Section 24 he mentions, besides baptism and the Lord's Supper,

"confirmation, penance, extreme unction, etc." In the _Babylonian

Captivity_ he definitely reduces the seven sacraments of the

Roman Church to baptism, the Lord's Supper and penance, but he

had his doubts on this point before he wrote this present work,

as we may conclude from a remark in the _Sermon_ of 1519, in

which he distinguishes "baptism and the bread" as the two

"principal sacraments," and also from a letter to Spalatin,[16]

in which he writes that no one need expect from him a publication

on the other sacraments until he shall first have been taught by

what passage of Scripture he may justify them.[17] In conclusion,

it may be said that this whole _Treatise on the New Testament_ is

a beautiful illustration of the constructive power of Luther's

work. In the work of tearing down he proceeds with the greatest

care, ever mindful of his duty to replace the old with something

new which can stand the test of Scripture.

J. L. NEVE.

Wittenberg Theological Seminary,

Springfield, O.

FOOTNOTES

[1] As the earliest prints, the following may be mentioned: (1)

By Joh. Gruenenberg in Wittenberg, 11520 (the basis of the Weimar

text); (2) by the same publisher, 1520; (3) by Melchior Lotther

in Wittenberg, 1520; (4) by Silanus Ottmar in Wittenberg, Aug.

21st, 1520 (this is the text of the _Erlangen Edition_); (5) a

Wittenberg print with no mention of the publisher, but otherwise

identical in appearance with No. 4; (6) by Fridrichen Peypus at

Nürnberg, 1520; (7) a Wittenberg print, 1520, with no mention of

the publisher; (8) by Adam Petri in Basel, 1520; (9) a Wittenberg

edition of 1520, revised by Luther (_anderweit gecorigiert durch

D. Mart. Luther_); this edition in octavo, all the preceding in

quarto. The text of this treatise in the following collections of

Luther's works, Wittenberg, VII, 25 ff.; Jena, I, 329 ff.;

Altenburg, I, 514 ff.; Leipzig, XVII 490 ff.; Walch XIX, 1256

ff.; Erlangen XXVII, 141 ff.; Weimar VI. 353 ff.

[2] By the word "mass" Luther means the celebration of the Lord's

Supper. Even after this sacrament was understood in an

evangelical sense, the Lutherans for a long time kept the name

mass. Thus Melanchthon writes in the Augs. Conf., Art. xxiv, "Our

churches are falsely accused of abolishing the mass; for the mass

is retained on our part, and celebrated with the greatest

reverence."

[3] Page 224.

[4] De Weite, _Luther's Briefe_, I, 475.

[5] The name given by the Lutheran theologians to those who

denied the real presence of the body and blood of Christ in the

Lord's Supper.

[6] Two more might have been mentioned: (1) a discourse on the

proper preparation of the Lord's Supper (_Erl. Ed._, XVII, 55

ff.) and (2) the _Discourse on Excommunication_ (_Ibid._, XXVII,

29 ff.)

[7] In the Introduction to _The Babylonian Captivity of the

Church_ he writes: "I am compelled, whether I will or not, to

become daily more learned, having so many notable teachers

diligently pushing me on and keeping me at work." (_Weimar Ed._,

VI, 497.

[8] Cf. Koëstlin-Kawäeau, _Martin Luther_, 4th ed., I, 284;

Koëstlin-Hay, _Theology of Luther_, I, 399 f; _Luther's Werke,

Berlin Ed._, III, 261-264, 374.

[9] _Weimar Ed._, VI, 511 f.

[10] Cf. Koëstlin-Hay, op. cit., I, 340.

[11] Ibid., p. 350.

[12] _Erl. Ed._, XVI, 33, 92 ff.

[13] So also with much emphasis in the _Sermon v. d. hochw.

Sac._, 1519.

[14] He means the _Serm. v. d. hochw. Sac._, 1519.

[15] _Weimar Ed._, VI, 502.

[16] De Weite, _Briefe_, I, 378

[17] Koëstlin-Hay, op. cit., I, 355.

A TREATISE ON THE NEW TESTAMENT,

THAT IS THE HOLY MASS

1519

JESUS[1]

[Sidenote: The Multiplying of Laws]

1. Experience, all chronicles, and the Holy Scriptures besides,

teach us this truth: the less law, the more justice; the fewer

commandments, the more good works. No well-regulated community

ever existed long, if at all, where there were many laws.

Therefore, before the ancient law of Moses, the Patriarchs of old

had no prescribed law and order for the service of God other than

the sacrifices; as we read of Adam, Abel, Noah and others.

Afterward, circumcision was enjoined upon Abraham and his

household, until the time of Moses, through whom God gave the

people of Israel divers laws, forms, and practices, for the sole

purpose of teaching human nature how utterly useless many laws

are to make people pious. For although the law leads and drives

away from evil to good works, it is still impossible for man to

do them willingly and gladly; but he has at all times an aversion

for the law and would rather be free. Now where there is

unwillingness, there can never be a good work. For what is not

done willingly is not good, and only seems to be good.

Consequently, all the laws cannot make one really pious without

the grace of God, for they can produce only dissemblers,

hypocrites, pretenders, and proud saints, such as have their

reward here [Matt. 6:2], and never please God. Thus He says to

the Jews, Malachi i: "I have no pleasure in you; for who is there

among you that would even as much as shut a door for me,

willingly and out of love?" [Mal. 1:10]

[Sidenote: Sects and Divisions]

2. Another result of many laws is this, that many sects and

divisions in the congregations [Gemeinden] arise from them. One

adopts this way, another that, and there grows up in each man a

false, secret love for his own sect, and a hatred, or at least a

contempt for, and a disregard of the other sects, whereby

brotherly, free, common love perishes, and selfish love prevails.

So Jeremiah and Hosea speak, [Jer. 2:28, Hos. 8:11,12] yea, all

the profits lament that the people of Israel divided themselves

into as many sects as there were cities in the land; each

desiring to outdo the others. Thence also arose the Sadducees and

Pharisees in the Gospel.

So we observe to-day, that through the Spiritual Law[2] but

little justice and piety have arisen in Christendom; the world

has been filled with dissemblers and hypocrites and with so many

sects, orders, and divisions of the one people of Christ, that

almost every city is divided into ten parties or more. And they

daily devise new ways and manners (as they think) of serving God,

until it has come to this, that priests, monks, and laity have

become more hostile toward each other than Turks and Christians.

Yea, the priests and the monks are deadly enemies, wrangling

about their self-conceived ways and methods like fools and

madmen, not only to the hindrance, but to the very destruction of

Christian love and unity. Each one clings to his sect and

despises the others; and they regard the laymen as though they

were no Christians. This lamentable condition is only a result of

the laws.

[Sidenote: The Mass Christ's Law]

3. Christ, in order that He might prepare for Himself an

acceptable and beloved people, which should be bound together in

unity through love, abolished the whole law of Moses. And that He

might not give further occasion for divisions, He did not again

appoint more than one law or order for His entire people, and

that the holy mass. For, although baptism is also an external

ordinance, yet it takes place but once, and is not a practice of

the entire life, like the mass. Therefore, after baptism there is

to be no other external order for the service of God except the

mass. And where the mass is used, there is a true service, even

though there be no other form, with singing, playing,

bell-ringing, vestments, ornaments and postures; for everything

of this sort is an addition invented by men. When Christ Himself

first instituted this sacrament and held the first mass, there

were do patens, no chasuble, no singing, no pageantry, but only

thanksgiving to God, and the use of the sacrament. After this

same simplicity the Apostles and all Christians long time held

mass, until the divers forms and additions arose, by which the

Romans held mass one way, the Greeks another; and now it has

finally come to this, that the chief thing in the mass has become

unknown, and nothing is remembered except the additions of men.

[Sidenote: Christ's Institution and Man's Ordinances]

4. The nearer, now, our masses are to the first mass of Christ,

the better, without doubt, they are; and the farther from

Christ's mass, the more perilous. For that reason we may not

boast of ourselves, against the Russians or Greeks, that we alone

have a right to hold mass; as little as a priest who wears a red

chasuble may boast against him who wears one of white or black.

For such external additions and differences may by their

dissimilarity make sects and dissensions, but they can never make

the mass better. Although I neither wish nor am able to displace

or discard all such additions, still, because such pompous forms

are perilous, we must never permit ourselves to be led away by

them from the simple institution by Christ and from the right use

of the mass. And, indeed, the greatest and most useful art is to

know what really and properly belongs to the mass, and what is

added and foreign. For where there is no clear distinction, the

eyes and the heart are easily misled by such shamming into a

false impression and delusion; so that what men have invented is

reckoned the mass, and what the mass is, is never experienced, to

say nothing of deriving benefit from it. Thus, alas! it happens

in our times; for, I fear, every day more than a thousand masses

are said, of which perhaps not one is a real mass. O dear

Christian, to have many masses is not to have the mass. There is

more to it than that.

[Sidneote: The Chief Thing in the Mass]

5. If we desire to say mass rightly and understand it, then we

must give up everything that the eyes and all the senses behold

and suggest in this act, such as vestments, in bells, songs,

ornaments, prayers, processions, elevations, prostrations, or

whatever happens in the mass, until we first lay hold of and

consider well the words of Christ, by which He completed and

instituted the mass and commanded us to observe it. For therein

lies the whole mass, its nature, work, profit and benefit, and

without them (i. e., the words) no benefit is derived from the

mass. But these are the words: _Take and eat, this is My body,

which is given for you. [Matt. 26:26] Take and drink ye all of

it, this is the cup of the new and eternal testament in My blood,

[Mark 14:22, 23, 24] which is shed for you and for many for the

forgiveness of sins_ [Luke 22:19, 20]. These words every

Christian must have before him in the mass and hold fast to them

as the chief part of the mass, in which also the really good

preparation for the mass and sacrament is taught; this we shall

see.

[Sidenote: Faith and God's Promises]

6. If man is to deal with God and receive anything from Him, it

must happen in this wise, not that man begin lay the first stone,

but that God alone, without any entreaty or desire of man, must

first come and give him a promise.[3] This word of God is the

beginning, the foundation, the rock, upon which afterward all

works, words and thoughts of man must build. This word man must

gratefully accept, and faithfully believe the divine promise, and

by no means doubt that it is and comes to pass just as He

promises. This trust and faith is the beginning, middle, and end

of all works and righteousness. For, because man does God the

honor of regarding and confessing Him as true. He becomes to him

a gracious God, Who in turn honors him and regards and confesses

him as true. Thus it is not possible that man, of his own reason

and strength, should by works ascend to heaven and anticipate

God, moving Him to be gracious; but God must anticipate all works

and thoughts, and make a promise clearly expressed in words,

which man then takes and keeps with a good, firm faith. Then

follows the Holy Spirit, Who is given him because of this same

faith.

7. Such a promise was given to Adam after his fall, when God

spake to the serpent: "I will put enmity between thee and the

woman, between her seed and thy seed: she shall crush thy head;

and thou shalt lie in wait for her foot." [Gen. 3:15] [4] In

these words, however obscurely, God promises help to human

nature, namely, that by a woman the devil shall again be

overcome. This promise of God sustained Adam and Eve and all

their children until the time of Noah; in this they believed, and

by this faith they were saved; else they had despaired. [Gen. 9:9

f.] In like manner, after the flood, He made a covenant with Noah

and his children, until the time of Abraham (Genesis xii), whom

He summoned out of his fatherland [Gen. 12:1, 3], and promised

that in his seed all nations should be blessed [Gen. 18:18]. This

promise Abraham believed and obeyed, and thereby was justified

and became the friend of God. [Gen. 22:18; 15:6] In the same book

this promise to Abraham is many times repeated, enlarged and made

more definite, until Isaac is promised him, who was to be the

seed from which Christ and every blessing should come. In this

faith upon the promise Abraham's children were kept until the

time of Christ, although in the mean time it was continually

renewed and made more definite by David and many prophets This

promise the Lord in the Gospel calls "Abraham's bosom," [Luke

16:22, 23] because in it were kept all who with a right faith

clung thereto, and, with Abraham, waited for Christ Then came

Moses, who declared the same promise under many forms in the Law.

[Ex. 3:6, 7, 8] Through him God promised the people of Israel the

land of Canaan, while they were still in Egypt; which promise

they believed, and by it they were sustained and led into that

land.

[Sidenote: God's Promise in the Mass--the Testament]

8. In the New Testament, likewise, Christ has made a promise or

solemn vow, which we are to believe and thereto come to godliness

and salvation. This promise is the word in which Christ says:

"This is the cup of the New Testament." [Luke 22:20] This we

shall now examine.

Not every vow is called a testament, but only a last irrevocable

will of one who is about to die, whereby he bequeaths his goods,

allotted and assigned to be distributed to whom he will. Just as

St. Paul says to the Hebrews that a testament must be made

operative by death, and avails nothing while he still lives who

made the testament. [Heb. 9:16, 17] For other vows, made for this

life, may be hindered or recalled, and hence are not called

testaments. Therefore, wherever in Scripture God's testament is

referred to by the prophets, in that very word the prophets are

taught that God would become man and die and rise again, to the

end that His Word, in which He promised such a testament, might

be fulfilled and confirmed. For if He is to make a testament as

He promised, then He must die; if He is to die, He must be a

man. And so that little word "testament" is a short summary of

all God's wonders and grace, fulfilled in Christ.

[Sidenote: Difference between Old and New Testaments]

9. He also distinguishes this testament from others and says, "It

is a new and everlasting testament, in His own blood, for the

forgiveness of sins"; whereby He disannuls the old testament. For

the little word "new" makes the testament of Moses old and

ineffective, one that avails no more. The old testament was a

promise made through Moses to the people of Israel, to whom was

promised the land of Canaan. For this testament God did not die,

but the paschal lamb had to die instead of Christ and as a type

of Christ; and so it was a temporal testament in the blood of the

paschal lamb, which was shed for the obtaining and possessing of

that land of Canaan. And as the paschal lamb, which died in the

old testament for the land of Canaan, was a temporal and

transitory thing, so too the old testament, together with that

possession or land of Canaan allotted and promised therein, was

temporal and transitory.

But Christ, the true Paschal Lamb, is an eternal divine Person,

Who dies to establish the new testament; therefore the testament

and the possessions therein bequeathed are eternal and abiding.

And that is what He means when He contrasts this testament with

that other, and says: A new testament--so that the other may

become old and of none effect. An eternal testament, [Heb. 8:13]

He says, not temporal like that other; not to dispose of temporal

lands or possessions, but of eternal. In My blood, He says, not

in the blood of a lamb. All this is to the end that the old

should be altogether annulled and give place to the new alone.

[Sidenote: What is Promised in the Mass]

10. What then is this testament, and what is bequeathed us

therein by Christ? Forsooth, a great, eternal and unspeakable

treasure, namely, the forgiveness of all sins, as the words

plainly state, "This is the cup of a new eternal testament in My

blood, that is shed for you and for many for the remission of

sin." [Matt. 26:8, Luke 22:30] As though He said: Behold, man, in

these words I promise and bequeath thee forgiveness of all thy

sin and eternal life. And in order that thou mayest be certain

and know that such promise remains irrevocably thine, I will die

for it, and will give My body and blood for it, and will leave

them both to thee as sign and seal, that by them thou mayest

remember Me." [1 Cor. 11:25] So He says: "As oft as ye do this,

remember Me." [Luke 22:19] Even as a man who bequeathes something

includes therein what shall be done for him afterward [1 Cor.

11:25], as is the custom at present in the requiems and masses

for the dead, so also Christ has ordained a requiem for Himself

in this testament; not that He needs it, but because it is

necessary and profitable for us to remember Him; whereby we are

strengthened in faith, confirmed in hope and made ardent in love.

For as long as we live on earth our lot is such that the evil

spirit and all the world assail us with joy and sorrow, to

extinguish our love for Christ, to blot out our faith, and to

weaken our hope. Wherefore we sorely need this sacrament, in

which we may gain new strength when we have grown weak, and may

daily exercise ourselves into the strengthening and uplifting of

the spirit.

[Sidenote: Promises and Signs]

11. Furthermore, in all His promises God has usually given a sign

in addition to the word, for the greater assurance and

strengthening of our faith. Thus He gave Noah the sign of the

rainbow. [Gen. 9:9, 13] To Abraham He gave circumcision as a

sign. [Gen. 17:11] To Gideon He gave the rain on the ground and

on the fleece [Judg. 6:37 ff.]; and we constantly find in the

Scriptures many of these signs, given along with the promises.

For so also worldly testaments are made; not only are the words

written down, but seals and notaries' marks are affixed thereto,

that they may always be binding and authentic. Thus Christ has

done in this testament and has affixed to the words a powerful

and most precious seal and sign; this is His own true body and

blood under the bread and wine. For we poor men, since we live in

our five senses, must always have, along with the words, at least

one outward sign, on which we may lay hold, and around which we

may gather; but in such wise that this sign may be a sacrament,

that is, that it may be external and yet contain and express

something spiritual, so that through the external we may be drawn

into the spiritual, comprehending the external with the eyes of

the body, the spiritual and inward with the eyes of the heart.

[Sidenote: The Parts of the Testament]

12. Now we see how many parts there are in this testament, or the

mass. There is, first, the testator who makes the testament,

Christ. Second, the heirs to whom the testament is bequeathed, we

Christians. Third, the testament in itself, the words of Christ

when He says: "This is My body which is given for you. This is My

blood which is shed for you, a new eternal testament, etc."

Fourth, the seal or token, the sacrament, bread and wine, and

under them His true body and blood. For everything that is in

this sacrament must live; therefore He did not put it in dead

writ and seal, but in living words and signs which we use from

day to day.

And this is what is meant when the priest elevates the host,[5]

by which act he addresses us rather than God, as though he said

to us: Behold, this is the seal and sign of the testament in

which Christ has bequeathed us remission of all an and eternal

life. With this agrees also that which is sung by the choir:

"Blessed be He that cometh to us in the name of God" [Matt.

21:9]?[6] so that we testify how we receive therein blessings

from God, and do not sacrifice nor give to Him. Fifth, the

bequeathed blessing which the words signify, namely, remission of

sin and eternal life. Sixth, the obligation, remembrance or

requiem which we should observe for Christ, to wit, that we

preach this His love and grace, hear and meditate upon it, by it

be incited and preserved unto love and hope in Him, as St. Paul

explains it: "As oft as ye eat this bread and drink of this cup

ye show the death of Christ." [1 Cor. 11:26] And this is what an

earthly testator does, who bequeaths something to his heirs, that

he may leave behind him a good name, the good will of men and a

blessed memory, that he be not forgotten.

[Sidenote: How the Mass Should be Regarded]

13. From all this it is now easily seen what the mass is, how one

should prepare himself for it, how observe and how use it, and

how many are the abuses of it. For just as one would act if ten

thousand _gulden_ were bequeathed him by a good friend: so, and

with far more reason, we ought to conduct ourselves toward the

mass, which is nothing else than an exceeding rich and

everlasting and good testament bequeathed us by Christ Himself,

and bequeathed in such wise that He would have had no other

reason to die except that He wished to make such a testament; so

fervently desirous was He to pour out His eternal treasures, as

He says: "With desire I have desired to eat this passover with

you before I die." [Luke 22:15] Hence, too, it comes that in

spite of many masses we remain so blind and cold, for we do not

know what the mass is, what we do in it, nor what we get from it.

[Sidenote: Faith in the word the True Preparation for the Mass]

Since then it is nothing else than a testament, the first and by

far the best preparation for the mass is a hungry soul and a firm

joyful faith of the heart accepting such a testament Who would

not go with great and joyful desire, hope and comfort, and demand

a thousand _gulden_, if he knew that at a certain place they had

been bequeathed him; especially if there were no other condition

than that he remember, honor, and praise the testator? So, in

this matter, you must above all else take heed to your heart,

that you believe the words of Christ, and admit their truth, when

He says to you and to all: "This is My blood, a new testament, by

which I bequeath you forgiveness of all sins and eternal life."

How could you do Him greater dishonor and show greater disrespect

to the holy mass than by not believing or by doubting? For He

desired this to be so certain that He Himself even died for it.

Surely such doubt would be naught else than denying and

blaspheming Christ's sufferings and death, and every blessing

which He has thereby obtained.

14. For this reason, I have said, everything depends upon the

words of this sacrament, which are the words of Christ, and which

we verily should set in pure gold and precious stones, and keep

nothing more diligently before the eyes of the heart, that faith

be exercised thereby. Let another pray, fast, go to confession,

prepare himself for mass and the sacrament as he will. Do thou

the same, but know that all that is pure fool's-work and

self-deception, if you do not set before you the words of the

testament and arouse yourself to believe and desire them. A long

time would you have to polish your shoes, pick the lint[7] off

your clothes, and deck yourself out to get an inheritance, if you

had no letter and seal with which you could prove your right to

it. But if you have letter and seal, and believe, desire, and

seek it, it must be given you, even though you were scaly,

scabby, stinking and most unclean. So if you would receive this

sacrament and testament worthily, see to it that you bring

forward these living words of Christ, rely thereon with a strong

faith, and desire what Christ has therein promised you: then it

will be given you, then are you worthy and well prepared. This

faith and confidence must and will make you joyful, and awaken a

bold love for Christ, by means of which you will begin with joy

to lead a really good life and with all your heart to flee from

sin. For he who loves Christ will surely do what pleases Him, and

leave undone what does not please Him. But who will love Him

except he taste the riches of this testament which Christ, out of

pure mercy, has freely bequeathed to poor sinners? This taste

comes by the faith which believes and trusts the testament and

promise. If Abraham had not believed the promise of God he would

never have amounted to anything. Just as certainly, then, as

Abraham, Noah, and David accepted and believed their promises: so

certainly must we also accept and believe this testament and

promise.

[Sidenote: Who is Worthy]

15. Now there are two temptations which never cease to assail

you; the first, that you are entirely unworthy of so rich a

testament, the second, that even were you worthy, the blessing is

so great that human nature is terrified by the greatness of it;

for what do not forgiveness of all sin and eternal life bring

with them? If either of these temptations comes to you, you must,

as I have said, esteem the words of Christ more than such

thoughts. It will not be He that lies to you; your thoughts will

be deceiving you.

Just as though a poor beggar, yea, a very knave, were bequeathed

a thousand _gulden_: he would not demand them because of his

merit or worthiness, nor fail to claim them because of the

greatness of the sum; and if any one should cast up to him his

unworthiness and the greatness of the sum, he would certainly not

allow anything of that sort to frighten him, but would say: "What

is that to you? I know full well that I am unworthy of the

inheritance; I do not demand it on my merits, as though it had

been due me, but on the favor and grace of the testator. If he

did not think it too much to bequeath to me, why should I so

despise myself and not claim and take it?" So also must a timid,

dejected conscience insist, against its own thoughts, upon the

testament of Christ, and be stubborn in firm faith, despite its

own unworthiness and the greatness of the blessing. For this very

reason that which brings to such unworthy ones so great a

blessing is a divine testament, by which God desires above all

things to awaken love to Him. So Christ comforted those dejected

ones who thought the blessing too great and said: "Faint-hearted

little flock, fear not; it hath pleased your Father to give you

the eternal Kingdom." [Luke 12:32]

[Sidenote: Abuses of the Mass: 1. The Suppression of the Words]

16. But see now what they have made of the mass! In the first

place, they have hidden these words of the testament, and have

taught that they are not to be spoken to the laity, that they are

secret words to be spoken in the mass only by the priest. Has not

the devil here in a masterly way stolen from us the chief thing

in the mass and put it to silence? For who has ever heard it

preached that one should give heed in the mass to these words of

the testament and insist upon them with a firm faith? And yet

this should have been the chief thing. Thus they have been

afraid, and have taught us to be afraid, where there is no cause

for fear, nay, where all our comfort and safety lie.

How many miserable consciences, which perished from fear and

sorrow, could have been comforted and rescued by these words!

What devil has told them that the words which should be the most

familiar, the most openly spoken among all Christians, priests

and laity, men and women, young and old, are to be hidden in

greatest secrecy? How should it be possible for us to know what

the mass is, or how to use and observe it, if we are not to know

the words in which the very mass consists?[8]

But would to God that we Germans could say mass in German, and

sing these "most secret" words loudest of all! Why should not we

Germans say mass in our own language, when the Latins, Greeks and

many others observe mass in their language? Why should we not

also keep secret the words of baptism: "I baptise thee in the

name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, Amen"?

[Matt. 28:19] If every one may speak in German, and aloud, these

words, which are no less the holy Word and promise of God, why

should not every one also be permitted to hear and speak those

words of the mass aloud and in German?

[Sidenote: Word and Sign in the Sacraments]

17. Let us learn, then, that in every covenant[9] of God there

are two things which one must consider; these are Word and Sign.

In baptism these are the words of the baptiser and the dipping in

water.[10] In the mass they are the words and the bread and wine.

The words are the divine covenant, promise and testament. The

signs are sacraments, that is sacred signs. Now since the

testament is far more important than the sacrament, so the words

are much more important than the signs. For the signs might be

lacking, if only one have the words, and thus one might be saved

without sacrament, yet not without testament. For I can daily

enjoy the sacrament in the mass, if I only keep before my eyes

the testament, that is, the words and covenant of Christ, and

feed and strengthen my faith thereby.

We see, then, that the best and greatest part of all sacraments

and of the mass is the words and covenant of God, without which

the sacraments are dead and are nothing at all; like a body

without a soul, a cask without wine, a purse without gold, a type

without fulfilment, a letter without spirit, a sheath without a

knife, and the like; whence it is true that when we use, hear, or

see the mass without the words or testament, and look only to the

sacrament and sign, we do not even half keep the mass. For

sacrament without testament is keeping the case without the

jewel, quite an unequal separation and division.

[Sidenote: The Testament ignored]

18. I fear, therefore, that there is at present more idolatry in

Christendom through the masses than ever occurred among the Jews.

For we hear nowhere that the mass is directed toward the feeding

and strengthening of faith, for which alone it was ordained by

Christ, but is only used as a sacrament without the testament.

Many have written of the fruits of the mass, and indeed have

greatly exalted them; nor do I question the value of these

fruits. But take heed that you regard them all, compared to this

one thing, as the body compared to the soul. God has here

prepared for our faith a pasture, table and feast; [Ps. 23] but

faith is fed with nothing except the Word of God alone. Therefore

you must take heed above all things to the words, exalt them,

highly esteem them, and hold them fast; then you will have not

simply the little drops of blessing[11] that drip from the mass,

but the very head-waters of faith, from which springs and flows

all that is good, as the Lord says in John vii, "Whosoever

believeth in Me, out of his belly shall flow streams of living

water" [John 4:14, 15]; again: "Whosoever shall drink of the

water which I give, he shall never thirst, and there shall be in

him a spring of living water unto everlasting life." We see,

then, the first abuse of the mass is this--that we have lost the

chief blessing, to wit, the testament and the faith. What

consequences this has had we now shall see.

19. It follows of necessity, where faith and the Word or promise

of God decline or are neglected, that there arise in their place

works and a false, presumptuous trust in them. For where there is

no promise of God there is no faith. Where there is no faith,

there everyone presumptuously undertakes to better himself by

means of works, and to make himself well-pleasing to God. When

this happens, false security and presumption arise therefrom, as

though man were well-pleasing to God because of his own works.

When this does not happen, the conscience has no rest, and knows

not what to do, that it may become well-pleasing to God.

[Sidenote: Abuses of the Mass: 2. The Mass a Good Work]

So too I fear that many have made out of the mass a good work,

whereby they thought to do a great service to Almighty God. Now,

if we have rightly understood what has been said above, namely,

that the mass is nothing else than a testament and sacrament, in

which God pledges Himself to us and gives us grace and mercy, I

think it is not fitting that we should make a good work or merit

out of it. For a testament is not _beneficium acceptum, sed

datum_;[12] it does not derive benefit from us, but brings us

benefit. Who has ever heard that he who receives an inheritance

does a good work? He does derive benefit. Likewise in the mass we

give Christ nothing, but only take from Him; unless they are

willing to call this a good work, that a man be quiet and permit

himself to be benefited, to be given food and drink, to be

clothed and healed, helped and redeemed. Just as in baptism, in

which there is also a divine testament and sacrament, no one

gives God anything or does Him a service, but instead takes

something; so too in all the other sacraments, and in the sermon.

For if one sacrament cannot be a meritorious good work, then no

other can be a work; because they are all of one kind, and it is

the nature of a sacrament or testament that it is not a work, but

only an exercise of faith.

[Sidenote: Good Works Connected with the Mass]

20. It is true, indeed, that when we come together to the mass to

receive the testament and sacrament, and to nourish and

strengthen faith, we there offer our prayer with one accord, and

this prayer, which arises out of faith, and is for the increase

of faith, is truly a good work; and we also distribute alms among

the poor; as was done aforetime when the Christians gathered food

and other needful things, which after the mass were distributed

among the needy, as we learn from St. Paul. But this work and

prayer are quite another thing than the testament and sacrament,

[1 Cor. 11:21, 22] which no one can offer or give to God or to

men, but every one takes and receives of it for himself only, in

proportion as he believes and trusts. Now just as I cannot

receive or give the sacrament of baptism, of penance, or of

extreme unction in any one's stead or for his benefit, but I take

for myself alone the blessing therein offered by God, and there

is here not _officium_, but _beneficium_, i. e., not work or

service, but reception and benefit alone; so also, no one can say

or hear mass for another, but each one for himself alone, for it

is purely a taking and receiving.

This is all easily understood, if one only considers what the

mass really is, namely, a testament and sacrament; that is, God's

Word and promise, together with a sacred sign, the bread and the

wine, under which Christ's body and blood are truly present. For

by what process of reasoning could a man be said to do a good

work for another when, like the others, he comes as one in need,

and takes to himself the words and sign of God in which God

promises and grants him grace and help? Surely, to receive God's

Word, sign, and grace is not the imparting of good, or the doing

of a good work, but is simply a "taking to oneself."

[Sidenote: Abuses of the Mass: 3. The Mass as a Sacrifice]

21. Now, since the whole world has made a sacrifice of the mass,

wherein they bring an offering to God, which without doubt is the

third and very worst abuse, we must dearly distinguish between

what we offer and what we do not offer in the mass.

Beyond all doubt the word "offering" in the mass has arisen and

has remained until now, because in the times of the Apostles,

when some of the practices of the Old Testament were still

observed, the Christians brought food, money and necessities,

which were distributed in connection with mass among the needy,

as I have said before.[13] For so we still read in Acts iv, that

the Christians sold all that they had, and brought it to the feet

of the Apostles, who then had it distributed and gave of the

common possessions to every one as he needed. [Acts 4:34, 35]

Even so the Apostle Paul teaches, that all food and whatsoever we

use shall be blessed with prayer and the Word of God, and thanks

be given to God therefor [Rom. 14:6, 7; 1 Cor. 10:30,31]; hence

we say the _Benedicite_ and _Gratias_[14] at table. Thus it was

the custom of the Old Testament, when men thanked God for gifts

received, that they lifted them up in their hands to God; as is

written in the law of Moses. [Exod. 34:26; Num.15:19, 20]

Therefore, the apostles also lifted up the offerings in this way,

thanked God, and blessed, with the Word of God, food and whatever

the Christians gathered. And Christ Himself, as St. Luke writes,

lifted up the cup, gave thanks to God, drank of it, and gave to

the others, before He instituted the sacrament and testament.

[Luke 22:17]

[Sidenote: The Collect and Offeratory]

22. Traces of this usage have survived in three customs. The

first, that the first and last prayer of the mass are called

"collects," that is, "collections"; which indicates that these

prayers were spoken as a blessing and thanksgiving over the food

which had been collected, to bless it and give thanks to God,

according to the teaching of St. Paul [1 Cor. 10:30, 31]. The

second, when the people after the Gospel proceed to the offering;

from which the chant which is sung at that time is called

"Offertory," that is, an offering. The third, that the priest

elevates in the paten and offers to God the still unblessed host,

at the same time that the offertory is being sung and the people

are making their offering; by which is shown that the sacrament

is not offered to God by us, but only these "collects" and

offerings of food and gifts that have been gathered, in order

that God may be thanked for them, and they may be blessed, to be

distributed to the needy.

For afterward, when the priest, in the "low mass," [15] elevates

the blessed host and cup, there is not a word said about the

sacrifice, where he should most of all make mention of the

sacrifice, if the mass were a sacrifice: but, as I have said

above,[16] he elevates it not toward God, but toward us, to

remind us of the testament, and to incite us to faith in the

same. In like manner, when he receives or administers the

sacrament, he does not mention the sacrifice by a single word;

which must and should be done were the sacrament a sacrifice.

Therefore, the mass dare not and cannot be called or be a

sacrifice because of the sacrament, but only because of the food

which is gathered and the prayer with which God is thanked and

with which it is blessed.

[Sidenote: The Offering at the Mass]

23. Now the custom of gathering food and money at the mass has

fallen into disuse, and not more than a trace of it remains in

the offering of the _pfennig_ on the high festivals, and

especially on Easter Day, when they still bring cakes, meat,

eggs, etc., to church to be blessed. Now in place of such

offerings and collections, endowed churches, monastic houses and

hospitals have been erected, and should be maintained for the

sole purpose that the needy in every city may be given all they

need, that there be no beggar or needy one among the Christians,

but that each and all may have from the mass enough for body and

soul.

But all this is reversed. Just as the mass is not rightly

explained to men, but is understood as a sacrifice, not as a

testament, so, on the other hand, that which is and ought to be

the offering, namely, the possessions of the churches and

monastic houses, is no longer offered and is not given, with the

thanksgiving and blessing of God, to the needy to whom it ought

to be given. Therefore God is provoked to anger, and now permits

the possessions of the churches and monastic houses to become the

occasion of war, of worldly pomp, and of such abuse that no other

blessing is so shamefully and blasphemously managed and wasted.

And since it does not serve the poor, for whom it was appointed,

it is indeed meet and right that it should remain unworthy to

serve for anything but sin and shame.

[Sidenote: The Mass Not a Sacrifice]

24. Now if you ask what is left in the mass to give it the name

of a sacrifice, since so much is said in the Office about the

sacrifice, I answer: Nothing is left. For, to be brief and to the

point, we must let the mass be a sacrament and testament, and

this is not and cannot be a sacrifice any more than the other

sacraments--baptism, confirmation, penance, extreme unction,

etc.--are sacrifices.[17] Otherwise we should lose the Gospel,

Christ, the comfort of the sacrament and every grace of God.

Therefore we must separate the mass clearly and distinctly from

the prayers and ceremonies which have been added by the holy

fathers, and keep the two as far apart as heaven and earth, that

the mass may remain nothing else than the testament and sacrament

comprehended in the words of Christ. What there is over and

beyond these words we are to regard, in comparison with the words

of Christ, as we regard the monstrance[18] and corporal[19] in

comparison with the host and the sacrament itself; and these we

regard as nothing but additions for the reverent and seemly

administration of the sacrament. Now just as we regard the

monstrance, corporal and altar-cloths compared with the

sacrament, so we are to look upon all added words, works and

ceremonies of the mass compared with the words of Christ Himself,

in which He gives and ordains this testament. For if the mass or

sacrament were a sacrifice, we would have to say that it is a

mass and sacrifice when the sacrament is brought to the sick in

their home, or when those in health receive it in the church, and

that there are as many masses and sacrifices as the number of

those who approach the sacrament. If in this case it is not a

sacrifice, how is it a sacrifice in the hand of the priest, since

it is still one and the same sacrament, one and the same use, one

and the same benefit, and in all respects the same sacrament and

testament with all of us?

[Sidenote: The Spiritual Sacrifice in the Mass]

25. We should, therefore, give careful heed to this word

"sacrifice," that we do not presume to give God something in the

sacrament, when it is He who therein gives us all things. We

should bring spiritual sacrifices, since the external sacrifices

have ceased and have been changed into the gifts to churches,

monastic houses and charitable institutions. What sacrifices

then are we to offer? Ourselves, and all that we have, with

constant prayer, as we say: "Thy will be done on earth as in

heaven." [Matt. 6:10] Whereby we are to yield ourselves to the

will of God, that He may do with us what He will, according to

His own pleasure; in addition, we are to offer Him praise and

thanksgiving with our whole heart, for His unspeakable, sweet

grace and mercy, which He has promised and given us in this

sacrament. And although such a sacrifice occurs apart from the

mass, and should so occur, for it does not necessarily and

essentially belong to the mass, as has been said,[20] yet it is

more precious, more seemly, more mighty and also more acceptable

when it takes place with the multitude and in the assembly where

men provoke, move and inflame one another to press close to God,

and thereby attain without all doubt what they desire.

For so has Christ promised; where two are gathered together in

His name there He is in the midst of them, and where two agree on

earth as touching anything that they shall ask, all shall be done

that they ask. [Matt. 18:19, 20] How much more shall they obtain

what they ask, when a whole city comes together to praise God and

to pray with one accord! We would not need many

indulgence-letters if we proceeded aright in this matter. Souls

also would easily be redeemed from purgatory and innumerable

blessings would follow. But, alas! that is not the way it goes.

Everything is reversed; what the mass is intended to do, we take

upon us and want to do ourselves; what we ought to do we give

over to the mass. All this is the work of unlearned, false

preachers.

26. To be sure, this sacrifice of prayer, praise and

thanksgiving, and of ourselves, we are not to present before God

in our own person, but we are to lay it on Christ and let Him

present it, as St. Paul teaches in Hebrews xiii: "Let us offer

the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of

the lips which confess Him and praise Him," [Heb. 13:15] and all

this through Christ. For He is also a priest, as Psalm cx says:

"Thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek" [Ps.

110:4]; because He intercedes for us in heaven, receives our

prayer and sacrifice, and through Himself, as a godly priest,

makes them pleasing to God [Heb. 5:6, 10, etc.], as St. Paul says

again in Hebrews ix: "He is ascended into Heaven to be a mediator

in the presence of God for us" [Heb. 9:24]; and: "It is Christ

Jesus that died, yea, rather, that is risen again, Who is even at

the right hand of God, Who also maketh intercession for us."

[Rom. 8:34]

[Sidenote: Christ the Priest: Christians the Sacrifice]

From these words we learn that we do not offer Christ as a

sacrifice, but that Christ offers us. And in this way it is

permissible, yea, profitable, to call the mass a sacrifice, not

on its own account, but because we offer ourselves as a sacrifice

along with Christ; that is, we lay ourselves on Christ by a firm

faith in His testament, and appear before God with our prayer,

praise and sacrifice only through Him and through His mediation;

and we do not doubt that He is our priest and minister in heaven

before God. Such faith, forsooth, brings it to pass that Christ

takes up our cause, presents us, our prayer and praise, and also

offers Himself for us in heaven. If the mass were so understood

and therefore called a sacrifice, it would be well. Not that we

offer the sacrament, but that by our praise, prayer and sacrifice

we move Him and give Him occasion to offer Himself for us in

heaven, and ourselves with Him. As though I were to say, I had

brought a king's son to his father as an offering, when, indeed,

I had done no more than induce that son to present my need and

petition to the king, and made the son my mediator.

[Sidenote: All Christians Priests]

27. Few, however, understand the mass in this way. For they

suppose that only the priest offers the mass as a sacrifice

before God, although this is done and should be done by everyone

who receives the sacrament, yea, also by those who are present at

the mass and do not receive the sacrament. Furthermore, such

offering of sacrifice every Christian may make, wherever he is

and at all times, as St. Paul says: "Let us offer the sacrifice

of praise continually through Him," [Heb. 13:15] and Psalm cx:

"Thou art a priest forever." [Ps. 110:4] If He is a priest

forever, then He is at all times a priest and is offering

sacrifices without ceasing before God. But we cannot be

continually the same, and therefore the mass has been instituted

that we may there come together and offer such sacrifice in

common.

But let him who understands the mass otherwise or uses it

otherwise than as a testament and sacrifice of this kind take

heed how he understands it. I understand it, as has been said, to

be really nothing else than this, that we receive the testament

and at the same time admonish ourselves and be minded to

strengthen our faith and not doubt that Christ is our priest in

heaven, who offers Himself for us without ceasing and presents us

and our prayer and praise, and makes them acceptable; just as

though I were to offer the human priest as a sacrifice in the

mass and appoint him to present my need and my praise of God, and

he were to give me a token that he would do it. In this case I

would be offering the priest as a sacrifice; and it is in this

wise that I offer Christ, in that I desire and believe that He

accepts me and my prayer and praise, and presents it to God in

His own person, and to strengthen this faith, gives me a token

that He will do it. This token is the sacrament of bread and

wine. Thus it becomes clear that it is not the priest alone who

offers the sacrifice of the mass, but every one's faith, which is

the true priestly office, through which Christ is offered as a

sacrifice to God. This office the priest, with the outward

ceremonies of the mass, simply represents. Each and all are,

therefore equally spiritual priests before God. [Rev. 1:6; 5:10,

1 Pet. 2:9]

[Sidenote: Faith the True Priestly Office]

28. From this you can see for yourself that there are many who

rightly observe mass and make this sacrifice, who themselves know

nothing about it, nay, who do not realize that they are priests

and can observe mass. Again, there are many who take great pains

and apply themselves with all diligence, thinking that they are

keeping the mass properly and offering a right sacrifice, and yet

there is nothing right about it. For all those who have the faith

that Christ is a priest for them in heaven before God, and who

lay on Him their prayers and praise, their need and their whole

selves, and present them through Him, not doubting that He does

this very thing, and offers Himself for them, these take the

sacrament and testament, outwardly or spiritually, as a sign of

all this, and do not doubt that all sin is thereby forgiven, that

God has become their gracious Father and that everlasting life is

prepared for them.

All such, then, wherever they may be, are true priests, observe

the mass aright and also obtain by it what they desire. For faith

must do everything. It alone is the true priestly office and

permits no one else to take its place. Therefore all Christians

are priests; the men, priests, the women, priestesses, be they

young or old, masters or servants, mistresses or maids, learned

or unlearned. Here there is no difference, unless faith be

unequal. Again, all who do not have such faith, but presume to

make much of the mass as a sacrifice, and perform this office

before God, are figure-heads. They observe mass outwardly and do

not themselves know what they are doing, and cannot be well

pleasing to God. For without true faith it is impossible to

please Him, as St. Paul says in Hebrews xi. [Heb. 11:6] Now there

are many who, hidden in their hearts, have such true faith, and

themselves know not of it; many there are who do not have it, and

of this, too, they are unaware.

[Sidenote: Masses for the Dead]

39. It has become a wide-spread custom to found masses for the

dead, and many books have been written about it. If we ask now,

Of what benefit are the masses celebrated for the souls which are

kept in purgatory? the answer is: What is custom! God's Word must

prevail and remain true, to wit, that the mass is nothing else

than a testament and sacrament of God, and cannot be a good work

or a sacrifice, although it may be taken to include sacrifice and

good works, as was said above.[21]

There is no doubt, therefore, that whoever observes mass without

the faith aforementioned benefits neither himself nor any one

else. For the sacrament in itself, without faith, does nothing;

nay, God Himself, Who indeed doeth all things, does and can do

good to no one unless he firmly believes Him; how much less can

the sacrament. It is easy to say, a mass is effective whether it

be performed by a pious or a wicked priest, that it is acceptable

_opere operati_, not _opere operantis_.[22] But to produce no

other argument except that many say this, and it has become a

custom, is poor proof that it is right. Many have praised

pleasures and riches and have grown accustomed to them; that does

not make them right; we should produce Scripture or reason for

it. Therefore let us take heed lest we be made fools. I cannot

conclude that the institution of so many masses and requiems can

be without abuse, especially since all this is done as a good

work and sacrifice by which to pay God, whereas in the mass there

is nothing else than the reception and enjoyment of divine grace,

promised and given us in His testament and sacrament.

30. I will gladly agree that the faith which I have called[23]

the true priestly office, which makes of us all priests and

priestesses, through which in connection with the sacrament we

offer ourselves, our need, prayer, praise and thanksgiving in

Christ and through Christ, and thereby offer Christ before God,

that is, give Him cause and move Him to offer Himself for us and

us with Himself--this faith, I say, is truly able to do all

things in heaven, earth, hell and purgatory, and to this faith no

one can ascribe too much. And as I have said above,[24] if

Christ promises to two persons the answers to all their prayers

[Matt. 18:19], how much more may so many obtain from Him what

they desire!

I know full well that some will be very ready to call me a

heretic in this. But, dear fellow, you should also consider

whether you can prove as easily as you slander. I have read all

that, and I know the books on which you rely, so you need not

think I do not know your art. But I say that your art has no

foundation, and that you cannot defend it, and that out of a

sacrament or testament of God you will never make a sacrifice or

a work of satisfaction, and, indeed, satisfaction itself is more

of a human than a divine law.[25]

Therefore my advice is, let us hold fast to that which is

sure[26] and let the uncertain go; that is, if we would help

these poor souls in purgatory or any one else, let us not take

the risk of relying upon the mass as a sufficient work, but

rather come together to mass, and with priestly faith[27] present

every besetting need, in Christ and with Christ, praying for the

souls [of the departed], and not doubting that we will be heard.

Thus we may be sure that the soul is redeemed. For the faith

which rests on the promise of Christ never deceives nor fails.

[Sidenote: The Need for the Sacrament]

31. So we read that St. Monica, St Augustine's mother, on her

death-bed, desired to be remembered in the mass.[28] If the mass

were sufficient of itself to help everyone, what need would there

be for faith and prayer? But you might say, if this is true,

anyone might observe mass and offer such a sacrifice, even in the

open fields. For every one may indeed have such a faith in Christ

in the open fields, and offer and commit to Him his prayer,

praise, need and cause, to bring it before God in heaven, and

besides he may also think of the sacrament and testament,

heartily desire it, and in this way spiritually receive it. For

he who desires it and believes, receives it spiritually, as St.

Augustine teaches.[29]

What need is there then to observe mass in the churches? I

answer: It is true, such faith is enough, and truly accomplishes

everything, but how could you think of this faith, sacrifice,

sacrament and testament if it were not visibly administered in

certain designated places and churches? The same is true in the

case of baptism and absolution, although faith is sufficient

without them, where no more can be done; still if there were no

place for their administration, who could think of them and

believe in them, or who could know or say anything of them?

Moreover, since God has so ordered this sacrament, we must not

despise it, but receive it with great reverence, praise and

gratitude. For if there were no other reason why we should

observe mass outwardly and not be satisfied with inward faith

alone, yet were this sufficient, that God so orders and wills it.

And His will ought to please us above all things and be

sufficient reason to do or omit anything.

There is also this advantage: since we are still living in the

flesh and are not all perfect enough to rule ourselves in spirit,

we need to come together to enkindle such a faith in one another

by example, prayer, praise, and thanksgiving, as I have said

above,[30] and through the outward seeing and receiving of the

sacrament and testament to move each other to the increase of

this faith. There are many saints, who like St. Paul the

Hermit,[31] remained for years in the desert without mass, and

yet were never without mass. But such a high spiritual example

cannot be imitated by everyone or by the whole Church.

[Sidenote: The Mass a Proclamation of the Gospel]

33. But the chief reason for outwardly holding mass is the Word

of God, which no one can do without, and which must daily be used

and studied. Not only because every day Christians are born,

baptised and trained, but because we live in the midst of the

world, the flesh and the devil, who do not cease to tempt us and

drive us into sin, against which the most powerful weapon is the

holy Word of God, as St. Paul also calls it, "a spiritual sword,"

[Eph. 6:17] which is powerful against all sin. This the Lord

indicated when He instituted the mass and said: "This do in

remembrance of Me" [Luke 22:19]; as though He said, "As often as

you use this sacrament and testament you shall preach of Me," As

also St. Paul says in I. Corinthians xi, "As oft as ye eat this

bread and drink this cup ye shall preach and proclaim the death

of the Lord until He come" [1 Cor. 11:26]; and Psalm cii, "They

shall declare the glory of the Lord in Zion and His praise in

Jerusalem, as often as the kings (that is, the bishops and

rulers) and the people come together to serve the lord" [Ps.

102:21, 22]; and Psalm cxi, "He hath instituted a memorial of His

wonders in that He has given meat to all who fear Him." [Ps.

111:4, 5]

In these passages you see how the mass was instituted to preach

and praise Christ, to glorify His sufferings and all His grace

and goodness, that we may be moved to love Him, hope and believe

in Him, and thus, in addition to this Word or sermon, receive an

outward sign, that is, the sacrament, to the end that our faith,

provided with and confirmed by divine words and signs, may become

strong against all sin, suffering, death and hell and everything

that is against us. And but for the preaching of the Word He

would nevermore have instituted the mass. He is more concerned

about the Word than about the sign. For the preaching ought to be

nothing but an explanation of the words of Christ when He

institutes the mass and says: "This is My body. This is My blood,

etc." What is the whole Gospel but an explanation of this

testament? Christ has comprehended the whole Gospel in a short

summary with the words of this testament or sacrament. For the

whole Gospel is nothing but a proclamation of God's grace and of

the forgiveness of all sins, granted us through the sufferings of

Christ, as St. Paul proves in Romans x [Rom. 10:9, 11, 13]; and

Christ in Luke xxiv [Luke 24:46, 47]. This same thing the words

of this testament contain, as we have seen.

34. From this we may see what a pity and perversion it is that so

many masses are said, and yet the Gospel is kept altogether

silent. They stand and preach, and give to poor souls chaff for

wheat, yea, death for life, intending afterward to make up for it

with many masses. What sort of baptism would that be, if the

water were poured upon the child and not a word were said? I fear

that the holy words of the testament are read so secretly, and

kept hidden from the laity, because God in His wrath is

testifying thereby that the whole Gospel is no longer publicly

preached to the people, that even as the summary of the Gospel is

hidden, so also its public explanation has ceased.

[Sidenote: The Withdrawal of the Cup]

Next, they took entirely from us the one element, the wine,

although that does not matter much, for the Word is more

important than the sign. Still, I should like to know who gave

them the power to do such a thing. In the same way they might

take from us the other element and give us the empty monstrance

to kiss as a relic, and at last abolish everything that Christ

has instituted. I fear it is a figure and type that augurs

nothing good in these perilous, perverted latter days. It is said

that the pope has the power to do it; I say that is all fiction,

he does not have a hair's breadth of power to change what Christ

has made; and whatever of these things he changes, that he does

as a tyrant and Antichrist. I should like to hear how they will

prove it.

Not that I wish to cause a turmoil about it, for I regard the

Word as mightier than the sign, but I cannot permit the outrage

when they not only do us wrong, but wish to have a right thereto,

and force us not only to permit such a wrong, but also to praise

it as right and good. Let them do what they will, so long as we

are not obliged to acknowledge wrong as right. It is enough that

we permit ourselves, with Christ, to be smitten on the cheek

[John 18:22], but it is not for us to praise it, as though they

had done well therein and earned God's reward.

[Sidenote: Superstitious Use of Mass]

35. But what of those poor priests and laymen who have departed

so far from the true meaning of the mass and of faith that they

have even made of it a sort of magic? Some men have masses said

that they may become rich and prosper in their business, others

because they think if they hear mass in the morning they will be

safe during the day from all danger and want; some, again, on

account of sickness; others for still more foolish, yea, even

sinful reasons, and yet they find priests perverted enough to

take their money and do their bidding.

[Sidenote: Distinction of Masses]

Furthermore, they have now made one mass better than another; one

is valued as useful for this, another for that. Thus they have

made seven "Golden Masses." [33] The "Mass of the Holy Cross" has

come to have a different virtue from the "Mass of Our Lady." In

this matter every one is silent and permits the people to go on

for the sake of the cursed, filthy _pfennigs_, which through

these various titles and virtues of the mass come piling in. So

must faith, like Christ, be sold by its Judas, that is, by

covetousness and the thirst for money. [Matt. 26:15, 16]

Some are to be found also who have mass said privately, for this

and for that; in short, the mass must do all kinds of things,

except its own peculiar work--faith, which no one regards. They

now are the best men on earth who have many masses said, as

though they thought thereby to lay up many good works. All of

this is the work of ignorance, which does not separate the hymns

and prayers, which have been added, from the true, original mass.

For one mass is like another and there is no difference, except

in the faith. For the mass is best to him who believes most, and

it serves only to increase faith, and for nothing else. True,

indeed, the added prayers do serve, one this purpose, another

that, according to the meaning of their words, but they are not

the mass or the sacrament.

[Sidenote: Reduction in the Number of Masses]

36. I would advise then, that where the masses are not directed

toward such faith, they be abolished, and that there be fewer

masses endowed for the souls of the dead. Truly we provoke God

to anger with them more than we conciliate Him. To what purpose

are the priests in the chapter houses and cloisters so strictly

bound to observe the yearly[34] masses, since they are not only

without such faith, but also are often of necessity unfit. Christ

Himself did not desire to bind anyone thereto and left us wholly

free when He said: "This do ye, as oft as ye do it, in

remembrance of Me." [1 Cor. 11:25] And we men bind ourselves so

fast and drive ourselves on against our own conscience. I see too

that such an institution often has no good reason, but a secret

greed is at the bottom of the obligation and that we burden

ourselves with many masses in order that we may have sufficient

income in temporal things; afterward we say that we do it for

God's sake. I fear few would be found who gratuitously and for

God's sake would thus burden themselves. But if all these masses

are observed in the faith above mentioned, which I scarcely

expect, they are to be tolerated. But if not, then it would be

best that there be only one mass a day in a city, and that it be

held in a proper manner in the presence of the assembled people.

If at any time, however, we desire to have more, the people

should be divided into as many parts as there are masses, and

each part should be made to attend its own mass, there to

exercise their faith and to offer their prayer, praise and need

in Christ, as was said above.[35]

[Sidenote: Proper Preparation for the Mass]

37. If, then, the mass is a testament and sacrament in which the

forgiveness of sins and every grace of God are promised and

sealed with a sign, it follows of itself, what is the best

preparation for it. Without doubt, it is given to them that need

it and desire it. But who needs forgiveness of sins and God's

grace more than just these poor miserable consciences that are

driven and tormented by their sins, are afraid of God's anger and

judgment, of death and of hell, that would be glad to have a

gracious God and desire nothing more greatly? These are truly

they who are well-prepared for mass. For them these words have

force and meaning, when Christ says: "Take and drink, this is My

blood, which is shed for you for the remission of sins." [Matt.

26:27] Where such a soul believes these words, as it ought, it

receives from the mass all the fruits of the mass, that is, peace

and joy, and is thus well and richly fed by it in spirit. But

where there is no faith, there no prayer helps, nor the hearing

of many masses; things can only become worse. As Psalm xxiii

says: "Thou preparest a table before me against all my enemies."

[Ps. 23:5] Is this not a clear passage? What greater enemies are

there than sin and an evil conscience which at all times fears

God's anger and never has rest? Again, Psalm cxi says: "He hath

made His wonderful works to be remembered and hath given meat to

them that fear Him." [Ps. 111:4, 5] It is certain then that for

bold, confident spirits, whose sin does not prick them, the mass

is of no value, for they have as yet no hunger for this food, but

are still too full. The mass demands and must have a hungry soul,

which longs for forgiveness of sins and divine favor.

[Sidenote: The Mass a Remedy against Despair and Doubt]

38. But because this despair and unrest of conscience are nothing

but an infirmity of faith, the severest malady which man can have

in body and soul, and which cannot at once or speedily be cured,

it is useful and necessary that the more restless a man's

conscience, the more should he approach the sacrament or hear

mass, provided that he picture to himself therein the Word of

God, and feed and strengthen his faith by it, and ever see to it

that he do not make a work or sacrifice of it, but let it remain

a testament and sacrament, out of which he shall take and enjoy a

benefit freely and of grace, by which his heart may become sweet

toward God and obtain a comforting confidence toward Him. For so

sings the Psalter, Psalm civ, "The bread strengtheneth man's

heart, and the wine maketh glad the heart of man." [Ps. 104:15]

[Sidenote: A Sacrament for the Deaf and Dumb]

39. Some have asked whether the sacrament is to be offered also

to the deaf and dumb. Some think it a kindness to practice a

pious fraud upon them, and think they should be given unblessed

wafers. This mockery is not right, and will not please God, Who

has made them Christians as well as us; and the same things are

due to them as to us. Therefore, if they have sound

understanding and can show by indubitable signs that they desire

it in true Christian devotion, as I have often seen, we should

leave to the Holy Spirit what is His work and not refuse Him what

He demands. It may be that inwardly they have a better

understanding and faith than we, and this no one should

presumptuously oppose. Do we not read of St. Cyprian,[36] the

holy martyr, that in Carthage, where he was bishop, he gave both

elements to the children, although that has now ceased, for good

reasons? Christ permitted the children to come to Him, and would

not suffer any one to forbid them [Mark 10:13 ff.]. And in like

manner He has withheld His blessings neither from dumb or blind,

nor from the lame; why should not His sacrament also be for those

who heartily and in a Christian spirit desire it?

[Sidenote: Conclusion]

40. Thus we see with how very few laws and works Christ has

weighed down His holy Church, and with how many promises He has

lifted it up to faith; although now, alas! all is turned about,

and we are driven by many long and burdensome laws and works to

become pious; and nothing comes of it. But Christ's burden is

light [Matt. 11:30] and soon produces an abundant piety, which

consists in faith and trust, and fulfils what Isaiah says: "A

little perfection shall bring a flood full of all piety." [Isa.

10:32 (Vulgate)] That burden is faith, which is a little thing,

to which belong neither laws nor works, nay it cuts off all laws

and works and fulfils all laws and works. Therefore there flows

from it nothing but righteousness. For so perfect is faith, that

without any other labor and law, it makes everything that man

does acceptable and well-pleasing to God. As I have further said

of it in my little book "Of Good Works." [37]

Therefore, let us beware of sins, but much more of laws and good

works, and only give heed to the divine promise and to faith;

then good works will come of themselves. To this may God help

us. Amen.

FOOTNOTES

[1] See above, p. 25, note 1.

[2] Luther's customary term for the law of the Church, or "Canon

Law."

[3] For the application of this principle to the sacrament of

penance, see the _Discussion of Confession_ above, p. 82 f.

[4] Luther quotes from the Vulgate, St. Jerome's Latin version of

the Bible.

[5] The bread of the Lord's Supper.

[6] The _Sanctus_ in the mass.

[7] Luther says "feathers."

[8] _Darinnen die Messe steht und geht_.

[9] _Gelübde_, literally "vow."

[10] On the mode of baptism see the _Treatise on Baptism_ in this

volume. Cf. _Small Catechism_, Part IV, 4, and _Large Catechism_,

Part IV.

[11] _Tropffrüchtlein_.

[12] "Not a benefit received, but a benefit conferred."

[13] See p. 309.

[14] i. e., Blessing and Thanksgiving at Table; cf. Appendix II.

of the _Small Catechism_.

[15] Called the "still" mass because said without music.

[16] See p. 302.

[17] Luther at this period still acknowledges seven sacraments.

But see the _Babylonian Captivity_, written in October 1520.

[18] The receptacle in which the consecrated host is shown to the

people.

[19] The corporal-cloth spread over the altar during the

communion service.

[20] See p. 306.

[21] See pp. 308 f., 311 ff.

[22] It is the teaching of the Roman Church that a sacrament is

effective _ex opere operato_, i. e., simply as a sacrament

ordained of God. Intended to guard against the idea that the

validity of the sacrament depended on the character of the priest

or of the recipient, it gave rise to the notion that the

sacrament worked a sort of sacred magic.

[23] See p. 316.

[24] See p. 313.

[25] Cf. XCV Theses, pp. 19, 41.

[26] _Lasst uns des gewissen spielen_.

[27] See p. 316.

[28] Confessions of St. Augustine, Book IX, Chapter XI.

[29] This is the _votum sacramenti_, which, according to Roman

teaching, suffices for salvation if participation in the

sacrament is impossible.

[30] See p. 313.

[31] Paul of Thebes, an Egyptian hermit of the III. Century,

whose life was written by St. Jerome.

[32] The translators have followed the numbering of the text in

the _Weimar_ and _Erlangen Editions_, which omit No. 32 in

numbering the paragraphs.

[33] The mass held for the Blessed Virgin in Hildsheim on the

second Sunday after St. Michael's Day is, on account of its

magnificence, called "golden." Du Cange.

[34] The masses which are observed every day throughout the year.

[35] See p. 313 f.

[36] Bishop of Carthage, died 258.

[37] See above, pp. 187 ff.

THE PAPACY AT ROME

AN ANSWER TO THE CELEBRATED ROMANIST AT LEIPZIG

1520

INTRODUCTION

Luther's declaration of emancipation from the spiritual

pre-eminence of the Church of Rome, which, said he, "is proven

solely by the by the empty papal decretals of the last four

hundred years, and against which there stands the testimony of

the authentic history of eleven hundred years, the text of Holy

Scripture, and the decree of the Nicene Council," appeared in

print in spring 1519.[1] It was in the form of a

counter-thesis[2] to Eck's specious and celebrated "Thirteenth

Thesis." It culminated in the Leipzig Disputation in July.

Before another summer had passed, this Disputation bore marvelous

and unlooked-for fruits. In a series of epochal pamphlets,

written in part for the clergy, and in part for the newly

awakened laity, Luther with remarkable rapidity developed his new

and scriptural teaching on the nature of the Church, on the

duties of the state, on the essence of the sacraments, and on the

inner life of the individual Christian.

The tractates of 1520, to which that on "The Papacy at Rome"

belongs, like most of Luther's writings, were drawn forth from

him in large part defensively, under provocation from the other

side, or by the exigencies of the occasion. His correspondence[3]

during the first half of 1520 reveals them as a result (with

fresh causes arising) of the stir at Leipzig.

Said Luther (February, 1520), "You cannot make a pen out of a

sword: the Word of God is a sword. I was unwilling to be forced

to come forward in public; and the more unwilling I am, the more

I am drawn into the contest." Widely and eagerly read, these

piquant publications made Luther the awakener, the developer, and

as Harnack declares, the spiritual center of the reformatory

thought that was now rising to a crisis.

Fortunate it was, that the infancy of modern and the birth of

Luther were contemporary, and that Luther turned to the printing

press to such an extent in that critical period, that in the

single year under discussion the number of printed German works

was doubled.

Our little book of June 26, 1520, is the earliest of his writings

to present a full outline of his teaching on the nature of the

Christian Church. Driven by an antagonist, to whom his work is a

reply, to write[4] in German for the laity, Luther gives them a

clear and fundamental insight into this burning subject. His

teachings "which he had just one year before maintained at the

Leipzig Disputation are here unfolded, following to their logical

conclusions and clearly presented."[5] This flying counter-attack

against the "famous Romanist at Leipzig" thus becomes, in the

judgment of Köstlin,[6] "one of the most important of his general

doctrinal treatise of that period."

Luther's reply was written in short order during the last two

weeks in May.[7] It came about in this wise: Eck at the

Disputation had driven Luther to declare that belief in the

divine supremacy of Rome was not necessary to salvation.

Following this, in fall, a Franciscan friar, Augustine von

Avleld, had risen to attack Luther and glorify the papacy, having

received an appointment from Adolph, the Bishop of Merseburg (who

had posted the inhibition on the Leipzig churches against the

Disputation,[8] to write against the Reformer. Alveld's work,

justifying the divine right of the Apostolic Chair, to all

learned men, appeared early in May,[9] in the Latin language, in

a first edition full of errors, followed quickly by a second

edition.[10] Alveld attempted to cut Luther to pieces with

"seven swords," of which the first was _recta ratio_; the second,

_canonica scriptura_; the third, _vera scientia_ (gained through

the Church teachers and scholastics); the fourth, _pietas sacra_;

the fifth, _sanus intellectus_; the sixth, _simplex et pudica

sapientia_; the seventh, _pura et integra scientia_.

On Alved's miserable jumble, in which the Reformer is alluded to

as a "heretic," "lunatic," "wolf," Luther was not willing to

waste any time (despite a threatening letter from Alveld); but

jotted down some points for John Lonicer,[11] who on June 1st,

published a sharp exposé[12] of the Leipzig Romanist's

weaknesses[13]. Although the monastic authorities at Leipzig,

fearing Luther, now attempted to suppress Alveld, that worthy at

once came out[14] with a new work[15] on the same theme and this

time in the German language[16]. It stirred Luther's blood. "If

the jackanapes had not issued his little book in German to poison

the defenceless laity," he said, "I would have looked on it as

too small a matter to take up." As it was, with great rapidity he

wrote his "The Papacy at Rome against the Celebrated Romanist at

Leipzig." Going to press in May, the book was completed on the

26th of June. The twelve known editions are all quartos and range

in size from twenty-two to thirty-two leaves. The first[17] two

editions were printed by Melchior Lotther in Wittenberg; one by

Peypus in Nuremberg; two by Silvan Otmar in Augsburg; one by

George Nadler in Augsburg; one by Adam Petri in Basel and one by

Andrew Exatander.[18]

_Incidentally_ Luther handles the "Alveld Ass" [19] and the Roman

cause without gloves, but _in substance_ he explains to the

layman what Christianity really is,[20] i. e., unfolds to them

the essence of the Christian Church.[21] In doing so he takes

advanced ground for civil and religious liberty. The traditional

mediæval idea of universal monarchy is dealt a heavy blow.

Neither in Civil Government nor in the Church is the need of a

single monarchical head. "The Roman Empire governed itself for a

long time, and very well, without the one head, and many other

countries in the world did the same. How does the Swiss

Confederacy govern itself at present?"

Against the modern demand that the Church shall socialize itself,

that it shall organize as a public center in a community of the

people's civic life, that it shall enter the nation's political

activities for moral uplift, and that ministers should become

what Luther would call "preachers of dreams in material

communities," our book places itself on record[22].

Against the widespread demand that Christianity should get

together into one world-wide visible ecclesiastical order,

Luther's words are peremptory. He declares that the one true

Church is already a spiritual community composed of all the

believers in Christ upon the earth, that it is not a bodily

assembly, but "an assembly of the hearts in one faith," that the

true Church is "a spiritual thing, and not anything external or

outward," that "external unity is not the fulfilment of a divine

commandment," and that those who emphasize the externalization of

the Church into one visible or national order "are in reality

Jews."[23]

Luther refers to those without the unity of the Roman Church as

still within the true Church. "For the Muscovites, Russians,

Greeks, Bohemians, and many other great peoples in the world, all

these believe as we do, baptise as we do, preach as we do, live

as we do."

But if Luther attacks the supremacy of the outer organization in

the Church, he no less forcibly disputes the supremacy of man's

own inner thinking, his reasoning, in theology. He defines human

reason as "our ability which is drawn from experience in temporal

things" and declares it ridiculous to place this ability on a

level with divine law[24]. He compares the man who uses his

reason to defend God's law with the man who in the thick of

battle would use his bare hand and head to protect his helmet and

sword. He insists that Scripture is the supreme and only rule of

faith[25], and ridicules the Romanists who inject their reason

into the Scriptures, "making out of them what they wish, as

though they were a nose of wax to be pulled around at will."

As might be supposed, Luther's book, thus set against the

external unity of human ecclesiastical organization, and against

the inner rule of human thinking, is equally strong against the

human visualization of divine worship. He argues against those

who "turn spiritual edification into an outward show", and those

who chiefly apply the name Church to an assembly in which "the

external rites are in use, such as chanting, reading, vestments;

and the name 'spiritual estate' is given to the members of the

holy orders, not on account of their faith (which perhaps they do

not have), but because they have been consecrated with an

external anointing, wear distinctive dress, make special prayers

and do special works, have their places in the choir, and seem to

attend to all such external matters of worship."[26]

The fallacy of the argument that because the Old Testament was a

type of the New, therefore the material types of the Old

Testament must be reproduced in the New, is exposed by him. [27]

The open and fearless opposition to the popedom at Rome, which

already appeared in the Diet at Augsburg in 1518, and more

circumspectly, in the Leipzig Disputation in 1519, is very

free[28] in this booklet to the laity of 1520, and is preliminary

to the more intense antagonism which will appear in "The

Babylonian Captivity." At Leipzig, Eck had laid emphasis on the

Scripture passage, "Feed my sheep," and both this passage[29] and

the one of Matthew 16:18 ("Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I

will build my Church") are explained by Luther for the laity. He

charges the popes with having forsaken the faith, with living

under the power of Satan, and with being themselves

heretical.[30]

This tractate applies doctrine to existing institutions, and

makes the truth clear to the laity. We see in it the power of

Luther in stirring the popular mind. We do not regard the coarse

invectives of Luther (which many cultured men of to-day seem to

cite with outward horror--and inner enjoyment) as a remark of low

peasant birth, or of crudeness of breeding, but as the language

of a great leader who, in desperate struggle with the powers that

be, knew how to attach himself to the mind of his age in such way

as to influence it. How noble and great is his own remark at the

close of his booklet on others' allusion to himself in print!

"Whoever will, let him freely slander and condemn my person and

my life. It is already forgiven him. God has given me a glad and

fearless spirit, which they shall not embitter for me, I trust,

not in all eternity."

Luther in this pamphlet, insists that none are to be regarded as

heretics simply because they are not under the Pope; and that the

Pope's decrees, to stand, must endure the test of Scripture.

Luther wrote in May. In June he told Spalatin that if the Pope

did not reform, he would appeal to the Emperor and German

nobility. Within another month that appeal appeared.

The men of Leipzig feared the work of Luther, and the rector of

the University had pled for mercy. Luther replied that Leipzig

deserved to be placed in the pillory[31], that he had no desire

to make sport of the city and its university, but was pressed

into it by the bombast of the Romanist, who boasted that he was a

"public teacher of the Holy Scripture at Leipzig"; and by the

fact that Alveld had dedicated his work to the city and its

Council. Alveld answered Lonicer and Luther bitterly, but Luther

replied no more.

Theodore E. Smauk.

_Lebanon, Pennsylvania._

FOOTNOTES

[1] Still earlier, in his _Resolutions to the 95 Theses_

(Resolut. Disputat., etc. Erl. Fr. Ed. II, 122 sqq., 137

sqq.) Luther had in an historical and objective way spoken

of a time when the Roman Church had not been exalted over

the other churches, at least not above those of Greece; that

it was thus yet in the time of Pope Gregory I.

[2] Luther's Thirteen Theses against Eck's Thirteen Theses.

Frater Mar. Luth. Dsupt. etc., Erl.-Fr. Ed. III, 4 sqq., 11

sqq. "Bruder Martin Luther's Disputation und Entschuldigung

wider die Anschuldigungen des D. Johann Eck." St. Louis Ed.

XVIII, 718. The oldest print is doubtless one in possession

of the University at Halle.

[3] January 10, 1520, to Spalatin; January 26, to John Lang;

February 5, to Spalatin; February 18, to Spalatin; April,

Alved to Luther; Ma 5, May 17, May 31, June 8, and June 20,

to Spalatin, with a letter of July or August to Peter

Mosellanus, rector of the University at Leipzig.

[4] He alluded to the subject in his Sermon on the Ban.

[5] Köstlin, _Theology of Luther_, translated by Hay, I, 363.

[6] _Martin Luther_, I, 299.

[7] Alved's second book, the _Confutatio Inepti_, was dedicated

to the Council and honorable citizens of the city of Leipzig on

the 23d of April, and appeared in print in the middle of May. Its

smooth and popular form roused Luther to this reply, which was

put in press before the end of May, and published before the end

of June.

[8] See Luther to Spalatin, July 20, 1519.

[9] See Luther to Spalatin, May 5, 1520. "Exiit tandem frater

Augustinus Afveidenais cum sus offs," etc. He characterises Alved

in this letter, and refers to the approval it found in Meissen in

his letter to Spalatin of May 17th.

[10] The title is as follows: "Super apostolica ne-de, An

Videlicet diuino sit iure nec ne, anque potifex qui Papa dici

caeptus est, iure diuino in ea ipea president, no paru laudanda ex

sacro Biblior. canone declaratio. sedita p. F. Augustinu Ahldesem

Franciscanu, regularis (vt dicit) observuatíae sacredote, Prouin

ciae Saxoniae, Sancte crucia, Sa-criq Biblioru canonis publi-cu

lectore i couetu Lipsico, ad Reurendu in Chro patre & dom, dom

Adolphu pricipe Illust. i Anhaldt ic Episcope Mersen-burge sem."

See Super apostolica sed declario edita per Augustinum

Alveldensem Bl.; E. S. Cyprian, Nütsliche Urkunden, Leipzig,

1718, II S. 160 f.

[11] Luther's famulus. "Ich werde meinem Bruder Famulus

anstellen."--To Spalatin already on May 5th.

[12] "Contra Romanistam fratrem Augustinu, Alulden. Fran-ciscanu

Leipaica Canonis Biblici publicu lictore eiusdem. F. Joanes

Lonicerus. Augustinianus. VVITTENBERGAE, APVD, COLLEGIVM NOVVM.

_ANNO. M.D.XX._"

[13] Lonicer's reply had been preceded by one more detailed and

less impetuous by Bernardi Feldkirch, teacher in the Wittenberg

High School. This work is wrongly regarded as Melanchton's. Its

title is: "CONFUTATIO INEP-ti & impli Libelli F. August. AL-VELD.

Franciscani Lipsici, pro D. M. Luthero. Vmittenbergae, apud

Melciorem Lottherum iuniorem, Anno M. D. XX."

[14] He requested the Nuncio Milits to secure authority for him

to write.

[15] Cf. Luther in the Tractate: "They cling to me like mud to a

wheel."

[16] "Eyn gar fruchtbar vu nutsbarlich buchbleyn vo dë Babstliche

stul: vmud von sant Peter: vund vo den, die warhafftige

schef-lein Christi sein, die Christus vner herr Petro befolen hat

in sein hute vnd reglrung, gemacht durch bruder Augustinu Alueldt

sant Francisci ordens tzu Leiptsk."

See Cyprian, _Urkunden_, II, 161 f.

On May 31, Luther puts the whole situation graphically in a

letter to Spalatin as follows: "Lonicers Schrift wird morgen

fergig sein. Die Leipziger sind besorgt, ihre Schülter zu

behalten; sie rühmen, dases Erasmus zu ihnen kommen werde. Wie

geschäftig und doch wie unglüchlich ist der Neid. Vor einem

Jahre, da sie ührer uns, als währen wir besiegt, spotteten, saben

sie nicht voraus, dass ihnen dies Kreut bevorstebe. Der Herr

regiert...Ochsenfart soll sich wider das Büchlein Feldkirchens

rüston, in welchem er durch gehechbelt wird. Ich habe ein

deutsches Buch wider den Esel von Alveld fertiggestellt, welches

jetzt under der Presse ist."

[17] "Von dem Bapstum zu Rome: wid der den hochberupton

Romanisten zu Leipzck D. Martinus Lu-ther ther Agust.

Vuittenberg." 50 leaves, quarto, last page blank.

[18] For titles of these editions see _Weimar Ed._, vi, 281.

[19] Luther in this tractate aims beyond the "undersized scribe

of the barefoot friars at Leipzig," at the "brave and great

flag-bearers who remain in hiding, and would win a notable

victory in another's name," namely Prierias, Cajetan, Eck, Emser

and the Universities of Cologne and Louvaine. Luther uses the

epithet quoted above in one of his letters to Spalatin.

[20] "I welcome the opportunity to explain something of the

nature of Christianity for the laity."

[21] "I must first of all explain what these things mean, the

Church, and the One Head of the Church."

[22] "On this point we must hear the word of Christ, Who, when

Pilate asked Him concerning His Kingdom answered, My Kingdom is

not of this world. This is indeed a clear passage in which the

Church is made separate from all temporal communities. Is not

this a cruel error, when one places the Christian Church,

separated by Christ Himself from temporal cities and places, and

transferred to spiritual realms, is made a part of material

communities?"

"No hope is left on earth except in the temporal."

[23] Among many things that Luther says on this point are the

following: "According to the Scriptures the Church is called the

assembly of all the believers in Christ upon the earth. This

community consists of all those who live in true faith, hope and

love, so that the essence, life and nature of the Church is not a

bodily assembly, but an assembly of the hearts in one faith.

Thus, though they be a thousand miles apart in body, they are yet

called an assembly in spirit, because each one preaches,

believes, hopes, loves, and lives like the other. So we sing of

the Holy Ghost: 'Thou, Who through diverse tongues gatherest

together the nations in the unity of the faith.' That means

spiritual unity. And this unity is of itself sufficient to make a

Church, and without it no unity, be it of place, of time, of

person, of work, or of whatever else, makes a Church."

"A man is not reckoned a member of the Church according to his

body, but according to his soul, nay, according to his faith...It

is plain that the Church can be classed with a temporal community

as little as spirits with bodies. Whosoever would not go astray

should therefore hold fast to this, that the Church is a

spiritual assembly of souls in one faith, that no one is reckoned

a Christian for his body's sake; that the true, real, essential,

Church is a spiritual thing, and not anything external or

outward."

"All those who make the Christian communion a material and

outward thing, like other communities, are in reality Jews, who

wait for their Messiah to establish an external kingdom at a

certain definite place, namely Jerusalem; and so sacrifice the

faith, which alone makes the kingdom of Christ a thing spiritual

or of the heart."

In this and the following notes, for brevity's sake, various

quotations are summarized and connected.

[24] "For the teachings of human experience and (Deut. xii:8)

reason are far below the divine law. The Scriptures expressly

forbid us to follow our own reason, Deut. xii: 'Ye shall not

do...every man whatsoever is right in his own eyes'; for human

reason ever strives against the law (Gen. vi:5) of God. Therefore

the attempt to establish or defend divine order with human

reason, unless that reason has previously been established and

enlightened by faith, is just as futile, as if I would throw a

light upon the sun with a lightless lantern, or rest a rock upon

a reed. For Isaiah vii makes reason subject to faith, when he

says (vii:9): 'Except ye believe, ye shall not have understanding

or reason.' He does not say, Except ye have reason, ye shall not

believe. Therefore this scribe would better not have put forth a

claim to establish the faith and the divine law by mere reason."

[25] "That the serpent lifted up by Moses, signifies Christ, is

taught by John iii. If it were not for that passage, my reasoning

might evolve many strange and weird fancies out of that type.

That Adam was a type of Christ, I learn not from myself, but from

St. Paul. That the rock in the wilderness represents Christ is

not taught by my reason, but by St. Paul. None other explains the

type but the Holy Spirit Himself. He has given the type and

wrought the fulfillment, that both type and fulfillment and the

interpretation may be God's own and not man's, and our faith he

founded not on human, but on divine words. What leads the Jews

astray but that they interpret the types as they please, without

the Scriptures? What has led so many heretics astray but the

interpretation of the types without reference to the Scriptures?"

[26] "The word Church, when it is used for such external affairs,

whereas it concerns the faith alone, is done violence to; yet

this manner of using it has spread everywhere, to the great

injury of many souls, who think that such outward show is the

spiritual and only true estate in Christendom. Of such a purely

external Church, there is not one letter in the Holy Scriptures.

The building and increase of the Church, which is the body of

Christ, cometh alone from Christ, Who is its head. Christendom is

ruled with outward show; but that does not make us Christians.

The Church is a spiritual and not a bodily thing, for that which

one believes is not bodily or visible. The external marks whereby

one can perceive this Church is on earth, are Baptism, the

Sacrament and the Gospel. For where Baptism and the Gospel are no

one may doubt that there are saints, even if it were only the

babes in their cradles."

[27] "It is evident that a type is material and external, and

fulfilment of the type is spiritual and internal; what the type

reveals to the bodily eye, its fulfilment must reveal to the eye

of faith alone. The bodily assembly of the people signifies the

spiritual and internal assembly of the Christian people in faith.

Moses set a serpent on a pole and whosoever looked upon it was

made whole. That signifies Christ on the cross. Whosoever

believeth in Him is saved. And so throughout the entire Old

Testament, all the bodily visible things in it signify in the New

Testament spiritual and inward things, which one cannot see, but

only possess in faith. St. Augustine says on John iii: 'This is

the difference between the type and its fulfilment: the type

gave temporal goods and life, but the fulfilment gives spiritual

and eternal life.'"

"Aaron was a type of Christ and not of the Pope. Paul says the

high priest typifies Christ; you say St. Peter. Paul says Christ

entered not into a temporal building. You make the fulfilment to

be earthly and external. If Aaron was a type in external

authority, vestments and state, why was he not a type in all

other external and bodily matters? The Old Testament high priest

was not permitted to have his head shorn. But why does the Pope

have a tonsure? The Old Testament high priest was a subject. Why

then does the Pope have men kiss his feet and aspire to be king,

which Christ Himself did not? Wherein is the type fulfilled?"

[28] Luther to Spalatin, June 8th: "Gegen den Esel von Alveld

werde ich menen Angriff so enrichten dass ich des römischen

Pabstes nich uneingedenk bin, und werde keinem von beiden etwas

schenken. Denn solches erfordert der Stoff mit Nothwendigkeith.

Endlicheinmal müssen die Geheimnisse des Antichrist offenbart

werden. Denn so drangen sie sich selbst hervor, und wollen nicht

weiter vorborgen sein."

To this Luther adds the significant statement: "Ich habe vor,

einen öffentlichen Zettel auszulassen an den Kaiser und den Adel

im ganzen Deutschland, wider die Tyrannei und die

Nichstwürdigkeit des römischen Hofes."

[29] "'Feeding' in the Roman sense means to burden Christendom

with many and hurtful laws. In 'feeding' it means to sit in the

highest place and to have an office, it follows that whoever is

doing this work of feeding is a saint, whether he be a knave, or

a rogue, or what not. Where there is no love, there is no

feeding. The papacy either must be a love, or it cannot be a

feeding of the sheep."

[30] "The greater part of the Roman communion, and even some of

the popes themselves, have forsaken the faith wantonly and

without struggle, and live under the power of Satan. The majority

of those who hold so strongly to the authority of the Pope, and

lean upon it, are themselves possessed by the powers of hell.

Some of the popes were heretics themselves and gave heretical

laws. These Roman knaves come along, place the Pope above Christ

and make him a judge over the Scriptures. They say that he cannot

err."

[31] "Das Bemulhen der Leipziger Gehässigkeit." To Spalatin, Jan.

10. "Die Nichstwürdigkeitem der Leipziger." To Joh. Lang, Jan.

26. "Die Kunstangriffder Leipziger Partei." To Spalatin, Feb. 5.

TO THE PAPACY AT ROME

AN ANSWER TO THE CELEBRATED ROMANIST AT LEIPZIG[1]

1520

[Sidenote: A New Adversary]

After all these years of fruitful rain and abundant growth

something new has appeared on the scene. Many have essayed to

attack me heretofore with vile abuse and glorious lies, yet

without much success. But the latest to distinguish themselves

are the brave heroes at Leipzig on the market-place, who desire

not only to be seen and admired, but to break a lance with every

one. Their armor is so wonderful that I have never seen the like

before. They have put the helmet on the feet, the sword on the

head, shield and breastplate on the back, they hold the spear by

the point, and the whole armor becomes them so well as to mark

them as horsemen of a new sort.[2] They would prove thereby not

only that they have not frittered away their time with

dream-books without learning anything, as I accused them, but

would also achieve a great name as people who were conceived,

born, nursed, cradled, fondled, brought up, and grown up in the

Holy Scriptures. It would be no more than fair that whoever

could, should be afraid of them, so that their labor and their

good intentions might not be entirely in vain. Leipzig, to

produce such giants, must indeed be rich soil.

That you may understand what I mean, observe: Sylvester, Cajetan,

Eck, Emser,[3] and now Cologne and Louvaine have shown their

knightly prowess against me in most strenuous endeavor, and

received the honor and glory they deserved; they have defended

the cause of the pope and of indulgences against me in such a

manner that they might well wish to have had better luck,

finally, some of them thought the best thing to do was to attack

me in the same manner as the pharisees attacked Christ [Matt.

22:35]. They put forward a champion, and thought: If he wins, we

all win with him; if he is defeated, he suffers defeat alone. And

the super-learned, circumspect Malvolio[4] thinks I will not

notice it. Very well, in order that all their plans may not

miscarry, I will pretend not to understand their game. And I beg

them in return, not to take notice, that when I strike the pack,

I am aiming at the mule. And if they will not grant this request,

I stipulate that, whenever I say anything against the newest

Roman heretics and blasphemers of the Scriptures, not merely the

poor, immature scribe of the bare-foot friars at Leipzig shall

take it to himself, but rather the great-hearted flag-bearers,

who remain in hiding, and yet would win a notable victory in

another's name.

I pray every honest Christian to receive my words--though

sometimes barbed with scorn or satire--as coming from a heart

that is made to break with sorrow and to turn seriousness into

jesting at the sight now beheld at Leipzig, where there are also

pious people who would venture body and soul for God's Word and

the Scriptures, but where a blasphemer can thus openly speak and

write, who esteems and treats God's holy words no better than if

they were the fabled pratings of some fool or jester at the

carnival. Because my Lord Christ and His holy Word, even He who

gave His own blood as the purchase-price, is held to be but

mockery and fools' wit, I must likewise drop all seriousness, and

see whether I, too, have learned how to play the fool and clown.

Thou knowest, my Lord Jesus Christ, how my heart stands toward

these arch-blasphemers. That is my reliance, and I will let

matters take their course in Thy name. Amen. They must ever abide

Thee as the Lord. Amen.

I notice that these poor people are seeking naught else than to

gain renown at my expense. They cling to me like mud to a wheel.

They would rather have questionable honor shamefully acquired

than remain quiet, and the evil spirit uses the designs of such

people only to hinder me from doing more useful things. But I

welcome the opportunity to give the laity[6] some explanation of

the nature of the Church,[7] and to contradict the words of these

seductive masters. Therefore I intend to treat of the

subject-matter directly, rather than to answer their senseless

prattle. I will not mention their names, lest they achieve their

true purpose and boastfully regard themselves capable of arguing

with me in the Scriptures.

THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE

We are discussing a matter which, taken by itself, is

unnecessary, for any one could be a Christian without knowing

anything about it. But these idlers who tread under foot all the

great essentials of the Christian faith, must needs pursue such

things and worry other people, in order to have some object in

life.

[Sidenote: The Foundation of Papal Power]

This then is the question: Whether the papacy at Rome, possessing

the actual power over all Christendom (as they say), is of divine

or of human origin,[8] and this being decided, whether it is

possible for Christians to say that all other Christians in that

world are heretics and apostates, even if they agree with us in

holding to the same baptism, Sacrament, Gospel, and all the

articles of faith, but merely do not have their priests and

bishops confirmed by Rome, or, as it is now, buy such

confirmation with money and let themselves be mocked and made

fools of like the Germans. Such are the Muscovites, Russians,

Greeks, Bohemians, and many other great peoples in the world. For

all these believe as we do, baptise as we do, preach as we do,

live as we do, and also give due honor to the pope, only they

will not pay for the confirmation of their bishops and priests.

They will not, like the drunken, stupid Germans, submit to

extortion and abuse with indulgences, bulls, seals, parchments,

and other Roman stock in trade. They are ready, too, to hear the

Gospel from the pope, or the pope's ambassadors, and yet they are

not sent to them.

Now the question is, whether all these may properly be called

heretics by us Christians (for of such alone, and of no others,

do I speak and write), or whether we are not rather the heretics

and apostates, because we brand such Christians as heretics and

apostates solely for the sake of money. For when the pope does

not send the Gospel to them, and his messengers to proclaim it,

although they are eager to receive them, it is clear as day that

he is grasping for power and money through this confirmation of

bishops and priests. But to this they will not agree, and

therefore they are branded as heretics and apostates.

Now I have held, and still hold, that they are not heretics and

apostates, but perhaps better Christians than we are, although

not all, even as we are not all good Christians. This is

challenged, after all its predecessors, by the fine little

bare-foot book[9] of Leipzig, which comes along on clogs--nay, on

stilts. It imagines that it alone (among all the others) does not

step into the mud; perhaps it would gladly dance if some one

would buy it a flute. I must have a try at it.

[Sidenote: The Insincerity of the Roman Claims]

I say, first of all: No one should be so foolish as to believe

that it is the serious opinion of the pope and of all his

Romanists and flatterers, that his great power is of divine

right. Pray observe, of all that is by divine right not the

smallest jot or tittle is observed in Rome, nay, if they think of

it at all, it is scorned as foolishness; all of which is as clear

as day. They even suffer the Gospel and Christian faith

everywhere to go to rack and ruin, and do not intend to lose a

hair for it. Yea, all the evil examples of spiritual and temporal

infamy flow from Rome, as out of a great sea of universal

wickedness, into all the world. All these things cause laughter

in Rome, and if any one grieves over them, he is called a _Bon

Christian_, i. e., a fool. If they really took the commands of

God seriously, they would find many thousand things more

necessary to be done, especially those at which they now laugh

and mock. For St. James says, "He that keepeth not one

commandment of God, breaketh all." [Jas. 2:10] Who would be so

stupid as to believe that they seek God's command in one thing,

and yet make a mockery of all the others? It is impossible that

any one should take one command of God to heart, and not at least

be moved by all the others. Now there are ever so many who

zealously guard the power of the pope, yet none of them ever

ventures a word in favor of even one of the other much greater

and more necessary commandments, which are so blasphemously

mocked and scornfully rejected at Rome.

Furthermore, if all Germany were to fall on its knees, and to

pray that the pope and the Romans should keep this power, and

confirm our bishops and priests without payment, for

nothing--even as the Gospel says, "Freely ye have received,

freely give" [Matt. 10:8]--and provide all our churches with good

preachers, because they have a sufficient abundance of riches to

give money instead of taking it; and if it were urged and

pressed, that this is their duty according to divine command:

believe it surely, we should find all of them arguing with more

insistence than any one ever did before, that it is not a divine

command to go to so much trouble without pay. They would soon

find a little gloss[10] with which to wind themselves out of it,

just as they now find what they desire, to weave themselves into

it. All our beseechings would not drive them to it. But since it

means money, everything they dare to put forth must be divine

command.

[Sidenote: Roman Greed and Extortion]

The bishopric of Mainz alone, within the memory of men now

living, has bought eight pallia[11] in Rome, every one costing

about 30,000 _gulden_--not to mention the innumerable other

bishoprics, prelacies and benefices. Thus are we German fools to

be led by the nose and then they say: It is a divine command to

have no bishop without Roman confirmation. I am surprised that

Germany, which is by one-half or more in the possession of the

Church,[12] still has so much as one _pfennig_ left by reason of

the unspeakable, innumerable, insufferable Roman thieves, knaves

and robbers. It is said that Antichrist shall find the treasures

of the earth; I trow the Romanists have found them to such an

extent as to make our very life a burden. If the German princes

and the nobility will not interfere very shortly, and with

decisive courage, Germany will yet become a wilderness and be

compelled to devour itself. That would furnish the greatest

pleasure for the Romanists, who do not think of us otherwise than

as brutes, and have made a proverb concerning us at Rome:

"Squeeze the gold from German fools, in any way you can."

The pope does not prevent this scandalous villainy. They all wink

at it, yea, they think far more highly of these supreme

arch-villains than they do of the holy Gospel of God. They

pretend that we are hopeless fools, and that it is a divine

command that the pope should have his finger in every pie and do

as he pleases with every one, just as if he were a god on earth,

and should not rather be the servant of all,[13] without any pay,

if he wished to be--or were--the very highest. But before

consenting to this, they would much rather surrender this power

and not call this a divine command any more than any other.

But I hear you say, why do they fight so hard against you in this

matter? Answer: I have attacked some higher things, which concern

faith and God's Word. And when they were not able to contradict

me, and saw that Rome does not trouble itself about such good

things, they dropped them too, and attacked me on indulgences and

the authority of the pope, in the hope of thus attaining the

prize. For they knew very well that where money was concerned,

the chief school of knaves in Rome would support them and not

remain quiet. But Dr. Luther is just a little proud, and pays

very little attention to the grunting and squealing of the

Romanists; and this is well-nigh heartbreaking to them. But that

does not bother my Lord Jesus, nor Dr. Luther, for we believe

that the Gospel will and must continue. Let a layman ask such

Romanists, and let them give answer, why they despoil and mock

all of God's commandments, and rant so violently about this

power, whereas they cannot show at all why it is necessary, or

what it is good for. For ever since it has arisen, it has

accomplished nothing but the devastation of Christendom, and no

one is able to show anything good or useful that has resulted

from it. Of this I will speak more fully if this Romanist comes

again, and then, please God, I will throw light upon the Holy

Chair at Rome and expose it as it deserves to be exposed.

I have said this, not as a sufficient argument for disputing

papal power, but in order to show the perverted opinions of those

who strain the gnats, but let elephants go through [Matt. 23:24],

who behold the mote in the brother's eye and permit the beams in

their own to remain [Matt. 7:3], only to the end that others may

be stifled by superfluous and unnecessary things, or at least

branded as heretics or by any other epithet that occurs to them.

One of than is this delicate, pious Romanist at Leipzig. Let us

now have a look at him.

I find three strong arguments by which this fruitful and noble

little book[14] of the Romanist at Leipzig attacks me.

[Sidenote: The Arguments of the Romanists--1. Luther a Heretic

and a Fool]

The first, and by far the strongest, is, that he calls me

names--a heretic, a blind, senseless fool, one possessed by the

devil, a serpent, a poisonous reptile, and many other names of

similar import; not simply once, but throughout the book, almost

on every page.[15] Such reproaches, slanders and calumnies are of

no account in other books. But when a book is made at Leipzig,

and issued from the cloister of the bare-foot friars, by a

Romanist of the high and holy observance[16] of St. Frauds, such

names are not merely fine examples of mediation, but likewise

strong arguments with which to defend papal power, indulgences,

Scripture, faith and the Church.[17] It is not necessary that any

one of these should be proved by Scripture or by reason; it is

quite enough that they have been put down in his book by a

Romanist and holy observant of the order of St. Francis.

And inasmuch as this Romanist himself writes that the Jews had

overcome Christ on the cross with such arguments, I, too, must

surrender, and acknowledge that as far as cursing and scolding,

abuse and slander are concerned, the Romanist has surely beaten

Dr. Luther. On this point he doubtless wins.

[Sidenote: The Argument from Reason]

The second argument, to express it tersely, is that of natural

reason.

This is the argument: A. Every community[18] on earth, if it is

not to fall to pieces, must have a bodily head, under the true

head, which is Christ.

B. Inasmuch as all Christendom is one community on earth, it must

have a head, which is the pope.

[Sidenote: The Futility of the Argument]

This argument I have designated with the letters A and B for the

sake of clearness, and also to show that this Romanist has

learned his A-B-C all the way down to B. However, to answer this

argument: Since the question is whether the pope's power is by

divine right, is it not a bit ridiculous that human reason (that

ability which is drawn from experience in temporal things) is

brought in and placed on a level with the divine law, especially

since it is the intention of this poor presumptuous mortal to

bring the divine law against me. For the teachings of human

experience and reason are far below the divine law. The

Scriptures expressly forbid us to follow our own reason,

Deuteronomy xii, "Ye shall not do...every man whatsoever is right

in his own eyes" [Deut. 12:8]; for human reason ever strives

against the law of God, as Genesis vi. says: "Every thought and

imagination of man's heart is only evil continually." [Gen. 6:5]

Therefore the attempt to establish or defend divine order with

human reason, unless that reason has previously been established

and enlightened by faith, is just as futile as if I would throw

light upon the sun with a lightless lantern, or rest a rock upon

a reed. For Isaiah vii. makes reason subject to faith, when it

says: "Except ye believe, ye shall not have understanding or

reason." [Isa. 7:9] It does not say, "Except ye have reason, ye

shall not believe." Therefore this scribe would better have left

his perverted reason at home, or first have well established it

with texts of Scripture, so as not to put forth so ridiculous and

preposterous a claim and establish the faith and the divine law

by mere reason. For if this reason of ours draws the conclusion

that a visible community must have a visible overlord or cease to

exist, it also must draw the further conclusion, that as a

visible community does not exist without wives, therefore the

whole Church[19] must have a visible, common wife, in order not

to perish. What a valiant woman that would needs be! Again, a

visible community does not exist without a common visible city,

house and country; therefore the Church[19] must have a common

city, house and country. But where will you find that? Verily, in

Rome they are seeking just this with impatient eagerness, for

they have made nearly the whole world their very own. Again, the

Church[19] would likewise need to have in common its visible

property, servants, maids, cattle, food, etc., for no community

exists without them. See how gracefully human reason stalks along

on its stilts.

A professor of theology ought to have considered in advance the

clumsiness of such an argument, and proved the divine laws and

works by the Scriptures, and not by temporal analogies and

worldly reason. For it is written that the divine commandments

are justified in and by themselves, and not by any external

help.[20] [Ps. 19:9]

Again, the wise man says of the wisdom of God: "Wisdom hath

overcome the proud with her power." [Prov. 11:3] It is most

deplorable that we should attempt with our reason to defend God's

Word, whereas the Word of God is rather our defence against all

our enemies, as St. Paul teaches us. [Eph. 6:17] Would he not be

a great fool who in the thick of battle sought to protect his

helmet and sword with bare hand and unshielded head? It is no

different when we essay, with our reason, to defend God's law,

which should rather be our weapon.

From this, I hope, it is clear that the flimsy argument of this

prattler fails utterly, and, together with everything he

constructs upon it, is found to be without any basis whatever.

But that he may the better understand his own mummery, even in

case I should grant that a process of reasoning might be entirely

valid without the Scriptures, I will show that neither of his

arguments is valid, neither the first, A, nor the second, B.

[Sidenote: The Argument Answered]

The first, A, is that every community on earth must have one

visible head under Christ. This is simply not true. How many

principalities, castles, cities, and houses we find where two

brothers or lords reign--and with equal authority. The Roman

empire governed itself for a long time, and very well, without

the one head, and many other countries in the world did the same.

How does the Swiss confederacy govern itself at present? Thus in

the government of the world there is not one single overlord, yet

we are all one human race, descended from the one father, Adam.

The kingdom of France has its own king, Hungary its own, Poland,

Denmark, and every other kingdom its own, and yet they are one

people, the temporal estate in Christendom, without one common

head; and still this does not cause these kingdoms to perish. And

if there were no government constituted in just this manner, who

could or would prevent a community from choosing not one, but

many overlords, all clothed with equal power? Therefore it is a

very poor procedure to measure the things which are of God's

appointing by such vacillating analogies of worldly things, when

they do not hold even in the appointments of men. But suppose I

should grant this dreamer that his dream is true, and that no

community can exist without one visible head; how does it follow

that it must likewise be so in the Church?[21] I know very well

that the poor dreamer has a certain conception, according to

which a Christian community is the same as any other temporal

community.[22] He thus reveals plainly that he has never learned

to know what Christendom, or the Christian community, really is.

I had not believed it possible to meet such dense, massive,

stubborn error and ignorance in any man, much less in a saint of

Leipzig.

For the benefit, therefore, of this numskull, and of those led

astray by him, I must first of all explain what is meant by these

things--the Church,[23] and the One Head of the Church.[23] I

must talk bluntly, however, and use the same words which they

have so barbarously perverted.

[Sidenote: What is the Church?]

[Sidenote: The Communion of Saints]

[Sidenote: The Unity of the Church Not External]

The Scriptures speak of the Church[23] quite simply, and use the

term in only one sense; these men have added and brought into

general use two more. The first use, according to the Scriptures,

is this, that the Church[23] is called the assembly of all the

believers in Christ upon earth, just as we pray in the Creed: "I

believe in the Holy Ghost, a communion of saints." This community

or assembly consists of all those who live in true faith, hope

and love; so that the essence, life and nature of the Church[23]

is not a bodily assembly, but an assembly of hearts in one faith,

as St. Paul says, Ephesians iv, "One baptism, one faith, one

Lord." [Eph. 4:5] Thus, though they be a thousand miles apart in

body, yet they are called an assembly in spirit because each one

preaches, believes, hopes, loves, and lives like the other. So we

sing of the Holy Ghost: "Thou, who through divers tongues

gatherest together the nations in the unity of the faith."[24]

That means in reality a spiritual unity, because of which men are

called a communion of saints. And this unity is of itself

sufficient to make a Church,[23] and without it no unity, be it

of place, of time, of person, of work, or of whatever else, makes

a Church.[23] On this point we must hear the word of Christ, Who,

when Pilate asked Him concerning His kingdom, answered: "My

kingdom is not of this world." [John 18:36] This is indeed a dear

passage, in which the Church[23] is made separate from all

temporal communities, as not being anything external. And this

blind Romanist makes of it an external community, like any other.

Christ says even more clearly, Luke xvii, "The kingdom of God

cometh not with observation: neither shall they say, Lo, here, or

lo, there! for behold, the kingdom of God is within you." [Luke

17:20, 21]

I am astounded, that such strong, clear words of Christ are

treated as a farce by these Romanists. For by these words it is

clear to every one that the kingdom of God (for so He calls His

Church[25]) is not at Rome, nor is it bound to Rome or any other

place, but it is where there is faith in the heart, be a man at

Rome, or here, or elsewhere. It is a nauseating lie,[26] and

Christ is made a liar when it is said that the Church[25], is in

Rome, or is bound to Rome--or even that the head and the

authority are there by divine right.

Moreover, in Matthew xxiv. He foretold the gross deception which

now rules under the name of the Roman Church, when He says: "Many

false prophets and false Christs shall come in My name, saying: I

am Christ; and shall deceive many, and show great signs, that if

possible they shall deceive the very elect. Wherefore, if they

shall say unto you: Behold, in the secret chambers is Christ,

believe it not; behold, He is in the desert, go not forth.

Behold, I have told you before." [Matt. 24:24-26] Is this not a

cruel error, when the unity of the Christian Church[25],

separated by Christ Himself from all material and temporal cities

and places, and transferred to spiritual realms, is included by

these preachers of dreams in material communities,[27] which must

of necessity be bound to localities and places. How is it

possible, or whose reason can grasp it, that spiritual unity and

material unity should be one and the same? There are those among

Christians who are in the external assembly and unity, who yet by

their sins exclude themselves from the inner, spiritual unity.

Therefore, whosoever maintains that an external assembly or an

outward unity makes a Church,[25] sets forth arbitrarily what is

merely his own opinion, and whoever endeavors to prove it by the

Scriptures, brings divine truth to the support of his lies, and

makes God a false witness, just as does this miserable Romanist,

who explains everything that is written concerning the Church[28]

as meaning the outward show of Roman power; and yet he cannot

deny that the large majority of these people, particularly in

Rome itself, because of unbelief and evil lives, is not in the

spiritual unity, i. e., the true Church.[28] For if to be in the

external Roman unity made men true Christians, there would be no

sinners among them, neither would they need faith nor the grace

of God to make them Christians; this external unity would be

enough.

[Sidenote: What Makes a Christian]

From this we conclude, and the conclusion is inevitable, that

just as being in the Roman unity does not make one a Christian,

so being outside of that unity does not make one a heretic or

unchristian. I should like to hear who would dispute this. For

that which is essential must make a true Christian; but if it

does not make a true Christian, it cannot be essential; just as

it does not make me a true Christian to be at Wittenberg or to be

at Leipzig. Now it is clear that external fellowship with the

Roman communion[29] does not make men Christians, and so the lack

of that fellowship certainly does not make a man a heretic or an

apostate. Therefore it must also be false, that it is a divine

command to be in connection with the Roman Church.[28] For

whosoever keepeth one divine command, keepeth them all, and none

can be kept without keeping the others[30]. Therefore it is an

open and blasphemous lie against the Holy Ghost to say that the

external unity under Roman authority is the fulfilment of a

divine commandment, since there are so many in that unity who

neither regard nor fulfil any of the Divine commandments. Hence,

to be in this place or that, does not make a heretic: but to be

without true faith makes a man a heretic.

Again, it is clear that to be a member of the Roman communion[31]

does not mean to be in true faith, and to be outside of it does

not mean to be in unbelief; otherwise those within it would all

be believers and truly saved, for no one article of faith is

believed without all the other articles.

Therefore all those who make the Christian communion[32] a

material and outward thing, like other communities, are in

reality Jews (for the Jews likewise wait for their Messiah to

establish an external kingdom at a certain definite place,

namely, Jerusalem), and thus sacrifice the faith, which alone

makes the kingdom of Christ a thing spiritual and of the heart.

[Sidenote: The Head of the Church]

Again, if every temporal community is called after its head, and

we say of this city, it is Electoral, and of that, it is Ducal,

and of another, it is Frankish; then by right all Christendom

should be called Roman, or Petrine, or Papal. But why, then, is

it called Christendom? Why are we called Christians, if not from

our head, although we are still upon earth? Hereby it is shown

that for Christendom there is no other head, even upon earth,

than Christ, for it has no other name than the name of Christ For

this reason St. Luke tells us that the disciples were at first

called Antiochians, but soon this was changed and they were

called Christians. [Acts 11:26][33]

Furthermore, though a man consists of two natures, namely, body

and soul, yet he is not reckoned a member of the Church according

to his body, but according to his soul, nay, according to his

faith. Otherwise it might be said that a man is a nobler

Christian than a woman, because his physical structure is

superior to that of a woman, or that a man is a greater Christian

than a child, a healthy person a stronger Christian than an

invalid; lords and ladies, the rich and powerful, better

Christians than servants, maids, and the poor and lowly; whereas

Paul writes, Galatians v, "In Christ is neither male nor female,

neither lord nor servant, neither Jew nor Greek," [Gal. 3:28;

5:6] but as far as the body is concerned they are all equal. But

he is the better Christian who is greater in faith, hope and

love; so that it is plain that the Church[34] is a spiritual

community, which can be classed with a temporal community as

little as spirits with bodies, or faith with temporal

possessions.

This, indeed, is true, that just as the body is a figure or image

of the soul, so also the bodily community is a figure of this

Christian, spiritual community, and as the bodily community has a

bodily head, so the spiritual community has a spiritual head. But

who would be so bereft of sense as to maintain that the soul must

have a bodily head? That would be like saying that every live

animal must have on its body a painted head. If this literalist

(I should say, literary person) had really understood what the

Church[34] is, without doubt he would have been ashamed even to

contemplate such a book as his. What wonder, therefore, that from

a darkened and wandering brain issues no light, but thick, black

darkness St. Paul says, Colossians iii, "Our life is not on

earth, but hid with Christ in God." [Col. 3:3] For if the Church

were a bodily assembly, you could tell by looking at the body

whether any one were Christian, Turk or Jew; just as you can tell

by the body whether a person is a man, woman or child, or whether

he is white or black. Again, I can tell whether one is gathered

in temporal assembly with others in Leipzig, Wittenberg, or

elsewhere; but I cannot tell at all whether he is a believer or

not.

[Sidenote: The Church a Spiritual Thing]

Whosoever would not go astray should, therefore, hold fast to

this, that the Church[34] is a spiritual assembly of souls in one

faith, and that no one is reckoned a Christian for his body's

sake; in order that he may know that the true, real, right,

essential Church[34] is a spiritual thing, and not anything

external or outward, by whatever name it may be called. For one

who is not a Christian may have all those other things, and they

will never make him a Christian without true faith, which alone

makes Christians. For this reason we are called Christian

believers, and on Pentecost we sing:

We beseech Thee, Holy Spirit[35],

Let true faith our portion be.

It is in this wise, and never in any other, that the Holy

Scriptures speak of the Holy Church and of Christendom.

[Sidneote: The External Church]

Beyond that, another way of speaking of Christendom has come into

use. According to this, the name Church[36] is given to an

assembly in a house or a parish, a bishopric, an archbishopric,

or the papacy, in which assembly external rites are in use, such

as chanting, reading, vestments. And primarily the name of

"spiritual estate" is given to the bishops, priests and members

of the holy orders; not on account of their faith, which they

perhaps do not have, but because they have been consecrated with

an external anointing, wear crowns, use a distinctive garb, make

special prayers and do special works, say mass, have their places

in the choir, and attend to all such external matters of worship.

But violence is done to the word "spiritual," or "Church," when

it is used for such external affairs, whereas it concerns faith

alone, which, working in the soul, makes right and true

_spirituales_ and Christians; yet this maimer of using it has

spread everywhere, to the great injury and perversion of many

souls, who think that such outward show is the spiritual and only

true estate in Christendom or the Church.

There is not one letter in the Holy Scriptures to show that such

a purely external Church has been established by God; and I

hereby challenge all those who have made this blasphemous,

damnable, heretical book, or would defend it, together with all

their followers, even if all the universities hold with them. If

they can show me that even one letter of the Scriptures speaks of

it, I am willing to recant. But I know that they cannot do it.

The Canon Law and human statutes, indeed, give the name of Church

or Christendom to such a thing, but that is not now before us.

Therefore, for the sake of brevity and a better understanding, we

shall call the two churches by different names. The first, which

is the natural, essential, real and true one, let us call a

spiritual, inner Christendom. The other, which is man-made and

external, let us call a bodily, external Christendom: not as if

we would part them asunder, but just as when I speak of a man,

and call him, according to the soul, a spiritual, according to

the body, a physical, man; or as the Apostle is wont to speak of

the inner and of the outward man. [Rom. 7:22] Thus also the

Christian assembly, according to the soul, is a communion[37] of

one accord in one faith, although according to the body it cannot

be assembled at one place, and yet every group is assembled in

its own place. This Christendom is ruled by Canon Law and the

prelates of the Church.[38] To this belong all the popes,

cardinals, bishops, prelates, monks, nuns and all those who in

these external things are taken to be Christians, whether they

are truly Christians at heart or not. For though membership in

this communion[37] does not make true Christians, because all the

orders mentioned may exist without faith; nevertheless this

communion is never without some who at the same time are true

Christians, just as the body does not give the soul its life, and

yet the soul lives in the body and, indeed, can live without the

body. Those who are without faith and are outside of the first

community, but are included in this second community, are dead in

the sight of God, hypocrites, and but like wooden images of true

Christians. And so the people of Israel were a type of the

spiritual people, assembled in faith.

[Sidenote: The Church as a Building]

The third use of the term applies the word Church, not to

Christendom, but to the edifices erected for purposes of worship.

And the word "spiritual" is so stretched as to cover temporal

possessions, not the possessions which are truly spiritual

because of faith, but those which are in the second or external

Church,[39] and such possessions are called "spiritual" or Church

possessions.[40] Again, the possessions of the laity are called

"worldly," although the laymen who are in the first or spiritual

Church[39] are much better than the worldly clergy and are truly

spiritual. After this fashion it now goes with almost all the

works and the government of the Church;[39] and the name

"spiritual possessions" has been so exclusively applied to

worldly possessions that now no one understands it to mean

anything else, and this has gone so far that men regard neither

the spiritual nor the external Church any more, and they squabble

and quarrel about temporal possessions like the heathen, and say,

they do it for the sake of the Church and of spiritual

possessions. Such perversion and misuse of words and things has

come from the Canon Law and human statutes, to the unspeakable

corruption of Christendom.

[Sidneote: The Head of the Church: Christ]

Now let us consider the head of Christendom. From the foregoing

it follows that the first-named Christendom, which alone is the

true Church, may not and cannot have Church: a head upon earth,

and that no one on earth, neither bishop nor pope, can rule over

it; only Christ in heaven is the head, and He ruleth alone.

[Sidenote: Why the Church Cannot Have an Earthly Head]

This is proved, first of all, in this way: How can a man rule

over anything which he does not know or understand? And who can

know whether a man truly believes or not? Aye, if the power of

the pope extended to this point, then he could take away a

Christian's faith, or direct its progress, or increase it, or

change it, according to his pleasure, just as Christ can do.

In the second place, it is proved by the nature of the head. For

it is the nature of every head joined to a body to infuse into

all its members life and feeling and activity. This will be

found to be true of the heads in worldly affairs. For the ruler

of a country instils into his subjects all the things which are

in his own mind and will, and causes all his subjects to be of

like mind and will with himself, and thus they do the work he

wishes to have done, and this work is truly said to have been

instilled into the subjects by the prince, for without him it

would not have been done. Now no man can instil into the soul of

another, nor into his own soul, true faith, and the mind, will

and work of Christ, but this Christ Himself must do. For neither

pope nor bishop can produce faith in a man's heart, nor anything

else a Christian member should have. But a Christian must have

the mind and will which Christ has in heaven, as the apostle

says, I. Corinthians ii [1. Cor. 2:16; 3:23]. It may also happen

that a Christian member has the faith which neither pope nor

bishop has; how then can the pope be his head? And if the pope

cannot give to himself the life of the spiritual church, how can

he instil it into another? Who has ever seen a live animal with a

lifeless head? The head must give life to the body, and therefore

it is clear that on earth there is no other head of the spiritual

Christendom but Christ alone. Moreover, if a man were its head

here below, Christendom would perish as often as a pope dies. For

the body cannot live when the head is dead.

It follows further, that in this Church Christ can have no vicar,

and therefore neither pope nor bishop is Christ's vicar or regent

in this Church, nor can he ever become such. And this is proved

as follows: A regent, if obedient to his lord, labors with and

urges on the subjects and instils into them the same work which

his lord himself instils, just as we see in temporal government,

where there is one mind and will in lord, regents, and subjects.

And if he were more holy than St. Peter, the pope can never

instill into or create in a Christian man the work of Christ his

Lord, i. e., faith, hope, love, and every grace and virtue.

And if such illustration and proof were not without flaw, though

founded on the Scriptures, yet St. Paul stands strong and

immovable in Ephesians iv, giving to Christendom but one head and

saying, "Let us be true (i. e., not external, but real and true

Christians) and grow up into Him in all things, which is the

head, even Christ, from Whom the whole body fitly joined together

and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to

the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh

increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love." [Eph.

4:15,16] Here the apostle says clearly that the building up and

increase of Christendom, which is the body of Christ, cometh

alone from Christ, Who is its Head. And where can there be found

another head on earth to whom such nature could be ascribed,

especially since these "heads" in most cases have neither love

nor faith? Besides, St. Paul referred in these words to himself,

to St. Peter, and to every other Christian; and if another head

were necessary he would have been utterly false in saying nothing

about it.

I know very well that there are some who dare to say in reference

to this and similar passages that though Paul was silent [1 Cor.

3:1], he did not thereby deny that St. Peter was also a head, but

was feeding the unwise with milk. Just listen to this: they claim

that it is necessary for salvation to have St. Peter for a head,

and yet they have the effrontery to say that Paul concealed the

things which are necessary to salvation. Thus these senseless

goats would rather blaspheme Paul and the Word of God than be

convinced of their error, and they call it "milk for babes" when

Christ is proclaimed, and "strong meat" when St. Peter is

proclaimed, just as if Peter were higher, greater, and more

difficult to understand than Christ himself. And this is called

explaining the Scriptures and overcoming Dr. Luther; this is the

way to run out of the rain and fall into the trough. What could

such babblers accomplish if we should have a disputation with the

Bohemians[41] and the heretics? Truly nothing, except that we

should be made a mockery for all, and give them due cause to look

upon us all as blustering idiots, and they become more strongly

entrenched in their own belief through the foolishness of our

side.

[Sidenote: The Equality of Bishops]

But then you ask: If the prelates are neither heads nor regents

of the spiritual Church, what are they?

Let the laymen answer this, when they say: St. Peter is a

messenger[42] and the other apostles are messengers too. Why

should the pope be ashamed to be a messenger, if St. Peter

himself is no more? But beware, ye laymen, or the super-learned

Romanists will burn you at the stake as heretics because ye would

make the pope a messenger and letter-carrier. But ye have a

strong argument, for the Greek _Apostolos_ is in German

"messenger," and thus are they called throughout the Gospel.

If, then, they are all messengers of the one Lord Christ, who

would be so foolish as to say that so great a lord, in a matter

of such great importance for the whole world, sends but one

messenger, and he, in turn, sends other messengers of his own?

Then St. Peter would have to be called, not a _Zwölfbote_ (one of

the twelve messengers), but an only-messenger, and none of the

others would remain _Zwölfboten_, but they would all be St.

Peter's _Elfboten_ (i. e., his eleven messengers). But what is

the custom at court? Is it not true that a lord has many

messengers? Aye, when does it happen that many messengers are

sent with the same message to one place, as now we have priest,

bishop, archbishop and pope, all ruling over the same city, not

to mention other tyrants, who shove in their rule somewhere

between the rest? Christ sent all the apostles into the world

with His Word and message with full, equal powers, as St. Paul

says: "We are ambassadors for Christ." [1 Cor. 5:20] And in I.

Corinthians iii. he says: "What is Peter? What is Paul? Servants

through whom ye believed." [1 Cor. 3:5] This ambassadorship means

to feed, to rule, to be bishop, and so forth. But that the pope

makes all the messengers of God to be subject to himself, is the

same as if one messenger of a prince detained all the other

messengers, and then sent them out when it suited his pleasure,

while he himself went nowhere. Would that be pleasing to the

prince, if he found it out?

Should you say: True, but one messenger may be above another; I

would reply: One may indeed be better and more skilful than

another, as St. Paul was when compared with Peter; but since they

bring one and the same message, one cannot be above another by

reason of his office. But, put the other way, St. Peter is not a

_Zwölfbote_ at all, but a special messenger and lord over the

Eleven. What can it be that one has above the others, if they all

have one and the same message and commission from the one Lord?

Forasmuch then as all bishops are equal by divine right and sit

in the Apostles' places, I may gladly concede that by human right

one is above the other in the external Church. For here the pope

instils what is in his own mind, as, for instance, his Canon Law

and human inventions, whereby Christendom is ruled with outward

show; but that does not make Christians, as I have said

above[43]; neither are they heretics who are not under the same

laws and ceremonies or human ordinances. For customs change with

the country.

All this is confined by the article in the Creed: "I believe in

the Holy Ghost, one Holy Christian Church, the Communion of

Saints." No one says: "I believe in the Holy Ghost, one Holy

Roman Church, a Communion of the Romans." Thus it is clear that

the Holy Church is not bound to Rome, but is as wide as the

world, the assembly of those of one faith, a spiritual and not a

bodily thing, for that which one believes is not bodily or

visible. The external Roman Church we all see, therefore it

cannot be the true Church, which is believed, and which is a

community or assembly of the saints in faith, for no one can see

who is a saint or a believer.

[Sidenote: The Marks of the Church]

The external marks, whereby one can perceive where this Church is

on earth, are baptism, the Sacrament, and the Gospel; and not

Rome, or this place, or that. For where baptism and the Gospel

are, no one may doubt that there are saints, even if it were only

the babes in their cradles. But neither Rome nor the papal power

is a mark of the Church,[44] for that power cannot make

Christians, as baptism and the Gospel do; and therefore it does

not belong to the true Church[44] and is but a human ordinance.

Therefore I would advise this Romanist to go to school another

year, and to learn what the Church or the head of the Church[44]

really means, before he drives out the poor heretics with

writings of such height, depth, breadth and length. It grieves me

to the heart that we must suffer these mad saints to tear asunder

and blaspheme the Holy Scriptures with such insolence, license,

and shamelessness, and that they make bold to deal with the

Scriptures, whereas they are not fit to care for a herd of swine.

Heretofore I have held that where something was to be proved by

the Scriptures, the Scriptures quoted must really refer to the

point at issue. I learn now that it is enough to throw many

passages together helter-skelter, whether they are fit or not. If

this is to be the way, then I can easily prove from the

Scriptures that beer is better than wine.[45]

Of the same character is his statement in both his Latin and his

German treatise[46] that Christ is the head of the Turks,

heathen, Christians, heretics, robbers, harlots and knaves. It

would be no wonder if all the stone and timber in the cloister

stared and hooted this miserable wretch to death for his horrible

blasphemy. What shall I say? Has Christ become a keeper of all

the houses of shame, a head of all the murderers, of all

heretics, of all rogues? Woe unto thee, thou miserable wretch,

that thou thus holdest up thy Lord for all the world to

blaspheme! The poor man would write about the head of

Christendom, and in utter madness imagines that "head" and "Lord"

are one and the same. Christ is, indeed, Lord of all things, of

all the good and the evil, of the angels and the devils, the

virgins and the harlots; but He is not the head, except only of

the good, believing Christians, assembled in the spirit. For a

head must be united with its body, as I showed above from St.

Paul in Ephesians iv,[47] and the members must cleave to the head

and receive from it their activity and life. For this reason

Christ cannot be the head of an evil community, although it is

subject unto Him as Lord; even as His kingdom, namely

Christendom, is not a bodily community or kingdom, yet all things

are subject unto Him, be they spiritual or bodily, of hell or of

heaven.

Thus in his first argument this reviler vilified and slandered

me; in this second argument he reviled Christ much more than me.

For even if he thinks much of his own holy prayers and fastings

in contrast to a poor sinner like me, yet he has not called me a

brothelkeeper and archknave, as he has Christ.

[Sidenote: III. The Argument from Scripture]

Now comes the third argument, in which the high majesty of God is

made a target, and the Holy Spirit becomes a liar and a heretic,

so that by all means the contention of the Romanists may be

upheld.

The third argument is taken from the Scriptures, just as the

second was taken from reason and the first from folly, so that

everything may be done in proper order. It runs as follows: The

Old Testament was a type of the New Testament, and because it had

a bodily high-priest, the New Testament must have one

likewise--how else shall the type be fulfilled? For has not

Christ Himself said: "Not one jot or tittle of the law shall pass

away; it shall all be fulfilled"? [Matt. 5:18]