 D. V. a. VII, 34-36. 111. Examples of papal theology and doctrine. W. XIX,825-827. 661

Other than changing the shape of the girl's dress into the shape of the frock. For not all nuns have had golden crowns, purple gowns 1) and necklaces to leave before. But all of them change their maiden dress, which they wore with honor before God and men, into a habit.

What, then, do these hypocrites despise but a good and useful garment, which has been chastely and honorably made and worn, and in which, no doubt, they have done more and holier works, if they have lived chastely and obediently under their parents, than have ever been done and can be done in all cowls? And yet they have raised the bubble of this doctrine so high in the whole church as if it surpassed any kind of martyrdom. Here no bishop has watched, no teacher has cried out against these treacherous (perfidas) and abominable abominations, but all have become mad at the same time and have approved of these monstrosities, and still defend them with violence and fury.

It follows:

"She sacrifices herself to live eternally according to God's soul and body. For thus have these godless asses taught, and with this doctrine have destroyed Christ, and are still destroying him; yea, they blaspheme God in all their works and words. For they do not admit that one does service or favor to God in the magisterial office and in the household, except when one goes to the churches and hears mass with omission of public and domestic business, and prays the rosary without understanding, and what the magisters of the nuns should have commanded them. This is what this sermocinator says here: that a nun serves God eternally; namely, because a person in the government or in the household cannot serve God eternally or forever, because he deals with domestic and public business, by which one does not serve God, but the devil or the world.

1. rnurenutlM is not found in the dictionaries at our disposal. We suppose it is formed from niurex, the purple snail. The ending Ulla is the same as in ououUa.

A nun, however, always lives for God with body and soul, unless she is asleep or ill, as if nuns did not also have to do with domestic tasks, cooking, washing, sewing, spinning flax and wool, and definitely with the alignment of all female and domestic duties, even more than a woman, with the exception, of course, that they neither sleep with men nor give birth. Instead, however, they nourish other people's children, educate, train and govern them with greater effort and care than many mothers are used to doing.

In what way, then, are nuns different from wives, but precisely through marriage? And yet, nuns are to serve God eternally in soul and body, but wives are never to do so, except for the duties of their station. What is this but to condemn the duties of a wife as impure, and to blaspheme God, to whom these divine works belong, in His order? since the nuns also practice them so diligently, and Paul so often teaches that such works are pleasing to God, and that the woman will be blessed through childbearing. But that works are pleasing to God, what is that but that God is served thereby and is lived for eternity both in soul and body?

But this monkish abomination does not want to accept that, lest he lose the honor of his order. They prefer to trample underfoot the faith in Christ and teach that a nun without faith lives eternally in soul and body through her monastic clothing and service; but Sarah, Rebecca, Rachel, Hannah, Elizabeth and all other holy women who are full of faith and spirit do not serve God, but the world and the devil.

Behold, what a doctrine and opinion Satan has introduced into the church through such people. Do you not realize here that a wife among Christians, even if she is the lowest of all, if she is a believer, is better than the innumerable convents of all nuns, and all together are not worthy to put on the shoes of a single such woman, because of her blasphemous and unchurchlike order, or rather abomination against God and Christ?

Likewise, when one considers the occupations of the

662 L. v. a. vii, S6-S8. I. Against Papal Errors in General. W. xix, S27-SW. 663

Looking at monks, what worldly work is it that they do not do? Do they not have fields, vineyards, gardens, estates and livestock? do they not buy and sell? do they not have courts? and what shall I say? Even the secular government has nowhere more to create and care for than among the monks and bishops; the only exception is that they do not go into battle themselves, although instead of this service they maintain armies, assist the generals, admonish the men of war, even many among them today wage wars for themselves: and yet they serve God eternally with body and soul, The authorities, however, do not serve God, but the world, except when they murmur their prayers in church.

What is this but to condemn and blaspheme those divine offices of authority, which are instituted, ordered and commanded by God, which they themselves do diligently and not at all sleepily? so that one can see how these wondrous men reject the good works of God, merely because others also do the same, and praise them, because they would like to do them alone. For since they themselves do the works, and yet despise the states of them, it is evident that they condemn the persons of the states either out of hatred or out of envy, because they do not alone do all that others do.

With such blasphemies and wicked opinions they have so captured the souls of kings and princes that they have become completely despondent about their status and have thought that one who administers a magisterial office cannot be saved. And, frightened by such a devilish specter, almost all of them began to abandon their office or to entrust it to others, but even, as if they were monks, to pray constantly in the churches and to serve God.

But this neglect of official duties was not so great an evil as that, by this delusion of serving God, they themselves destroyed faith in Christ, and not only deterred the poor people from their professional works and duties, but also taught them to put their trust in such works as were not of their profession, and were quite properly twofold sins: a

Firstly, by disobeying God through neglect of their official works, and secondly, by serving God with other works, placing their trust in them and thus becoming true idolaters.

Behold, this has been the fruit of the doctrine taught in this sermon, namely, that the nuns serve God eternally in soul and body. With this horrible trouble, they have overthrown both the godliness of faith and the practices of the worldly authorities, both the kingdom of God outwardly and inwardly.

But this strengthened them most of all, that the kings and princes were imprisoned and deceived with these ungodly opinions, for by this art they acquired and subdued the world and all earthly glory, which they so sacredly despised. For since the kings and princes despaired of their station, what else could they do but obtain comfort through foreign service? And since the doctrine of the faith was unknown to them and was obscured and hidden by these pernicious magisters, they had no other duties left but those of nuns and nuns, through whose help they hoped to be saved.

In order to share them, they have increased them infinitely, built monasteries without end and measure, endowed and enriched them, so that they have filled the world with these dens of devils and devilesses, until they themselves the kings and princes have barely kept half of the goods and have squandered everything on such foreign, that is, godless and idolatrous pursuits. Such masters the world, ungrateful to Christ, has had to listen to and worship as the highest truth and godliness these and such sermons.

And where did they get these unholy teachings? Nowhere else than from St. Paul, who says in 1 Cor. 7:34, 33: "The woman cares for what belongs to the world, as she pleases the man. And the man cares for what belongs to the world, as he pleases the woman, and he is divided."

1. So it says in the wrong text of the Vulgate. Here we have followed the reading of the Erlangen edition.

664 L. v. a. vii, 38-40. 111. Examples of papal theology and doctrine. W. xix, 829-832. 665

From this is separated this: "The virgin cares for what belongs to God, that she may be holy in body and spirit."

This magister noster has this magisterial sermon on all these texts. There they understand Paul as if he condemns the marriage state as a worldly state, and therefore teach that married couples cannot serve God.

These stupid and sleepy readers bring this understanding from their brains into Paul, as they always do, although Paul does not condemn it, nor does he say that it is sinful to think of what belongs to the world and to please one's spouse; but he distinguishes and contrasts the different actions of virgins and wives, but in such a way that in both things the same God is served. For the service of the spouse is holy and pleasing to God, that he the spouse love his spouse and strive to please him. But this happens when he thinks of what belongs to the world, that is, caring for the house, ruling the family, feeding the children, working and doing other domestic works to feed and clothe the children, then also serving the fellow citizens and obeying the authorities. For this belongs to the world and is necessary in the world, and to take care of it is as much as to take care of it carefully and faithfully and really do it; this also pleases the man in the woman and the woman in the man.

But our asses understand "caring" in no other way than to be concerned either with chaste or unchaste thoughts, as when Paul spoke of the lust or carnality among married couples and of the chastity of the nuns, although he speaks of the duties, works, and complaints of marriage, by which they are distracted, so that they cannot always devote themselves to the one and best work, namely, the word of God, but are more often forced to turn to their duties. In this way, they are not always able to devote themselves to the one and best work, namely, the word of God, but are more often forced to turn to their own activities, in which they serve God just as well as in the service (officio) of the word.

But a virgin can always be (as he says soon after) in the service of the word, or (as Paul speaks) in the obedience of the Lord, as one who is exempt from the duties against

the husband, children, servants, house, field and other complaints is free.

Our magisterial asses, however, call this serving God, when one is intent on chastity, sings in the choir and murmurs prayers. For no one has been further removed from the service of the Word (that is, the true service of God) than the nuns and nuns, and subsequently (as I said) no one has been more deeply involved and more concerned with the care of what belongs to the world, with the exception of duties to spouses and children, than they. Everything else worldly, both in the domestic and in the governmental state, they have taken care of in such a way that they have given an example to the whole world to cultivate fields, to build, to feed themselves, to buy, to sell and to do all worldly works.

It follows:

"Yes, that which is most pleasing to GOD, namely virginity."

How surely this mouth of the devil speaks here that virginity is the most pleasant before all other obedience! And it would be tolerable if, in praising virginity, they used such a hyperbole or the highest degree (superlativo), if they only let it be a hyperbole and were satisfied that it was taken as a figurative speech. But now they have simply and earnestly taught so, and without exaggeration have preferred this virginity of ugly and corrupt flesh to faith and all the gifts of faith, and have thereby destroyed the godliness of pure and chaste faith, and put in its place the idol of virginity and many other things. For the great multitude of these poor maidens, deceived by this deceptive work of exaltation, believed that they were the highest miracle of the church, despising the faith and denying Christ. After all, virginity is exceedingly pleasing to God, but only in its rank and order, so that marriage also remains exceedingly pleasing to God. But nothing is more pleasant than pure faith in Christ, indeed, nothing is so pleasant.

ßßtz L. v. L. vii, 4^-42. I. Wider die Päbstlichen Irrthümer überhaupt. W. xix, M-W. 667

It follows:

"For GOD especially chooses virgins here and in the life to come."

For he is so eager for many brides that he cannot be satisfied even in the future life of the love of virgins! But this sermon is (as said) a pattern of papal teaching, therefore it smells in all its words of the wine of fornication in the golden cup of the purple whore, so that it the sermon alone may be called just that golden cup of fornication. God especially chooses the virgins. Here again, they do not let the word "special" be an exaggeration, but elevate virginity above faith and the whole spirit.

It follows:

"The state of virgins is the most excellent, since Christ and the Blessed Virgin led it."

Do you hear here that Christ and Mary held nothing more excellent than virginity? Perhaps Mary lied when she said Luc. 1, 48: "He looked upon the lowliness of His handmaid", while she should have said: He looked upon the more excellent virginity!

Likewise, "the most ludicrous, because there is greater victory and > harder struggle."

They get this word from Augustine, who says: "Among the struggles of Christians, the struggle of chastity is harder than others, for there is daily struggle and rarely victory.

He himself may answer for what he has said! Perhaps he wanted to say "harder", that is, more persistent and protracted, as one can see from the word "daily struggle". But he does not say: greater victory; as this mouth of the devil does.

For the struggle for faith is harder than all others, as can be seen in Jacob, David and others. And if Augustine did not experience this, his words can be easily forgiven, because he spoke them from an honest and sincere heart, but not so that they should become a doctrine of faith or report the consciences. Furthermore, the victory of faith overcomes death, sin, hell, the devil and the world. Yes, if faith is not there, virginity becomes shameful.

(vincitur) and becomes fornication and all kinds of impurity.

Likewise, "the most beneficial state, because it obtains fruit a > hundredfold."

These unclean beasts eat up everything they read in the fathers without judgment, and then spit it out again as rules of faith (decretis). St. Gregory erred here, and twisted this Gospel passage of the various fruits of the word to the fruits of works, or rather of rewards. Thus it happened that his distortion was sung, read, and praised in the whole church, with exceedingly great applause, to no small annoyance and harm to the faith and the faithful. For through this false interpretation, these aversions of the monasteries have been strengthened and the faith in Christ has been darkened.

The hundredfold fruit, then, is that the gospel sown or preached works more through one than the other, one also receiving more gifts of faith than the other. Thus Paul has a hundredfold fruit when compared with the other apostles, for he labored and preached more widely than they. Augustine has a hundredfold fruit before many bishops 2c. So Christ does not speak here of the reward, but of the fruit of the word.

It follows:

"And is honored in heaven with the company of angels, with peculiar joy, with Christ's likeness. For the virgins follow the Lamb wherever he goes."

All this is said by the virgins in such a way as if all other saints were excluded. But (as I said) this sermon had to become a perfect pattern of their teaching and wisdom. He has already repeated so many times that Christ was also a virgin, and that the virgins were like him before all the saints. Thus he tickles the hope of the dead flesh to despise all the saints, and to admire only his virginity, to the shame and blasphemy of the faith and of Christ.

But what shall we say to this, that the virgins who follow the Lamb, men

668 L. V. E. VII, 42 f. 111. examples of papal theology and doctrine. W. XIX, 835-837. 669

are not women? For Revelation 14:4 says of them, "These are they who are not defiled with women, for they are virgins" 2c. But how can women be defiled with women? But those who read the whole Scripture carelessly and above, how could they pay attention to this passage, since they slumber in much lighter ones, and invent their dreams?

Therefore, these virgins are the Christians in the virginity of faith, who despise the fornications of idols and the teachings of the purple whore, and follow only Christ and his pure words. Or if we want to understand the defilement in a carnal way, it means those who despise the shameful and quite impure celibate state of the papists, and adorn the faith of Christ by a pure marriage; as we see happening today.

But how pontifically he cites the word of Wisdom Cap. 7, 9.: "All gold is as small sand against it", and the saying Sir. 26, 20.: "There is nothing more delicious than a chaste soul"!

The Scriptures must tell them in all places what they will, and they play at it according to their pleasure: but alas! too serious a game to the ruin of the faith, and to the dishonor of Christ, and to the overthrow of the church, which they oppress by these pernicious doctrines.

But it may be enough to have indicated the monstrosities brought together in this sermon. The faithful will not find a word in it that does not elevate virginity, sacrificed by free will, above faith, that is, that does not blaspheme Christ and his church, or, as Revelation says, God and his tabernacle. And these are the very names of the blasphemies of which that red beast with ten horns is full. Let Christ destroy it with the appearance of His future! To Him be glory and praise for all eternity! Amen.

1. This figure is in the Jena edition, but not in the 1531 edition.

II Luther's steps concerning the person, the office and the painting of the pope and the bishops.

*112. Dr. Martin Luther's writing "against the false-named spiritual state of the pope and the bishops".. )

Probably in July 1522.

JEsus.

Martinus Luther, by the grace of God, Ecclesiastes at Wittenberg, the > papal bishops my service, and their own knowledge in Christ.

1. whether I am perhaps considered a fool before you, dear sirs, for such a high

For the sake of my laborious title, that I call myself an "Ecclesiastes by the grace of God", you should know that I am not surprised. You revile, blaspheme, condemn, persecute, and burn me, probably for the sake of higher and nobler things, as a heretic, and do as you will, according to your idol's pleasure,

*) Under the title we have placed above it, four individual editions appeared in 1522; one by Nickel Schirlentz at Wittenberg, the other three without indication of place and printer. One of the latter has the city's coat of arms

670 Erl. 28, 14S-144. II. writings concerning the person 2c. of the pope. W. xix, 337-839. 671

and have the virtue of God's disgrace in you: you do not want to hear, you do not want to answer, but, like the stubborn Jews, you condemn me unheard, unrecognized, unconquered, with your head through, freely, and you are not yet ashamed that you so often let a man rightly defy you.

(2) Well then, since it is a matter of lifting up the horns and driving with loud force, I must also put on my horns and dare my head for my Lord. To accept this, I call myself an ecclesiastical scholar, by the grace of God, whom you call a heretic with barrels full of 1) blasphemous words, in defiance of you and the devil. And whether I call myself an evangelist by the grace of God, I would rather prove the same than your one could prove his episcopal title or name, I am sure that Christ himself calls me so and considers me so, who is the master of my doctrine and will also be a witness at the last day that it is not my but his pure gospel. So that your raving and blustering shall not help you, but the more you rage and bluster, the more arrogant we want to be towards you, with God's help, and to despise your disgrace. And even if you take my life, as you are murderers, you shall not destroy my name or my teaching. For you will also have to die in the end, and put an end to murder.

How I am now deprived of my titles by papal and imperial disgrace, and the character of the beast is washed away from me with so many bulls that I must never be called Doctor of the Holy Scriptures, nor anything of papal creature; that I am almost as frightened as when the donkey's sack falls off. For such larva has been my highest shame before God; and I also once in error (which I learned from your bunch

1. "Fuder voll" is missing in the Wittenberger.
2. i.e. being ungracious.

with great food and toil) was a liar, deceiver, seducer and blasphemer, as you are now, against God's pure teaching. But since the Father of all mercy did not regard such my sinfulness and blasphemy and all kinds of sinful evil life, but let me know his Son Jesus Christ out of the abysmal riches of his grace and also let me teach others, until we have become certain of his truth, I truly must not be without title and name, so that I may fairly praise the word, office and work that I have from God, which you blind blasphemers desecrate and persecute so exceedingly. I hope that my praise will overcome your desecration, just as my right overcomes your wrong. Whether you lie for a moment with iniquity above, there is nothing in it.

4. Therefore I hereby let you know that I will no longer do you honor, that I will refrain from judging or interrogating you, or even an angel from heaven, about my teaching: for enough of foolish humility has now happened the third time at Worms, and yet nothing has helped; but I will let myself be heard and, as St. Peter teaches 1 Ep. 3, 15, 16, prove the cause and reason of my teaching before all the world and have it unjudged by everyone, even by all angels. Peter 1 Ep. 3:15, 16, prove the cause and reason of my 4) teaching before all the world, and have it unjudged by everyone, even by all the angels. For since I am sure of it, I will be your judge through it, and also the judge of the angels (as St. Paul says, Gal. 1, 8.), that whoever does not accept my teaching may not be saved. For it is God's, and not
5. i.e. to lower oneself under something.
6. Marginal gloss of the Jena edition: "There in Luther's letter to the Elector Frederick of March 5, 1522. Walch, old edition, Vol. XV, 2379, ß 5 the dear man of God thus says that he has the gospel not from men, but from heaven alone, through our Lord Jesus Christ. Here he speaks further (which is a strong addition): I will have my doctrine unjudged by anyone, also by all angels, yes, I will be your judge by it (of the pope, all his spirit and followers), also of the angels, that whoever does not accept my doctrine, that he may not be saved 2c.

Wittenberg on the title page, another the closer time determination: in the autumn month (i.e. September). In the collections: in the Wittenberg (1554), vol. VII, p. 329b; in the Jena (1585), vol. II, p. 106; in the Altenburg, vol. II, p.. 161; in the Leipzig, vol. XVIII, p. 27 and in the Erlangen, vol. 28, p. 141. The timing is according to Luther's letter to Spalatin of July 26, 1522, Walch, old edition, vol. XV, appendix, no. 92. We give the text according to the Jena edition, comparing the Wittenberg.

672 Eri. 28, 144-146. 112 Against the false spiritual state of the Pabst re. W. XIX, 83S-841. 673

mine, therefore my judgment is also God's, and not mine.

Finally, my lords, this is the decision: If I live, you shall have no peace before me; if you kill me, you shall have ten times more peace, and I will be to you as Hosea 13:8 says: A bear by the way, and a lion in the street. As ye ride with me, ye shall not have your will, till your iron forehead and your brazen neck be broken, either with grace or with disgrace. If you do not mend your ways as I would like, let it remain that you are hostilely angry, and I will give nothing in return. God grant that you may recognize yourselves. Amen.

^1)^ (6) Lest some well-meaning hearts think that I am doing too much by touching the great lords, and, as the tyrants themselves interpret it, that it might cause uproar and indignation, I must first present the reason and cause, proving in writing that it is not only just but also necessary to punish the high chiefs.

(7) In his unspiritual law, the pope has indeed forbidden that prelates should not be punished: the dear noblemen and painted bishops rely on this, do not study, cannot do anything, do not do any episcopal work, are thus set to quiet rest and good days; nevertheless, they go about as if they were bishops, if they are nothing but carnival larvae and cleaners 2), corrupting the whole world under the episcopal name. But what God says about it, we want to hear.

8. Ezekiel 33:7, 8, 9: "Son of man, I have made you a watchman over the house of Israel. And thou shalt hear what I say unto thee, and shalt declare these things of me unto them. If I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; and thou shalt not declare it unto him, nor tell him, that he may turn from his wicked way, and live; then that wicked man shall surely die in his sins; but his blood will I require of thee. But if you tell him, and he does not turn from his sins or from his wicked ways, he will die in his sins.

1. Here, the Jena edition has the superscription that we have omitted: Preface.
2. Cleaning - scarecrows.

he will die in his sins; but you have redeemed your soul."

(9) Tell me, is not this a strict commandment from the high Majesty, that a preacher, for the salvation of his soul, should punish the ungodly? for he speaks here of public punishment, because he commands him a ministry to preach his word. And why does he give it so harshly? No doubt because the preacher, if he remains silent, sins against love in the highest way, and does not respect his neighbor's salvation, the greatest good, to whom he also owes clothing and food, the least good. But he says that he should hear the word of God, not keep his own word. Now we have no word but the Scriptures; therefore all the wicked are to be punished with them. It is of no use to say that this saying does not refer to prelates, but to the wicked in general 2c. For this is the reason why it must also be understood of the prelates, since it does not express a person, but rather calls the wicked in general, whether he be great or small, and however he may be. For God's word does not look at a person. It is above all persons and applies to everyone. Even so Ezekiel, though of low estate, was sent to preach to all the people of Israel, among whom were princes, priests, and great men. Ezek. 22. in full.

10. Micah 6:1, 2 says: "Hear what God says: Arise and be right with the mountains, and let the hills hear your voice, so that the mountains may hear the judgment of God, and the strong foundations of the earth. For GOD has to judge with His people, and to punish Israel" 2c. Who are the mountains, hills, and strong grounds of the earth to preach to, as He commands here? Here he does not command the people, but the chiefs to proclaim God's judgment and punishment.

(11) And finally, all the prophets' sermons have gone mostly against the high chiefs, as the kings, princes, priests, scholars and rulers of the people, as this makes all the prophets' writings superfluous, so that God also said to Jeremiah Jer. 1:10, "Behold, I set thee this day over the land and over the people." Item v. 18, 19: "I have set thee this day for a strong city, for a pillar of iron,

674 Erl. 28, 146-148. ii. writings concerning the person 2c. of the pope. W. ^1X, 841-843. 675

a wall of brass over all the land, against the kings of Judah, against the princes, against the priests, against the people. And they shall fight against thee; but they shall not overcome thee: for I am with thee, and will deliver thee, saith GOD." Now Jeremiah was far among the kings, princes and priests, a small person, from the little city of Anathoth. Nor did he have to preach and chastise God's word over and against all the high 1) places.

12 Third, Christ in the Gospel was a lowly, lowly person, in no high estate or government. But with whom does he judge? whom does he punish, but only the chief priests, the scribes, the spiritual misfits, and what was high? In this way he has given an example to all preachers, that they should only confidently touch the great heads, since the people's destruction and salvation lies most in the heads. Why then should we follow the foolish Pabst's law against Christ and all the prophets' examples, and not punish the great men and spiritual tyrants? and what good would it do to let the heads go and punish only the people? one could never throw out so much with good doctrine as throw in the evil heads with false doctrine. And would it be as Sirach 2) says Cap. 34, 28.: "If one builds and the other breaks, what profit is there but vain labor?" Now if one is to build the people, one must first resist the shameful heads and destroyers.

Therefore we are to hold fast the free teaching of St. Paul, 1 Tim. 5:20, where he says: "Those who sin you must punish publicly before everyone, so that others may have fear. Here St. Paul does not exclude anyone,

1. According to the variant given by the Erlangen edition, Walch is said to have inserted "hohen", while it, which supposedly follows the Wittenberg edition, has omitted this word. Both editions, the Wittenberg and the Jena, have this word.
2. In the old editions: "as Salomon says Ecclesi." The Jena one has as marginal gloss "Sprach 35". Here again is one of the many places in Luther's writings where Ecclesiastieus i.e. Sirach and Ecctesia- stes i.e. Ecclesiastes Solomon are confused with each other. Luther will hardly have written "Salomon", but a foreign hand has corrigued it to him.

neither high nor low. And although he says that, 3) against a presbyterum (that is, an old man, who also ruled in the churches at that time) you shall not take up complaint without two or three witnesses, he did not thereby abolish the punishment, but confirmed it. For, according to the same conviction, 4) this text follows and says v. 20., "Those who sin, you shall punish publicly before everyone." But our Junkers in their spiritual injustice have interpreted this little word Presbyterum to mean the priests, themselves; so St. Paul says of the old men, they shall not be lightly accused. And also Cap. 5, 1. says: "Do not reproach an old man, but plead as a father." Here St. Paul does not speak of the bishops and priests, who are now commonly young people, not without great destruction of Christianity, 5) but of the old men, who are to be held in honor; and if they would do something wrong, they are to be pleaded with, and not bitten, so that they stand down.

(14) Therefore we shall punish the bishops and spiritual high places more severely and more severely than the worldly high places, for two reasons. The first, that the spiritual highness does not come from God: for God does not know the larval people and Niclas bishops 6); for they do not teach, nor do they hold any episcopal office. Neither are they of human origin: they have raised themselves up and placed themselves in such rule against God and man; as is the way of tyrants, who rule only out of God's wrath. Worldly power is from God's gracious order to oppress the wicked and protect the pious, Rom. 13, 4.

The other cause is that the secular government, though it does violence and injustice,

3. Here we have followed the jnterpunction of the Wittenberg edition.
4. i.e. transfer of the same by witnesses.
5. Thus the Wittenberg and Jena editions. Erlanger: Christen.
6. Niclas bishops - play bishops. This means something similar to the boy bishops who were dressed in episcopal costume and held in high honor at the school festival held on Gregory's Day (March 12). Cf. Walch, St. Louis Edition, Vol. XXII, 1942, No. 1241. In § 19 of this writing it is rendered in the same connection with "larvae" by "child bishops".

676 Erl. 28, 148-150. 112. Wider d. falschgen. geistl. Stand d. Pabsts 2c. W. XIX, 843-846. 677

only harms the body and goods 1); but spiritual height, where it is not holy and drives God's word, they are wolves and soul murderers, applies as much as if the devil himself sat there and ruled. Therefore, beware no less of the bishop who does not teach the Word of God than of the devil himself. For where there is no word of God, there is certainly only vain doctrine of the devil and murder of souls; for without the word of God the soul cannot live, nor can it be delivered from the devil.

(16) But they say that it is to be feared a rebellion against the spiritual authorities. Answer: Shall God's word therefore remain and destroy all the world? Is it right that all souls should be eternally murdered, so that these larvae may remain calm? It would be better for all bishops to be murdered, all monasteries and convents to be uprooted, than for one soul to perish, let alone for all souls to be lost for the sake of useless pots and idols. What are they good for, but to live in pleasure, from the sweat and labor, and hinder God's word? they fear physical turmoil and despise spiritual destruction. Are they not wise and honest people? If they would take up the word of God and seek the life of souls, God would be with them, who is a God of peace, and they would not fear any outrage. But if they do not want to listen to God's word, but rage and rage with banishing, burning, killing and all evil, what is cheaper for them than a strong rebellion that would cut them off from the world? and that would only be laughable if it happened, as the divine wisdom says, Proverbs 1, 25. 26. 2): "Ye have hated my punishment, and promised my doctrine: I will also laugh at your destruction, and mock you, when calamity falleth upon your neck."

17. the word of god does not cause rebellion, but the stubborn disobedient who rebels against it; let his merit also be done to him.

1. "und Gut" is missing in the Erlangen edition, but is found in the Wittenberg and Jena editions.
2. Here, the Erlangen edition has again reprinted from Walch the wrong citation 1, 24. 26. But, one would like to object at this point, the Erlangen edition does not offer "24. 26." but "24. 25."; it is therefore not reprinted from Walch. Answer: The number "6" is defective in Walch's edition and read in "5".

And he who receives God's word does not raise a ruckus, whether he no longer fears the larvae nor worships the potatoes, lets them go and waits for his own. Which also the dear larvae fear the most, who have let themselves be feared and worshipped until now, as if they were bishops and spiritual rulers. But he who starts a ruckus misuses God's word for his own will. Christ's word does not storm anyone bodily, but it proclaims storm bodily to tyrants, and gently loosens the souls from their bonds, so that they are despised: which is the very best storming. For that which is despised may not much tempest, and can never contain itself, as Ps. 10:15 says, "O Lord, break the power of the wicked." With what? "Only seek out his wickedness, and he will never be there." The people of the larvae must not be disturbed in any other way than that they are uncovered and recognize that they are larvae, as soon as everyone is hostile to them, and they are abandoned.

18 Take an example: in ancient times, the bishop's hat was a sacred and certain sign. The two tops signify the two Testaments, Old and New, which a bishop wore on the head of his soul, that is, in his mind, and was learned in the Scriptures, as St. Paul, Titus 1:9, teaches. The two ribbons hanging freely on his back signify his preaching ministry; in this he let the same Scriptures, New and Old Testament, go freely to the people and taught them to follow him, he went ahead with his life.

(19) Now when a bishop puts on his hat, what does it mean? Some think that the two points mean that he should know the Scriptures of both Testaments; but the two bands mean that he neither knows nor wants to know any of them. 3) The two points mean that he should know the Scriptures of both Testaments. For the highest virtue of the present bishops and cardinals is almost that they are chosen unlearned heads, and it has become a disgrace that a bishop should study the Bible. Why should a prince study that 4) breaks the head? Are not otherwise terminaries 5)

3. Thus the Wittenberg and Jena editions; "cheap" is missing in the Erlangen edition.
4. Wittenberg and Erlanger: that he.
5. d. i. Terminirer - mendicant monks.

678 Erl. SS, IÜ0-152. II. writings concerning the person re. the pope. W. XIX, 846-848. 679

But what are they but mere larvae and child bishops? without being able to sprinkle and incense stone and wood (praise to God), one wood to another and one stone to another; just as if they wanted to consecrate a church and altar to God. Where else would God dwell, or where would he remain before the devil, if the holy bishops did not sprinkle and incense the stones? So it is also in Shrovetide that one is a king, and yet remains no more than a peasant.

20 But how a right bishop should be formed is described by St. Paul in 1 Timothy 3:1-6: "It is true that whoever desires a bishopric seeks a good work. But a bishop must be a blameless man, having only one wife, honest, sedate, chaste, fond of lodging, fond of preaching, not a winebibber, not a wicked man, not addicted to shameful 1) pleasures, but every man even, unquestioning, not stingy, who presides well over his own house, and that his children be obedient with all courage. For if someone does not know how to take care of his own house, how can he take care of God's church or community? Neither should he be a newcomer, lest he become puffed up and fall into the judgment of the blasphemer. He must also have a good reputation among the unbelievers, lest he fall into ridicule and into the snare of the blasphemer."

(21) Behold, whether it be not a good work to be a bishop, wherein are so many noble virtues? St. Paul does not want him to be a newcomer who has recently come to the faith or is young in the faith, lest the blasphemer have good reason and cause to judge and say, Behold, how they have set a fool over the eggs! but should be a tried man of valor, that the blasphemer may be ashamed to speak evil of him. He must also be praised and held in honor by the unbelievers; otherwise he is a mockery to them and immediately caught in a rope, so that he cannot say anything about it if something dishonest is brought to his attention, which would be dishonest to the whole collection and annoying to the unbelievers. For at that time

1. Erlanger: scheulichs.

The Christians were mixed with the unbelievers; therefore, all their conduct had to be public, better, praiseworthy and blameless.

22. item, Tit. 1, 5-9: "Therefore I have left you in Crete, that you should continue to set right what I had left, and that you should set in order what is old.

in every city, one who is a blameless man and has only one wife and children who believe, not in the evil cry of gluttony or disobedience. For a bishop must be blameless, like a steward or servant of God, who does not think much of himself, is not angry, not a winebibber, not a reprobate, not addicted to shameful pleasures, but gladly lodging, kind, chaste, righteous, spiritual, chaste, hanging on the true word that may teach, that he may be mighty to exhort in sound doctrine, and to punish the gainsayers."

(23) Behold, these are the forms and shapes of Christian bishops, of which there shall be one in every city or parish. But what should such a form be now? The papal bishops have more noble forms, which cost less effort. What are they? Namely, to know nothing, to shun marital status, and in exchange, as much as they desire, to have fences, to have a silver staff 2) carried, to put on a delicious hat, to have a large plate, to grasp many cities and lands in the district, to ride pretty stallions, to hold princely courts, to nourish officiales, that is, Leutschinders, to murder souls with banishments and tyrannies, and so on, I don't want to forget, painting and stitching the shield at all "oerter" with sticks and crosses, wearing delicious thimbles and gloves, sprinkling the stones and wood at churches with holy water, firming the children, and slapping the fathers kindly on the cheeks, if they are otherwise pretty smooth butchers, but without frivolity, so that not everyone laughs. And of these delicate forms much more, which St. Paul at all times forgot or did not know, and have been necessary to invent through the most holy father Pabst. O idola, terrae, et larvae mundi!

24. again, St. Paul did not ver-

2. "lassen" is missing in the Wittenberg and Erlanger.

680 Erl. 28, 152-154. 112 Against the false spiritual state of Pabst 2c. W. XIL. S48-8S1. 681

He says in 2 Tim. 3:1-5: "Know that in the last days there will be perilous times, for there will be people who think highly of themselves, who are proud, hopeful, blasphemous, disobedient to parents, unspiritual. For there shall be men that think much of themselves, covetous, haughty, hopeful, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unspiritual, taking heed to no man, disobedient, abusers, unchaste, having no pleasure in any good thing, traitors, iniquitous, puffed up, blind, lovers of pleasure more than lovers of God; having a semblance of a godly life, but denying his power; these shalt thou avoid" 2c. See, this is called our bishops and spiritual nobles quite contrafeiet.

25 St. Peter, 2 Ep. 2, 1-3, also paints them diligently and says: "There were also false prophets among the people before. So shall there be false teachers among you, who shall bring in corrupt sects and classes, and shall deny the Lord that bought them. They will quickly bring destruction upon themselves. And many will follow their destruction, and the way of truth will be blasphemed by them, and out of covetousness they will market around you with fictitious words."

These words may not be understood by the bishops and spiritual rulers of the people. Thus we see how, in addition to the teachings of Christ, they have established and brought into the world human doctrines, sects, orders, and all sorts of estates, all of which pretend to live by special works and ways out of the common way of Christian faith. In this way they deny Christ who bought us, for they teach that we can be saved by works, when Christ alone bought our salvation by his blood. For this reason they also blaspheme and malign this way of truth, not wanting to suffer that what they do is wrong and that Christ alone is our salvation. We also see how they, full of avarice, direct all preaching and teaching so that one gives only to them, builds churches and monasteries, and lets them be rich and have enough. These are the false imaginary words, so that they give the appearance of a good life.

and yet deny the foundation of the truth: there every man surrenders, as unto them that lead and teach a good spiritual life; but it is all appearance and vain unbelief, so that St. Peter saith, "Many follow after their destruction."

27 St. Peter continues vv. 3-10: "Their judgment is not delayed, and their condemnation does not sleep. For God did not spare the angels, but when they transgressed, he bound them with chains of darkness to hell, and caused them to be kept for the last judgment; and the whole world, when it was new, he spared not; but preserved Noah, the preacher of righteousness, even the eighth, and brought upon the rest of the wicked throughout the world the flood of sin. And the cities of Sodoma and Gomorrah he reduced to ashes, sinking and condemning, so that he made an image of all the wicked to come. And he redeemed the righteous Lot from the shameful nature of the immoral ones; for he dwelt among them justified, and had to see and hear that they tormented his righteous soul more and more every day with their evil works. Thus, God can deliver the godly from torment and keep the unrighteous for judgment at the last day. But much more these who follow the flesh, and walk in the lusts of uncleanness, and despise the rulers, and are thirsty, and think much of themselves, and fear not the majesties to abuse them. " 1)

(28) Three dreadful examples with strong words he sets before these tyrants, of the angels, of the world, of Sodoma. But it does not help: our nobles do not believe that it is said by them; they read it and do not hear it either. But behold, how he agrees with St. Paul, since 2) he describes their unchaste, impure, free life and says: "They are thirsty and wicked, think much of themselves, so much so that they also despise, even malign, the worldly rulers and all that is high and majestic on earth." For the pope has long since sub-

1. i.e., to blaspheme. Cf. Walch, St. Louis Edition, Vol. XVIII, 968.
2. in the editions: "that". The reading we have given is a conjecture of the Jena edition.

682 Erl. 28, 154-15S. II. writings concerning the person 2c. of the pope. W. XIX, 851-853. 683

To trample kings and princes underfoot, to depose, to banish, to ensnare them into the fourth, into the ninth generation, 2c., and to exercise all his thorny will on them, as if they were swine or dogs; yet the Scripture wills that all men be subject to them, that they be honored and honored, that they be prayed for, for the sake of peace in this life, because they are appointed to serve God's order with the sword.

29 Now one finds timid kings and princes, who fear such malediction and let themselves be blessed by the pope, so that his thirsty will, of which St. Peter says here, becomes strong and deceives all the world. For this purpose the bishops and all clergymen help; and are the right Contemtores dominationis et blasphematores Majestatum, who do not want to be subject to any sovereignty, neither with body nor with goods; but are thirsty, sacrilegious and foolhardy to malign and banish all majesties. Tell me, has not St. Peter here rightly trophied our nobles? Of whom in all the world can it be understood that they are not subject to sovereigns, that they malign kings and princes, and that they fear no one in a foolish, outrageous, and foolhardy way? Does not all the world see who they are who do this?

30 Further St. Peter speaks v. 11-14: "And the angels, though they are stronger and mightier, yet may not bear the judgment of God which is against them, and they pervert the same. But these are like the unreasoning beasts, which are naturally born to see and strangle, perverting the things which they understand not, and perishing because of their corrupt nature, and so receiving the reward of iniquity. They think it is well done that they have good days this time. They are only disgrace and blemish in the world, and in their prosperity they splurge on your goods; they have full eyes of the adulteress, and there is no punishment nor cessation of their sin. Thus they provoke the fickle souls, and have a heart cunning and exercised in avarice."

Behold, how hot and fierce is St. Peter. Dear, who are those who live off other people's goods? Who are they that think it is enough that they have good days?

Who are they who live there, as the unreasonable animals? Who are they whom no one may punish, no one may defend against them? [May the text also contain glosses? Do they not know that bishoprics, monasteries, convents, high schools are vain lard pits, in which princes and all the world's goods gather, and they have nothing of their own goods? they do not mean otherwise than that they are the noblest jewels of Christendom; and St. Peter calls them labes et maculas, shame and blemish.

They malign and condemn the truth, which they do not recognize. That makes them drowned in their essence, quite animalistic, sensual, animalistic people who have never tasted spirit. They still provoke the unstable souls, because they all want to become bishops, priests and monks, almost what is best among boys; they are also drawn to it, but not for the sake of God, but so that they are provided for, live well in other people's estates and have good days, are not allowed to feed themselves by their own efforts and eat their bread in the sweat of their brow, as all men are obliged to do, Genesis 3:19.

But how they have a cunning heart in avarice, everyone understands well; because it is no ceasing to devise little funds, so that they snatch all the world's goods to themselves. They also need God, sacrament, mass and all spiritual things, without what they bring to themselves with false usury, lies and deceit.

But what may be the full eyes of the adulteress? Without a doubt, a bold, brazenly smoky life. Just as a bold adulteress opens her eyes, and with full eyes casts about to be ready for any man: so this also is like an adulteress, a bold people for unchastity, in which they live free, unpunished and safe.

35. further he speaks v. 14-I7.: "They are children of malediction, leaving the right way and going astray, following the 1) ways of Balaam of Bosor, who has the reward of the un-

1. Wittenberg edition: "demWegen." The Erlangen edition reprinted this misprint, but notes Walch's misprint "rechten Wegen," which was prompted by the preceding "right way," as a variant.

684 Erl. SS, 156-158. 112 Against the false spiritual state of Pabst 2c. W. XIX, 853-856. 685

He loved righteousness, but was punished for his transgression, for the dumb beast of the lower parts spoke with the voice of man and forbade the prophet's foolishness. These are fountains without water, clouds that the wind weaves to and fro, to which darkness is reserved for eternity.

(36) As Balaam was punished by the ass, so now we see that avarice reigns so brazenly among them that the common man also makes a proverb out of it, and there is no one who does not speak evil. But how cruelly hard is it that he calls them children of malediction? Who would be so bold as to call the pope and the bishops with their bunch a maledict people? Peter, yes, the Holy Spirit through St. Peter, maledicted them. Who should not suffer and fear that he has ever become spiritual, in these maledict times? O flee only spiritual state, who can flee, in these times!

37 He also gives the bishops their proper titles. What is a fountain without water, and clouds without rain, but a bishop without preaching? He is in the ministry of preaching, and does not do it; like a fountain in the place of the fountain, and gives nothing; and clouds, which only flee driven by the whirl of the wind, are instead of the raining 1) clouds above under the sky, but they give no drop. So our bishops float up instead of the apostles, but they let themselves be woven according to all the will of the devil, in lust and honor of this world, but preach nothing and are of no use to anyone. That is why the hellish darkness is eternally reserved for them.

38 If you say, "How can they be called fountains without water and clouds without rain, when they preach the whole world full and pretend to great things?" St. Peter answers and confesses that they unfortunately preach too much, and continues v. 18 and 19: "They preach great things, when there is nothing behind them, and thereby incite the desires of the flesh and fornication, who before escaped rightly and now have to live in error, promising them freedom, when they themselves are servants of madness.

1. Thus set by us. In the Wittenberg and Jena editions: "Regenten wolcken." Erlanger: "regenden."

39 Here he gives the reason why he compares them to Balaam, and describes the nature of their teaching; therefore we must consider it correctly. Moses writes 4 Mos. 24, 13. 14. and Cap. 31, 16, that Balaam gave evil counsel to Balak the king, how he should cause the people of Israel to sin, and thereby arouse the wrath of God against them, that he should destroy them, because he would not destroy them, nor overcome them by force. Balak did this and set up the idol Baal Peor next to the people of Israel, with beautiful wives; they drew the children of Israel to them and sacrificed to the idol, ate and drank and sinned with them Num. 25:2. Then God was angry and hanged all the princes of the people on the light gallows, and slew four and twenty thousand men. 2) Balaam the great prophet, who had preached so many wonderful things before, took money for them from Balak the king. Since all this points St. Peter to our bishops, let us seek the same interpretation.

The scripture does not explain what kind of idol Baal Peor was, although something similar is mentioned in Ezek. 23, 20. of the unsatiable unchastity of the spiritual adulteress, when he punishes her for having desired the likeness of asses and horses. The teachers, however, say that it was Priapus; I would much rather remain silent about this for the sake of the chastened ears, if St. Peter's word did not compel me to paint her virtue in honor of our spiritual nobles. Therefore, to recognize the terrible wrath of God and the wickedness of the devil, I ask all chastened ears to forgive me for speaking a little of it, so that we may see what misery, misery and blindness human nature does when it is left to itself.

41 Priapus was an image of a naked youth, prepared with bare shame in the most crude, shameful and lewd way, as if he were a god of unchastity. And St. Augustine writes De civitate Dei that, among other things, his worship was that the most respectable matron in the city had to put a wreath on such an image of abomination and fornication.

2. He - Lord, used in this form as an honorific title of the clergy. This word is missing in the Wittenberg and Erlangen editions.

686 Erl. 28, 158-180. II. writings concerning the person 2c. of the pope. W. XIX, 856-8S8. 687

and just as brides are led to the church beforehand, so all brides had to sit down on this shameful fornication beforehand. There you see what God's wrath and human blindness does, that nothing so shameful can be conceived that cannot be persuaded of men, if only the most blessed name of God is attached to it. Is it not a wretched thing that the most blessed name of God should be assigned to such an inhuman abomination, and that so many souls should be deceived by it? God is silent about it and thus blasphemes His name, so that the ungrateful of His grace and goodness may be rewarded with such seduction as they deserve.

(42) So do we; everything that the wretched pope and the children of malediction, our bishops, only think up and present, we have seen and fall for; think it is enough when they hang God's name on it and say: It is good, divine, holy, blessed, Christian thing, plump like the mad cattle; do not think first whether it is also commanded in the Scripture of God. Then the proverb becomes true: "In God's name all misfortune arises. He has forbidden us in many ways not to accept everything that comes in His name, and says, especially of the pope and our bishops, Matt. 24:5: "Many will come in My name and say, 'I am Christ,' and will deceive many. That is why he so strictly commanded us not to use his name uselessly, and to teach us to pray: "Hallowed be thy name," so that the divine name may remain holy, and only be attached to things that are truly divine, so that we may not be deceived by God's name, but be kept.

43. that by this all is meant the miserable plague of the doctrine of men, so that God now plagues the world by pope and bishops, is indicated by the first Moses, when he commanded 5 Mos. 4, 2: they should neither add to nor subtract from his commandments, but keep them; follow 1) as soon as this, and speak [v. 3.

1. In the Jena edition: "folget er"; "er" is missing in the Wittenberg and Erlangen editions. We have followed the latter reading because it cannot be proven that "folgen" occurs in the meaning of "anfügen".

Your eyes have seen what God has done to Baal Peor, and how he has destroyed all who served him" 2c. Why should Moses set the Baal Peor as an example, that they do not reject nor obey God's commandments, because he wanted to testify that human teachings are this idol? The doctrines of men always disobey God's commandment, and add to it their own commandment.

(44) Just as the pope has taken away all of God's commandments and added his own. For, as we have heard, the papists teach that it is not necessary to love God with all one's heart; thus the first commandment is taken away. Item, faith is not enough for justification, but works make blessed; with this lies the other and third. They teach children to be disobedient to their parents as they are, as it was said above; this is the fourth commandment. They teach that it is not necessary to love the enemy; thus they teach to keep anger, contrary to the fifth commandment. He has innumerable ways of breaking and making marriage; this is from the sixth. Item, they teach unjust goods, usury, gaining and keeping interest, against the seventh. Item, all their teaching is false testimony, against the eighth.

45 Thus, under the pope, there is no more commandment of God, they are all gone. Again, he adds, how to serve God and do good works by plates, caps, orders, fasting, begging, 2) eating milk, eggs, meat, butter, singing, organ-playing, incense, ringing, celebrating, indulgences, and the like, of which God knows nothing; therefore, his teaching is the right Baal Peor.

46 Now Moses also agrees with this when he describes in Numbers 25:2 that the service of Baal Peor was eating and drinking and practicing unchastity. For the pagans were so blinded that they offered their best wives and daughters for unchastity in honor of the same idol, and the neighbor behaved toward the neighbor as dogs do toward each other. And Moses writes 4 Mos. 25, 6.-15. that also the daughter of a noble prince, called Casbi 3), was married to a prince.

2. So the Wittenbergers; Jenaers: "pray".
3. In the editions: Corbi.

688 Erl. 28, 180-162. 112 Against the false spiritual state of the Pabst 2c. W. XIX, 8S8-86I. 689

of Israel sinned and was stabbed to death with him by Phinehas the priest. The wretched, blind people were well pleased when they gave only their noblest children to the idol to desecrate; just as now the pope also desecrates the best in the world, as queens and princes, and the most pious, with his teachings, who think it will do them good and do right.

Now in all the Scriptures the teaching of men is called practicing unchastity, and God in all the prophets punishes the synagogue for forsaking Him and practicing unchastity with the teaching of men. Thus, this physical unchastity of Baal Peor may mean nothing else than spiritual unchastity, by which the souls are deceived and defiled, and led from faith to works, for the soul is called a spiritual virgin and bride of God by faith alone, in which it receives God's word and becomes pregnant by the Holy Spirit; and the holy seed of divine word makes it fruitful and a mother of truth, that is, of true good works, and righteous divine life.

48 Thirdly, the names are also correct. Baal in Hebrew means a man Ezekiel 22 in such a way, as a woman speaks: This is my man, he is legitimate or illegitimate. And of a wicked woman they say, She hath many husbands. So that Baal means the man, who holds himself to the woman, and understands in himself the sleeping and male work. Otherwise, a man who serves for regiment, council, argument, or otherwise for valiant work is called Ish or Enosh 2c. Thus the Jews disgracefully called the idol Accaron Beelzebub, fly man, as if he were a fainting man, hardly worthy to have a fly for a wife. So also the angry women scold and say: You are a woman's man 2c. In German, you do not sleep with a pious woman. In Latin, such a man is called maritus or conjunx, not vir or mas, which is Baal in Hebrew.

49. peor or phegor means hiatus, et pertinet ad os proprie, to open the mouth: therefore Baal Peor, a man whose mouth stands open, whom we call in German

Mouthed monkeys, who are considered as much as fools and careless, clumsy people in all things, have nothing manly about them, except that they can sleep with women. That is why this lewd, shameful idol is rightly given the name, whose image shows nothing more than such virtue, that on all sides unchastity is shown in him, and nothing else. What else should an image of a naked, shameful youth indicate but a loud muzzler and lewd womanizer? An image in armor means a man of war 2c. And although our spiritual squires do all this spiritually, as we shall hear, they are so superior 1) that they also accomplish it bodily. For, tell me, what is the use of the gentle people, are they not true muzzlers? What can they do, but ride pretty stallions and fine ladies? All marmosets can do that too. They are Baal Peor, and remain Baal Peor; and yet they pretend to rule Christianity spiritually, to lead souls to heaven, and to expel all error and heresy.

(50) So this idol is spiritually nothing else than the holy spiritual law of the pope and the papists' doctrine in Christendom; for it is an impudent image of spiritual unchastity, by which souls learn to build on works, and by which they dislocate the virginal chastity of the pure Christian faith; so that the pope would not be called pope, but priapus, and the papists not papists, but priapists. Now how shameful and unchristian it was that the heathen set up such an impudent image, and thereby provoked themselves to unchastity, and served the same God with bodily unchastity: so shameful and still much more unchristian is that the papists set up their doctrine and bulls, thereby provoking souls to human works, indulgences and merit 2c. and think with the same spiritual unchastity to serve God rightly in the first place, just as if God had become a Priapus, when only through faith and God's work, done in His grace, His right service is accomplished.

1. i.e. they rise so exceedingly high. Bürtig - born; "übttbürtig"-----exceedingly high-born.

690 Eri. 28, 162-I64. II. writings concerning the person 2c. of the pope. W. xix, sei-ssZ. 691

and spiritual chastity remains only in his divine word. So now we see in all the world how the priapists lead the souls to the priapes, and make the world full of spiritual unchastity and idolatry, because they set up vain human doctrines and works in the holy place, where only God's word should stand.

(51) And as the shameful image of Priapi shows an impudent, insatiable, raging young man on the ravishing of women: so also the idol of the papists, the doctrine of men, is an insatiable raging to ravish the chaste souls and to pervert the faith. For we see how they drive their doctrine into the poor people with such great diligence, and how they are senseless and rage when their doctrine is punished. They are sorry that a soul remains pure, unchanged and chaste before them in faith. This is also shown by the name Baal, the woman-man, that such teachings can only sleep on the souls 1) and desecrate them, nothing else, and Peor, the mouth-ape. They do not open their ears to hear and learn God's word, but only their mouths are always open to them. They only want to teach and preach, to be heard, pretending great things, and are nothing but muzzlers and useless talkers, as St. Paul says 1 Tim. 1, 7: "They want to be teachers of the Scriptures, and are useless talkers, not knowing whereof or whither they speak."

52 From this we may understand St. Peter's words, why he compares the pope and bishops to the prophet Balaam. For as Balaam gave counsel for the sake of money to raise up the idol Baal Peor, and brought down the people of Israel; so he saith, that these follow the same way of Balaam, and raise up Baal Peor also for the sake of money. For as we see, everything that is man's bears money; God's word bears nothing but the cross, which no one wants. St. Peter could not have found a better example of the Papists' nature from the whole of Scripture than this Balaam. After all, the whole spiritual regime is basically no different than money, money, money; all things are directed to carry money. And

1. In the editions, "to" is inserted here.

How they have exhausted the world, and still exhaust it, we feel all too much. But that would be the least harm if they did not set up the idol of their doctrine and lead all the world to fall and idolatry for the sake of cursed avarice and money. There the Balaam does great harm, and teaches spiritual fornication in all the world: therefore God is enraged, depriving us of all His graces and teachings, so that not twenty-four thousand, but countless souls are slain and damned.

He says, "They speak of great things, and there is nothing 2) behind them. What does he mean by this? Without a doubt, he is referring to the "Potzen" and "Maulaff", their human doctrine, as if he should say: "Their doctrine is the right Baal Peor, the "Maulaff"; he opens his mouth and preaches about great things, and there is nothing behind it. Is it not so now that the spiritual state alone is exalted, as if it alone were the way to heaven? No one now trusts to be saved unless he is spiritual, or buys it from the clergy; and they are also fresh, bold, and sell their masses, vigils, prayers, fasts, and good works, leading people to heaven by their great spirituality. Are these not great things? But what is behind? Vain deceit and glitter, yes, seduction and ruin. There is no faith, but on plates, clothes, singing, eating eggs, fish, butter, and bell sound and light smoke stands their being, let themselves be called the holy orders and spiritual estates, which between God and the people means that Christ is no longer a necessity. O Balaam, you evil one, with your shameful, harmful Priapo, how you take the money, and kill the souls!

54 Further he speaks 2 Petr. 2, 18: "That they by such great pretensions provoke only the lusts of the flesh into fornication, that they must live in error who before have rightly fled. I worry, he does not meet here One misfortune alone, which lies hidden under the beautiful glittering life. We see how the spiritual class is large and wide, all of whom are bound to chastity; and yet the Scriptures, together with daily experience,

2. is" is missing in the Wittenberg and Erlangen editions.
3. Wittenberg and Erlangen edition: "they".

692 ed. 28, 164-167. 112 Against the false spiritual state of the Pabst 2c. W. xix, 863-866. 693

teaches that chastity is supernatural, a special, quite unique gift of God, which is also given to few great saints. But they go to it and make it as common as if it were daily bread, and with the great sound they provoke many young people into their state, who then live unclean all their lives. Some keep illegitimate wives in public; but those who do not like to come to wives or husbands do evil things, and at least they live in evil lusts and lewd desires, where they cannot come to the deed. And with them there is either a more licentious fornication, under the name of spiritual and chaste life, or an impure, unwilling, miserable, lost chastity, so that the misery is greater than anyone may believe or say, whom here St. Peter touches, since 1) he says: "By their great pretence they provoke to lusts of the flesh in fornication." As if to say, they preach highly of the spiritual state, and exalt chastity; but thereby they provoke and bring the poor multitude right into the midst of unchastity, wherein they themselves also live.

(55) To this end they bring the same multitude, although they had previously rightly escaped all sins through baptism, and rightly begun in the Christian faith, that they now fall upon the spiritual nature, thinking that baptism is now gone, and of no more use; they also abandon faith, as it is too bad, low, mean a thing, and begin a harder, higher, stricter life; this is impossible, and so they come into the midst of misery. It may happen that the devil leaves one, two, three, ten years of peace (although rarely), but at last no one remains, unless he becomes a believer. He has the unbelieving man so surely in the snare of unchastity that he can have no doubt about it. That's why he plays with him, sometimes lets him have peace, but knows well that without faith no one can escape from him: because even those have to struggle enough who drive with chivalrous faith.

Summa, let it be a certain speech to you: Only do not think anything of the great called chastity of the clergy, who are not fresh in the faith; as they now almost all are, and lead a pretense of chaste life, to ver-

1. Wittenberg and Erlangen edition: "that".

derblicher irritation much young people, and is nothing back there. If God wanted, a hundred monasteries and convents would be only one monastery and convent. Believe for sure, St. Peter does not speak from any pot here. 2) That's why I have often said and still say: "Do not condemn priesthood, monasticism and nunnery, unless the Holy Scriptures and pure faith are well practiced among them day and night. Monasteries and convents must be the gates of hell, if faith is not practiced bravely and freshly in them, there is neither counsel nor help for them. I warn you to beware of spiritual life that is conducted without scripture.

(57) Finally, chastity requires a strong and refined faith, which lifts the spirit above the flesh by force and dries up its rivers like a fire, so that man also hates this life and is almost an angel, as Isaiah 11:5 says of Christ: "Righteousness shall be a girdle to his loins, and faith a girdle to his kidneys. Faith must gird up and hold the kidneys, otherwise it is unruly. So they go on, knowing nothing of faith, wanting to help things with works, eating fish, woolen garments, and so are wise, as he who wants to protect the Rhine with a straw gun, 3) and yet leaves its source and origin unplugged. He would like to waste the land, but he would leave the Rhine unprotected 4). So they leave nature its natural source, because they do not have faith, and yet want to defend it with clothes and fish food, so that it should not overflow or break out. So nature does not leave it, does what is its nature. Thus their chastity remains not purer, than that they have not married wives and husbands. And is it ever true that St. Peter says here: "With their great pretensions, they provoke the poor multitude into thinking that they will become chaste and holy through spiritual state and work, serving God in the spiritual state.

(58) Behold, this is the error wherein they live, who before were delivered out of all error in Christ. Is it not then a delicious

2. i.e. as an inexperienced person who has not looked around in the world.
3. Rifle - the weir, the dam.
4. estimated - provided with a shooter (i.e. weir):

694 Erl. S8, 167-16S. II. writings concerning the person 2c. of the pope. W. XIX, 866-8S8. 695

What is the true price of the spiritual life that St. Peter gives him? It is of great clamor, and nothing behind it, is an unchaste, impure, seductive life, which leads the right Christians out of the right way, and keeps them in error. If I painted our bishops, priests and monks in this way, I would have to be a heretic a thousand times over. They hold up St. Francis, Dominic, Augustine, Bernard and more saints in the spiritual order, but do not see that these saints were not saved by the orders (as they do), but by faith; they have not considered the orders to be ways to salvation.

(59) Let it be enough this time that we have these two apostles, Peter and Paul, who show us the papists with their unchristian, pernicious, spiritual nature and teachings, that they are children of malediction, and are to be avoided with all that they pretend. What Christ, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and other prophets say about it, we want to save, until the pope, bishops and their comrades get angry at this booklet, and blow into the fire, so that it burns very much.

Form and gestalt of papal bishops.

(60) If I do not treat the bishops as bishops, let no one mislead me; they do not consider themselves bishops: and I do too much to call them bishops, which is an old, holy, honest name. I should call them only wolves and soul-murderers. A bishop should be learned in the Bible, study day and night, preach to his people himself, and visit the poor, the sick, the needy, give them and help them. Thus, like a thief, they rob the pious people of their goods with lies and deceit. That is why I will describe the wolves here, and show some of their virtues, to warn everyone against them. I do not want to attack them in their own person or because of their worldly status and nature, but for the sake of their wolfish rule.

(61) Of all this I have a good example in St. Paul, who publicly chastised the chief priest Anania in Acts 23:3, saying, "God will strike you again, you whitewashed wall. 23, 3. publicly punished the chief priest Anania in court, saying: "God will strike you again, you whitewashed wall; you sit and judge me according to the law, and let me be beaten against the law.

the law." Then he calls the chief priest a wall that has been whitewashed, that is, a larva that appears to be something he is not, and wishes punishment upon him, doing him no honor at all as a chief priest. But when some reproved him for this, saying, "Do you curse the chief priest?" he answered, "Dear brethren, I did not know that he was the chief priest" Acts 23:5. How he meant this is well to note. If he had known that evil had been done, that he wished it so, he would certainly have asked mercy and forgiveness from the chief priest, and would have recanted it; he does not do that.

(62) Neither is it to be supposed that he should not have known that it was the chief priest. How can it be believed that he should be brought before the court, and no one should have said to him: Paule, thou shalt come before the chief priest? Item, see, there the highest priest sits, if one investigates in such public affairs quite diligently and shows the persons. Even though he did not know that he was the chief priest, he saw that he was sitting on top, and he confessed that he was sitting in the place of the judge and ordered him to be beaten. Thus he should have justly spared the authority which he himself confessed. Therefore his word must be this: Dear brethren, I know not that he is the chief priest, that is, he ought to be, but he is not; neither do I hold him to be, as St. Augustine interprets it. So, if St. Paul touches the priest who was ordered from the Law of Moses, what should I be afraid of touching the painted bishops and larvae who come from the pope, without any command of God and men?

The first virtue of bishops.

Instead of the divine word of the pope, they preach bulls and indulgences. How unchristian, wolfish, seductive this is, is proven by the fact that it is against God's first commandment, since he commanded that one should preach no more than his divine word, and leave to him alone the honor that he is our God, teacher and master, as he says through Isaiah 48, 17.: "I am your God, and teach you what is useful to you." And Christ

696 Erl. 28, 1SS-171. 112. Against the false spiritual state of the Pabst 2c. W. XIX, 868-671. 697

Matth. 23, 8: "You shall not be called teachers on earth; there is only One who is your Master, Christ. He also says Matth. 15, 9: "They serve me in vain with their doctrines and commandments of men." Therefore, all the doctrines of men are certainly idols put in the place of God, and idolatry that leads the people to damnation. Now no one may deny that bulls and indulgences are not the word of God, nor that there is anything about them in Scripture; he must also confess that these sayings and many more clearly condemn everything that is not the word of God. And God Himself judges that everything is vain, seductive, idolatrous, which is to be avoided to the highest degree, in view of His divine disgrace and eternal death.

64. But because our nobles have iron foreheads and iron necks, they do not want to hear such things, nor do they let them be told, they continue; and they themselves should put their life and limb against the doctrine of men, and willingly shed their blood for the sake of God's word and the salvation of poor souls, about which the bishops falsely boast; think only of their wolfish fury, murdering souls, driving them into God's disgrace and to hell, leading from God's word to men's lies: we must open our eyes, and the more diligently avoid the wolves under the bishops' hats.

Therefore, I ask and warn all devout Christians to take God's graces and disgraces to heart, and as you would ride with a physical priapo or idol, so also ride with the bulls of Balaam and the soul murderer of Rome. Think how great a service you do to God if you break the idols and sanctify His divine name from idolatry. Therefore, whoever is able and able, let him tear up and destroy such bulls, but let him do it with a good conscience and understanding. It is the best service of God to destroy idols, as Moses so often commanded in the 5th book. Thus Gideon broke Baal, Judges 8:27, and King Assa broke Priapum, 2 Chron. 14:3, and are highly praised for it and restored to great honor by God. The time has come for the sheep to be more wary of the shepherds than of the wolves.

The other virtue.

66. Christ says, Matth. 10, 8: "You have it for free; therefore you should also give it for free". Against this clear saying of Christ, as if a fool had spoken it, my wolves go, and not only preach lies and doctrines of men, but with insolent forehead they take and demand money for it; if they are guilty, by Christ's grace, of giving all spiritual goods freely. Now if indulgences were something and good, they should still be given to everyone free of charge, according to the words of Christ. How much more is this a shameful vice, to take money for lies and harm!

67 St. Paul also says 1 Tim. 6, 8: "If we have food and clothing, we should be content. But has not this Balaam goods enough in Rome alone, that he could be a mighty king of it? Silence, which carry him all drudgery in the whole Christianity, let him all matter of money and nothing in the salvation of the souls. Both St. Peter and St. Paul teach: A bishop should have among other virtues that he is not addicted to shameful indulgence, wants his food to be honest, and acquired with honorable deeds, to be a good example to others; and he himself St. Paul was a craftsman, a carpet embroiderer, fed himself with his own hand and was not ashamed that he was an apostle, higher than all bishops, yet did his trade wherever he went. But is this not a shameful pleasure, that one seeks money with cops and indulgences, gives lies for the sweat and labor of the poor? There are many more shameful ways for the bishops to gain money, of which another time, when they are angry.

68 They say, A prince must have more than food and clothing, that he may keep his princely estate princely. I let that happen. St. Paul does not speak of princes, but of bishops; neither does he know where the princely bishops come from. Princes are, and not bishops, yet bear the world with the bishop's larva and name. St. Paul, therefore, will not deny nor direct his word according to princes, but the

698 Erl. 28, 171-173. II. writings concerning the person 2c. of the pope. W. XIX, 871-874. 699

Princes will have to direct themselves after him, or will not become bishops, but remain larvae forever.

I must tell the example here, that once over land rode 1) a great bishop princely, as they use, more than the secular princes. There stood a shepherd, opened his mouth, and looked at the emblazonment. The bishop asked him why he was so surprised and had his mouth open. He said, "I wonder if St. Martin rode like that. Answered the bishop: Yes, St. Martin was a bad man. I am a prince. Said the shepherd: Do I have the power to ask a word? Answered the bishop: Yes, ask me. Said the shepherd: If the devil leads the prince away, where will the bishop stay? Then the prince bishop was ashamed and rode away. So also St. Paul was a bad craftsman, therefore he went and preached, could well be an apostle, but he would not have liked to be a bishop. O ira furoris Dei.

The third virtue.

They let preach in the indulgence bulls that have gone out in Rome that the people may keep unjust goods, where they give a part of the same to them and also let the spoils reach them. I don't know what to say here, whether I should consider the pope and his people to be big asses, or even mad and nonsensical, that they are allowed to pretend and preach such impudent, shameful debauchery in public. God has commanded: "Thou shalt not steal", that is, neither have nor keep any foreign, unjust property. This commandment they defiantly and obstinately go under his eyes, trample it underfoot, teach and say: one may well keep unjust goods, if the pope allows it. What is that but to say: You may well steal, and God has lied or deceived you when he says: You shall not steal? Behold, thus our gracious God must lie and be a fool to the children of malediction and damned larvae, thrust his commandment back down his throat, and teach the people to be thieves, robbers, usurers, deceivers and corrupters.

1. In the old editions: "reit".

71. Tell me, you priest, where did you get the authority that unjust goods are yours? God Himself, who created all things, will not accept nor approve it; and you, God's supreme blasphemer, go against God, presuming higher authority than God Himself, teaching people to tear up God's commandments, to commit thievery, robbery, usury and all unnatural works. So let God overthrow those who condemn the gospel, burn books that have not been condemned, break the imperial guard, and only run headlong against God and dispute all His works, so that they get into the wrong mind of publicly preaching the transgression of divine commandments.

O, how abundantly and left over is the gospel smelled, how has God so well paid them with their own senseless, blind, perverse, obdurate minds! Here it would be time to make powder not only all papal indulgences, but also the doors and places where they hang, for the sake of great blasphemy. Dear man, do not let such coarse, poor heads deceive you with their mad, nonsensical preaching; remember that God has commanded not only that you shall not steal, but also that you shall not covet your neighbor's goods; surely believe that he will not go back on his word. How then is it possible that any man should help thee, that thou mayest have and possess his neighbor's goods? He also says Isa. 61:8: "I am a God that loveth righteousness, and I am an enemy to the sacrifice that cometh by robbery." Thy wolves teach thee not only to sacrifice of the spoil, but also to keep the spoil. Behold, how they lead thee with their blasphemy into the wrath of God and into the abyss of hells, and yet let themselves be called bishops and spiritual governors of souls! Beware, beware, dear man.

I poor man, when I see such exuberant, unspeakable blindness of our bishop larvae, it often occurs to me that I also want to be silent and let go of what is going on. Because it often looks to me as a desperate thing, which is not to be helped at all, so completely they have brought it in reason, the vermaledeiten larvae, and all world verschämmt, the last day and its anger penetrates therefore. But again, the miserable, wretched ruin of the wretched larvae does not let me rest nor remain silent.

700 Erl. 88, 173-175. 112. Wider d. falschgen. geistl. Stand d. Pabsts 2c. W. xix, 874-876. 701

Souls who are so horribly strangled by the larvae, whether I would like to help and advise some. If you have unjust goods, just remember that you keep nothing of them, you will not change God's commandment. It would be good if you could get your neighbor's favor and will for it. For, of course, every man owes it to his neighbor to let up if he has something of his goods that he cannot repay him in a good way. You can read more about this elsewhere.

Now behold, if it were not necessary for the pope, bishops, and priests to lead them to school and teach them, like young children, to read the Ten Commandments, that they might know how not to steal, nor to covet their neighbor's goods, much less teach other people to steal, rob, and usurp. They are bishops, but not of Christians, but of thieves, robbers and usurers, yes, chief thieves, chief robbers and chief usurers, as everyone must clearly recognize and confess from the foregoing. It is a miraculous sign of divine wrath that human reason has allowed itself to be persuaded that such thievery, robbery and divine commandment extermination, driven by the pope, is not unjust. And it would be unbelievable that someone should suffer and remain silent if experience did not force us to see such things every day. Who can approve that unjust goods become just goods? Pigs, horses, stone and wood is not so insane as we have become under the pope.

They say that the pope is the supreme in Christianity, therefore he should provide 1) all unrighteous goods, which one does not know where they should go. Answer: Where is that written? At Rome in the smoke hole. Why should not every man himself procure his unrighteous goods where he would, if he could not find the right lord? What may he of another, silent of the pope, to this? It is a gross subtle lie, so that the pope would become a chief over the thieves, robbers and usurers, and could steal, rob, take more than all men on earth, and become the chief in thievery, robbery and drudgery. If he were the supreme in Christendom, he should, as the apostles did, also be devoted to right goodness.

1. d. i. have.

He should throw away his business and devote himself to prayer and preaching above all others, Apost. 6, 2-4. 6, 2-4. Now he also charges himself with theft, robbery and all unrighteous goods. Is he not a fine follower of the apostles? Why does he not also take the right goods of all Christians, because he is the supreme one, and also provide them, so that they go idle and the most holy Father provides for them? Fools should be presented with such monkey business, not sensible people, silence the Christians.

The fourth virtue of the Pabst.

In all the indulgences he promises forgiveness of sins to all those who have repented and confessed.

This is the worst poison and most harmful seduction that comes from the main seducer Pabst and his larvae. Christ, Matth. 9, 2., did not say to the gout-ridden man: Put money in the box, and your sins are forgiven you, but so he says: "Be confident," or trust firmly: "and your sins are forgiven you." From this blessed faith and trust in God's mere grace, which alone obtains forgiveness of sins, these 3) wolves and damned larvae snatch the poor people, and lead them to bulls, paper, and deposit money, so that the simple hearts shall learn to rely not on God's grace, but on their own works. The cursed pretence of such bulls is more abominable than anyone can imagine; for the first main commandment of God is hereby condemned and destroyed, which teaches to rely only on God's grace. Thus they teach to trust in paper and wax, that is, in their vain, accursed lies.

78 And our ungracious lords, if they were bishops, would undoubtedly teach such Christian faith themselves and have it taught. But now that they are unlearned, papal larvae, who are only created to destroy the truth, as is also their Creator, it does not behoove them to do otherwise, because

2. i.e. the worst poison. Erlanger: "the worst, most poisonous and harmful" 2c.
3. Wittenbergers: the.

702 Erl. 28, 175-177. II. writings concerning the person 2c. of the pope. W. xix, 876-879. 703

that they also let larvae, foolishness and poison preach for the sake of money.

79 I ask once again for God's sake that no one consider that I am doing too much for these things. It hurts me and all pious Christians that we have to see and hear such impudent public, raging blasphemy and destruction of His commandments. They deserve from this piece alone that I should attack them in a much different way. Everything I do is a thousand times too little. St. Paul is allowed to malign himself and angels, if they preach something besides the Gospel. What should he do to these nonsensical Pabst's creatures and bishop's larvae, who teach not beside, but boldly and brazenly against God's word? Only do not hold it against anyone that 1) what is said against bishops or spiritual authorities is said against them, or that what is done against them is done against spiritual authorities. They are not bishops; they are unlearned idols and potentates, larvae and moles, who do not know so much that they know what a bishop means, let alone what a bishop's office is. They are wolves, tyrants, murderers of souls and apostles of the Antichrist to ruin the world.

80 And that I pour it out, let everyone know that the bishops who now rule over many cities are not Christian bishops according to divine order, but of diabolical order and human iniquity; they are also certainly messengers and governors of the devil. I will prove this honestly and well, so that neither they themselves nor anyone can deny it.

First, St. Paul writes to Titum 1:5, 6: "In every city you shall appoint an elder who is an honest man and has only one wife. For there must be one bishop who is a blameless man, as he is the governor of God." Here I mean that no one may deny that the bishop and the elder are one thing in St. Paul, because he says that Titus should appoint an elder in every city who is blameless, so that a bishop must be blameless; 2)

1. Wittenberger is missing: "it".
2. The myrtle; "darum - sein" are missing in the Jena edition.

calls the same elder a bishop. So it is obvious from this text that Paul wants to understand such a man by a bishop, who is a brave, old, honest man, who has a virtuous wife and pious children, who should provide the church with preaching and sacraments; therefore he must be learned and completely blameless. Dear, is there anyone so rude or so wilful who may not understand or deny something in this?

I further ask whether or not St. Paul's words and order are from God's word and order? I consider that the Pope himself, with all the devils, even though he suppresses all of God's words, may or may not deny that St. Paul's word is God's word, and his order is the order of the Holy Spirit. For he does not deny God's Word, but only puts everything that is contrary to it under God's Word's appearance and cover. If then all that Paul says and sets forth is according to the word of God and the order of the Holy Spirit, it follows, first of all, that everything that is contrary to his word and order is certainly contrary to God and the Holy Spirit. If it is against God and His Spirit, it is certainly of the devil. I think that this is clear enough. Or does anyone doubt it? How can God be against Himself? Christ says, Luc. 11, 18, that Satan is not against himself either.

Secondly, it follows that all Christians are guilty, for the sake of God's displeasure and their souls' salvation, of keeping God's word and order, which St. Paul teaches and establishes; in turn, they must tear down, disturb, and destroy all the devil's orders that have been set up against them, and they must also forsake life, limb, goods, honor, friends, and all things, or if they cannot destroy them, they must avoid and flee them as the devil himself. Is this not clear enough? For over the word and commandment of God, let all things be done, that his will be done in heaven and on earth concerning all things; and the devil's order let him be disturbed or shunned above all things. Now listen, you bishops, yes, devil's larvae, D. Luther also wants to read you a letter and reformation that will not sound good to you.

704 Erl. -8, 178 f. 112. Against the false spiritual state of the Pabst 2c. W. xix, 879-881. 70Z

D. Luther's Bull and Reformation. 1)

(84) All those who do this, who put body, goods and honor on it, so that the bishoprics are disturbed and the bishops' rule is destroyed, these are God's dear children and true Christians, who keep God's commandment and fight against the devil's order; or if they are not able to do this, they condemn and avoid the same rule. Again, all those who keep the bishops' rule and are their subjects with willing obedience are the devil's own servants and fight against God's order and laws.

I prove this thoroughly and firmly: St. Paul says here to Tito that he should appoint a bishop in every city who is legitimate and blameless. This is God's order and will and opinion without any doubt. These present papal bishops argue against this; they have removed bishops from all cities and made themselves bishops over many cities. Now St. Paul stands here, yes, the Holy Spirit firmly and strongly, says: Every city should have a bishop; and they must then also be equal. For St. Paul says of every city, making one bishop like another. Come on, then, you fools, be joyful and courageous, because you stand against St. Paul, against the Holy Spirit, and he also against you; what then will you say? Have you become stnmm? You have your judgment here, that all the world is guilty of destroying you with your regiment. Whoever keeps it with you is in God's disgrace; whoever disturbs you is in God's mercy.

86. but this destroying and exterminating I do not want to understand 'in any way that one does it with the fist and sword (for they are not worthy of such punishment, nor is anything done with it'), but as Dan. 8, 25. teaches: "Without hand the end-Christ shall be destroyed", that everyone speaks against it with God's word, teaches and holds until he comes to the end.

1. The now following section § 84-H 96 is printed again in the Erlangen edition as a special writing under the title: "Bulle des Ecclesiasten zu Wittenberg" 2c., Vol. 24, pp. 380-387. However, attention has already been drawn to this by a correspondent of the Molucksche literarische Anzeiger, as is noted in the preface to the 21st volume, p. IV f..

The people will be disgraced and, abandoned and despised by themselves, will fall apart. That is a quite Christian disturbance, on which everything is to be put.

But I will give you, dear larvae, a good advice: Dear, dinget about a lying mouth, who writes a booklet of two bishops; like that 2) of two priests. For St. Peter's saying, when he says to all Christians 1 Petr. 2:9: "You are a royal priesthood", can give the impression that it means priests who have been corrupted and smeared in the flesh; that therefore all Christians, to whom it is said, are man, woman, child, young and old, priests of plates and of oil: why should not someone also be able to put such a nose to the saying of St. Paul? So that spiritual bishops would be all parish priests or preachers in cities or villages, whether they had already bought neither cloak nor skirt from Rome, again, bishops in the flesh, which would be you, who are gracious princes and lords, riding on pretty stallions, with pointed hats and beautiful gloves.

And if St. Paul did not want to suffer such delicate glosses, because he gives one or more bishops to each city, he should be hit with the edge and not with the scabbard of the spiritual sword, and freshly strike him in the mouth, as Ananias 3) did, and say: "Well, by the word "city" St. Paul means a country, as far as the diocese understands. For if the pope has power to change the mind; why should he not rather have power to interpret the words as he wills? Nomina enim significant ad placitum. Therefore, if such an excellent pontiff wanted, he would have to call city a garden and donkey a man.

89. If someone would say to me here: You have rejected the pope until now, do you now also want to reject bishops and the clergy?

2. Marginal gloss of the Wittenberg edition: Emser".- Marginal gloss of the Jena: "Besiehe I). M. booklet with the title: Contradiction I). Luther's of his error, eKvungen u. s. w. by Hieron. Emser. Anno 21." Walch, St. Louis edition, vol. XVIII, 1352 ff.
3. Marginal gloss of the Jena edition: "Ananias, high priest at Jerusalem. Apost. 23, 2."

706 Eri. Ls, 179-181. II. writings concerning the person 2c. of the pope. W. xix, sm-883. 707

I answer, Be thou thyself our judge, and pass sentence whether I turn it back, when I am divine.

word and order, or whether they reverse it, who bring forth their order, and destroy God's order? Say, is it right for them to reverse God's order, or for me to reverse their devilish order? Do not look at the work, but at the reason and cause of the work. Let no one look at what goes against God's word, nor consider what may or may not follow; but look only at God's word; let it meet, follow, do, whatever may meet, follow, do, even if it were vain angels.

90. But if thou sayest, There are too great, too high, too many learned men within, because thou speakest out; I answer, Christ, Peter, Paul, and the prophets, have declared that no greater calamity should come upon the earth, than the end of Christ, and the last calamity. Do you think that such words are spoken by goose feathers and tree leaves? God's word always speaks of great things, against great heads, against many people. It is great on all ropes, since he says of. How much more must it be great people who do this evil? He speaks of it so harshly and horribly that he says Matth. 24, 22: No man will be saved unless the days are shortened; and he trusts that he will find no faith when he comes Luc. 18, 8. And the elect shall be deceived. Dear one, look into these words, they are not tabernacle words, then you will find that they must be great people, who are to do the evil, as now pope, bishop and their crowd is. Summa Summarum, what does it matter how great, much, high and learned they are, if it is obvious that they are against God? Is not God greater and more than all things? The Turk is also great and mighty; yet he is against God.

91 If you continue, "Yes, some holy bishops have been over many cities," I answer, "All appointed holy bishops have been bishops in only one city, as Cyprian, Hilarius, Ambrose,

1. i.e. how prestigious it is.

Augustine, Irenaeus 2c., they have kept the apostle's order. It is true that some, when St. Boniface was, as Titus was St. Paul, appointed other bishops in cities, as Titus did; but they were not bishops over many cities. And if they had done the same, should their example be more valid than God's word? Is God not more than His saints? How often have the saints erred and sinned? God preserved Daniel among the lions Dan. 6, 16-22. and the three men, Anania, Azaria, Misael Song of the Three Men in the Fire, v. 88., in the furnace of fire in Babylon; should He not also preserve His elect, whether they be deceived, as Christ says, in the midst of the devil's order? It is not to be built on holy deeds, examples and words, but on God's word alone, who alone is the one who cannot lie nor err.

Secondly, let us hear more from St. Paul about this divine order. Apost. 20, 17. f. St. Lucas says: "Paul sent from Ephesus for the elders of the churches to go to Miletus; and when they were come, he said unto them v. 28, Take heed to yourselves, and to all the host, wherein the Holy Ghost hath made you bishops, that ye should feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his blood." What do you want to become here? Ephesus was only one city, and St. Paul calls its elders all bishops? He must not have seen the papists' book of protection, nor the Decretal; otherwise, how could he be so bold as to give many bishops to one city, and call all the elders of a city bishops, who were not princes and walked on foot? How could anyone be a bishop if he does not ride high stallions and is not called a gracious lord? which alone is enough to make bishops.

But it is seen here that St. Paul calls all those bishops who minister the Word and Sacrament to the people, as now are the parish priests and chaplains. Therefore, if they go to the villages to preach, or if the villages have their own parish priests, I respect that they all have episcopal status. Again the high

2. "the" is missing in the Jena edition.

708 Erl. ss, i8i-i84. 112. against the false spiritual state of the pabst 2c. W. xix, 883-88." 709

Reuter and gracious lords have nothing of episcopal status 1) but the mere name and the clothes; as if a painter painted a picture of a bishop and wrote over it: Here stands Bishop Goetz, the coarse block. They are just such bishops, without having oppressed the parish priests and chaplains, forbidden them to marry, deprived them of the Gospel, and brought the poor people only to hell, the children of malediction and hopeless larvae. That is why we see that from the episcopal courts there is no Christian rope, that even the courts of secular princes are almost like monasteries compared to the courts of the bishops. The Gospel does not come from them, but rather vain bats, citations, letters of excommunication, letters of torture, letters of money, cops and lies, as they disgrace and oppress everyone. Just as they are bishops, so is their doctrine; as 2) if you put a lion's skin on a donkey, he is still a donkey, as his ears and song show.

'94. Thirdly, St. Paul writes to the Philippians 1, 1. 2. thus, "'Paul and Timothy, servants of JEsu Christ,' to all the saints in Christ, who are in Philippians with bishops and deacons, 3) grace and peace from GOD our Father, and JEsu Christ our Lord."

95 See, Philippians was also only one city, and he greets all the faithful together with their bishops: these are certainly the elders, as he used to appoint in all other cities. This is now the third sentence of St. Paul, the divine order, that only those should be called and be bishops who wait on the people with sermons and sacraments, as the parish lords with their chaplains, if they could come before bishop lords and bishop priests. This is also indicated by the name Nomina enim significant ad placitum from έπί and αχοπεΐ, attendere, superintendere, wait and watch.

on the people, as a watchman or guardian on a city; that episcopus or bishop on Greek

chic actually means in German a guard, a keeper, watcher. And in the Hebrew

1. So the Jenaer; Wittenberger: "thand"; Erlanger: "Tand."
2. "Da" is a conjecture of the Jena edition. In the editions "that".
3. d. i. Diaconen servants.

language he is called visitator a visitando, a

Home seeker, who goes to the people and sees what they lack, when Christ Luc. 19, 44. says: "You did not want to recognize the time of your visitation", that we speak, your bishopthum, ίβχοπης. But bishop Goetz

has invented another way, sits on a silken cushion, lets the people load before his official and meat bank about ten miles away, tortures them there, as it seems good to him. O the lost people and heap of eternal wrath!

D. Mart. Luther's Bulla.

96. Because it is evident from these three sayings that the bishops are not only larvae and idols, but also a maligned people before God, who, against God's order, exalt themselves to destroy the gospel and corrupt the soul: Every Christian should help them with body and goods, that their tyranny may be despised, that they may come to an end, and cheerfully do all things that are contrary to them, even as the devil himself; trample under foot their obedience, as the devil's obedience, and be at it, that in every city one or more pious married men become parish priests or bishops; and those who are now parish priests, because they have rendered obedience to the devil, and not to God, with promises of chastity, revoke such obedience: not otherwise than if someone else recanted his alliance with the devil; and only to defy the devil and suffer the bishop-gods to marry, so that the divine order, instituted by St. Paul against the damned larvae, may be respected. Paul against the damned larvae, may be re-established. This is my, Luther's, Bulla, which gives God's grace as a reward to all who keep it and follow it, Amen.

97 But that not only St. Paul is in order, for I hear my deans and canons of Magdeburg say to the expelled preacher: What Paul? The Pope has more authority over Christians than St. Paul: let us also listen to such honest Christian people for their love, what Peter himself and Christ say about it. 1 Petr. 5, 1-4. St. Peter says to all Christians thus: "The elders who are among you, I, the fellow elders, ask that you may be wise.

710 Erl. 28, 184-186. II. writings concerning the person 2c. of the pope. W. XIX, 886-888. 711

det the host of Christ which is among you, and be ye bishops, not forced, but willing, not of shameful avarice, but of a free heart; not as if ye were lords over them, as over your hereditary estate, but be ye a likeness of the host. And when the archpastor comes, you will receive the immutable crown of honors."

Here you see that St. Peter, like St. Paul, calls the elders and bishops one thing, namely, those who teach the people, and makes them all equal, saying that they should not consider themselves lords over their goods; calls himself a fellow elder, wants all pastors and preachers to be equal to him, and to have himself equal to the same. What may our idols say here, who not only want to be lords, but also tyrannies: to exalt themselves over our body, soul and goods, and to be equal to no one?

99. in conclusion, Christ himself Luc. 22, 25. 26. hear what he says: "the kings of the Gentiles are their lords, and they that have authority over them are called gracious lords: but ye are not so: but the greatest among you shall be as the youngest."

(100) Hear this, ye fools, ye cannot deny that your rule is outward and worldly, more than that of any kings or princes; for ye rule over body, soul, and goods, not by the word of God, which the least preacher doeth, as it is said of Jeremiah above, but by outward manner and work, as the worldly princes do. Tell me now, how does your thing rhyme with this word: "But you not so"? What does "not so" mean? It is said that the present bishops' state should not be so, if it is to be Christian. He goes as he goes, so Christ himself calls you: "Not so. Let us see what you may say to the "not so". Perhaps you will say: "Not so" means "Yes so", and teach that the pope also has more power than Christ himself.

Just as you would avoid your enemy if he came under your dear brother's shell, so also avoid these murderers of souls who come under bishops' shells and shepherds' names. St. Paul proclaimed it,

1. Wittenberger: and.

2 Cor. 11:13, 14, 15, that just as the devil takes on himself a shell of the angel of light, so also these apostles of the devil take on themselves the shells and names of the apostles and servants of Christ. But we know them by their works and doctrines, for they preach of the deposit of money, and not of the gospel, without all shyness and shame.

The fifth virtue of the Bull of Rome. 2)

He pretends to change the vows for the sake of money, but the vows to St. Jacob, to Rome, to Jerusalem, and to chastity are taken out.

(103) I have written much about vows before, which is not necessary to repeat now. If I ask the blind head, the pope, what reason he has for breaking some vows and not all vows, he answers nothing else but that some things that are vowed are great, like chastity, but some are small, like eating water and bread on Friday. Therefore let him vow small things, and not great things. How blind and coarse is the brain of the people, who judge and divide the vows not according to God's commandments, but according to their works? Tell me, is it not as much an oath if you swear over three pennies as if you swear over a thousand florins? If it is the same oath, why should it not be the same in small things as in great? Shall it not hold, therefore, that a thousand florins were too much to give? The people of the larvae are mad and nonsensical.

Therefore, hold fast, make no distinction of vows, from distinction of things or works. One vow is like another, be the things great or small. For God's commandment makes no distinction, saying badly: All that you vow you shall keep; saying not, the great you may leave undone, and the small you may keep, or again. Therefore believe not the seducers, in their change of vows. They may walk in none; or if they walk in one, thou and all may walk in the same, and in all vows. Changing vows may not be otherwise,

2. "Bull at Rome"; this is what Luther calls the pope.

712 ed. 88, iss-188. 112 Against the false spiritual state of the Pabst 2c. W. xix, 888-M. 713

For to abrogate this commandment of God: "Keep that which you vow." If this may be annulled in one piece, it is annulled in all pieces. It is a simple commandment above all vows.

For if it were true that in one commandment of God the pope had the power to walk in small works, he would also do so in all others. From this it would follow that in the first commandment he would allow not to love God with all his heart in the small works, such as eating and drinking, walking and standing. He would also allow to honor an idol with outward works. He would also allow adultery to be committed with a lowly woman. And such abominations would follow innumerable times, if one could change and tear apart one of God's commandments in one piece. So you see that the larvae do nothing else, but only want to tear God's commandment for money. Therefore, beware of the Balaam. He may not make a vow for you, or if there is one to make, you can make them all yourself, without spending money.

Of the vows.

There is much to be said here, but time will not suffer; we will talk more about it another time. For now, this will be brief enough.

(107) First, there are some vows made to men, which last as long as the one to whom they are made 1) or may reasonably demand them. We are not talking about them here.

(108) Secondly, vows made to God or His saints are made in two ways. Once against God and His commandment, they are not to be kept at all; 2) but those that are not against His commandment are to be kept. Now here is the greatest knot, which are the vows made against God and His commandment. Here one must look at the ten commandments, and want to start with the lowest.

109. when you vow to take care of your neighbor's property

1. In all editions here is wrongly interpungirt: they had so long, who demands them, 2c.
2. Marginal gloss of the Wittenberg edition: Vows Against God's Commandment are "void".

to covet his wife, to bear false witness against him, to steal or damage his goods, to ravish his wife, to kill his body; and finally, if you vow not to show him any love or good: you see clearly here that such a vow is sin, and to avoid God's displeasure: everyone must confess this. Weiler: If you vow to disobey your father and mother and not do what they want, is it not also against God's commandment? Why then are we so blind, and keep such disobedient vows? 4) Are we not against this commandment? Is it not against this commandment for a daughter to betroth herself to a boy, against her father's and mother's will?

Is it not against this commandment for a daughter or son to vow to become a priest, a monk, or a nun, against the will of his father and mother? Has not God Himself annulled such vows in Genesis 30 and interpreted this commandment in this way? Item, if a man or woman vows to go to St. Jacob, to do this or that, and the woman cannot do without the man: tell me, is it not against God's commandment, who has bound the man to provide for his wife and child and not to leave them? Nor does the pope make these vows so hard that he takes them in the bull; if he should tear them all and destroy them. But it behooves the pope to forbid what God gives; to command again what God forbids; and to tear up what God does: otherwise how would he be pope?

Lord God, that the larval larvae would only err and do evil for themselves, we would so gladly tolerate them and bear them with all honor! But now that they murder nothing more than souls and destroy God's word, there is no more silence or suffering to be demanded. Tell me no one here of patience and honor. Forsaken be patience, which is silent here! Let honor be reproached here, which gives way and leaves room for such murderous larvae over the poor souls!

3. "hie" is missing in the Erl. It is found in the Wittenberg and Jena editions.
4. In the old editions: "such disobedience vows." Erl. AuDg.: "such disobedience vow." We had thought that if the noun was meant, it should have been "such disobedience vows.

714 Erl. 28, 188-isv. II. writings concerning the person 2c. of the pope. W. xix, 891-893. 715

Monastic and monastic vows.

But further: let us come to the monks and monastery vows, there first of all the larvae will tear their ears and gnash their teeth. Tell me, if a priest, monk or nun vows to keep the spiritual state or order in unbelief, or on Jewish faith; how much better would he be than he who vows to sleep with his neighbor's wife? Would not that be denying the Christian faith, and worse sin than three adulteries? But how many do you think that now become priests, monks, nuns, who do not deny the Christian faith and are equally spiritual in the Jewish faith? Does it seem strange to you? Listen a little.

Christian faith is that which believes to be justified and saved through no work, but only through Christ as our mediator and mercy, given to us for nothing, Gal. 1:4, so that man renounces himself and all his deeds, hanging on Christ's merit alone. Jewish faith is to obtain God's grace, atone for sin and be saved through work and self-doing, Rom. 10, 3. With this, Christ must be excluded as not being necessary, or not being of great necessity.

(114) Now, do not many priests, monks and nuns begin their spiritual life in such a Jewish faith? For they say that through the strict life they want to atone for their sin and become blessed, giving that to works and spiritual status, which alone belongs to Christ and faith. What is this but denying Christ and becoming spiritual in unbelief? That is, turning true Christians into Jews and Gentiles. Just as St. Peter says 2 Petr. 2:20 that those who have previously fled from error and sin are deceived by it, so that they must live in error.

But that they are Jews and pagans, they themselves confess when they say: Why should I become a priest, a monk, a nun, and thus 1) torture myself in the order, if I should not thereby become pious, pure and blessed?

1. "so" in the Wittenberg and Jena editions. Erlanger: "thus".

Do you not hear that these words are words of a Jewish faith, since Christ has no room nor work inside? And that they should wait for Christ, they wait for their order and works. Therefore it is certain that all monasteries and convents, in which spiritual people think that the state makes them pious and blessed, are much worse than the common women's houses, tabernacles and murder pits; and God also decrees as a sign that they are all commonly unchaste. And because by such Jewish faith they dislocate the chastity of Christian faith, they must also dislocate bodily chastity as a reward; as St. Peter says 2 Petr. 2, 18 that they incite to the desires of fornication by their great pretense.

Thus all orders and spiritual vows are commonly contrary to the first, second and third commandments of God, so that they should above all be torn apart, abandoned and abolished. And all clergymen are to be faithfully advised that they either renounce the Jewish faith and begin their spiritual life anew in the Christian faith, or leave plates and caps, monasteries and altars, and become free to do as they please, no differently than they would do if they were in wedlock with women. For there they must either leave the wives or marry them.

Behold, this is the spirituality of Baal, of which I have written a booklet of my own, 2) and have abolished the spiritual vows with sufficient writing and reason, that I hope it will satisfy a good conscience and honest reason, and not allow itself to be so miserably caught, deceived, and corrupted in spiritual estates. But whether I do not do enough for the unlearned larvae, and they will be angry that I am cutting the priests, monks and nuns loose, destroying the monasteries and convents, that is not my concern. Who can do enough to the larvae who do not want to listen before they are told (as Solomon says Proverbs 18:2) what lies in their foolish heart? Again, if one asks them for the scripture and reason of their thing, they do no more, but show us their red

2. Marginal gloss of the Jena edition: "In the Latin booklet I>6 votis mvnsstiois to Hans Luther, his father. Anno 22." - In this volume no. 174.

716 Erl. 28, igü-192. 112 Against the false spiritual state of the Pabst 2c. W. xix, 893-8Z6. 717

Cardinal hat and bishop larvae. Don't you see that I am a cardinal? Should I also be learned and show you scripture and reason? What need is there of that? We have not only the Holy Spirit, but also the most holy spirit, namely the spirit of the pope, who is not only holy, like Christ, but the most holy.

I may say no more about the mad, wicked papal bulls until the tender, pure people stir themselves up. Now let it be enough that everyone knows how guilty he is, for the salvation of his soul and divine disgrace, to burn, disgrace and exterminate such Roman indulgence bulls; to despise the larvae they raise, not only as the unlearned, coarse heads, but also to avoid them as the ravening wolves and infernal murderers of souls, according to the teaching of both St. Peter and St. Paul. Peter 2. Ep. 2, 1. 2. 3. and St. Paul Apost. 20, 29..

Lastly, is it not a pity that the bishops of God's disgrace, my ungracious lords, have seen the poor priests who enter into matrimony? what will become of them? Charge yourselves, dear larvae, charge yourselves! you have already lost the common prayer. You lead a wicked, whorish life; in the blood and sweat of the poor you fatten your pleasure and splendor; with lies and deceit you rob everyone of his goods; with banishers and tyrants 1) you torture the world in soul, body and goods; You do not preach the gospel, and not only do you not perform any spiritual episcopal office, but you also hinder and forbid others to preach, drive them out and persecute them; and yet you are no more than ugly, ugly, hostile larvae, whom the world can neither bear nor wants to bear because of unmistakable burdens, tyrannies, vices, disgraces and vices.

120 Dear larvae, help us to do this, heap up your earnings, confidently put them on the scales, so that we can get rid of you. For goodness sake, don't think how you could earn the people's favor with love, litter, discipline and kindness. Go on, dear larvae, you are on the right track. For so did your fathers, the Jews, when they put Christ to death,

1. i.e., tyrannizing.

forbidding his word, driving out his apostles, they could not sleep soundly; they had also the Romans upon them, who rooted them out and destroyed them. How should you do otherwise than as the true children of such fathers?

(121) Now, if I ask for what reason the poor priests are imprisoned and tribulated for the sake of marriage? Where God has forbidden them that? Or how do they sin in it? eight I, they will come out with their beautiful hats and long tails, and say: It is written in the Most Holy Decree. These will be the causes that such highly learned, reverend people will know of their doings. The most holy father pope and his most reverend bulls forgive me, I would have almost mocked the larvae, in their such brave spiritual conduct.

122 Hie rath Räther gut. Why do the common women landlords not like to see young boys become married? No doubt that they lack interest. After all, the bishops in all monasteries have a large portion of their yearly interest from true priest-whores. For whoever wants to have a fiddle must give a gulden of it to the bishop every year, and there is a saying among them: Chaste priests are not beneficial to your bishop, and are also hostile to him. How can a richer womanizer be in the world than a bishop? Who would blame the spiritual fathers for allowing fornication for money, and for selling live women's brats, and for forbidding married women who do not carry money for them? Food is of many kinds. A merchant sells spices and cloth; the bishops must sell whores' flesh, otherwise how should they feed themselves?

123. About all this, if a priest's maid falls over the bowl basket and breaks into two pieces, so that one part must be carried to baptism, the interest grows over a year's florin, and the bishop has cause to show his mercy, and now sells the poor priest a mother. Blessed are the bellies that bear children. Whether the breasts are also blessed that suckle, let the father see; the spiritual bishop has obtained his twice from the belly. Are these not noble, dear women's bellies, which one

718 Erl. Ls, 1S2-IS4. II. writings concerning the person 2c. of the pope. W. xix, 896-898. 719

twice a year, and who twice get the spiritual lords pregnant with money?

Dear, do not let this cause be bad to you, to move such holy, spiritual people, that they do not allow wives to the poor priests. Should they not rather have whores than pious wives? A harmful, shameful thing is a wife, who does not wear a lighter, the most reverend in God fathers and lords.

Pardon my joke, dear man, which does not come from a joking heart, but from a very fearful heart, about these high, nonsensical and deeply blind larvae, who are so cooked by God's wrath, deprived of all senses, wit and reason, that sows, oxen and donkeys are wiser than they are; yet they are spiritual rulers. That is to punish the world with fools and children, as Isaiah says Cap. 3, 4.. But do you think that they can come up with other causes and reasons than those mentioned, except for the annoying avarice and greed?

Even if they are even coarser than jackasses, they may not say that God has forbidden marriage to the priests. Yes, St. Paul has instituted it for the priests, since he says: A priest or bishop shall have only one wife, and submissive, chaste children, 1 Tim. 3, 2. 4.^1)^ and Tit. 1, 6. Do you hear it, you larvae and moles? I mean you who are wolves, who tyrannize over innocent blood. Prayer Answer. What will you or may you say here to St. Paul's saying: A priest shall have no more than one wife? What do you want to interpret here as a woman? A priest's whore, whose belly you sell twice a year? St. Paul means only one wife, that he does not have two or more wives, as was the law and custom in the Old Testament. If then a priest wanted to follow this divine sentence, who are you, bloodthirsty larvae, who want to resist him? Where is your reason? Why do you oppose it? Why do you exalt yourselves above God and His words? Shall you unlearned asses be worshipped above God?

The pope has forbidden it. What should

1. Erlanger: 1 Tim. 3, 3. 4. reprinted from Walch.

I say? Dear donkeys, if the Pope commanded not to honor father and mother (as he does), and annihilated all God's commandments, should you not be those who oppose him with life and limb for the sake of God's word? Have you not read St. Peter's saying, Apost. 5, 29: "One must be more obedient to God than to men"? So you know that all the commandments of men, even if they were equally good and useful, should nevertheless cease and no longer bind when they become infallible; this is what your own fleshly law teaches you. Now you see that the cursed human law of forbidden marriage is impossible for all priests. Still you great, insatiable women-hosts force poor souls to sin for the sake of your damned avarice. See and grasp that they may not keep it, and yet they shall keep it without any trouble. O you murderers of souls, how miserably you mewl your hands in the innocent blood! what an account you will have to give for this tyranny!

Now it is obvious that such commandments of men concerning the forbidden marriage of priests are not commandments of men but of devils, which is proven by three sayings of St. Paul, the two to Titum and Timothy, told above: "A priest shall have only one wife" 1 Tim. 3, 2. 3) This is God's word and order through Paul. Therefore it is not possible that it should be other than of the devil, which is commanded or set contrary to it or otherwise. For God does not speak against Himself, nor does He punish His mouth with lies, as all Scripture and reason must confess. So also all reason must confess that such Pabst's law is ever contrary to this divine order of Paul. Is not all this clear enough, you dumb and blind larvae? What can you murmur about? Are not your iron foreheads and coarse heads ashamed that you publicly urge and force to keep the devil's commandment, against divine order?

The third saying is 1 Tim. 4, 1. 2. 3.: "Teachers will come in glees, teaching doctrines of devils, forbidding marriage and food, which God created."

2. i.e. stained.
3. Erlanger: 1 Tim. 4, 1. 3. reprinted from Walch.

720 Erl. SS, 1S4-1SÜ. 112 Against the false spiritual state of the Pabst 2c. W. XIX, 898-SOI. 721

Behold, he himself calls it devil's doctrine, forbidding marriage. And do not talk here, as the lying mouth says to Dresden 1), about the Tatians. The Tatians did not forbid marriage, but condemned it as a sinful thing. But St. Paul says here of those who only forbid it, and do not condemn it or consider it sinful, just as they also forbid food, and yet do not consider it sinful: so the pope does not say, as the Tatians did, that marriage is evil or sinful; item, not that meat, eggs, milk are evil or sinful; but only condemns them for the appearance of spirituality, as St. Paul says here: That they speak in a gilded tongue, out of doctrines of the devil.

Because there are three powerful sayings here that irrefutably convince that the forbidden marriage is a devilish thing, set against God's order, the priests should have a good conscience, happily rely on it and consider it; and whoever would not otherwise desire to take a wife, should only take one for the sake of sorrow and defiance of the devil and his doctrine. And you larvae, if you would not be apostles of the devil and his doctrine, you should help them to be so.

But if someone considers that he has vowed chastity in his consecration, it is sufficiently said above that all vows against God's commandment and order are nothing, and are to be left at God's disgrace. Now such vows, on the devil's teaching, have ever been made against God's commandment and order, as is clearly understood from the foregoing. Also, 2) the priests do not speak to God, but to the pope in the devil's place, and men teach their chastity. 3) For this reason, men must desist from such talk, so that it does not reach God in any way. For this reason, when a priest takes a wife, there is no law against it; only the larvae make a law out of it.

132. again, the fornication, since 4) is vain driving, they sell for money and do not punish anyone.

1. Emser.
2. i.e. vow.
3. Erlanger Ausgabe: "dem Pabst, an des Teufels statt und Menschenlehren, ihr Keuschheit." The Jena edition has the same wrong jnterpunction, but the words "teaching men" are separated. That the text we have given is correct is proven by the following sentence.
4. Wittenberger: "that".

Therefore. Aren't they fine, beautiful larvae? They crucify Christ and let go of Barabbam. Woe, woe, woe to them! I can no longer, I warn them and all who are with them to beware; God will not let them reproach Him with His word.

And behold, the wickedness of the devil, just as he has deceived the people with his rumblings and rumblings, so that they think that the souls walk and seek help in the houses, has made a fair out of the fair: so he has also caused many horrible false examples of priestesses, until he has brought it to the point that a common saying is: "Whichever woman sins once with a priest, she is never to be counseled, she must be eternally lost. From this they fell into despair, and confidently charged 6) without all hope of recovery, that no wicked woman has been found, but the parson's maidens. That is what he wanted.

No one has paid attention to this mischievousness of the devil, everyone has let it go, and thus let the souls despair and give themselves freely into the entrenchment. This has served him so that his commandment of chastity is kept all the more holy, and God's commandment is only despised all the more. Ah, Lord God, the blindness, the certainty, the ignorance of Pabst and the bishops! They are and will remain larvae, unfortunately with all too great advantage for the devil and disadvantage for poor, miserable souls.

I will leave it here at the beginning until I see how the larvae want to stand up to it. I hope they will want to resist with outrage and blow into the ashes. God help them by the merit of their shameful, harmful, larval nature and regiment, amen.

I also ask those who want to touch the larvae with writings to do so publicly and honestly, according to the rule of the Gospel and the teachings of St. Paul, and write their name on the paper, and only offer themselves freshly, as I do. For we have the advantage that the larvae find unlearned.

5. i.e. joke.
6. i.e., sins upon oneself.
7. Wittenbergers: the.

722 Erl. 28, 1S6-1S8. II. writings concerning the person 2c. of the pope. W. XIX, 901-903. 723

They are called 1) in all the world, and now stand before everyone to shame, as those who shun the light, do not like justice, do not want to step on the plan. Thus their shine lies low, and they are no longer adorned with any appearance, so that they cannot be greatly tormented, for if they are rightly defied and given reason and cause to hear. Then they must be ashamed in their hearts and consciences, so that they may be silent and raise nothing for themselves. If, however, they proceed with unrighteous violence, which is left to them alone for a little while, their displeasure and mockery are so much greater, and thereby come to their contempt, and finally to their downfall all the more, that it is only good for our part, if they only commit unrighteous acts and rage as mad larvae. 2)

In order that we, according to the teaching of St. Paul, not only strike and punish the consciences, but also pour oil into the wounds along with the wine, whether the sayings might have worked on some good-hearted bishops and frightened their hearts, we must anticipate their questions and answer them: How then shall they do that they may be saved, and that such a state may not be dangerous to them?

Here, of course, there is no other advice nor comfort, but that a bishop (where he himself is not skilled) creates learned men, who preach the gospel pure and clear in his diocese to and fro in his place, and holds over them, putting on it everything that Christ teaches to put on the gospel. Thus we read that St. Valerius, bishop of Hippo, had St. Augustine preach for him before he became bishop, and held over him; which was also the custom in many Greek countries, that priests preached for their bishops in their presence. In addition, such a bishop should repay with prayer, service and help to the poor what he does not accomplish with preaching. Where a bishop is not found in such a character, let him not think that he is in a state of blessedness.

139 Thus you say: Yes, where would a princely state remain with such a being as the bishops are now? Answer I: We speak

1. i.e. they have the reputation, the name.
2. i. e. to exercise violence.

not how to be a prince, but how to be a bishop and blessed. Who made the bishops princes? Christ has forbidden them not to be princes, since he separates them from princes, saying: "The worldly princes are lords, and exercise authority over their subjects; but you shall not be so" Luc. 22, 26.. For the sake of your principality, the prince of all princes will not revoke these words nor let them go. If you let go of the bishopric and the principality, you cannot be episcopal in it; why do you want to ruin your soul eternally for the sake of temporal honor? He can hardly be preserved who is in the right good blessed state; how then will you presume to remain in a damned state? "What profit is it," saith Christ, "if thou shouldest gain the whole world, and hurt thy soul?" Matt. 16:26.

But how would the princes and nobility provide for their children and friends if the bishoprics and monasteries were not there? See our blindness in the German lands. If a peasant strangled or beat your son, or disgraced your daughter or sister, there would be wounds and weapons, you should rage and rage, and if you could destroy a country, you would do it; so great an injustice, you think, would have happened to you. But, beloved, open thine eyes, and see if thy child or thy friend's murderer be a greater murderer and enemy than thou art. You help him to the bishopric, since you are sure that he must be of the devil and lead such a state in which he cannot be saved; you know that. Tell me if you do not do more harm to him than to pierce a thousand swords through his heart.

If he had fallen into such a state because of an accident, you should snatch him out, body and soul, if there were any other good in you, even if you had only one loaf of bread to share with him. But what do you do? That thy principality, thy goods, may not be cut asunder, nor diminished.

3. Wittenberger: fall. The reading of the Jena edition given by us is made certain by the "fahren" in the following sentence.
4. Wittenberger is missing: "or sister".

724 Erl. 28, 198-200. 112 Against the false spiritual state of the Pabst 2c. W. XIX, 903-906. 725

If you do not want your flesh and blood to perish eternally, so that you only remain rich and great, you push him away from you into the abyss of hell. Behold, this is the custom now in the whole German land; for such gruesome soul murder and strangulation one must ring all bells, sing Te Deum laudamus, carry candles and flags, and show all splendor, that it is like the nonsensical kings of Israel, who burned their children to the idol Moloch with great sound and noise, so that they did not hear the children's cries and lamentations.

The same is done with daughters and sisters; they are badly tempted, even thrown into a convent if they do not want to or do not want to, only so that the tribe and class do not perish and become poor, where they should be exposed to the same class. But it does not help. For God plagues us that now principality and nobility are impoverished; which perhaps would not happen if they had not been guilty of such gruesome murder of their flesh and blood. The innocent blood cries out over them; God hears this and avenges it.

Now behold the plight of one part. There are more women in convents, who are fresh and healthy and created by God to be wives and bear children, but they are not able to keep the status willingly; for chastity is a grace over nature, if it were pure. For this reason God does not want to have his law (when he created man and woman) so meanly relaxed, and to constantly abolish it with miraculous signs; but virginity should be strange in his sight. If you had a daughter or a friend who had fallen into such a state, you should, if you were honest and pious, help her out, whether you had to stake all your goods, life and limb on it.

(144) But now you do this: for the sake of your wretched goods, you push them into the devil's jaws without their will. What then follows from this? Listen, I have not heard a nun's confession in my day, but I will find out, according to the holy scriptures, how it is with them, and I know I will not lie. A harlot, where there is not the high strange grace, she can just as little advise a man as eat, drink, sleep and other things.

natural need. Again, therefore, a man cannot take a wife. The reason is this: It is as deeply implanted in nature to beget children as to eat and drink. That is why God gave the body the limbs, veins, rivers and everything that serves them. Whoever now wants to resist this and not let it go as nature wants and must, what else does he do, but he wants to resist that nature is not nature, that fire does not burn, water does not net, man neither eats nor drinks nor sleeps.

From this I conclude that such nuns in monasteries must be unwillingly chaste and unwillingly deprive themselves of men. But if they are unwillingly inside, they lose this and that life, must have hell on earth and there too. Behold, thou bringest them thither for thy cursed good. This is the fruit of some foolish, senseless princes, who keep the closed monasteries so tyrannically hard, want to resist nature, have good things to say about it; they lie with women when they want, and give their nature air and space enough; but the poor lot must perish in their hell because of it.

Further, where there is unwilling chastity, nature does not leave its work, the flesh is as God created it, so the veins also follow their kind. Then the flowing and the secret sin, which St. Paul, 1 Cor. 6, 9, calls impurity and softness, arises. And that I say it roughly, for the sake of the miserable need: If it does not flow into the flesh, it flows into the shirt. The people are ashamed to complain and confess this. Then it follows that they blaspheme you and God in their hearts, curse their status and are hostile to all who have helped them, and would probably take a shepherd boy in marriage in such distress, who otherwise might hardly have taken an earl. Behold, this is what the devil wanted, since he teaches you to dampen and force nature, which wants to be unconstrained.

How do we want to do things? the goods do not suffer equal distribution. Answer. Why do not mau, as happened in the people of Israel, since only one always remained king? One gave something to his brothers and let them be equal to the others among the people.

726 Erl. 28, 200 f. II. writings concerning the person 2c. of the pope. W. XIX, 90" f. 727

Must all princes and nobles who are born princes and nobles remain so? What harm would it do if a prince took a commoner's wife and let him be content with quite a commoner's estate? Again, a noble maid would also take a commoner. It will not bear the length, vain nobility with nobility marry. Although we are unequal before the world, we are all equal before God, Adam's children, God's creatures, and one man is worth another.

And behold, if your child or your friend in the monastery would gladly take what she could get, in such anguish and distress, that she might only come into a blessed state, why do you not help her to do so, before she comes into such misery, and give her what God gives, be it noble or ignoble? Ah, Lord God, how little we care for the wretched souls, and are so drowned in avarice!

So now I say that it is better to leave the bishopric and all elevation and be a poor citizen or peasant, than not to carry out the episcopal office, or not to manage that it is carried out. For no means nor excuse can be found. God's word must remain, and not only the episcopate, but also heaven and earth must pass away; then you may act accordingly.

150 But if the pope and his followers will not suffer (as he is doing now) to preach the gospel, you have all the more to do so.

Cause to leave the bishopric or profession. You must obey God more than men: you must not think that your episcopal status is enough and that you are excused when you go about preaching, as a bishop did recently.

The wretched people have kept silent about the gospel and have wanted to pawn their souls for the people and lead the consciences with it. I say to such a bishop: Put your soul in an empty corner; if the devil took it away, where would I be if I had relied on it? I want to have such a bishop, who does not put his soul on the ground for me, which I do not know where it is; but who preaches the true gospel to me and puts Christ's soul on the ground for me. There I am sure where I will stay.

For I speak not now of the papal bishops, what they should do; neither do they suffer it; but if there be any that desire to be a Christian bishop, to preserve his own soul together with his people, let him go about, not preaching the doctrine of men, but the word of God more purely, or let it be preached. Enough has been said above about the larvae and the idols of bishops. May God grant us His mercy and send right workers into His harvest again, and punish the murderers and set their city on fire, who push His servants and His Son out of the vineyard and kill them without ceasing, amen.

728 De Wette II, 467 f. 113. Luther's letter to Duke Albrecht of Prussia. W. XIX, 907-909. 729

*113 D. M. Luther's letter to Duke Albrecht of Prussia, from the pope and his power. )

January or February 1524.

Translated from Latin.

To the Most Serene Prince and Lord, Albrecht, Margrave of Brandenburg and Duke of Prussia, some answers of D. Martin Luther about the Pope, which Georg Spalatin presented to His Serene Highness at the Imperial Diet in Nuremberg. Anno 1524. 1) Most Serene Prince, Most Gracious Lord! I am sending Your Serene Highness my response to the articles presented.

The first article.

Whether Christ built his church on Peter and his successors, the popes?

Response. No, but only to Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and this is proven:

First, from 1 Cor. 3:11: "Other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ."

Second, from 2 Cor. 4:5: "For we preach not ourselves, but JESUS Christ, that he should be our Lord, and we your servants for JESUS' sake."

Third, from Matt. 16:18: "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

But that Peter or the pope cannot be the foundation or the rock of the church is thus proved in many ways:

First of all: Because the gates of hell overcame Peter and the popes, because they sometimes fell and sinned. For this "overcoming" does not mean taking away honor, wealth, health and physical life, which even murderers can do, but overcoming faith and holiness in the spirit.

1. Aurifaber has put this heading over this letter.

wind. Accordingly, it must be such a reason, which neither sins nor can sin, which neither errs nor can err. But this is Jesus Christ alone.

On the other hand, the church is a spiritual and holy thing, as we say: I believe a holy Christian church. But what one believes, one can neither see nor feel. Hebr. 11, 1.: "Faith doubts not that which is not seen." How, then, can Peter or the pope ever govern or maintain the church, since they do not know who the saints are, and never see the church, but must believe it, as do we all. For Christ alone sees them, who also alone gathers, nourishes and sustains them.

Third, the pope or Peter cannot impart faith, love, and the other gifts of the Holy Spirit to the church, nor can they take them away or change them, or govern the church according to such gifts. Rather, if the church is not governed by faith, love, and the other gifts of the Holy Spirit, then it is not governed, nor is it a church, but a school of Satan. But Christ alone governs the church in such a way, therefore Christ alone is the regent, shepherd, foundation and master of the church, as he says Matth. 23, 8.: "One is your master, who is in heaven; but you are brothers", that is, all of you are equal and equal to each other; I alone am the master and the supreme.

Fourthly, Peter himself and the pope are also in need of reason, love, the spirit and other gifts. Now the question is whether they have a different reason, a different faith, a different love, a different spirit than all the others. If they have the same, then they have the same; therefore

*) This letter is found in Latin in Aurifaber, vol. II, toi. 176 and in De Wette, vol. II, p. 467. According to the latter we have translated.

730 De Wette II, 468-470. II. writings concerning the person 2c. of the pope. W. XIX, 909-912. 731

There are no people in these churches who are unequal to anyone or who are superiors in the church. If they do not have the same gifts, they are not in the church, because there is no other reason for the church than the only general reason for the whole church, Christ.

Therefore, the question is: What are the pope and the bishops, and what authority do they have in the church?

Paul answers in 1 Cor. 4, 1: "For this reason everyone considers us to be Christ's servants and stewards of God's secrets," that is, in the church we are not God, nor do we share out our secrets, but God's; but we are servants, through whose word the secret of God comes into the church. But the mystery of God he calls the secret things of God, which are the foundation: Christ, faith, the Spirit, and the other gifts and goods of the Church. These are given to us through the outwardly preached word of the Gospel. For when an apostle or bishop preaches the gospel outwardly, or speaks of these mysteries of faith, God, Christ, is there at the same time and shares out the mysteries in the hearts, in the outward words that are spoken, as we read in Acts 10:43, 44. 10, 43. 44. that during Peter's preaching the hearts of the Gentiles were cleansed in faith through Christ.

From this it follows certainly and infallibly that the Church of Christ neither can nor should hear, teach, know and accept any other doctrine than that through which the mysteries of God are dispensed. And if there are any who teach or teach anything other than these mysteries of God, they are neither apostles nor bishops, but murderers and thieves who destroy the sheep, on whom Paul curses Gal. 1:8, 9: "If any man preach the gospel otherwise than we preach it, let him be accursed." So this is proven: Since the church, or any spiritual thing, cannot come into being, be sustained, live, work, overcome, abide, and do all that is due to the church, unless it is built on its foundation, that is, unless it obtains Christ who reigns in it through faith, the Spirit, and the Holy Spirit.

If Christ is the only gift of his Spirit, it is necessary that such preaching be in the church, since it the church has its existence through him alone and no one else. Therefore Christ alone must be preached, and built upon this foundation, and faith and what belongs to faith must be taught, as Paul said above 2 Cor. 4:5: "For we preach not ourselves, but Christ to be our Lord."

What then are the laws and commandments of the pope and the concilia concerning fasting, feast days, dress, prayer times, and other outward things?

Here it is easy to answer: None of these is Christ; none lays the foundation, none gives the spirit, none divides the mysteries of God. Accordingly, without these things one has Christ and everything that belongs to the church, and without Christ all these things are nothing, because they give neither faith, nor the Spirit, nor anything that belongs to the spiritual life. For this comes from Christ alone, not from your fasting, not from your habit, not from your monastery, nor from all that the pope, conciliarities, and monasteries have ever ordained.

If then the pope taught that these commandments of his were of such a nature that they made blessed where they were obediently observed, or condemned where they were despised, he would truly be the Antichrist, and, rejecting Christ, would make himself the ground of eternal salvation.

This is proved thus: Since it is said that life, spirit, blessedness, and all the goods of the church come from Christ alone, who is preached through the word of the gospel and received by faith, they cannot come through the pope's commandments, or if they come through the papal commandments, they do not come through Christ. For there is only One Christ. Therefore, either the pope must preach Christ alone, or if he preaches his own, he immediately expels Christ and takes his place, which he does in fact. For that is why he is called the governor of Christ, because he believes in the

1. Latin: koris. Luther himself calls the horas canonions "the Gleite" or "the seven Gezeite," i.e., the hours of prayer prescribed at certain times of the day.

732 DeWetteII. 470f. 113,Luther's Letter to Duke Albrecht of Prussia. W. XIX,912-915. 733

In the place of the expelled Christ, he raised himself to be the foundation of the Church.

So what is one to do with the statutes of Pabst?

Answer: They must be taken out of the church like any other thing. For example, just as you do with food, drink, and other external things, so do with the commandments of the pope and the councils. How do you do this?

You take food, drink and clothing from the church in this way: you believe that you have life and salvation only from Christ and through the mysteries of God communicated to you through the word of the apostles and their successors. So you may eat or fast, clothe yourself in one way or another, but as far as Christ is concerned you have neither less nor more, but can use these things freely as you wish, provided they are only your own and you have not stolen them from your neighbor. The same is to be held and said of all the statutes and customs of the pope, the concilia, and the orders.

These are not Christ and the mysteries of God, therefore I do not live, am not in the Church of God by keeping them, do not die and am not outside the Church by not keeping them. Therefore, they are free and means things, like all other external things that are useful for the use of the body. This is what Paul says in 1 Cor. 8, 8: "Food and drink do not promote us before God." Likewise Rom. 14, 17: "The kingdom of God is not food and drink, but righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit."

How? if the pope, conciles and monasteries wanted to keep their statutes free, and did not require them as necessary or useful for blessedness and life in the church?

But then their kingdom would not exist, because they want them to be considered necessary so that they can force the people. Therefore they are Christ's adversaries, and the pope is the true antichrist, "the abomination that stands in the holy place," Matth. 24, 15. For it is very foolish and abominable to want to rule the church with outward works and laws in the holy place.

Food, drink, clothing, time and place, since they can neither live nor be saved by them, because they are temporal and perishable things, but only through Christ, the Eternal, who makes them alive through his Spirit only by means of the preached 1) word of faith. For these outward things must be cared for by parents and worldly rulers; it belongs to them to govern the body and bodily things, on which neither salvation nor damnation, but only civil peace in the world, rests. But a bishop must take care of that by which souls are governed in the spirit, that is, he must preach that Christ is the Savior; he must lay this as the foundation, and build upon it the fruits of love. After this it is easy to answer the other articles.

The second article.

Whether the pope, with or without a concilium, has been granted by God the power or authority to give a law over a divine commandment or regulation, by the observance of which a man may be saved, or by the contempt of which he may be damned?

Answer: No. Yes, neither all angels nor any other creatures may do this, because the Lord Christ has bound salvation and damnation to faith in the Spirit alone, Marci in the last: "He who believes will be saved; he who does not believe will be damned".

When Christ sent out his disciples, he said to them, "Preach the kingdom of God. He who hears you hears me; he who despises you despises me." Likewise, "Go ye, and preach the gospel to every creature." Therefore, if the pope or the conciliar preach Christ, or faith, or the gospel, which are the mysteries of God, they must be heard; but if they preach anything else, they are free to hear them; nay, if they wish to use coercion, they must not be heard, because the saying concerning Christ, Matt. 17:5, is immovably established, "Him ye shall hear." And in the

1. Instead of ^rssäioato, probably praeciieatum should be read; at least the text seems to us to need an alteration.

734 De Wette II, 471 f. II. writings, entering the person 2c. of the pabst. W. XIX, SI5-S17. 735

Church shall sound nothing but the word of God, which teaches the mysteries of God, 1 Pet. 4:11: "If any man speak, that he speak it as the word of God."

The third article.

Whether it is up to the pope and the conciliar to change the commandments of God and to falsify them according to their will or liking?

Answer: No. Rather, St. Paul says, "Cursed be he that preacheth another gospel," and Christ Matt. 5:19: "Whosoever shall destroy one of these least commandments, and teach men so, he shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven;" because the pope and the conciliar have no right in spiritual things but to preach them by word to others. Otherwise, every child that is in the cradle has as great a right to Christ, to faith, to the Spirit, and to all other things pertaining to the Church, as St. Peter himself and all the apostles have. For we are all brothers in Christ, we are all equal in that we all have the same faith, the same spirit, the same life, the same blessedness and the same God, only that outwardly one teaches differently about these things than the other.

The fourth article.

Whether the pope may divorce persons living in a lawful marriage without one of them having committed adultery, and leave both of them free to proceed to another marriage?

I answer: No. Because Paul says: "We can do nothing against GOD" 2c. and again: "GOD has not given us the power,

to tear down, but to build." The pope shall fear the word of GOD, preach and fortify the same, but not dissolve or change it. Accordingly, the word of God remains: "What God has joined together, let not man put asunder." But if in such a case people have been divorced by the pope and marry another person, they break the marriage, and the error of the pope will not excuse them, because all should know the word of God.

The fifth article.

Whether the pope may break up or separate a marriage contracted between blood friends and relatives, brothers-in-law or those who are connected to each other by spiritual kinship, except for those degrees that are forbidden in the law of God, without the consent or approval of both, so that both are then free to remarry or enter into matrimony?

Answer: No. Because it has been said above that the pope and all ministers of the Word in the church should do nothing but the mysteries of God, the Word of life and the doctrine of faith, nor should they do anything at anyone's discretion or will without the Word of God. For he is subject to God and His word, even though he has long since exalted himself over everything that is called God or worship, 2 Thess. 2:4, and does everything against and over and without the word of God. Given at Wittenberg in 1524.

Your Serene Highness most devoted Martin Luther.

To this section also belong the writings, which are included in the appendix of this volume from No. 36 to No. 41; in addition, Luther's final speech, which is appended to his Augsburg Acts with Cajetan, and is found Walch, old edition, Vol. XV, 746, as can also be looked up, what he has written about the reputation and the power of the Pope against Silvester Prierias, in the St. Louis edition, Vol. XVIII, 422 ff. Likewise Wider Johann Nannes, ibid. Col. 456 ff; Wider Eck Col. 720 ff; Wider Augustin von Alveld Col. 1002 ff. and Wider Ambrosius Catharinus Col-. 1434 ff.

736 D- V- "-1.165-167. 114. piece of a sermon by Luther on indulgences. W. XIX, SI7-SA). 737

III Luther's writings concerning indulgences.

*114. piece of a sermon by Luther on indulgences, held on the 10th Sunday after Trinity. )

July 27 Anno 1516. **)

Translated from Latin.

Of indulgences: Although they are the merit of Christ and his saints themselves 1) and therefore to be received with all reverence, they have become the most shameful service of avarice. For who seeks through it the salvation of souls and not rather the money in the stock exchanges? This is clearly evident in the way it is administered: for nowhere do the commissaries and their servants preach anything other than that they extol indulgences and incite the people to give. Here no one is heard to instruct the people what the indulgence is, when it bestows something, when it ceases, but only how much they should give, and of course leave the people in this ignorance unenlightened (suspensum), so that they believe they will be immediately blessed if only they have obtained this indulgence. For there is no such grace conferred, at least in itself, by which anyone can become righteous or more righteous than before, but only the remission of penance and of the satisfaction imposed; if this has been abated, it does not follow that he who dies in this way will immediately go to heaven. But the foolish people, and indeed the greater part of them, who are thus deceived, believe that by the complete remission all sin is taken away in such a way that they can immediately fly to heaven, and that they can immediately go to heaven.

1. Eraser: Luther still speaks this in scholastic error, but with a sincere heart.

sins further with impunity and is overcome by an all the more evil conscience.

But it must be noted that grace is twofold, namely, that by which [punishment is remitted, and that by which [grace' is infused, or an outward and an inward grace. Remission is the remission of temporal punishment, which a man would have had to suffer here, since it was imposed on him by the priest, or the rest of which he would have had to endure in purgatory, as seven years used to be interpreted .for One Sin. But by this remission the evil desire and the sickness of the soul is by no means diminished, nor is love or any inward virtue increased; and all this must happen before one can enter the kingdom of God, because flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God 1 Cor. 15:50 and nothing impure will enter it Eph. 5:5. Nobody knows how long this will take place in purgatory. Nor does the pope have it in his power to solve this in any way by the power of the keys, but only by the intercession of the whole church. There it still remains doubtful for how much;' whether God will accept this for the whole? He the pope can certainly release the soul from purgatory, with respect to the penance that he has imposed or could have imposed, as his bull reads: "insofar as the keys of the holy mother, the Church, extend, and from

*This sermon is first found "mitgetheilt from a good manuscript" in Löscher, Reformations-Acta, vol. I, p. 729; from it printed with all errors in the Erlanger Ausgabe, opp. var. ar^., vol. I, p. 165; with improved text in the Weimarsche Ausgabe, vol. I, p. 65. According to the latter we have translated.

**) Eraser: This sermon is attached to the interpretation of the first commandment.

738 L. v.". i, 167 f. III Luther's writings concerning indulgences. W. xix, 920-923. 739

the penances imposed we mercifully redeem". Therefore, it is too sacrilegious to preach that by this indulgence the souls would be delivered from purgatory, since it is inconsistent to say this, and since they do not explain how they want it to be understood. Otherwise the pope would be cruel if he did not grant to the poor souls for free what he can grant for the money necessary for a church. 1) The infusion of grace is the inward enlightenment of the mind and kindling of the will; this is a constant outflow (emanatio) into the soul, just as the rays of the sun constantly go out, and does not cease for the sake of perfect forgiveness. This is necessary for the eradication of evil desire until it is completely eradicated. Then, however, it is perfect, when man sighs to God in the utmost weariness of this life and is finally freed from this body through the desire for God. This has certainly only been experienced by a few who are completely absolved through indulgence; indeed, full forgiveness is only given to those who have repented and confessed in the right way (digne).

Corollary.

Since. no man can be certain in regard to himself, much less in regard to others, that he has repented and confessed perfectly and in a right way, it is sacrilegious to assert that the one who has obtained the indulgence will immediately fly to heaven, or that the soul will be torn out of purgatory: I mean, if anyone would denounce (depute) a torn soul, of which I have no other doubt that it will be torn out, namely such souls who have repented in a right way and have deserved such tearing out, as the words of St. Augustine read. But who are such people or not such people, God knows. For others must suffer purgatory because they have not deserved to be helped, namely, because they have not made themselves worthy, since they have not repented in the right way and have been caught in the wrong way.

1. Löscher: Here, the cry of Tetzel is alluded to, that the money is necessary for the building of the church in the Vatican.

were in the love of temporal things. However this may be, because I do not understand this matter sufficiently: 2) It is undoubtedly uncertain whether God remits the imperfect repentance by indulgence, because they loved God imperfectly and clung to the creatures with too great an inclination (affectu) and thus, in addition to the sins which they committed and redeemed through repentance, confession and complete remission, are still impure because of such earthly inclination with which they departed. And this could not in any case be remitted by plenary indulgence, since it was not yet gone and, not yet 4) redeemed by repentance, always remained; and indeed it remains in the soul separated from the body and cannot be remitted even in purgatory, if it does not first displease the soul by repentance and change of mind (resipiscentiam). Who, then, grieves over having feared dying, and ceases to fear death, that is, to be rebellious against God's will? Are they not, 5) who themselves say that indulgences benefit those who have repented and confessed, but not others?

But you will say, "Perfect repentance in itself takes away all punishment, so indulgences are not necessary, because a perfectly repentant person immediately goes to heaven." I answer, "I confess my ignorance." A perfect penitent. A perfect penitent goes to heaven (evolat) without the indulgence, but an imperfect penitent does not go with the indulgence either, because God does not demand anything from a perfect penitent, neither for the sins of the deed nor for the original sin, that is, the tinder and origin. So what is the use of indulgences? Is it only to atone for the original sins? In what way then are the souls redeemed (redimuntur), who are forgiven for original sins, but with whom the original sin or the sinful condition (habituale) remains? For those who are forgiven original sin are also forgiven original sin, but not vice versa. Original sin is what I call the tinder that is generated by our ab-.

2. Löscher: A sincere confession.
3. namely in purgatory.
4. Before deletns must be added nonäum.
5. Before well we seem to be missing ixÄ.

740 V. V. a. 1, 168-170. 114. Piece of a sermon of Luther on indulgences. W. XIX, 923-926. 741

The sins that are left over from the origin of sinful men have not yet been healed and put to death by grace, as the apostle says in Romans 6 and 8. Will those souls who deserve to repent of this tinder in a right way in purgatory or in death obtain this through indulgences? They do not consider this difficulty, so that henceforth no one is concerned about the mortification of tinder and root sin, but they only see to it that the sins of the deed are cut off by repentance, confession, atonement, and the like. By the way, they soon relapse and eat again what they have eaten, because they do not pay attention to the disease and the root of sin, just as those who cut off the leaves of a spring or the leaves of a tree, but leave the veins of the spring and the root alive, not caring to implore with constant groaning the grace that destroys this body of sin and kills the members of sin. Or will the souls perhaps obtain it through what they call "through the way of salvation," that this salvation may not only confer upon them the forgiveness of the sins of sin, but also obtain repentance and penance over the tinder and the remnants of love for the earthly, bring them to the grace of the most perfect love for God, and confer sighing for God? For example: If a dying (mortuus) man dies unwillingly and does not wish to be dissolved with such great desire that he would be exceedingly glad to obey the will of God, at least according to his reason, even though his feeling resists it, as in the case of Christ and all martyrs: here it is evident that he dies in a sin, not in a mortal sin, but still almost; therefore he has not repented of it in life. Will he then receive the grace of repentance from God in purgatory through the help of the Church, so that he would like to have died? For even nature cannot free him from it, nor the fire of the place of purification (purgatorii) without grace. But because he dies in sin, since he does not love what God wants with all his heart, but does it unwillingly, his will is not in the law of the Lord; thus.

Although he fulfills his commandment with his work, he does not do it with his heart.

But let us put it together as much as we can. All the works and merits of Christ and the Church are in the hands of the pope, and he can bestow everything that is good in the Church through Christ in three ways: first, as a pardon; second, as a help; third, as a vow or sacrifice of praise, just as Christ with his works both glorified God and took away our sins and earned grace. For satisfaction, he applies the indulgence, which he grants to the living. The meaning and intention of this is that if you had sinned and repentantly sought to make amends for your sins, you would come to the pope and say: "Holy Father, I ask that your holiness may ordain the works and prayers of the church for my sins. Then he will say, "Let it be done as you ask," and then all who say Mass, pray, fast, work, or whatever they do, GOtte will perform a pleasing work for you, and so the burden (labor) of penance and satisfaction will be removed from you. This is that plenary indulgence. But this is not enough for you, because by it you do not have grace inwardly, nor do you advance by it, but you remain in the same grace in which you were when you asked for it. Therefore, you must now see to it that you increase and do not snore idly, as if you were already holy and pure. For now you must stop with the crucifixion of the members and the mortification of the sources (principiorum) of sins, that is, of the evil lusts, which as they were the authors of the sins for which indulgences were given, so also will be the cause of the relapse into sins when you become certain. For help (suffragium) he the Pabst applies the indulgence, which he grants to the dead. There it is already no longer a real indulgence, because there the pope already has nothing to redeem or remit, but he can only intercede that God will remit and redeem, whether from the sins of the deed, or from the root of sin (radicali), which has not yet been killed in life.

742 L. V. **L. 1.**170 k. III Luther's writings concerning indulgences. W. XIX, 926-929. 743

is healed and cured. That this is done by this infusion of grace is not doubtful, because even then they cannot earn anything in any way. I do not see why he can grant this the grace of infusion to the living, even though the Church generally intercedes helpfully for all before God. But this extends further (amplius est), that this is bestowed in particular by the pope or any man. For he himself says that the departed become partakers, which, as he elsewhere sufficiently explains, he thoroughly understands "from the way of help". But one must not immediately boldly assert that he liberates a named soul who buys this indulgence, because one does not know whether it is worthy before God, or another who deserves it better. Therefore, the pope seems to do more with the indulgence for the deceased than for the living, because he also grants them the grace of confiscation, but only grants forgiveness to the living. The souls in purgatory relate to the later (posterior) grace or to the increase and supplement of grace, which is glory, as ssich^ a godless relates to the first grace or justification. For both cannot merit the same, but are capable of receiving it; he who has the first hot, though he is out of life, as this, who is in life, though he has not yet the first. Nevertheless, I still have doubts, since the Pope only intervenes and intercedes for the souls, not as one who has the power, but as a mediator: why is it certain that the soul will be freed, since the decision (arbitrium) is with GOtte, how much, in which way, when, where, for which people he wants to hear his church? Who is sure that God also grants (accepts) as he is asked? if not from this comes his certainty],

that God does not reject the prayer of His Church, in which Christ prays with her, as He said Matth. 7, 7. 21, 22.: "Ask, and you shall receive," and again Marc. 11, 24.: "Whatever you ask in your prayer, only believe that you will receive it, and it will be given to you." Since this is certain, it is very useful that this indulgence should be given and resolved, however much avarice and greed for gain there may be in it, which one fears. For perhaps that is why God wants to have mercy on the deceased with all the more abundant mercy, because He sees that it is despised by the living, and now many more people enter Purgatory than before, because Christians now behave much more sluggishly than before. Therefore, because many enter and few make an effort on their part, since our ancestors (praecedentes) and those who are left now have both been and still are sluggish, the pope comes to their aid at least in this way. To the vow or acts of gratitude (gratiarum actiones) he the pope turns it the indulgence in the praises of God because of the benefits that have been shown to him and the elect.

Conclusion.

Therefore, we must be careful that indulgences, that is, satisfactions, do not become a cause of security and laziness for us and a detriment to the inward grace. Rather, we are to be diligent that the disease of nature may be completely healed, and that we may thirst to come to God out of love for Him and out of hatred for this life and out of disgust for ourselves, that is, that we pursue the unceasingly healing grace and its branches.

744L . V. L. 1, 177 f. 115. Luther's Sermon on Indulgences. W. XIX, S2g-S32. 745

*115 D. Martin Luther's Sermon on Indulgences delivered on the day before the consecration of the church. )

October 31, 1516.

Translated from Latin.

Theme Luc. 19, 8:

But Zacchaeus came forward and said to the Lord.

Conclusio or final speech.

To whom Christ is something, all things are nothing; but to whom Christ is nothing, all things are always great. But what this means, that Christ is something or nothing, let us learn from Zacchaeus, whose mind was set on it, as the evangelist says, that he sought to see Jesus for who he was. From this it necessarily follows that he thought highly of him, but of himself nothing. After that he rejoiced when he received Christ with him. Hence this, "Christ is something," means to have pleasure in him, to delight in him, to long for him, to love him, to esteem him great, but to esteem himself quite unworthy of him and not to seek him (which is already presumptuous), but only to desire to see him, and to esteem all those worthy, 1) to praise and extol, whom he should esteem worthy to turn to them, despairing, as it were, and never presuming that he Christ should come to them, though one should be quite ready to receive him, but be content to wonder in such a manner at and submit to those to whom he is seen going. This godly, humble

1. There is hardly any doubt that before luäiWre a word is dropped out and fliMos or deatos must be inserted, as Walch has already done.

and right mind (affectus) alone considers Christ to be something. On the other hand, "that Christ be nothing," that is, not to delight in him, but in ourselves and in what is our own, even to despise him, and not to desire him. But it is well to note that those who delight in Christ, desire him, and esteem him great, are of different kinds. Some do it carnally, or curiously, or childishly, or according to their own opinion, as those in the Gospel who marveled that he had gone to a man who was a sinner, wishing that he had gone to them because they thought themselves worthy of such honor. These are wicked people, who rather only think highly of themselves and please themselves and imagine themselves to be something, thinking that they are wise, understand only everything right and lead a good life. And so they seek their own honor through Christ, that is, through the honor of God, because in order to confirm their worthiness they have God as their guest, who has therefore come to them because they are worthy of Him - by esteeming Him great, so that they might be esteemed through Him; but if they do not receive such esteem through Him, they soon cease to esteem Him high and great, and so they seek their righteousness in their good opinion of themselves. If this does not happen, they are angry and grumble that sinners are preferred to them. And immediately the unfortunate

*) This sermon is found, from the manuscript mentioned in the previous number, first in Löscher, Reformations-Acta, Vol. I, p. 734; printed from it with the same errors in the Erlangen edition, opp. var. arx., Vol. I, p. 177; with improved text in the Weimar edition, Vol. I, p. 94. We have translated according to the latter. Löscher gives the year 1517 as the year in which our sermon was delivered, in contradiction to his own statement (p. 729) that Luther was then busy with the interpretation of the holy ten commandments. However, Luther concluded his lectures on this subject on St. Matthew's Day (February 24) 1517. In the "Interpretation and Interpretation of the Holy Lord's Prayer," which contains Luther's Lenten sermons of 1517, our "Sermon of Zacheo" is already mentioned (printed by Melchior Lotther in Leipzig 1518, p. Bd). (Weim. Ausg., Vol. I, p. 94.)

746 L. V. Ä. 1, 17S f. III Luther's writings concerning indulgences. W. XIX, S32-S3S. 747

He is haughty with bold judgments of others, or boasts about himself, blaspheming God, because he had previously adorned himself so beautifully with the adornment of good works. Such people seek Christ in such a way, not so that they may be saved through him, but so that they may receive testimony that they are saved. They do not seek the author of righteousness, but a witness of their holiness, and thereby they consider themselves better and higher than Christ. Oh, dear God, what a great folly it is to judge one's neighbor! Here all murmur, all pass a bold judgment; such a general plague is a bold judgment even to this day; the cause of it is the great blindness and ignorance of wisdom, which is hidden in secret from the wise, but is revealed to the little ones. For they are foolish and coarse saints, who, because they perceive no gross defects in themselves, do not admit that they still have defects in themselves. Therefore it is safer to have many great and gross infirmities than none. The reason is this: because, although every man is vain and lying before God, those people alone do not know this who find themselves somewhat so in their mind and heart, and are satisfied with this, saying, "I am not aware of anything, therefore I am justified," although this very thing is the most terrible sin, not to be aware of anything in such a way as to be justified by it.

Others (seek Christ) spiritually and in truth, who, as I have said, do not dare to desire that he should come to them, because of their all too great unworthiness and his dignity; and yet precisely with this they call him to themselves most vehemently, by inferring affirmation from the very strongest denial. And in such a way, GOD is sought by not being sought, is praised by not being praised, is loved by not being loved, is demanded by not being demanded, it is knocked by not knocking, and while fleeing from Him, one runs to Him. Behold, all this is in Zacchaeus in a wonderful way. For nowhere have I seen this way more beautiful and

more gracefully described than in this passage. For no one hears the right prayer but God, not even man himself, and it is with prayer, even that which takes place in the spirit, as with a circle, a sign, a thought, 1) that is, what we ask is, as it were, the circle. This is what we present to God when we pray. This we feel quite well. But God hears the reason for the desire in the innermost heart, which goes beyond all thoughts. And as God does this, the praying person realizes with amazement how he has received everything that he had not dared to ask for. And so this becomes true: what the soul asks, it does not ask, and what it does not ask, it asks because it does not know what it asks; as Christ says and the Apostle Paul Matth. 20, 22. Rom. 8, 26.: "We do not know what we should pray for as we ought." Thus, as St. Augustine says, St. Monica was heard according to the main point of her desire. And Zacchaeus is also an example, who desired to see Christ, and yet did not desire that He should come into his house, but in fact he would have desired this most earnestly, because it is evident that if anyone had asked him whether he would like to have Christ in his house, he would certainly have answered, "O would God that this should happen!" And this has happened, although others who have desired the same have not been heard, because the main point of their desire was not for Christ, but for themselves.

Corollary. No one publicly thinks that he is asking or praying rightly, but asks that he be taught by God to pray and ask. Therefore, arrogant people who think they have used all diligence in their prayers will be sure not to pay attention to it, nor will they stand in fear, even if they have prayed for an evil reason of the heart.

Conclusion. It is clear from this gospel that God only asks about the inner self and the heart, so that if someone had done and given away everything, and

1. "Circle, sign, thought" is meant to denote something indeterminate of which one does not become fully aware.

748 V-a. 1, 179-181. 115 Luther's Sermon on Indulgences. W. XIX, 935-938. 749

the heart, he shall not have done anything. Thus it is said in Proverbs 23:26: "Give me, my son, your heart," not the hand, nor at least the body, but the heart, and that to me, not to you. So it is also said in Genesis 4:4, 5: "The Lord looked graciously on Abel and his sacrifice; but on Cain and his sacrifice he looked not graciously," which the apostle Heb. 11:4. explains thus: "By faith Abel offered a greater sacrifice than Cain." Behold! faith makes the difference between Abel and Cain. And what great power there is in this thing is evident from the opposite displeasure. For in the 4th Psalm v. 3. it is said, "O ye children of men! how long have ye a hardened (gravi) heart? 1) How are ye so fond of vain things, and of lies?" That is, all things that are offered without the heart are vain and lies; which things ye boast of to your shame because of your hardened heart. And Ps. 95:9, 10, 11, 2): "Forty years have I been very near unto this generation; and I have said, Ever do they err with their hearts, but they have not known my ways; unto them have I sworn in mine anger, They shall not come into my rest." Behold, without the heart one always goes astray, incurs wrath, is deprived of rest; vanity is sought, falsehood is loved, instead of honor one seeks disgrace. For the Hebrew text actually has this meaning: You children of man, how long are you restful in such things, which after all bring shame? since you love vanity and seek lies.

Thus, the dedications of the churches in their ceremonies and outward performances are signs that we are to consecrate the heart to God. For what does God ask for the outward church building (templum signi) if He does not have the temple that is signified by it (templum signati)? What would a man do to another man if he were to pay him annually in the sale of goods?

1. According to the Vulgate.
2. According to the Vulgate. V. 9 and 10 shortened. From the 9th verse comes the word proxioms, which Luther placed, while in the 10th verse it is oüsvsus.
3. and the conclusion (dicas) and wrote down what he would owe him and would have to perform, but still never paid it? Would he not finally, tired of the mere signs and words, put an end to the whole thing at once? For it is certain that one man would not want to suffer this from another, and yet God should endure this unceasingly. But behold, that is why he lets lightning strike the church buildings more often than other houses, because there he is provoked to anger more than he is worshipped with completely trivial signs. But let us return to the Gospel and explore and consider the wonders of God's law. Here we see Christ as the true judge of hearts, who does not look at the person, that is, at the outward appearance, whether it be good or evil. For if he had looked at the person, the reputation of those who murmured was better, since he had come to a sinner; yet he let them go; Zacchaeus was worse; yet he was not ashamed of him. For those followed him and desired his; but this was a chief of publicans, those were good, this was evil. Hence this wonder, that they which desire Christ desire him not, and that they which desire him not desire him: and he goeth in unto them that desire him not, and fleeth from them that desire him. Let us therefore here consider the diversity of hearts and of desire, that we may be instructed in wisdom from the heart. It is certain that those desired Christ to enter in with them, otherwise they would not have grumbled that he had entered in with Zacchaeus. But their heart was perverse and vain, which Christ saw, but they saw not. For their heart was such that they counted themselves worthy of Christ's approval, and therefore they desired that by Christ's return their worthiness might be proved and extolled by so great a prophet, that it might be said, "Behold, what great men these are, with whom so great a man doth return!" Thus, they sought their honor and the pomp of their
4. rsAistrs stands for reZtzsta.

750 L. V. L. L, 181-183. III Luther's writings concerning indulgences. W. XIX, 988-941. 751

Righteousness and theirs in Christ. They were not yet empty and purified in themselves; therefore they were angry that he did not glorify them with his entrance, and said that he had entered with a sinner, as if to say, "There are many righteous here who are well worthy of so great an honor; yet he prefers a sinner." Behold now what foolish pride does, how manifest sins it brings forth, namely, bold judgments, belittlement, envy, and spite. Thus, Christ is set forth as a sign of contradiction, so that the thoughts of the heart may be revealed. For who would have known that they thought such things if Christ had not revealed them? Indeed, the human heart itself does not know that it has such thoughts until it is revealed through the contradiction of this sign. But Christ did not come to bear witness to vanity, to approve and justify the righteousness and honesty of men, but to glorify his heavenly Father; not for the glory of our righteousness, but for the praise of his mercy and grace, as the apostle says. Therefore he cannot come to those who consider themselves worthy and righteous, but only to the wretched, who are eager for mercy and unworthy of grace. Thus it is evident how they desired Christ and did not desire Him at the same time, because to desire Christ in that way, that is, through oneself, and in order to gain one's own honor, is rather to not desire Him.

Zacchaeus, however, did not demand Christ's promise, and yet he desired it. That he did not ask for it is evident from the fact that he went up to see him pass by, but did not presume to ask for him to come and stay with him. For it is evident that he did not consider himself worthy of it, because he wanted to be satisfied if he had only seen him, and could then remain hidden, for he had no reason to believe that it would bring him glory that Christ had come, and also knew that he did not deserve it above all others. But that he desired him is clear from the fact that he received him with joy. For the joy is a sign of a previous love and desire. For if someone had asked him,

if he did not wish to have Christ with him, he would have answered: "I do not dare to wish or want that. But they would have answered, "Indeed, and I hope that this will happen." Behold, then, the depth of the human heart, whose truth is so very deeply hidden, and whose willing so secret, that it does not know itself, nor does it delight in willing; but this willing alone is felt, is lived, but it does not express itself. This is an honest heart, this is the inwardness of man. Therefore Christ says: "Today salvation has come to this house from God", and therefore also you are righteous, because this is my house. And again: therefore, because he also is a son of Abraham: he, he, not they. Behold now how they are vexed, though he did it not, that they should be vexed to their destruction. He could have called Zacchaeus to mercy secretly, but he wanted this to happen publicly, so that they would recognize their own false righteousness and become like Zacchaeus. And he wanted to heal them all of their sickness by the example of this one, although they misused this remedy. Hence he also concludes, "For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost." He did not come to glorify the already righteous and blessed; he wanted them to stumble, not that they might fall, but that they might know themselves, because they were full of ambition and self-love.

This vice, however, is in every man unless he is corrected by grace, and it has been so from the beginning of the world, and will remain so to the end; because men seek their own in all things, even in Christ. But it is especially prevalent in our time, where the people are brought to this vice by seducers, liars, 2c., when they should rather be dissuaded from it. Such people are those who preach indulgences, of whom I will say a few things for the sake of example and because many have desired it. For I have already spoken more about them, especially since this preaching is at the door; so that I may be excused from indulgence, but you may be excused from it.

752 L. V. L. 1, 183 f. 115. Luther's Sermon on Indulgences. W. XIX, 941-944. 753

from the danger of such a wrong mind. First, I testify that the intention of the pope is a correct and true one, at least that which is laid down in the letters and decrees (syllabis). Secondly, perhaps the words of those who take their mouths so full (buccinant) are true in a certain sense, but still some things are either not spoken according to the truth (vere), or not rightly understood. Therefore, to know that there are three pieces of repentance is to teach according to the ordinary way. But it is better this way: repentance is twofold, namely the apparent (signi) and the actual (rei). Actual repentance is the inward repentance of the heart and is the only true repentance, of which Christ says Matt. 4:17, "Repent," and Peter in Acts 3:19, "Repent and be converted." The apparent repentance is the outward one, which has often happened, although the inward one has often been a fabricated one; and this has two parts, namely confession and atonement, of which John the Baptist Luc. 3, 8. says: "Do therefore righteous fruits of repentance." Confession is again twofold, namely a public and a special one. Of the public one Jacobi speaks in the last chapter Jac. 5, 16.: "Confess your sins one to another." Of the special one I do not know where Scripture speaks of it. Therefore I leave it to the jurists and demand of them that they prove where, from divine right, satisfaction and confession are proven, as they are now in use. For satisfaction, which John Lucas 3 prescribed, is the service of the whole Christian life, and is both general, imposed on all, and public. But where secret confession and penance are taught and commanded, I confess that I do not know.

Conclusion. The indulgence presupposes repentance, yes, it should serve to make repentance a true one, or it mainly serves this purpose, but it does not take away anything other than what has been imposed for private satisfaction. And so it is to be feared that it often works against inner repentance. For inner repentance is true repentance,

true confession, true satisfaction in the spirit; since the truly penitent displeases himself in all that he has done, actively converts to God, acknowledges his guilt without reservation (pure) and confesses it to God from the heart. After that, he offends and punishes himself inwardly through the abhorrence of himself, therefore he satisfies God with it. Yes, a truly penitent would, if it were possible, want all creatures to see and hate his sins, and is willing to be trampled underfoot by all. He does not seek indulgence and remission of punishments, but the execution of punishments. Therefore, repentance or inner penance is twofold; one is an imaginary one, which is commonly called "gallows repentance" because it is easily perceived in those who immediately backslide and fall all too often (saepius). These grieve over sin in such a way that they suffer over the punishment of sin, and nothing displeases such a person but God's displeasure at sin: for he would rather that God liked sin, and so he desires God as an unrighteous one. This is a most perverse, but very common thing, that man, out of fear of punishment and love of himself, hates the justice of God and loves his ungodly nature; for he hates punishment. The other is true repentance, of which I said that it hates sin out of love of justice and punishment, because it desires that the offended justice be avenged. Therefore, it does not desire indulgence, but the cross: as one reads in many legends, as of St. Paula, whom St. Jerome refused that she should not weep and should chastise herself less; but she did not want to do so, should it also entail the loss of bodily health.

Therefore see how dangerous is the preaching of indulgences, which takes away grace and teaches to flee from satisfaction and punishment, so that it is to be feared that it is the effect of error, which the apostle preached 2 Thess. 2, 11. For how is it possible (qua facilitate) that at the same time and at once true repentance and such an easy and rich indulgence are preached?

754 L. V.". 1, 184,171 f. in. Luther's Writings Concerning Indulgences. W. XIX, 944-946. 755

since the true new one demands a strict fulfillment and this the indulgence slackens too much? Or shall we make the excuse that the same is to be understood only from the repentance of the perfect, and so it is not

necessary to bring people to perfect repentance? But why do the harlots and tax collectors begin this repentance? Rather, all are to be exhorted to this true repentance.

*116 D. Mart. Luther's Sermon on the Day of St. Matthew. )

February 24 Anno 1517.

Translated from Latin.

You have hidden it from the wise and prudent, and have revealed it to babes. Matth. 11, 25. Man hides what is his, so that he denies it; but God hides what is his, so that he reveals it. For he hideth it from the wise and great, that they might be humbled and unwise, and so reveal it to babes: for this is acceptable in his sight, and the best will, which is just and holy. And what will is better than that which by its concealment does nothing but remove the hindrances of revelation, that is, arrogance? Two questions arise here: first, what are the wise and prudent to whom such things are hidden? second, what are these hidden things?

To the first question is answered here and there that the wise and prudent are those who believe themselves to be such and yet in truth are not. That this gloss is true, but even darker than the text itself, is said by many who are such people themselves and do not believe themselves to be such, indeed, they abhor such things. For this interpretation sounds as if some people were wise and others only imagined such things. This is a dangerous conception, which, very close to arrogance, is peculiar to those who are such wise men. That is why Christians should be told that they are wise.

who know everything, especially in the wisdom of God and in the holy scriptures. For all such are and consider themselves wise. Furthermore, those whom they Christians call truly wise, who do not consider themselves to be so, these are not those who have wisdom, but are foolish and poor in wisdom and prudence, who recognize without all imagination of their heart that they are empty and know absolutely nothing. These truly unwise, but thirsting after wisdom, I say, are truly wise. The rest, whether they are imaginary, as there are the peasants and grossly ignorant people, or whether they have wisdom, as there are the subtle hypocrites, are all wise, because they are not unwise, not empty, not thirsting after wisdom, not ignorant. Therefore the apostle 1 Cor. 3:18, as an excellent teacher, saith not, Whosoever would be wise among you, let him thin himself, or think himself a fool; but, "Let him become a fool, that he may be wise." For this is a true saying: the fool is a wise man, and the wise man is a fool; 1) a

1. Here it should be added: "There are two kinds of fools"; the one, who is considered wise by the world, is considered a fool by God because of his own wisdom and he is hardened; the other, who considers himself a fool and is considered a fool by the world, is credited by God with his (God's) wisdom. For etc. .

*) This sermon is the last introductory sermon to Luther's lectures on the Ten Commandments, which are thus closed on February 24, 1517. (Löscher, Ref.-Acta, vol. I, p. 725, note, and p. 745; Weim. Ausg., vol. I, p. 138 and p. 19). It is already printed in the 12th volume of the St. Louis edition, Col. 1762 ff.; however, because the Weimar edition, whose first volume appeared at the same time, could not yet be used in the editing, there are several errors in it. Therefore, we give here an improved translation. In Latin, this sermon is first found in Löscher, Reformations-Acta, Vol. I, p. 740; in the Erlangen edition, with the resumption of several errors which Walch had already correctly emended, ox>x>. var. arZ., Vol. I, p. 171 and in the Weimar edition, Vol. I, p. 138. After the latter we have translated.

756 K. v. a. i, 172-174. 116. Luther's Sermon on the Day of St. Matthew. W. xix, pp46-948. 757