Martin Luther
FIRST PRINCIPLES
OF
THE REFORMATION
OR
THE NINETY-FIVE THESES AND THE
THREE PRIMARY WORKS
OF
DR. MARTIN LUTHER
TRANSLATED INTO ENGLISH
EDITED
WITH THEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL INTRODUCTIONS
BY HENRY WACE D.D.
PREBENDARY OF ST.
PAUL’S PREACHER OF LINCOLN’S INN PRINCIPAL OF KING’S COLLEGE LONDON
CHAPLAIN TO THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY
AND
C. A. BUCHHEIM PH.D.
PROFESSOR OF THE GERMAN LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE IN KING’S COLLEGE LONDON
WITH A PORTRAIT
LONDON
JOHN MURRAY. ALBEMARLE STREET
1883
LONDON:
PRINTED BY WILLIAM CLOWES AND SONS, Limited,
STAMFORD STREET AND CHARING CROSS
ADVERTISEMENT.
THE purpose and plan of this publication, which has been prompted by the celebration of the fourth centenary of Luther’s birth, is explained in the Introductory Essay. Here it is only necessary to state that, of the works of Luther contained in it, the "Address to the Nobility of the German Nation," which was written in German, has been translated by Professor Buchheim, from the text given in the Erlangen, or Frankfort, Edition. The translation of this work offered very great difficulties, as it was written in Luther’s earliest German style, before the language had been improved, and rendered comparatively definite, by his translation of the Bible. Dr. Buchheim has endeavoured to make it as literal as was compatible with the genius of the English language, and with the necessity of modifying, now and then, some obscure or obsolete expression; and he has offered a few annotations. He desires, at the same time, to express his great obligations to Dr. Wace, who carefully compared his translation with the original work, and whose suggestions have been of great service to him. The Theses, and the two Treatises, "On Christian Liberty," and "On the Babylonish Captivity of the Church," have been translated from the original Latin Text, as given in the Frankfort Edition, by the Rev. R. S. Grignon, to whose generous assistance and accurate scholarship the editors feel greatly indebted.
CONTENTS.
| page | |
| THEOLOGICAL INTRODUCTION. By Dr. Wace | ix |
|
HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION. By Professor Buchheim |
xxxix |
| THE NINETY-FIVE THESES | 2 |
| THE THREE PRIMARY WORKS OF LUTHER:— | |
|
I. ADDRESS TO THE NOBILITY OF THE GERMAN NATION. |
|
|
1. Dedicatory Letter |
17 |
|
2. Introduction |
18 |
|
3. The Three Walls of the Romanists |
20 |
|
(a) That the Temporal Power has no Jurisdiction over the Spirituality |
21 |
|
(b) That no one may interpret the Scriptures but the Pope |
25 |
|
(c) That no one may call a Council but the Pope |
28 |
|
4. Of the Matters to be considered in the Councils |
31 |
|
5. Twenty-seven Articles respecting the Reformation of the Christian Estate |
44 |
| II. CONCERNING CHRISTIAN LIBERTY. | |
|
1. Letter to Pope Leo X. |
95 |
|
2. That a Christian man is the most free Lord of all, and subject to none |
104 |
|
3. That a Christian man is the most dutiful Servant of all, and subject to every one |
118 |
| III. ON THE BABYLONISH CAPTIVITY OF THE CHURCH. | |
|
1. Introduction |
141 |
|
2. On the Lord’s Supper |
148 |
|
3. On Baptism |
182 |
|
4. On Penance |
205 |
|
5. On Confirmation |
214 |
|
6. On Matrimony |
215 |
|
7. On Orders |
227 |
|
8. On Extreme Unction |
237 |
INTRODUCTORY ESSAYS
I
ON THE PRIMARY PRINCIPLES
OF
LUTHER’S LIFE AND TEACHING
By Dr. WACE
ON THE PRIMARY PRINCIPLES OF LUTHER’S LIFE AND TEACHING
The present publication is offered as a contribution to the
due celebration in this country of the fourth Centenary of Luther’s birth. Much
has been written about him, and the general history of his life and work is being
sketched by able pens. But no adequate attempt has yet been made to let him speak
for himself to Englishmen by his greatest and most characteristic writings. The
three works which, together with the 95 Theses, are included in this volume, are
well known in Germany as the Drei Grosse Reformations-Schriften, or “The
Three Great Reformation Treatises” of Luther; but they seem never yet to have been
brought in this character before the English public. The Treatise on Christian Liberty
has indeed been previously translated, though not of late years. But from an examination
of the catalogue in the British Museum, it would appear that no English translation
is accessible, even if any has yet been published, of the Address to the German
Nobility or of the Treatise on the Babylonish Captivity of the Church. Yet, as is
well understood in Germany, it is in these that the whole genius of the Reformer
appears in its most complete and energetic form. They are bound together in the
closest dramatic unity. They were all three produced in the latter half of the critical
year 1520, when nearly three years’ controversy, since the publication of the Theses,
on Oct. 31 1517, had convinced Luther of the falseness of the Court of Rome, and
the hollowness of its claims; and they were
Those convictions had been slowly, and even reluctantly, admitted;
but they had gradually accumulated in intense force in Luther’s mind and conscience;
and when “the time for speech had come” they burst forth in a kind of volcanic eruption.
Their maturity is proved by the completeness and thoroughness with which the questions
at issue are treated. An insight into the deepest theological principles is combined
with the keenest apprehension of practical details. In the Treatise on Christian
Liberty we have the most vivid of all embodiments of that life of Faith to which
the Reformer recalled the Church and which was the mainspring of the Reformation.
In the Appeal to the German Nobility he first asserted those rights of the laity,
and of the temporal power, without the admission of which no reformation would have
been practicable, and he then denounced with burning moral indignation the numerous
and intolerable abuses which were upheld by Roman authority. In the third Treatise,
on the Babylonish Captivity of the Church, he applied the same cardinal principles
to the elaborate Sacramental system of the Church of Rome, sweeping away by means
of them the superstitions with which the original institutions of Christ had been
overlaid, and thus releasing men’s consciences from a vast network of ceremonial
bondage. The rest of the Reformation, it is not too
It occurred therefore to my colleague and myself that a permanent service might perhaps be rendered to Luther’s name, and towards a due appreciation of the principles of the Reformation, if these short but pregnant Treatises were made more accessible to the English public; and although they might well be left to speak for themselves, there may perhaps be some readers to whom a few explanatory observations on Luther’s position, theologically and politically, will not be unacceptable. My colleague, in the Essay which follows this, has dealt with the political course of the Reformation during his career; and in the present remarks an endeavour will simply be made to indicate the nature and the bearings of the central principles of the Reformer’s life and work, as exhibited in the accompanying translations.
It is by no mere accident of controversy that the Ninty-five Theses
mark the starting-point of Luther’s career as a reformer. The subject with which
they dealt was not only in close connection with the centre of Christian truth,
but it touched the characteristic thought of the Middle Ages. From the beginning
to the end, those ages had been a stern school of moral and religious discipline,
under what was universally regarded as the divine authority of the Church. St. Anselm,
with his intense apprehension of the divine righteousness, and of its inexorable
demands, is at once the noblest and truest type of the great school of thought of
which he was the founder. The special mission of
Now it was into this world of spiritual terrors that Luther was
born, and he was in an eminent degree the legitimate child of the Middle Ages. The
turning-point in his history is that the awful visions of which we have spoken,
the dread of the Divine judgments, brought home to him by one of the solemn accidents
of life, checked him in a career which promised all worldly prosperity, and drove
him into a monastery. There, as he tells us, he was driven almost frantic by his
vivid realization of the demands of the Divine righteousness on the one hand, and
of his own incapacity to satisfy them on the other. With the intense reality characteristic
of his nature he took in desperate earnest all that the traditional teaching and
example of the Middle Ages had taught him of the unbending necessities of Divine
justice. But for the very reason that he accepted those necessities with such earnestness,
he did but realize the more completely the hopelessness of his struggles to bring
himself into conformity with them. It was not because he was out of sympathy with
St. Anselm or St. Bernard or Dante, that he burst the bonds of the system they represented;
but, on the contrary, because he entered even more deeply than they into the very
truths they asserted. Nothing was more certain to him than that Divine justice is
inexorable; no conviction was more deeply fixed in his heart than that righteousness
is the supreme law of human life. But the more he realized the truth, the more terrible
he found it, for it seemed to shut him up in a cruel prison, against the bars of
which he beat himself in vain. In one of his most characteristic passages, in the
Introduction to his Latin Works, he describes how he was repelled and appalled by
the statement of St. Paul respecting the Gospel, that ‘therein is the righteousness,
or justice, of God revealed.’ For, he says, ‘however irreprehensible a life I had
lived as a monk, I felt myself before God a sinner, with a most restless conscience,
and I could not be confident that He was
But if this be the case, what it meant was that the Middle Ages
had brought men to a deadlock. They had led men up to a gate so strait that no human
soul could pass through it. In the struggle, men had devised the most elaborate
forms of self-torture, and had made the most heroic sacrifices, and in the very
desperation of their efforts they had anticipated the more vivid insight and experience
of Luther. The effort, in fact, had been too much for human nature, and the end
of it had been that the Church had condescended to human weakness. The most obvious
and easy way out of the difficulty was to modify, by virtue of some dispensing authority,
the extreme requirements of Divine justice, and by a variety of half-unconscious,
half-acknowledged devices, to lessen the severity of the strait gate and of the
narrow way. Such a power, as has been said, was an enormous temptation to unscrupulous
Churchmen, and at length it led to the hideous abuses of such preaching of indulgences
as that of Tetzel. In this form the matter came before Luther in his office as parish
priest and confessor; and it will be apparent from the Theses that what first revolts
him is the violation involved of the deepest principles which the Church of his
day had taught him. He had learned from it the inexorable character of the Divine
law, the necessity and
Luther, in the course of his spiritual struggles, had found the
true deliverance from what we have ventured to call that deadlock to which the grand
vision of Divine righteousness had led him. He realised that the strait gate was
impassable by any human virtue; but he had found the solution in the promise of
a supernatural deliverance which was offered to faith. To quote again his words
in the preface to his Latin works already referred to: ‘At length by the mercy of
God, meditating days and nights, I observed the connection of the words namely “therein
is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith, as it is written: The
just shall live by faith.” Then I began to understand the justice of God to be that
by which the just man lives by the gift of God, namely, by faith, and that the meaning
was that the Gospel reveals that justice of God by which He justifies us beggars
through faith, as it is written: “The just shall live by faith.” Here I felt myself
absolutely born again; the gates of heaven were opened, and I had entered paradise
itself. From thenceforward the face of the whole Scriptures appeared changed to
me. I ran through the Scriptures, as my memory would serve me, and observed the
same analogy in other words—as, the work of God, that is, the work which God works
in us; the strength
This belief is essentially bound up with a distinction on which
great stress is laid in the Theses. It touches a point at once of the highest theological
import, and of the simplest
No divine, in fact, has ever dwelt with more intense conviction
on the blessedness of the discipline of suffering and of the Cross. The closing
Theses express his deepest feelings in this respect, and a passage in one of his
letters, written before the controversy about Indulgences had arisen, affords a
most interesting illustration of the manner in which the principles he came forward
to assert had grown out of his personal experience. “Away,” he says, in the 92nd
and 93rd Theses, “with all those prophets who say to the people of Christ, ‘Peace,
peace,’ and there is no peace. Blessed be all those prophets who say to the people
of Christ, ‘The Cross, the Cross,’ and there is no Cross.” These somewhat enigmatic
expressions are at once explained in the letter referred to, written to a Prior
of the Augustinian order, on the 22nd of June, 1516. Letters, edited
by De Wette, i. 27.
“You are seeking and craving for peace, but in the wrong order. For you are seeking it as the world giveth, not as Christ giveth. Know you not that God is ‘wonderful among His saints,’ for this reason, that He establishes His peace in the midst of no peace, that is, of all temptations and afflictions.’ It is said ‘Thou shalt dwell in the midst of thine enemies.’ The man who possesses peace is not the man whom no one disturbs—that is the peace of the world; he is the man whom all men and all things disturb, but who bears all patiently, and with joy. You are saying with Israel, ‘Peace, peace,’ and there is no peace. Learn to say rather with Christ: ‘The Cross, the Cross,’ and there is no Cross. For the Cross at once ceases to be the Cross as soon as you have joyfully exclaimed, in the language of the hymn,
One other extract of the same import it may be well to quote from
these early letters, as it is similarly the germ of one of the noblest passages
in Luther’s subsequent explanation of
It
is a pleasure to be able to refer for this passage to the first volume of the new
Critical Edition of Luther’s works, just published in Germany, page 613, line 21.
This magnificent edition, prepared under the patronage of the German Emperor, is
the best of all contributions to the present Commemoration. It must supersede all
other editions, and it ought to find a place in all considerable libraries in England.
A translation of the passage in question will be found in the Bampton Lectures of
the present writer, p. 186.
“The cross of Christ has been divided throughout the whole world,
and every one meets with his own portion of it. Do not you therefore reject it,
but rather accept it as the most holy relic, to be kept, not in a gold or silver
chest, but in a golden heart, that is, a heart imbued with gentle charity. For if,
by contact with the flesh and blood of Christ, the wood of the Cross received such
consecration that its relics are deemed supremely precious, how much more should
injuries, persecutions, sufferings and the hatred of men, whether of the just or
of the unjust, be regarded as the most sacred of all relics—relics which, not by
the mere touch of His flesh, but by the charity of His most bitterly tried heart
and of His divine will, were embraced, kissed, blessed, and abundantly consecrated;
for thus was a curse transformed into a blessing, and injury into justice, and passion
into glory, and the Cross into joy.” Letters, edited by De Wette, i.
p. 19.
The few letters, in fact, in our possession, written by Luther
before he came forward in 1517, are sufficient to afford the most vivid proof both
of the mature thought and experience in which his convictions were rooted, and of
their being prompted, not by the spirit of reckless confidence to which they have
sometimes been ignorantly ascribed, but by the deepest sympathy with the lessons
of the Cross. The purport of his characteristic doctrine of justification by faith
was not to give men the assurance of immunity from suffering and sorrow, as the
consequence of sin, but to give them peace of conscience and joy of heart in the
midst of such punishments.
The ground, however, on which this promise was based affords another
striking illustration of the way in which Luther’s teaching was connected with that
of the Middle Age. Together with that keen apprehension of the divine judgments
and of human sin just mentioned, the awful vision of our Lord’s sufferings and of
His atonement overshadowed the whole thought of those times. St. Anselm, in the
Cur Deus Homo, had aroused deeper meditation on this subject than had before
been bestowed upon it; and in this, as in other matters, he is the type of the grand
school of thought which he founded. As in his mind, so throughout the Middle Age,
in proportion to the apprehension of the terrible nature of the Divine justice,
is the prominence given to the sacrificial means for averting the Divine wrath.
The innumerable Masses of the later Middle Ages were so many confessions of the
deep-felt need of atonement; and formal as they ultimately became, they were in
intention so many cries for forgiveness from the terror-struck consciences of sinful
men and women. Luther was a true child of the Church in his deep apprehension of
the same need, and it was precisely because he realised it with exceptional truth
and depth that he was forced to seek some deeper satisfaction than the offering
of Masses could afford. He reasserted the truth that the need had been met and answered
once for all by the Sacrifice on the Cross; and by proclaiming the sufficiency of
that one eternal offering he swept away all the “Sacrifices of Masses,” while at
the same time he provided the answer to the craving to which they testified. The
doctrine of the Atonement, as asserted at the
Now the view of the Christian life involved in this principle
of Justification by Faith found its most complete and beautiful expression in the
Treatise “On Christian Liberty,” translated in this volume; and a brief notice of
the teaching of that treatise will best serve to explain the connection between
Luther’s cardinal doctrine and the other principles which he asserted. As is explained
at the close of the introductory letter to Leo X. (p. 101), he designed it as a
kind of peace-offering to the Pope, and as a declaration of the sole objects he
had at heart, and to which he desired to devote his life. “It is a small matter,”
he says, “if you look to its bulk, but unless I mistake, it is a summary of the
Christian life in small compass, if you apprehend its meaning.” In fact, it presents
the most complete view of Luther’s theology, alike in its principles and in its
practice, almost entirely disembarrassed of the controversial elements by which,
under the inevitable pressure of circumstances, his other works, and especially
those of a later date, were disturbed. Perhaps the only part of his works to compare
with it in this respect is the precious collection of his House-postills, or Exposition
of the Gospels for the Sundays of the Christian Year. They were delivered within
his domestic circle, and recorded by two of his pupils, and though but imperfectly
reported, they are treasures of Evangelical exposition, exhibiting in a rare degree
the exquisitely childlike character of the Reformer’s faith, and marked by all the
simplicity and the poetry of feeling by
The argument of the Treatise is summed up, with the antithetical
force so often characteristic of great genius, in the two propositions laid down
at the outset. “A Christian man is the most free lord of all and subject to none:
A Christian man is the most dutiful servant of all, and subject to every one.” The
first of these propositions expresses the practical result of the doctrine of Justification
by Faith. The Christian is in possession of a promise of God, which in itself, and
in the assurance it involves, is a greater blessing to him than all other privileges
or enjoyments whatever. Everything sinks into insignificance compared with this
word and Gospel. “Let us,” he says, “hold it for certain and firmly established
that the soul can do without everything except the word of God, without which none
of its wants are provided for. But, having the word, it is rich and wants for nothing,
since it is the word of life, of truth, of light, of peace, of justification, of
salvation, of joy, of liberty, of wisdom, of virtue, of grace, of glory, and of
every good thing.” If it be asked, “What is this word?” he answers that the Apostle
Paul explains it, namely that “it is the Gospel of God, concerning His Son, incarnate,
suffering, risen, and glorified through the Spirit, the Sanctifier. To preach Christ
is to feed the soul, to justify it, to set it free, and to save it, if it believes
the preaching . . . For the word of God cannot be received and honoured by any works,
but by Faith alone.” This is the cardinal point around which not merely Luther’s
theology, but his whole life turns. God had descended into the world, spoken to
him by His Son, His
It is essential to dwell upon these passages, since, the force of the Reformer’s great doctrine cannot possibly be apprehended as long as he is supposed to attribute the efficacy of which he speaks to any inherent quality in the human heart itself. It is the word and promise of God which is the creative force. But this summons a man into a sphere above this world, bids him rest upon the divine love which speaks to him, and places him on the eternal foundation of a direct covenant with God Himself in Christ. As in the Theses, so in this Treatise, Luther reiterates that it in no way implies exemption from the discipline of suffering. “Yea,” he says, “the more of a Christian any man is, to so many the more evils, sufferings, and deaths is he subject; as we see in the first place in Christ the first-born and in all His holy brethren.” The power of which he speaks is a spiritual one “which rules in the midst of enemies, in the midst of distresses. It is nothing else than that strength is made perfect in my weakness, and that I can turn all things to the profit of my salvation; so that even the cross and death are compelled to serve me and to work together for my salvation.” “It is a lofty and eminent dignity, a true and Almighty dominion, a spiritual empire in which there is nothing so good, nothing so bad, as not to work together for my good, if only I believe.”
If we compare this language with those conceptions of spiritual
terror by which Luther had been driven into a monastery, and under which, like so
many in his age, he had groaned and struggled in despair, we can appreciate the
immense deliverance which he had experienced. The Divine promise had lifted him
“out of darkness and out of the shadow of death, and had broken his bonds in sunder.”
It is this which is the source of the undaunted and joyful faith which marks the
whole of the Reformer’s public career. “Whose heart,” he exclaims, “would not rejoice
in its inmost core at hearing these things? Whose heart, on receiving so great a
consolation, would not become sweet with the love of Christ: a love to which it
can never attain by any laws or works? Who
It is unnecessary, for our present purpose, to dwell long upon
the second point of the Treatise, in which Luther illustrates his second proposition
that “a Christian man is the most dutiful servant of all and subject to every one.”
It will be enough to observe that Luther is just as earnest in insisting upon the
application of faith in the duties of charity and self-discipline as upon the primary
importance of faith itself. The spirit of faith, he says, “applies itself with cheerfulness
and zeal” to restrain and repress the impulses of the lower nature. “Here works
begin; here a man must not take his ease; here he must give heed to exercise his
body by fastings, watchings, labour, and other reasonable discipline, so that it
may be subdued to the spirit, and obey and conform itself to the
It will be evident, however, what a powerful instrument of reformation
was placed in men’s hands by the principles of this Treatise. Every Christian man,
by virtue of the promise of Christ, was proclaimed free, so far as the eternal necessities
of his soul were concerned, from all external and human conditions whatever. Nothing,
indeed, was further from Luther’s intention or inclination than the overthrow of
existing order, or the disparagement of any existing authority which could be reasonably
justified. His letter to Pope Leo, prefixed to the Treatise we have been considering,
shows that while denouncing unsparingly the abuses of the Court of Rome, he was
sincere in his deference to the See of Rome itself. But the principle of justification
enabled him to proclaim that if that See or any existing Church authority, misused
its power, and refused to reform abuses, then, in the last resort, the soul of man
could do without it. In that day at all events—and perhaps in our own to a greater
extent than is sometimes supposed—this conviction supplied the fulcrum which was
essential for any effectual reforming movement. As is observed by the Church historian
Gieseler, in his admirable account of the early history of the Reformation, the
Papacy had ever found its strongest support in the people at large. In spite of
all the discontent and disgust provoked by the corruption of the Church and the
clergy, an enormous though indefinite authority was still popularly attributed to
the Pope and the ecclesiastical hierarchy. The Pope was believed to be in some sense
or other the supreme administrator of spiritual powers which were effectual in the
next world as well as in the present; and consequently when any controversy with
the Church came to a crisis, men shrank from direct defiance of the Papal authority.
They did not feel that they had any firm ground on which they could stand if they
incurred its formal condemnation; and thus it always had at its command, in the
strongest possible sense, the ultima ratio of rulers.
The convictions to which Luther had been led at once annihilated these pretensions.
“One thing and one alone,” he declared,
But the principle went still further; for it vindicated for the
laity the possession of spiritual faculties and powers the same in kind as those
of the clergy. All Christian men are admitted to the privilege of priesthood, and
are “worthy to appear before God to pray for others, and to teach one another mutually
the things which are of God.” In case of necessity, as is universally recognized,
Baptism can be validly administered by lay hands, and English Divines, of the most
unimpeachable authority on the subject, have similarly recognized that the valid
administration of the Holy Communion is not dependent on the ordination of the minister
by Episcopal authority. See, for instance, Bp. Cosin’s Works, Appendix,
vol. i., 31, in the Library of Anglo-Catholic Theology.
The “Address to the Nobility of the German Nation” exhibits these
principles, and their application to the practical problems of the day, in the most
vigorous and popular form; and if some expressions appear too sweeping and violent,
due allowance must be made for the necessity which Luther must have felt of appealing
with the utmost breadth and force to the popular mind. But it remains to consider
a further aspect of these principles which is illustrated by the third Treatise
translated in this volume—that on the “Babylonish Captivity of the Church.” Luther,
as has been seen, was appealing to laity and clergy alike, on the ground of their
spiritual freedom, to abolish the abuses of the Roman Church. But it became at once
a momentous question by what principles the exercise of that liberty was to be guided,
and within what limits it was to be exerted. In a very short time fanatics sprung
up, who claimed to exercise such liberty without any restrictions at all, and who
refused to recognize any standard but that of their own supposed inspiration. But
the service which Luther rendered in repelling such abuses of his great doctrine
was only second to that of establishing the doctrine itself. The
Now in the Treatise on the Babylonish Captivity of the Church
he applies this rule, in connection with his main principle, to the elaborate sacramental
system of the Church of Rome. Of the seven sacraments recognised by that church,
he recognizes, strictly speaking, only two, Baptism and the Lord’s Supper; and the
connection of this conclusion with the central truth he was asserting is a point
of deep interest. Here, too, the one consideration which overpowers every other
in his view is the supreme import of a promise or word of God. But there are two
institutions under the Gospel which are distinguished from all others by a visible
sign, instituted by Christ Himself, as a pledge of the Divine promise. A sign so
instituted, and with such a purpose, constituted a peculiarly
If, moreover, the force of his argument on this subject is to
be apprehended, due attention must be paid to the efficacy which he thus attributes
to the two Sacraments. The cardinal point on which he insists in respect to them
is that they are direct pledges from God, through Christ, and thus contain the whole
virtue of the most solemn Divine promises. They are, as it were, the sign and seal
of those promises. They are messages from God, not mere acts of devotion on the
part of man. In Baptism the point of importance is not that men dedicate themselves
or their children to Him, but that He, through His minister, gives them a promise
and a pledge of His forgiveness, and of His Fatherly good will. Similarly in the
Holy Communion the most important point is not the offering made on the part of
man, but the promise and assurance of communion with the Body and Blood of Christ,
It may be worth while to observe in passing the position which
Luther assumes towards the doctrine of Transubstantiation. What he is concerned
to maintain is that there is a Real Presence in the Sacrament. All he is concerned
to deny is that Transubstantiation is the necessary explanation of that Presence.
In other words, it is not necessary to believe in Transubstantiation in order to
believe in the Real Presence. There seems a clear distinction between this view
and the formal doctrine of Consubstantiation as afterwards elaborated by Lutheran
divines; and Luther’s caution, at least in this Treatise, in dealing with so difficult
a point, is eminently characteristic of the real moderation with which he formed
his views, as distinguished from the energy with which he asserted them. Another
interesting point in this Treatise is the urgency with which he protests against
the artificial restraints upon the freedom of marriage which had been imposed by
the Roman See. It would have been too much to expect that in applying, single-handed,
to so difficult a subject as marriage, the rule of rejecting every restriction not
expressly declared in the Scriptures, Luther should have avoided mistakes. But they
are at least insignificant in comparison with the value of the principle he asserted,
that all questions of the marriage relation should be subjected to the authority
of Holy Scripture alone. That principle provided, by its inherent force, a remedy
for any errors in particulars which Luther or any individual divine might commit.
The Roman principle, on the contrary, admitted of the most scandalous and unlimited
elasticity; and of all the charges brought by Roman controversialists against Luther’s
conduct, none is marked by such effrontery as their accusations on this point. While
there are few dispensations
Such are the main truths asserted in the Treatises translated in this volume, and it is but recognising an historical fact to designate them “First Principles of the Reformation.” From them, and by means of them, the whole of the subsequent movement was worked out. They were applied in different countries in different ways; and we are justly proud in this country of the wisdom and moderation exhibited by our Reformers. But it ought never to be forgotten that for the assertion of the principles themselves, we, like the rest of Europe, are indebted to the genius and the courage of Luther. All of those principles—Justification by Faith, Christian Liberty, the spiritual rights and powers of the Laity, the true character of the Sacraments, the supremacy of the Holy Scriptures as the supreme standard of belief and practice—were asserted by the Reformer, as the Treatises in this volume bear testimony, almost simultaneously, in the latter half of the year 1520. At the time he asserted them, the Roman Church was still in full power; and the year after he had to face the whole authority of the Papacy and of the Empire, and to decide whether, at the risk of a fate like that of Huss, he would stand by these truths. These were the truths—the cardinal principles of the whole subsequent Reformation, which he was called on to abandon at Worms; and his refusal to act against his conscience at once translated them into vivid action and reality. It was one thing for Englishmen, several decades after 1520, to apply these principles with the wisdom and moderation of which we are proud. It was another thing to be the Horatius of that vital struggle. These grand facts speak for themselves, and need only to be understood in order to justify the unprecedented honours now being paid to the Reformer’s memory.
It may not, however, be out of place to dwell in conclusion upon one essential characteristic of the Reformer’s position, which is in danger at the present day of being disregarded. The general effect of this teaching upon the condition of the world is evident. It restored to the people at large, to rulers and to ruled, to clergy and laity alike, complete independence of the existing ecclesiastical system, within the limits of the revelation contained in the Holy Scriptures. In a word, in Luther’s own phrase, it established Christian Liberty. But the qualification is emphatic, and it would be wholly to misunderstand Luther if it were disregarded. Attempts are made at the present day to represent him as a pioneer of absolute liberty, and to treat it as a mere accident of his teaching and his system that he stopped short where he did. But on the contrary, the limitation is of the very essence of his teaching, because that teaching is based on the supremacy and sufficiency of the Divine word and the Divine promise. If there were no such word and promise, no such Divine revelation, and no living God to bring it home to men’s hearts, and to enforce His own laws, Luther felt that his protest against existing authority, usurped and tyrannical as it might be, would have been perilous in the extreme. But when men shrank from the boldness of his proclamation, and urged that he was overthrowing the foundations of Society, his reply was that he was recalling them to the true foundations of Society, and that God, if they would have faith in Him, would protect His own word and will. The very essence of his teaching is summed up in the lines of his great Psalm:
Luther believed that God had laid down the laws which were essential
to the due guidance of human nature, that he had prescribed sufficiently the limits
within which that nature might range, and had indicated the trees of which it could
II.
THE POLITICAL COURSE
OF THE
REFORMATION IN GERMANY.
(1517–1546.)
By PROFESSOR BUCHHEIM.
THE POLITICAL COURSE OF THE REFORMATION
I.
THERE is hardly any instance on record in the annals of history of a single peaceful event having exercised such a lasting and baneful influence on the destinies of a nation, as the coronation of Charles the Great at Rome towards the close of the eighth century. By placing the Imperial crown on the head of the then most powerful ruler in Christendom, Pope Leo III. symbolically established a spiritual supremacy over the whole Christian world, but more especially over Germany proper. It is true it was alleged that the new Cæsar was to be considered the secular head of the Christian world by the side of the spiritual head, but as it was the latter who crowned the former, it was evident that the sovereign pontiff arrogated to himself superior authority over the sovereign monarch.
Another disadvantage which resulted from that coronation was
the peculiar nature of the newly created dignity, which became manifest by the
designation, applied to Germany, of the “Holy Roman Empire of the
German nation.” This self-contradictory title was intended to convey the
notion that the German Emperors were—through transmission from the Greeks—the
heirs and successors of the Roman Cæsars. They were not to be German
sovereigns of the German monarchy, but Roman Emperors of the
German Empire. Cp. pp. 82-85, in this volume.
It is true the ancient German institution of royalty was not
actually abolished, but it was so much eclipsed by the more pompous, though
recent dignity, that in the course of time
It was not long before the conflict between the two principal elements in the government of the world—the secular and the clerical—broke out in the two-headed Empire. This antagonism became manifest even under Charles the Great himself, in spite of the splendour of his reign, and the firmness and circumspection of his government. The encroachments of the clergy soon showed in what sense they understood the division of power. It was the practical application of the old fable about the lion’s share. Everything was to be done for the clergy, but without it nothing. This ambitious aim revealed itself more openly and effectively under the descendants of Charles the Great, the internal dissensions of whose reigns greatly facilitated the victory of the clerical order in their interference in secular matters.
Under the powerful rule of Henry I. (919–936), surnamed “The
Fowler,” or more appropriately “the founder of the German Empire,” and
also under the still more splendid reign of his son, Otho the Great (936–973),
nay, even under the first Frankish Emperors (1024–1056), the authority of the
Roman hierarchy was considerably diminished, while on the other hand the influence
of the German clergy at home had greatly increased; which circumstance was a
powerful factor in the conflict between the iron Pope Gregory VII. and the impetuous
If the German Emperors had not been constantly chasing the
phantom of royal dignity in Italy, in order to be—plausibly at least—entitled
to the vain-glorious designation of “Roman Kings,” they might have directed
their whole energy to the consolidation of their power at home, and have held
their own against Popes and Prince-Electors. Unfortunately, however, they were
constantly attracted by the delusive brilliancy of possessions in Italy, as
if by an ignis fatuus; thus leading on the best forces of Germany to
moral and physical ruin, and
As a matter of course under these circumstances all progress of national life and culture was impeded. It did not spring spontaneously from within, nor did it receive any impulse from without. The Germans did not benefit intellectually in any way by their contact with the Italians. The conquered have often times become the teachers of their conquerors; but only when the latter settled in the vanquished country and made it their home. The German hordes, however, who crossed the Alps at the behests of their sovereigns, and urged on by the desire for adventure, warfare, and rapine, never permanently settled, as a body, in the flowery plains and flourishing towns of Italy. Numbers of those who survived the sanguinary battles fought in Italy, perished in the unused climate; the others returned home, frequently enriched by plunder and generally tainted by depraved morals. Thus the Germans did not even derive that small advantage from their connection with the Italians—who at that time did not themselves possess any literature or culture in the highest sense of the word—which a permanent settlement in Italy would have conferred on them.
The intellectual life of the Germans did not begin to flourish
before the times of the Hohenstaufen (1138–1254). Unfortunately both Frederick
I. (Barbarossa) and Frederick II. were almost constantly engaged in warfare
with the Popes and the Italians, and both monarchs, especially the latter, utterly
neglected the internal affairs of Germany, which country became a prey of the
sanguinary contest between Guelphs and
During the lawless times of the Interregnum (1254–1273) the power of the German Princes consolidated itself more and more amidst the general anarchy. Order was restored, however, by Rudolf von Hapsburg (1273–1291), who concerned himself with the affairs of the country only. He had a right notion of what a King of Germany should be, and emancipated her—though temporarily only—from the fatal connection as an Empire with Rome. More than half a century later the Electoral Princes went a step further in this direction, by the formation of the Kurverein (1338) or “Election Union,” of Rhens, when the principle was adopted that the election of German Kings depended upon the Electoral Princes alone, and that the Pope had no voice whatever in the matter. This patriotic proceeding received, however, a counter-check in the unworthy dealings of the mercenary Charles IV. (1347–1378), who repaired to Rome to receive there the crown from the Pope. He little thought that by resuming the connection with Rome he conjured up the greatest danger for his own son and successor, Wenceslaus, who was deposed through the conspiracy of Boniface IX. with the priests, and his influence over the Electoral Princes.
In the course of time a new power—the third Estate—arose in
Germany; namely, the Middle Classes as represented by the thriving cities of
the Empire. The burghers generally sided with the Emperors, to whom they looked
up as their natural protectors against the exactions of priests and nobles.
But being imbued with a true mercantile spirit, they did not give away their
good will for nothing; they asked for sundry privileges as compensating equivalents.
The Emperors had, therefore, now to contend against three powerful elements,
the clergy, the nobles, and the burghers. The first were, through their chief
representatives—as we have seen—at all times the most dangerous
The results of the Councils of Constance and Basle were, however,
particularly disastrous to Germany. The former brought about the terrible wars
of the Hussites, while the latter was the indirect cause of placing the Imperial
power in the hands of Frederick III. (1440–1493), who was a staunch adherent
of the Pope and delivered over to him the few rights and privileges which were
still left to the German Empire. The
A new order of things arose, however, when Maximilian, the son of Frederick III., was elected “Roman King” in 1486 by the Electoral Princes. The young King acquiesced in the constitutional demands of the Estates for concessions in return for various grants. Feuds were abolished for ever, an independent Chamber of Justice, Kammergericht, was established, and Germany received a new Imperial constitution. Nevertheless there were almost constant conflicts between the adventurous Maximilian and the Imperial Estates, so that the national unity, earnestly aimed at by both parties, could not be effected, in consequence of the absence of any connecting link between them. The only step which Maximilian took for the partial emancipation of Germany was his assumption of the title of “elected King of Rome” without being crowned by the Pope, and what is more, he also adopted the ancient title of King of Germany. This designation was, however, not intended to convey at the same time the notion of a severance from Rome in spiritual matters. This was now soon to be accomplished, but not by one bearing the imaginary crown of the Cæsars, nor by the decrees of a stately assembly. It was destined for one lowly born to break the fatal bondage in which Germany had been for centuries kept in durance vile by Rome.
II.
One of the few blessings which Germany derived in former times
from her otherwise deplorable decentralization, was the establishment, throughout
the country, of educational and other beneficial institutions, which even found
their way into the most obscure nooks and corners, where under other political
conditions no Government would have thought of founding any establishment of
the kind. This is the reason why culture and learning—but more especially the
latter—spread more generally in Germany than in other countries. What great
centralized Government would ever have chosen the insignificant place of Wittenberg,
which resembled more a village than a town, as the seat of an University? And
this, too, by the side of the Universities of Leipzig and Erfurt which already
enjoyed a high reputation and were well endowed? Yet this was done by the Prince
Elector of Saxony, Frederick, surnamed the Wise. He had himself received a learned
education, and it was his legitimate ambition to see his petty electoral principality
adorned by a High School. The Elector himself was, as is well known, very poor.
The only means at his disposal for such a learned foundation were the proceeds
from the sale of Indulgences in his Electorate, which had been collected in
1501 for the purpose of a war against the Turks. Those moneys were deposited
with him, and he refused to give them up to the Pope even at the intercession
of the Emperor, unless they were employed for the purpose for which they had
been collected. The war against the Turks was not undertaken at the time, and
so Frederick employed the money for the endowment of the new University. It
was also a significant fact, that Wittenberg was the first German University
which did not receive its “Charter” from the Pope, but from the then Emperor
of Germany—Maximilian I. The Prince Elector hit further upon the expedient of
connecting several clerical benefices with some of the professorial chairs,
The early history of the poor miner’s son may, in fact, serve
as an illustration of the wholesome spread of education throughout Germany.
Poor as his parents were, he had received a learned education, and became, in
consequence of the religious turn of his mind, a monk. It was then in his double
capacity of scholar and priest that he became connected with the University
of Wittenberg (1508), and composed, and sent forth into the world, his famous
95 Theses, Cp. pp. 1-12 in this volume.
The defence of the 95 Theses, which Luther transmitted to
the Pope, was of no avail; for Leo X., urged by the fanatical Dominican Prierias—so
notorious from the Reuchlin trial—cited the Wittenberg monk before an inquisitorial
tribunal at Rome. Now for the first time it was seen how fortunate it was for
Luther and the cause he defended, that he had found a prudent and humane protector
in the Prince who exercised sovereign power in his own limited territory. To
repair to Rome under the accusation of heresy would have been like plunging
with open eyes into an abyss. Confiding and courageous as Luther was, he saw
this himself very clearly, and it was at his request that the Saxon Court preacher,
Urged by the wrathful Papal Legate not to disgrace the honour
of his Electoral house by giving shelter to a heretic friar, Frederick, encouraged
by his own University, drily replied that as no scholar, either in his own or
in foreign lands, had as yet refuted the theories of Luther, he would continue
to give him shelter until that was done. This was no subterfuge on the part
of Frederick. It was the key-note of his conduct, from the beginning of the
Reformation to the end of his own life, to have the teachings of Luther properly
tested by a learned discussion. The Pope, being desirous of securing the Elector’s
co-operation at the impending Imperial election, humoured his
What the imperious haughtiness of the pompous Papal Legate was unable to achieve was, partly at least, effected by the shrewd bonhomie of Miltitz. He imploringly appealed to Luther’s German good-nature, not to create any scandal in the Church, and after having agreed that the controversy should be submitted for investigation to the Archbishops of Würzburg and Treves, he obtained the promise of Luther to observe perfect silence on religious matters, provided his enemies would do the same, and to write an apologetic letter to the Pope. It is well known how badly the antagonists of Luther kept faith with him, and that he was obliged, in consequence, to break his conditionally promised silence, and to take part in the great public Disputation at Leipzig, in 1519. He now had to vindicate against Dr. Eck, his most bitter opponent, not only his own honour, but also that of his University, and this circumstance formed the subject of his justification before the Prince Elector, to whose personal esteem he attached the highest value. When, however, that Disputation ended, as is the case with most learned discussions, in something like a drawn battle, Luther was driven to a declaration virtually involving his secession from Rome.
III.
About the time when the celebrated Disputation was going on
at Leipzig, in which two peasants’ sons—for Dr. Eck was, like Martin Luther,
the son of a peasant—took the most
There were three aspirants to the Imperial throne of Germany. First and foremost Maximilian’s grandson Charles, Archduke of Austria; secondly, Francis I., King of France, and thirdly, Henry VIII. of England. The last-named monarch did not, however, seriously press his candidature. It was only when he saw the two other sovereigns contending for the prize that he deemed the moment favourable for securing it to himself. When he received, however, the practical hint that the barren honour would not be worth the trouble and the necessary expenditure, and when, moreover, it was taken into account, that since the introduction of Christianity into England this country did in no way belong to the “Holy Roman Empire,” he prudently retired from all competition. Not so the ambitious Francis I., who spared neither promises nor bribes to secure his election, and obtained a party among the Electoral Princes.
If it should be asked, how it was actually possible that foreign
kings ever thought of aspiring to a throne to which
Both the French and Austrians lavishly distributed money in
all directions. Frederick the Wise alone kept his hands pure, and he strictly
prohibited even his officials and servants from accepting any presents. For
a moment the Princes had turned their eyes to Frederick himself. But he had
no confidence in his capability to sustain worthily and efficiently the functions
incumbent upon the Imperial dignity. The Empire, as such, invested him with
no material power and resources, and his own dynastic power was insignificant.
How should he be able to hold his own against the ambitious and frequently turbulent
Princes? Why, even under the “Imperial Vicariate,” the peace of the land was
broken. He, therefore, declined the proffered honour, and the Princes, fearing
lest the powerful French King should curb their independence, suddenly remembered
that he was a foreign sovereign, and that in order to keep up the national freedom
of the Empire, they should give the preference to the Archduke Charles, who
was, partially at least, of German descent. The latter, to whom also Frederick
of Saxony finally gave his vote, was accordingly chosen Emperor, and he soon
proved that it is not always the
The time which elapsed from the election of Charles to his
arrival in Germany, more especially to his presence at the Diet of Augsburg
in 1521, was most propitious for the spread of the work of Luther. It may be
said that during that interval the Reformation assumed shape and form. Luther
indefatigably continued to inculcate his religious principles on the minds of
the people by sermons and numerous publications, and he found adherents so readily
everywhere among all classes of the German nation, that Frederick, who still
hoped the schism might be prevented by learned discussions, was of opinion,
that if it should be attempted to suppress his teachings by force instead of
by refutation, there would arise a great storm in Germany. Several distinguished
members of the lower nobility, such as the brave Hutten and the martial Sickingen
and many others, placed their swords at the disposal of Luther; the former was
already active for him with the all-powerful weapon of the pen. Amidst this
general commotion the humble Augustinian monk sent forth his powerful appeal,
entitled: “To the Christian Nobility of the German Nation concerning the Reformation
of the Christian Estate.” Cp. pp. 15-92 in this volume.
Some historians have blamed Luther for not having appealed
to the “People.” But the reproach is wrong. The German
In the meantime Leo X. had hurled his Bull of excommunication
against Luther. When it arrived at Wittenberg both the University and the Government
of the Prince Elector decided to take no notice of it, and now it again became
manifest what a powerful support Luther had found in Frederick. On his return
journey from the coronation of Charles V. at Aix-la-Chapelle, in 1520, the Papal
Legates Aleander and Caraccioli demanded of the Elector, at Cologne, in the
name of the Pope, to give effect to the Bull by burning the writings of Luther
and punishing him as a heretic, or to deliver him to the Pope. The threat uttered
on this occasion was certainly curious. In case the Papal Bull should not meet
with ready obedience in Germany, the Legates menaced the country with the withdrawal
of the title of the “Holy Roman Empire.” Germany would forfeit that dignity
in the same way as the Greeks had lost it after having seceded from the Pope.
A more
Erasmus, whom Frederick consulted, clothed his opinion on the religious controversy in the humorous reply, “that Luther had sinned in two points: he had touched the crown of the Pope and the bellies of the monks.” In his interview with Spalatin he was still more explicit, by expressing his conviction, that the attacks against Luther arose simply from hatred against the enlightenment of science and from tyrannical presumption. He further agreed with Luther in insisting on the question being examined and tried by the tribunal of public discussion. We know that this opinion fully coincided with the views of the Elector, and his answer to the threatening Papal Legates ran in accordance with his views. His additional and often-repeated assurance, that he had never made common cause with Luther, and that he would greatly disapprove of it, if the latter wrote anything adverse to the Pope, was of the greatest importance. This declaration was more decisive than if he had acknowledged himself openly in favour of the Reformer; he would then have been considered as a biassed partizan, whilst now he only played the part of an impartial patron, who wished to see his protégé judged by a fair trial. On his return to Saxony, Frederick sent to Luther a reassuring message, and the latter continued his work by teaching, writing and preaching, unmolested and without remission.
In other parts of Germany the Papal Bull was proclaimed with
varying and unequal effect. Luther’s works were in the first instance burnt
at Louvain, by command of Charles V., in his capacity of hereditary sovereign
of the Netherlands. The same fate befell them at Cologne and Mentz. It will,
therefore, readily be acknowledged that it was the Pope and his overzealous
adherents who drove Luther to the committal of perhaps the boldest act ever
accomplished by a single individual, more
In one of his letters to Dr. Eck—communicated
in the Documenta Lutherana recently issued by the Vatican—the Papal Nuncio
Aleander confesses, that the excitement in consequence of the burning of Luther’s
work was so great among the people, that he trembled for his own safety.
IV.
“Your majesty must go to Germany and show there some favour
to a certain Martin Luther, who is at the Court of Saxony and causes anxiety
to the Roman Court by his sermons.” Such were the words which the shrewd Spanish
ambassador, Don Juan Manuel, addressed to Charles V. from Rome in 1520. They
were written at a time when it was still doubtful whether Leo X. would side
in the impending struggle in Italy with the King of France or with the Emperor
of Germany, and moreover at a time when the latter had reason to be dissatisfied
with the course the Pope had taken. Leo X. had consented, in compliance with
a petition from the Castilian Cortes, to introduce some reforms in the exercise
of the Inquisition. This concession was, however, entirely opposed to the views
of the young Emperor, who was completely guided by his Dominican confessor.
Under these circumstances it was deemed expedient to make use of Luther as a
kind of bugbear in order to frighten the Pope. To people not accustomed to the
tortuous windings of politics it seems, of course, bewildering, that a heretic
should be favoured in one country, in order to make it possible to enforce the
rigours of the Inquisition in another country. In like manner Francis I. acted.
In France he persecuted and burnt mercilessly the opponents of the Roman Catholic
Church,
The advice of the diplomatic Spanish ambassador was, however, not followed. Pope and Emperor came to an amicable understanding. The former cancelled his concession to the Castilian Cortes, and promised the coveted assistance against Francis I., in Italy, whilst the latter pledged himself to crush the Reformation and to issue an Edict for the execution of the Papal Bull against Luther. Now it came to light how ill-advised was the election of Charles V. as Emperor of Germany. At the time when the celebrated Diet of 1521 assembled at Worms, the Emperor had his whole attention directed across the Alps. The affairs of Germany had only in so far any importance for him as they had any influence or bearing on the affairs of Italy. He took no note of the great objects which then agitated the hearts and minds of the Germans, and had he been able to recognise them, they would have excited in him no corresponding sympathy for them. He did not even fully understand the cultured language—as far as it existed in those days—of Germany, being able to speak Low German only. The political institutions of the country—the lingering fragments of the ancient German liberty—were thoroughly distasteful to him. He was also a bigoted Roman Catholic at heart, and—as we have seen—entirely opposed to all religious reforms. It must, therefore, be acknowledged, that among the many historical misfortunes which have befallen Germany—and no country perhaps has been tried by so many—the accession of Charles V. to the throne of the German Empire was one of the greatest. What might a German sovereign, with a due appreciation of the political and religious aspirations of the people, not have achieved at that important epoch, which was the turning-point in the history of Germany!
After the Emperor had laid his Edict regarding the Papal
See pp. 130-243 in the present volume.
Charles V. consented to this proposal, by which the Estates
may be said to have betrayed the cause of the Reformation. Frederick was charged
with the task of summoning Luther to Worms, but he prudently declined. As he
was to be summoned in the name of the Emperor and the Estates, he ought to receive
the citation direct from them. The stubborn character of the Elector being well
known, the Emperor was obliged to yield also on this point, and in order to
be consistent with official etiquette, Luther was addressed by Charles V. in
the citation, issued on March 6, 1521, as “honourable, beloved, and pious!”
A safe conduct for the journey to and from Worms accompanied the citation. A
man less endowed with moral courage than Luther would nevertheless have shrunk
from completing the journey. On his way to Worms he learned that a Mandate for
the confiscation of his writings had been issued by the Emperor, and the Imperial
herald actually asked him, whether he still intended to continue his journey.
The Reformer undauntedly
Luther’s appearance before the Diet of Worms may be considered as the first official recognition of the German people as a power; for it was only by representing the danger which would arise from the unconditional condemnation of the Reformer before being heard, that the Emperor was induced to consent to the step which was resented by the Papal Legate and his party. The wrath of Aleander greatly increased, when the Imperial Estates presented to Charles V. their gravamina respecting the abuses of the Church, the abolition of which they had a right to expect in accordance with the capitulation made at the time of the Emperor’s election. That petition, which is generally regarded as a pendant to Luther’s programme of the Reformation, as contained in his address to the “Christian Nobility of the German Nation,” and which had even obtained the approval of George, Duke of Saxony (that great opponent of Luther), was, formally at least, “graciously” received by the Emperor.
When Luther arrived at Worms both his adherents and antagonists
were startled. The former trembled for his safety, and the latter feared the
influence of his presence—his eloquence and the victorious power of inner conviction.
The Emperor’s expectations of so remarkable a personage—who was capable of inspiring
such a high degree of enthusiasm and aversion—must, therefore, have been very
great, and we do not wonder at his disappointment on seeing before him an insignificant-looking
monk. He did not believe in the power of the mind, and it was quite natural
in the young monarch that he should have looked forward to a commanding, giant-like
figure, with a thundering voice, somewhat like Dr. Eck, who derived no little
benefit from these accessories, so advantageous both on the political and religious
platform. Even after Luther had produced—on the second day of his
Luther’s public refusal to recant unless convinced of his error through the Scriptures, was the official proclamation of the Reformation, and well might he exclaim, on the evening of the 18th of April, on coming home from perhaps the most memorable sitting of any Diet—“Ich bin durch!” But the decision of the Emperor was also taken, and on the morning of the 19th of April he declared to the Diet—in a French document written in his own hand—“that as a descendant of the most Christian German Emperors, and the Catholic Kings of Spain, he had resolved to maintain everything which had been adopted by his ancestors, more especially at the Council of Constance. . . . That he will not hear Luther again, but let him go back to Wittenberg in accordance with his safe conduct, and then he will proceed with him as a heretic.”
The fanatic advisers of the Emperor certainly wished that he should not only strictly adhere to the doctrines confirmed by the Diet of Constance, but that he also should follow its example, set by the execution of Huss, with respect to Luther; for the simple reason “that there is no need of keeping faith with heretics.” Charles V. had, however, not been informed in vain of the disposition of the people regarding the Reformer. He also took into account the views of the Imperial Estates.
The times had evidently changed since the Council of Constance.
It was no longer safe to burn a heretic after he had received Imperial protection;
and it may be assumed futhermore that the young monarch also possessed too much
sense of honour to listen to the ruthless suggestions of his fanatical advisers.
After some more attempts to induce Luther to retract—all of which, of course,
proved futile—he allowed him to depart; but as he had uttered the threat to
treat the excommunicated monk as a heretic, after the expiration of his safe
conduct,
The sudden disappearance of Luther naturally caused great anxiety among his adherents; but his opponents seemed to have instinctively guessed the truth. They knew very well how little they themselves were to be trusted, and suspected that his friends had secretly saved him from their clutches. Cardinal Eleander even went nearer the mark, and expressed his opinion, that the “Saxon fox” had hidden the monk. Charles V. himself took no cognisance of the occurrence; nay, he even cautiously deferred the promulgation of the Edict against Luther, and it was only after Frederick the Wise, accompanied by the Palatine Elector, had left Worms on account of illness, that the Emperor summoned to his private residence the three clerical Electors, together with the Elector of Brandenburg, and several other members of the Imperial Estates, and communicated to them the long-expected Edict. The Imperial ban was thus promulgated on May 25, without the formal sanction of the Diet. And in order to stamp it with the appearance of legality, it was postdated to the 8th of May, when the Estates were still together in good numbers. But it was at the same time an ominous date; for on that day an alliance was concluded between the Emperor and the Pope to the effect “to have the same friends and without exception the same enemies; the same willingness and unwillingness for defence and attack.”
Another expedient was resorted to in order to gain some plausibility
for the illegally issued Edict. It was sophistically averred that, as the Diet
had already decided that Luther was to be proceeded against, in case he should
not recant, there was no further necessity for obtaining the additional sanction
of that body for the publication of the Edict. By this decree the Papal ban
was confirmed, and Luther himself was now outlawed as a heretic, and his books
were prohibited. The Emperor having accomplished this step, which was one of
the most momentous in the eventful course of the Reformation,
V.
It is an amiable trait in human nature, though frequently bordering on weakness, to endeavour to find out the good side of any evil. Thus it has been considered a propitious coincidence that the German Empire had some “claims” on certain territories in Italy. For it was, in a great measure, in consequence of this fact, that the war broke out between the Emperor of Germany and the King of France, which necessitated the absence of the former from his German domains for several years and gave the Reformation time for its consolidation and expansion. We will not deny the advantages which resulted from that political combination, but it is to a certain extent counterbalanced by the ill which it produced. Without the contingency of that war, Charles V. would have had no occasion for leaguing himself with the Pope, the Edict of Worms would, in all probability, never have been issued, and the pressing demand for a General Council would have been acceded to. Luther would not have been obliged to hide himself at the Wartburg, and the subsequent troubles at Wittenberg would certainly never have broken out; and finally the firm hand of a sovereign residing in the country would have stemmed the torrent of the Peasants’ War at the outset. Another drawback resulting from the absence of Charles V. was his utter estrangement from Germany, whose aspirations he neither cared for nor understood.
During the first few months after the departure of Charles
from Germany the work of the Reformation went on undisturbed. The Edict of Worms
found, in general, no responsive reception there. Its effect quite vanished
before the impression made by Luther’s manly, nay heroic, conduct in presence
of the Diet. The rumour which had got abroad that he had been
Whilst the seed which Luther had sown on German soil began to produce a magnificent harvest, and he himself was busy at the Wartburg, under the disguise of Junker Georg, with various religious writings, but more especially with the great work of his life, the translation of the Bible from the original text, some of his adherents began to precipitate matters at Wittenberg under the leadership of the impassioned Carlstadt. A time of general dissolution suddenly came on, in which there was a violent rupture with the past. Mass was abrogated, monks left their convents, and priests married. Holy images were destroyed, and nearly all the usages of the Roman Catholic Church were abruptly abolished. Other innovations were introduced, and the movement tended towards the introduction of a Christian socialism, or rather communism. If Luther had not been absent, the movement would never have broken out, and Melanchthon, who was present, was quite perplexed and not energetic enough to be able to stem the surging tide of the Revolution. The Prince Elector, too, looked on quite bewildered, and, imbued with a sense of unbounded tolerance, he fancied that, after all, the revolutionary “saints” might be right.
When Luther heard of the local excesses at Wittenberg, he
suddenly left his “Patmos,” in order to find out for himself the real state
of things. In travelling to and from Wittenberg,
Soon, however, he was to give still more striking proofs of both. For after the “prophets of Zwickau,” those deluded and deluding disciples of Thomas Münzer had chosen the birthplace of the Reformation for their field of action, more especially when he heard of the innovations introduced in his own community since his furtive visit there, he defied all danger, and disregarded the remonstrances of the Elector Frederick not to leave his place of refuge. His heart was so devoid of fear and he had so much confidence in the righteousness of his cause, that he actually declared to the Prince Elector that he might give to the latter greater protection than he could receive from him. He apologised nevertheless for his disobedience to Frederick, and a few days after his arrival at Wittenberg at the beginning of March, 1522, he began the series of sermons by which he soon allayed the storm and extended both his influence and reputation.
Several of the religious innovations introduced during the
absence of Luther were quite in accordance with his views, but he chiefly objected
to the violent manner in which the established usages were thrown over. Thus
he approved the abolition of the Mass, but considered that it ought not
to have been done in a way which was vexatious to another portion of the Christian
community. The secular authorities should have been consulted and everything
done in a legal manner. Luther was, besides, tolerant in the highest degree.
He did not wish to force others to adopt his theories; he merely wanted to convince
them. His mode of acting was concisely summed up in the following words, which
contain the keynote of his activity as a Reformer: “I will preach about it,
speak about
That the above assertion was no mere boast is
confirmed—if anything what so truthful a man as Luther said requires confirmation—by
the above-mentioned Documenta Lutherana, in which we find a letter from
the Nuncio Aleander, describing the great popularity of Luther throughout Germany,
and in particular at Augsburg. “Know then,” he writes to Dr. Eck, “there are
so many Lutherans here, that not only the men, but also the very trees and stones
cry: Luther!”
These words, which Luther uttered in his celebrated sermons
preached after his return to Wittenberg, not only fully reveal to us one of
his principal characteristics as a Reformer, but contain at the same time a
full revelation of the cause of the peaceful course of the Reformation during
his lifetime. He held the reins in his firm hands, and it would only have required
an encouraging signal on his part, and the furies of civil war would have been
at once let loose. But those words also confirm the charge which has been brought
forward against the Imperial Estates, that they had betrayed the cause of the
Reformation at the Diet of Worms. They had the German people at their back,
and the Emperor, with all his Spanish and Italian courtiers and Papal Legates,
would have been powerless. Had only some of them given signs of energetic opposition,
the Emperor would, in all probability, have yielded. That the Princes did not
fully answer Luther’s expectations caused him considerable grief, and now he
had experienced another disappointment in the conduct of the middle classes—the
people proper—a portion of whom eagerly supported the violent innovations of
the extreme reformers. But the
The effect which resulted from Luther’s return to Wittenberg was doubly beneficial. It allayed the turbulent excitement at home, and prevented the breaking out of a storm abroad, which had well-nigh been conjured up by Duke George of Saxony at the “Imperial Regency,” or Reichsregiment; which body conducted the government of the Empire in the absence of the Emperor, and had assembled at Nuremberg during the troubles at Wittenberg. The Duke actually prevailed upon the members of the Imperial Regency to issue an Edict enjoining the Bishops of Naumburg, Meissen and Merseburg, energetically to suppress all religious innovations; but when quiet had been restored at Wittenberg the tide turned in Luther’s favour, partly owing to the direct and indirect influence of the Elector of Saxony; and thus the Edict of Worms was virtually set at naught. The Imperial Regency did not rest satisfied, however, with the tacit approval of the doctrines of Luther, and when Adrian VI., who had succeeded Leo X. in 1522, demanded through his Nuncio that a check should be put to the Lutheran innovations, the Imperial Regency replied by a Resolution in which it declared its refusal to carry out the Edict of Worms. On the other hand it demanded “the summoning of a General Council, if possible within a year’s time, in a German town and under the co-operation of the Emperor.” It was, of course, understood that the secular Estates should also take part in that council, and perfect immunity for a free expression of opinion was at the same time admitted. Moreover, one hundred gravamina with respect to the prevailing abuses of the Church were handed to the Legate.
One of the most remarkable features in the passing of the
above Resolution was the circumstance that it even obtained the consent of the
adherents of the Pope, and that the views of the latter regarding the necessity
of Church reforms, in some degree at least, contributed to it. Adrian VI. was
in almost every respect the opposite of Leo X. He had the welfare
That the Estates should have been able thus to act in defiance
of both Pope and Emperor, was in itself the result of the influence which the
Reformation exercised on the political status of the German people. The civic
element now assumed a political importance which it never enjoyed before. The
commoner began to feel his dignity, as a man, as a member of the State. The
teachings of Luther had set free human intelligence and free thought, which
had been so long held imprisoned and bound by political and religious tyranny,
and the people began—to think and reason for themselves. From the moment this
was done, they were free, and as soon as
VI.
The answer of the Imperial Regency to Adrian VI. was the first
political triumph of the Reformation, but its effect was considerably weakened
by several events which occurred shortly after. First came the rising of the
knights—who constituted the lower nobility—under the banner of the brave and
restless Franz von Sickingen. Grave discontent reigned among the knights with
the doings of the all-powerful “Suabian League,” formed in 1488 by the Estates
of Suabia for the maintenance of general peace, and also with the encroachments
of the Princes; and Sickingen, aided by Ulrich von Hutten, united the lesser
nobles into one body with the avowed object of breaking the power of the higher
nobility, and of acknowledging one head only—the Emperor. It has been plausibly
assumed, that Sickingen pursued a more ambitious aim, and he has therefore been
compared with Wallenstein. Sickingen professed, however, another object in his
enterprise: the furtherance of the cause of the Reformation; and at the head
of a large and powerful army, he directed his first attack (Sept. 1522), against
the Archbishop of Treves. The knights were defeated, their leader lost his life,
and Hutten wandered away—outlawed and proscribed—to find an exile’s grave in
a small island of Switzerland. The enemies of Luther considered, or pretended
to consider, the Reformation as the
The first result of the rising and of the defeat of the knights was, that several Princes now assumed a somewhat hostile attitude towards the Imperial Regency, that had shown itself so tolerant respecting religious reforms; but a still severer blow threatened that body from another quarter. The wealthy German cities sent a deputation to Charles V. in Spain, with a petition against some ordinances which the Imperial Chamber had decided upon and which were considered detrimental to their commercial interests. The Emperor, dissatisfied with that liberal Institution, readily promised a new administration. This promise was fulfilled at the next Diet, in 1524, at Nuremberg, when it was decided to reorganise the Imperial Regency by electing for it entirely new members. Those who consented to this proceeding were influenced, partly by political and partly by commercial reasons, but as regards religious matters there was still a majority in favour of the Reformation. On this account it came to pass that a Resolution was carried at the Diet, to convoke another assembly of the Estates in the same year at Spires, the points to be discussed there being in the meantime drawn up for the Princes by scholars and counsellors. Till then the Resolution of the preceding Diet, “that the Gospel should be allowed to be freely preached,” was to remain in force. Thus the mission of the Papal Nuncio Campeggi, who had been sent to Germany by Clement VII. (the successor of Adrian VI. since 1523) to bring about the enactment of the Edict of Worms, proved unsuccessful. It is true the Diet passed a Resolution, that the Edict of Worms should be executed, but this decision was rendered ineffective by the additional elastic clause: “As far as possible.” At the same time the demand for a General Council was added.
The above Mandate now shared the fate of most compromises;
Various circumstances now combined to strengthen the effect of the Emperor’s new Edict. The Papal Nuncio Campeggi succeeded in inducing several influential forces, hostile to the Reformation, to form a League for the protection of the old faith. The Archduke Ferdinand and the Dukes of Bavaria—Princes who had for some time been conspiring with the Roman Curia—together with a number of Prelates, assembled for that purpose in the summer of 1524 at Ratisbon, and agreed upon stringent measures against the Reformation. They decided to give effect to the Edict of Worms, to proscribe again the works of Luther, and even to forbid to their subjects the attending of the University of Wittenberg.
The next step of the Ratisbon Convention was now to obtain
the co-operation of Charles V., which was effected easily enough, inasmuch as
the projected measures fully coincided with his own views; and being about to
attack Francis I. in France itself, from the direction of Italy, he stood in
great need of the Pope’s tacit acquiescence. He issued, therefore, a stringent
Edict, in which the convocation of a General Council was strictly prohibited,
and all interference in religious matters
The Convention of Ratisbon, which was chiefly brought about by foreign influence, may be said to have caused the first violent rupture among the German people, and to be the origin of all the calamities which befell Germany in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Without that Convention the projected General Council would, in all probability, have been held, the proposed reforms would have been peacefully and legally discussed, and there would not have occurred that violent disruption among the Germans, of which the evil effects, not only from a religious, but also from a political point of view, have not yet entirely disappeared. The only advantage which resulted from the Ratisbon Convention was the agreement to introduce a number of internal reforms in the Church. Thus the improved state of Roman Catholicism is entirely due to the doctrines of Luther and his Reformation.
VII.
The year 1525 was perhaps the most trying in Luther’s career.
He had hitherto been disappointed in the Princes and the burghers, and now he
experienced the mortification of seeing that class of people, from which he
sprang himself, entering on a path which must needs prove injurious to themselves,
and to the cause for which he lived and worked. Various risings of the Peasants
had taken place before the time of the Reformation, in consequence of the inhuman
treatment to which they were subjected by the nobles. The exactions of the priests
were likewise intolerable. Some local risings took place in 1524; but in the
following year that terrible contest, known as
The first programme of the Peasants, as contained in the well-known Twelve Articles, was moderate enough. Even Luther did not entirely reject their demands, some of which he wished to see referred to the decision of legal authorities. He admonished the Peasants, however, not to have recourse to brutal violence, and at the same time he exhorted the nobles to lend a merciful ear to the cries of the sufferers. The last clause of the Twelve Articles must have struck in his heart a sympathetic chord. The Peasants declared that their demands shall not stand, in case they should be refuted by Scripture, which statement seems to be an echo of Luther’s own declaration at the Diet of Worms. But it was just that external similarity which turned out so fatal for the cause of the Reformation. The Peasants borrowed the phraseology, as it were, of Luther; they clothed their grievances in the language of the Gospel, and thus gave to the enemies of the Reformation the plausible pretext of confounding it with their own insurrection. It was of little avail for Luther himself to protest against the allegation of the insurgents that their rising was founded on a religious basis, since his enemies persistently took the form for the substance.
If all the rebellious Peasants had strictly adhered to their
first programme, their cause might yet have taken a favourable turn; but, as
is generally the case with revolutionary movements, there soon arose an extreme
party which aimed at the
VIII.
In addition to the various disasters which befell Luther—and in him the whole of Germany—in the calamitous year of 1525, he also had the misfortune to lose his friend and protector, the Elector of Saxony, who died in the spring of that year. Frederick had looked with true paternal compassion on the insurgent Peasants, and had life and health been spared him, he might have quelled the civil war by the dint of his authority, or at least have mitigated its evils. Besides him, there was no one in Germany who enjoyed the same universal respect, and both the Imperial Regency and the Estates were, as a body, powerless. If Germany had been ruled over at that time by a sovereign residing in the country, and caring for the welfare of his people, the Peasants’ War would never have assumed such gigantic dimensions, nor would its consequences have been so fatal. But whilst Germany was convulsed by one of the most sanguinary of intestine wars, the Emperor resided in Spain, and his army fought and defeated the King of France before Pavia; which circumstance may serve as an additional proof of the evil caused by the election of Charles V. as head of the German Empire.
The only interest which the Emperor manifested with reference
to Germany consisted in his relentless efforts to exterminate the Lutheran doctrines.
Thus he again and again issued from Spain energetic admonitions to the Princes
and Bishops to make a firm resistance against the Reformation; promising and
threatening at the same time to come shortly to Germany himself, in order to
crush the heretics. These acts, together with the consultation at Mentz at which
a number of priests agreed on the suppression of Lutheran heresy, induced the
Landgrave Philip of Hesse, and John the Elector of Saxony, in the spring of
1526, to form the so-called “League of Torgau” for the protection and defence
of the Reformation. Luther himself, being, in principle, against all armed resistance
Luther was of opinion that a bad Prince must be patiently borne with, like any other scourge or calamity sent by Heaven. In this sense it was, that he taught “that the badness and perversity of a government does not justify active resistance or rebellion.” Indeed he considered the sufferings inflicted by a tyrannical ruler on his subjects as part and parcel of a man’s destiny upon earth. It was his Christian duty to suffer. According to his opinion man was not destined to be happy in this world, where he has been placed as a martyr. Such were his honest convictions and his views of life; his denial of the right of resistance arose therefore from a purely religious feeling, and not from any servile instinct. Surely a man who speaks in the following strain of Princes cannot be accused of servility: “From the beginning of the world,” says Luther, “a good Prince has been a rare bird and a pious Prince a still rarer one. They are as a rule the greatest fools and worst knaves upon earth. If there is a Prince who is a wise and pious man, or a Christian, it is a great miracle and the best sign of divine grace for a country. Therefore one must always expect the worst from them, and not hope for any good from them. They are the scourges and the executioners of God, and He employs them to punish the wicked and to maintain external peace.”
Luther was well aware of the fact that Germany required a
thorough reform as regards its civic or secular government, more especially
as he had found out that both the Princes and the Emperor had betrayed the German
people. With that dignified self-consciousness which is quite compatible with
true modesty, he said: “At times it seems to me as if the Government and the
Jurists also required a Luther.” If there had been during his time a great man
in Germany, capable of achieving in politics what he had himself achieved in
religion, he would undoubtedly have co-operated with him. For Luther was a true
German patriot, if ever there was one, as is evident from so many of his writings,
and more especially from
See p. 102 in the present volume.
The liberty of man, as interpreted by Luther, may be regarded by some persons as only of limited extent, and as having merely an ideal existence, but at any rate it marks a great progress in the history of civilization, and may be considered as the germ of the emancipation of the human race. It was the first step in the acknowledgment of the right of man as a human being. The principle of political freedom which now benefits the adherents of all creeds in civilized society must therefore be traced back to the Reformation. If the teachings of Luther had not first freed the Christian man, the liberty of man, in general—the equality of men—would scarcely have met with such a ready recognition in later centuries.
If Luther had not so strenuously opposed all active resistance
against authority, the political course of the Reformation would certainly have
taken a different turn; and it was fortunate enough for its consolidation, that
some of the Princes, who otherwise followed his teachings, did not share his
opinions on that subject. The formation of the above-mentioned League of Torgau
was the first result of that difference of opinion; and when the Diet assembled,
in the summer of 1526, at Spires, the Princes John and Philip, strengthened
by their union, could dare to acknowledge and practise openly the doctrines
of the Reformation in the face of the Diet. In
The Resolution of the Diet of Spires in 1526 was of considerable moment. The Reformation was now formally acknowledged and legalised, and had gained full time to recover lost ground and to obtain a firm footing throughout Germany. It also was a fortunate coincidence that Charles V. was now occupied in Italy with his war against the Pope and Francis I., whilst his brother Ferdinand, now King of Hungary and Bohemia, was encumbered by his troubles in those countries.
IX.
In consequence of the absence of both the Emperor and his
locum tenens from Germany, the projected General Council was not convoked,
and the next Diet did not assemble before the year 1529, at Spires. Till then
the Reformation had full scope to expand; but after the armies of Charles V.
had captured Rome, and a terrible pestilence had well-nigh destroyed the
In this emergency several German Princes and Imperial towns gave proof of a most praiseworthy moral courage. John, Prince Elector of Saxony, Philip, Landgrave of Hesse, George, Margrave of Brandenburg, Duke Ernest of Brunswick-Luneburg, Prince Wolfgang of Anhalt, and fourteen Imperial free towns, having in vain demurred against the decision of the Diet, laid before it a Protest against the pernicious decree, declaring at the same time, that in matters of religion and conscience the decision of majorities was not binding. How deep was the impression which that remarkable step had produced on the minds of the German people, may be inferred from the fact that it gave occasion to single out the adherents of Luther as a body and to apply to them the name of Protestants.
The rupture between the two religious parties was now complete.
They no longer formed merely two different shades of the same party, but were
distinguished from each other even as to the name. Roman Catholics stood
opposite Protestants. In one respect the new appellation was a gain;
for it embraced
X.
At the Diet of 1529 the Protestants had gained a moral victory,
but they had suffered a material defeat; for the government of the Empire was
now entirely in the hands of their antagonists. It seemed, therefore, prudent
to prepare for future emergencies, and some of the Protestant Princes began
negotiations with several cities, both German and Swiss. A comprehensive scheme
was devised which, if successfully carried out, would have entirely changed
the political aspect of Germany, if not of Europe. Unfortunately this plan,
the execution of which could alone have saved the cause of Protestantism, was
frustrated by the well-known theological difference between the adherents of
Luther and Zwingli. Thus,
Whilst the German Theologians discussed religious subjects and the “right of resistance,” Charles V. strengthened his position in Italy, and Clement VII. placed on his head, at Bologna, the crown of Charles the Great. The Emperor was surrounded on this occasion chiefly by Italian Princes and Spanish Grandees, and only one or two German Princes were present. The coronation was, therefore, against the “ancient German custom,” but Charles was crowned as a Roman and not as a German Emperor of Germany. He might have been like Henry the Fowler, another founder or regenerator of the German Empire, whereas he renovated the Imperial dignity only so far as his own personality was concerned. This step was very significant, and may serve as a clue to his subsequent course of action.
It is well known that the Pope and Emperor distrusted each
other, but they were diplomatic enough to assume the mask of mutual friendship.
There was, moreover, one powerful bond of union between them, namely, the determination
to eradicate German “heresy.” This resolve was one of the principal motives
of the Emperor’s journey to Germany, in the summer of 1530, for the purpose
of holding a Diet at Augsburg. The
It may reasonably be assumed that the Emperor was benevolently disposed, and would have preferred to see his point carried by gentle means. His benevolence was, however, of that conditional kind only, which first tries peaceful means, but subsequently has recourse to arbitrary and violent measures, should the gentle measures prove futile. He was not imbued with that absolute benevolence and clemency which shows mercy even to the guilty, or the supposed guilty. The Roman Catholic Princes were aware of this disposition of the Emperor, and of his secret agreement with the Pope, though the Protestant Princes implicitly believed in his peaceful and gracious assurances. The latter now hopefully looked forward to an amicable settlement of the prevailing discord, and at once proceeded to draw up a Programme, containing the substance of the reformed creed.
It did not take long however for the Protestants to see their error. Even before the Emperor’s arrival at Augsburg he urged the Elector John of Saxony not to allow the preachers he had brought with him to preach in public. This demand was repeated in Augsburg, in the Emperor’s presence, after his arrival in that city, to the Elector of Saxony, and several other Protestant Princes. The theological defence of the evangelical sermons by the Landgrave of Hesse merely served to arouse the wrath and indignation of Charles. When, however, the aged warrior, the Margrave George of Brandenburg emphatically exclaimed: “Sire, before renouncing the word of God, I would rather kneel down on this spot and let my head be cut off,” the Emperor was deeply moved by this energetic protest, and uttered in his Low-German vernacular the reassuring words: “No heads off! no heads off, my dear Prince!”
The Protestant Princes also declined to join in the public
procession on the festival of Corpus Christi, which was
The religious contest being the first subject which was brought before the Diet, the Protestant Princes presented, on 25th June, 1530, their “Confession of Faith,” which had been prepared by Melanchthon. There were two versions of it, one in German and another in Latin. The Emperor naturally desired to have the second version read, but the Protestant Princes advised him patriotically to admit on German soil the German version. This step may be considered as one of the results of the Reformation. Luther had awakened in the Germans the feelings of nationality and patriotism, and had also politically freed them from the fetters of Roman bondage.
The profession of faith of the Protestant Princes, known as
the “Augsburg Confession,” was drawn up in such a conciliatory spirit and contained
so many concessions to Roman Catholicism, that some kind of agreement seemed
to be possible, if not near at hand. The Protestants had now honestly fulfilled
their duty. In accordance with the Imperial rescript
At the Conference which was held in August, 1530, for the
purpose of effecting an agreement between the contending parties, a spirit of
reconciliation prevailed. Both sides made concessions, and it was agreed to
refer certain points of difference which were still pending to a General Council;
so that there was a near prospect of a mutual understanding. Some agreement
would, in all probability, have been brought about, but for the relentless spirit
of fanaticism of the Roman Curia, as represented by the Legate Campeggi. It
was he who frustrated the success of all further attempts at a reconciliation
by inducing the Emperor and the majority of the Diet to make such conditions
as the Protestants could not accept. The allied Princes remained firm, and as
the attitude of the Imperial Court became more and more threatening, and the
Theologians could not agree among themselves, the energetic Landgrave Philip
of Hesse suddenly left Augsburg at the beginning of August. The Emperor was
so startled by this unexpected
The Emperor’s disappointment was great, and the more so, as he was indignant against the Protestant Princes on account of their refusing to consent to the election of his brother Ferdinand as “King of Rome.” Charles V. now proceeded to the last step which made the breach between the two great portions of the German nation irremediable. On the 22nd of September, 1530, he communicated to the Estates the draft of the Decree upon which he had resolved with reference to the religious contest, and which announced his determination “to carry out unconditionally the Edict of Worms.” The Protestants were treated in that Decree as a mere sect, and their doctrines—of all shades—were indiscriminately condemned. All the usages of the old creed were to be maintained intact, and the rights of the Ecclesiastical Princes were to be fully restored, under pain of the Imperial ban. This Imperial Decree, which was virtually a total abolition of the work of the Reformation, was finally issued on the 19th of November with the additional clause—which savoured of mockery—that a time of respite should be granted to the Protestants until the 15th April, 1531, to enable them to declare their adhesion to the contested points. In the meantime the Emperor was to use his efforts with the Pope to convene a General Council to discuss the abolition of certain unquestionable abuses in the Church.
This amounted to an open declaration of war, and the Protestant Princes were prudent enough to take their measures accordingly.
XI.
The Diet of Augsburg in 1530 may be considered, in some respects,
as the key-stone in the religious and political course
The stern necessity of self-defence caused at last the Protestant Princes to form the “Convention” or “League of Smalkald” in December 1530. Even Luther was induced to approve of it, and some of his writings, more especially his ‘Warning to my beloved Germans,’ showed that he no longer viewed self-defence in the light of rebellion. The schism among the Germans was now political as well as religious. A compact body stood armed, not against the sovereign power of the German Empire, but against the Roman Emperor of the German nation; against the monarch who identified himself with the Pope. Charles V. fully recognised the drift of the Protestant opposition, and it is not quite improbable that on account of it he insisted on the speedy election and coronation of his brother Ferdinand as “Roman King,” which took place at Cologne at the end of 1530, and at Aix-la-Chapelle at the beginning of the following year. The Protestant Princes protested against this proceeding, as being contrary to the Imperial Constitution of Germany; but we have already seen that Charles cared very little either for the laws or the aspirations of the German people. The illegal election of Ferdinand necessarily widened the breach between the Emperor and the Protestant Princes, who plainly saw the danger impending from the supremacy of the house of Hapsburg.
The Dukes of Bavaria, who also aspired to the Imperial dignity,
looked grudgingly on the ascendency of the Hapsburgs,
After the Diet of Augsburg in 1530, Charles was again occupied
with his military enterprises abroad, and remained absent from Germany for the
space of nine years. His brother, King Ferdinand I., was likewise prevented
from effectively interfering with religious affairs in consequence of the troubles
in his hereditary dominions, and so the Reformation had again free scope to
make its way through the greater portion of Germany. The indulgence granted
to the Protestants was, however, apparent only. Both Charles and his brother
treacherously bided their time to enter on the struggle of annihilation against
them. That time seemed to them to have arrived when Charles, in conjunction
with Henry VIII., had forced the King of France to sign the Peace of Crepy in
1544. It is true the Emperor consented to convene a Council in December, 1545,
and so he did at Trent, but the Princes of Hesse and Saxony justly declined
to attend it. The Emperor’s hostile intentions against the Protestants now became
patent, first by his renewed League with Paul III., the successor of Pope Clement
VII., and afterwards by the
In the meantime Martin Luther, the life and soul of the Reformation, had died on the 18th of February, 1546, and was spared the pain of witnessing the outbreak of the unfortunate Smalkaldic War, which laid Germany prostrate at the feet of the Emperor and his Spaniards. This calamity was, of course, due mostly to the fact that the old German Empire identified itself with the Papacy and considered itself bound to defend its cause. It is, however, a significant fact, that Charles V. was actually the last Roman Emperor of Germany crowned by a Pope. When he proceeded for his coronation, in 1530, to the Church of St. Petronio at Bologna, through a wooden structure which had been erected to connect his Palace with the church, the temporary passage gave way a few steps behind the Emperor. Popular superstition saw in this an evil omen—for Germany, it proved to be a happy one—and prophesied that Charles would be the last German Emperor thus crowned. The prophecy became true, but it was not in Italy that the link was broken which connected Germany with Rome. This was done in Germany itself, and as we have seen, by the humble peasants’ son, Martin Luther.
Luther it was who actually freed Germany from the secular
and spiritual bondage of Rome; for although the Protestants had been vanquished
in the Smalkaldic war, they were not entirely crushed. The spirit of the Reformation
survived, and exercised its beneficial influence not only throughout Germany,
but over the whole of the civilised world, and it is in this sense that the
Reformation is universally considered as the beginning of a New Era in the history
of the world. The Reformation is the source, directly or indirectly, by action
or by reaction, of everything great and noble which has taken place from about
the beginning of the sixteenth century.
FIRST PRINCIPLES
OF
THE REFORMATION.
THE NINETY-FIVE THESES.
INTRODUCTORY LETTER.
To the most Reverend Father in Christ and most illustrious Lord, Albert, Archbishop and Primate of the Churches of Magdeburg and Mentz, Marquis of Brandenburg, etc., his lord and pastor in Christ, most gracious and worthy of all fear and reverence—
Jesus.
The grace of God be with you, and whatsoever it is and can do.
Spare me, most reverend Father in Christ, most illustrious Prince, if I, the very dregs of humanity, have dared to think of addressing a letter to the eminence of your sublimity. The Lord Jesus is my witness that, in the consciousness of my own pettiness and baseness, I have long put off the doing of that which I have now hardened my forehead to perform, moved thereto most especially by the sense of that faithful duty which I feel that I owe to your most reverend Fatherhood in Christ. May your Highness then in the meanwhile deign to cast your eyes upon one grain of dust, and, in your pontifical clemency, to understand my prayer.
Papal indulgences are being carried about, under your most distinguished
authority, for the building of St. Peter’s. In respect of these
I do not so much accuse the extravagant sayings of the preachers,
which I have not heard, but I grieve at the very false ideas which
the people conceive from them, and which are spread abroad in common
talk on every side—namely, that unhappy souls believe that, if they
buy letters of indulgences, they are sure of their salvation; also,
that, as soon as they have thrown their contribution into the
O gracious God! it is thus that the souls committed to your care,
most excellent Father, are being taught unto their death, and a
most severe account, which you will have to render for all of them,
is growing and increasing. Hence I have not been able to keep silence
any longer on this subject, for by no function of a bishop’s office
can a man become sure of salvation, since he does not even become
sure through the grace of God infused into him, but the Apostle
bids us to be ever working out our salvation in fear and trembling.
(
Why then, by these false stories and promises of pardon, do the preachers of them make the people to feel secure and without fear? since indulgences confer absolutely no good on souls as regards salvation or holiness, but only take away the outward penalty which was wont of old to be canonically imposed.
Lastly, works of piety and charity are infinitely better than indulgences, and yet they do not preach these with such display or so much zeal; nay, they keep silence about them for the sake of preaching pardons. And yet it is the first and sole duty of all bishops, that the people should learn the Gospel and Christian charity: for Christ nowhere commands that indulgences should be preached. What a dreadful thing it is then, what peril to a bishop, if, while the Gospel is passed over in silence, he permits nothing but the noisy outcry of indulgences to be spread among his people, and bestows more care on these than on the Gospel! Will not Christ say to them: “Straining at a gnat, and swallowing a camel”?
Besides all this, most reverend Father in the Lord, in that
But what can I do, excellent Primate and most illustrious Prince, save to entreat your reverend Fatherhood, through the Lord Jesus Christ, to deign to turn on us the eye of fatherly care, and to suppress that advertisement altogether and impose on the preachers of pardons another form of preaching, lest perchance some one should at length arise who will put forth writings in confutation of them and of their advertisements, to the deepest reproach of your most illustrious Highness. It is intensely abhorrent to me that this should be done, and yet I fear that it will happen, unless the evil be speedily remedied.
This faithful discharge of my humble duty I entreat that your most illustrious Grace will deign to receive in a princely and bishoplike spirit—that is, with all clemency—even as I offer it with a most faithful heart, and one most devoted to your most reverend Fatherhood, since I too am part of your flock. May the Lord Jesus keep your most reverend Fatherhood for ever and ever. Amen.
From Wittemberg, on the eve of All Saints, in the year 1517.
If it so please your most reverend Fatherhood, you may look at these Disputations, that you may perceive how dubious a matter is that opinion about indulgences, which they disseminate as if it were most certain.
To your most reverend Fatherhood.
Martin Luther.
DISPUTATION OF DR. MARTIN LUTHER CONCERNING PENITENCE AND INDULGENCES.
In the desire and with the purpose of elucidating the truth, a disputation will be held on the underwritten propositions at Wittemberg, under the presidency of the Reverend Father Martin Luther, Monk of the Order of St. Augustine, Master of Arts and of Sacred Theology, and ordinary Reader of the same in that place. He therefore asks those who cannot be present and discuss the subject with us orally, to do so by letter in their absence. In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.
1. Our Lord and Master Jesus Christ in saying:
“Repent ye,” In the Latin, from the Vulgate, “agite
pœnitentiam,” sometimes translated “Do penance.” The effect of the following
theses depends to some extent on the double meaning of “pœnitentia”—penitence
and penance.
2. This word cannot be understood of sacramental penance, that is, of the confession and satisfaction which are performed under the ministry of priests.
3. It does not, however, refer solely to inward penitence; nay such inward penitence is naught, unless it outwardly produces various mortifications of the flesh.
4. The penalty I.e. “Pœna,” the connection between
“pœna” and “pœnitentia” being again suggestive.
5. The Pope has neither the will nor the power to remit any penalties, except those which he has imposed by his own authority, or by that of the canons.
6. The Pope has no power to remit any guilt, except by declaring and warranting it to have been remitted by God; or at most by remitting cases reserved for himself; in which cases, if his power were despised, guilt would certainly remain.
7. God never remits any man’s guilt, without
at the same
8. The penitential canons are imposed only on the living, and no burden ought to be imposed on the dying, according to them.
9. Hence the Holy Spirit acting in the Pope does well for us, in that, in his decrees, he always makes exception of the article of death and of necessity.
10. Those priests act wrongly and unlearnedly, who, in the case of the dying, reserve the canonical penances for purgatory.
11. Those tares about changing of the canonical penalty into the penalty of purgatory seem surely to have been sown while the bishops were asleep.
12. Formerly the canonical penalties were imposed not after, but before absolution, as tests of true contrition.
13. The dying pay all penalties by death, and are already dead to the canon laws, and are by right relieved from them.
14. The imperfect soundness or charity of a dying person necessarily brings with it great fear, and the less it is, the greater the fear it brings.
15. This fear and horror is sufficient by itself, to say nothing of other things, to constitute the pains of purgatory, since it is very near to the horror of despair.
16. Hell, purgatory, and heaven appear to differ as despair, almost despair, and peace of mind differ.
17. With souls in purgatory it seems that it must needs be that, as horror diminishes, so charity increases.
18. Nor does it seem to be proved by any reasoning or any scriptures, that they are outside of the state of merit or of the increase of charity.
19. Nor does this appear to be proved, that they are sure and confident of their own blessedness, at least all of them, though we may be very sure of it.
20. Therefore the Pope, when he speaks of the plenary remission of all penalties, does not mean simply of all, but only of those imposed by himself.
21. Thus those preachers of indulgences are in error who say that, by the indulgences of the Pope, a man is loosed and saved from all punishment.
22. For in fact he remits to souls in purgatory no penalty which they would have had to pay in this life according to the canons.
23. If any entire remission of all penalties can be granted to any one, it is certain that it is granted to none but the most perfect, that is, to very few.
24. Hence the greater part of the people must needs be deceived by this indiscriminate and high-sounding promise of release from penalties.
25. Such power as the Pope has over purgatory in general, such has every bishop in his own diocese, and every curate in his own parish, in particular.
26. The Pope acts most rightly in granting remission to souls, not by the power of the keys (which is of no avail in this case) but by the way of suffrage.
27. They preach man, who say that the soul flies out of purgatory as soon as the money thrown into the chest rattles.
28. It is certain that, when the money rattles in the chest, avarice and gain may be increased, but the suffrage of the Church depends on the will of God alone.
29. Who knows whether all the souls in purgatory desire to be redeemed from it, according to the story told of Saints Severinus and Paschal.
30. No man is sure of the reality of his own contrition, much less of the attainment of plenary remission.
31. Rare as is a true penitent, so rare is one who truly buys indulgences—that is to say, most rare.
32. Those who believe that, through letters of pardon, they are made sure of their own salvation, will be eternally damned along with their teachers.
33. We must especially beware of those who say that these pardons from the Pope are that inestimable gift of God by which man is reconciled to God.
34. For the grace conveyed by these pardons has respect only to the penalties of sacramental satisfaction, which are of human appointment.
35. They preach no Christian doctrine, who teach that contrition is not necessary for those who buy souls out of purgatory or buy confessional licences.
36. Every Christian who feels true compunction has of right plenary remission of pain and guilt, even without letters of pardon.
37. Every true Christian, whether living or dead, has a share in all the benefits of Christ and of the Church, given him by God, even without letters of pardon.
38. The remission, however, imparted by the Pope is by no means to be despised, since it is, as I have said, a declaration of the Divine remission.
39. It is a most difficult thing, even for the most learned theologians, to exalt at the same time in the eyes of the people the ample effect of pardons and the necessity of true contrition.
40. True contrition seeks and loves punishment; while the ampleness of pardons relaxes it, and causes men to hate it, or at least gives occasion for them to do so.
41. Apostolical pardons ought to be proclaimed with caution, lest the people should falsely suppose that they are placed before other good works of charity.
42. Christians should be taught that it is not the mind of the Pope that the buying of pardons is to be in any way compared to works of mercy.
43. Christians should be taught that he who gives to a poor man, or lends to a needy man, does better than if he bought pardons.
44. Because, by a work of charity, charity increases, and the man becomes better; while, by means of pardons, he does not become better, but only freer from punishment.
45. Christians should be taught that he who sees any one in need, and, passing him by, gives money for pardons, is not purchasing for himself the indulgences of the Pope, but the anger of God.
46. Christians should be taught that, unless they have superfluous wealth, they are bound to keep what is necessary for the use of their own households, and by no means to lavish it on pardons.
47. Christians should be taught that, while they are free to buy pardons, they are not commanded to do so.
48. Christians should be taught that the Pope, in granting pardons, has both more need and more desire that devout prayer should be made for him, than that money should be readily paid.
49. Christians should be taught that the Pope’s pardons are useful, if they do not put their trust in them, but most hurtful, if through them they lose the fear of God.
50. Christians should be taught that, if the Pope were acquainted with the exactions of the preachers of pardons, he would prefer that the Basilica of St. Peter should be burnt to ashes, than that it should be built up with the skin, flesh, and bones of his sheep.
51. Christians should be taught that, as it would be the duty, so it would be the wish of the Pope, even to sell, if necessary, the Basilica of St. Peter, and to give of his own money to very many of those from whom the preachers of pardons extract money.
52. Vain is the hope of salvation through letters of pardon, even if a commissary—nay, the Pope himself—were to pledge his own soul for them.
53. They are enemies of Christ and of the Pope, who, in order that pardons may be preached, condemn the word of God to utter silence in other churches.
54. Wrong is done to the word of God when, in the same sermon, an equal or longer time is spent on pardons than on it.
55. The mind of the Pope necessarily is that, if pardons, which are a very small matter, are celebrated with single bells, single processions, and single ceremonies, the Gospel, which is a very great matter, should be preached with a hundred bells, a hundred processions, and a hundred ceremonies.
56. The treasures of the Church, whence the Pope grants indulgences, are neither sufficiently named nor known among the people of Christ.
57. It is clear that they are at least not temporal treasures, for these are not so readily lavished, but only accumulated, by many of the preachers.
58. Nor are they the merits of Christ and of the saints, for these, independently of the Pope, are always working grace to the inner man, and the cross, death, and hell to the outer man.
59. St. Lawrence said that the treasures of the Church are the poor of the Church, but he spoke according to the use of the word in his time.
60. We are not speaking rashly when we say that the keys of the Church, bestowed through the merits of Christ, are that treasure.
61. For it is clear that the power of the Pope is alone sufficient for the remission of penalties and of reserved cases.
62. The true treasure of the Church is the Holy Gospel of the glory and grace of God.
63. This treasure, however, is deservedly most hateful, because it makes the first to be last.
64. While the treasure of indulgences is deservedly most acceptable, because it makes the last to be first.
65. Hence the treasures of the Gospel are nets, wherewith of old they fished for the men of riches.
66. The treasures of indulgences are nets, wherewith they now fish for the riches of men.
67. Those indulgences, which the preachers loudly proclaim to be the greatest graces, are seen to be truly such as regards the promotion of gain.
68. Yet they are in reality in no degree to be compared to the grace of God and the piety of the cross.
69. Bishops and curates are bound to receive the commissaries of apostolical pardons with all reverence.
70. But they are still more bound to see to it with all their eyes, and take heed with all their ears, that these men do not preach their own dreams in place of the Pope’s commission.
71. He who speaks against the truth of apostolical pardons, let him be anathema and accursed.
72. But he, on the other hand, who exerts himself against the wantonness and licence of speech of the preachers of pardons, let him be blessed.
73. As the Pope justly thunders against those who use any kind of contrivance to the injury of the traffic in pardons,
74. Much more is it his intention to thunder against those who, under the pretext of pardons, use contrivances to the injury of holy charity and of truth.
75. To think that Papal pardons have such power that they could absolve a man even if—by an impossibility—he had violated the Mother of God, is madness.
76. We affirm on the contrary that Papal pardons cannot take away even the least of venial sins, as regards its guilt.
77. The saying that, even if St. Peter were now Pope, he could grant no greater graces, is blasphemy against St. Peter and the Pope.
78. We affirm on the contrary that both he and
any other Pope has greater graces to grant, namely, the Gospel, powers,
gifts of healing, etc. (
79. To say that the cross set up among the insignia of the Papal arms is of equal power with the cross of Christ, is blasphemy.
80. Those bishops, curates, and theologians who allow such discourses to have currency among the people, will have to render an account.
81. This licence in the preaching of pardons makes it no easy thing, even for learned men, to protect the reverence due to the Pope against the calumnies, or, at all events, the keen questionings of the laity.
82. As for instance:—Why does not the Pope empty purgatory for the sake of most holy charity and of the supreme necessity of souls—this being the most just of all reasons—if he redeems an infinite number of souls for the sake of that most fatal thing money, to be spent on building a basilica—this being a very slight reason?
83. Again; why do funeral masses and anniversary masses for the deceased continue, and why does not the Pope return, or permit the withdrawal of the funds bequeathed for this purpose, since it is a wrong to pray for those who are already redeemed?
84. Again; what is this new kindness of God and the Pope, in that, for money’s sake, they permit an impious man and an enemy of God to redeem a pious soul which loves God, and yet do not redeem that same pious and beloved soul, out of free charity, on account of its own need?
85. Again; why is it that the penitential canons, long since abrogated and dead in themselves in very fact and not only by usage, are yet still redeemed with money, through the granting of indulgences, as if they were full of life?
86. Again; why does not the Pope, whose riches are at this day more ample than those of the wealthiest of the wealthy, build the one Basilica of St. Peter with his own money, rather than with that of poor believers?
87. Again; what does the Pope remit or impart to those who, through perfect contrition, have a right to plenary remission and participation?
88. Again; what greater good would the Church receive if the Pope, instead of once, as he does now, were to bestow these remissions and participations a hundred times a day on any one of the faithful?
89. Since it is the salvation of souls, rather than money, that the Pope seeks by his pardons, why does he suspend the letters and pardons granted long ago, since they are equally efficacious.
90. To repress these scruples and arguments of the laity by force alone, and not to solve them by giving reasons, is to expose the Church and the Pope to the ridicule of their enemies, and to make Christian men unhappy.
91. If then pardons were preached according to the spirit and mind of the Pope, all these questions would be resolved with ease; nay, would not exist.
92. Away then with all those prophets who say to the people of Christ: “Peace, peace,” and there is no peace.
93. Blessed be all those prophets, who say to the people of Christ: “The cross, the cross,” and there is no cross.
94. Christians should be exhorted to strive to follow Christ their head through pains, deaths, and hells.
95. And thus trust to enter heaven through many tribulations, rather than in the security of peace.
Protestation.
I, Martin Luther, Doctor, of the Order of Monks at Wittemberg, desire
to testify publicly that certain propositions against pontifical indulgences,
as they call them, have been put forth by me. Now although, up to the
present time, neither this most celebrated and renowned school of ours,
nor any civil or ecclesiastical power has condemned me, yet there are,
as I hear, some men of headlong and audacious spirit, who dare to pronounce
me a heretic, as though the matter had been thoroughly looked into and
studied. But on my part, as I have often done before, so now too I implore
all men, by the faith of Christ, either to point out to me a better
way, if such a way has been
THE THREE PRIMARY WORKS
OF
DR. MARTIN LUTHER
I.
TO
THE CHRISTIAN NOBILITY
OF THE
GERMAN NATION
RESPECTING THE REFORMATION
OF THE
CHRISTIAN ESTATE.
JESUS
DEDICATORY LETTER.
To the respected and worthy Nicolaus von Amsdorf (1483-1565) was a colleague
of Luther at the University of Wittenberg, and one of his most zealous fellow-workers
in the cause of the Reformation.
NICOLAUS VON AMSDORF,
Licentiate in the Holy Scriptures and Canon of Wittenberg,
My particular and affectionate friend.
Dr. MARTIN LUTHER.
The Grace and Peace of God be with you! Respected, worthy Sir and dear friend.
The time for silence is gone and the time to speak
has come, as we read in Ecclesiastes (
Let who will blame me, I shall not offer any excuse.
Perhaps I still owe God and the world another folly. This debt I have
now resolved honestly to discharge, as well as may be, and to be court
fool for once in my life: if I fail, I shall at any rate gain this advantage,
that no one need buy me a fool’s cap or shave my poll. But it remains
to be seen which shall hang
Now, inasmuch as I am not only a fool, but also a sworn doctor of the Holy Scriptures, I am glad that I have an opportunity of fulfilling my oath, just in this fool’s way. I beg you to excuse me to the moderately wise: for I know not how to deserve the favour and grace of the supremely wise, which I have so often sought with much labour, but now for the future shall neither have nor regard.
God help us to seek not our glory, but His alone. Amen.
From Wittenberg, in the monastery of St. Augustine, on the eve of St. John the Baptist, in the year 1520.
Jesus.
To his most Serene and Mighty Imperial Majesty, and to the Christian Nobility of the German Nation.
Dr. MARTINUS LUTHER.
The grace and might of God be with you, Most Serene Majesty! most gracious, well beloved gentlemen!
It is not out of mere arrogance and perversity that
I, a single poor man, have taken upon me to address your lordships.
The distress and misery that oppress all the Christian estates, more
especially in Germany, have led not only myself, but every one else,
to cry aloud and to ask for help, and have now forced me too, to cry
out and to ask, if God would give His Spirit to any one, to reach a
hand to His wretched people. Councils have often put forward some remedy,
but through the cunning of certain men it has been adroitly frustrated,
and the evils have become worse; whose malice and wickedness I will
Charles V. was at that time not quite twenty
years of age.
The first thing that we must do is to consider the
matter with great earnestness, and, whatever we attempt, not to trust
in our own strength and wisdom alone, even if the power of all the world
were ours; for God will not endure that a good work should be begun,
trusting to our own strength and wisdom. He destroys it; it is all useless:
as we read in the
That it may not happen thus to us and to our noble
Emperor Charles, we must remember that in this matter we wrestle not
against flesh and blood, but against the rulers of the darkness of this
world (
I. The Three Walls of the Romanists.
The Romanists have, with great adroitness, drawn three walls round themselves, with which they have hitherto protected themselves, so that no one could reform them, whereby all Christendom has fallen terribly.
Firstly, if pressed by the temporal power, they have affirmed and maintained that the temporal power has no jurisdiction over them, but on the contrary that the spiritual power is above the temporal.
Secondly, if it were proposed to admonish them with the Scriptures, they objected that no one may interpret the Scriptures but the Pope.
Thirdly, if they are threatened with a Council, they pretend that no one may call a Council but the Pope.
Thus they have secretly stolen our three rods, so that they may be unpunished, and entrenched themselves behind these three walls, to act with all wickedness and malice, as we now see. And whenever they have been compelled to call a Council, they have made it of no avail, by binding the Princes beforehand with an oath to leave them as they were. Besides this they have given the Pope full power over the arrangement of the Council, so that it is all one, whether we have many Councils, or no Councils, for in any case they deceive us with pretences and false tricks. So grievously do they tremble for their skin before a true, free Council; and thus they have overawed Kings and Princes, that these believe they would be offending God, if they were not to obey them in all such knavish, deceitful artifices.
Now may God help us, and give us one of those trumpets,
that overthrew the walls of Jericho, so that we may blow down these
walls of straw and paper, and that we may set free our
The First Wall.
Let us, in the first place, attack the first wall.
It has been devised, that the Pope, bishops, priests
and monks are called the Spiritual Estate; Princes, lords, artificers
and peasants, are the Temporal Estate; which is a very fine, hypocritical
device. But let no one be made afraid by it; and that for this reason:
That all Christians are truly of the Spiritual Estate, and there
is no difference among them, save of office alone. As St. Paul says
(
As for the unction by a pope or a bishop, tonsure,
ordination, consecration, clothes differing from those of laymen—all
this may make a hypocrite or an anointed puppet, but never a Christian,
or a spiritual man. Thus we are all consecrated as priests by baptism,
as St. Peter says: “Ye are a royal priesthood, a holy nation” (
And to put the matter even more plainly; If a
little company of pious Christian laymen were taken prisoners and
carried away to a desert, and had not among them a priest
Since then the temporal power is baptized as we
are, and has the same faith and gospel, we must allow it to be priest
and bishop, and account its office an office that is proper and
useful to the Christian community. For whatever issues from baptism,
may boast that it has been consecrated priest, bishop, and Pope,
although it does not beseem everyone to exercise these offices.
For, since we are all priests alike, no man may put himself forward,
or take upon himself, without our consent and election, to do that
which we have all alike power to do. For, if a thing is common to
all, no man may take it to himself without the wish and command
of the community. And if it should happen that a man were appointed
to one of these offices and deposed for abuses, he would be just
what he was before. Therefore a priest should be nothing in Christendom
but a functionary; as long as he holds his office, he has precedence
of others; if he is deprived of it, he is a peasant and a citizen
like the rest. Therefore a priest is verily no longer a priest after
deposition. But now they have invented characters indelebiles, In accordance with a doctrine of the Roman
Catholic Church the act of ordination impresses upon the priest an indelible
character; so that he immutably retains the sacred dignity of priesthood.
It follows then, that between layman and priests,
princes and bishops, or as they call it, between spiritual and temporal
persons, the only real difference is one of office and function,
and not of estate: for they are all of the same Spiritual Estate,
true priests, bishops and Popes, though their functions are not
the same: just as among priests and monks every man has not the
same functions. And this St. Paul says (
We see then that just as those that we call spiritual, or priests, bishops or popes, do not differ from other Christians in any other or higher degree, but in that they are to be concerned with the word of God, and the sacraments—that being their work and office—in the same way the temporal authorities hold the sword and the rod in their hands to punish the wicked and to protect the good. A cobbler, a smith, a peasant, every man has the office and function of his calling, and yet all alike are consecrated priests and bishops, and every man in his office must be useful and beneficial to the rest, that so many kinds of work may all be united into one community: just as the members of the body all serve one another.
Now see, what a Christian doctrine is this: that
the temporal authority is not above the clergy, and may not punish
it. This is, as if one were to say, the hand may not help, though
the eye is in grievous suffering. Is it not unnatural, not to say
unchristian, that one member may not help another, or guard it against
harm? Nay, the nobler the member, the more the rest are bound to
help it. Therefore I say: forasmuch as the temporal power has been
ordained by God for the punishment of the bad, and the protection
of the good, therefore we must let it do its duty throughout the
whole Christian body, without respect of persons: whether it strike
popes, bishops, priests, monks, or nuns. If it were sufficient reason
for fettering the temporal power that it is inferior among the offices
of Christianity to the offices of priest or confessor, or to the
spiritual estate—if this were so, then we ought to restrain tailors,
cobblers, masons, carpenters, cooks, servants, peasants, and all
secular workmen, from providing the Pope, or bishops, priests
Therefore the temporal Christian power must exercise
its office without let or hindrance, without considering whom it
may strike, whether pope, or bishop, or priest: whoever is guilty
let him suffer for it. Whatever the ecclesiastical law says in opposition
to this, is merely the invention of Romanist arrogance. For this
is what St. Paul says to all Christians: “Let every soul” (I presume
including the Popes) “be subject unto the higher powers: for he
beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a
revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.” (
Now I imagine, the first paper wall is overthrown, inasmuch as the temporal power has become a member of the Christian body, and although its work relates to the body, yet does it belong to the spiritual estate. Therefore it must do its duty without let or hindrance upon all members of the whole body, to punish or urge, as guilt may deserve, or need may require, without respect of Pope, bishops or priests; let them threaten or excommunicate as they will. That is why a guilty priest is deprived of his priesthood before being given over to the secular arm; whereas this would not be right, if the secular sword had not authority over him already by divine ordinance.
It is, indeed, past bearing that the spiritual
law should esteem so highly the liberty, life and property of the
clergy, as if laymen were not as good spiritual Christians, or not
equally members of the Church. Why should your body, life, goods,
and honour be free and not mine, seeing that we are equal as Christians,
and have received alike baptism, faith, spirit and all things? If
a
By the Interdict, or general excommunication,
whole countries, districts, or towns, were deprived of all the spiritual
benefits of the Church, such as divine service, the administering of the
sacraments, etc.
It can have been no good spirit, that devised these exceptions, and made sin to go unpunished. For, if as Christ and the Apostles bid us, it is our duty to oppose the evil one, and all his works and words, and to drive him away as well as may be; how then should we look on in silence, when the Pope and his followers are guilty of devilish works and words? Are we for the sake of men to allow the commandments and the truth of God to be defeated, which at our baptism we vowed to support with body and soul? Truly we should have to answer for all souls that are thus led away into error.
Therefore it must have been the archdevil himself
who said, as we read in the ecclesiastical law: If the Pope were
so perniciously wicked, as to be dragging souls in crowds to the
devil, yet he could not be deposed. This is the accursed and devilish
foundation on which they build at Rome, and think that the whole
world is to be allowed to go to the devil, rather than they should
be opposed in their knavery. If a man were to escape punishment
simply because he is above the rest, then no Christian might punish
another, since Christ has commanded each of us to esteem himself
the lowest and the humblest. (
Where there is sin, there remains no avoiding the punishment, as St. Gregory says: We are all equal, but guilt makes one subject to another. Now see, how they deal with Christendom, depriving it of its freedom without any warrant from the Scriptures, out of their own wickedness, whereas God and the Apostles made them subject to the secular sword; so that we must fear, that it is the work of Antichrist, or a sign of his near approach.
The Second Wall.
The second wall is even more tottering and weak:
that they alone pretend to be considered masters of the Scriptures;
But not to fight them with our own words, we will
quote the Scriptures. St. Paul says: “If anything be revealed to
another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace.” (
Therefore it is a wickedly devised fable, and
they cannot quote a single letter to confirm it, that it is for
the Pope alone to interpret the Scriptures or to confirm the interpretation
of them: they have assumed the authority of their own selves. And
though they say, that this authority was given to St. Peter when
the keys were given to him, it is plain enough that the keys were
not given to St. Peter alone, but to the whole community. Besides,
the keys were not ordained for doctrine or authority, but for sin,
to bind or loose; and what they claim besides this is mere invention.
But what Christ said to St. Peter: “I have prayed for thee, that
thy faith fail not” (
Only consider the matter. They must needs acknowledge
that there are pious Christians among us, that have the true faith,
spirit, understanding, word, and mind of Christ; why then should
we reject their word and understanding, and follow a Pope who has
neither understanding nor Spirit? Surely this were to deny our whole
faith and the Christian Church. Moreover, if the article of our
faith is right: I believe in the Holy Christian Church, the
Pope cannot alone be right; else we must say: I believe in the
Pope of Rome, and reduce the Christian Church to one man, which
is a devilish and damnable heresy. Besides that, we are all priests,
as I have said, and have all one faith, one gospel, one sacrament;
how then should we not have the power of discerning and judging
what is right or wrong in matters of faith? What becomes of St.
Paul’s words: “But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet
he himself is judged of no man” (
By these and many other texts we should gain courage
and freedom, and should not let the spirit of liberty (as St. Paul
has it) be frightened away by the inventions of the Popes; we should
boldly judge what they do and what they leave undone, by our own
understanding of the Scriptures, and force them to follow the better
understanding, and not their own. Did not Abraham in old days have
to obey his Sarah, who was in stricter bondage to him than we are
to any one on earth? Thus too Balaam’s ass was wiser than the prophet.
If God spoke by an ass against a prophet, why should He not speak
by a pious man against the Pope? Besides, St. Paul withstood St.
Peter as being in error. (
The Third Wall.
The third wall falls of itself, as soon as the
first two have fallen; for if the Pope acts contrary to the Scriptures,
we are bound to stand by the Scriptures, to punish and to constrain
him, according to Christ’s commandment; “Moreover if thy brother
shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee
and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.
But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more,
that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but
if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen
man and a publican.” (
Therefore when need requires and the Pope is a
cause of
But as for their boasts of their authority, that
no one must oppose it, this is idle talk. No one in Christendom
has any authority to do harm, or to forbid others to prevent harm
being done. There is no authority in the Church but for reformation.
Therefore if the Pope wished to use his power to prevent the calling
of a free council, so as to prevent the reformation of the Church,
we must not respect him or his power; and if he should begin to
excommunicate and fulminate, we must despise this as the ravings
of a madman, and trusting in God, excommunicate and repel him, as
best we may. For this his usurped power is nothing; he does not
possess it, and he is at once overthrown by a text from the Scriptures.
For St. Paul says to the Corinthians, “That God has given us authority
for edification and not for destruction.” (
Therefore let us hold fast to this: that Christian
power can do nothing against Christ, as St. Paul says: “for we can
do nothing against Christ, but for Christ.” (
And now I hope we have laid the false, lying spectre with which the Romanists have long terrified and stupefied our consciences. And we have shown that, like all the rest of us, they are subject to the temporal sword; that they have no authority to interpret the Scriptures by force without skill; and that they have no power to prevent a council, or to pledge it in accordance with their pleasure, or to bind it beforehand, and deprive it of its freedom; and that if they do this, they are verily of the fellowship of Antichrist and the Devil, and have nothing of Christ but the name.
II.
Of the Matters to be Considered in the Councils.
Let us now consider the matters which should be treated in the councils, and with which popes, cardinals, bishops, and all learned men should occupy themselves day and night, if they loved Christ and His Church. But if they do not do so, the people at large and the temporal powers must do so, without considering the thunders of their excommunications. For an unjust excommunication is better than ten just absolutions, and an unjust absolution is worse than ten just excommunications. Therefore let us rouse ourselves, fellow-Germans, and fear God more than man, that we be not answerable for all the poor souls that are so miserably lost through the wicked, devilish government of the Romanists, through which also the dominion of the Devil grows day by day; if indeed this hellish government can grow any worse, which for my part I can neither conceive nor believe.
1. It is a distressing and terrible thing to see that the head of Christendom, who boasts of being the Vicar of Christ and the successor of St. Peter, lives in a worldly pomp that no king or emperor can equal: so that in him that calls himself most holy and most spiritual, there is more worldliness than in the world itself. He wears a triple crown, whereas the mightiest kings only wear one crown. If this resembles the poverty of Christ and St. Peter, it is a new sort of resemblance. They prate of its being heretical to object to this; nay, they will not even hear how unchristian and ungodly it is. But I think that if he should have to pray to God with tears, he would have to lay down his crowns; for God will not endure any arrogance. His office should be nothing else than to weep and pray constantly for Christendom, and to be an example of all humility.
However this may be, this pomp is a stumbling-block,
and the Pope, for the very salvation of his soul, ought to put it off;
for St. Paul says: “Abstain from all appearance of evil” (
2. What is the use in Christendom of the people called “Cardinals”? I will tell you. In Italy and Germany there are many rich convents, endowments, fiefs and benefices, and as the best way of getting these into the hands of Rome, they created cardinals, and gave them the sees, convents, and prelacies, and thus destroyed the service of God. That is why Italy is almost a desert now: the convents are destroyed, the sees consumed, the revenues of the prelacies and of all the churches drawn to Rome; towns are decayed; the country and the people ruined, while there is no more any worship of God or preaching; why? Because the cardinals must have all the wealth. No Turk could have thus desolated Italy and overthrown the worship of God.
Now that Italy is sucked dry, they come to Germany
and begin very quietly; but we shall see, that Germany is soon to be
brought into the same state as Italy. We have a few cardinals already.
What the Romanists mean thereby the drunken Germans The epithet “drunken” was formerly often
applied by the Italians to the Germans.
After we have gained this, we will create thirty or
forty cardinals on one day, and give one St. Michael’s Mount, Luther alludes here to the Benedictine convent
standing on the Mönchberg, or St. Michael’s Mount.
3. If we took away ninety-nine parts of the Pope’s
court and only left one hundredth, it would still be large enough to
answer questions on matters of belief. Now there is such a swarm of
vermin at Rome, all called Papal, that Babylon
Now that we have got well into our game, let us pause awhile and show that the Germans are not such fools, as not to perceive or understand this Romish trickery. I do not here complain, that God’s commandments and Christian justice are despised at Rome; for the state of things in Christendom, especially at Rome, is too bad for us to complain of such high matters. Nor do I even complain that no account is taken of natural or secular justice and reason. The mischief lies still deeper. I complain that they do not observe their own fabricated canon law, though this is in itself rather mere tyranny, avarice and worldly pomp, than a law. This we shall now show.
Long ago the Emperors and Princes of Germany allowed
the Pope to claim the annates The duty of paying annates to the
Pope was established by John XXII. in 1318.
Whenever there is any pretence of fighting the Turks, they send out some commission for collecting money, and often send out indulgences under the same pretext of fighting the Turks. They think we Germans will always remain such great and inveterate fools, that we will go on giving money to satisfy their unspeakable greed, though we see plainly that neither annates nor absolution money, nor any other—not one farthing—goes against the Turks, but all goes into the bottomless sack. They lie and deceive, form and make covenants with us of which they do not mean to keep one jot. And all this is done in the holy name of Christ and St. Peter.
This being so, the German nation, the bishops and princes, should remember that they are Christians, and should defend the people, who are committed to their government and protection in temporal and spiritual affairs, from these ravenous wolves in sheep’s clothing, that profess to be shepherds and rulers; and since the annates are so shamefully abused, and the covenants concerning them not carried out, they should not suffer their lands and people to be so piteously and unrighteously flayed and ruined; but by an imperial or a national law they should either retain the annates in the country, or abolish them altogether. For since they do not keep to the covenants, they have no right to the annates; therefore bishops and princes are bound to punish this thievery and robbery, or prevent it, as justice demands. And herein should we assist and strengthen the Pope, who is perchance too weak to prevent this scandal by himself; or, if he wishes to protect or support it, restrain and oppose him as a wolf and tyrant; for he has no authority to do evil or to protect evil-doers. Even if it were proposed to collect any such treasure for use against the Turks, we should be wise in future, and remember that the German nation is more fitted to take charge of it than the Pope, seeing that the German nation by itself is able to provide men enough, if the money is forthcoming. This matter of the annates is like many other Romish pretexts.
Moreover the year has been divided among the Pope
and the ruling bishops and foundations, in such wise, that the Pope
has taken every other month—six in all—to give away the benefices that
fall in his month; in this way almost all the benefices are drawn into
the hands of Rome, and especially
At the time when the above was written—June
1520—the Emperor Charles had been elected, but not yet crowned.
But the see of avarice and robbery at Rome is unwilling to wait for the benefices to fall in one after another by means of the Pope’s month; and in order to get them into its insatiable maw, as speedily as possible, they have devised the plan of taking livings and benefices in three other ways:
First, if the incumbent of a free living dies at Rome or on his way thither, his living remains for ever the property of the see of Rome, or I rather should say, the see of robbers, though they will not let us call them robbers, although no one has ever seen or read of such robbery.
Secondly, if a servant of the Pope, or of one of the
cardinals, takes a living, or if having a living he becomes a servant
of the Pope or of a cardinal, the living remains with Rome. But who
can count the servants of the Pope and his cardinals, seeing that if
he goes out riding, he is attended by three or four thousand mule-riders;
more than any king or emperor. For Christ and St. Peter went on foot;
in order that their vice-gerents might indulge the better in all manner
of pomp. Besides, their avarice has devised and invented this, that
in
Luther alludes here to the Archbishop Albert
of Mayence, who was, besides, Archbishop of Magdeburg, and administrator
of the bishopric of Halberstadt. In order to be able to defray the expense
of the Archiepiscopal tax due to Rome, amounting to 30,000 guilders, he
had farmed the sale of the Pope’s indulgences—employing the notorious Tetzel
as his agent, and sharing the profits with the Pope. In 1518 Albert was
appointed Cardinal. See Ranke: Deutsche Geschichte, &c.; vol. i.
p. 309, &c.
Thirdly, whenever there is any dispute about a benefice; and this is, I think, well-nigh the broadest and commonest road by which benefices are brought to Rome. For where there is no dispute numberless knaves can be found at Rome, who are ready to scrape up disputes, and attack livings wherever they like. In this way many a good priest loses his living, or has to buy off the dispute for a time with a sum of money. These benefices, confiscated by right or wrong of dispute, are to be for ever the property of the see of Rome. It would be no wonder, if God were to rain sulphur and fire from heaven and cast Rome down into the pit, as he did formerly to Sodom and Gomorrah. What is the use of a Pope in Christendom, if the only use made of his power is to commit these supreme villainies under his protection and assistance? O noble princes and sirs, how long will you suffer your lands and your people to be the prey of these ravening wolves?
But these tricks did not suffice, and Bishoprics were
too slow in falling into the power of Roman avarice. Accordingly our
good friend Avarice made the discovery that all Bishoprics are abroad
in name only; but that their land and soil is at Rome; from this it
follows, that no bishop may be confirmed until he has bought the “Pall” The Pallium was since the fourth century
the symbol of archiepiscopal power, and had to be redeemed from the Pope
by means of a large sum of money and a solemn oath of obedience.
What has happened in this very year? The bishop of Strasburg, wishing to regulate his see in a proper way and reform it in the matter of divine service, published some divine and Christian ordinances for that purpose. But our worthy Pope and the holy Chair at Rome overturns altogether this holy and spiritual order on the accusation of the priests. This is what they call being the shepherd of Christ’s sheep—supporting priests against their own bishops, and protecting their disobedience by divine decrees. Antichrist, I hope, will not insult God in this open way. There you have the Pope, as you have chosen to have him, and why? Why, because if the Church were to be reformed, many things would have to be destroyed, and possibly Rome among them. Therefore it is better to prevent priests from being at one with each other; they should rather, as they have done hitherto, sow discord among kings and princes, flood the world with Christian blood, lest Christian unity should trouble the holy Roman See with reforms.
So far we have seen what they do with the livings that fall vacant. Now there are not enough vacancies for this delicate greed; therefore it has also taken prudent account of the benefices that are still held by their incumbents, so that they may become vacant, though they are in fact not vacant, and this they effect in many ways:
First, they lie in wait for fat livings or sees which
are
Secondly, there is a little word: commendam,
that is, when the Pope gives a rich and fat convent or church into the
charge of a cardinal or any other of his servants, just as I might command
you to take charge of one hundred guilders for me. In this way the convent
is neither given, nor lent, nor destroyed, nor is its divine service
abolished; but only entrusted to a man’s charge: not, however, for him
to protect and improve it, but to drive out the one he finds there;
to take the property and revenue, and to instal some apostate Monks who forsook their order without any
legal dispensation were called “apostates.”
Thirdly, there are certain benefices that are said
to be incompatible, that is, they may not be held together according
to the canon law; such as two cures, two sees and the like. Now the
Holy See and avarice twists itself out of the canon law by making “glosses,”
or interpretations, called Unio, or
Incorporatio, that
is, several incompatible benefices are incorporated, so that one is
a member of the other, and the
The Papal office for the issue and registration
of certain documents was called Dataria, from the phrase appended to them,
Datum apud S. Petrum. The chief of that office, usually a cardinal,
bore the title of Datarius.
There is another gloss called Administratio,
that is, that besides his see a man holds an abbey or other high benefice,
and possesses all the property of it, without any other title but
administrator. For at Rome it is enough that words should change
and not deeds, just as if I said, a procuress was to be called a mayoress,
yet may remain as good as she is now. Such Romish rule was foretold
by St. Peter, when he said: “There shall be false teachers among you
. . . and through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandize
of you.” (
This precious Roman avarice has also invented the
practice of selling and lending prebends and benefices on condition
that the seller or lender has the reversion, so that if the incumbent
dies, the benefice falls to him that has sold it, lent it, or abandoned
it; in this way they have made benefices heritable property, so that
none can come to hold it unless the seller sells it to him, or leaves
it to him at his death. Then there are many that give a benefice to
another in name only; and on condition that he shall not receive a farthing.
It is now too an old practice for a man to give another a benefice and
to receive a certain annual sum, which proceeding was formerly called
simony. And there are many other such little things which I cannot recount;
and so they deal worse with
But all this that I have spoken of is old and common at Rome. Their avarice has invented other device, which I hope will be the last and choke it. The Pope has made a noble discovery, called Pectoralis Reservatio, that is, “mental reservation”—et proprius motus, that is, “and his own will and power.” The matter is managed in this way: Suppose a man obtains a benefice at Rome, which is confirmed to him in due form; then comes another, who brings money, or who has done some other service of which the less said the better, and requests the Pope to give him the same benefice, then the Pope will take it from the first and give it him. If you say, that is wrong; the Most Holy Father must then excuse himself, that he may not be openly blamed for having violated justice; and he says: “that in his heart and mind he reserved his authority over the said benefice;” whilst he never had heard or thought of the same in all his life. Thus he has devised a gloss which allows him in his proper person to lie and cheat and fool us all; and all this impudently and in open daylight, and nevertheless he claims to be the head of Christendom; letting the evil spirit rule him with manifest lies.
This “mere motion” and lying reservation of the Popes has brought about an unutterable state of things at Rome. There is a buying and a selling, a changing, exchanging, and bargaining, cheating and lying, robbing and stealing, debauchery, and villainy, and all kinds of contempt of God, that Antichrist himself could not rule worse. Venice, Antwerp, Cairo, are nothing to this fair and market at Rome, except that there things are done with some reason and justice, whilst here things are done as the Devil himself could wish. And out of this ocean a like virtue overflows all the world. Is it not natural that such people should dread a reformation and a free council, and should rather embroil all kings and princes, than that their unity should bring about a council? Who would like his villainy to be exposed?
Finally the Pope has built a special house for this
fine traffic, that is, the house of the Datarius at Rome. Thither
all must come that bargain in this way for prebends and benefices; from
his they must buy the glosses and obtain the right to practise
If you bring money to this house, you can arrive at
all that I have mentioned; and more than this, any sort of usury is
made legitimate for money; property got by theft or robbery is here
made legal. Here vows are annulled; here a monk obtains leave to quit
his order; here priests can enter married life for money; here bastards
can become legitimate; and dishonour and shame may arrive at high honours;
all evil repute and disgrace is knighted and ennobled; here a marriage
is suffered that is in a forbidden degree, or has some other defect.
Oh, what a trafficking and plundering is there! one would think that
the canon laws were only so many ropes of gold, from which he must free
himself who would become a Christian man. Nay, here the Devil becomes
a saint, and a God besides. What heaven and earth might not do, may
be done by this house. Their ordinances are called compositions—compositions,
forsooth! confusions rather. Luther uses here the expressions
compositiones
and confusiones as a kind of pun. Tolls were levied at many places along the
Rhine.
Let no one think that I say too much. It is all notorious, so that even at Rome they are forced to own that it is more terrible and worse than one can say. I have said and will say nothing of the foul dregs of private vices. I only speak of well-known public matters, and yet my words do not suffice. Bishops, priests, and especially the doctors of the universities, who are paid to do it, ought to have unanimously written and exclaimed against it. Yea, if you will turn the leaf, you will discover the truth.
I have still to give a farewell greeting. These treasures,
that would have satisfied three mighty kings, were not enough for this
unspeakable greed, and so they have made over and
The commercial House of Fugger was in those
days the wealthiest in Europe. Luther uses the word Butterbriefe,
i.e. letters of indulgence allowing the enjoyment of butter, cheese, milk,
etc., during Lent. They formed part only of the confessionalia, which
granted various other indulgences. Parts of the Vatican.
Meanwhile since this devilish state of things is not
only an open robbery, deceit and tyranny of the gates of hell, but also
destroys Christianity, body and soul, we are bound to use all our diligence
to prevent this misery and destruction of Christendom. If we wish to
fight the Turks, let us begin here, where they are worst. If we justly
hang thieves and behead robbers, why do we leave the greed of Rome so
unpunished, who is the greatest thief and robber that has appeared or
can appear on earth, and does all this in the holy name of Christ and
St. Peter? Who can suffer this and be silent about it? Almost everything
that he possesses has been stolen, or got by robbery, as we learn from
all histories. Why, the Pope never bought those great possessions, so
as to be able to raise wellnigh ten hundred thousand ducats from his
ecclesiastical offices, without counting his gold mines described above,
and his land. He did not
III.
Twenty-seven Articles respecting the Reformation of the Christian Estate.
Now though I am too lowly to submit articles that could serve for the reformation of these fearful evils, I will yet sing out my fool’s song, and will show, as well as my wit will allow, what might and should be done by the temporal authorities or by a General Council.
1. Princes, nobles and cities should promptly forbid
their subjects to pay the annates and should even abolish them
altogether. For the Pope has broken the compact, and turned the annates
into robbery for the harm and shame of the German nation; he gives them
to his friends; he sells them for large sums of money and founds benefices
on them. Therefore he has forfeited his right to them, and deserves
punishment. In this way the temporal power should protect the innocent
and prevent wrongdoing, as we are taught by St. Paul (
2. Since by means of those Romish tricks commendams,
coadjutors, reservations, expectations, Pope’s months, incorporations,
unions, Palls, rules of chancellery, and other such knaveries, the Pope
takes unlawful possession of all German foundations, to give and sell
them to strangers at Rome, that profit Germany in no way; so that the
incumbents are robbed of their rights, and the bishops are made mere
cyphers and anointed idols; and thus besides natural justice and reason
the Pope’s own canon law is violated; and things have come to such
3. It should be decreed by an Imperial law, that no
episcopal cloak, and no confirmation of any appointment shall for the
future be obtained from Rome. The order of the most holy and renowned
Nicene Council must again be restored, namely, that a bishop must be
confirmed by the two nearest bishops, or by the archbishop. If the Pope
cancels the decrees of these and all other councils, what is the good
of councils at all? Who has given him the right thus to despise councils
and to cancel them? If this is allowed, we had better abolish all bishops,
archbishops and primates, and make simple rectors of all of them, so
that they would have the Pope alone over them; as is indeed the case
now; he deprives bishops, archbishops and primates of all the authority
of their office, taking everything to himself, and leaving them only
the name and the empty title; more than this: by his exemption he has
withdrawn convents, abbots and prelates from the ordinary authority
of
But, that he have no cause for complaint, as being
deprived of his authority, it should be decreed, that in cases where
the primates and archbishops are unable to settle the matter, or where
there is a dispute among them, the matters shall then be submitted to
the Pope, but not every little matter; as was done formerly, and was
ordered by the most renowned Nicene Council. His Holiness must not be
troubled with small matters, that can be settled without his help; so
that he may have leisure to devote himself to his prayers and study,
and to his care of all Christendom, as he professes to do. As indeed
the Apostles did, saying (
4. Let it be decreed that no temporal matter shall
be submitted to Rome, but all shall be left to the jurisdiction of the
temporal authorities. This is part of their own canon law, though they
do not obey it. For this should be the Pope’s office, that he, the most
learned in the Scriptures, and the most holy, not in name only, but
in fact, should rule in matters concerning the faith and the holy life
of Christians; he should make primates and bishops attend to this, and
should work and take thought with them to this end: as St. Paul teaches
(
Still we might allow matters respecting benefices
or prebends to be treated before bishops, archbishops and primates.
Therefore, when it is necessary to decide quarrels and strifes let the
Primate of Germany hold a general consistory, with assessors and chancellors,
who would have the control over the signaturas gratiae and
justitiae, At the time when the above was written the
function of the signatura gratiæ was to superintend the conferring
of grants, concessions, favours, etc., whilst the signatura justitiæ
embraced the general administration of ecclesiastical matters.
5. Henceforth no reservations shall be valid, and
no benefices shall be appropriated by Rome, whether the incumbent die,
or there be a dispute, or the incumbent be a servant of the Pope, or
of a cardinal; and all courtiers shall be strictly prohibited and prevented
from causing a dispute about any benefice, so as to cite the pious priests,
to trouble them and to drive them into a lawsuit. And if in consequence
of this there comes an interdict from Rome, let it be despised, just
as if a thief were to excommunicate any man because he would not allow
him to steal in peace. Nay, they should be punished most severely, for
making such a blasphemous use of Excommunication and of the name of
God, to support their robberies, and for wishing by their false threats
to drive us to suffer and approve this blasphemy of God’s name, and
this abuse of Christian authority; and thus to become sharers before
God in their wrongdoing, whereas it is our duty before God to punish
it, as St. Paul (
6. The cases reserved “Reserved cases” refer to those great sins
for which the Pope or the bishops only could give absolution. The celebrated Papal Bull known under the
name of In Cænar Domini, containing anathemas and excommunications
against all those who dissented in any way from the Roman Catholic creed,
used, until the year 1770, to be read publicly at Rome on Maundy Thursday.
Now all priests ought to know, or rather it should
be a public ordinance, that no secret sin constitutes a reserved case,
if there be no public accusation; and that every priest has power to
absolve from all sin, whatever its name, if it be secret, and that no
abbot, bishop or Pope has power to reserve any such case; and lastly,
that if they do this, it is null and void, and they should moreover
be punished as interfering without authority in God’s judgment and confusing
and troubling without cause our poor witless consciences. But in respect
to any great open sin, directly contrary to God’s commandments, there
is some reason for a reserved case; but there should not be too many,
nor should they be reserved arbitrarily without due cause. For God has
not ordained tyrants, but shepherds in His Church, as St. Peter says.
(
7. The Roman See must abolish the Papal offices, and
diminish that crowd of crawling vermin at Rome, so that the Pope’s servants
may be supported out of the Pope’s own pocket, and that his court may
cease to surpass all royal courts in its pomp and extravagance; seeing
that all this pomp has not only been of no service to the Christian
faith, but has also kept them from study and prayer, so that they themselves
know hardly anything concerning matters of faith; as they proved clumsily
enough at the last Roman Council, The council alluded to above was held at
Rome from 1512 to 1517. Luther’s objection is not, of course, to
the recognition of the immortality of the soul; what he objects to is (1)
that it was thought necessary for a council to decree that the soul is immortal,
and (2) that this question was put on a level with trivial matters of discipline.
8. The terrible oaths must be abolished which bishops
are forced, without any right, to swear to the Pope, by which they are
bound like servants, and which are arbitrarily and foolishly decreed
in the absurd and shallow chapter, Significasti. The above is the title of a chapter in the
Corpus juris canonici. The right of investiture was the subject
of the dispute between Gregory VII. and Henry IV., which led to the Emperor’s
submission at Canossa.
9. The Pope should have no power over the Emperor,
except to anoint and crown him at the altar, as a bishop crowns a king;
nor should that devilish pomp be allowed, that the Emperor should kiss
the Pope’s feet, or sit at his feet, or, as it is said, hold his stirrup,
or the reins of his mule, when he mounts to ride; much less should he
pay homage to the Pope, or swear allegiance, as is impudently demanded
by the Popes, as if they had a right to it. The chapter Solite, The chapter Solite is also contained
in the Corpus juris canonici.
All these excessive, over-presumptuous and most wicked
claims of the Pope are the invention of the Devil, with the object of
bringing in Antichrist in due course, and to raise the Pope above God;
as indeed many have done and are now doing. It is not meet that the
Pope should exalt himself above temporal authority, except in spiritual
matters, such as preaching and absolution; in other matters he should
be subject to it, according to the teaching of St. Paul (
It is also absurd and puerile for the Pope to boast
for such blind, foolish reasons, in his decretal Pastoralis,
that he is the rightful heir to the Empire, if the throne be vacant.
Who gave it to him? Did Christ do so, when He said: “The kings of the
Gentiles exercise lordship over them, but ye shall not do so”? ( In order to legalise the secular power of
the Pope, the fiction was invented during the latter part of the eighth
century, that Constantine the Great had made over to the Popes the dominion
over Rome and over the whole of Italy.
10. The Pope must withdraw his hand from the dish,
and on no pretence assume royal authority over Naples and Sicily. He
has no more right to it than I, and yet claims to be the lord of it.
It has been taken by force and robbery like almost all his other possessions.
Therefore the Emperor should grant him no such fief, nor any longer
allow him those he has, but direct him instead to his Bibles and Prayer-books,
so that he may leave the government of countries and peoples to the
temporal power, especially of those that no one has given him. Let him
rather preach and pray! The same should be done with Bologna, Imola,
Vicenza, Ravenna, and whatever the Pope has taken by force and holds
without right in the Ancontine territory, in the Romagna and other parts
of Italy, interfering in their affairs against all the commandments
of Christ and St. Paul. For St. Paul says (
11. The custom of kissing the Pope’s feet must cease.
It is an un-Christian, or rather an anti-Christian example, that a poor
sinful man should suffer his foot to be kissed by one who is a hundred
times better than he. If it is done in honour of his power, why does
he not do it to others in honour of their holiness? Compare them together:
Christ and the Pope. Christ washed His disciples’ feet and dried them,
and the disciples never washed His. The Pope, pretending to be higher
than Christ, inverts this, and considers it a great favour to let us
kiss his feet: whereas if any one wished to do so, he ought to do his
utmost to prevent them, as St. Paul and Barnabas would not suffer themselves
to be worshipped as Gods by the men at Lystra, saying: “We also are
men of like passions with you.” (
It is of a piece with this revolting pride, that the Pope is not satisfied with riding on horseback or in a carriage, but though he be hale and strong, is carried by men like an idol in unheard-of pomp. I ask you, how does this Lucifer-like pride agree with the example of Christ, who went on foot, as did also all His Apostles? Where has there been a king who lived in such worldly pomp as he does, who professes to be the head of all whose duty it is to despise and flee from all worldly pomp—I mean, of all Christians? Not that this need concern us for his own sake, but that we have good reason to fear God’s wrath, if we flatter such pride and do not show our discontent. It is enough that the Pope should be so mad and foolish; but it is too much that we should sanction and approve it.
For what Christian heart can be pleased at seeing
the Pope,
12. Pilgrimages to Rome must be abolished, or at least no one must be allowed to go from his own wish or his own piety, unless his priest, his town magistrate, or his lord has found that there is sufficient reason for his pilgrimage. This I say, not because pilgrimages are bad in themselves, but because at the present time they lead to mischief; for at Rome a pilgrim sees no good examples, but only offence. They themselves have made a proverb: “The nearer to Rome, the farther from Christ,” and accordingly men bring home contempt of God and of God’s commandments. It is said: “The first time one goes to Rome, he goes to seek a rogue; the second time he finds him; the third time he brings him home with him.” But now they have become so skilful, that they can do their three journeys in one, and they have in fact brought home from Rome this saying:—It were better never to have seen or heard of Rome.
And even if this were not so, there is something of
more importance to be considered; namely, that simple men are thus led
into a false delusion and a wrong understanding of God’s commandments.
For they think that these pilgrimages are precious and good works; but
this is not true. It is but
The Jubilees, during which plenary indulgences
were granted to those who visited the churches of St. Peter and St Paul
at Rome, were originally celebrated every hundred years and subsequently
every twenty-five years. Those who were unable to go to Rome in person could
obtain the plenary indulgences by paying the expenses of the journey to
Rome into the Papal treasury.
That this false, misleading belief on the part of
simple Christians may be destroyed, and a true opinion of good works
may again be introduced, all pilgrimages should be done away with. For
there is no good in them; no commandment; but countless causes of sin
and of contempt of God’s commandments. These pilgrimages are the reason
for there being so many beggars, that commit numberless villainies,
taught by them and accustomed to beg without need. Hence arises a vagabond
life; besides other miseries which I cannot dwell on now. If any one
wishes to go on a pilgrimage or to make a vow for a pilgrimage, he should
first inform his priest or the temporal authorities of the reason, and
if it should turn out that he wished to do it for the sake of good works,
let this vow and work be just trampled upon by the priest or the temporal
authority as an infernal delusion, and let them
13. Now we come to the great crowd that promises much
and performs little. Be not angry, my good sirs, I mean well. I have
to tell you this bitter and sweet truth: Let no more mendicant monasteries
be built! God help us! there are too many as it is. Would to God they
were all abolished, or at least made over to two or three orders. It
has never done good, it will never do good, to go wandering about over
the country. Therefore my advice is that ten, or as many as required,
may be put together and made into one, which one, sufficiently provided
for is not to beg. Oh! it is of much more importance to consider what
is necessary for the salvation of the common people, than what St. Francis,
or St. Dominic, or St. Augustine, The above-mentioned saints were the patrons
of the well-known mendicant orders, Franciscans, Dominicans and Augustines.
Besides this, one should also do away with the sections and the divisions in the same order which, caused for little reason and kept up for less, oppose each other with unspeakable hatred and malice. The result being, that the Christian faith, which is very well able to stand without their divisions, is lost on both sides, and that a true Christian life is sought and judged only by outward rules, works and manners, from which arise only hypocrisy and the destruction of souls; as every one can see for himself. Moreover the Pope should be forbidden to institute or to confirm the institution of such new orders, nay, he should be commanded to abolish several and to lessen their number. For the faith of Christ, which alone is the important matter and can stand without any particular Order, incurs no little danger, lest men should be led away by these diverse works and manners, rather to live for such works and manners than to care for faith. And unless there are wise prelates in the monasteries who preach and urge faith rather than the rule of the order, it is inevitable that the order should be injurious and misleading to simple souls, who have regard to works alone.
Now in our own time all the prelates are dead that
had faith and founded orders. Just as it was in old days with the children
of Israel; when their fathers were dead, that had seen God’s works and
miracles, their children, out of ignorance of God’s work and of faith,
soon began to set up idolatry and their own human works. In the same
way, alas! these orders, not understanding God’s works and faith, grievously
labour and torment themselves by their own rules and laws, and yet never
arrive at a true understanding of a spiritual and good life; as was
foretold by the Apostle, saying of them, “Having a form of godliness,
but denying the power thereof. . . . Ever learning, and never able to
come to the knowledge” of what a true spiritual life is. (
It would be, I think, necessary, especially in these perilous times, that foundations and convents should again be organised as they were in the time of the Apostles and a long time after: namely, when they were all free, for every man to remain there as long as he wished. For what were they but Christian schools, in which the Scriptures and Christian life were taught, and where folk were trained to govern and to preach; as we read that St. Agnes went to school, and as we see, even now, in some nunneries, as at Quedlinburg and other places? Truly all foundations and convents ought to be free in this way, that they may serve God of a free will and not as slaves. But now they have been bound round with vows and turned into eternal prisons, so that these vows are regarded even more than the vows of baptism. But what fruit has come of this we daily see, hear, read and learn more and more.
I dare say that this my counsel will be thought very
foolish, but I care not for this. I advise what I think best; reject
it, who will. I know how these vows are kept, especially that of chastity,
which is so general in all convents, Luther alludes here, of course, to the vow
of celibacy, which was curiously styled the vow of chastity; thus indirectly
condemning marriage in general.
14. We see also how the priesthood is fallen, and
how many a poor priest is encumbered with a woman and children, and
burdened in his conscience, and no one does anything to help him, though
he might very well be helped. Popes and bishops may let that be lost
that is being lost, and that be destroyed which is being destroyed;
I will save my conscience and open my mouth freely, let it vex Popes
and bishops or whoever it may be; therefore I say: According to the
ordinances of Christ and His Apostles every town should have a minister,
as St. Paul plainly says (
Therefore, we teach clearly according to the Apostle,
that every town should elect a pious learned citizen from the congregation
and charge him with the office of minister; the congregation should
support him and he should be left at liberty to marry or not. He should
have as assistants, several priests and deacons, married or not, as
they please, who should help him to govern the people and the congregation
with sermons and the ministration of the sacraments, as is still the
case in the Greek Church. In these latter times, where there are so many
persecutions and conflicts against heretics, there were many holy fathers,
who voluntarily abstained from the marriage state, that they might study
more, and might be ready at all times for death and conflict. Now the
Roman See has interfered of its own perversity, and has made a general
law by which priests are forbidden to marry. This must have been at
the instigation of the Devil, as was foretold by St. Paul (
My advice is, to restore liberty, and to leave every
man free to marry or not to marry. But if we did this we should have
to introduce a very different rule and order for property; the whole
canon law would be overthrown and but few benefices would fall to Rome.
I am afraid greed was a cause of this wretched, unchaste chastity; for
the result of it was that every man wished to become a priest, or to
have his son brought up to the priesthood—not with the intention of
living in chastity, for this could be done without the priestly state,
but to obtain his worldly support without labour or trouble, contrary
to God’s command (
My advice further is, whoever henceforth is ordained priest, he should in no wise take the vow of chastity, but should protest to the bishop that he has no authority to demand this vow, and that it is a devilish tyranny to demand it. But if one is forced, or wishes to say, as some do, “so far as human frailty permits,” let every man interpret that phrase as a plain negative, that is, “I do not promise chastity;” for human frailty does not allow men to live an unmarried life, but only angelic fortitude and celestial virtue. In this way he will have a clear conscience without any vow. I offer no opinion, one way or the other, whether those who have at present no wife should marry, or remain unmarried. This must be settled by the general order of the Church and by each man’s discretion. But I will not conceal my honest counsel, nor withhold comfort from that unhappy crowd who now live in trouble with wife and children, and remain in shame, with a heavy conscience, hearing their wife called a priest’s harlot, and the children bastards. And this I say frankly, by my fool’s privilege.
There is many a poor priest free from blame in all
other respects, except that he has succumbed to human frailty and come
to shame with a woman, both minded in their hearts to live together
always in conjugal fidelity, if only they could do so with a good conscience,
though, as it is, they live in public shame. I say, these two are surely
married before God. I say, moreover, that when two are so minded, and
so come to live together, they should save their conscience; let the
man take the woman as his lawful wife, and live with her faithfully
Let him who has faith enough to dare this, only follow me courageously: I will not mislead him. I may not have the Pope’s authority, yet I have the authority of a Christian to help my neighbour and to warn him against his sins and dangers. And here there is good reason for doing so.
a. It is not every priest that can do without a woman, not only on account of human frailty, but still more for his household. If, therefore, he takes a woman, and the Pope allows this, but will not let them marry, what is this but expecting a man and a woman to live together and not to fall? Just as if one were to set fire to straw, and command it should neither smoke nor burn.
b. The Pope having no authority for such a command, any more than to forbid a man to eat and drink, or to digest or to grow fat, no one is bound to obey it, and the Pope is answerable for every sin against it, for all the souls that it has brought to destruction, and for all the consciences that have been troubled and tormented by it. He has long deserved to be driven out of the world, so many poor souls has he strangled with this Devil’s rope; though I hope that God has shown many more mercy at their death than the Pope did in their life. No good has ever come and can ever come from the Papacy and its laws.
c. Even though the Pope’s laws forbid it, still
after the married state has been entered, the Pope’s laws are superseded,
and are valid no longer: for God has commanded that no man shall put
asunder husband and wife, and this commandment is far above the Pope’s
laws, and God’s command must not be cancelled or neglected for the Papal
commands. It is true that mad lawyers have helped the Pope to invent
impediments or hindrances to marriage, and thus troubled, divided, and
perverted the married state: destroying the commandments of
But if you object that this would give offence, and
that one must first obtain the Pope’s dispensation, I answer that if
there is any offence in it, it is the fault of the See of Rome, which
has made unjust and unholy laws. It is no offence to God and the Scriptures.
Even where the Pope has power to grant dispensation for money by his
covetous tyrannical laws, every Christian has power to grant dispensation
in the same matter for the sake of Christ and the salvation of souls.
For Christ has freed us from all human laws, especially when they are
opposed to God and the salvation of souls, as St. Paul teaches. (
15. I must not forget the poor convents. The evil
spirit, who has troubled all estates of life by human laws, and made
them unendurable, has taken possession of some Abbots, Abbesses, and
Prelates, and led them so to rule their brothers and sisters, that they
do but go soon to hell, and live a wretched life even upon earth, as
is the case with all the Devil’s martyrs. For they have reserved in
confession all, or at least some, deadly sins, which are secret, and
from these no brother may on pain of excommunication and on his obedience
absolve another. Now we do not always find angels everywhere, but men
of flesh and blood, who would rather incur all excommunication and menace
than confess their secret sins to a prelate or the confessor appointed
for them; consequently they receive the sacrament with these sins on
their conscience, by which they become irregular Luther uses the expression
irregulares,
which was applied to those monks who were guilty of heresy, apostasy, transgression
of the vow of chastity, etc.
Accordingly I advise these children, brothers and sisters: if your superiors will not allow you to confess your secret sins to whomsoever you will, then take them yourself, and confess them to your brother or sister, to whomsoever you will; be absolved and comforted, and then go or do what your wish or duty commands; only believe firmly that you have been absolved, and nothing more is necessary. And let not their threats of excommunication, or irregularity, or what not, trouble or disturb you; these only apply to public or notorious sins, if they are not confessed: you are not touched by them. How canst thou take upon thyself, thou blind Prelate, to restrain private sins by thy threats? Give up what thou canst not keep publicly; let God’s judgment and mercy also have its place with thy inferiors. He has not given them into thy hands so completely as to have let them go out of His own; nay, thou hast received the smaller portion. Consider thy statutes as nothing more than thy statutes, and do not make them equal to God’s judgment in Heaven.
16. It were also right to abolish annual festivals,
processions, and masses for the dead, or at least to diminish their
number; for we evidently see that they have become no better than a
mockery, exciting the anger of God, and having no object but money getting,
eating and drinking. How should it please God to hear the poor vigils
and masses mumbled in this wretched way, neither read nor prayed? Even
when they are properly read, it is not done freely for the love of God,
but for the love of money and as payment of a debt. Now it is impossible
that anything should please God, or win anything from Him that is not
done freely, out of love for Him. Therefore, as true Christians, we
ought to abolish or lessen a practice that we see is abused, and that
angers God instead of appeasing Him. I should prefer, and it would be
more agreeable to God’s will, and far better for a foundation, church
or convent, to put all the yearly masses and vigils together into one
mass, so that they would every year celebrate, on one day, a true vigil
and mass with hearty sincerity, devotion and faith, for all their benefactors.
This would be better than their thousand upon thousand masses said every
year—each for a particular benefactor—without devotion and faith. My
dear fellow-Christians! God cares not for much
17. One should also abolish certain punishments inflicted by the canon law, especially the interdict, which is doubtless the invention of the evil one. Is it not the mark of the Devil to wish to better one sin by more and worse sins? It is surely a greater sin to silence God’s word and service, than if we were to kill twenty Popes at once, not to speak of a single priest or of keeping back the goods of the Church. This is one of those gentle virtues which are learnt in the Spiritual law; for the Canon or Spiritual law is so called because it comes from a spirit—not however from the Holy Spirit, but from the Evil Spirit.
Excommunication should not be used except where the Scriptures command it: that is, against those that have not the right faith, or that live in open sin, and not in matters of temporal goods. But now the case has been inverted; each man believes and lives as he pleases, especially those that plunder and disgrace others with excommunications; and all excommunications are now only in matters of worldly goods. For which we have no one to thank but the holy canonical injustice. But of all this I have spoken previously in a sermon.
The other punishments and penalties—suspension, irregularity,
aggravation, re-aggravation, deposition, Luther enumerates here the various grades
of punishment inflicted on priests. The aggravation consisted of
a threat of excommunication, after a thrice-repeated admonition, whilst
the consequence of re-aggravation was immediate excommunication.
18. One should abolish all saints’ days, keeping only Sunday. But if it were desired to keep the festival of Our Lady and the greater saints, they should all be held on Sundays, or only in the morning with the mass; the rest of the day being a working day. My reason is this: with our present abuses of drinking, gambling, idling, and all manner of sin, we vex God more on holy days than on others. And the matter is just reversed; we have made holy days unholy, and working days holy, and do no service but great dishonour to God and His saints with all our holy days. There are some foolish prelates that think they have done a good deed, if they establish a festival to St. Otilia, or St. Barbara, and the like, each in his own blind fashion, whilst he would be doing a much better work to turn a saint’s day into a working day, in honour of a saint.
Besides these spiritual evils, these saints’ days
inflict bodily injury on the common man in two ways: he loses a day’s
work and he spends more than usual, besides weakening his body and making
himself unfit for labour, as we see every day, and yet no one tries
to improve it. One should not consider whether the Pope instituted these
festivals, or whether we require his dispensation or permission. If
anything is contrary to God’s will and harmful to men in body and soul,
not only has every community, council or government authority to prevent
and abolish such wrong without the knowledge or consent of Pope or bishop;
but it is their duty, as they value their soul’s salvation, to prevent
it, even though Pope and bishop (that should be the first to do so)
are unwilling to see it stopped. And first of all we should abolish
church wakes, since they are nothing but taverns, fairs and gaming places,
to the greater dishonour of God and the damnation of souls. It is no
good to make a talk about their having had a good origin and being good
works. Did not God set aside His own law that He had given forth out
of heaven, when He saw that it was abused? and does He not now reverse
every day what He has appointed, and destroy what He has made, on account
of the same perverse misuse, as it is written
19. The degrees of relationship in which marriage
is forbidden must be altered, such as so-called spiritual relations Those, namely, between Sponsors at Baptism
and their Godchildren.
Besides this, fasts must be made optional, and every
kind of food made free, as is commanded in the Gospels. (
20. The country chapels and churches must be destroyed,
such as those to which the new pilgrimages have been set on foot, Wilsnacht,
Sternberg, Treves, the Grimmenthal, and now Ratisbon, and many others.
Oh what a reckoning there will be for those bishops that allow these
inventions of the Devil and make a profit out of them! They should be
the
The miracles performed there prove nothing, for the
Evil One can also show wonders, as Christ has taught us. (
But what is the use of my speaking? Every man thinks
only how he may get up such a pilgrimage in his own district, not caring
whether the people believes and lives rightly. The rulers are like the
people—blind leaders of the blind. Where pilgrimages are a failure,
they begin to glorify their saints; not to honour the saints, who are
sufficiently honoured without them, but to cause a concourse, and to
bring in money. Then Pope and bishops help them; it rains indulgences,
and every one can afford to buy them; but what God has commanded no
one cares for; no one runs after it, no one can afford any money for
it. Alas for our blindness, that we not only suffer the Devil to have
his way with his phantoms, but support him! I wish one would leave the
good saints alone and not lead the poor people astray. What spirit gave
the Pope authority to “glorify” the saints? Who tells him whether they
are holy, or not holy? Are there not enough sins on
Our contempt for these great matters justifies God’s anger in giving us over to the devil to lead us astray, to get up pilgrimages, to found churches and chapels, to glorify the saints and to commit other like follies, by which we are led astray from the true faith into new false beliefs; just as he did in old time with the people of Israel, whom he led away from the temple to countless other places; all the while in God’s name, and with the appearance of holiness, against which all the prophets preached, suffering martyrdom for their words. But now no one preaches against it; and probably if he did, bishops, Popes, priests and monks would combine to martyr him. In this way Antonius of Florence and many others are made saints, so that their holiness may serve to produce glory and wealth, whereas otherwise they would have served simply as good examples for the glory of God.
Even if this glorification of the Saints had been
good once, it is not good now; just as many other things were good once
and are now occasion of offence and injurious, such as holidays, ecclesiastical
treasures and ornaments. For it is evident that what is aimed at in
the glorification of saints is not the glory of God, nor the bettering
of Christendom, but money and fame alone; one church wishes to have
an advantage over another, and would be sorry to see another church
enjoying the same advantages. In this way they have in these latter
days abused the goods of the Church so as to gain the goods of the world;
so that everything, and even God Himself, must serve their avarice.
Moreover these privileges cause nothing but dissensions and worldly
pride; one church being different from the rest, they despise or magnify
one
Here must be added that one should abolish, or treat as of no account, or give to all churches alike, the licences, bulls, and whatever the Pope sells at his flying-ground at Rome. For if he sells or gives to Wittenberg, to Halle, to Venice, and above all to his own city of Rome, special permissions, privileges, indulgences, graces, advantages, faculties, why does he not give them to all churches alike? Is it not his duty to do all that he can for all Christians without reward, solely for God’s sake, nay, even to shed his blood for them? Why then, I should like to know, does he give or sell these things to one church and not to another? Or does this accursed gold make a difference in his Holiness’s eyes between Christians who all alike have baptism, gospel, faith, Christ, God, and all things? Do they wish us to be blind, when our eyes can see, to be fools, when we have reason, that we should worship this greed, knavery and delusion? He is a shepherd forsooth—so long as you have money, no further; and yet they are not ashamed to practise all this knavery right and left with their bulls. They care only for that accursed gold and for nought besides.
Therefore my advice is this: If this folly is not done away with, let all pious Christians open their eyes and not be deceived by these Romish Bulls and seals, and all their specious pretences; let them stop at home in their own churches, and be satisfied with their Baptism, Gospel, Faith, Christ and God (who is everywhere the same), and let the Pope continue to be a blind leader of the blind. Neither Pope nor angel can give you as much as God gives you in your own parish; nay, he only leads you away from God’s gifts, which you have for nothing, to his own gifts, which you must buy; giving you lead for gold, skin for meat, strings for a purse, wax for honey, words for goods, the letter for the spirit; as you can see for yourselves though you will not perceive it. If you try to ride to heaven on the Pope’s wax and parchment, your carriage will soon break down and you will fall into hell, not in God’s name.
Let this be a fixed rule for you, Whatever has to
be bought of the Pope is neither good, nor of God. For whatever comes
from God is not only given freely, but all the world is punished and
condemned for not accepting it freely. So is it with the Gospel and
the works of God. We have deserved to be led into these errors, because
we have despised God’s holy word and the grace of baptism, as St. Paul
says: “And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that
they should believe a lie: that they all might be damned who believed
not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.” (
21. It is one of the most urgent necessities to abolish all begging in Christendom. No one should go about begging among Christians. It would not be hard to do this, if we attempted it with good heart and courage: each town should support its own poor and should not allow strange beggars to come in—whatever they may call themselves: pilgrims or mendicant monks. Every town could feed its own poor; and if it were too small, the people in the neighbouring villages should be called upon to contribute. As it is, they have to support many knaves and vagabonds under the name of beggars. If they did what I propose, they would at least know who were really poor or not.
There should also be an overseer or guardian who should know all the poor, and should inform the town or council, or the priest, of their requirements; or some other similar provision might be made. There is no occupation, in my opinion, in which there is so much knavery and cheating as among beggars; and it could so easily be prevented. This general, unrestricted begging is, besides, injurious for the common people. I estimate that of the five or six orders of mendicant monks, each one visits every place more than six or seven times in the year; then there are the common beggars, messengers and pilgrims; in this way I calculate every city has a blackmail levied on it about sixty times a year, not counting rates and taxes paid to the civil government and the useless robberies of the Roman See; so that it is to my mind one of the greatest of God’s miracles how we manage to live and support ourselves.
Some may think that in this way the poor would not
be well
22. It is also to be feared that the many masses that have been founded in convents and foundations, instead of doing any good, arouse God’s anger; wherefore it would be well to endow no more masses and to abolish many of those that have been endowed; for we see that they are only looked upon as sacrifices and good works, though in truth they are sacraments like baptism and confession, and as such profit him only that receives them. But now the custom obtains of saying masses for the living and the dead, and everything is based upon them. This is the reason why there are so many, and that they have come to be what we see.
But perhaps all this is a new and unheard of doctrine, especially in the eyes of those that fear to lose their livelihood, if these masses were abolished. I must therefore reserve what I have to say on this subject until men have arrived at a truer understanding of the mass, its nature and use. The mass has, alas! for so many years been turned into means of gaining a livelihood, that I should advise a man to become a shepherd, a labourer, rather than a priest, or monk, unless he knows what the mass is.
All this, however, does not apply to the old foundations
and chapters; which were doubtless founded in order that, since according
to the custom of Germany all the children of nobles cannot be landowners
and rulers, they should be provided for in these foundations, and these
serve God freely, study and become learned themselves, and help others
to acquire learning. I
It must, moreover, not be allowed in future that one man should have more than one endowment or prebend. He should be content with a moderate position in life, so that others may have something besides himself; and thus we must put a stop to the excuses of those that say that they must have more than one office to enable them to live in their proper station. It is possible to estimate one’s proper station in such a way, that a whole kingdom would not suffice to maintain it. So it is that covetousness and want of faith in God go hand in hand, and often men take for the requirements of their station what is mere covetousness and want of faith.
23. As for the fraternities, together with indulgences, letters of indulgence, dispensations, masses and all the rest of such things, let it all be drowned and abolished; there is no good in it at all. If the Pope has the authority to grant dispensation in the matter of eating butter and hearing masses, let him allow priests to do the same; he has no right to take the power from them. I speak also of the fraternities in which indulgences, masses, and good works are distributed. My friend, in baptism you joined a fraternity of which Christ, the angels, the saints and all Christians are members; be true to this, and satisfy it, and you will have fraternities enough. Let others make what show they wish; they are as counters compared to coins. But if there were a fraternity that subscribed money to feed the poor, or to help others in any way, this would be good, and it would have its indulgence and its deserts in Heaven. But now they are good for nothing but gluttony and drunkenness.
First of all we should expel from all German lands the Pope’s legates with their faculties, which they sell to us for much money, though it is all knavery; as, for instance, their taking money for making goods unlawfully acquired to be good, for freeing from oaths, vows, and bonds, thus destroying and teaching others to destroy truth and faith mutually pledged; saying the Pope has authority to do so. It is the Evil Spirit that bids them talk thus, and so they sell us the Devil’s teaching, and take money for teaching us sins and leading us to hell.
If there were nothing else to show that the Pope is
Antichrist, this would be enough. Dost thou hear this, O Pope! not the
most holy, but the most sinful? Would that God would hurl thy Chair
headlong from heaven, and cast it down into the abyss of hell! Who gave
you the power to exalt yourself above your God? To break and to loose
what He has commanded? To teach Christians, more especially Germans,
who are of noble nature, and are famed in all histories for uprightness
and truth, to be false, unfaithful, perjured, treacherous and wicked?
God has commanded to keep faith and observe oaths even with enemies;
you dare to cancel this command, laying it down in your heretical, antichristian
decretals, that you have power to do so; and through your mouth and
your pen Satan lies as he never lied before, teaching you to twist and
pervert the Scriptures according to your own arbitrary will. O, Lord
Christ! look down upon this, let Thy day of judgment come and destroy
the Devil’s lair at Rome. Behold him of whom St. Paul spoke (
The children of Israel in old times kept the oath
that they had sworn, in ignorance and error, to the Gibeonites, their
enemies. And King Zedekiah was destroyed utterly with his people, because
he broke the oath that he had sworn to the King of Babylon. And among
us, a hundred years ago, the noble King Ladislaus V. of Poland and Hungary
was slain by the Turk with so many of his people, because he allowed
24. It is high time to take up earnestly and truthfully the cause of the Bohemians, to unite them with ourselves and ourselves with them, so that all mutual accusations, envy and hatred may cease. I will be the first, in my capacity of fool, to give my opinion, with all due deference to those of better understanding.
First of all, we must honestly confess the truth, without attempting self-justification, and own one thing to the Bohemians, namely, that John Huss and Jerome of Prague were burnt at Constance in violation of the Papal, Christian, and Imperial oath and safe conduct, and that thus God’s commandment was broken and the Bohemians excited to great anger. And though, no doubt, they ought to have been perfect men, and have patiently endured this wrong and disobedience to God, yet we cannot expect them to approve it and think it right. Nay, even now they should run any danger of life and limb rather than own that it is right to break an Imperial, Papal, Christian safe conduct and act faithlessly in opposition to it. Therefore, though the Bohemians may be to blame for their impatience, yet the Pope and his followers are most to blame for all the misery, all the error and destruction of souls, that followed this Council of Constance.
It is not my intention here to judge John Huss’s belief and to defend his errors; although my understanding has not been able to find any error in him, and I would willingly believe that men who violated a safe conduct and God’s commandment (doubtless possessed rather by the evil spirit than by the Spirit of God) were unable to judge well or to condemn with truth. No one can imagine that the Holy Ghost can break God’s commandments; no one can deny that it is breaking God’s commandments to violate faith and a safe conduct, even though it were promised to the devil himself, much more then in the case of a heretic; it is also notorious that a safe conduct was promised to John Huss and the Bohemians, and that the promise was broken and Huss was burnt. I have no wish to make a saint or a martyr of John Huss (as some Bohemians do), though I own that he was treated unjustly, and that his books and his doctrines were wrongfully condemned; for God’s judgments are inscrutable and terrible, and none but Himself may reveal or explain them.
All I say is this: Granting he was a heretic, however bad he may have been, yet he was burnt unjustly and in violation of God’s commandments, and we must not require the Bohemians to approve this, if we wish ever to be at one with them. Plain truth must unite us, not obstinacy. It is no use to say, as they said at the time, that a safe conduct need not be kept, if promised to a heretic; that is as much as to say, one may break God’s commandments, in order to keep God’s commandments. They were infatuated and blinded by the Devil, that they could not see what they said or did. God has commanded us to observe a safe conduct; and this we must do though the world should perish, much more then where it is only a question of a heretic being let free. We should overcome heretics with books, not with fire, as the old Fathers did. If there were any skill in overcoming heretics with fire the executioner would be the most learned doctor in the world; and there would be no need to study, but he that could get another into his power could burn him.
Besides this, the Emperor and the Princes should send
to Bohemia several pious, learned bishops and doctors, but, for their
life, no cardinal or legate or inquisitor, for such people are far too
unlearned in all Christian matters, and do not
Yet if, for the honour of the Chair of St. Peter, any one prefers to do this with the Pope’s knowledge, I do not object, provided that the Bohemians do not pay a farthing for it, and that the Pope do not bind them a single hair’s breadth, or subject them to his tyranny by oath, as he does all other bishops, against God and justice. If he is not satisfied with the honour of his assent being asked, leave him alone by all means with his own rights, laws, and tyrannies; be content with the election, and let the blood of all the souls that are in danger be upon his head. For no man may countenance wrong, and we have already shown enough respect to tyranny. If we cannot do otherwise, we may consider the popular election and consent as equal to a tyrannical confirmation; but I hope this will not be necessary. Sooner or later some Romans, or pious bishops and learned men, must perceive and avert the Pope’s tyranny.
I do not advise that they be forced to abandon the
sacrament in both kinds, for it is neither unchristian nor heretical.
They should be allowed to continue in their present way; but the new
bishop must see that there be no dissensions about this matter, and
they must learn that neither practice is actually wrong; just as there
need be no disputes about the priests not wearing the same dress as
the laity. In the same way, if they do not wish to submit to the canon
laws of the
If I knew that the only error of the Hussites Luther uses here the word “Pickarten,” which
is a corruption of Begharden, i.e. “Beghards,” a nickname frequently
applied in those days to the Hussites.
All other errors and dissensions to be found in Bohemia should be tolerated until the Archbishop has been reinstated, and has succeeded, in time, in uniting the whole people in one harmonious doctrine. We shall never unite them by force, by driving or hurrying them. We must be patient, and use gentleness. Did not Christ have to walk with His disciples, suffering their unbelief, until they believed in His resurrection? If they had but once more a regular bishop, and good discipline without Romish tyranny, I think matters would mend.
The temporal possessions of the Church should not
be too
25. The Universities also require a good, sound Reformation.
I must say this, let it vex whom it may. The fact is that whatever the
Papacy has ordered or instituted is only designed for the propagation
of sin and error. What are the Universities, as at present ordered,
but as the Book of Maccabees says: “Schools of ‘Greek fashion’ and ‘heathenish
manners.”’ (
Does not the wretched man in his best book, ‘Of the Soul,’ teach that the soul dies with the body; though many have tried to save him with vain words, as if we had not the Holy Scriptures to teach us fully of all things, of which Aristotle had not the slightest perception. Yet this dead heathen has conquered, and has hindered and almost suppressed the books of the living God; so that, when I see all this misery, I cannot but think that the evil spirit has introduced this study.
Then there is the ‘Ethics,’ which is accounted one of the best, though no book is more directly contrary to God’s will and the Christian virtues. Oh, that such books could be kept out of the reach of all Christians! Let no one object that I say too much, or speak without knowledge. My friend, I know of what I speak. I know Aristotle as well as you or men like you. I have read him with more understanding than St. Thomas or Scotus; which I may say without arrogance, and can prove if need be. It matters not that so many great minds have exercised themselves in these matters for many hundred years. Such objections do not affect me as they might have done once; since it is plain as day that many more errors have existed for many hundred years in the world and the Universities.
I would, however, gladly consent that Aristotle’s
books of Logic, Rhetoric and Poetic should be retained; or they might
be usefully studied in a condensed form, to practise young people in
speaking and preaching; but the notes and comments should be abolished,
and just as Cicero’s Rhetoric is read without note or comment, Aristotle’s
Logic should be read without such long commentaries. But now neither
speaking nor preaching are taught out of them, and they are used only
for disputation and confusion. Besides this there are languages, Latin,
Greek and Hebrew, the Mathematics, History; but this I leave to men
of higher understanding; if they seriously strive after reform, all
these things will come of themselves. And truly it is an important matter!
for it concerns the teaching and training of Christian youths and of
our noble people, in whom Christianity still abides. Therefore I think
that Pope and Emperor could have no better task than the reformation
of
Physicians I would leave to reform their own faculty;
Lawyers and Theologians I take under my charge, and say firstly, that
it would be right to abolish the canon law entirely, from beginning
to end, more especially the decretals. We are taught quite sufficiently
in the Bible how we ought to act; all this study only prevents the study
of the Scriptures, and for the most part it is tainted with covetousness
and pride. And even though there were some good in it, it should nevertheless
be destroyed, for the Pope having the canon law in scrinio pectoris, In the shrine of his heart.
Therefore since the Pope and his followers have cancelled the whole canon law, despising it and setting their own will above all the world, we should follow them and reject the books. Why should we study them to no purpose? We should never be able to know the Pope’s caprice, which has now become the canon law. Let it fall then in God’s name, after having risen in the devil’s name. Let there be henceforth no doctor decretorum, but let them all be doctores scrinii papalis, that is, the Pope’s sycophants. They say that there is no better temporal government than among the Turks, though they have no canon nor civil law, but only their Koran; we must at least own that there is no worse government than ours with its canon and civil law, for no estate lives according to the Scriptures, or even according to natural reason.
The civil law, too, good God! what a wilderness it
is become! It is, indeed, much better, more skilful and more honest
than the canon law, of which nothing is good but the name. Still
Our worthy Theologians have saved themselves much
trouble and labour by leaving the Bible alone and only reading the Sentences. Luther refers here to the ‘Sentences’ of
Petrus Lombardus, the so-called magister sententiarum, which
formed the basis of all dogmatic interpretation from about the middle of
the 12th century down to the Reformation.
Since, then, we hold the name and title of teachers
of the Holy Scriptures, we should verily be forced to act according
to our title, and to teach the Holy Scriptures and nothing else.
We must also lessen the number of theological books, and choose the best; for it is not the number of books that make the learned man; nor much reading, but good books often read, however few, make a man learned in the Scriptures and pious. Even the Fathers should only be read for a short time as an introduction to the Scriptures. As it is, we read nothing else, and never get from them into the Scriptures, as if one should be gazing at the sign-posts and never follow the road. These good Fathers wished to lead us into the Scriptures by their writings, whereas we lead ourselves out by them, though the Scriptures are our vineyard in which we should all work and exercise ourselves.
Above all, in schools of all kinds the chief and most
common lesson should be the Scriptures, and for young boys the Gospel;
and would to God each town had also a girl’s school in which girls might
be taught the Gospel for an hour daily, either in German or Latin! In
truth, schools, monasteries and convents, were founded for this purpose,
and with good Christian intentions; as we read concerning St. Agnes,
and other saints; See above p. 58.
Oh, how badly we treat all these poor young people
that are entrusted to us for discipline and instruction! and a heavy
reckoning shall we have to give for it that we keep them from the word
of God; their fate is that described by Jeremiah: “Mine eyes do fail
with tears, my bowels are troubled, my liver is poured upon the earth,
for the destruction of the daughter of my people; because the children
and the sucklings swoon in the streets of the city. They say to their
mothers, Where is corn and wine? when they swooned as the wounded in
the streets of the city, when their soul is poured out into their mothers’
bosom.” (
However, if the high schools studied the Scriptures
diligently we should not send every one to them, as we do now, when
nothing is considered but numbers, and every man wishes to have a Doctor’s
title; we should only send the aptest pupils, well prepared in the lower
schools. This should be seen to by princes or the magistrates of the
towns, and they should take care none but apt pupils be sent. But where
the Holy Scriptures are not the rule, I advise no one to send his child.
Everything must perish where God’s word is not studied unceasingly;
and so we see what manner of men there are now in the high schools,
and all this is the fault of no one but of the Pope, the Bishops and
the Prelates, to whom the welfare of the young has been entrusted. For
the High Schools should train men simply to be of good understanding
in the Scriptures, fit to become bishops and priests, and to stand at
our head against heretics and the Devil and all the world. But where
do we find this? I greatly fear the High Schools are nothing but great
gates of hell, unless
26. I know well the Romish mob will object and loudly pretend that the Pope took the Holy Roman Empire from the Greek Emperor and gave it to Germany, for which honour and favour he is supposed to deserve submission and thanks and all other kinds of returns from the Germans. For this reason we are not to presume to make any attempt to reform them, and we are to consider nothing but these gifts of the Roman Empire. This is also the reason why they have so arbitrarily and proudly persecuted and oppressed many good Emperors, so that it were pity to tell, and with the same cleverness have they made themselves lords of all the temporal power and authority, in violation of the holy Gospel; and accordingly I must speak of this matter also.
There is no doubt that the true Roman Empire, of which
the prophets ( Luther here follows the Vulgate, translating
the above verse by: “Es werden die Römer kommen und die Juden verstören:
und hernach werden sie auch untergehen.”
Since, then, the Pope could not force the Greeks and the Emperor at Constantinople, who is the hereditary Roman Emperor, to obey his will, he invented this device to rob him of his empire and title, and to give it to the Germans, who were at that time strong and of good repute; in order that they might take the power of the Roman Empire and hold it of the Pope; and this is what actually has happened. It was taken from the Emperor at Constantinople, and the name and title were given to us Germans, and therewith we became subject to the Pope, and he has built up a new Roman Empire on the Germans. For the other Empire, the original, came to an end long ago, as was said above.
Thus the Roman See has got what it wished: Rome has been taken possession of, and the German Emperor driven out and bound by oaths not to dwell in Rome. He is to be Roman Emperor and nevertheless not to dwell in Rome; and moreover always to depend on the Pope and his followers, and to do their will. We are to have the title, and they are to have the lands and the cities. For they have always made our simplicity the tool of their pride and tyranny, and they consider us as stupid Germans to be deceived and fooled by them as they choose.
Well, for our Lord God it is a small thing to toss
kingdoms and principalities hither and thither; He is so free with them,
that He will sometimes take a kingdom from a good man and give it to
a knave; sometimes through the treachery of false, wicked men; sometimes
by inheritance, as we read concerning Persia, Greece, and nearly all
kingdoms; and Daniel says: “Wisdom and might are His: and He changes
the times and the seasons, and He removeth Kings and setteth up Kings.”
(
Now although the Pope has violently and unjustly robbed
the true Emperor of the Roman Empire, or its name, and has given it
to us Germans, yet it is certain that God has used the Pope’s wickedness
to give the German nation this Empire and to raise up a new Roman Empire,
that exists now, after the fall of the old Empire. We gave the Pope
no cause for this action, nor did we understand his false aims and schemes;
but still, through the craft and knavery of the Popes, we have, alas!
all too dearly, paid the price of this Empire with incalculable bloodshed,
with the loss of our liberty, with the robbery of our wealth, especially
of our churches and benefices, and with unspeakable treachery and insult.
We have the Empire in name, but the Pope has our wealth, our honour,
our bodies, lives and souls, and all that we have. This was the way
to deceive the Germans, and with a double deceit. What the Popes wished
Since, then, we have received this Empire through God’s providence and the schemes of evil men, without our fault, I would not advise that we should give it up, but that we should govern it honestly, in the fear of God, so long as He is pleased to let us hold it. For, as I have said, it is no matter to Him how a kingdom is come by, but He will have it duly governed. If the Popes took it from others dishonestly, we, at least, did not come by it dishonestly. It was given to us through evil men, under the will of God, to whom we have more regard than the false intentions of the Popes, who wished to be Emperors and more than Emperors, and to fool and mock us with the name.
The King of Babylon obtained his kingdom by force and robbery. Yet God would have it governed by the holy princes, Daniel, Ananias, Asarias and Misael. Much more then does He require this Empire to be governed by the Christian princes of Germany, though the Pope may have stolen or robbed, or newly fashioned it. It is all God’s ordering, which came to pass before we knew of it.
Therefore the Pope and his followers have no reason to boast, that they did a great kindness to the German nation in giving them this Roman Empire. Firstly, because they intended no good to us in the matter; but only abused our simplicity to strengthen their own power against the Roman Emperor at Constantinople, from whom, against God and justice, the Pope has taken what he had no right to.
Secondly, the Pope sought to give the Empire, not to us, but to himself, and to become lord over all our power, liberty, wealth, body and soul, and through us over all the world, if God had not prevented it; as he plainly says in his decretals, and has tried with many mischievous tricks in the case of many German Emperors. Thus we Germans have been prettily taught German: Whilst we expected to become lords, we have become the servants of the most crafty tyrants; we have the name, title and arms of the Empire, but the Pope has the treasure, authority, law and freedom; thus whilst the Pope eats the kernel, he leaves us the empty shells to play with.
Now may God help us (who, as I have said, assigned
us
But if he will not do this, what game is he playing with all his falsehoods and pretences? Was it not enough to lead this great people by the nose for so many hundred years? Because the Pope crowns or makes the Emperor, it does not follow that he is above him; for the prophet, St. Samuel, anointed and crowned King Saul and David, at God’s command, and was yet subject to them. And the prophet Nathan anointed King Solomon, and yet was not placed over him; moreover St. Elisha let one of his servants anoint King Jehu of Israel; yet they obeyed him. And it has never yet happened in the whole world that any one was above the king, because he consecrated or crowned him, except in the case of the Pope.
Now he is himself crowned Pope by three cardinals; yet they are subject to him and he is above them. Why then, contrary to his own example, and to the doctrine and practice of the whole world and the Scriptures, should he exalt himself above the temporal authorities and the Empire, for no other reason than that he crowns and consecrates the Emperor? It suffices that he is above him in all divine matters, that is in preaching, teaching and the ministration of the sacrament, in which matters, however, every priest or bishop is above all other men; just as St. Ambrose in his Chair was above the Emperor Theodosius, and the prophet Nathan above David, and Samuel above Saul. Therefore let the German Emperor be a true free Emperor, and let not his authority or his sword be overborne by these blind pretences of the Pope’s sycophants, as if they were to be exceptions, and be above the temporal sword in all things.
27. Let this be enough about the faults of the spiritual
Estate, though many more might be found, if the matter were
It is similarly necessary to diminish the use of spices, which is one of the ships in which our gold is sent away from Germany. God’s mercy has given us more food, and that both precious and good, than is to be found in other countries. I shall probably be accused of making foolish and impossible suggestions, as if I wished to destroy the great business of commerce. But I am only doing my part; if the community does not mend matters, every man must do it himself. I do not see many good manners that have ever come into a land through commerce, and therefore God let the people of Israel dwell far from the sea and not carry on much trade.
But without doubt the greatest misfortune of the Germans is buying on credit. But for this, many a man would have to leave unbought his silk, velvet, cloth of gold, spices and all other luxuries. The system has not been in force for more than one hundred years, and has already brought poverty, misery, and destruction on almost all princes, foundations, cities, nobles and heirs. If it continues for another hundred years Germany will be left without a farthing, and we shall be reduced to eating one another. The Devil invented this system, and the Pope has done an injury to the whole world by sanctioning it.
My request and my cry, therefore, is this: Let each
man
Doubtless we should also find some bridle for the
Fuggers and similar companies. Is it possible that in a single
man’s lifetime such great wealth should be collected together, if all
were done rightly and according to God’s will? I am not skilled in accounts.
But I do not understand how it is possible for one hundred guilders
to gain twenty in a year, or how one guilder can gain another, and that
not out of the soil, or by cattle, seeing that possessions depend not
on the wit of men, but on the blessing of God. I commend this to those
that are skilled in worldly affairs. I as a theologian blame nothing
but the evil appearance, of which St. Paul says: “abstain from all appearance
of evil.” (
Then there is the excess in eating and drinking, for
which we Germans have an ill reputation in foreign countries, as our
special vice, and which has become so common, and gained so much the
upper hand, that sermons avail nothing. The loss of money caused by
it is not the worst; but in its train come murder, adultery, theft,
blasphemy and all vices. The temporal power should do something to prevent
it; otherwise it will come to pass, as Christ foretold, that the last
day shall
Lastly, is it not a terrible thing that we Christians should maintain public brothels, though we all vow chastity in our baptism? I well know all that can be said on this matter, that it is not peculiar to one nation, that it would be difficult to alter it, and that it is better thus than that virgins, or married women, or honourable women should be dishonoured. But should not the spiritual and temporal powers combine to find some means of meeting these difficulties without any such heathen practice? If the people of Israel existed without this scandal, why should not a Christian nation be able to do so? How do so many towns and villages manage to exist without these houses? Why should not great cities be able to do so?
In all, however, that I have said above, my object has been to show how much good temporal authority might do, and what should be the duty of all authorities, so that every man might learn what a terrible thing it is to rule and to have the chief place. What boots it though a ruler be in his own person as holy as St. Peter, if he be not diligent to help his subjects in these matters? His very authority will be his condemnation; for it is the duty of those in authority to seek the good of their subjects. But if those in authority considered how young people might be brought together in marriage, the prospect of marriage would help every man, and protect him from temptations.
But as it is, every man is urged to become a priest
or a monk; and of all these I am afraid not one in a hundred has any
other motive, but the wish of getting a livelihood, and the uncertainty
of maintaining a family. Therefore they begin by a dissolute life and
sow their wild oats (as they say), but I fear they rather gather in
a store of wild oats. Luther uses the expression
ausbuben
in the sense of sich austoben, viz., “to storm out one’s passions,”
and then coins the word sich einbuben, viz., “to storm in
one’s passions.”
But in order that many sins may be prevented that are becoming too common, I would honestly advise that no boy or girl be allowed to take the vow of chastity, or to enter a religious life, before the age of thirty years. For this requires a special grace, as St. Paul says. Therefore, unless God specially urge any one to a religious life, he will do well to leave all vows and devotions alone. I say further: If a man has so little faith in God as to fear that he will be unable to maintain himself in the married state, and if this fear is the only thing that makes him become a priest, then I implore him, for his own soul’s sake, not to become a priest, but rather to become a peasant, or what he will. For if simple trust in God be necessary to ensure temporal support, tenfold trust in God is necessary to live a religious life. If you do not trust to God for your worldly food, how can you trust to Him for your spiritual food? Alas, this unbelief and want of faith destroys all things, and leads us into all misery, as we see among all conditions of men.
Much might be said concerning all this misery. Young people have no one to look after them, they are left to go on just as they like, and those in authority are of no more use to them than if they did not exist; though this should be the chief care of the Pope, of Bishops, Lords and Councils. They wish to rule over everything, everywhere, and yet they are of no use. Oh, what a rare sight, for these reasons, will a lord or ruler be in Heaven, though he might build a hundred churches to God and raise all the dead! But this may suffice for the present.
For of what concerns the temporal authority and the
nobles, I have, I think, said enough in my tract on ‘Good Works.’ For
their lives and governments leave room enough for improvement; but there
is no comparison between spiritual and temporal abuses, as I have there
shown. I dare say I have sung a lofty strain, that I have proposed many
things that will be thought impossible, and attacked many points too
sharply. But what was I to do? I was bound to say this: if I had the
power, this is what I would do. I had rather incur the world’s anger
than God’s; they cannot take from me more than my
I have frequently offered to submit my writings for inquiry and examination, but in vain; though I know, if I am in the right, I must be condemned upon earth, and justified by Christ alone in Heaven. For all the Scriptures teach us, that the affairs of Christians and Christendom must be judged by God alone; they have never yet been justified by men in this world, but the opposition has always been too strong. My greatest care and fear is, lest my cause be not condemned by men; by which I should know for certain that it does not please God. Therefore let them go freely to work, Pope, bishop, priest, monk, or doctor; they are the true people to persecute the truth, as they have always done. May God grant us all a Christian understanding, and especially to the Christian nobility of the German nation true spiritual courage, to do what is best for our unhappy Church. Amen!
At Wittenberg, in the year 1520.
CONCERNING CHRISTIAN LIBERTY
DEDICATORY
LETTER OF MARTIN LUTHER TO POPE LEO X.
AMONG those monstrous evils of this age, with which I have now for three years been waging war, I am sometimes compelled to look to you and to call you to mind, most blessed father Leo. In truth, since you alone are everywhere considered as being the cause of my engaging in war, I cannot at any time fail to remember you; and although I have been compelled by the causeless raging of your impious flatterers against me to appeal from your seat to a future council—fearless of the futile decrees of your predecessors Pius and Julius, who in their foolish tyranny prohibited such an action—yet I have never been so alienated in feeling from your Blessedness as not to have sought with all my might, in diligent prayer and crying to God, every best gift for you and for your See. But those who have hitherto endeavoured to terrify me with the majesty of your name and authority, I have begun quite to despise and triumph over. One thing I see remaining, which I cannot despise, and this has been the reason of my writing anew to your Blessedness; namely, that I find that blame is cast on me, and that that rashness, in which I am judged to have spared not even your person, is imputed to me as a great offence.
Now, to confess the truth openly, I am conscious that, whenever I have
had to mention your person, I have said nothing of you but what was honourable
and good. If I had done otherwise, I could by no means have approved my
own conduct, but should have supported with all my power the judgment of
those men concerning me; nor would anything have pleased me better, than
to recant such rashness and impiety. I have called you Daniel in Babylon;
and every reader thoroughly knows with what distinguished zeal I defended
your conspicuous innocence against Silvester, who tried to stain it. Indeed
the published opinion of so many great men, and the repute of your
I have indeed inveighed sharply against impious doctrines, and I have not been slack to censure my adversaries on account, not of their bad morals, but of their impiety. And for this I am so far from being sorry, that I have brought my mind to despise the judgments of men, and to persevere in this vehement zeal, according to the example of Christ, who, in his zeal, calls his adversaries a generation of vipers, blind, hypocrites, and children of the devil. Paul too charges the sorcerer with being a child of the devil, full of all subtlety and all malice; and defames certain persons as evil workers, dogs, and deceivers. In the opinion of those delicate-eared persons, nothing could be more bitter or intemperate than Paul’s language. What can be more bitter than the words of the prophets? The ears of our generation have been made so delicate by the senseless multitude of flatterers, that, as soon as we perceive that anything of ours is not approved of, we cry out that we are being bitterly assailed; and when we can repel the truth by no other pretence, we escape by attributing bitterness, impatience, intemperance, to our adversaries. What would be the use of salt, if it were not pungent? or of the edge of the sword, if it did not slay? Accursed is the man, who does the work of the Lord deceitfully.
Wherefore, most excellent Leo, I beseech you to accept my vindication, made in this letter, and to persuade yourself that I have never thought any evil concerning your person; further, that I am one who desires that eternal blessing may fall to your lot, and that I have no dispute with any man concerning morals, but only concerning the word of truth. In all other things I will yield to any one, but I neither can nor will forsake and deny the Word. He who thinks otherwise of me or has taken in my words in another sense, does not think rightly, and has not taken in the truth.
Your see, however, which is called the Court of Rome, and which neither you nor any man can deny to be more corrupt than any Babylon or Sodom, and quite, as I believe, of a lost, desperate, and hopeless impiety, this I have verily abominated, and have felt indignant that the people of Christ should be cheated under your name and the pretext of the Church of Rome; and so I have resisted, and will resist, as long as the spirit of faith shall live in me. Not that I am striving after impossibilities, or hoping that by my labours alone, against the furious opposition of so many flatterers, any good can be done in that most disordered Babylon, but that I feel myself a debtor to my brethren, and am bound to take thought for them, that fewer of them may be ruined, or that their ruin may be less complete, by the plagues of Rome. For many years now, nothing else has overflowed from Rome into the world—as you are not ignorant—than the laying waste of goods, of bodies, and of souls, and the worst examples of all the worst things. These things are clearer than the light to all men; and the Church of Rome, formerly the most holy of all churches, has become the most lawless den of thieves, the most shameless of all brothels, the very kingdom of sin, death, and hell; so that not even Antichrist, if he were to come, could devise any addition to its wickedness.
Meanwhile you, Leo, are sitting like a lamb in the midst of wolves, like
Daniel in the midst of lions, and, with Ezekiel, you dwell among scorpions.
What opposition can you alone make to these monstrous evils? Take to yourself
three or four of the most learned and best of the Cardinals. What are these
among so many? You would all perish by poison, before you could undertake
to decide on a remedy. It is all over with the Court of Rome; the wrath
of God has come upon her to the uttermost. She hates councils, she dreads
to be reformed, she cannot restrain the madness of her impiety, she fills
up the sentence passed on her mother, of whom it is said, “We would have
healed Babylon, but she is not healed; let us forsake her.” It had been
your duty and that of your Cardinals, to apply a remedy to these evils,
but this gout laughs at the physician’s hand, and the chariot does not obey
the reins. Under the influence of these feelings I have always grieved that
you, most excellent Leo, who were worthy of a better age, have been made
Pontiff in this. For the Roman Court is not worthy of
O would that, having laid aside that glory which your most abandoned enemies declare to be yours, you were living rather in the office of a private priest, or on your paternal inheritance! In that glory none are worthy to glory, except the race of Iscariot, the children of perdition. For what happens in your court, Leo, except that, the more wicked and execrable any man is, the more prosperously he can use your name and authority for the ruin of the property and souls of men, for the multiplication of crimes, for the oppression of faith and truth, and of the whole Church of God? O Leo! in reality most unfortunate, and sitting on a most perilous throne—I tell you the truth, because I wish you well; for if Bernard felt compassion for his Anastasius at a time when the Roman See, though even then most corrupt, was as yet ruling with better hope than now, why should not we lament, to whom so much additional corruption and ruin has happened in three hundred years?
Is it not true that there is nothing under the vast heavens more corrupt, more pestilential, more hateful than the Court of Rome? She incomparably surpasses the impiety of the Turks, so that in very truth she, who was formerly the gate of heaven, is now a sort of open mouth of hell, and such a mouth as, under the urgent wrath of God, cannot be blocked up; one course alone being left to us wretched men, to call back and save some few, if we can, from that Roman gulf.
Behold, Leo my father, with what purpose and on what principle it is that I have stormed against that seat of pestilence. I am so far from having felt any rage against your person, that I even hoped to gain favour with you, and to aid in your welfare, by striking actively and vigorously at that your prison, nay, your hell. For whatever the efforts of all intellects can contrive against the confusion of that impious Court will be advantageous to you and to your welfare, and to many others with you. Those who do harm to her are doing your office; those who in every way abhor her are glorifying Christ; in short, those are Christians who are not Romans.
But, to say yet more, even this never entered my heart, to inveigh against
the Court of Rome, or to dispute at all about her. For, seeing all remedies
for her health to be desperate, I
While I was making some advance in these studies, Satan opened his eyes and goaded on his servant John Eccius, that notorious adversary of Christ, by the unchecked lust for fame, to drag me unexpectedly into the arena, trying to catch me in one little word concerning the primacy of the Church of Rome, which had fallen from me in passing. That boastful Thraso, foaming and gnashing his teeth, proclaimed that he would dare all things for the glory of God, and for the honour of the holy apostolic seat; and, being puffed up respecting your power, which he was about to misuse, he looked forward with all certainty to victory; seeking to promote, not so much the primacy of Peter, as his own pre-eminence among the theologians of this age; for he thought it would contribute in no slight degree to this, if he were to lead Luther in triumph. The result having proved unfortunate for the sophist, an incredible rage torments him; for he feels that whatever discredit to Rome has arisen through me, has been caused by the fault of himself alone.
Suffer me, I pray you, most excellent Leo, both to plead my own cause,
and to accuse your true enemies. I believe it is known to you in what way
Cardinal Cajetan, your imprudent and unfortunate, nay, unfaithful legate,
acted towards me. When, on account of my reverence for your name, I had
placed myself and all that was mine in his hands, he did not so act as to
establish peace, which he could easily have established by one little word,
since I at that time promised to be silent and to make an end of my case,
if he would command my adversaries to do the same. But that man of pride,
not content with this agreement, began to justify my adversaries, to give
them free licence, and to order me to recant; a thing which was certainly
not in his commission. Thus indeed, when the case was in the best position,
it came through his vexatious tyranny into a much worse one. Therefore,
whatever has followed upon this is the fault, not of Luther, but entirely
of Cajetan, since he did not suffer me to be silent and remain quiet, which
at that
Next came Charles Miltitz, also a nuncio from your Blessedness. He, though he went up and down with much and varied exertion, and omitted nothing which could tend to restore the position of the cause, thrown into confusion by the rashness and pride of Cajetan, had difficulty, even with the help of that very illustrious prince the Elector Frederick, in at last bringing about more than one familiar conference with me. In these I again yielded to your great name, and was prepared to keep silence, and to accept as my judge either the Archbishop of Treves, or the Bishop of Naumburg; and thus it was done and concluded. While this was being done with good hope of success, lo! that other and greater enemy of yours, Eccius, rushed in with his Leipsic disputation, which he had undertaken against Carlstadt, and, having taken up a new question concerning the primacy of the Pope, turned his arms unexpectedly against me, and completely overthrew the plan for peace. Meanwhile Charles Miltitz was waiting, disputations were held, judges were being chosen, but no decision was arrived at. And no wonder; for by the falsehoods, pretences, and arts of Eccius the whole business was brought into such thorough disorder, confusion, and festering soreness, that, whichever way the sentence might lean, a greater conflagration was sure to arise; for he was seeking, not after truth, but after his own credit. In this case too I omitted nothing which it was right that I should do.
I confess that, on this occasion, no small part of the corruptions of Rome came to light; but, if there was any offence in this, it was the fault of Eccius, who, in taking on him a burden beyond his strength, and in furiously aiming at credit for himself, unveiled to the whole world the disgrace of Rome.
Here is that enemy of yours, Leo, or rather of your Court; by his example
alone we may learn that an enemy is not more baneful than a flatterer. For
what did he bring about by his flattery, except evils, which no king could
have brought about? At this day the name of the Court of Rome stinks in
the nostrils of the world, the papal authority is growing weak, and its
notorious ignorance is evil spoken of. We should hear none of these things,
if Eccius had not disturbed the plans of Miltitz
Since, then, we were bringing about by this disputation nothing but the greater confusion of the cause of Rome, Charles Miltitz for the third time addressed the Fathers of the Order, assembled in chapter, and sought their advice for the settlement of the case, as being now in a most troubled and perilous state. Since, by the favour of God, there was no hope of proceeding against me by force, some of the more noted of their number were sent to me, and begged me at least to show respect to your person, and to vindicate in a humble letter both your innocence and my own. They said that the affair was not as yet in a position of extreme hopelessness, if Leo X., in his inborn kindliness, would put his hand to it. On this I, who have always offered and wished for peace, in order that I might devote myself to calmer and more useful pursuits, and who for this very purpose have acted with so much spirit and vehemence, in order to put down by the strength and impetuosity of my words as well as of my feelings, men whom I saw to be very far from equal to myself—I, I say, not only gladly yielded, but even accepted it with joy and gratitude, as the greatest kindness and benefit, if you should think it right to satisfy my hopes.
Thus I come, most blessed Father, and in all abasement beseech you to
put to your hand, if it is possible, and impose a curb upon those flatterers,
who are enemies of peace, while they pretend peace. But there is no reason,
most blessed Father, why any one should assume that I am to utter a recantation,
unless he prefers to involve the case in still greater confusion. Moreover,
I cannot bear with laws for the interpretation of the Word of God, since
the Word of God, which teaches liberty in all other things, ought not to
be
Therefore, Leo my Father, beware of listening to those Sirens, who make you out to be not simply a man, but partly a God, so that you can command and require whatever you will. It will not happen so, nor will you prevail. You are the servant of servants, and, more than any other man, in a most pitiable and perilous position. Let not those men deceive you, who pretend that you are Lord of the world; who will not allow any one to be a Christian without your authority; who babble of your having power over heaven, hell, and purgatory. These men are your enemies and are seeking your soul to destroy it, as Isaiah says: “My people, they that call thee blessed are themselves deceiving thee.” They are in error, who raise you above councils and the universal Church. They are in error, who attribute to you alone the right of interpreting Scripture. All these men are seeking to set up their own impieties in the Church under your name, and alas! Satan has gained much through them in the time of your predecessors.
In brief, trust not in any who exalt you, but in those who humiliate you. For this is the judgment of God: “He hath cast down the mighty from their seat, and hath exalted the humble.” See how unlike Christ was to His successors, though all will have it that they are His vicars. I fear that in truth very many of them have been in too serious a sense His vicars, for a vicar represents a prince who is absent. Now if a Pontiff rules while Christ is absent and does not dwell in his heart, what else is he but a vicar of Christ? And then what is that Church but a multitude without Christ? What indeed is such a vicar but Antichrist and an idol? How much more rightly did the Apostles speak, who call themselves the servants of a present Christ, not the vicars of an absent one.
Perhaps I am shamelessly bold, in seeming to teach so great a head, by
whom all men ought to be taught, and from whom,
In fine, that I may not approach you empty handed, Blessed Father, I bring with me this little treatise, published under your name, as a good omen of the establishment of peace, and of good hope. By this you may perceive in what pursuits I should prefer and be able to occupy myself to more profit, if I were allowed, or had been hitherto allowed, by your impious flatterers. It is a small matter, if you look to its exterior, but, unless I mistake, it is a summary of the Christian life put together in small compass, if you apprehend its meaning. I, in my poverty, have no other present to make you; nor do you need anything else than to be enriched by a spiritual gift. I commend myself to your Paternity and Blessedness, whom may the Lord Jesus preserve for ever. Amen.
Wittenberg; 6th September, 1520.
CONCERNING CHRISTIAN LIBERTY
CHRISTIAN faith has appeared to many an easy
thing; nay, not a few even reckon it among the social virtues, as it were;
and this they do, because they have not made proof of it experimentally,
and have never tasted of what efficacy it is. For it is not possible for
any man to write well about it, or to understand well what is rightly written,
who has not at some time tasted of its spirit, under the pressure of tribulation.
While he who has tasted of it, even to a very small extent, can never write,
speak, think, or hear about it sufficiently. For it is a living fountain,
springing up unto eternal life, as Christ calls it in the
Now, though I cannot boast of my abundance, and though I know how poorly I am furnished, yet I hope that, after having been vexed by various temptations, I have attained some little drop of faith, and that I can speak of this matter, if not with more elegance, certainly with more solidity than those literal and too subtle disputants who have hitherto discoursed upon it, without understanding their own words. That I may open, then, an easier way for the ignorant—for these alone I am trying to serve—I first lay down these two propositions, concerning spiritual liberty and servitude.
A Christian man is the most free lord of all, and subject to none; a Christian man is the most dutiful servant of all, and subject to every one.
Although these statements appear contradictory, yet, when they are found
to agree together, they will be highly serviceable to my purpose. They are
both the statements of Paul himself, who says: “Though I be free from all
men, yet have I made myself servant unto all” (
Let us examine the subject on a deeper and less simple principle. Man
is composed of a twofold nature, a spiritual and a bodily. As regards the
spiritual nature, which they name the soul, he is called the spiritual,
inward, new man; as regards the bodily nature, which they name the flesh,
he is called the fleshly, outward, old man. The Apostle speaks of this:
“Though our outward man perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day.”
(
We first approach the subject of the inward man, that we may see by what means a man becomes justified, free, and a true Christian; that is, a spiritual, new, and inward man. It is certain that absolutely none among outward things, under whatever name they may be reckoned, has any weight in producing a state of justification and Christian liberty, nor, on the other hand, an unjustified state and one of slavery. This can be shown by an easy course of argument.
What can it profit the soul, that the body should be in good condition, free, and full of life; that it should eat, drink, and act according to its pleasure; when even the most impious slaves of every kind of vice are prosperous in these matters? Again, what harm can ill-health, bondage, hunger, thirst, or any other outward evil, do to the soul, when even the most pious of men, and the freest in the purity of their conscience, are harassed by these things? Neither of these states of things has to do with the liberty or the slavery of the soul.
And so it will profit nothing that the body should be adorned with sacred
vestments, or dwell in holy places, or be occupied in sacred offices, or
pray, fast, and abstain from certain meats, or do whatever works can be
done through the body and in the body. Something widely different will be
necessary for the justification and liberty of the soul, since the things
I have spoken of can be done by any impious person, and only hypocrites
are produced by devotion to these things. On the other hand, it will not
at all injure the soul that the
And, to cast everything aside, even speculations, meditations, and whatever
things can be performed by the exertions of the soul itself, are of no profit.
One thing, and one alone, is necessary for life, justification, and Christian
liberty; and that is the most holy word of God, the Gospel of Christ, as
He says: “I am the resurrection and the life; he that believeth in me shall
not die eternally” (
Let us therefore hold it for certain and firmly established, that the
soul can do without everything, except the word of God, without which none
at all of its wants are provided for. But, having the word, it is rich and
wants for nothing; since that is the word of life, of truth, of light, of
peace, of justification, of salvation, of joy, of liberty, of wisdom, of
virtue, of grace, of glory, and of every good thing. It is on this account
that the prophet in a whole psalm (
Again, there is no more cruel stroke of the wrath of God than when He
sends a famine of hearing His words (
But you will ask:—“What is this word, and by what means is it to be used,
since there are so many words of God?” I answer, the Apostle Paul (
But this faith cannot consist at all with works; that is, if you imagine
that you can be justified by those works, whatever they are, along with
it. For this would be to halt between two opinions, to worship Baal, and
to kiss the hand to him, which is a very great iniquity, as Job says. Therefore,
when you begin to believe, you learn at the same time that all that is in
you is utterly guilty, sinful, and damnable; according to that saying: “All
have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.” (
Since then this faith can reign only in the inward man, as it is said:
“With the heart man believeth unto righteousness” (
Hence a right faith in Christ is an incomparable treasure, carrying with
it universal salvation, and preserving from all evil, as it is said: “He
that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not
shall be damned.” (
But you ask how it can be the fact that faith alone justifies, and affords without works so great a treasure of good things, when so many works, ceremonies, and laws are prescribed to us in the Scriptures. I answer: before all things bear in mind what I have said, that faith alone without works justifies, sets free, and saves, as I shall show more clearly below.
Meanwhile it is to be noted, that the whole Scripture of God is divided into two parts, precepts and promises. The precepts certainly teach us what is good, but what they teach is not forthwith done. For they show us what we ought to do, but do not give us the power to do it. They were ordained, however, for the purpose of showing man to himself; that through them he may learn his own impotence for good, and may despair of his own strength. For this reason they are called the Old Testament, and are so.
For example: “thou shalt not covet,” is a precept by which we are all
convicted of sin; since no man can help coveting, whatever efforts to the
contrary he may make. In order therefore that he may fulfil the precept,
and not covet, he is
Now when a man has through the precepts been taught his own impotence, and become anxious by what means he may satisfy the law—for the law must be satisfied, so that no jot or tittle of it may pass away; otherwise he must be hopelessly condemned—then, being truly humbled and brought to nothing in his own eyes, he finds in himself no resource for justification and salvation.
Then comes in that other part of Scripture, the promises of God, which
declare the glory of God, and say: “If you wish to fulfil the law, and,
as the law requires, not to covet, lo! believe in Christ, in whom are promised
to you grace, justification, peace, and liberty.” All these things you shall
have, if you believe, and shall be without them, if you do not believe.
For what is impossible for you by all the works of the law, which are many
and yet useless, you shall fulfil in an easy and summary way through faith;
because God the Father has made everything to depend on faith, so that whosoever
has it, has all things, and he who has it not, has nothing. “For God hath
concluded them all in unbelief, that He might have mercy upon all.” (
Now since these promises of God are words of holiness, truth, righteousness,
liberty, and peace, and are full of universal goodness; the soul, which
cleaves to them with a firm faith, is so united to them, nay, thoroughly
absorbed by them, that it not only partakes in, but is penetrated and saturated
by, all their virtue. For if the touch of Christ was healing, how much more
does that most tender spiritual touch, nay, absorption of the word, communicate
to the soul all that belongs to the word. In this way, therefore, the soul,
through faith alone,
From all this it is easy to understand why faith has such great power,
and why no good works, nor even all good works put together, can compare
with it; since no work can cleave to the word of God, or be in the soul.
Faith alone and the word reign in it; and such as is the word, such is the
soul made by it; just as iron exposed to fire glows like fire, on account
of its union with the fire. It is clear then that to a Christian man his
faith suffices for everything, and that he has no need of works for justification.
But if he has no need of works, neither has he need of the law; and, if
he has no need of the law, he is certainly free from the law, and the saying
is true: “The law is not made for a righteous man.” (
Let us consider this as the first virtue of faith; and let us look also to the second. This also is an office of faith, that it honours with the utmost veneration and the highest reputation him in whom it believes, inasmuch as it holds him to be truthful and worthy of belief. For there is no honour like that reputation of truth and righteousness, with which we honour him, in whom we believe. What higher credit can we attribute to any one than truth and righteousness, and absolute goodness? On the other hand, it is the greatest insult to brand any one with the reputation of falsehood and unrighteousness, or to suspect him of these, as we do when we disbelieve him.
Thus the soul, in firmly believing the promises of God, holds Him to
be true and righteous; and it can attribute to God no higher glory than
the credit of being so. The highest worship of God is to ascribe to Him
truth, righteousness, and whatever qualities we must ascribe to one in whom
we believe. In doing this the soul shows itself prepared to do His whole
will; in doing this it hallows His name, and gives itself up to be dealt
with as it may please God. For it cleaves to His
On the other hand, what greater rebellion, impiety, or insult to God can there be, than not to believe His promises? What else is this, than either to make God a liar, or to doubt His truth—that is, to attribute truth to ourselves, but to God falsehood and levity? In doing this, is not a man denying God and setting himself up as an idol in his own heart? What then can works, done in such a state of impiety, profit us, were they even angelic or apostolic works? Rightly hath God shut up all—not in wrath nor in lust—but in unbelief; in order that those who pretend that they are fulfilling the law by works of purity and benevolence (which are social and human virtues), may not presume that they will therefore be saved; but, being included in the sin of unbelief, may either seek mercy, or be justly condemned.
But when God sees that truth is ascribed to Him, and that in the faith
of our hearts He is honoured with all the honour of which He is worthy;
then in return He honours us on account of that faith; attributing to us
truth and righteousness. For faith produces truth and righteousness, in
rendering to God what is His; and therefore in return God gives glory to
our righteousness. It is a true and righteous thing, that God is true and
righteous; and to confess this, and ascribe these attributes to Him, is
to be ourselves true and righteous. Thus He says: “Them that honour me I
will honour, and they that despise me shall be lightly esteemed.” (
The third incomparable grace of faith is this, that it unites the soul
to Christ, as the wife to the husband; by which mystery, as the Apostle
teaches, Christ and the soul are made one flesh. Now if they are one flesh,
and if a true marriage—
If we compare these possessions, we shall see how inestimable is the gain. Christ is full of grace, life, and salvation; the soul is full of sin, death, and condemnation. Let faith step in, and then sin, death, and hell will belong to Christ, and grace, life, and salvation to the soul. For, if he is a husband, he must needs take to himself that which is his wife’s, and, at the same time, impart to his wife that which is his. For, in giving her his own body and himself, how can he but give her all that is his? And, in taking to himself the body of his wife, how can he but take to himself all that is hers?
In this is displayed the delightful sight, not only of communion, but of a prosperous warfare, of victory, salvation, and redemption. For since Christ is God and man, and is such a person as neither has sinned, nor dies, nor is condemned,—nay, cannot sin, die, or be condemned; and since his righteousness, life, and salvation are invincible, eternal, and almighty; when, I say, such a person, by the wedding-ring of faith, takes a share in the sins, death, and hell of his wife, nay, makes them his own, and deals with them no otherwise than as if they were his, and as if he himself had sinned; and when he suffers, dies, and descends to hell, that he may overcome all things, since sin, death, and hell cannot swallow him up, they must needs be swallowed up by him in stupendous conflict. For his righteousness rises above the sins of all men; his life is more powerful than all death; his salvation is more unconquerable than all hell.
Thus the believing soul, by the pledge of its faith in Christ, becomes
free from all sin, fearless of death, safe from hell, and endowed with the
eternal righteousness, life, and salvation of its husband Christ. Thus he
presents to himself a glorious bride, without spot or wrinkle, cleansing
her with the washing of water by the word; that is, by faith in the word
of life, righteousness, and salvation. Thus he betrothes her unto
Who then can value highly enough these royal nuptials? Who can comprehend
the riches of the glory of this grace? Christ, that rich and pious husband,
takes as a wife a needy and impious harlot, redeeming her from all her evils,
and supplying her with all His good things. It is impossible now that her
sins should destroy her, since they have been laid upon Christ and swallowed
up in Him, and since she has in her husband Christ a righteousness which
she may claim as her own, and which she can set up with confidence against
all her sins, against death and hell, saying: “If I have sinned, my Christ,
in whom I believe, has not sinned; all mine is His, and all His is mine;”
as it is written, “My beloved is mine, and I am his. (
From all this you will again understand, why so much importance is attributed to faith, so that it alone can fulfil the law, and justify without any works. For you see that the first commandment, which says, “Thou shalt worship one God only,” is fulfilled by faith alone. If you were nothing but good works from the soles of your feet to the crown of your head, you would not be worshipping God, nor fulfilling the first commandment, since it is impossible to worship God, without ascribing to Him the glory of truth and of universal goodness, as it ought in truth to be ascribed. Now this is not done by works, but only by faith of heart. It is not by working, but by believing, that we glorify God, and confess Him to be true. On this ground faith is the sole righteousness of a Christian man, and the fulfilling of all the commandments. For to him who fulfils the first, the task of fulfilling all the rest is easy.
Works, since they are irrational things, cannot glorify God; although
they may be done to the glory of God, if faith be present. But at present
we are enquiring, not into the quality of the works done, but into him who
does them, who glorifies God, and brings forth good works. This is faith
of heart, the head and the substance of all our righteousness. Hence that
is
But, that we may have a wider view of that grace which our inner man has in Christ, we must know that in the Old Testament God sanctified to Himself every first-born male. The birthright was of great value, giving a superiority over the rest by the double honour of priesthood and kingship. For the first-born brother was priest and lord of all the rest.
Under this figure was foreshown Christ, the true and only first-born of God the Father and of the Virgin Mary, and a true king and priest, not in a fleshly and earthly sense. For His kingdom is not of this world; it is in heavenly and spiritual things that He reigns and acts as priest; and these are righteousness, truth, wisdom, peace, salvation, &c. Not but that all things, even those of earth and hell, are subject to Him—for otherwise how could He defend and save us from them?—but it is not in these, nor by these, that His kingdom stands.
So too His priesthood does not consist in the outward display of vestments and gestures, as did the human priesthood of Aaron and our ecclesiastical priesthood at this day, but in spiritual things, wherein, in His invisible office, He intercedes for us with God in heaven, and there offers Himself, and performs all the duties of a priest; as Paul describes Him to the Hebrews under the figure of Melchizedek. Nor does He only pray and intercede for us; He also teaches us inwardly in the spirit with the living teachings of His Spirit. Now these are the two special offices of a priest, as is figured to us in the case of fleshly priests, by visible prayers and sermons.
As Christ by His birthright has obtained these two dignities, so He imparts
and communicates them to every believer in Him, under that law of matrimony
of which we have spoken above, by which all that is the husband’s is also
the wife’s. Hence all we who believe on Christ are kings and priests in
Christ, as it is said: “Ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood,
an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises
of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light.” (
These two things stand thus. First, as regards kingship,
Not that in the sense of corporeal power any one among Christians has been appointed to possess and rule all things, according to the mad and senseless idea of certain ecclesiastics. That is the office of kings, princes, and men upon earth. In the experience of life we see that we are subjected to all things, and suffer many things, even death. Yea, the more of a Christian any man is, to so many the more evils, sufferings, and deaths is he subject; as we see in the first place in Christ the first-born, and in all His holy brethen.
This is a spiritual power, which rules in the midst of enemies, and is powerful in the midst of distresses. And this is nothing else than that strength is made perfect in my weakness, and that I can turn all things to the profit of my salvation; so that even the cross and death are compelled to serve me and to work together for my salvation. This is a lofty and eminent dignity, a true and almighty dominion, a spiritual empire, in which there is nothing so good, nothing so bad, as not to work together for my good, if only I believe. And yet there is nothing of which I have need—for faith alone suffices for my salvation—unless that, in it, faith may exercise the power and empire of its liberty. This is the inestimable power and liberty of Christians.
Nor are we only kings and the freest of all men, but also priests for
ever, a dignity far higher than kingship, because by that priesthood we
are worthy to appear before God, to pray for others, and to teach one another
mutually the things which are of God. For these are the duties of priests,
and they cannot possibly be permitted to any unbeliever. Christ has obtained
for us this favour, if we believe in Him, that, just as we are His brethren,
and co-heirs and fellow kings with Him, so we should be also fellow priests
with Him, and venture with confidence, through the spirit of faith, to come
into the presence of God,
Who then can comprehend the loftiness of that Christian dignity which,
by its royal power, rules over all things, even over death, life, and sin,
and, by its priestly glory, is all powerful with God; since God does what
He Himself seeks and wishes; as it is written: “He will fulfil the desire
of them that fear Him: He also will hear their cry, and will save them”?
(
From these considerations any one may clearly see how a Christian man is free from all things; so that he needs no works in order to be justified and saved, but receives these gifts in abundance from faith alone. Nay, were he so foolish as to pretend to be justified, set free, saved, and made a Christian, by means of any good work, he would immediately lose faith with all its benefits. Such folly is prettily represented in the fable, where a dog, running along in the water, and carrying in his mouth a real piece of meat, is deceived by the reflection of the meat in the water, and, in trying with open mouth to seize it, loses the meat and its image at the same time.
Here you will ask: “If all who are in the Church are priests, by what
character are those, whom we now call priests, to be distinguished from
the laity?” I reply: By the use of these words, “priest,” “clergy,” “spiritual
person,” “ecclesiastic,” an injustice has been done, since they have been
transferred from the remaining body of Christians to those few, who are
now, by a hurtful custom, called ecclesiastics. For Holy Scripture makes
no distinction between them, except that those, who are now boastfully called
popes, bishops, and lords, it calls ministers, servants, and stewards, who
are to serve the rest in the ministry of the Word, for teaching the faith
of Christ
This bad system has now issued in such a pompous display of power, and such a terrible tyranny, that no earthly government can be compared to it, as if the laity were something else than Christians. Through this perversion of things it has happened that the knowledge of Christian grace, of faith, of liberty, and altogether of Christ, has utterly perished, and has been succeeded by an intolerable bondage to human works and laws; and, according to the Lamentations of Jeremiah, we have become the slaves of the vilest men on earth, who abuse our misery to all the disgraceful and ignominious purposes of their own will.
Returning to the subject which we had begun, I think it is made clear by these considerations that it is not sufficient, nor a Christian course, to preach the works, life, and words of Christ in a historic manner, as facts which it suffices to know as an example how to frame our life; as do those who are now held the best preachers: and much less so, to keep silence altogether on these things, and to teach in their stead the laws of men and the decrees of the Fathers. There are now not a few persons who preach and read about Christ with the object of moving the human affections to sympathise with Christ, to indignation against the Jews, and other childish and womanish absurdities of that kind.
Now preaching ought to have the object of promoting faith in Him, so that He may not only be Christ, but a Christ for you and for me, and that what is said of Him, and what He is called, may work in us. And this faith is produced and is maintained by preaching why Christ came, what He has brought us and given to us, and to what profit and advantage He is to be received. This is done, when the Christian liberty which we have from Christ Himself is rightly taught, and we are shown in what manner all we Christians are kings and priests, and how we are lords of all things, and may be confident that whatever we do in the presence of God is pleasing and acceptable to Him.
Whose heart would not rejoice in its inmost core at hearing
Let it suffice to say this concerning the inner man and its liberty, and concerning that righteousness of faith, which needs neither laws nor good works; nay, they are even hurtful to it, if any one pretends to be justified by them.
And now let us turn to the other part, to the outward man. Here we shall
give an answer to all those who, taking offence at the word of faith and
at what I have asserted, say: “If faith does everything, and by itself suffices
for justification, why then are good works commanded? Are we then to take
our ease and do no works, content with faith?” Not so, impious men, I reply;
not so. That would indeed really be the case, if we were thoroughly and
completely inner and spiritual persons; but that will not happen until the
last day, when the dead shall be raised. As long as we live in the flesh,
we are but beginning and making advances in that which shall be completed
in a future life. On this account the Apostle calls that which we have in
this life, the first-fruits of the Spirit. (
Although, as I have said, inwardly, and according to the spirit, a man is amply enough justified by faith, having all that he requires to have, except that this very faith and abundance ought to increase from day to day, even till the future life; still he remains in this mortal life upon earth, in which it is necessary that he should rule his own body, and have intercourse with men. Here then works begin; here he must not take his ease; here he must give heed to exercise his body by fastings, watchings, labour, and other moderate discipline, so that it may be subdued to the spirit, and obey and conform itself to the inner man and faith, and not rebel against them nor hinder them, as is its nature to do if it is not kept under. For the inner man, being conformed to God, and created after the image of God through faith, rejoices and delights itself in Christ, in whom such blessings have been conferred on it; and hence has only this task before it, to serve God with joy and for nought in free love.
In doing this he offends that contrary will in his own flesh, which is
striving to serve the world, and to seek its own gratification. This the
spirit of faith cannot and will not bear; but applies itself with cheerfulness
and zeal to keep it down and restrain it; as Paul says: “I delight in the
law of God after the inward man; but I see another law in my members, warring
against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of
sin.” (
These works, however, must not be done with any notion that by them a
man can be justified before God—for faith, which alone is righteousness
before God, will not bear with this false notion—but solely with this purpose,
that the body may be brought into subjection, and be purified from its evil
lusts, so that our eyes may be turned only to purging away those lusts.
For when the soul has been cleansed by faith and made to love God, it would
have all things to be cleansed in
On this principle every man may easily instruct himself in what measure, and with what distinctions, he ought to chasten his own body. He will fast, watch, and labour, just as much as he sees to suffice for keeping down the wantonness and concupiscence of the body. But those who pretend to be justified by works are looking, not to the mortification of their lusts, but only to the works themselves; thinking that, if they can accomplish as many works and as great ones as possible, all is well with them, and they are justified. Sometimes they even injure their brain, and extinguish nature, or at least make it useless. This is enormous folly, and ignorance of Christian life and faith, when a man seeks, without faith, to be justified and saved by works.
To make what we have said more easily understood, let us set it forth
under a figure. The works of a Christian man, who is justified and saved
by his faith out of the pure and unbought mercy of God, ought to be regarded
in the same light as would have been those of Adam and Eve in Paradise,
and of all their posterity, if they had not sinned. Of them it is said:
“The Lord God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress
it and to keep it.” (
So it is with the works of a believer. Being by his faith replaced afresh
in Paradise and created anew, he does not need
A bishop, when he consecrates a church, confirms children, or performs any other duty of his office, is not consecrated as bishop by these works; nay, unless he had been previously consecrated as bishop, not one of those works would have any validity; they would be foolish, childish, and ridiculous. Thus a Christian, being consecrated by his faith, does good works; but he is not by these works made a more sacred person, or more a Christian. That is the effect of faith alone; nay, unless he were previously a believer and a Christian, none of his works would have any value at all; they would really be impious and damnable sins.
True then are these two sayings: Good works do not make a good man, but
a good man does good works. Bad works do not make a bad man, but a bad man
does bad works. Thus it is always necessary that the substance or person
should be good before any good works can be done, and that good works should
follow and proceed from a good person. As Christ says: “A good tree cannot
bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.”
(
As then trees must exist before their fruit, and as the fruit does not make the tree either good or bad, but, on the contrary, a tree of either kind produces fruit of the same kind; so must first the person of the man be good or bad, before he can do either a good or a bad work; and his works do not make him bad or good, but he himself makes his works either bad or good.
We may see the same thing in all handicrafts. A bad or good house does
not make a bad or good builder, but a good or bad builder makes a good or
bad house. And in general, no work makes the workman such as it is itself;
but the workman makes the work such as he is himself. Such is the case too
with the works of men. Such as the man himself is, whether
Since, then, works justify no man, but a man must be justified before he can do any good work, it is most evident that it is faith alone which, by the mere mercy of God through Christ, and by means of His word, can worthily and sufficiently justify and save the person; and that a Christian man needs no work, no law, for his salvation; for by faith he is free from all law, and in perfect freedom does gratuitously all that he does, seeking nothing either of profit or of salvation—since by the grace of God he is already saved and rich in all things through his faith—but solely that which is well-pleasing to God.
So too no good work can profit an unbeliever to justification and salvation;
and on the other hand no evil work makes him an evil and condemned person,
but that unbelief, which makes the person and the tree bad, makes his works
evil and condemned. Wherefore, when any man is made good or bad, this does
not arise from his works, but from his faith or unbelief, as the wise man
says: “The beginning of sin is to fall away from God;” that is, not to believe.
Paul says: “He that cometh to God must believe” (
It is certainly true that, in the sight of men, a man becomes good or
evil by his works; but here “becoming” means that it is thus shown and recognised
who is good or evil; as Christ says: “By their fruits ye shall know them.”
(
He then, who does not wish to go astray with these blind ones, must look further than to the works of the law or the doctrine of works; nay, must turn away his sight from works, and look to the person, and to the manner in which it may be justified. Now it is justified and saved, not by works or laws, but by the word of God, that is, by the promise of His grace; so that the glory may be to the Divine majesty, which has saved us who believe, not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy, by the word of His grace.
From all this it is easy to perceive on what principle good works are to be cast aside or embraced, and by what rule all teachings put forth concerning works are to be understood. For if works are brought forward as grounds of justification, and are done under the false persuasion that we can pretend to be justified by them, they lay on us the yoke of necessity, and extinguish liberty along with faith, and by this very addition to their use, they become no longer good, but really worthy of condemnation. For such works are not free, but blaspheme the grace of God, to which alone it belongs to justify and save through faith. Works cannot accomplish this, and yet, with impious presumption, through our folly, they take it on themselves to do so; and thus break in with violence upon the office and glory of grace.
We do not then reject good works; nay, we embrace them and teach them in the highest degree. It is not on their own account that we condemn them, but on account of this impious addition to them, and the perverse notion of seeking justification by them. These things cause them to be only good in outward show, but in reality not good; since by them men are deceived and deceive others, like ravening wolves in sheep’s clothing.
Now this Leviathan, this perverted notion about works, is invincible,
when sincere faith is wanting. For those sanctified
For not one word of God only, but both, should be preached; new and old things should be brought out of the treasury, as well the voice of the law, as the word of grace. The voice of the law should be brought forward, that men may be terrified and brought to a knowledge of their sins, and thence be converted to penitence and to a better manner of life. But we must not stop here; that would be to wound only and not to bind up, to strike and not to heal, to kill and not to make alive, to bring down to hell and not to bring back, to humble and not to exalt. Therefore the word of grace, and of the promised remission of sin, must also be preached, in order to teach and set up faith; since, without that word, contrition, penitence, and all other duties, are performed and taught in vain.
There still remain, it is true, preachers of repentance and grace, but
they do not explain the law and the promises of God to such an end, and
in such a spirit, that men may learn whence repentance and grace are to
come. For repentance comes from the law of God, but faith or grace from
the promises of God, as it is said: “Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing
by the word of God.” (
Lastly, we will speak also of those works which he performs towards his
neighbour. For man does not live for himself alone in this mortal body,
in order to work on its account, but also for all men on earth; nay, he
lives only for others and not for himself. For it is to this end that he
brings his own body into subjection, that he may be able to serve others
more sincerely and more freely; as Paul says: “None of us liveth to himself,
and no man dieth to himself. For whether we live, we live unto the Lord;
and whether we die, we die unto the Lord.” (
Yet a Christian has need of none of these things for justification and salvation, but in all his works he ought to entertain this view, and look only to this object, that he may serve and be useful to others in all that he does; having nothing before his eyes but the necessities and the advantage of his neighbour. Thus the Apostle commands us to work with our own hands, that we may have to give to those that need. He might have said, that we may support ourselves; but he tells us to give to those that need. It is the part of a Christian to take care of his own body for the very purpose that, by its soundness and wellbeing, he may be enabled to labour, and to acquire and preserve property, for the aid of those who are in want; that thus the stronger member may serve the weaker member, and we may be children of God, thoughtful and busy one for another, bearing one another’s burdens, and so fulfilling the law of Christ.
Here is the truly Christian life; here is faith really working by love; when a man applies himself with joy and love to the works of that freest servitude, in which he serves others voluntarily and for nought; himself abundantly satisfied in the fulness and riches of his own faith.
Thus, when Paul had taught the Philippians how they had been made rich
by that faith in Christ, in which they had obtained all things, he teaches
them further in these words—“If there be therefore any consolation in Christ,
if any comfort of love, if any fellowship of the Spirit, if any bowels and
mercies,
In this we see clearly that the Apostle lays down this rule for a Christian life, that all our works should be directed to the advantage of others; since every Christian has such abundance through his faith, that all his other works and his whole life remain over and above, wherewith to serve and benefit his neighbour of spontaneous good will.
To this end he brings forward Christ as an example, saying: “Let this
mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: who, being in the form of
God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: but made himself of no
reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the
likeness of men; and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself,
and became obedient unto death.” (
Thus a Christian, like Christ his head, being full and in abundance through
his faith, ought to be content with this form of God, obtained by faith;
except that, as I have said, he ought to increase this faith, till it be
perfected. For this
Lo! my God, without merit on my part, of His pure and free mercy, has given to me, an unworthy, condemned, and contemptible creature, all the riches of justification and salvation in Christ, so that I no longer am in want of anything, except of faith to believe that this is so. For such a Father then, who has overwhelmed me with these inestimable riches of His, why should I not freely, cheerfully, and with my whole heart and from voluntary zeal, do all that I know will be pleasing to Him, and acceptable in His sight? I will therefore give myself, as a sort of Christ, to my neighbour, as Christ has given Himself to me; and will do nothing in this life, except what I see will be needful, advantageous, and wholesome for my neighbour, since by faith I abound in all good things in Christ.
Thus from faith flow forth love and joy in the Lord, and from love a cheerful, willing, free spirit, disposed to serve our neighbour voluntarily, without taking any account of gratitude or ingratitude, praise or blame, gain or loss. Its object is not to lay men under obligations, nor does it distinguish between friends and enemies, or look to gratitude or ingratitude, but most freely and willingly spends itself and its goods, whether it loses them through ingratitude, or gains good will. For thus did its Father, distributing all things to all men abundantly and freely; making His sun to rise upon the just and the unjust. Thus too the child does and endures nothing, except from the free joy with which it delights through Christ in God, the giver of such great gifts.
You see then that, if we recognise those great and precious
Who then can comprehend the riches and glory of the Christian life? It can do all things, has all things, and is in want of nothing; is lord over sin, death, and hell, and at the same time is the obedient and useful servant of all. But alas! it is at this day unknown throughout the world; it is neither preached nor sought after, so that we are quite ignorant about our own name, why we are and are called Christians. We are certainly called so from Christ, who is not absent, but dwells among us, provided, that is, that we believe in Him, and are reciprocally and mutually one the Christ of the other, doing to our neighbour as Christ does to us. But now, in the doctrine of men, we are taught only to seek after merits, rewards, and things which are already ours, and we have made of Christ a task-master far more severe than Moses.
The Blessed Virgin, beyond all others, affords us an example of the same
faith, in that she was purified according to the law of Moses, and like
all other women, though she was bound by no such law, and had no need of
purification. Still she submitted to the law voluntarily and of free love,
making herself like the rest of women, that she might not offend or throw
contempt on them. She was not justified by doing this; but, being already
justified, she did it freely and gratuitously. Thus ought our works too
to be done, and not in order to be justified by them; for, being first justified
by
St. Paul circumcised his disciple Timothy, not because he needed circumcision for his justification, but that he might not offend or contemn those Jews, weak in the faith, who had not yet been able to comprehend the liberty of faith. On the other hand, when they contemned liberty, and urged that circumcision was necessary for justification, he resisted them, and would not allow Titus to be circumcised. For as he would not offend or contemn any one’s weakness in faith, but yielded for the time to their will, so again he would not have the liberty of faith offended or contemned by hardened self-justifiers, but walked in a middle path, sparing the weak for the time, and always resisting the hardened, that he might convert all to the liberty of faith. On the same principle we ought to act, receiving those that are weak in the faith, but boldly resisting these hardened teachers of works, of whom we shall hereafter speak at more length.
Christ also, when His disciples were asked for the tribute money, asked
of Peter, whether the children of a king were not free from taxes. Peter
agreed to this; yet Jesus commanded him to go to the sea, saying: “Lest
we should offend them, go thou to the sea, and cast a hook, and take up
the fish that first cometh up; and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou
shalt find a piece of money; that take, and give unto them for me and thee.”
(
This example is very much to our purpose; for here Christ calls Himself and His disciples free men, and children of a king, in want of nothing; and yet He voluntarily submits and pays the tax. Just as far then as this work was necessary or useful to Christ for justification or salvation, so far do all His other works or those of His disciples avail for justification. They are really free and subsequent to justification, and only done to serve others and set them an example.
Such are the works which Paul inculcated; that Christians should be subject
to principalities and powers, and ready to every good work (
Such too ought to have been the works of all colleges, monasteries, and priests; every one doing the works of his own profession and state of life, not in order to be justified by them, but in order to bring his own body into subjection, as an example to others, who themselves also need to keep under their bodies; and also in order to accommodate himself to the will of others, out of free love. But we must always guard most carefully against any vain confidence or presumption of being justified, gaining merit, or being saved by these works; this being the part of faith alone, as I have so often said.
Any man possessing this knowledge may easily keep clear of danger among those innumerable commands and precepts of the Pope, of bishops, of monasteries, of churches, of princes, and of magistrates, which some foolish pastors urge on us as being necessary for justification and salvation, calling them precepts of the Church, when they are not so at all. For the Christian freeman will speak thus: I will fast, I will pray, I will do this or that, which is commanded me by men, not as having any need of these things for justification or salvation, but that I may thus comply with the will of the Pope, of the bishop, of such a community or such a magistrate, or of my neighbour as an example to him; for this cause I will do and suffer all things, just as Christ did and suffered much more for me, though He needed not at all to do so on His own account, and made Himself for my sake under the law, when He was not under the law. And although tyrants may do me violence or wrong in requiring obedience to these things, yet it will not hurt me to do them, so long as they are not done against God.
From all this every man will be able to attain a sure judgment and faithful
discrimination between all works and laws, and to know who are blind and
foolish pastors, and who are true and good ones. For whatsoever work is
not directed to the sole end, either of keeping under the body, or of doing
service to our neighbour—provided he require nothing contrary to the will
of God—is no good or Christian work. Hence I greatly fear that at this day
few or no colleges, monasteries, altars, or ecclesiastical functions are
Christian ones; and the same may be said of fasts and special prayers to
certain Saints. I fear that in all these nothing is being sought but what
is already ours; while we fancy that by these things our sins are purged
This ignorance, and this crushing of liberty, are diligently promoted by the teaching of very many blind pastors, who stir up and urge the people to a zeal for these things, praising such zeal and puffing up men with their indulgences, but never teaching faith. Now I would advise you, if you have any wish to pray, to fast, or to made foundations in churches, as they call it, to take care not to do so with the object of gaining any advantage, either temporal or eternal. You will thus wrong your faith which alone bestows all things on you, and the increase of which, either by working or by suffering, is alone to be cared for. What you give, give freely and without price, that others may prosper and have increase from you and from your goodness. Thus you will be a truly good man and a Christian. For what do you want with your goods and your works, which are done over and above for the subjection of the body, since you have abundance for yourself through your faith, in which God has given you all things?
We give this rule: the good things which we have from God ought to flow from one to another, and become common to all, so that every one of us may, as it were, put on his neighbour, and so behave towards him as if he were himself in his place. They flowed and do flow from Christ to us; he put us on, and acted for us as if he himself were what we are. From us they flow to those who have need of them; so that my faith and righteousness ought to be laid down before God as a covering and intercession for the sins of my neighbour, which I am to take on myself, and so labour and endure servitude in them, as if they were my own; for thus has Christ done for us. This is true love and the genuine truth of Christian life. But only there is it true and genuine, where there is true and genuine faith. Hence the Apostle attributes to Charity this quality, that she seeketh not her own.
We conclude therefore that a Christian man does not live in himself,
but in Christ and in his neighbour, or else is no Christian; in Christ by
faith, in his neighbour by love. By faith he is carried upwards above himself
to God, and by love he sinks back below himself to his neighbour, still
always
Thus much concerning liberty, which, as you see, is a true and spiritual
liberty, making our hearts free from all sins, laws, and commandments; as
Paul says: “The law is not made for a righteous man” (
Finally, for the sake of those to whom nothing can be stated so well but that they misunderstand and distort it, we must add a word, in case they can understand even that. There are very many persons, who, when they hear of this liberty of faith, straightway turn it into an occasion of licence. They think that everything is now lawful for them, and do not choose to show themselves free men and Christians in any other way than by their contempt and reprehension of ceremonies, of traditions, of human laws; as if they were Christians merely because they refuse to fast on stated days, or eat flesh when others fast, or omit the customary prayers; scoffing at the precepts of men, but utterly passing over all the rest that belongs to the Christian religion. On the other hand, they are most pertinaciously resisted by those who strive after salvation solely by their observance of and reverence for ceremonies; as if they would be saved merely because they fast on stated days, or abstain from flesh, or make formal prayers; talking loudly of the precepts of the Church and of the Fathers, and not caring a straw about those things which belong to our genuine faith. Both these parties are plainly culpable, in that, while they neglect matters which are of weight and necessary for salvation, they contend noisily about such as are without weight and not necessary.
How much more rightly does the Apostle Paul teach us to walk in the middle
path, condemning either extreme, and saying: “Let not him that eateth despise
him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth.”
(
It is not from works that we are set free by the faith of Christ, but
from the belief in works, that is, from foolishly presuming to seek justification
through works. Faith redeems our consciences, makes them upright and preserves
them, since by it we recognise the truth that justification does not depend
on our works, although good works neither can nor ought to be wanting to
it; just as we cannot exist without food and drink and all the functions
of this mortal body. Still it is not on them that our justification is based,
but on faith; and yet they ought not on that account to be despised or neglected.
Thus in this world we are compelled by the needs of this bodily life; but
we are not hereby justified. “My kingdom is not hence, nor of this world,”
says Christ; but He does not say: “My kingdom is not here, nor in this world.”
Paul too says: “Though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh”
(
The Christian must therefore walk in the middle path, and set these two
classes of men before his eyes. He may meet with hardened and obstinate
ceremonialists, who, like deaf adders, refuse to listen to the truth of
liberty, and cry up, enjoin, and urge on us their ceremonies, as if they
could justify us without faith. Such were the Jews of old, who would not
understand, that they might act well. These men we must resist, do just
the contrary to what they do, and be bold to give them offence; lest by
this impious notion of theirs they should
Or else we may meet with simple-minded and ignorant persons, weak in
the faith, as the Apostle calls them, who are as yet unable to apprehend
that liberty of faith, even if willing to do so. These we must spare, lest
they should be offended. We must bear with their infirmity, till they shall
be more fully instructed. For since these men do not act thus from hardened
malice, but only from weakness of faith, therefore, in order to avoid giving
them offence, we must keep fasts and do other things which they consider
necessary. This is required of us by charity, which injures no one, but
serves all men. It is not the fault of these persons that they are weak,
but that of their pastors, who by the snares and weapons of their own traditions
have brought them into bondage, and wounded their souls, when they ought
to have been set free and healed by the teaching of faith and liberty. Thus
the Apostle says: “If meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh
while the world standeth.” (
Thus, though we ought boldly to resist those teachers of tradition, and
though those laws of the pontiffs, by which they make aggressions on the
people of God, deserve sharp reproof, yet we must spare the timid crowd,
who are held captive by the laws of those impious tyrants, till they are
set free. Fight vigorously against the wolves, but on behalf of the sheep,
not against the sheep. And this you may do by inveighing against the laws
and lawgivers, and yet at the same time observing these laws with the weak,
lest they be offended; until they shall themselves recognise the tyranny
as such, and understand their own liberty. If you wish to use your liberty,
Since, then, we cannot live in this world without ceremonies and works; since the hot and inexperienced period of youth has need of being restrained and protected by such bonds; and since everyone is bound to keep under his own body by attention to these things; therefore the minister of Christ must be prudent and faithful in so ruling and teaching the people of Christ in all these matters that no root of bitterness may spring up among them, and so many be defiled, as Paul warned the Hebrews; that is, that they may not lose the faith, and begin to be defiled by a belief in works, as the means of justification. This is a thing which easily happens, and defiles very many, unless faith be constantly inculcated along with works. It is impossible to avoid this evil, when faith is passed over in silence, and only the ordinances of men are taught, as has been done hitherto by the pestilent, impious, and soul-destroying traditions of our pontiffs, and opinions of our theologians. An infinite number of souls have been drawn down to hell by these snares, so that you may recognise the work of Antichrist.
In brief, as poverty is imperilled amid riches, honesty amid business,
humility amid honours, abstinence amid feasting, purity amid pleasures,
so is justification by faith imperilled among ceremonies. Solomon says:
“Can a man take fire in his bosom, and his clothes not be burned?” (
Hence in the Christian life ceremonies are to be no otherwise looked upon than builders and workmen look upon those preparations for building or working which are not made with any view of being permanent or anything in themselves, but only because without them there could be no building and no work. When the structure is completed, they are laid aside. Here you see that we do not contemn these preparations, but set the highest value on them; a belief in them we do contemn, because no one thinks that they constitute a real and permanent structure. If any one were so manifestly out of his senses as to have no other object in life but that of setting up these preparations with all possible expense, diligence, and perseverance, while he never thought of the structure itself, but pleased himself and made his boast of these useless preparations and props; should we not all pity his madness, and think that, at the cost thus thrown away, some great building might have been raised?
Thus too we do not contemn works and ceremonies; nay, we set the highest
value on them; but we contemn the belief in works, which no one should consider
to constitute true righteousness; as do those hypocrites who employ and
throw away their whole life in the pursuit of works, and yet never attain
to that for the sake of which the works are done. As the Apostle says, they
are “ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.”
(
Meanwhile they please themselves with this zealous pursuit, and even
dare to judge all others, whom they do not see adorned with such a glittering
display of works; while, if they had been imbued with faith, they might
have done great things for their
We have therefore need to pray that God will lead us, and make us taught of God, that is, ready to learn from God; and will Himself, as He has promised, write His law in our hearts; otherwise there is no hope for us. For unless He himself teach us inwardly this wisdom hidden in a mystery, nature cannot but condemn it and judge it to be heretical. She takes offence at it and it seems folly to her; just as we see that it happened of old in the case of the prophets and apostles; and just as blind and impious pontiffs, with their flatterers, do now in my case and that of those who are like me; upon whom, together with ourselves, may God at length have mercy, and lift up the light of His countenance upon them, that we may know His way upon earth and His saving health among all nations, Who is blessed for evermore. Amen. In the year of the Lord MDXX.
III
ON THE BABYLONISH CAPTIVITY OF THE CHURCH
ON
THE BABYLONISH CAPTIVITY OF THE CHURCH.
Jesus.
Martin Luther, of the Order of St. Augustine, salutes his friend Hermann Tulichius.
Whether I will or not, I am compelled to become more learned day by day, since so many great masters vie with each other in urging me on and giving me practice. I wrote about indulgences two years ago, but now I extremely regret having published that book. At that time I was still involved in a great and superstitious respect for the tyranny of Rome, which led me to judge that indulgences were not to be totally rejected, seeing them, as I did, to be approved by so general a consent among men. And no wonder, for at that time it was I alone who was rolling this stone. Afterwards, however, with the kind aid of Sylvester and the friars, who supported indulgences so strenuously, I perceived that they were nothing but mere impostures of the flatterers of Rome, whereby to make away with the faith of God and the money of men. And I wish I could prevail upon the booksellers, and persuade all who have read them, to burn the whole of my writings on indulgences, and in place of all I have written about them to adopt this proposition: Indulgences are wicked devices of the flatterers of Rome.
After this, Eccius and Emser, with their fellow-conspirators, began to
instruct me concerning the primacy of the Pope. Here too, not to be ungrateful
to such learned men, I must confess that their works helped me on greatly;
for, while I had denied that the Papacy had any divine right, I still admitted
that it had a human right. But after hearing and reading the super-subtle
subtleties of those coxcombs, by which they so ingeniously set up their
idol—my mind being not entirely unteachable in such matters—I now know and
am sure
The Papacy is the mighty hunting of the Bishop of Rome.
This is proved from the reasonings of Eccius, of Emser, and of the Leipzig lecturer on the Bible.
At the present time they are playing at schooling me concerning communion in both kinds, and some other subjects of the greatest importance. I must take pains not to listen in vain to these philosophical guides of mine. A certain Italian friar of Cremona has written a “Revocation of Martin Luther to the Holy See”—that is to say, not that I revoke, as the words imply, but that he revokes me. This is the sort of Latin that the Italians nowadays are beginning to write. Another friar, a German of Leipzig, Lecturer, as you know, on the whole canon of the Bible, has written against me concerning the Sacrament in both kinds, and is about, as I hear, to do still greater and wonderful wonders. The Italian indeed has cautiously concealed his name; perhaps alarmed by the examples of Cajetan and Sylvester. The man of Leipzig, however, as befits a vigorous and fierce German, has set forth in a number of verses on his title-page, his name, his life, his sanctity, his learning, his office, his glory, his honour, almost his very shoe-lasts. From him no doubt I shall learn not a little, since he writes a letter of dedication to the very Son of God; so familiar are these saints with Christ, who reigns in heaven. In short, three magpies seem to be addressing me, one, a Latin one, well; another, a Greek one, still better; the third, a Hebrew one, best of all. What do you think I have to do now, my dear Hermann, but to prick up my ears? The matter is handled at Leipzig by the Observants of the Holy Cross.
Hitherto I have foolishly thought that it would be an excellent thing,
if it were determined by a General Council, that both kinds in the Sacrament
should be administered to the laity. To correct this opinion, this more
than most learned friar says that it was neither commanded nor decreed,
whether by Christ or by the Apostles, that both kinds should be administered
to the laity; and that it has therefore been left
A greater piece of good fortune, however, has befallen this man than any of the others. Whereas he intended to prove that the use of one kind had neither been commanded nor decreed, but left to the decision of the Church, he brings forward Scriptures to prove that, by the command of Christ, the use of one kind was ordained for the laity. Thus it is true, according to this new interpreter of Scripture, that the use of one kind was not commanded, and at the same time was commanded, by Christ. You know how specially those logicians of Leipzig employ this new kind of argument. Does not Emser also, after having professed in his former book to speak fairly about me, and after having been convicted by me of the foulest envy and of base falsehoods, confess, when about to confute me in his later book, that both were true, and that he had written of me in both an unfair and a fair spirit? A good man indeed, as you know!
But listen to our specious advocate of one species, in whose mind the
decision of the Church and the command of Christ are the same thing; and
again the command of Christ and the absence of his command are the same
thing. With what dexterity he proves that only one kind should be granted
to the laity, by the command of Christ, that is, by the decision of the
Church! He marks it with capital letters in this way, “AN INFALLIBLE FOUNDATION.”
Next he handles with incredible wisdom the sixth chapter of the Gospel of
St. John, in which Christ speaks of the bread of heaven and the bread of
Learn now, along with me, from this man, that in the sixth chapter of
St. John Christ commands reception in one kind, but in such a manner that
this commanding means leaving the matter to the decision of the Church;
and further, that Christ in the same chapter speaks of the laity only, not
of the presbyters. For to us this living bread from heaven, that is, the
sacrament in one kind, does not belong, but perchance the bread of death
from hell. Now what is to be done with the deacons and sub-deacons? As they
are neither laymen nor priests, they ought, on this distinguished authority,
to use neither one nor both kinds. You understand, my dear Tulichius, this
new and observant manner of handling Scripture. But you must also
learn this, that Christ, in the sixth chapter of St. John, is speaking of
the sacrament of the Eucharist; though He Himself teaches us that He is
speaking of faith in the incarnate word, by saying: “This is the work of
God, that ye believe in him whom He hath sent.” But this Leipzig professor
of the Bible must be permitted to prove whatever he pleases out of any passage
of Scripture he pleases. For he is an Anaxagorean, nay, an Aristotelian
theologian, to whom names and words when transposed mean the same things
and everything. Throughout his whole book he so fits together the testimonies
of Scripture, that, if he wishes to prove that Christ is in the sacrament,
he ventures to begin thus: “The Lesson of the book of the Revelation of
the blessed John.” And
I pass over the rest, that I may not quite kill you with the dregs of
this most offensive drain. Lastly he adduces Paul (
I see that this man is possessed by an angel of Satan, and that those
who act in collusion with him are seeking to obtain a name in the world
through me, as being worthy to contend with Luther. But this hope of theirs
shall be disappointed, and, in my contempt for them, I shall leave them
for ever unnamed, and shall content myself with this one answer to the whole
of their books. If they are worthy that Christ should bring them back to
a sound mind, I pray him to do so in his mercy. If they are not worthy of
this, then I pray that they may never cease to write such books, and that
the enemies of the truth may not be permitted to read any others. It is
a common and true saying: “This I know for certain, that if I fight with
filth, whether I conquer or am conquered, I
This, moreover, I do in order that no pious reader who may meet with my book may be disgusted at the dross I have handled, and have reason to complain that he finds nothing to read which can cultivate or instruct his mind, or at least give occasion for instructive reflection. You know how dissatisfied my friends are that I should occupy myself with the paltry twistings of these men. They say that the very reading of their books is an ample confutation of them, but that from me they look for better things, which Satan is trying to hinder by means of these men. I have determined to follow the advice of my friends, and to leave the business of wrangling and inveighing to those hornets.
Of the Italian friar of Cremona I shall say nothing. He is a simple and
unlearned man, who is endeavouring to bring me back by some thongs of rhetoric
to the Holy See, from which I am not conscious of having ever withdrawn,
nor has any one proved that I have. His principal argument in some ridiculous
passages is, that I ought to be moved for the sake of my profession, and
of the transfer of the imperial power to the Germans. He seems indeed altogether
to have meant not so much to urge my return as to write the praises of the
French and of the Roman pontiff, and he must be allowed to testify his obsequiousness
to them by this little work, such as it is.
To begin. I must deny that there are seven Sacraments, and must lay it down, for the time being, that there are only three, baptism, penance, and the bread, and that by the Court of Rome all these have been brought into miserable bondage, and the Church despoiled of all her liberty. And yet, if I were to speak according to the usage of Scripture, I should hold that there was only one sacrament, and three sacramental signs. I shall speak on this point more at length at the proper time; but now I speak of the sacrament of the bread, the first of all sacraments.
I shall say then what advance I have made as the result of my meditations in the ministry of this sacrament. For at the time when I published a discourse on the Eucharist I was still involved in the common custom, and did not trouble myself either about the rightful or the wrongful power of the Pope. But now that I have been called forth and become practised in argument, nay, have been dragged by force into this arena, I shall speak out freely what I think. Let all the papists laugh or lament against me alone.
In the first place, the sixth chapter of John must be set aside altogether, as not saying a single syllable about the sacrament; not only because the sacrament had not yet been instituted, but much more because the very sequence of the discourse and of its statements shows clearly that Christ was speaking—as I have said before—of faith in the incarnate Word. For He says: “My words, they are spirit and they are life;” showing that He was speaking of that spiritual eating, wherewith he who eats, lives; while the Jews understood Him to speak of a carnal eating, and therefore raised a dispute. But no eating gives life, except the eating of faith, for this is the really spiritual and living eating; as Augustine says: “Why dost thou get ready thy stomach and thy teeth? Believe, and thou hast eaten.” A sacramental eating does not give life, for many eat unworthily, so that Christ cannot be understood to have spoken of the sacrament in this passage.
There are certainly some who have misapplied these words
CONCERNING THE LORD’S SUPPER
There are two passages which treat in the clearest manner of this subject,
and at which we shall look,—the statements in the Gospels respecting the
Lord’s Supper, and the words of Paul. (
But suppose me to be standing on the other side and questioning my lords the papists. In the Supper of the Lord, the whole sacrament, or the sacrament in both kinds, was either given to the presbyters alone, or at the same time to the laity. If to the presbyters alone (for thus they will have it to be), then it is in no wise lawful that any kind should be given to the laity; for it ought not to be rashly given to any, to whom Christ did not give it at the first institution. Otherwise, if we allow one of Christ’s institutions to be changed, we make the whole body of His laws of no effect; and any man may venture to say that he is bound by no law or institution of Christ. For in dealing with Scripture one special exception does away with any general statement. If on the other hand it was given to the laity as well, it inevitably follows, that reception in both kinds ought not to be denied to the laity; and in denying it to them when they seek it, we act impiously, and contrary to the deed, example, and institution of Christ.
I confess that I have been unable to resist this reasoning, and have neither read, heard of, nor discovered anything to be said on the other side, while the words and example of Christ stand unshaken, who says—not by way of permission, but of commandment—“Drink ye all of this.” For if all are to drink of it, and this cannot be understood as said to the presbyters alone, then it is certainly an impious deed to debar the laity from it when they seek it, were it even an angel from heaven who did so. For what they say of its being left to the decision of the Church which kind should be administered, is said without rational ground, is alleged without authority, and is as easily contemned as proved; nor can it avail against an adversary who opposes to us the word and deed of Christ, and whose blows must therefore be returned with the word of Christ; and this we have not on our side.
If, however, either kind can be denied to the laity, then by the same
decision of the Church a part of baptism or of penance might be taken from
them, since in each case the
It follows further that, if the Church can take from the laity the one kind, the wine, she can also take from them the other kind, the bread, and thus might take from the laity the whole Sacrament of the Altar, and deprive the institution of Christ of all effect in their case. But, I ask, by what authority? If, however, she cannot take away the bread, or both kinds, neither can she the wine. Nor can any possible argument on this point be brought against an opponent, since the Church must necessarily have the same power in regard to either kind as in regard to both kinds; if she has it not as regards both kinds, she has it not as regards either. I should like to hear what the flatterers of Rome may choose to say on this point.
But what strikes me most forcibly of all, and thoroughly convinces me,
is that saying of Christ: “This is my blood, which is shed for you and for
many, for the remission of sins.” Here you see most clearly that the blood
is given to all for whose sins it is shed. Now who will dare to say that
it was not shed for the laity? Do you not see who it is that He addresses
as He gives the cup? Does He not give it to all? Does He not say that it
was shed for all? “For you,” He says. Let us grant that these are priests.
“And for many,” He
Now where, I ask, is the necessity, where is the religious obligation, where is the use, of denying to the laity reception in both kinds, that is, the visible sign, when all men grant them the reality of the sacrament without the sign? If they grant the reality, which is the greater, why do they not grant the sign, which is the less? For in every sacrament the sign, in so far as it is a sign, is incomparably less than the reality itself. What then, I ask, should hinder the granting of the lesser thing, when the greater is granted; unless indeed, as it seems to me, this has happened by the permission of God in His anger, to be the occasion of a schism in the Church; and to show that, having long ago lost the reality of the sacrament, we are fighting on behalf of the sign, which is the lesser thing, against the reality, which is the greatest and only important thing; just as some persons fight on behalf of ceremonies against charity. This monstrous perversion appears to have begun at the same time at which we began in our folly to set Christian charity at nought for the sake of worldly riches, that God might show by this terrible proof that we think signs of greater consequence than the realities themselves. What perversity it would be, if you were to concede that the faith of baptism is granted to one seeking baptism, and yet deny him the sign of that very faith, namely, water.
Last of all stand the irrefutable words of Paul, which must close every
mouth (
Rise up then in one body, all ye flatterers of the Pope, be active, defend yourselves from the charge of impiety, tyranny, and treason against the Gospel, and wrongful calumniation of your brethren, ye who proclaim as heretics those who cannot approve of the mere dreams of your brains, in opposition to such plain and powerful Scriptures. If either of the two are to be called heretics and schismatics, it is not the Bohemians, not the Greeks, since they take their stand on the Gospels; but you Romans who are heretics and impious schismatics, you who presume upon your own figments alone, against the manifest teaching of the Scriptures of God.
But what can be more ridiculous, or more worthy of the head of this friar,
than to say that the Apostle wrote thus and gave this permission to a particular
church, that of Corinth, but not to the universal Church? Whence does he
prove this? Out of his usual store—his own impious head. When the universal
Church takes this epistle as addressed to itself, reads it, and follows
it in every respect, why not in this part of it? If we admit that any one
epistle of Paul, or one passage in any one epistle, does not concern the
universal Church, we do
But let us grant this intolerably wild assertion. If Paul gave permission to a particular church, then, on your own showing, the Greeks and the Bohemians are acting rightly, for they are particular churches, and therefore it is enough that they are not acting against the teaching of Paul, who at least gives them permission. Furthermore, Paul had not power to permit of anything contrary to the institution of Christ. Therefore, on behalf of the Greeks and the Bohemians, I set up these sayings of Christ and of Paul against thee, Rome, and all thy flatterers; nor canst thou show that power has been given thee to change these things by one hair’s breadth; much less to accuse others of heresy, because they disregard thy presumptuous pretensions. It is thou who deservest to be accused of impiety and tyranny.
We also read the words of Cyprian, who by himself is powerful enough to stand against all the Romanists, and who testifies in his discourse concerning the lapsed in the fifth book, that it had been the custom in that church for both kinds to be administered to laymen and even to children; yea, for the body of the Lord to be given into their hands; as he shows by many instances. Among other things he thus reproves some of the people: “And because he does not immediately receive the body of the Lord with unclean hands, or drink the blood of the Lord with polluted mouth, he is angry with the priests as sacrilegious.” You see that he is here speaking of certain sacrilegious laymen, who wished to receive from the priests the body and the blood. Have you here, wretched flatterer, anything to gabble? Say that this holy martyr, this teacher of the Church, so highly endowed with the apostolic spirit, was a heretic, and availed himself of a permission in his particular church!
He relates in the same place an incident which had occurred in his own sight and presence, when he writes in the plainest terms that as deacon he had given the cup to an infant girl, and when the child struggled against it, had even poured the blood of the Lord into its mouth. We read the same thing of St. Donatus, whose broken cup how dully does this wretched flatterer try to get rid of. “I read,” he says, “that the cup was broken, I do not read that the blood was given.” What wonder that he who perceives in the Holy Scriptures what he wills to perceive, should also read in historical narratives what he wills to read! But can he in this way at all establish the power of the Church to decide, or can he thus confute heretics? But enough said on this subject; for I did not begin this treatise in order to answer one who is unworthy of an answer, but in order to lay open the truth of the matter.
I conclude, then, that to deny reception in both kinds to the laity is an act of impiety and tyranny, and one not in the power of any angel, much less of any Pope or Council whatever. Nor do I care for the Council of Constance, for, if its authority is to prevail, why should not also that of the Council of Basle, which decreed on the other hand that the Bohemians should be allowed to receive in both kinds? a point which was carried there after long discussion, as the extant annals and documents of that Council prove. This fact that ignorant flatterer brings forward on behalf of his own dreams, so wisely does he handle the whole matter.
The first bondage, then, of this sacrament is as regards its substance
or completeness, which the tyranny of Rome has wrested from us. Not that
they sin against Christ, who use one kind only, since Christ has not commanded
the use of any, but has left it to the choice of each individual, saying:
“This do ye, as oft as ye shall do it, in remembrance of me;” but they sin
who forbid that both kinds should be given to those who desire to use this
freedom of choice, and the fault is not in the laity, but in the priests.
The sacrament does not belong to the priests, but to all; nor are the priests
lords, but servants, whose duty it is to give both kinds to those who seek
them, as often as they seek them. If they have snatched this right from
the laity, and forcibly denied it to them, they are tyrants, and
I am not, therefore, advocating the seizing by force on both kinds, as if we were of necessity commanded and compelled to receive them, but I am instructing the conscience, that every man may endure the tyranny of Rome, knowing that he has been forcibly deprived of his right in the sacrament on account of his sins. This only I would have, that none should justify the tyranny of Rome, as if she had done right in denying one kind to the laity, but that we should abhor it, and withhold our consent from it, though we may bear it, just as if we were in bondage with the Turk, where we should not be at liberty to use either kind. For this reason I have said that it would be a fine thing, in my opinion, if this bondage were done away with by the decree of a general council, and Christian liberty restored to us out of the hands of the tyrant of Rome; and if to each man were left his own free choice about seeking and using it, as it is left in the case of baptism and penance. Now, however, by the same tyranny, he compels one kind to be received year by year; so extinct is the liberty granted us by Christ, and such are the deserts of our impious ingratitude.
The other bondage of the same sacrament is a milder one, inasmuch as it regards the conscience, but one which it is by far the most perilous of all things to touch, much more to condemn. Here I shall be a Wickliffite, and a heretic under six hundred names. What then? Since the Bishop of Rome has ceased to be a bishop and has become a tyrant, I fear absolutely none of his decrees, since I know that neither he, nor even a general council, has power to establish new articles of the faith.
Formerly, when I was imbibing the scholastic theology, my lord the Cardinal
of Cambray gave me occasion for reflection, by arguing most acutely, in
the fourth book of the Sentences, that it would be much more probable, and
that fewer superfluous
I quite consent then that whoever chooses to hold either opinion should
do so. My only object now is to remove scruples of conscience, so that no
man may fear being guilty of heresy, if he believes that real bread and
real wine are present on the altar. Let him know that he is at liberty,
without peril to his salvation, to imagine, think, or believe in either
of the two ways, since here there is no necessity of faith. In the first
place, I will not listen to those, or make the slightest account of them,
who will cry out that this doctrine is Wickliffite, Hussite, heretical,
and opposed to the decisions of the Church. None will do this but those
whom I have convicted of being themselves in many ways heretical, in the
matter of indulgences, of free will and the grace of God, of good works
and
There is, however, very much to be said for my opinion; in the first place this—that no violence ought to be done to the words of God, neither by man, nor by angel, but that, as far as possible, they ought to be kept to their simplest meaning, and not to be taken, unless the circumstances manifestly compel us to do so, out of their grammatical and proper signification, that we may not give our adversaries any opportunity of evading the teaching of the whole Scriptures. For this reason the ideas of Origen were rightly rejected, when, in contempt of the plain grammatical meaning, he turned the trees, and all other objects described as existing in Paradise, into allegories; since hence it might be inferred that trees were not created by God. So in the present case, since the Evangelists write clearly that Christ took bread and blessed it, and since the book of Acts and the Apostle Paul also call it bread, real bread and real wine must be understood, just as the cup was real. For even these men do not say that the cup is transubstantiated. Since then it is not necessary to lay it down that a transubstantiation is effected by the operation of divine power, it must be held as a figment of human opinion; for it rests on no support of Scripture or of reason. It is forcing on us a novel and absurd usage of words, to take bread as meaning the form or accidents of bread, and wine as the form or accidents of wine. Why do they not take all other things as forms or accidents? Even if everything else were consistent with this idea, it would not be lawful thus to enfeeble the word of God, and to deprive it so unjustly of its proper meaning.
The Church, however, kept the right faith for more than twelve centuries, nor did the holy Fathers ever or anywhere make mention of this transubstantiation (a portentous word and dream indeed), until the counterfeit Aristotelian philosophy began to make its inroads on the Church within these last three hundred years, during which many other erroneous conclusions have also been arrived at, such as:—that the Divine essence is neither generated nor generates; that the soul is the substantial form of the human body; and other like assertions, which are made absolutely without reason or cause, as the Cardinal of Cambray himself confesses.
They will say, perhaps, that we shall be in peril of idolatry if we do not admit that bread and wine are not really there. This is truly ridiculous, for the laity have never learnt the subtle philosophical distinction between substance and accidents; nor, if they were taught it, could they understand it; and there is the same peril, if we keep the accidents, which they see, as in the case of the substance, which they do not see. For if it is not the accidents which they adore, but Christ concealed under them, why should they adore the substance, which they do not see?
But why should not Christ be able to include His body within the substance of bread, as well as within the accidents? Fire and iron, two different substances, are so mingled in red-hot iron, that every part of it is both fire and iron. Why may not the glorious body of Christ much more be in every part of the substance of the bread?
Christ is believed to have been born of the inviolate womb of his mother.
In this case too let them say that the flesh of the Virgin was for a time
annihilated; or, as they will have it to be more suitably expressed, transubstantiated,
that Christ might be enwrapped in its accidents, and at length come forth
through its accidents. The same will have to be said respecting the closed
door and the closed entrance of the tomb, through both of which He entered,
and went out without injury to them. But hence has sprung that Babylon of
a philosophy concerning continuous quantity, distinct from substance, till
things have come to such a point, that they themselves do not know what
are accidents, and what is substance. For who has ever proved to a certainty
that heat and cold, colour, light, weight,
But perhaps they will say that we are taught by Aristotle that we must take the subject and predicate of an affirmative proposition to signify the same thing; or, to quote the words of that monster himself in the 6th book of his Metaphysics, “An affirmative proposition requires the composition of the extremes;” which they explain as their signifying the same thing. Thus in the words, “This is my body,” they say that we cannot take the subject to signify the bread, but the body of Christ.
What shall we say to this? Whereas we are making Aristotle and human teachings the censors of such sublime and divine matters, why do we not rather cast away these curious enquiries; and simply adhere to the words of Christ, willing to be ignorant of what is done in this sacrament, and content to know that the real body of Christ is present in it by virtue of the words of consecration? Is it necessary to comprehend altogether the manner of the Divine working?
But what do they say to Aristotle, who applies the term “subject” to
all the categories of accidents, although he takes the substance to be the
first subject? Thus, in his opinion, “this white,” “this great,” “this something,”
are subjects, because something is predicated of them. If this is true,
and if it is necessary to lay down a doctrine of transubstantiation in order
that it may not be asserted of the bread that it is the body of Christ;
why, I ask, is not a doctrine of transaccidentation also laid down, that
it may not be affirmed of an accident that it is the body of Christ? For
If, however, by a high effort of understanding, you make abstraction of the accident, and refuse to regard it as signified by the subject in saying: “This is my body,” why can you not as easily rise above the substance of the bread, and refuse to let it be understood as signified by the subject; so that “this is my body” may be true in the substance no less than in the accident? Especially so since this is a divine work of almighty power, which can operate to the same extent and in the same way in the substance, as it can in the accident.
But, not to philosophize too far, does not Christ appear to have met
these curious enquiries in a striking manner, when He said concerning the
wine, not, “Hoc est sanguis meus,” but “Hic est sanguis meus.”
He speaks much more clearly still when He brings in the mention of the cup,
saying: “This cup is the New Testament in my blood.” (
As then the case is with Christ Himself, so is it also with the sacrament. For it is not necessary to the bodily indwelling of the Godhead that the human nature should be transubstantiated, that so the Godhead may be contained beneath the accidents of the human nature. But each nature is entire, and we can say with truth: This man is God; this God is man. Though philosophy does not receive this, yet faith receives it, and greater is the authority of the word of God, than the capacity of our intellect. Thus too in the sacrament, it is not necessary to the presence of the real body and real blood, that the bread and wine should be transubstantiated, so that Christ may be contained beneath the accidents; but while both bread and wine continue there, it can be said with truth, “this bread is my body, this wine is my blood,” and conversely. Thus will I understand this matter in honour of the holy words of God, which I will not allow to have violence done them by the petty reasonings of men, or to be distorted into meanings alien to them. I give leave, however, to others to follow the other opinion, which is distinctly laid down in the decretal, provided only (as I have said) they do not press us to accept their opinions as articles of faith.
The third bondage of this same sacrament is that abuse of it—and by far the most impious—by which it has come about that at this day there is no belief in the Church more generally received or more firmly held than that the mass is a good work and a sacrifice. This abuse has brought in an infinite flood of other abuses, until faith in the sacrament has been utterly lost, and they have made this divine sacrament a mere subject of traffic, huckstering, and money-getting contracts. Hence communions, brotherhoods, suffrages, merits, anniversaries, memorials, and other things of that kind are bought and sold in the Church, and made the subjects of bargains and agreements; and the entire maintenance of priests and monks depends upon these things.
I am entering on an arduous task, and it may perhaps be
Concerning the Sacrament of the Altar. To begin,—if we wish to attain safely and prosperously to the true and free knowledge of this sacrament, we must take the utmost care to put aside all that has been added by the zeal or the notions of men to the primitive and simple institution; such as vestments, ornaments, hymns, prayers, musical instruments, lamps, and all the pomp of visible things; and must turn our eyes and our attention only to the pure institution of Christ; and set nothing else before us but those very words of Christ, with which He instituted and perfected that sacrament, and committed it to us. In that word, and absolutely in nothing else, lies the whole force, nature, and substance of the mass. All the rest are human notions, accessory to the word of Christ; and the mass can perfectly well subsist and be kept up without them. Now the words in which Christ instituted this sacrament are as follows:—While they were at supper Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to His disciples, and said: “Take, eat; this is my body which is given for you.” And He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying: “Drink ye all of this; this cup is the New Testament in my blood, which is shed for you and for many for the remission of sins; do this in remembrance of me.”
These words the Apostle Paul (
Let this then stand as a first and infallible truth, that the mass or Sacrament of the Altar is the testament of Christ, which He left behind Him at His death, distributing an inheritance to those who believe in Him. For such are His words: “This cup is the new testament in my blood.” Let this truth, I say, stand as an immovable foundation, on which we shall erect all our arguments. You will see how we shall thus overthrow all the impious attacks of men on this sweetest sacrament. The truthful Christ, then, says with truth, that this is the new testament in His blood, shed for us. It is not without cause that I urge this; the matter is no small one, but must be received into the depths of our minds.
If then we enquire what a testament is, we shall also learn what the
mass is; what are its uses, advantages, abuses. A testament is certainly
a promise made by a man about to die, by which he assigns his inheritance
and appoints heirs. Thus the idea of a testament implies, first, the death
of the testator, and secondly, the promise of the inheritance, and the appointment
of an heir. In this way Paul (
You see then that the mass—as we call it—is a promise of the remission
of sins, made to us by God; and such a promise as has been confirmed by
the death of the Son of God. For a
From all this it is now self-evident what is the use, and what the abuse,
of the mass; what is a worthy or an unworthy preparation for it. If the
mass is a promise, as we have said, we can approach to it by no works, no
strength, no merits, but by faith alone. For where we have the word of God
who promises, there we must have faith on the part of man who accepts; and
it is thus clear that the beginning of our salvation is faith, depending
on the word of a promising God, who, independently of any efforts of ours,
prevents us by His free and undeserved mercy, and holds out to us the word
of His promise. “He sent His word and healed them.” (
Thus, when Adam was to be raised up after the fall, God gave him a promise,
saying to the serpent: “I will place enmity between thee and the woman,
and between thy seed
Thus we come to the most perfect promise of all, that of the new Testament, in which life and salvation are freely promised in plain words, and are bestowed on those who believe the promise. Christ conspicuously distinguishes this testament from the old one, by calling it the “New Testament.” The old testament given by Moses was a promise, not of remission of sins, nor of eternal blessings, but of temporal ones, namely, those of the land of Canaan; and by it no one could be renewed in spirit, and fitted to receive a heavenly inheritance. Hence it was necessary that, as a figure of Christ, an unreasoning lamb should be slain, in the blood of which the same testament was confirmed; thus, as is the blood, so is the testament; as is the victim, so is the promise. Now Christ says, “The new testament in my blood,” not in another’s, but in His own blood, by which grace is promised through the Spirit for the remission of sins, that we may receive the inheritance.
The mass then, as regards its substance, is properly nothing else than
the aforesaid words of Christ, “Take, eat,” etc. He seems to say:—“Behold,
O man, sinner and condemned as thou art, out of the pure and free love with
which I love thee, according to the will of the Father of mercies, I promise
to
From this you see that nothing else is required for a worthy reception of the mass than faith, resting with confidence on this promise, believing Christ to be truthful in these words of His, and not doubting that these immeasurable blessings have been bestowed upon us. On this faith a spontaneous and most sweet affection of the heart will speedily follow, by which the spirit of the man is enlarged and enriched; that is, love, bestowed through the Holy Spirit on believers in Christ. Thus the believer is carried away to Christ, that bounteous and beneficent testator, and becomes altogether another and a new man. Who would not weep tears of delight, nay, almost die for joy in Christ, if he believed with unhesitating faith that this inestimable promise of Christ belongs to him? How can he fail to love such a benefactor, who of His own accord offers, promises, and gives the greatest riches and an eternal inheritance to an unworthy sinner, who has deserved very different treatment?
Our one great misery is this, that while we have many masses in the world,
few or none of us recognise, consider, or apprehend the rich promises set
before us in them. Now in the mass the one thing that demands our greatest,
nay, our sole attention, is to keep these words and promises of Christ,
which indeed constitute the mass itself, constantly before our eyes; that
we should meditate on and digest them, and exercise, nourish, increase,
and strengthen our faith in them by this daily commemoration. This is what
Christ commands when He says, “Do this in remembrance of me.” It is the
work of an evangelist faithfully to present and commend that promise to
the people and to call forth faith in it on their part. As it is—to say
nothing of the impious fables of those who teach human traditions in the
place of this great promise—how many are there who know that the mass is
a promise of Christ?
It is a deplorable thing in our present bondage, that nowadays the utmost care is taken that no layman should hear those words of Christ, as if they were too sacred to be committed to the common people. We priests are so mad that we arrogate to ourselves alone the right of secretly uttering the words of consecration—as they are called; and that in a way which is unprofitable even to ourselves, since we never look at them as promises or a testament for the increase of faith. Under the influence of some superstitious and impious notion we do reverence to these words instead of believing them. In this our misery Satan so works among us that, while he has left nothing of the mass to the Church, he yet takes care that every corner of the earth shall be full of masses, that is, of abuses and mockeries of the testament of God; and that the world shall be more and more heavily loaded with the gravest sins of idolatry, to increase its greater damnation. For what more grievous sin of idolatry can there be, than to abuse the promises of God by our perverse notions, and either neglect or extinguish all faith in them.
God (as I have said) never has dealt, or does deal, with men otherwise
than by the word of promise. Again, we can never deal with God otherwise
than by faith in the word of His promise. He takes no heed of our works,
and has no need of them,—though it is by these we deal with other men and
with ourselves;—but He does require to be esteemed by us truthful in His
promises, and to be patiently considered as such, and thus worshipped in
faith, hope, and love. And thus it is that He is glorified in us, when we
receive and hold every blessing not by our own efforts, but from His mercy,
promise, and gift. This is that true worship and service of God, which we
are bound to render in the mass. But when the words of the promise are not
delivered to us, what exercise of faith can there be? And without faith
who can hope? who can love? without faith, hope, and love, what service
can there be? There is no doubt therefore that, at the present day, the
whole body of priests and monks, with their bishops and all their superiors,
are idolaters, and living in a most perilous state,
It is easy for any one to understand that two things are necessary at the same time, the promise and faith. Without a promise we have nothing to believe; while without faith the promise is useless, since it is through faith that it is established and fulfilled. Whence we easily conclude that the mass, being nothing else than a promise, can be approached and partaken of by faith alone; without which whatever prayers, preparations, works, signs, or gestures are practised, are rather provocations to impiety than acts of piety. It constantly happens that when men have given their attention to all these things they imagine that they are approaching the altar lawfully; and yet, in reality, could never be more unfit to approach it, because of the unbelief which they bring with them. What a number of sacrificing priests you may daily see everywhere, who if they have committed some trifling error, by unsuitable vestments, or unwashed hands, or by some hesitation in the prayers, are wretched, and think themselves guilty of an immense crime! Meanwhile, as for the mass itself, that is, the divine promise, they neither heed nor believe it; yea, are utterly unconscious of its existence. O, unworthy religion of our age, the most impious and ungrateful of all ages!
There is then no worthy preparation for the mass, or rightful use of it, except faith, by which it is believed in as a divine promise. Wherefore let him who is about to approach the altar, or to receive the sacrament, take care not to appear before the Lord his God empty. Now he will be empty, if he has not faith in the mass, or New Testament; and what more grievous impiety can he commit against the truth of God than by this unbelief? As far as in him lies, he makes God a liar, and renders His promises idle. It will be safest then to go to the mass in no other spirit than that in which thou wouldst go to hear any other promise of God; that is, to be prepared, not to do many works, and bring many gifts, but to believe and receive all that is promised thee in that ordinance, or is declared to thee through the ministry of the priest as promised. Unless thou comest in this spirit, beware of drawing near; for thou wilt surely draw near unto judgment.
I have rightly said then, that the whole virtue of the mass consists in those words of Christ, in which He testifies that remission is granted to all who believe that His body is given and His blood shed for them. There is nothing then more necessary for those who are about to hear mass than to meditate earnestly and with full faith on the very words of Christ; for unless they do this, all else is done in vain. It is certainly true that God has ever been wont, in all His promises, to give some sign, token, or memorial of His promise; that it might be kept more faithfully and tell more strongly on men’s minds. Thus when He promised to Noah that the earth should not be destroyed by another deluge, He gave His bow in the cloud, and said that He would thus remember His covenant. To Abraham, when He promised that his seed should inherit the earth, He gave circumcision as a seal of the righteousness which is by faith. Thus to Gideon He gave the dry and the dewy fleece, to confirm His promise of victory over the Midianites. Thus to Ahaz He gave a sign through Isaiah, to confirm his faith in the promise of victory over the kings of Syria and Samaria. We read in the Scriptures of many such signs of the promises of God.
So too in the mass, that first of all promises, He gave a sign in memory of so great a promise, namely, His own body and His own blood in the bread and wine, saying, “Do this in remembrance of me.” Thus in baptism He adds to the words of the promise the sign of immersion in water. Whence we see that in every promise of God two things are set before us, the word and the sign. The word we are to understand as being the testament, and the sign as being the sacrament; thus, in the mass, the word of Christ is the testament, the bread and wine are the sacrament. And as there is greater power in the word than in the sign, so is there greater power in the testament than in the sacrament. A man can have and use the word or testament without the sign or sacrament. “Believe,” saith Augustine, “and thou hast eaten;” but in what do we believe except in the word of Him who promises? Thus I can have the mass daily, nay hourly; since, as often as I will, I can set before myself the words of Christ, and nourish and strengthen my faith in them; and this is in very truth the spiritual eating and drinking.
Here we see how much the theologians of the Sentences have done for us
in this matter. In the first place, not one of them handles that which is
the sum and substance of the whole, namely, the testament and word of promise;
and thus they do away with faith and the whole virtue of the mass. In the
next place, the other part of it, namely, the sign or sacrament, is all
that they deal with; but they do not teach faith even in this, but their
own preparations, opera operata, participations and fruits of the
mass. At length they have reached the very depth of error, and have involved
themselves in an infinity of metaphysical triflings concerning transubstantiation
and other points; so that they have done away with all faith, and with the
knowledge and true use as well of the testament as of the sacrament; and
have caused the people of Christ—as the prophet says—to forget their God
for many days. But do thou leave others to recount the various fruits of
hearing mass, and apply thy mind to saying and believing with the prophet,
that God has prepared a table before thee in the presence of thine enemies—a
table at which thy faith may feed and grow strong. Now it is only on the
word of the divine promise that thy faith can feed; for man shall not live
by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
(
There are two difficulties which are wont to beset us, and prevent our
receiving the benefits of the mass. The one is, that we are sinners and
unworthy, from our utter vileness, of
Here we may draw an example from human affairs. If some very rich lord
were to bequeath a thousand pieces of gold to any beggar, or even to an
unworthy and bad servant, such a one would certainly demand and receive
them confidently, without regard either to his own unworthiness or to the
greatness of the legacy. If any one were to set these before him as objections,
what do you think he would reply? He would certainly answer: “What is that
to you? It is not by my deserving, nor by any right of my own, that I receive
what I do receive. I know that I am unworthy of it, and that I am receiving
much more than I deserve; nay, I have deserved the very contrary. But what
I claim, I claim by right of a testament, and of the goodness of another;
if it was not an unworthy act to leave such a legacy to me who am so unworthy,
why should my unworthiness make me hesitate to accept it? Nay, the more
unworthy I am, the more readily do I embrace this free favour from another.”
With such
We see from all this, how great the wrath of God has been which has permitted our impious teachers to conceal from us the words of this testament, and thus, as far as in them lay, to extinguish faith itself. It is self-evident what must necessarily follow this extinction of faith, namely, the most impious superstitions about works. For when faith perishes and the word of faith is silent, then straightway works, and traditions of works, rise up in its place. By these we have been removed from our own land, as into bondage at Babylon, and all that was dear to us has been taken from us. Even thus it has befallen us with the mass, which, through the teaching of wicked men, has been changed into a good work, which they call opus operatum, and by which they imagine that they are all powerful with God. Hence they have gone to the extreme of madness; and, having first falsely affirmed that the mass is of avail through the force of the opus operatum, they have gone on to say, that even if it be hurtful to him who offers it impiously, yet it is none the less useful to others. On this basis they have established their applications, participations, fraternities, anniversaries, and an infinity of lucrative and gainful business of that kind.
You will scarcely be able to stand against these errors, many and strong
as they are, and deeply as they have penetrated, unless you fix what has
been said firmly in your memory, and give the most stedfast heed to the
true nature of the mass. You have heard that the mass is nothing else than
the divine promise or testament of Christ, commended to us by the sacrament
of His body and blood. If this is true, you will see that it cannot in any
way be a work, nor can any work be performed in it, nor can it be
handled in any way but by faith alone. Now faith is not a work, but the
mistress and life of all works. Is there any man so senseless as to call
a promise he
Who has ever been so senseless as to consider baptism a good work? What
candidate for baptism has ever believed he was doing a work which he might
offer to God on behalf of himself and others? If then in one sacrament and
testament there is no good work communicable to others, neither can there
be any in the mass, which is itself nothing but a testament and a sacrament.
Hence it is a manifest and impious error, to offer or apply the mass for
sins, for satisfactions, for the dead, or for any necessities of our own
or of others. The evident truth of this statement you will easily understand,
if you keep closely to the fact, that the mass is a divine promise, which
can profit no one, be applied to no one, be communicated to no one, except
to the believer himself; and that solely by his own faith. Who can possibly
receive or apply for another a promise of God, which requires faith on the
part of each individual? Can I give another man the promise of God, if he
does not believe it? or can I believe for another man? or can I make another
believe? Yet all this I must be able to do if I can apply and communicate
the mass to others; for there are in the mass only these two things, God’s
promise, and man’s faith which receives that promise. If I can do all this,
I can also hear and believe the gospel on behalf of other men, I can be
baptized for another man, I can be absolved from sin for another man, I
can partake of the Sacrament of the Altar
Why did not Abraham believe on behalf of all the Jews? Why was every
individual Jew required to exercise faith in the same promise which Abraham
believed? Let us keep to this impregnable truth:—where there is a divine
promise, there every man stands for himself; individual faith is required;
every man shall give account for himself, and shall bear his own burdens;
as Christ says: “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he
that believeth not shall be damned.” (
But you will say: “What? will you ever overthrow the practices and opinions
which, for so many centuries, have rooted themselves in all the churches
and monasteries; and all that superstructure of anniversaries, suffrages,
applications, and communications, which they have established upon the mass,
and from which they have drawn the amplest revenues?” I reply: It is this
which has compelled me to write concerning the bondage of the Church. For
the venerable testament of God has been brought into a profane servitude
to gain, through the opinions and traditions of impious men, who have passed
over the Word of God, and have set before us the imaginations of their own
hearts, and thus have led the world astray. What have I to do with the number
or the greatness
This I readily admit, that the prayers which we pour forth in the presence
of God, when we meet to partake of the mass, are good works or benefits,
which we mutually impart, apply, and communicate, and offer up for one another;
as the Apostle James teaches us to pray for one another that we may be saved.
Paul also exhorts that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving
of thanks, be made for all men; for kings, and for all that are in authority.
(
We must therefore make a clear distinction between the testament and sacrament itself, and the prayers which we offer at the same time. And not only so, but we must understand that those prayers are of no value at all, either to him who offers them, or to those for whom they are offered, unless the testament has been first received by faith, so that the prayer may be that of faith, which alone is heard, as the Apostle James teaches us. So widely does prayer differ from the mass. I can pray for as many persons as I will; but no one receives the mass unless he believes for himself; and that only so far as he believes; nor can it be given either to God or to men, but it is God alone who by the ministry of the priest gives it to men, and they receive it by faith alone, without any works or merits. No one would be so audaciously foolish as to say that, when a poor and needy man comes to receive a benefit from the hand of a rich man, he is doing a good work. Now the mass is the benefit of a divine promise, held forth to all men by the hand of the priest. It is certain, therefore, that the mass is not a work communicable to others, but the object of each man’s individual faith, which is thus to be nourished and strengthened.
We must also get rid of another scandal, which is a much greater and a very specious one; that is, that the mass is universally believed to be a sacrifice offered to God. With this opinion the words of the canon of the mass appear to agree, such as—“These gifts; these offerings; these holy sacrifices;” and again, “this oblation.” There is also a very distinct prayer that the sacrifice may be accepted like the sacrifice of Abel. Hence Christ is called the victim of the altar. To this we must add the sayings of the holy Fathers, a great number of authorities, and the usage that has been constantly observed throughout the world.
To all these difficulties, which beset us so pertinaciously, we must
oppose with the utmost constancy the words and example of Christ. Unless
we hold the mass to be the promise or testament of Christ, according to
the plain meaning of the words, we lose all the gospel and our whole comfort.
Let us allow nothing to prevail against those words, even if an angel from
heaven taught us otherwise. Now in these words there is nothing about a
work or sacrifice. Again, we have the example
Not that any one ought rashly to blame the universal Church, which has adorned and extended the mass with many other rites and ceremonies; but we desire that no one should be so deceived by showy ceremonies, or so perplexed by the amount of external display, as to lose the simplicity of the mass, and in fact pay honour to some kind of transubstantiation; as will happen if we pass by the simple substance of the mass, and fix our minds on the manifold accidents of its outward show. For whatever has been added to the mass beyond the word and example of Christ, is one of its accidents; and none of these ought we to consider in any other light than we now consider monstrances—as they are called—and altar cloths, within which the host is contained. It is a contradiction in terms that the mass should be a sacrifice; since we receive the mass, but give a sacrifice. Now the same thing cannot be received and offered at the same time, nor can it be at once given and accepted by the same person. This is as certain as that prayer and the thing prayed for cannot be the same; nor can it be the same thing to pray and to receive what we pray for.
What shall we say then to the canon of the mass and the authority of
the Fathers? First of all I reply:—If there were nothing to be said, it
would be safer to deny their authority altogether, than to grant that the
mass is a work or a sacrifice, and thus to deny the word of Christ and to
overthrow faith and the mass together. However, that we may keep the Fathers
too, we will explain (
For the same reason the priest elevates the bread and the cup as soon as he has consecrated them; but the proof that he is not therein offering anything to God is that in no single word does he make mention of a victim or an oblation. This too is a remnant of the Hebrew rite, according to which it was customary to elevate the gifts which, after being received with giving of thanks, were brought back to God. Or it may be considered as an admonition to us, to call forth our faith in that testament which Christ on that occasion brought forward and set before us; and also as a display of its sign. The oblation of the bread properly corresponds to the words: “This is my body;” and Christ, as it were, addresses us bystanders by this very sign. Thus too the oblation of the cup properly corresponds to these words: “This cup is the New Testament in my blood.” The priest ought to call forth our faith by the very rite of elevation. And as he openly elevates the sign or sacrament in our sight, so I wish that he also pronounced the word or testament with loud and clear voice in our hearing; and that in the language of every nation, that our faith might be more efficaciously exercised. Why should it be lawful to perform mass in Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew, and not also in German, or in any other language?
Wherefore, in this abandoned and most perilous age, let the priests who sacrifice take heed in the first place that those words of the major and minor canon, with the collects, which speak only too plainly of a sacrifice, are to be applied, not to the sacrament, but either to the consecration of the bread and wine themselves, or to their own prayers. For the bread and wine are presented beforehand to receive a blessing, that they may be sanctified by the word and prayer. But after being blessed and consecrated, they are no longer offered, but are received as a gift from God. And in this matter let the priest consider that the gospel is to be preferred to all canons and collects composed by men; but the gospel, as we have seen, does not allow the mass to be a sacrifice.
In the next place, when the priest is performing mass publicly, let him understand that he is only receiving and giving to others the communion in the mass; and let him beware of offering up at the same moment his prayers for himself and others, lest he should seem to be presuming to offer the mass. The priest also who is saying a private mass must consider himself as administering the communion to himself. A private mass is not at all different from, nor more efficient than, the simple reception of the communion by any layman from the hand of the priest, except for the prayers, and that the priest consecrates and administers it to himself. In the matter itself of the mass and the sacrament, we are all equal, priests and laymen.
Even if he is requested by others to do so, let him beware of celebrating
votive masses—as they are called—and of receiving any payment for the mass,
or presuming to offer any votive sacrifice; but let him carefully refer
all this to the prayers which he offers, whether for the dead or the living.
Let him think thus:—I will go and receive the sacrament for myself alone,
but while I receive it I will pray for this or that person, and thus, for
purposes of food and clothing, receive payment for my prayers, and not for
the mass. Nor let it shake thee in this view, though the whole world is
of the contrary opinion and practice. Thou hast the most certain authority
of the gospel, and relying on this, thou mayest easily contemn the ideas
and opinions of men. If however, in despite of what I say, thou wilt persist
in offering the mass, and not thy prayers only, then know that I have faithfully
warned thee, and that I
Hence any one may easily understand that often-quoted passage from Gregory, in which he says that a mass celebrated by a bad priest is not to be considered of less value than one by a good priest, and that one celebrated by St. Peter would not have been better than one celebrated by the traitor Judas. Under cover of this saying some try to shelter their own impiety, and have drawn a distinction between the opus operatum and the opus operans; that they might continue secure in their evil living, and yet pretend to be benefactors to others. Gregory indeed speaks the truth, but these men pervert his meaning. It is most true that the testament and sacrament are not less effectively given and received at the hands of wicked priests than at those of the most holy. Who doubts that the gospel may be preached by wicked men? Now the mass is a part of the gospel; nay, the very sum and compendium of the gospel. For what is the whole gospel but the good news of the remission of sins? Now all that can be said in the most ample and copious words concerning the remission of sins and the mercy of God, is all briefly comprehended in the word of the testament. Hence also sermons to the people ought to be nothing else but expositions of the mass, that is, the setting forth of the divine promise of this testament. This would be to teach faith, and truly to edify the Church. But those who now expound the mass make a sport and mockery of the subject by figures of speech derived from human ceremonies.
As therefore a wicked man can baptize, that is, can apply the word of
promise and the sign of water to the person baptized, so can he also apply
and minister the promise of this sacrament to those who partake of it, and
partake himself with them, as the traitor Judas did in the supper of the
Lord. Still the sacrament and testament remains always the same; it
We shall now make an end of this first part of the subject, but I am ready to produce further arguments when any one comes forward to attack these. From all that has been said we see for whom the mass was intended, and who are worthy partakers of it; namely, those alone who have sad, afflicted, disturbed, confused, and erring consciences. For since the word of the divine promise in this sacrament holds forth to us remission of sins, any man may safely draw near to it who is harassed either by remorse for sin, or by temptation to sin. This testament of Christ is the one medicine for past, present, and future sins; provided thou cleavest to it with unhesitating faith, and believest that that which is signified by the words of the testament is freely given to thee. If thou dost not so believe, then nowhere, never, by no works, by no efforts, wilt thou be able to appease thy conscience. For faith is the sole peace of conscience, and unbelief the sole disturber of conscience.
CONCERNING THE SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to the riches of His mercy has at least preserved this one sacrament in His Church uninjured and uncontaminated by the devices of men, and has made it free to all nations and to men of every class. He has not suffered it to be overwhelmed with the foul and impious monstrosities of avarice and superstition; doubtless having this purpose, that He would have little children, incapable of avarice and superstition, to be initiated into this sacrament, and to be sanctified by perfectly simple faith in His word. To such, even at the present day, baptism is of the highest advantage. If this sacrament had been intended to be given to adults and those of full age, it seems as if it could have hardly preserved its efficacy and its glory, in the presence of that tyranny of avarice and superstition which has supplanted all divine ordinances among us. In this case too, no doubt, fleshly wisdom would have invented its preparations, its worthinesses, its reservations, its restrictions, and other like nets for catching money; so that the water of baptism would be sold no cheaper than parchments are now.
Yet, though Satan has not been able to extinguish the virtue of baptism
in the case of little children, still he has had power to extinguish it
in all adults; so that there is scarcely any one nowadays who remembers
that he has been baptized, much less glories in it; so many other ways having
been found of obtaining remission of sins and going to heaven. Occasion
has been afforded to these opinions by that perilous saying of St. Jerome,
either misstated or misunderstood, in which he calls penitence the second
plank of safety after shipwreck; as if baptism were not penitence. Hence,
when men have fallen into sin, they despair of the first plank, or the ship,
as being no longer of any use, and begin to trust and depend only on the
second plank, that is, on penitence. Thence have sprung those
It was the duty of Bishops to remove all these abuses, and to make every
effort to recall Christians to the simplicity of baptism; that so they might
understand their own position, and what as Christians they ought to do.
But the one business of Bishops at the present day is to lead the people
as far as possible away from baptism and to plunge them all under the deluge
of their own tyranny; and thus, as the prophet says, to make the people
of Christ forget Him for ever. Oh wretched men who are called by the name
of Bishops! they not only do nothing and know nothing which Bishops ought,
but they are even ignorant what they ought to know and do. They fulfil the
words of Isaiah: “His watchmen are blind; they are all ignorant; they are
shepherds that cannot understand; they all look to their own way, every
one for his gain, from his quarter.” (
The first thing then we have to notice in baptism is the divine promise, which says: He who believes and is baptized shall be saved. This promise is to be infinitely preferred to the whole display of works, vows, religious orders, and whatever has been introduced by the invention of man. On this promise depends our whole salvation, and we must take heed to exercise faith in it, not doubting at all that we are saved, since we have been baptized. Unless this faith exists and is applied, baptism profits us nothing; nay, it is hurtful to us, not only at the time when it is received, but in the whole course of our after life. For unbelief of this kind charges the divine promise with falsehood; and to do this is the greatest of all sins. If we attempt this exercise of faith, we shall soon see how difficult a thing it is to believe this divine promise. For human weakness, conscious of its own sinfulness, finds it the most difficult thing in the world to believe that it is saved, or can be saved; and yet, unless it believes this, it cannot be saved, because it does not believe the divine truth which promises salvation.
This doctrine ought to have been studiously inculcated upon the people by preaching; this promise ought to have been perpetually reiterated; men ought to have been constantly reminded of their baptism; faith ought to have been called forth and nourished. When this divine promise has been once conferred upon us, its truth continues even to the hour of our death; and thus our faith in it ought never to be relaxed, but ought to be nourished and strengthened even till we die, by a perpetual recollection of the promise made to us in baptism. Thus, when we rise out of our sins and exercise penitence, we are simply reverting to the efficacy of baptism and to faith in it, whence we had fallen; and we return to the promise then made to us, but which we had abandoned through our sin. For the truth of the promise once made always abides, and is ready to stretch out the hand and receive us when we return. This, unless I mistake, is the meaning of that obscure saying, that baptism is the first of sacraments and the foundation of them all, without which we can possess none of the others.
Thus it will be of no little profit to a penitent, first of all to recall
to mind his own baptism, and to remember with confidence that divine promise
which he had deserted; rejoicing that he is still in a fortress of safety,
in that he has been baptized; and detesting his own wicked ingratitude in
having fallen away from the faith and truth of baptism. His heart will be
marvellously comforted, and encouraged to hope for mercy, if he fixes his
eyes upon that divine promise once made to him, which could not lie, and
which still continues entire, unchanged, and unchangeable by any sins of
his; as Paul says: “If we believe not, yet He abideth faithful; He cannot
deny Himself.” (
If the children of Israel, when returning to God in repentance, first of all called to mind their exodus from Egypt, and in remembrance of this turned back to God, who had brought them out—a remembrance which is so often inculcated on them by Moses, and referred to by David—how much more ought we to remember our exodus from Egypt, and in remembrance of it to return to Him who brought us out through the washing of the new birth. Now this we can do most advantageously of all in the sacrament of the bread and wine. So of old these three sacraments, penitence, baptism, and the bread, were often combined in the same act of worship; and the one added strength to the other. Thus we read of a certain holy virgin who, whenever she was tempted, relied on her baptism only for defence, saying, in the briefest words: “I am a Christian.” The enemy forthwith felt the efficacy of baptism, and of the faith which depended on the truth of a promising God, and fled from her.
We see then how rich a Christian, or baptized man, is; since, even if he would, he cannot lose his salvation by any sins however great, unless he refuses to believe; for no sins whatever can condemn him, but unbelief alone. All other sins, if faith in the divine promise made to the baptized man stands firm or is restored, are swallowed up in a moment through that same faith; yea, through the truth of God, because He cannot deny Himself, if thou confess Him, and cleave believingly to His promise. Whereas contrition, and confession of sins, and satisfaction for sins, and every effort that can be devised by men, will desert thee at thy need, and will make thee more miserable than ever, if thou forgettest this divine truth and puffest thyself up with such things as these. For whatever work is wrought apart from faith in the truth of God is vanity and vexation of spirit.
We also see how perilous and false an idea it is that penitence is a
second plank of refuge after shipwreck; and how pernicious an error it is
to suppose that the virtue of baptism has been brought to an end by sin,
and that this ship has been dashed to pieces. That ship remains one, solid,
and indestructible, and can never be broken up into different planks. In
it all are conveyed who are carried to the port of salvation, since it is
the truth of God giving promises in the
What profit then is there in writing so much about baptism, and yet not teaching faith in the promise? All the sacraments were instituted for the purpose of nourishing faith, and yet so far are they from attaining this object, that men are even found impious enough to assert that a man ought not to be sure of the remission of sins, or of the grace of the sacraments. By this impious doctrine they deprive the whole world of its senses, and utterly extinguish, or at least bring into bondage that sacrament of baptism, in which the first glory of our conscience stands. Meanwhile they senselessly persecute wretched souls with their contritions, their anxious confessions, their circumstances, satisfactions, works, and an infinity of such trifles. Let us then read with caution, or rather despise the Master of Sentences (Book iv.) with all his followers; who, when they write their best, write only about the matter and form of the sacraments, and so handle only the dead and perishing letter of those sacraments, while they do not even touch upon their spirit, life, and use; that is, the truth of the divine promise, and faith on our part.
See then that thou be not deceived by the display of works, and by the
fallacies of human traditions, and so wrong the truth of God and thy own
faith. If thou wilt be saved, thou must begin by faith in the sacraments,
without any works. Thy faith will be followed by these very works, but thou
must not hold faith cheap, for it is itself the most excellent and most
difficult of all works, and by it alone thou wilt be saved, even if thou
wert compelled to be destitute of all other works. For it is a work of God,
not of man, as Paul teaches. All
From what has been said we may clearly distinguish the difference between man the minister and God the Author of baptism. Man baptizes and does not baptize; he baptizes, because he performs the work of dipping the baptized person; he does not baptize, because in this work he does not act upon his own authority, but in the place of God. Hence we ought to receive baptism from the hand of man just as if Christ Himself, nay, God Himself, were baptizing us with His own hands. For it is not a man’s baptism, but that of Christ and God; though we receive it by the hand of a man. Even so any other creature which we enjoy through the hand of another is really only God’s. Beware then of making any such distinction in baptism, as to attribute the outward rite to man, and the inward blessing to God. Attribute both of them to God alone, and consider the person of him who confers baptism in no other light than as the vicarious instrument of God, by means of which the Lord sitting in heaven dips thee in the water with His own hands, and promises thee remission of sins upon earth, speaking to thee with the voice of a man through the mouth of His minister.
The very words of the minister tell thee this, when he says: “I baptize
thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.
Amen.” He does not say: “I baptize thee in my name;” but says, as it were:
“What I do, I do not by my own authority, but in the place and in the name
of God; and thou must look upon it as if the Lord Himself did it in visible
shape. The Author and the minister are different, but the work of both is
the same; nay, rather it is that of the Author alone through my ministry.”
In my judgment the expression, “In the name,” relates to the person of the
Author, so that not only is the name of the Lord brought forward and invoked
in the doing of the work, but the work itself is performed, as being that
of another, in the name and in the place of another. By the like figure
Christ says: “Many shall come in my name.” (
I most gladly adopt this view; because it is a thing most full of consolation, and an effective aid to faith, to know that we have been baptized, not by a man, but by the very Trinity Itself through a man, who acts towards us in Its name. This brings to an end that idle contention which is carried on about the “form” of baptism—as they call the words themselves—the Greeks saying: “Let the servant of Christ be baptized;” the Latins: “I baptize.” Others also, in their pedantic trifling, condemn the use of the expression: “I baptize thee in the name of Jesus Christ”—though it is certain that the Apostles baptized in this form, as we read in the Acts of the Apostles—and will have it that no other form is valid than the following: “I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.” But they strive in vain; they prove nothing; they only bring forward their own dreams. In whatever manner baptism is administered, provided it is administered, not in the name of a man, but in the name of the Lord, it truly saves us. Nay, I have no doubt that if a man received baptism in the name of the Lord, even from a wicked minister who did not give it in the name of the Lord, he would still be truly baptized in the name of the Lord. For the efficacy of baptism depends not so much on the faith of him who confers it, as of him who receives it. Thus we read an instance of a certain player who was baptized in jest. These and similar narrow questions and disputes have been raised for us by those who attribute nothing to faith, and everything to works and ceremonies. On the contrary, we owe nothing to ceremonies, and everything to faith alone, which makes us free in spirit from all these scruples and fancies.
Another thing which belongs to baptism is the sign or sacrament, which
is that dipping into water whence it takes its name. For in Greek to baptize
signifies to dip, and baptism is a dipping. We have said already that, side
by side with the divine promises, signs also are given us, to represent
by a figure the meaning of the words of the promise; or, as the moderns
say, the sacrament has an effectual significance. What that significance
is we shall see. Very many have thought that in the word and the water there
is some occult spiritual virtue, which works the grace of God in the soul
of
We must carefully avoid and fly from these doctrines, for they are impious and unbelieving, repugnant to faith and to the nature of the sacraments. It is a mistake to suppose that the sacraments of the new law differ from the sacraments of the old law as regards the efficacy of their significance. Both are on an equality in their significance; for the same God who now saves us by baptism and the bread, saved Abel by his sacrifice, Noah by the Ark, Abraham by circumcision, and all the other Patriarchs by their own proper signs. There is no difference then between a sacrament of the old and of the new law, as regards their significance; provided we understand by the old law all the dealings of God with the Patriarchs and other Fathers in the time of the law. For those signs which were given to the Patriarchs and Fathers are completely distinct from the legal figures which Moses instituted in his law; such as the rites of the priesthood, in relation to vestments, vessels, food, houses, and the like. These are as different as possible, not only from the sacraments of the new law, but also from those signs which God gave from time to time to the Fathers who lived under the law; such as that given to Gideon in the fleece, to Manoah in his sacrifice; such also as that which Isaiah offered to Ahaz. In all these cases alike, some promise was given which required faith in God.
In this then the figures of the law differ from signs new or old, that
the figures of the law have no word of promise annexed to them, requiring
faith, and therefore are not signs
Thus it is not baptism which justifies any man, or is of any advantage;
but faith in that word of promise to which baptism is added; for this justifies,
and fulfils the meaning of baptism. For faith is the submerging of the old
man, and the emerging of the new man. Hence it cannot be that the new sacraments
differ from the ancient sacraments, for they both alike have divine promises
and the same spirit of faith; but they differ incomparably from the ancient
figures, on account of the word of promise, which is the sole and
most effective means of difference. Thus at the present day the pomp of
vestments, localities, meats, and an infinite variety of ceremonies, doubtless
figure excellent works to be fulfilled in the spirit; and yet, since no
word of divine promise is connected with them, they can in no way be compared
with the signs of baptism and the bread. Nor can they justify men nor profit
them in any way, since their fulfilment lies in the very practice or performance
of them without faith; for when they are done or performed, they are fulfilled.
Thus the Apostle speaks of those things, “which all are to perish
Thus it cannot be true that there is inherent in the Sacraments a power effectual to produce justification, or that they are efficacious signs of grace. These things are said in ignorance of the divine promise and to the great detriment of faith; unless indeed we call them efficacious in this sense, that, if along with them there be unhesitating faith, they do confer grace most certainly and most effectually. But that it is not this kind of efficacy which those writers attribute to them is evident from this, that they assert them to be profitable to all men, even the wicked and unbelieving, provided they put no obstacle in the way; as if unbelief itself were not the most persistent of all obstacles, and the most hostile to grace. Thus they have endeavoured to make out of the sacrament a precept, and out of faith a work. For if a sacrament confers grace on me, merely because I receive it, then it is certainly by my own work and not by faith that I obtain grace; nor do I apprehend any promise in the sacrament, but only a sign instituted and commanded by God. It is evident from this how utterly the sacraments are misunderstood by these theologians of the Sentences, inasmuch as they make no account either of faith or of the promise in the sacraments, but cleave only to the sign and the use of the sign, and carry us away from faith to works, from the word to the sign. Thus, as I have said, they have not only brought the sacraments into bondage, but, as far as in them lay, have entirely done away with them.
Let us then open our eyes, and learn to look more to the word than the
sign, more to faith than to the work or use of the sign; and let us understand
that wherever there is a divine promise, there faith is required; and that
both of these are so necessary that neither can be of any effect without
the other. We can neither believe unless we have a promise, nor is the promise
effectual unless it is believed; while if these two act reciprocally, they
produce a real and sure efficacy in the sacraments. Hence to seek efficacy
in the sacrament independently of the promise and of faith is to strive
in vain and to fall into condemnation. Thus Christ says: “He that
Baptism then signifies two things, death and resurrection; that is, full
and complete justification. When the minister dips the child into the water,
this signifies death; when he draws him out again, this signifies life.
Thus Paul explains the matter: “Therefore we are buried with him by baptism
into death; that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory
of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.” (
When then the washing away of sins is attributed to baptism, it is rightly
so attributed; but the meaning of the phrase is too slight and weak to fully
express baptism, which is rather a symbol of death and resurrection. For
this reason I could wish that the baptized should be totally immersed, according
to the meaning of the word and the signification of the mystery; not that
I think it necessary to do so, but that it would be well that so complete
and perfect a thing as baptism should have its sign also in completeness
and perfection, even as it was doubtless instituted by Christ. For a sinner
needs not so much to be washed as to die, that he may be altogether renewed
into another creature, and that there may thus be a correspondence in him
to the death and resurrection of Christ along with whom he dies and rises
again in
Here again we see that the sacrament of baptism, even in respect to the sign, is not the mere business of a moment, but has a lasting character. For though the transaction itself passes quickly, the thing signified by it lasts even until death, yea, till the resurrection at the last day. For as long as we live we are always doing that which is signified by baptism; that is, we are dying and rising again. We are dying, I say, not only in our affections and spiritually, by renouncing the sins and vanities of the world, but in very deed we are beginning to leave this bodily life and to apprehend the future life, so that there is a real (as they call it) and also a bodily passing out of this world to the Father.
We must therefore keep clear of the error of those who have reduced the
effect of baptism to such small and slender dimensions that, while they
say that grace is infused by it, they assert that this grace is afterwards,
so to speak, effused by sin; and that we must then go to heaven by some
other way, as if baptism had now became absolutely useless. Do not thou
judge thus, but understand that the significance of baptism is such that
thou mayest live and die in it; and that neither by penitence nor by any
other way canst thou do aught but return to the effect of baptism, and do
afresh what thou wert baptized in order to do, and what thy baptism signified.
Baptism never loses its effect, unless in desperation thou refuse to return
to salvation. Thou mayst wander away for a time from the sign, but the sign
does not on that account lose its effect. Thus thou hast been baptized once
for all sacramentally, but thou needest continually to be baptized by faith,
and must continually die and continually live. Baptism hath swallowed up
thy whole body and given it forth again; and so the substance of baptism
ought to swallow up thy whole life, in body and in soul, and to give it
back in the last day, clothed in the robe of brightness and immortality.
Thus we are never without the sign as well as the substance of baptism;
We see then that whatever we do in this life tending to the mortifying of the flesh and the vivifying of the spirit is connected with baptism; and that the sooner we are set free from this life, the more speedily we fulfil the meaning of our baptism; and the greater the sufferings we endure, the more happily do we answer the purpose of baptism. The Church was at its happiest in those days when martyrs were daily put to death and counted as sheep for the slaughter; for then the virtue of baptism reigned in the Church with full power, though now we have quite lost sight of it for the multitude of human works and doctrine. The whole life which we live ought to be a baptism, and to fulfil the sign or sacrament of baptism; since we have been set free from all other things and given up to baptism alone, that is, to death and resurrection.
To whom can we assign the blame that this glorious liberty of ours and
this knowledge of baptism are nowadays in bondage, except only to the tyranny
of the Roman Pontiff? He most of all men, as becomes a chief shepherd, ought
to have been the preacher and the asserter of this liberty and this knowledge;
as Paul says: “Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ,
and stewards of the mysteries of God.” (
I say then, neither Pope, nor bishop, nor any man whatever
This wicked and flagitious tyranny is aided by the disciples of the Pope,
who distort and pervert to this end the saying of Christ: “He who heareth
you heareth me.” They swell out these words into a support for their own
traditions; whereas this saying was addressed by Christ to the Apostles
when they were going forth to preach the gospel, and therefore ought to
be understood as referring to the gospel alone. These men, however, leave
the gospel out of sight, and make this saying fit in with their own inventions.
Christ says: “My sheep hear my voice, but they know not the voice of strangers.”
For this cause the gospel was bequeathed to us, that the pontiffs might
utter the voice of Christ; but they utter their own voice, and are determined
to be heard. The Apostle also says of himself that he was not sent to baptize,
but to preach the gospel; and thus no man is bound to receive the traditions
of the pontiff, or to listen to him, except when he teaches the gospel and
Christ; and he himself ought to teach nothing but the freest faith. Since,
however, Christ says: “he who hears you hears me,” why does not the Pope
also hear others? Christ did not say to Peter alone: “he who hears thee.”
Lastly, where there is true faith, there must also of necessity be the word
of faith. Why then does not the unbelieving Pope listen
Others however, far more shamelessly, arrogate to the Pope the power
of making laws; arguing from the words: “Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth
shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall
be loosed in heaven.” (
I cry aloud on behalf of liberty and conscience, and I proclaim with
confidence that no kind of law can with any justice be imposed on Christians,
whether by men or by angels, except so far as they themselves will; for
we are free from all. If such laws are imposed on us, we ought so to endure
them as still to preserve the consciousness of our liberty. We ought to
know and stedfastly to protest that a wrong is being done to that liberty,
though we may bear and even glory in that wrong; taking care neither to
justify the tyrant nor to murmur against the tyranny. “Who is he that
Behold then the wretchedness of our bondage. “How doth the city sit solitary,
that was full of people! How is she become as a widow! She that was great
among the nations, and princess among the provinces, how is she become tributary!
Among all her lovers she hath none to comfort her; all her friends have
dealt treacherously with her.” (
In opposition to what I have said, an argument will perhaps be drawn
from the baptism of infants, who cannot receive the promise of God, or have
faith in their baptism; and it will be
A question has been raised whether a child yet unborn, but of which only a hand or a foot appears, can be baptized. On this point I would give no hasty judgment, and I confess my own ignorance. Nor do I know whether the reason on which they base their opinion is sufficient, namely, that the whole soul exists in every part of the body; for it is not the soul, but the body, which is outwardly baptized. On the other hand, I cannot pronounce that, as some assert, he who has not yet been born, cannot be born again; though it is a very strong argument. I leave this question to the decision of the Spirit, and meanwhile would have every man to be fully persuaded in his own mind.
I will add one thing, of which I wish I could persuade every one; that
is, that all vows, whether those of religious orders, or of pilgrimages,
or of works of any kind, should be entirely done away with, or at least
avoided, and that we should remain in the liberty of baptism, full as it
is of religious observances and of good works. It is impossible to express
to what an
It would be well either to do away by a general edict with all vows, especially those which are perpetual, and to recall all men to their baptismal vows, or at least to admonish all to take no vow rashly; and not only to invite no vows, but to place delays and difficulties in the way of their being taken. We make an ample vow at baptism, a greater one than we can fulfil; and we shall have enough to do if we give all our efforts to this alone. But now we compass sea and land to make many proselytes; we fill the world with priests, monks, and nuns; and we imprison all these in perpetual vows. We shall find those who will argue on this point, and lay it down that works performed under the sanction of a vow are better than those performed independently of vows, and will be preferred in heaven and meet with far higher reward. Blind and impious Pharisees! who measure righteousness and holiness by the greatness and number of works, or by some other quality in them; while in God’s sight they are measured by faith alone; since in His sight there is no difference between works, except so far as there is a difference in faith.
By this inflated talk wicked men create a great opinion of their own
inventions, and puff up human works, in order to allure the senseless multitude,
who are easily led by a specious show of works; to the great ruin of faith,
forgetfulness of baptism, and injury to Christian liberty. As a vow is a
sort of law and requires a work, it follows that, as vows are multiplied,
so laws and works are multiplied; and by the multiplication of these, faith
is extinguished, and the liberty of baptism is brought into bondage. Not
content with these impious allurements, others go further, and assert that
entrance into a religious order is like a new baptism, which may be successively
Wherefore God also, who is froward with the froward, resolving to avenge
Himself on the pride and unthankfulness of these devotees, causes them either
to fail in keeping their vows, or to keep them with great labour and to
continue immersed in them, never becoming acquainted with the grace of faith
and of baptism. As their spirit is not right with God, He permits them to
continue to the end in their hypocrisy, and to become at length a laughing-stock
to the whole world, always following after righteousness, and never attaining
to it; so that they fulfil that saying: “Their land also is full of idols.”
(
I should certainly not forbid or object to any vow which a man may make
of his own private choice. I do not wish altogether to condemn or depreciate
vows; but my advice would be altogether against the public establishment
or confirmation of any such mode of life. It is enough that every man should
be at liberty to make private vows at his own peril; but that a public system
of living under the constraint of vows should be inculcated, I consider
to be a thing pernicious to the Church and to all simple souls. In the first
place, it is not a little repugnant to the Christian life, inasmuch as a
vow is a kind of ceremonial law, and a matter of human tradition or invention;
from all which the Church has been set free by baptism, since the Christian
is bound by no law, except that of God. Moreover there is no example of
it in the Scriptures, especially of the vow of perpetual chastity, obedience,
and poverty. Now a vow of which we have no example in the Scriptures is
a perilous one, which ought to be
I greatly fear, however, that these systems of living under vows in the
religious, are of the number of those things of which the Apostle foretold:
“Speaking lies in hypocrisy; forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain
from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving.” (
In this matter let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. I shall
carry out my undertaking, and speak on behalf of the liberty of the Church
and of the glory of baptism; and I shall state for the general benefit what
I have learnt under the teaching of the Spirit. And first I counsel those
who are in high places in the Church to do away with all those vows and
the practice of living under vows, or, at the least, not to approve or extol
them. If they will not do this, then I earnestly advise all who desire to
make their salvation the safer—particularly growing youths and young men—to
keep aloof from all vows, especially from such as are extensive and life-long.
I give this advice in the first place because this mode of life, as I have
already said, has no evidence or example in the Scriptures, but rests only
on the bulls of the pontiffs, who are but men; and secondly, because it
tends to
Hence I advise no man, yea, I dissuade every man from entering into the
priesthood or any religious order, unless he be so fortified with knowledge
as to understand that, however sacred and lofty may be the works of priests
or of the religious orders, they differ not at all in the sight of God from
the works of a husbandman labouring in his field, or of a woman attending
to her household affairs, but that in His eyes all things are measured by
faith alone; as it is written: “In all thy work believe with the faith of
thy soul, for this is the keeping of the commandments of God.” (
From this we perceive two conspicuous errors on the part of the Roman
Pontiff. The first is, that he gives dispensations in the matter of vows,
and does this as if he alone possessed authority beyond all other Christians.
So far does the rashness
The Pope commits a second great error again, in decreeing that the bond
of marriage may be broken through, if one of the parties, even against the
will of the other, desires to enter a monastery, provided the marriage has
not yet been consummated. What devil inspires this portentous decree of
the Pope? God commands men to keep faith and observe truth towards one another,
and that every man should bring gifts out of his own substance; for He hates
robbery for burnt-offering, as He declares by the mouth of Isaiah. Now husband
and wife owe fidelity to each other by their compact, a fidelity which can
be dissolved by no law. Neither can say: “I belong to myself,” or can do
without robbery whatever is done against the will of the other. Else why
not also have a rule that a man who is in debt, if he enter into a religious
order, shall be freed from his debts, and be at liberty to deny his bond?
Ye blind! ye blind! Which is greater—good faith, which is a command of God,
or a vow, invented and chosen by men? Art thou a shepherd of souls, O Pope?
Are ye doctors of sacred theology, who teach in this way? Why do ye teach
thus? Because ye extol a vow as being a better work than marriage; but it
is not faith, which itself alone can magnify anything, that ye
I cannot doubt then that from such vows as it is right to make, neither men nor angels can give a dispensation. But I have not been able to convince myself that all the vows made in these days fall under the head of rightful vows; such as that ridiculous piece of folly, when parents devote their child yet unborn, or an infant, to a life of religion or to perpetual chastity. Nay it is certain that this is no rightful vow; it appears to be a mockery of God, since the parents vow what it is in no wise in their power to perform. I come now to members of the religious orders. The more I think of their three vows, the less I understand them, and the more I wonder how the exaction of such vows has grown upon us. Still less do I understand at what period of life such vows can be taken, so as to be legitimate and valid. In this all are agreed, that such vows, taken before the age of puberty, are not valid. And yet in this matter they deceive a great number of youths, who know as little of their own age as of what it is they are vowing. The age of puberty is not looked to when the vows are taken, but consent is supposed to follow afterwards, and the professed are held in bondage and devoured by dreadful scruples of conscience; as if a vow in itself void could become valid by the progress of time.
To me it seems folly that any limit to a legitimate vow should be laid
down by others, who cannot lay one down in their own case. Nor do I see
why a vow made in a man’s eighteenth year should be valid, but not if made
in his tenth or twelfth year. It is not enough to say that in his eighteenth
year a man feels the impulses of the flesh. What if he scarcely feels them
in his twentieth or thirtieth year; or feels them more strongly in his thirtieth
year than in his twentieth? Why, again, is not a similar limitation placed
on the vows of poverty and obedience? What time shall we assign for a man
to feel himself avaricious or proud, when even the most spiritually minded
men have a difficulty in detecting these affections in themselves? There
will never be any sure and legitimate vow, until we shall have become thoroughly
spiritual, and so have no need of vows. We see then that vows are most uncertain
and perilous things. It would be a
CONCERNING THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE
In this third part I shall speak of the sacrament of penance. By the tracts and disputations which I have published on this subject I have given offence to very many, and have amply expressed my own opinions. I must now briefly repeat these statements, in order to unveil the tyranny which attacks us on this point as unsparingly as in the sacrament of the bread. In these two sacraments gain and lucre find a place, and therefore the avarice of the shepherds has raged to an incredible extent against the sheep of Christ; while even baptism, as we have seen in speaking of vows, has been sadly obscured among adults, that the purposes of avarice might be served.
The first and capital evil connected with this sacrament is, that they
have totally done away with the sacrament itself, leaving not even a vestige
of it. Whereas this, like the other two sacraments, consists of the word
of the divine promise on one side and of our faith on the other, they have
overthrown both of these. They have adapted to the purposes of their own
tyranny Christ’s word of promise, when He says: “Whatsoever thou shalt bind
on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth
shall be loosed in heaven” (
It was not principalities, powers, and dominions that Christ instituted
in His Church, but a ministry, as we learn from the words of the Apostle:
“Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and stewards
of the mysteries of God.” (
Thus also when Christ says: “Take, eat, this is my body which is given
for you; this is the cup in my blood,” He means to call forth faith in those
who eat, that their conscience may be strengthened by faith in these words,
and that they may feel
Not content with this, our Babylon has so utterly done away with faith
as to declare with shameless front that it is not necessary in this sacrament;
nay, in her antichristian wickedness, she pronounces it a heresy to assert
the necessity of faith. What more is there that that tyranny could do, and
has not done? Verily “by the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down; yea,
we wept, when we remembered Zion. We hanged our harps upon the willows in
the midst thereof.” (
In the first place, they have so taught contrition as to make it prior
to faith in the promise, and far better as not being a work of faith, but
a merit; nay, they make no mention of faith. They stick fast in works and
in examples taken from the Scriptures, where we read of many who obtained
pardon through humility and contrition of heart, but they never think of
the faith which wrought this contrition and sorrow of heart; as it is written
concerning the Ninevites: “The people of Nineveh believed God, and proclaimed
a fast, and put on sackcloth.” (
Hence, although there is something in the teaching of those who assert
that contrition is to be brought about by the collection—as they call it—and
contemplation of our own sins, still theirs is a perilous and perverse doctrine,
because they do not first teach the origin and cause of contrition, namely,
the unshakeable truth of the Divine threatenings and promises, in order
to call forth faith; that so men might understand that they ought to look
with much more earnest attention to the truth of God, by which to be humbled
and raised up again, than to the multitude of their own sins, which, if
they be looked at apart from the truth of God, are more likely to renew
and increase the desire for sin, than to produce contrition. I say nothing
of that insurmountable chaos of labour which they impose upon us, namely,
that we are to frame a contrition for all our sins, for this is impossible.
We can know but a small part of our sins; indeed even our good works will
be found to be sins; as it is written: “Enter not into judgment with thy
servant: for in thy sight shall no man living be justified.” (
Beware then of trusting in thine own contrition, or attributing remission
of sins to thy own sorrow. It is not because
Contrition, though it has been completely exposed to wicked and pestilent
doctrines, has yet given less occasion to tyranny and the love of gain.
But confession and satisfaction have been turned into the most noted workshops
for lucre and ambition. To speak first of confession. There is no doubt
that confession of sins is necessary, and is commanded by God. “They were
baptized of John in Jordan, confessing their sins.” (
The secret confession, however, which is now practised, though it cannot
be proved from Scripture, is in my opinion highly satisfactory, and useful
or even necessary. I could not wish it not to exist; nay, I rejoice that
it does exist in the Church of Christ, for it is the one great remedy for
afflicted consciences; when, after laying open our conscience to a brother,
and unveiling all the evil which lay hid there, we receive from the mouth
of that brother the word of consolation
Although I exhort men to endure the violence of these reservers, even
as Christ bids us to endure all the tyrannical conduct of men, and teaches
us to obey such extortioners; still I neither admit nor believe that they
have any right of reservation. By no jot or tittle can they prove this;
while I can prove the contrary. In the first place, if, in speaking of public
offences, Christ says that we have gained our brother, if he hears us when
told of his fault, and that he is not to be brought before the Church, unless
he has refused to hear us, and that offences may thus be set right between
brethren; how much more true will it be concerning private offences, that
the sin is taken away, when brother has voluntarily confessed it to brother,
so that he need not bring it before the Church,
From all this I do not hesitate to say that whosoever voluntarily confesses
his sins privately, in the presence of any brother, or, when told of his
faults, asks pardon and amends his life, is absolved from his secret sins,
since Christ has manifestly bestowed the power of absolution on every believer
in Him, with whatever violence the pontiffs may rage against this truth.
Add also this little argument, that, if any reservation of hidden sins were
valid, and there could be no salvation unless they were remitted, the greatest
hindrance to salvation would lie in those things which I have mentioned
above—even those good works and idolatries which we are taught at the present
day by the pontiffs. While, if these most weighty matters are not a hindrance,
with how much less reason are those lighter offences so foolishly reserved!
It is by the ignorance and blindness of the pastors that these portents
are wrought in the Church. Wherefore I would warn these princes of Babylon
and bishops of Beth-aven to abstain from reserving cases of any kind whatever,
but to allow the freest permission to hear confessions of secret sins to
all brethren and sisters; so that the sinner may reveal his sin to whom
he will, with the object of seeking pardon and consolation, that is, the
word of Christ uttered by the mouth of his neighbour. They effect nothing
by their rash presumption, but to ensnare needlessly the consciences of
the weak, to
To these evils they have added circumstances—mothers, daughters, sisters, relatives, branches, fruits of sins, all devised at complete leisure by the most subtle of men, who have set up, even in the matter of sins, a sort of tree of consanguinity and affinity. So fertile of results are ignorance and impiety; for these devices of some worthless fellow have passed into public law, as has happened in many other cases. So vigilantly do the shepherds watch over the Church of Christ, that whatever dreams of superstition or of new works these senseless devotees indulge, they forthwith bring forward, and dress them up with indulgences, and fortify them with bulls. So far are they from prohibiting these things, and protecting the simplicity of faith and liberty for the people of God; for what has liberty to do with the tyranny of Babylon?
I should advise the total neglect of all that concerns circumstances. Among Christians there is but one circumstance, and that is, that a brother has sinned. No character is to be compared to Christian brotherhood; nor has the observation of places, times, days, and persons, or any other such superstitious exaggeration, any effect but to magnify things which are nothing, at the expense of those things which are everything. As if there could be anything greater or more weighty than the glory of Christian brotherhood, they so tie us down to places and days and persons, that the name of brother is held cheap, and instead of being freemen we are slaves in bondage—we to whom all days, places, persons, and all other outward things, are equal.
How unworthily they have treated the matter of satisfaction. I have abundantly
shown in the case of indulgences. They have abused it notably, to the destruction
of Christians in body and in soul. In the first place, they have so taught
it that the people have not understood the real meaning of satisfaction,
which is a change of life. Furthermore, they so urge it and represent it
as necessary, that they leave no room for faith in Christ; but men’s consciences
are most wretchedly
Some have even proceeded to such a length in framing engines of despair
for souls, as to lay it down that all sins, the satisfaction enjoined for
which has been neglected, must be gone over afresh in confession. What will
not such men dare, men born for this end, to bring everything ten times
over into bondage? Moreover, I should like to know how many people there
are who are fully persuaded that they are in a state of salvation, and are
making satisfaction for their sins, when they murmur over the prayers enjoined
by the priest with their lips alone, and meanwhile do not even think of
any amendment of life. They believe that by one moment of contrition and
confession their whole life is changed, and that there remains merit enough
over and above to make satisfaction for their past sins. How should they
know better, when they are taught nothing better? There is not a thought
here of mortification of the flesh; the example of Christ goes for nothing;
who, when he absolved the woman taken in adultery, said to her: “Go, and
sin no more;” thereby laying on her the cross of mortification of the flesh.
No slight occasion has been given to these perverted ideas by our absolving
sinners before they have completed their satisfaction; whence it comes that
they are more anxious about completing their satisfaction, which is a thing
that lasts, than about contrition, which they think has been gone through
in the act of confession. On the
OF CONFIRMATION.
It is surprising that it should have entered any one’s mind to make a
Sacrament of Confirmation out of that laying on of hands which Christ applied
to little children, and by which the apostles bestowed the Holy Spirit,
ordained presbyters, and healed the sick; as the Apostle writes to Timothy:
“Lay hands suddenly on no man.” (
I do not say this, because I condemn the seven sacraments, but because
I deny that they can be proved from the Scriptures. I wish there were in
the Church such a laying on of hands as there was in the time of the Apostles,
whether we chose to call it confirmation or healing. As it is, however,
none of it remains, except so much as we have ourselves invented in order
to regulate the duties of the bishops, that they may not be entirely without
work in the Church. For when they had left the sacraments which involved
labour, along with the word, to their inferiors, as being beneath their
attention (on
At present, however, we are enquiring into the sacraments of divine institution;
and I can find no reason for reckoning confirmation among these. To constitute
a sacrament we require in the very first place a word of divine promise,
on which faith may exercise itself. But we do not read that Christ ever
gave any promise respecting confirmation, although he himself laid hands
upon many, and although he mentions among the signs that should follow them
that believe: “They shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.”
(
OF MATRIMONY.
It is not only without any warrant of Scripture that matrimony is considered
a sacrament, but it has been turned into a mere mockery by the very same
traditions which vaunt it as a sacrament. Let us look a little into this.
I have said that in every sacrament there is contained a word of divine
promise, which must be believed in by him who receives the
Furthermore, since matrimony has existed from the beginning of the world, and still continues even among unbelievers, there are no reasons why it should be called a sacrament of the new law, and of the Church alone. The marriages of the patriarchs were not less marriages than ours, nor are those of unbelievers less real than those of believers; and yet no one calls them a sacrament. Moreover there are among believers wicked husbands and wives, worse than any Gentiles. Why should we then say there is a sacrament here, and not among the Gentiles? Shall we so trifle with baptism and the Church as to say, like those who rave about the temporal power existing only in the Church, that matrimony is a sacrament only in the Church? Such assertions are childish and ridiculous, and by them we expose our ignorance and rashness to the laughter of unbelievers.
It will be asked however: Does not the Apostle say that “they two shall
be one flesh,” and that “this is a great sacrament;” and will you contradict
the plain words of the Apostle? I reply that this argument is a very dull
one, and proceeds from a careless and thoughtless reading of the original.
Throughout the holy Scriptures this word “sacramentum,” has not the
meaning in which we employ it, but an opposite one. For it everywhere signifies,
not the sign of a sacred thing, but a sacred thing which is secret and hidden.
Thus Paul says: “Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ,
and stewards of the mysteries (that is, sacraments) of God.” (
Thus the Apostle calls Christ himself a “sacrament,” saying: “And without
controversy great is the sacrament (that is, mystery) of godliness. God
was manifest in the flesh, justified in the spirit, seen of angels, preached
unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.” (
Thus sacrament and mystery, in Paul’s meaning, are the very wisdom of
the Spirit, hidden in a mystery, as he says: “Which none of the princes
of this world knew; for had they known it, they would not have crucified
the Lord of glory.” (
Christ then and the Church are a mystery, that is, a great and hidden
thing, which may indeed and ought to be figured by matrimony, as in a sort
of real allegory; but it does not follow that matrimony ought to be called
a sacrament. The heavens figuratively represent the apostles; the sun Christ;
the waters nations; but these things are not therefore sacraments; for in
all these cases the institution is wanting and the divine promise; and these
it is which make a sacrament complete. Hence Paul is either, of his own
spirit, applying to Christ the words used in Genesis concerning matrimony,
or else he teaches that, in their general sense, the spiritual marriage
of Christ is also there declared, saying: “Even as the Lord cherisheth the
Church; for we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.
For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined
unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery,
but I speak concerning Christ and the Church.” (
I admit, indeed, that even under the old law, nay, from the beginning
of the world, there was a sacrament of penitence; but the new promise of
penitence and the gift of the keys are peculiar to the new law. As we have
baptism in the place of circumcision, so we now have the keys in the place
of sacrifices or other signs of penitence. I have said above that, at different
times, the same God has given different promises and different signs for
the remission of sins and the salvation of men, while yet it is the same
grace that all have received. As it is written: “We, having the same spirit
of faith, believe, and
Let then matrimony be a figure of Christ and the Church, not however a sacrament divinely instituted, but one invented in the Church by men led astray by their ignorance alike of things and of words. So far as this invention is not injurious to the faith, it must be borne with in charity; just as many other devices of human weakness and ignorance are borne with in the Church, so long as they are not injurious to faith and to the sacred writings. But we are now contending for the firmness and purity of faith and of Scripture; lest, if we affirm anything to be contained in the sacred writings and in the articles of our faith, and it is afterwards proved not to be so contained, we should expose our faith to mockery, be found ignorant of our own special business, cause scandal to our adversaries and to the weak, and fail to exalt the authority of holy Scripture. For we must make the widest possible distinction between those things which have been delivered to us from God in the sacred writings, and those which have been invented in the Church by men, of however eminent authority from their holiness and their learning.
Thus far I have spoken of matrimony itself. But what shall we say of
those impious human laws by which this divinely appointed manner of life
has been entangled and tossed up and down? Good God! it is horrible to look
upon the temerity of the tyrants of Rome, who thus, according to their own
caprices, at one time annul marriages and at another time enforce them.
Is the human race given over to their caprice for nothing but to be mocked
and abused in every way, and that these men
There is a book in general circulation and held in no slight esteem,
which has been confusedly put together out of all the dregs and filth of
human traditions, and entitled the Angelic Summary; while it is really a
more than diabolical summary. In this book, among an infinite number of
monstrous statements, by which confessors are supposed to be instructed,
while they are in truth most ruinously confused, eighteen impediments to
matrimony are enumerated. If we look at these with the just and free eye
of faith, we shall see that the writer is of the number of those of whom
the Apostle foretold that they should “give heed to seducing spirits and
doctrines of devils; speaking lies in hypocrisy; forbidding to marry.” (
I rejoice, however, that these disgraceful laws have at length attained the glory they deserve, in that by their aid the men of Rome have nowadays become common traders. And what do they sell? The shame of men and women; a merchandise worthy of these traffickers, who surpass all that is most sordid and disgusting in their avarice and impiety. There is not one of those impediments, which cannot be removed at the intercession of Mammon; so that these laws seem to have been made for no other purpose than to be nets for money and snares for souls in the hands of those greedy and rapacious Nimrods; and in order that we might see in the holy place, in the Church of God, the abomination of the public sale of the shame and ignominy of both sexes. A business worthy of our pontiffs, and fit to be carried on by men who, with the utmost disgrace and baseness, are given over to a reprobate mind, instead of that ministry of the gospel which, in their avarice and ambition, they despise.
But what am I to say or do? If I were to enter upon every particular, this treatise would extend beyond all bounds; for the subject is in the utmost confusion, so that no one can tell where he is to begin, how far he is to go, or where he is to stop. This I know, that no commonwealth can be prosperously administered by mere laws. If the magistrate is a wise man, he will govern more happily under the guidance of nature than by any laws; if he is not a wise man, he will effect nothing but mischief by laws, since he will not know how to use them, or to adapt them to the wants of the time. In public matters, therefore, it is of more importance that good and wise men should be at the head of affairs, than that any laws should be passed; for such men will themselves be the best of laws, since they will judge cases of all kinds with energy and justice. If, together with natural wisdom, there be learning in divine things, then it is clearly superfluous and mischievous to have any written laws; and charity above all things has absolutely no need of laws. I say, however, and do all that in me lies, admonishing and entreating all priests and friars, if they see any impediment with which the Pope can dispense, but which is not mentioned in Scripture, to consider all those marriages valid which have been contracted, in whatever way, contrary to ecclesiastical or pontifical laws. Let them arm themselves with the Divine law which says: What God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. The union of husband and wife is one of divine right, and holds good, however much against the laws of men it may have taken place, and the laws of men ought to give place to it, without any scruple. For if a man is to leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife, how much more ought he to tread under foot the frivolous and unjust laws of men, that he may cleave to his wife? If the Pope, or any bishop or official, dissolves any marriage, because it has been contracted contrary to the papal laws, he is an antichrist, does violence to nature, and is guilty of treason against God; because this sentence stands: Whom God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
Besides this, man has no right to make such laws, and the liberty bestowed
on Christians through Christ is above all the laws of men, especially when
the divine law comes in, as Christ says: “The Sabbath was made for man,
and not man for the
Thus all those fanciful spiritual affinities of father, mother, brother,
sister, or child, ought to be utterly done away with in the contracting
of matrimony. What but the superstition of man has invented that spiritual
relationship? If he who baptizes is not permitted to marry her whom he has
baptized, or a godfather his god-daughter, why is a Christian man permitted
to marry a Christian woman? Is the relationship established by a ceremony
or by the sign of the sacrament stronger than that established by the substance
itself of the sacrament? Is not a Christian man the brother of a Christian
sister? Is not a baptized man the spiritual brother of a baptized woman?
How can we be so senseless? If a man instructs his wife in the gospel and
in the faith of Christ, and thus becomes truly her father in Christ, shall
it not be lawful for her to continue his wife? Would not Paul have been
at liberty to marry a maiden from among those Corinthians, all of whom he
declares that he had begotten in Christ? See,
Much more idle still is the doctrine of legal relationship; and yet they have raised even this above the divine right of matrimony. Nor can I agree to that impediment which they call disparity of religion, and which forbids a man to marry an unbaptized woman, neither simply, nor on condition of converting her to the faith. Who has prohibited this, God or man? Who has given men authority to prohibit marriages of this kind? Verily the spirits that speak lies in hypocrisy, as Paul says; of whom it may be truly said: The wicked have spoken lies to me, but not according to thy law. Patricius, a heathen, married Monica, the mother of St. Augustine, who was a Christian; why should not the same thing be lawful now? A like instance of foolish, nay wicked rigour is the impediment of crime; as when a man marries a woman previously polluted by adultery, or has plotted the death of a woman’s husband, that he may be able to marry her. Whence, I ask, a severity on the part of men against men, such as even God has never exacted? Do these men pretend not to know that David, a most holy man, married Bathsheba the wife of Uriah, though both these crimes had been committed; that is, though she had been polluted by adultery and her husband had been murdered? If the divine law did this, why do tyrannical men act thus against their fellow servants?
It is also reckoned as an impediment when there exists what they call
a bond; that is, when one person is bound to another by betrothal. In this
case they conclude that if either party have subsequently had intercourse
with a third, the former betrothal comes to an end. I cannot at all receive
this doctrine. In my judgment, a man who has bound himself to one person
is no longer at his own disposal, and therefore, under the prohibitions
of the divine right, owes himself to the former, though he has not had intercourse
with her, even if he have afterwards had intercourse with another. It was
not in his power to give what he did not possess; he has deceived her with
whom he has had intercourse, and has really committed adultery. That which
has led some to think otherwise is that they have looked more to the fleshly
union than to the divine command, under which he who has promised fidelity
to one person is bound to observe
The impediment of holy orders is also a mere contrivance of men, especially
when they idly assert that even a marriage already contracted is annulled
by this cause, always exalting their own traditions above the commands of
God. I give no judgment respecting the order of the priesthood, such as
it is at the present day; but I see that Paul commands that a bishop should
be the husband of one wife, and therefore the marriage of a deacon, of a
priest, of a bishop, or of a man in any kind of orders, cannot be annulled;
although Paul knew nothing of that kind of priests and those orders which
we have at the present day. Perish then these accursed traditions of men,
which have come in for no other end than to multiply perils, sins, and evils
in the Church! Between a priest and his wife, then, there is a true and
inseparable marriage, approved by the divine command. What if wicked men
forbid or annul it of their
Just as much a human contrivance is the so-called impediment of public propriety, by which contracted marriages are annulled. I am indignant at the audacious impiety which is so ready to separate what God has joined together. You may recognise Antichrist in this opposition to everything which Christ did or taught. What reason is there, I ask, why, on the death of a betrothed husband before actual marriage, no relative by blood, even to the fourth degree, can marry her who was betrothed to him? This is no vindication of public propriety, but mere ignorance of it. Why among the people of Israel, which possessed the best laws, given by God himself, was there no such vindication of public propriety? On the contrary, by the very command of God, the nearest relative was compelled to marry her who had been left a widow. Ought the people who are in Christian liberty to be burdened with more rigid laws than the people who were in legal bondage? And to make an end of these figments rather than impediments, I will say that at present it is evident to me that there is no impediment which can rightfully annul a marriage already contracted, except physical unfitness for cohabiting with a wife, ignorance of a marriage previously contracted, or a vow of chastity. Concerning such a vow, however, I am so uncertain even to the present moment, that I do not know at what time it ought to be reckoned valid; as I have said above in speaking of baptism. Learn then, in this one matter of matrimony, into what an unhappy and hopeless state of confusion, hindrance, entanglement, and peril all things that are done in the Church have been brought by the pestilent, unlearned, and impious traditions of men! There is no hope of a remedy, unless we can do away once for all with all the laws of all men, call back the gospel of liberty, and judge and rule all things according to it alone. Amen.
It is necessary also to deal with the question of physical incapacity.
But be it premised that I desire what I have said about impediments to be
understood of marriages already contracted, which ought not to be annulled
for any such causes. But with regard to the contracting of matrimony I may
briefly
* * * * * *
The question of divorce is also discussed, whether it be lawful. I, for
my part, detest divorce, and even prefer bigamy to it; but whether it be
lawful I dare not define. Christ himself, the chief of shepherds, says:
“Whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication,
causeth her to commit adultery; and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced
committeth adultery.” (
I cannot by myself establish any rule contrary to the
OF ORDERS.
Of this sacrament the Church of Christ knows nothing; it was invented
by the church of the Pope. It not only has no promise of grace, anywhere
declared, but not a word is said about it in the whole of the New Testament.
Now it is ridiculous to set up as a sacrament of God that which can nowhere
be proved to have been instituted by God. Not that I consider that a rite
practised for so many ages is to be condemned; but I would not have human
inventions established
The Church has no power to establish new divine promises of grace, as some senselessly assert, who say that, since the Church is governed by the Holy Spirit, whatever she ordains has no less authority than that which is ordained of God. The Church is born of the word of promise through faith, and is nourished and preserved by the same word; that is, she herself is established by the promises of God, not the promise of God by her. The word of God is incomparably above the Church, and her part is not to establish, ordain, or make anything in it, but only to be established, ordained, and made, as a creature. What man begets his own parent? Who establishes the authority by which he himself exists?
This power the Church certainly has—that she can distinguish the word
of God from the words of men. So Augustine confesses that his motive for
believing the gospel was the authority of the Church, which declared it
to be the gospel. Not that the Church is therefore above the gospel; for,
if so, she would also be above God, in whom we believe, since she declares
Him to be God; but, as Augustine says elsewhere, the soul is so taken possession
of by the truth, that thereby it can judge of all things with the utmost
certainty, and yet cannot judge the truth itself, but is compelled by an
infallible certainty to say that this is the truth. For example, the mind
pronounces with infallible certainty that three and seven are ten, and yet
can give no reason why this is true, while it cannot deny that it is true.
In fact the mind itself is taken possession of, and, having truth as its
judge, is judged rather than judges. Even such a perception is there in
the Church, by the illumination of the Spirit, in judging and approving
of doctrines; a perception which she cannot demonstrate, but which she holds
as most sure. Just as among philosophers no one judges of those conceptions
which are common to all, but everyone is judged by them, so is it among
us with regard to that
Let us take it then for certain that the Church cannot promise grace, to do which is the part of God alone, and therefore cannot institute a sacrament. And even, if she had the most complete power to do so, it would not forthwith follow, that orders are a sacrament. For who knows what is that Church which has the Spirit, when only a few bishops and learned men are usually concerned in setting up these laws and institutions? It is possible that these men may not be of the Church, and may all be in error; as councils have very often been in error, especially that of Constance, which has erred the most impiously of all. That only is a proved article of the faith which has been approved by the universal Church, and not by that of Rome alone. I grant therefore that orders may be a sort of church rite, like many others which have been introduced by the Fathers of the Church, such as the consecration of vessels, buildings, vestments, water, salt, candles, herbs, wine, and the like. In all these no one asserts that there is any sacrament, nor is there any promise in them. Thus the anointing of a man’s hands, the shaving of his head, and other ceremonies of the kind, do not constitute a sacrament, since nothing is promised by these things, but they are merely employed to prepare men for certain offices, as in the case of vessels or instruments.
But it will be asked: What do you say to Dionysius, who reckons up six
sacraments, among which he places Orders, in his Hierarchy of the Church?
My answer is: I know that he is the only one of the ancient authorities
who is considered as holding seven sacraments, although, by the omission
of matrimony, he has only given six. We read nothing at all in the rest
of the Fathers about these sacraments, nor did they reckon them under the
title of sacrament, when they spoke of these things, for the invention of
such sacraments is a modern one. Then too—if I may be rash enough to say
so—it is altogether unsatisfactory that so much importance should be attributed
to this Dionysius, whoever he was, for there is almost nothing of solid
learning in him. By what authority or reason, I ask, does he prove his inventions
concerning angels in his Celestial Hierarchy, a book on the study of which
curious
So in his Hierarchy of the Church, what does he do but describe certain ecclesiastical rites, amusing himself with his own allegories, which he does not prove, just as has been done in our time by the writer of the book called the Rationale of Divine things? This pursuit of allegories is only fit for men of idle minds. Could I have any difficulty in amusing myself with allegories about any created thing whatever? Did not Bonaventura apply the liberal arts allegorically to theology? It would give me no trouble to write a better Hierarchy than that of Dionysius, as he knew nothing of popes, cardinals, and archbishops, and made the bishops the highest order. Who, indeed, is there of such slender wits that he cannot venture upon allegory? I would not have a theologian bestow any attention upon allegories, until he is perfectly acquainted with the legitimate and simple meaning of Scripture; otherwise, as it happened to Origen, his theological speculations will not be without danger.
We must not then immediately make a sacrament of anything which Dionysius
describes; otherwise why not make a sacrament of the procession which he
describes in the same passage, and which continues in use even to the present
day? Nay, there will be as many sacraments as there are rites and ceremonies
which have grown up in the Church. Resting, however, on this very weak foundation,
they have invented and attributed to this sacrament of theirs certain indelible
characters, supposed to be impressed on those who receive orders. Whence,
I ask, such fancies? By what authority, by
After this they bring in their very strongest argument, namely, that
Christ said at the last supper: “Do this in remembrance of me.” “Behold!”
they say, “Christ ordained them as priests.” Hence, among other things,
they have also asserted that it is to priests alone that both kinds should
be administered. In fact they have extracted out of this text whatever they
would; like men who claim the right to assert at their own free choice whatsoever
they please out of any words of Christ, wherever spoken. But is this to
interpret the words of God? Let us reply to them that in these words Christ
gives no promise, but only a command that this should be done in remembrance
of Him. Why do they not conclude that priests were ordained in that passage
also where Christ, in laying upon them the ministry of the word and of baptism,
said: “Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature,
baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
Ghost”? It is the peculiar office of priests to preach and to baptize. Again,
since at the present day it is the very first business of a priest, and,
as they say, an indispensable one, to read the canonical Hours; why have
they not taken their idea of the sacrament of orders from those words in
which Christ commanded His disciples—as he did in many other places, but
especially in the garden of Gethsemane—to pray that they might not enter
into temptation? Unless indeed they evade the difficulty by saying that
it is not commanded to pray, for it suffices to
Which of the ancient Fathers has asserted that by these words priests were ordained? Whence then this new interpretation? It is because it has been sought by this device to set up a source of implacable discord, by which clergy and laity might be placed farther asunder than heaven and earth, to the incredible injury of baptismal grace and confusion of evangelical communion. Hence has originated that detestable tyranny of the clergy over the laity, in which, trusting to the corporal unction by which their hands are consecrated, to their tonsure, and to their vestments, they not only set themselves above the body of lay Christians, who have been anointed with the Holy Spirit, but almost look upon them as dogs, unworthy to be numbered in the Church along with themselves. Hence it is that they dare to command, exact, threaten, drive, and oppress, at their will. In fine, the sacrament of orders has been and is a most admirable engine for the establishment of all those monstrous evils which have hitherto been wrought, and are yet being wrought, in the Church. In this way Christian brotherhood has perished; in this way shepherds have been turned into wolves, servants into tyrants, and ecclesiastics into more than earthly beings.
How if they were compelled to admit that we all, so many as have been
baptized, are equally priests? We are so in fact, and it is only a ministry
which has been entrusted to them, and that with our consent. They would
then know that they have no right to exercise command over us, except so
far as we voluntarily allow of it. Thus it is said: “Ye are a chosen generation,
a royal priesthood, a holy nation.” (
From this it follows that he who does not preach the word, being called
to this very office by the Church, is in no way a priest, and that the sacrament
of orders can be
See then how far the glory of the Church has departed. The whole world
is full of priests, bishops, cardinals, and clergy; of whom however, (so
far as concerns their official duty) not one preaches—unless he be called
afresh to this by another calling besides his sacramental orders—but thinks
that he amply fulfils the purposes of that sacrament if he murmurs over,
in a vain repetition, the prayers which he has to read, and celebrates masses.
Even then, he never prays these very Hours, or, if he does pray, he prays
for himself; while, as the very height of perversity, he offers up his masses
as a sacrifice, though the mass is really the use of the sacrament. Thus
it is clear that those orders by which, as a sacrament, men of this kind
are ordained to be clergy, are in truth a mere and entire figment, invented
by men who understand nothing of church affairs, of the priesthood, of the
ministry of the word, or of the sacraments. Such as is the sacrament, such
are the priests it makes. To these errors and blindnesses has been added
a greater degree of bondage, in that, in order to separate themselves the
more widely from all other
It was not enough for their hypocrisy and for the working of this error to prohibit bigamy, that is, the having two wives at the same time, as was done under the law—for we know that that is the meaning of bigamy—but they have interpreted it to be bigamy, if a man marries two virgins in succession, or a widow once. Nay, the most sanctified sanctity of this most sacrosanct sacrament goes so far, that a man cannot even become a priest if he have married a virgin, as long as she is alive as his wife. And, in order to reach the very highest summit of sanctity, a man is kept out of the priesthood, if he have married one who was not a pure virgin, though it were in ignorance and merely by an unfortunate chance. But he may have polluted six hundred harlots, or corrupted any number of matrons or virgins, or even kept many Ganymedes, and it will be no impediment to his becoming a bishop or cardinal, or even Pope. Then the saying of the Apostle: “the husband of one wife,” must be interpreted to mean: “the head of one church;” unless that magnificent dispenser the Pope, bribed with money or led by favour—that is to say, moved by pious charity, and urged by anxiety for the welfare of the churches—chooses to unite to one man three, twenty, or a hundred wives, that is, churches.
O pontiffs, worthy of this venerable sacrament of orders! O princes not
of the Catholic churches, but of the synagogues of Satan, yea, of very darkness!
We may well cry out with Isaiah: “Ye scornful men, that rule this people
which is in Jerusalem” (
Fly then, I counsel you; fly, young men, if ye wish to live in safety; and do not seek admission to these holy rites, unless ye are either willing to preach the gospel, or are able to believe that ye are not made any better than the laity by this sacrament of orders. To read the Hours is nothing. To offer the mass is to receive the sacrament. What then remains in you, which is not to be found in any layman? Your tonsure and your vestments? Wretched priesthood, which consists in tonsure and vestments! Is it the oil poured on your fingers? Every Christian is anointed and sanctified in body and soul with the oil of the Holy Spirit, and formerly was allowed to handle the sacrament no less than the priests now do; although our superstition now imputes it as a great crime to the laity, if they touch even the bare cup, or the corporal; and not even a holy nun is allowed to wash the altar cloths and sacred napkins. When I see how far the sacrosanct sanctity of these orders has already gone, I expect that the time will come when the laity will not even be allowed to touch the altar, except when they offer money. I almost burst with anger when I think of the impious tyrannies of these reckless men, who mock and ruin the liberty and glory of the religion of Christ by such frivolous and puerile triflings.
Let every man then who has learnt that he is a Christian recognise what
he is, and be certain that we are all equally priests; that is, that we
have the same power in the word, and in any sacrament whatever; although
it is not lawful for any one to use this power, except with the consent
of the community, or at the call of a superior. For that which belongs to
all in common no individual can arrogate to himself, until he be called.
And therefore the sacrament of orders, if it is anything, is nothing but
a certain rite by which men are called to minister in the Church. Furthermore,
the priesthood is properly nothing else than the ministry of the word—I
mean the word of the gospel, not of the law. The diaconate is a ministry,
not for reading the gospel or the epistle, as the
Wherefore those priests and bishops with whom the Church is crowded at
the present day, unless they work out their salvation on another plan—that
is, unless they acknowledge themselves to be neither priests nor bishops,
and repent of bearing the name of an office the work of which they either
do not know, or cannot fulfil, and thus deplore with prayers and tears the
miserable fate of their hypocrisy—are verily the people of eternal perdition,
concerning whom the saying will be fulfilled: “My people are gone into captivity,
because they have no knowledge; and their honourable men are famished, and
their multitude dried up with thirst. Therefore hell hath enlarged herself,
and opened her mouth without measure; and their glory, and their multitude,
and their pomp, and he that rejoiceth, shall descend into it.” (
As far then as we are taught from the Scriptures, since what we call
the priesthood is a ministry, I do not see at all for what reason a man
who has once been made priest cannot become a layman again, since he differs
in no wise from a layman, except by his ministerial office. But it is so
far from impossible for a man to be set aside from the ministry, that even
now this punishment is constantly inflicted on offending priests, who are
either suspended for a time, or deprived for ever of their office. For that
fiction of an indelible character has long ago become an object of derision.
I grant that the Pope may impress this character, though Christ knows nothing
of it, and for this very reason the priest thus consecrated is the lifelong
servant and bondsman, not of Christ, but of the Pope, as it is at this day.
But, unless I deceive myself, if at some future
ON THE SACRAMENT OF EXTREME UNCTION.
To this rite of anointing the sick our theologians have made two additions
well worthy of themselves. One is, that they call it a sacrament; the other,
that they make it extreme, so that it cannot be administered except to those
who are in extreme peril of life. Perhaps—as they are keen dialecticians—they
have so made it in relation to the first unction of baptism, and the two
following ones of confirmation and orders. They have this, it is true, to
throw in my teeth, that, on the authority of the Apostle James, there are
in this case a promise and a sign, which two things, I have hitherto said,
constitute a sacrament. He says: “Is any sick among you? let him call for
the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with
oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer of faith shall save the sick,
and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall
be forgiven him.” (
I, however, say that if folly has ever been uttered, it has been uttered
on this subject. I pass over the fact that many assert, and with great probability,
that this epistle was not written by the Apostle James, and is not worthy
of the apostolic spirit; although, whosesoever it is, it has obtained authority
by usage. Still, even if it were written by the Apostle James, I should
say that it was not lawful for an apostle to institute a sacrament by his
own authority; that is, to give a divine promise with a sign annexed to
it. To do this
In the first place—if they think the saying of the Apostle true and worthy to be followed, by what authority do they change and resist it? Why do they make an extreme and special unction of that which the Apostle meant to be general? The Apostle did not mean it to be extreme, and to be administered only to those about to die. He says expressly: “Is any sick among you?” He does not say: “Is any dying?” Nor do I care what Dionysius’s Ecclesiastical Hierarchy may teach about this; the words of the Apostle are clear, on which he and they alike rest, though they do not follow them. Thus it is evident that, by no authority, but at their own discretion, they have made, out of the ill-understood words of the Apostle, a sacrament and an extreme unction; thus wronging all the other sick, whom they have deprived on their own authority of that benefit of anointing which the Apostle appointed for them.
But it is even a finer argument, that the promise of the Apostle expressly
says: “The prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise
him up.” The Apostle commands the use of anointing and prayer for the very
purpose that the sick man may be healed and raised up, that is, may not
die, and that the unction may not be extreme. This is proved by the prayers
which are used even at this day during the ceremony of anointing, and in
which we ask that the sick man may be restored. They say, on the contrary,
that unction should not be administered except to those on the point of
departing; that is, that they may not be healed and raised up. If the matter
were not so serious, who could refrain from laughing at such fine, apt,
and sound comments on the words of the Apostle? Do we not manifestly detect
here that sophistical folly which, in many other cases as well as in this,
affirms what Scripture
Further—if this unction is a sacrament, it must be beyond doubt an effectual sign (as they say) of that which it seals and promises. Now it promises health and restoration to the sick, as the words plainly show: “The prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up.” Who does not see, however, that this promise is seldom, or rather never fulfilled? Scarcely one among a thousand is restored; and even this no one believes to be effected by the sacrament, but by the help of nature or of medicine; while to the sacrament they attribute a contrary effect. What shall we say then? Either the Apostle is deceiving us in this promise, or this unction is not a sacrament; for a sacramental promise is sure, while this in most cases disappoints us. Nay—to recognise another example of the prudence and carefulness of these theologians—they will have it to be extreme unction in order that that promise may not stand; that is, that the sacrament may not be a sacrament. If the unction is extreme, it does not heal, but yields to the sickness; while if it heals, it cannot be extreme. Thus, according to the interpretation of these teachers, James must be understood to have contradicted himself, and to have instituted a sacrament, on purpose not to institute a sacrament; for they will have it to be extreme unction, in order that it may not be true that the sick are healed by it, which is what the Apostle ordained. If this is not madness, what, I ask, is madness?
The words of the Apostle: “Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding
neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm” (
I am therefore of opinion that this is the same anointing as that used
by the Apostles, of whom it is written: “They anointed with oil many that
were sick, and healed them.” (
James, indeed, has carefully and intentionally provided against this
very mistake, in that he connects the promise of healing and of remission
of sins, not with the anointing, but with the prayer of faith; for he says:
“The prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up;
and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him.” (
There is no doubt at all that, if even at the present day such prayer were made over the sick—that is, by grave and holy elders, and with full faith—as many as we would might be healed. For what cannot faith do? We, however, leave out of sight that faith which apostolic authority requires in the very first place; and moreover by elders, that is, men superior to the rest in age and in faith, we understand the common herd of priests. Furthermore, out of a daily or free anointing we make an extreme unction; and lastly, we not only do not ask and obtain that result of healing promised by the Apostle, but we empty the promise of its meaning by an opposite result. Nevertheless we boast that this sacrament, or rather figment, of ours, is founded on and proved by the teaching of the Apostle, from which it is as widely separated as pole from pole. Oh, what theologians!
Therefore, without condemning this our sacrament of extreme unction,
I steadily deny that it is that which is enjoined by the Apostle James,
of which neither the form, nor the practice, nor the efficacy, nor the purpose,
agrees with ours. We will reckon it, however, among those sacraments which
are of our own appointing, such as the consecration and sprinkling of salt
and water. We cannot deny that, as the Apostle Paul teaches us, every creature
is sanctified by the word of God and prayer; and so we do not deny that
remission and peace are bestowed through extreme unction; not because it
is a sacrament divinely instituted, but because he who receives it believes
that he obtains these benefits. For the faith of the receiver does not err,
however much the minister may err. For if he who baptizes or absolves in
jest—that is, does not absolve at all, as far as the minister’s part is
concerned—yet does really absolve or baptize, if there be faith on the part
of the absolved or
It has been of advantage, however, that this unction has been made extreme, for, thanks to this, it has been of all sacraments the least harassed and enslaved by tyranny and thirst for gain; and this one mercy has been left to the dying, that they are free to be anointed, even if they have not confessed or communicated. Whereas if it had continued to be of daily employment, especially if it had also healed the sick, even if it had not taken away sins, of how many worlds would not the pontiffs by this time have been masters—they who, on the strength of the one sacrament of penance, and by the power of the keys, and through the sacrament of orders, have become such mighty emperors and princes? But now it is a fortunate thing that, as they despise the prayer of faith, so they heal no sick, and, out of an old rite, have formed for themselves a new sacrament.
Let it suffice to have said thus much concerning these four sacraments.
I know how much it will displease those who think that we are to enquire
about the number and use of the sacraments, not from the holy Scriptures,
but from the See of Rome; as if the See of Rome had given us those sacraments,
and had not rather received them from the schools of the Universities; to
which, without controversy, it owes all that it has. The tyranny of the
popes would never have stood so high if it had not received so much help
from the Universities; for among all the principal sees, there is scarcely
any other which
There are besides some other things, which it may seem that we might
reckon among sacraments—all those things, namely, to which a divine promise
has been made, such as prayer, the word, the cross. For Christ has promised
in many places to hear those that pray; especially in the eleventh chapter
of the Gospel of St. Luke, where he invites us to prayer by many parables.
Of the word he says: “Blessed are they that hear the word of God and keep
it.” (
It has seemed best, however, to consider as sacraments, properly so called,
those promises which have signs annexed to them. The rest, as they are not
attached to signs, are simple promises. It follows that, if we speak with
perfect accuracy, there are only two sacraments in the Church of God, Baptism
and the Bread; since it is in these alone that we see both a sign divinely
instituted and a promise of remission of sins. The sacrament of penance,
which I have reckoned along with these two, is without any visible and divinely
appointed sign; and is nothing else, as I have said, than a way and means
of return to baptism. Not even the schoolmen can say that penitence agrees
with their definition; since they themselves ascribe to every sacrament
a visible sign, which enables the senses to apprehend the form of that effect
which the sacrament works invisibly. Now penitence or absolution has no
such sign; and therefore they will be compelled by their own
Baptism, however, which we have assigned to the whole of life, will properly
suffice for all the sacraments which we are to use in life; while the bread
is truly the sacrament of the dying and departing, since in it we commemorate
the departure of Christ from this world, that we may imitate Him. Let us
then so distribute these two sacraments that baptism may be allotted to
the beginning and to the whole course of life, and the bread to its end
and to death; and let the Christian, while in this vile body, exercise himself
in both, until, being fully baptized and strengthened, he shall pass out
of this world, as one born into a new and eternal life, and destined to
eat with Christ in the kingdom of his Father, as he promised at the Last
Supper, saying: “I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine
until the kingdom of God shall come.” (
I shall here make an end of this essay, which I readily and joyfully
offer to all pious persons, who long to understand Scripture in its sincere
meaning, and to learn the genuine use of the sacraments. It is a gift of
no slight importance to “know the things that are freely given to us of
God,” and to know in what manner we ought to use those gifts. For if we
are instructed in this judgment of the Spirit, we shall not deceive ourselves
by leaning on those things which are opposed to it. Whereas our theologians
have not only nowhere given us the knowledge of these two things, but have
even darkened them, as if of set purpose, I, if I have not given that knowledge,
have at least succeeded in not darkening it, and have given others an inducement
to think out something better. It has at least been my endeavour to explain
the meaning of both sacraments, but we cannot all do all things. On those
impious men, however, who in their obstinate tyranny press on us their own
teachings as if they were God’s, I thrust these things freely and confidently,
caring not at all for their ignorance and violence. And yet even to them
I will wish sounder sense, and will not
I hear a report that fresh bulls and papal curses are being prepared against me, by which I am to be urged to recant, or else be declared a heretic. If this is true, I wish this little book to be a part of my future recantation, that they may not complain that their tyranny has puffed itself up in vain. The remaining part I shall shortly publish, Christ being my helper, and that of such a sort as the See of Rome has never yet seen or heard, thus abundantly testifying my obedience in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.
Indexes
Index of Scripture References
Genesis
Numbers
Judges
1 Samuel
Psalms
4:15 7:20 7:20 18:8 18:26 30:5 33:16 37:1 37:2 43:2 45:19 119:1-176
Proverbs
Ecclesiastes
Song of Solomon
Isaiah
2:8 5:13 5:14 10:22 10:23 28:14 37:4 56:10 56:11
Lamentations
Daniel
2:20 2:21 2:44 4:35 11:8 11:39 11:43
Hosea
Amos
Jonah
Malachi
Matthew
3:2 3:6 4:4 4:4 5:32 5:39 6:2 7:18 7:20 10:10 12:33 15:11 15:14 16:19 16:19 17:27 18:4 18:15-17 18:18 18:18 18:19 18:20 23:13 24:5 24:23 24:24 24:38
Mark
2:27-28 6:13 11:24 16:16 16:16 16:16 16:18 16:18
Luke
9:48 10:7 11:28 12:14 12:32 17:26 22:18 22:25 22:26 22:32
John
1:12 1:51 4:14 4:14 6:27 6:29 6:45 6:45 7:38 8:36 11:25 17:20 18:36 20:23
Acts
4:32-37 6:2 6:4 9:19 14:14 15:1-41
Romans
1:1-32 1:1-32 1:5 1:17 3:10-12 3:23 4:1-25 4:3-5 6:4 7:22 7:23 8:23 8:28 10:4 10:9 10:10 10:10 10:17 11:32 12:1 13:1-4 13:1-14 13:1-14 13:8 14:3 14:7 14:8 14:14 14:20 14:22 14:23
1 Corinthians
1:23 2:8 2:15 3:18 3:22 3:23 4:1 4:1 4:1 4:1 4:1 6:1-20 6:5 7:15 7:23 8:9 8:10 8:13 9:14 9:19 9:27 10:3 10:4 10:25 11:23 11:23-26 11:23-26 11:23-27 11:25 11:33-34 12:1-31 12:9 12:12-20 14:30 15:55-57 15:56 15:57
2 Corinthians
2:2 4:13 4:13 4:16 8:21 10:3 10:8 13:8
Galatians
2:11-20 2:20 2:20 3:1-29 4:1-31 5:1 5:1 5:1-25 5:17 5:24
Ephesians
Philippians
2:1-4 2:5 2:5-8 2:7 2:7 2:7 2:12
Colossians
1 Thessalonians
2 Thessalonians
1 Timothy
1:7 1:9 1:9 2:1 2:2 2:8 3:2 3:16 4:1 4:1-3 4:2 4:2 4:3 5:22
2 Timothy
2:4 2:13 3:2-7 3:5 3:7 3:7 3:13
Titus
Hebrews
James
1 Peter
2:1-25 2:1-25 2:9 2:9 2:9 2:13 2:15 3:1-22 3:13 4:18 5:2
2 Peter
1 John
Revelation
2 Maccabees
Index of Latin Words and Phrases
- Hostis Herodes impie,: 1
- Administratio: 1
- Datarius: 1 2
- Hannibal ad portas: 1
- Hic est sanguis meus: 1
- Hoc est corpus meum: 1
- Hoc est sanguis meus: 1
- Incorporatio: 1
- Interregnum: 1
- Pœna: 1
- Pallium: 1
- Pectoralis Reservatio: 1
- Significasti: 1
- Solite: 1
- Unio: 1 2
- administrator: 1
- agite pœnitentiam: 1
- casus reservati: 1
- characters indelebiles: 1
- commendam: 1 2
- compositiones: 1
- conciliabulum: 1
- confessionalia: 1 2
- confusiones: 1
- doctor decretorum: 1
- doctores scrinii papalis: 1
- et proprius motus: 1
- gravamina: 1 2
- ignis fatuus: 1
- irregular: 1
- irregulares: 1
- justitiae: 1
- magister sententiarum: 1
- opera operata: 1
- opus operans: 1
- opus operatum: 1 2 3 4 5
- pœna: 1
- pœnitentia: 1 2
- pectoralis reservatio: 1
- sacramentum: 1
- scrinio pectoris: 1
- scrinium: 1
- scrinium pectoris: 1
- signatura gratiæ: 1
- signatura justitiæ: 1
- signaturas gratiae: 1
- tentationes, orationes, meditationes: 1
- tu labora!: 1
- tu ora!: 1
- tu protege!: 1
- ultima ratio: 1
Index of German Words and Phrases
Index of Pages of the Print Edition
i ii iii iv v vi vii viii ix x xi xii xiii xiv xv xvi xvii xviii xix xx xxi xxii xxiii xxiv xxv xxvi xxvii xxviii xxix xxx xxxi xxxii xxxiii xxxiv xxxv xxxvi xxxvii xxxviii xxxix xl xli xlii xliii xliv xlv xlvi xlvii xlviii xlix l li lii liii liv lv lvi lvii lviii lix lx lxi lxii lxiii lxiv lxv lxvi lxvii lxviii lxix lxx lxxi lxxii lxxiii lxxv lxxvi lxxvii lxxviii lxxix lxxx lxxxi lxxxii lxxxiii lxxxiv lxxxv lxxxvi lxxxvii lxxxviii 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 18 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245