A book more foolish, senseless, and blind I have never seen. Once

before, another[48] wrote the same thing against me, so coarse

and foolish that I could not but scorn it. But because they have

not sharpened their wits, I must speak bluntly for the

thickheads; I see that the ass does not appreciate a harp, I must

offer him thistles.

[Sidenote: Type and Fulfillment]

In the first place, it is evident that a type is material and

external, and the 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, or it is not really a

fulfilment.

I must prove that by illustration. By many miracles the Jewish

people came in a bodily manner out of the bodily land of Egypt,

as is written in the book of Exodus [Ex. 13:18 ff.]. This type

does not mean that we, too, shall in a bodily manner come out of

Egypt, but that our souls by a right faith shall come forth from

sins and the spiritual power of the devil; so that the bodily

assembly of the Jewish people signifies the spiritual and

internal assembly of the Christian people in faith. Thus, as

they drank water from a bodily rock, and ate bodily manna with

the bodily mouth, so with the mouth of the heart we drink and eat

of the spiritual Rock, the Lord Christ, when we believe in Him [1

Cor. 10:3]. Again, Moses set a serpent on a pole, and whosoever

looked upon it was made whole [Num. 21:8]. 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 possesses only in faith. St.

Augustine understood the types in this manner, when he says[49]

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." [John 3:14] Now the

outward show of Roman power can give neither temporal nor eternal

life, and therefore it is not only no fulfilment of the type of

Aaron, but far less than the type, for that was established by

divine direction. For if the papacy could give either eternal or

temporal life, all the popes would be saved and be in good

health. But he who has Christ and the spiritual Church, is truly

saved and has the fulfilment of the type, yet only in faith. And

since the pope's external show and the oneness of his Church can

be seen with the eyes, and we all see it, it is not possible that

he can be the fulfilment of any type. For the fulfilment of types

must not be seen, but believed.

[Sidenote: The High-Priest Not a Type of the Pope]

Now see--are they not skilful masters who make the high-priest of

the Old Testament to be a type of the pope, when the latter makes

as much, nay more of an external show than the former, and thus a

bodily thing is made to be the fulfilment of a bodily type! That

would mean that type and fulfilment are exactly alike. But if

this type is to stand, the new high-priest must be spiritual, and

his graces and adornment likewise spiritual. The prophets also

saw this when they said of us, Psalm cxxxii, "Thy priests shall

be clothed with faith or righteousness, and Thine anointed ones

shall be adorned with joy." [Ps. 132:9] As if he would say: Our

priests are types, and are clothed externally with silks and

purples, but your priests shall be clothed with grace inwardly.

Thus is this miserable Romanist routed with his "type," and his

jumbling together of much Scripture has been in vain. For the

pope is an external priest, and they think of him in his external

power and adornment. Therefore Aaron cannot have been a type of

him; we must have another.

[Sidenote: Scriptural Types Interpreted in Scripture]

In the second place--in order that they may realize how far they

are from the truth--even if they had been wise enough to give a

spiritual fulfilment to the type, yet that would not stand the

test, unless they had a clear passage from the Scriptures, which

brought the type and its spiritual fulfilment together; otherwise

every one could make out of it what he desired. For instance,

that the serpent lifted up by Moses signifies Christ, is taught

by John iii [John 3:14]. If it were not for that passage my

reason might evolve very strange and weird fancies out of that

type. Again, that Adam was a type of Christ, I learn not from

myself, but from St. Paul in Romans v [Rom. 5:14]. Again, that

the rock in the wilderness signifies Christ, is not so stated by

my reason, but by St. Paul in I. Corinthians x. [1 Cor. 10:4]

Therefore, let none other explain the type but the Holy Spirit

Himself, Who has given the type and wrought the fulfilment, in

order that both promise and performance, type and fulfilment, and

the interpretation of both, may be God's own and not man's, and

our faith be founded not on human, but on divine works and 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? And though the pope were something

spiritual, yet even then it would count for nothing if I made

Aaron to be his type, unless I could point to a passage where it

is explicitly stated: Behold, Aaron was a type of the pope.

Otherwise who could prevent me from assuming that Aaron was a

type of the bishop of Prague? St. Augustine has stated that types

are not valid in controversy unless supported by the

Scriptures.[50]

But now this poor chatterbox has neither: no spiritual, inward

high-priest and no passage of the Scriptures; he goes at it

blindly with his own dreams, and assumes as his basis that Aaron

was the type of St. Peter, the very thing which is in greatest

need of foundation and proof, and he just goes on prattling that

the law must be fulfilled and not one iota omitted. My dear

Romanist, who has ever doubted that the law of the Old Testament

and its types must be fulfilled in the New? There was no need of

your scholarship to establish that. But here you might make a

great show and demonstrate by your ingenuity that this fulfilment

occurs in Peter or in the pope. You are as mute as a stick when

it is time to speak out, and a chatterbox when speech is

unnecessary. Have you not learned your logic better than that?

You argue your major premises, which no one questions, and assume

the correctness of your minor premises, which every one

questions, and then you draw the conclusion to suit yourself.

[Sidenote: A Lesson in Logic]

Listen to me, I will give you a better lesson in logic. I agree

with you in saying: All that is typified by the high-priest in

the Old Testament must be fulfilled in the New, as St. Paul says

in I. Corinthians i. Thus far we agree. Now you continue: St.

Peter, or the pope, was typified by Aaron. Here I say, Nay. And

what can you do then? Now show your learning, and call the whole

crowd of Romanists to assist you, bring just one jot or tittle

from the Scriptures in defence, and I will call you a hero. On

what foundation have you builded, however? On your own dreams;

and yet you boast you will argue against me with the Scriptures.

It was not necessary for you thus to play the fool against me, I

should have had a fool to overcome at any rate.

[Sidenote: Aaron a Type of Christ]

Listen to me further: I say that Aaron was a type of Christ, and

not of the pope. And when I say this, I do not utter my own

invention, as you do; but I will prove it, so that neither you,

nor the world, nor all the devils shall overthrow it. In the

first place, Christ is a spiritual priest for the inner man; for

He sitteth in heaven, and maketh intercession for us as a priest,

teaches us inwardly in the heart, and does everything a priest

should do in mediating between God and man, as St. Paul says,

Romans iii, and the whole Epistle to the Hebrews. Aaron, the

type, is bodily and external, but the fulfilment is spiritual and

inward, and the two agree together. [Rom. 3:25]

Secondly, in order not to bring my own thoughts, I have the

passage, Psalm cx, "The Lord hath sworn and will not repent: Thou

art a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek." [Ps. 110:4]

Can you also bring a passage like that about St. Peter or the

pope? For I think that you will not deny that this passage refers

to Christ, as St. Paul, in Hebrews v. [Heb. 5:6] and at many

other places, and our Lord Christ Himself, in Matthew xxii, so

explain it [Matt. 22:44]. Thus we can see how beautifully the

Romanists treat the Scriptures and make out of them what they

like, as if they were a nose of wax, to be pulled around at will.

Now we have proved by the Scriptures that Christ is the

High-priest of the New Testament. Clearer still is Paul's

comparison of Aaron and Christ in Hebrews ix, when he says: "Into

the first tabernacle the priests went every day, to offer the

sacrifices; but into the second went the high-priest alone once

every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself and

for the sin of the people. The Holy Ghost thus signifying that

the way to the true, holy tabernacle was not yet made manifest,

while the first tabernacle was yet standing, which was a type or

figure needful for the time then present. But Christ being come,

a high-priest of spiritual possessions to come, by a greater and

more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not

of this temporal building: neither by the blood of goats and

calves, but by His own blood He entered in once into the holy

place, having obtained an eternal redemption." [Heb. 9:6 ff.]

What do you say to this, my super-learned Romanist? Paul says:

The high-priest typified Christ; you say, St. Peter. Paul says,

Christ entered not into a temporal building; you say, He is in

the temporal building at Rome. Paul says, He entered in once,

and hath obtained an eternal redemption, and makes the type to be

altogether spiritual and heavenly, which you make to be earthly

and external. What can you do now? My advice is this: Clench

your fist, smite him on the jaw, and say he is a liar, a heretic,

a poisoner, just as you do to me; and you will be like your

father Zedekiah, who smote Micaiah on the cheek [1 Kings 22:24].

Do you not see, wretched blasphemer, whither your counsellors and

your own madness have brought you? [John 5:43] Where are they

now, those big-wigs, who interdicted my sermon on both kinds in

the Sacrament?[51] It served them right. They would not tolerate

nor hear the Gospel, and now they shall hear instead the lies and

blasphemies of the Evil Spirit, even as Christ says to the Jews,

"I am come in My Father's name, and ye receive Me not; another

shall come in his own name, him ye will receive." [John 5:43]

But you might say, St. Peter too is typified by Aaron, along with

Christ; and I answer, if you must keep on, you could also say

that Aaron was a type of the Turk; and who could prevent you,

since you delight in such senseless chatter. But you have given

promise to argue from the Scriptures; now do it, and leave your

dreams at home. Moreover, where faith is concerned, one must

contend not with uncertain Scripture texts, but with those that

refer to the issue in a way that is certain, clear, and simple;

otherwise the Evil Spirit would toss us hither and yon, until at

last we should not know at all where we were; just as has

happened to many with these little words, _Petros_ and

_Petra_[52] in Matthew xvi [Matt. 16:18].

It would have been something less of a lie and a blasphemy for

you to have said that Aaron was a type of Christ and also of St.

Peter. But now you just scream with all your might that Aaron was

not a type of Christ, but of St. Peter, and wantonly you strike

St. Paul in the face. And in order that nothing may be lacking in

this perfect piece of folly, you go on to say: Moses was a type

of Christ. And you say this not only without any cause or

indication in the Scriptures--just as if you were more than God,

and everything which you emit must be taken for Gospel--but

contrary to all the Scriptures, which make Moses a type of the

Law, as St. Paul does in II. Corinthians iii. [2 Cor. 3:7] It is

not necessary to go into this just now, else you might strike him

on the jaw again in your wantonness and insolence. Such venom you

have imbibed from that man Emser's heretical and blasphemous

output,[53] which I will give the answer it deserves when Sir

Knight Eck comes along with his flourish.[54] You cannot carry it

off in that way, my dear Romanists. I cannot prevent it by force,

but you shall not bring any Scripture in support of it. Praise

God, I am not quite ready to bite the dust.

[Sidenote: Types of the Apostles]

Now it is clear, I take it, that the third argument of his

Romanist is rank heresy and blasphemy, for it flatly contradicts

God the Holy Ghost and makes Him a liar, and utterly demolishes

St. Paul. For since Aaron is a type of Christ, he cannot be a

type of St. Peter. For what the Scriptures ascribe to Christ must

not be ascribed to any other, so that the Scriptures may ever

have one simple, direct, indisputable meaning, on which our faith

may rest without wavering [Exod. 28:17 ff.]. This I will grant,

that Peter is one of the twelve precious stones in the

breastplate of Aaron, whereby there may be signified that the

twelve Apostles, chosen in Christ, and known from all eternity,

are the highest and most precious jewels in Christendom, but I

can never allow Peter to become Aaron. Again, I will admit that

St. Peter is one of the twelve lions that stood beside Solomon's

great throne [1 Kings 10:19], but Christ must remain for me the

one King Solomon. I will let the twelve Apostles be the twelve

wells of water in the wilderness of Elim [Exod. 15:27], on this

condition, however, that the bright cloud and pillar shall be

nothing other than Christ himself. And just as little as the

power of any one of these twelve extends over the others, so

little does Peter have power over the other apostles, and the

pope over other bishops and priests, by divine right.

[Sidenote: Wherein the Pope is Untrue to the Type of Aaron]

One thing more, my good, dear Romanists, and then I have done. I

ask most graciously for a correct answer. If Aaron was a type of

the pope in external authority, vestments and state, why was he

not a type in all other external and bodily matters; if it holds

in one thing, why not in all the others?

It is written that the high-priest shall not take a widow or a

divorced woman, but shall wed a virgin [Lev. 21:14]; why do they

not give the pope a virgin to wed, so that the type may be

fulfilled? Nay, why does the pope forbid matrimony to the whole

priesthood, not only contrary to the Old Testament type, but also

in opposition to God, and against right, reason, and nature, a

thing which he has no authority, nor power, nor right to do, and

over which the Church has never exercised authority, nor should

it ever do so. So by his own caprice, without need, he has caused

Christendom to be filled with whores, sinners, and guilty

consciences, as St. Paul says of him, I. Timothy iv: "In the

latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to

seducing spirits and doctrines of devils, speaking lies in

hypocrisy, having their conscience seared with a hot iron,

forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which

God hath created, etc." [1 Tim. 4:1 ff.]

Does Paul herein not hit the Roman laws, which forbid the

priesthood to marry, and command all Christians to abstain from

butter, eggs, milk, and meats on certain days, while God Himself

has left it to the free choice of Christians in every estate to

eat or to marry, as they desire? Where are you now, my Romanist

of the observance, with all your ranting that not one detail of

the Old Testament type shall be omitted, and that every iota must

be fulfilled? Yea, where is the pope, the successor of St. Peter,

who was married, as was St. Paul[55] and all the Apostles?

[Sidenote: The Tonsure]

Again, the Old Testament high-priest was not permitted to have

his head shorn [Lev. 21:5]. But why does the pope have a tonsure,

and all the other priests, too? Wherein is the type fulfilled

here to the very dot? Again, the High-priest was forbidden to own

any portion of Israel's land, but subsisted entirely on the

offerings of the people. Pray, why is the occupant of the papal

throne so furious to possess the whole world, and has not only

stolen lands and cities, principalities and kingdoms,[56] but has

arrogated to himself the power to make kings and princes, seat

and unseat and change them according to his pleasure, as if he

were Antichrist. Wherein is there here a fulfilment of the type?

[Sidenote: Worldly Pretensions]

Again, the Old Testament high-priest was a subject under the rule

of the kings. Why then does the pope have men kiss his feet, and

aspire to be king of kings, which Christ Himself did not? Wherein

is the type fulfilled here? Again, the high-priest was

circumcised. And, finally, if having the external things in the

New Testament identical with those of the Old be the fulfilment

of types, why do we not become Jews again and keep the whole law

of Moses? If we must observe it in one particular, why not in

all? If not in all, why in one?

[Sidenote: Holy Men Not Under the High-Priest]

If it be desired to elevate the New Testament above the Old in

the matter of outward splendor, would it not be the reasonable to

suppose that there should be more than one high-priest in the New

Testament, to make it more splendid and glorious than the Old,

which did not have more than one? If reason should judge in this

case and follow its own bent, what do you suppose it would do?

Again, in the time of the Old Testament high-priest there were

many holy men who were not under him, such as Job and his

family--for he was not alone. Likewise the king of Babylon, the

queen of Sheba, the widow of Zarephath, the prince Naaman of

Syria, and many others in Eastern lands, together with their

families, who are all commended in the Scriptures. Why does not

the type hold in these instances, even to the letter? And yet the

pope will let no one be a Christian except he be subject to him,

and buy his seals and parchments at any price his Romanists

please to charge. Or do the Romanists have power to interpret

types as they please and as far as they please, without any

warrant of the Scriptures?

Do you not see, my good Romanist, how envy and hatred have

blinded you and your kind? Would it not have been a more seemly

thing for you to have remained in your cell praying your vigils

until you had been called or urged into this case? You do not

know what a type is or signifies, and yet you boast of being a

teacher and master of all the Holy Scriptures.[57] Yea, verily, a

master in corrupting the Scriptures, and blaspheming God, and

libeling truth. Come again, my dear Romanist, and I will deck you

with lilies and give you for a new year's present[58] to those

who have sent you.

I, too, desire to say one thing that is not in the Scriptures.

In all estates which God has appointed there are always some who

are saved, and no estate is without living saints on earth, as

Christ says, Luke xvii, "Two men shall be in one bed; the one

shall be taken, and the other left," etc. [Luke 17:34] If the

papacy were from God it would be impossible for a pope to be

damned, because there is but one person at a time in that estate,

and whoever became pope would thereby be assured of his

salvation; which is contrary to all the Scriptures.

[Sidenote: The Scriptural Foundation of Papal Power]

Now let us see how these pious people treat the holy words of

Christ in this case. Christ says to St. Peter, Matthew xvi: "Thou

art, or art called, Peter; and on the _Petram_ (i. e., on the

rock) I will build My Church. And I will give unto thee the keys

of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on

earth, shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose

on earth, shall be loosed in heaven." [Matt 16:18] From these

words they have claimed the keys for St. Peter alone; but the

same Matthew has barred such erroneous interpretation in the

xviii. chapter, where Christ says to all in common, "Verily, I

say unto you, whatsoever ye shall bind on earth, shall be bound

in heaven, and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth, shall be

loosed in heaven." [Matt. 18:18] It is clear that Christ here

interprets His own words, and in this xviii. chapter explains the

former xvi.; namely, that the keys are given to St. Peter in the

stead of the whole Church,[59] and not for his own person. Thus

also John, in the last chapter, "He breathed on them and said,

Receive ye the Holy Ghost; whosesoever sins ye remit, they are

remitted unto them, and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are

retained." To maintain the sole authority of St. Peter, when

there are two texts against one, many men have labored in vain.

But the Gospel is too clear, and they have had to admit until now

that in the first passage nothing special was given to St. Peter

for his own person.

Thus it was also understood by many of the ancient Church

fathers. It is likewise proved by the words of Christ just before

He gave the keys to St. Peter, where He asks not Peter only, but

all of them: "What think ye of Me?" [Matt. 16:15] Then Peter

answers for them all, "Thou art Christ, the Son of the living

God." [Matt. 16:18] Therefore the words in Matthew xvi. must be

understood in accordance with the words in chapter xviii. [Matt.

18:16] and in John xx [John 20:22], and one passage must not be

explained in a manner contrary to two strong ones, but the one be

properly explained by the two. The proof is all the stronger

where there are two instead of only one, and it is but fair that

one should follow the two, and not two the one.

[Sidenote: Equality Among the Apostles]

It is plain, therefore, that all the apostles were equal to Peter

in all matters of authority. This is shown by their acts as well

as by their words, for Peter never selected an apostle, nor made,

confirmed, sent out, or ruled over one; although if he had been

their superior by divine appointment this would have had to be,

or all of them would have been heretics. Moreover, all of the

apostles together could not make St. Matthias and St. Paul

apostles, but this must needs be done from heaven, as it is

written in Acts i. [Acts 1:23 ff.] and xiii. [Acts 13:2] How then

could St. Peter alone be lord over them all? This little nut no

one has been able to crack as yet, and I trust they will be so

gracious, even against their will, to leave it uncracked a while

longer.

[Sidenote: Roman Authority never Universal]

And just as this Romanist boasts that the papal chair survives in

spite of repeated assaults on its authority,[60] so I, too, boast

that the Roman See ofttimes, and to this very day, has striven in

mad frenzy for such power, yet has never been able to attain it,

and, God willing, shall never attain it. It is an utter farce

when a man boasts that he has always kept what he has never had.

Why does not our dear Romanist boast also that the city of

Leipzig has never been taken away from him, in which he does not

even have a house? It would be a boast of equal value with the

other. So they chatter on incessantly; anything that comes to

their tongues is blurted out. Therefore, I say, that though the

Roman tyrants have striven hard against the Gospel, to take the

common power of the Church and make it their own, yet the word of

Christ still stands, "The powers of hell shall not prevail

against it." [Matt. 16:18] Now if this power had been given to

the pope by divine right, God would not have desisted; at some

time it would have been fulfilled. For he says that "not a jot or

letter shall remain unfulfilled." [Matt. 5:18] But in the

extension of Roman power over all Christendom not one letter has

ever been fulfilled.

And it does not help to say, it is not the fault of the Romans,

but of the heretics, that it has not been fulfilled. Heretic

here, heretic there! God's order and promise cannot be hindered

or prevented by the gates of hell, much less by the heretics;

surely He is strong enough to make true His own Word, without the

help of heretics. And inasmuch as He has never done so, and

leaves it unfulfilled to this day, regardless of all the zeal,

diligence, toil and labor, and cunning and trickery besides,

which the Romans have expended on it, I hope it is sufficiently

established just what the pope's authority is, beyond that of

other bishops and priests; namely, that it is of human and not of

divine right. Christ's kingdom has been at all times in all the

world, as is written in Psalms ii. [Ps. 2:8] and xix [Ps. 19:4],

but never was it entirely under the pope, even for one hour, in

spite of those who say otherwise.

[Sidenote: Two Passages versus One]

Although all this is well-established truth, we shall

nevertheless proceed to demolish their idle fairy-tales still

more, and say: Even if it were not valid that the two sayings in

Matthew [Matt. 18:18] and John [John 20:22], which make the power

of the keys a common possession, should explain the one saying of

Matthew, which sounds as if the keys were given to Peter alone;

yet the case cannot proceed any further than to establish a

doubt, whether the one passage shall interpret the two, or the

two the one, and I hold as tenaciously to the two, as they to the

one. Furthermore, that doubt gives certainty to us, so that it is

entirely for us to say whether we will have the pope for a head

or not. For where a matter is in doubt, no one is a heretic,

whether he hold to one view or to another; this they themselves

admit. And thus their argument again is brought to naught, and

they can produce nothing but uncertainty and doubt. Therefore

they must either give up all three passages as inadequate to

establish their case, since their meaning is obscure; or else

they must cite others, which explicitly indicate that the two

must be interpreted by the one. This they cannot do; I defy them

to try it.

But I will cite passages by which I shall prove that the one

passage must follow the two.

Thus saith the Law--and Christ quotes it in Matthew xviii--,

"Every case shall be established through the mouth of two or

three witnesses, but at the mouth of one witness shall no man be

put to death." [Deut. 17:6] And once I have two witnesses against

one, my case takes precedence, and the one passage must follow

the two; namely, that Peter received the keys not as Peter, but

in the stead of the Church,[61] as Matthew xviii. and John xx.

clearly say, and not as Peter alone, as Matthew xvi. seems to

say.

Moreover, I am astounded at the great arrogance by which they

would make the power of the keys a ruling power, which really

fits together as well as winter and summer. For a ruling power

means far more than the power of the keys. The power of the keys

extends only to the Sacrament of Penance,[62] to bind and loose

the sins, as Matthew xviii. [Matt. 18:18] and John xx. [John

20:22] clearly state; but a ruling power extends likewise to

those who are pious and have naught to be bound or loosed; its

scope includes preaching, exhorting, consoling, saying mass,

giving the Sacrament, etc. Therefore, none of the three passages

fits the power of the pope over all Christendom, except he were

made the one confessor, or penitentiary,[63] or anathematizer, to

rule only over the wicked and the sinners, which is not their

desire at all. And if these words should establish the papal

power over all Christians, I should very much like to know who

could absolve the pope when he sins. He must certainly remain in

his sins; neither will it do for him to transfer his power to

another for his own absolution, for that would make him a heretic

in acting contrary to divine command.

[Sidenote: Person and Office]

Some have invented the fiction that the pope's person and office

are two different things;[64] that the person can be made subject

to another, but not the office. That glitters for a moment, but

is, in truth, like all such wares. For in their own laws, with

great ado and show, they have forbidden any bishop of a lower

rank to confirm a pope, although this confirmation is not the

institution of the office, but the induction of the person into

the office. And if in this case the person is not subject to any

one, surely the same is true in absolution. But in all their

doings and glosses and interpretations, their minds are in a

whirl, and they say now this and now that; and in their twisting

of God's Word they lose its true sense, forget where they are, go

completely astray, and yet they would rule the whole world.

[Sidenote: The Keys Given to the Whole Church]

Therefore let every Christian believe that in these passages

Christ does not give either to St. Peter or to the other Apostles

the power to rule, or to soar so high. What then does He give? I

will tell you. These words of Christ are nothing but gracious

promises, given to the whole Church,[65] as was said above,[66]

in order that poor sinful consciences may find comfort when they

are "loosed" or absolved by man; and the words apply only to

sinful, timid, troubled consciences, and are intended to strength

en them, if they but believe. When these comforting words of

Christ, given for the benefit of all poor consciences in the

whole Church,[65] are thus made to strengthen and establish papal

power, I will tell you of what it reminds me.

[Sidenote: A Parable]

It reminds me of a rich, kind prince who threw open his

treasure-house, and gave complete freedom to all the poor to come

and take what they needed. Among the needy there came a rogue,

who made use of the permission all by himself and allowed none to

come in who did not bow completely to his will, and arbitrarily

explained the words of the prince to mean that the permission was

given to him alone. Can you imagine what the kind prince would

think of this rogue? If you cannot imagine it, hear what St.

Matthew says of that selfsame servant: "If that evil servant

shall say in his heart. My lord delayeth his coming, and shall

begin to smite his fellow-servants, and to eat and drink with the

drunken; the lord of that servant shall come in a day when he

looketh not for him, and in an hour that he is not aware of, and

shall cut him asunder, and appoint him his portion with the

hypocrites: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." [Matt.

24:48 ff.]

And now see: in the same manner as this servant interprets the

intention of his lord, so the Romanists interpret the words of

God, and this is the very best that can be said of their

interpretation. For when they go stark mad, they act as if yon

servant had not only made barter of his lord's kindness for his

own profit, but as if he actually changed the goods, and gave

chaff and stubble for com, copper for gold, lead for silver, and

poison for wine. And therefore it is still a matter of grace,

that they claim the keys for the pope at least in such a manner

that we may buy them by giving money and everything that we

possess. But it is an utter calamity when they preach their

laws, authority, bans, indulgences and the like, in place of the

Gospel. That is what the Lord calls the smiting of the fellow

servants by the evil servant, who should rather feed them.

[Sidenote: Herod and the Romanists]

I will use a plain illustration, so that any one may see the

difference between the true and the false interpretation of these

words of Christ. The high-priest of the Old Testament wore, by

divine appointment, an official robe. When King Herod elevated

himself over the people of Israel, he took that robe, and

although he did not use it himself, yet he usurped the authority

to regulate its use, and the people were forced to pay for that

to which God had given them the right. The same is true now. The

keys have been given to the whole Church[65] as has been proved

above.[66] But along come the Romanists, and although they never

use them themselves nor exercise their office, yet they take to

themselves authority over the use of the keys, and we are forced

to buy with money what is in reality our own, given by Christ.

And, not satisfied with this, they apply the words of Christ

concerning the keys, not to the keys nor to their use, but to

their usurped power and authority over the keys, so that the

power of the keys, freely given by Christ, is now captive in the

hands of the Romanists; and both the power of the keys and the

power over the keys are supposed to come from the one word of

Christ, just as if Herod had said that it was his power of which

Moses was speaking, when he spake of the robe of the high-priest.

In like manner, a tyrant could obtain possession of a last

testament, and explain the words, wherein the property is

bequeathed to the heir, to mean that authority is given him over

this testament, to decide whether he will allow its provisions to

come to the heir gratuitously or for a price. So it is also with

the power of the keys and the authority of the pope, understood

as coming from one and the same word [of Scripture], whereas the

two things are not only different, but the authority claimed is

more than the power of the keys; and yet they make of it one and

the same thing.

[Sidenote: What is Meant by the Rock]

Their argument, that the external authority of the pope is

conferred in the words of Christ, "On this rock I will build My

Church," [Matt. 16:18] understanding the rock to mean St. Peter

and his authority, I have refuted many times,[67] and now I will

say only this: First, they must prove that the rock means

authority. They will not do this, nor can they do it, so they

just have voice to their own inventions, and all their drivel

must be divine command. Secondly, the rock can mean neither St.

Peter nor his authority, on account of the words of Christ which

follow, "And the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Now

it is clear as day that no one is edified in the Church, nor

withstands the gates of hell by the mere fact that he is under

the external authority of the pope. For 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 and are full of

sins and rascality. Then, too, some of the popes were heretics

themselves, and gave heretical laws; yet they remained in

authority. Therefore, the rock does not signify authority, which

can never withstand the gates of hell; but it signifies only

Christ and the faith in Him, against which no power can ever

prevail.

[Sidenote: Prevailing Against the Gates of Hell]

That this authority continues to exist despite those who battle

against it, does not mean that it has withstood the gates of

hell. For so the Greek Church has continued, and all the other

Christians in the world; the Moscovites[68] and Bohemians

continue, yea, the kingdom of Persia has continued for more than

two thousand years, and the Turk for well nigh a thousand years,

in spite of various and repeated attacks against them. And to

tell you some more things that really should bring astonishment

to such an illustrious Romanist: The world in its wickedness has

stood from the beginning, and shall stand until the Last Day, and

forever, even if God Himself with all holy men and angels never

cease to preach, write and work against it. If you think good of

it, my dear Romanist, defy God and all the angels, because the

world has stood even against all their words and work. Why did

you not ascertain, you poor, blind Romanist, before rushing into

print, what it means "to prevail against the gates of hell"? If

every prevailing means just as much as prevailing against the

gates of hell, then the devil's kingdom prevails with a larger

following than God's kingdom. This is what it means to prevail

against the gates of hell: Not to be in an external

communion[69], authority, jurisdiction or assembly in a bodily

manner, according to your way of babbling about the Roman

communion[69] and its unity, but by a firm and true faith to be

built upon Christ, the Rock which can never be suppressed by any

power of the devil, even if he counts more followers and uses

unceasing strife, cunning, and violence against it.

[Sidenote: Evil Results of Roman Authority]

Now the greater part of the Roman communion,[69] and even some of

the popes themselves, have forsaken the faith wantonly and

without struggle, and live under the power of Satan, as is

plainly to be seen, and thus the papacy often has been under the

dominion of the gates of hell. And should I speak quite openly,

this same Roman authority, ever since the time it has presumed to

soar over all Christendom, not only has never attained its

purpose, but has become the cause of nearly all the apostasy,

heresy, discord, sects, unbelief and misery in Christendom, and

has never freed itself from the gates of hell. And if there were

no other passage to prove that Roman authority was of human and

not of divine right, this passage alone would be sufficient,

where Christ says, the gates of hell shall not prevail against

His building on the rock. Now the gates of hell ofttimes had the

papacy in their power, at times the pope was not a pious man, and

the office was occupied by a man without faith, without grace,

without good works; which God would never have permitted if the

papacy were meant in Christ's word concerning the rock. For then

He would not be true to His promise, nor fulfil His own word;

therefore the rock, and the building of Christ founded upon it,

must be something entirely different from the papacy and its

external Church.

Accordingly I say further, that the Roman bishop has often been

deposed or appointed by other bishops. If, however, his authority

were by divine appointment and promise, God would never have

permitted this to happen, for it would be against His word and

promise. And if God were found to be unfaithful in so much as

even one word, then would perish faith, truth, the Scriptures,

and God Himself. But if God's words stand firm, then my

adversaries must prove to me that the pope was never subject,

even once, to Satan or to man. I would much like to hear just

what my good Romanists have to say to this. I trust they are

slain with their own sword, like Goliath [1 Sam. 17:51]. For I

can prove that the papacy has been subject not only to Satan, but

to other bishops, yea, also to temporal powers, to the emperors.

How did the rock prevail then against the gates of hell? I will

leave the choice to them: either these words mean defeat for the

papacy, or God is a liar. Let us see which they will choose.

Nor is it enough that you try to squirm out of the dilemma by

saying that even if the papacy has been under Satan now and then,

yet there have always been pious Christians under it. I reply:

Under the rule of the Turk there are Christians, and likewise

there are Christians in all the world, as there were aforetime

under Nero and other tyrants. How does that help you? The papacy

and the pope himself must at no time have been under Satan if

Christ's word refers to them when He speaks of "a rock set

against the gates of hell." See, thus do the Romanists interpret

the Scriptures in accordance with their mad folly. Faith they

turn into authority, spiritual edification into outward show, and

yet they are not heretics--they make all others to be the

heretics. Such are the Romanists.

Another passage which they cite in support of their contention is

that in which the Lord says three times to Peter, "Feed My

sheep." [John 21:15] Here they reach real eminence as theologians

when they say: Since Christ said to Peter in particular, "Feed My

sheep," He thereby conferred on him authority above all others.

[Sidenote: Feeding the Sheep and Roman Authority]

Now we shall see to what labor and pains they are put to bring

about that result. In the first place, we must know what they

mean by "feeding." "Feeding," in the Roman sense, means to burden

Christendom with many human and hurtful laws, to sell the

bishoprics at the highest possible price, to extract the

annates[70] from all benefices, to usurp authority over all

foundations, to force into servitude all the bishops with

terrible oaths, to sell indulgences, to rob the whole world by

means of letters, bulls, seals and wax, to prohibit the preaching

of the Gospel, to appoint knaves from Rome to all the places, to

bring all litigation to Rome, to increase quarrels and

disputes--in short, to allow no one to come freely to the truth

and to have peace.

But if they say that by "feeding" they do not understand such

abuse of authority, but the authority itself, it is simply not

true. And I prove it in this wise: Where one protests very mildly

against such abuse, and with all deference to the authority, they

rail and threaten thunder and lightning, they clamor that it is

heresy and high treason, that it is a rending of the seamless

garment of Christ, and they would burn up the heretics, rebels,

apostates and everybody in the whole world. By all of which it is

clear that they hold "feeding" to mean naught else but such

preying and flaying. In the meanwhile, however, we think that

feeding does not mean preying on others. Let us endeavor to see

what it means.

[Sidenote: Distinction of Person and Office]

They have a high-sounding, keen and subtile speech--as they

imagine--when they say that person and office are not one and the

same, and that the office remains, and remains good, though the

person be evil. From this they conclude, and it must, indeed,

follow, that the word of Christ, "Feed My sheep," means an office

of external power, which even an evil man may have, for the

office makes no one holy. Very well. This is acceptable to us,

and we will ask the Romanists a question. Whoever keeps and

fulfils the word of Christ, he is truly obedient and pious, and

shall be saved, for His words are spirit and life [John 6:63].

If, therefore, "feeding" means to sit in the highest place and to

have an office--even if the incumbent be a knave--it follows that

he feeds who sits in the highest seat and is pope; and whoever

does this work of feeding is obedient to Christ; and whoever is

obedient in one particular is obedient in all and is a saint

Therefore it must be true that whoever is pope and sits in the

chief room is obedient to Christ and is a saint, though he be a

knave, or a rogue, or what not. Have thanks, my dearest

Romanists! Now I know, for the first time, why the pope is

addressed as "your holiness." Thus must the word of Christ be

explained, so that knaves and rogues are made out to be holy and

obedient servants of Christ, just as in the previous pages you

have made Christ an arch-knave and a brothel-keeper.[71]

[Sidenote: Being Fed in the Roman Sense]

Further, if "feeding" means to sit in the highest place, then

"being fed" must mean to be subject, so that just as "feeding"

means external governing, "being fed" must mean to be governed,

and, as they say, to live in the Roman fellowship.[72] Then it

must also be further true that all who are within the Roman

fellowship,[72] be they good or evil, are saints, because they

are obedient to Christ and are being fed. For none can be

obedient to Christ in one thing, without being obedient in all,

as St. James says [Jas. 2:10]. Now is that not a fine Church

under the Roman authority, where there are no sinners at all and

naught but saints! But what becomes of the poor indulgence, if

no one needs it any more in the Roman fellowship?[72] What

becomes of the father confessor? How shall the world be robbed,

if penance disappears? Nay, what becomes of the keys if they are

no longer needed? But if there are still sinners among them, they

must go unfed and be disobedient to Christ.

What do you say to this, my good Romanists? Come now and pipe

your lay. Do you not see that "feeding" must mean something else

than having authority, and "being fed" something else than being

externally subject to the Roman power, and how utterly senseless

it is to cite the saying of Christ, "Feed My sheep," in order to

strengthen Roman authority and its external unity or fellowship!

[Sidenote: Feeding and Loving]

Christ also says, "He that loveth Me, keepeth My word; he that

loveth Me not, keepeth not My words." Prick up your ears at this,

my dear Romanists. Ye boast that the word of Christ, "Feed My

sheep," [John 14:23] is a command and word of Christ. Let us ask,

then, where are they who keep it? You say, even the knaves and

rogues keep it. Christ says no one keepeth it, except he love and

be a righteous man. Now come to some agreement with Christ in

this matter, so that we may know if you or He is to be charged

with lying. Therefore, the pope who loves not, and is not

righteous, does not "feed the sheep," and does not keep Christ's

word: neither is he a pope, nor has he authority, nor anything at

all that is included in the term "feeding the sheep." For Christ

stands immovable, and says, "He that loveth Me not, keepeth not

My word"; nor does such a one perform any "feeding of sheep,"

i. e., he is no pope at all, as they explain it. Thus it comes

that the same passages which are cited in its favor are against

the papacy; a just retribution for those who treat the holy Word

of God in sheer madness, as though it were fool's talk, and who

would make out of it what they please.

Perhaps you might reply, that a subject can be obedient to

temporal authority even if that authority were not righteous; why

should one not be obedient to the pope's authority? Therefore to

"feed," or to "be fed," must not necessarily include the idea of

obedience. Answer: The Scriptures do not call temporal authority

"feeding," and in the New Testament there is no instance where

God publicly appointed any one to temporal power, although no

such power arises without His secret ordering. For this reason

St. Peter calls such powers "ordinances of men," [1 Peter 2:13]

because they rule not by God's word, but by God's governance, and

it is not needful, therefore, that such rulers should be

righteous. But inasmuch as we here have God's word, "Feed my

sheep," neither the shepherd nor the sheep can fulfil this word

except by obedience to God and righteousness of life. Therefore I

let bishop, pope, priest be what they may; unless they love

Christ and are righteous, this term, "feeding," is not for them,

and they are something entirely different from the shepherds and

feeders of sheep who alone are meant in this word. For this

reason it cannot be tolerated that this word of Christ shall be

made to cover external power, which has nothing to do with

obedience or disobedience to Him; "feeding" can mean naught else

but to be obedient.

And this is what Christ desired. For before saying three times to

Peter: "Feed My sheep," He asked him thrice if he loved Him, and

Peter thrice answered that he loved Him. [John 21:15 ff.] It is

evident, therefore, that there is no "feeding" where there is no

love. Therefore, the papacy either must be love, or it cannot be

a feeding of the sheep, and if the word "Feed My sheep"

establishes the papal chair, it follows that all are popes who

love Christ and feed the sheep. And this is perfectly true: for

aforetime all bishops were called popes, which title is now

restricted to the one at Rome.

[Sidenote: A Distinction in Love]

But here look you what our Romanists do when they cannot overcome

these words of Christ, and must admit, though with great

reluctance, that no one can feed except he love Christ, as the

clearly expressed words of Christ declare. Gladly they would give

Him the lie, or deny Him; but now that they are hit squarely

between the eyes, so that their heads swim, hear what they say.

They say that Christ indeed demands love in the office of the

pope, but not that high love, which, they say, is meritorious

unto eternal life; but the ordinary love is quite sufficient,

such as a servant has toward his master.[73] Now see, this lying

explanation[74] of love they bring forth entirety out of their

own heads, without warrant of the Scriptures, and yet they would

have it appear that they are dealing with me in the Scriptures.

Tell me, my dear Romanists, all of you melted together into one

heap, where is there so much as one letter in the Scriptures

concerning this love of which you dream? If your vile brew of

Leipzig[75] could speak, it would easily overcome such

feather-brains, and speak better than you do of love.

But let us follow this matter further. If there must needs be

some sort of love in the papacy, what becomes of it when a pope

does not love Christ at all, and seeks in it only his own gain

and honor? And there have been many such, yea, almost all since

the beginning of the papacy. You have not escaped me yet--you

must confess that the papacy has not always existed, it has often

perished, because it was ofttimes without love. But if it had

been established by divine right, in these words of Christ, it

would not have perished. Twist and turn as you will, these words

will not yield a papacy; or else the papacy must cease in

Christendom whenever the pope is without love. Now you have said

yourself that the person may be evil, but the office remains;

again you admit, and must admit, that the office is nothing if

the person be evil--or you must let "feeding the sheep" be

something else than the papacy. And this is true; let us see what

you can bring against it.

[Sidenote: A Shepherd's Love]

But let every one beware of the poisoned tongues and

devil-glosses which can invent a love of such description.

Christ speaks of the highest, strongest, best love of which man

is capable. He will not be loved with a false, divided love; here

there must be whole-hearted and pure love, or none at all. And

the meaning of Christ is that in St. Peter's person He is

instructing all preachers how they must be equipped; as if He

would say: "See, Peter, if you shall preach My word, and thereby

feed My sheep, there shall rise against you the powers of hell,

devil, world, and all that therein is, and you must be willing to

venture body, life, goods, honor, friends, and everything which

you have; and this you will not do if you do not love Me and

cleave close to Me. And if you should begin to preach, and the

sheep were being fed in the pastures, and the wolves would break

in, and you would then flee as a hireling, and not venture your

life, but leave the sheep without care, to the wolves [John 10:12

ff.], it would have been better that you had never begun to

preach and feed the sheep." For if he falls, who preaches the

Word and should stand at the head, offence is given to every one,

the Word of God is brought to deepest disgrace, and more harm is

done to the sheep than if they had no shepherd at all. Christ

cares much for the feeding of the sheep; He cares nothing at all

how many crowns the pope wears, and how in all his splendor he

lifts himself far above the kings of the world.

Let any one tell if he can, whether the papacy has such love, or

if Christ, in these words, has instituted such a worthless

authority as the papacy is. Without doubt he is truly a pope who

preaches with such love; but where can such a one be found? There

is no passage that gives me as much sorrow in my preaching as

this one does--of love I feel not much, of preaching I do more

than enough. They accuse me of being rabid and revengeful; I fear

that I have done too little. I should have pulled the wool[76]

much harder for the ravening wolves, who never cease to rend the

Scripture, to poison and pervert it to the great injury of the

poor, forsaken sheep of Christ. If I had only loved them enough I

should have dealt quite differently with the pope and his

Romanists, who with their laws and their prattle, their letters

of indulgence, and the rest of their foolery, bring to naught out

faith and God's Word. They make for us what laws they will, only

to capture us, and then sell them to us again for money;[77] with

their mouths they weave snares for money, and yet boast that they

are shepherds and keepers of sheep, whereas they are truly

wolves, thieves, and murderers, as the Lord says in John x.

I know right well that this little word, "love," scares the pope

and his Romanists and makes them weak and weary, nor are they

willing that it should be pressed, for it overturns the whole

papacy. It made Dr. Eck weary at Leipzig;[78] and whom would it

not make weary, since Christ directly commands Peter not to feed

the sheep except there be love? He must have love or there can be

no "feeding." I shall wait a while now to see how they will parry

this thrust. If they prick me with "feeding," I will prick them

much harder with "loving," and we shall see who prevails. This is

the reason why some of the popes in their Canon laws so neatly

pass in silence this word "love," and make so much ado about

"feeding," thinking that thereby they have preached only to

drunken Germans, who will not notice how the hot porridge burns

their tongue. This is the reason, too, why the pope and the

Romanists cannot bear any questioning and investigating of the

foundation of papal power, and every one is accused of doing a

scandalous, presumptuous and heretical thing, who is not

satisfied with their mere assertions, but seeks for its real

basis. But that one should ask if God is God, and seek in

frivolous presumption to penetrate all His mysteries, they suffer

with equanimity, and it does not concern them. Whence this

perverted game? From this, that, as Christ says, John iii, "He

that doeth evil, feareth the light." [John 3:20] Where is the

thief or robber who courts investigation? Thus the evil

conscience cannot bear the light; but truth loveth the light, and

is an enemy to darkness, even as Christ says in the same chapter,

"He that doeth truth, cometh to the light." [John 3:21]

Now we see that the two sayings of Christ, spoken to Peter, on

which they build the papacy, are stronger against the papacy than

all others, and the Romanists can produce nothing that does not

make them a laughing-stock. I shall let the matter rest here,

and pass by whatever else this miserable Romanist spues out in

his book; since I have controverted it all many times before, and

now also some others have effectually done so in Latin.[79] I

find nothing in it, except that he soils the Holy Scriptures like

a sniveling child; in no place does he show a mastery of his

words or an understanding of his subject.

[Sidenote: The Conclusion of the Matter]

On the subject of the papacy I have come to this conclusion:

Since we observe that the pope has full authority over all our

bishops, and has not attained it apart from the providence of

God--although I do not believe that it is a gracious, but rather

a wrathful providence which permits men, as a plague on the

world, to exalt themselves and oppress others--therefore I do not

desire that any one should resist the pope, but rather bow to the

providence of God, honor this authority, and endure it with all

patience, just as if the Turk ruled over us; in this wise it will

do no harm.

I contend for but two things. First: I will not suffer any man to

establish new articles of faith, and to abuse all other

Christians in the world, and slander and brand them as heretics,

apostates and unbelievers, simply because they are not under the

pope. It is enough that we let the pope be pope, and it is not

needful that, for his sake, God and His saints on earth should be

blasphemed. Second: All that the pope decrees and does I will

receive, on this condition, that I first test it by the Holy

Scriptures. He must remain under Christ, and submit to be judged

by the Holy Scriptures.

But these Roman knaves come along, place him above Christ, and

make him a judge over the Scriptures; they say that he cannot

err, and whatever is dreamed at Rome, nay, everything which they

dare to come out with, they would prescribe for us as articles of

faith. And as if that were not enough, they would introduce a new

kind of faith, so that we are to believe what we can see with our

bodily eyes; whereas faith, by its very nature, is of the things

which no one sees or feels, as St. Paul says in Hebrews xi [Heb.

11:1]. Now the Roman authority and fellowship[80] is a bodily

thing, and can be seen by any one. If the pope came to

that--which may God forbid!--I would say right out that he is the

real Antichrist, of whom all the Scriptures speak.

If they grant me these two things, I will let the pope remain,

nay, help to exalt him as him as they please; if not, he shall be

to me neither pope nor Christian. He that must do it may make an

idol of him; I will not worship him.

Moreover, I would be truly glad if kings, princes, and all the

nobles would take hold, and turn the knaves from Rome out of the

country, and keep the appointments to bishoprics and benefices

out of their hands. How has Roman avarice come to usurp all the

foundations, bishoprics and benefices of our fathers? Who has

ever read or heard of such monstrous robbery? Do we not also have

the people who need them, while out of our poverty we must enrich

the ass-drivers and stable-boys, nay, the harlots and knaves at

Rome, who look upon us as nothing else but arrant fools, and make

us the objects of their vile mockery?

It is a notorious fact that the Russians desired to come into the

Roman fellowship, but then the holy shepherds of Rome "fed" those

sheep of Christ in such a manner that they would not receive them

unless they first bound themselves to a perpetual tax of I know

not how many hundred thousands of ducats. Such "food" they would

not eat, and so they remain as they are, saying, if they must buy

Christ, they would rather save their money until they come to

Christ Himself, in heaven. Thus thou doest, thou scarlet whore of

Babylon [Rev. 17:4], as St. John calls thee--makest of our faith

a mockery for all the world, and yet wouldest have the name of

making every one a Christian.

Oh the pity, that kings and princes have so little reverence for

Christ, and His honor concerns them so little that they allow

such heinous abominations to gain the upper hand, and look on,

while at Rome they think of nothing but to continue in their

madness and to increase the abounding misery, until no hope is

left on earth except in the temporal authorities. Of this I will

say more anon,[81] if this Romanist comes again; let this suffice

for a beginning. May God help us at length to open our eyes.

Amen.

As for the slanders and evil names with which my person is

assailed, although numerous enough, I will let my dear Romanist

off without reply. They do not trouble me. It has never been my

intention to avenge myself on those who rail at my person, my

life, my work, my doings. That I am not worthy of praise, I

myself know full well. But I will let no man reproach me that in

defending the Scriptures I am more pointed and impetuous than

some seem to like, neither will I be silenced. Whoever will, let

him freely scold, slander, condemn my person and my life; it is

already forgiven him. But let no one expect from me either grace

or patience who would make my Lord Christ, Whom I preach, and the

Holy Ghost, to be liars. I am nothing at all, but for the Word of

Christ I give answer with joyful heart and vigorous courage, and

without respect of persons. To this end God has given me a glad

and fearless spirit, which they shall not embitter, I trust, not

in all eternity.

That I have mentioned Leipzig, no one should consider an affront

to the honorable city and University. I was forced to it by the

vaunted, arrogant, fictitious title of this Romanist, who boasts

that he is a public teacher of ail the Holy Scriptures at

Leipzig,[82] which titles have never before been used in

Christendom, and by his dedication[83] to the city and its

Council. If the jackanapes had not issued his book in German, in

order to poison the defenceless laity, he would have been too

small for me to bother with. For this clumsy ass cannot yet sing

his hee-haw, and quite uncalled, he meddles in things which the

Roman chair itself, together with all the bishops and scholars,

has not been able to establish in a thousand years.

I should have thought, too, that Leipzig ought to have been too

precious in his eyes, for him to smear his drivel and snivel on

so honorable and famous a city; but in his own imagination he is

no ordinary man. I perceive that if I permit the petulance of all

these thick-heads, even the bath-maids will finally write against

me.

But I pray that whoever would come at me arm himself with the

Scriptures. What helpeth it, that a poor frog puffeth himself up?

Even if he should burst, he is no ox.

I would gladly be out of this business, and they force themselves

into it. May God grant both of us our prayers,--help me out of

it, and let them stick in it Amen.

All glory be to God on high

And praise to all eternity. Amen.

FOOTNOTES

[1] Augustin Alveld, so named from the town of his birth, Alveld

in Saxony, a Franciscan monk, Lector of his order at Leipzig. It

is said of him that what he lacked in learning he made up for in

scurrility, so that he himself complains that his own

brother-monks wanted to forbid his writing. John Lonicerus, a

friend of Luther, published a small book, _Biblia nova

Alveldensis_, Wittenberg, 1520, in which he gathered a long list

of Alveld's terms of reproach used against Luther. To him has

been attributed the origin of the undignified style adopted by so

many since 1520 on both sides of the controversy about Luther's

teachings. Vid. H. A. Erhard, in _Ersch und Gruber_,

_Encyclopaedia_, iii, 277; _Algemeine Deutsche Biographi_, I,

375.

[2] Cf., Augustine's Confessions, III, vii: "Just as if in armor,

a man being ignorant what piece were appointed for what part,

should clap a greave upon his head and draw a headpiece upon his

leg..."

[3] The four chief literary opponents of Luther in the earlier

years of the Reformation--Sylvester Mazolini, usually called

Prierias, after the city of his birth, a papal official

(_Magister sacri palatii_) who had published three books against

Luther prior to 1520; Thomas of Gaëtano, Cardinal, and papal

legate at the Diet of Augsburg, 1518; John Eck, professor in the

University of Ingolstadt, who had been Luther's opponent at the

Leipzig Disputation in 1519; Jerome Emser, also active at the

Leipzig Disputation, whom Luther was to make the laughing-stock

of Germany under the name of "the Leipzig goat," an appellation

suggested by his coat-of-arms.

[4] The Theological Faculties of Cologne and Louvaine officially

condemned Luther's writings; the former August 30th, the latter

November 7th, 1519. The text of their resolutions was reprinted

by Luther with a reply, _Responsio ad condemnationem

donctrinalem_, etc. (1520); _Weimar Ed._, VI, 174 ff; _Erl. Ed._,

op. var. arg., IV, 172 ff.

[5] _Neidhart_.

[6] The views which Luther expounds in this treatise had already

been expressed in a Latin work, _Resolutiones super Propositione

XIII. de protestate Papae_, 1519 (_Erl. Ed., op. var. arg._, III,

293 ff; _Weimar Ed._, II, 180 ff). The present work is written in

German "for the laity."

[7] _Christenheit_. Luther carefully avoids the use of the word

"Church" (_Kirche_). The reason will appear in the argument which

follows. In many places, however, the word "Christendom" would

not Luther's meaning, and there is, for the modern reader, no

such technical restriction to the term "Church" as obtained among

Luther's readers. Where the word _Christenheit_ is rendered

otherwise than "Christendom" it is so indicated in a foot-note.

[8] The chief point argued at the Leipzig Disputation, whether

the power of the pope is _jure divino_ or _jure humano_.

[9] _Das feine barfüssische Büchlein_--i. e., a book written by a

bare-footed friar. See below, p. 345.

[10] A comment explanatory of a passage of Scripture or of the

Canon Law.

[11] Pallium, a scarf made of sheep's wool, which the pope is

privileged to wear at all times, and others only on specified

occasions; conferred by the pope on persons of the rank of

archbishops; on its bestowal depended the assumption of the title

and functions of the office. The granting of pallis became a rich

source of revenue for the pope since each new incumbent of a

prelacy had to apply for his own pallium in person, or by special

representative, and to pay for the privilege of receiving it. At

the appointment of Uriel as bishop of Mainz in 1508, even the

emperor urged a reduction of one-half the usual fees, especially

since the previous incumbent had paid the full price but four

years previous. The request was denied. See Art _Mainz_ in PRE 1,

2.

[12] _Zur Halfte, so nicht mehr, geistlich_. See below, page 356,

No. 2.

[13] Is this an allusion to the papal title, _servus servorum

Dei_, "the servant of the servants of God"?

[14] Alveld's German treatise described itself in the title as a

"fruitful, useful little book."

[15] Alveld's Latin treatise especially abounds in these

appellations.

[16] Alveld belonged to the branch of the Franciscan Order known

as the "Observants" (_fratres reglaris observatiae_), from their

strict observance of the Franciscan Rule. See the title of the

Latin treatise in _Weimar Ed._, VI, 277.

[17] _Christenheit_.

[18] _Gemeinde_--the German equivalent for the Latin _communio_,

_communitas_, or _congregatio_. In Luther's use of the term it

means sometimes "community," sometimes "congregation," sometimes

even "the Church" (_Gemeinde der Heiligen_). In this case it

translates Alveld's _civilitas_ (_Weimar Ed._, VI, 278).

[19] _Christenheit_.

[20] Luther quotes, in German, the reading of the Latin Vulgate.

[21] _Christenheit_.

[22] _Gemeinde_. A play on the word. On the second use of the

term, compare the similar employment of the English word

"parish."

[23] _Christenheit_.

[24] From _Veni Sancte Spiritus_, an antiphon for Whitsuntide

dating from the eleventh century.

[25] _Christenheit_.

[26] _Es ist erlogen und erstunken_.

[27] _Gemeinde_.

[28] _Christenheit_.

[29] _Versammlung_.

[30] _Gemeinde_.

[31] _Versammlung_.

[32] _Einigkeit oder Gemeinde_.

[33] A quaint interpretation of the passage: "The disciples were

called Christians first in Antioch."

[34] _Christenheit_.

[35] _Nun bitten wir den heiligen Geist_, a popular

pre-Reformation hymn, of one stanza, for Whitsuntide, dating from

the middle of the thirteenth century; quoted in a sermon by

Berthold, the Franciscan, a celebrated German preacher in the

Middle Ages, who died in Regesburg in 1272. Published by Luther,

with three stanzas of his own added, in his hymn-book of 1524.

Vid. Wackernage, _Kirchenlied_, ii, 44; Koca, _Geachicte des

Kirchenlieds_, i, 185; Julian, _Dict. of Hymnology_, 821. Also

Miss Winkworth's _Christian Singers_, 38.

[36] _Christenheit_.

[37] _Gemeinde_.

[38] _Christenheit_.

[39] _Christenheit_.

[40] All sources from which the Church or the clergy derived an

income were called in the broader sense, "spiritual" possessions.

A further distinction was drawn between two kinds of

ecclesiastical income--the _spiritualia_ in this sense being the

fees, tithes, etc., and the _temporalia_ the income from

endowments of land and the like.

[41] The followers of John Huss.

[42] _Zwölfbote_, a popular appellation for the apostles, meaning

one of the twelve messengers.

[43] See page 351.

[44] _Christenheit_.

[45] Literally, "Rastrume better than malvoisie." "Rastrum" was a

Leipzig beer reported to be extraordinarily bad; "malvoisie," a

highly prized, imported wine, known in England as "malmsey."

[46] In the German treatise Alveld says: "It is not enough to

have Christ for a shepherd or a head; if that were sufficient,

all the heathen, all the Jews, all the errorists, all the

heretics would be true Christians. Christ is a lord, a guardian,

a shepherd, a head of the whole world, whether we want him or

not." (_Weimar Ed._, VI, 301) In the Latin he says: "No community

or assembly (_civilitars seu pluralitas_) of men can be rightly

administered except in the unity of the head, under the Head

Jesus Christ." This proposition he develops in detail, saying

that "No brothel (_contubernium meretricum_), no band of thieves,

plunderers and robbers, no company of soldiers can be ruled or

held together, or long exist without a governor, chief and lord,

that is to say, without one head." (_Weimar Ed._, VI, 278).

[47] See above, p. 358.

[48] Jerome Emser, _De disputatione Lipsicense_ and _A venatione

Luteriana aegocerotia assertio_.

[49] Augustine, _In Joannia Ev._, 12, 3, 11. (_Migne Ed._, 35 149

ff.)

[50] Cf. Augustine, _De unitate ecclesiae_, 5, 8. (_Migne Ed._,

43, 396 f.)

[51] In his _Sermon von Sacrament des Leichnams Christi_ of 1519

(_Weimar Ed._, II, 742 ff.) Luther had made a plea for the

restoration of the cup to the laity. At the request of Duke

George of Saxony, the bishop of Meissen (Jan. 20th, 1520) forbade

the circulation of this tract in his diocese (_Weimar Ed._, VI,

76; Hauerbath, _Luther_, I, 316). The controversy, to which

Luther contributed is _Verklärung etlicher Artikel_, etc.

(_Weimar Ed._, VI, 78 ff.), was bitterest in the Leipzig circle

to which Alved belonged.

[52] See pp. 373 and 380.

[53] A reference to Emser's _De disputatione Lipsicense_, and _A

ventione Luteriana aegocerotis assertio_, see above, p. 363.

[54] Luther's greeting to a forthcoming and much heralded work of

Eck's, which appeared under the title _De primatu Petri_.

[55] This statement cannot be substantiated. But see commentaries

on Acts 26:10 f.

[56] The memory of the warlike and avaricious pope Julius II. was

still fresh in the mind of Luther and his contemporaries.

[57] Alveld so announced himself in the title of his Latin

treatise. In order go gain the necessary leisure for its

composition he had obtained a dispensation from all the capel

services of his monastery. See _Weimar Ed._, VI, 277.

[58] In a similar vein of satire Shakespeare uses this very

phrase in "Merry Wives of Windsor," III, 5.

[59] _Gemeinde_.

[60] Alveld had stated that the attempt had been made "more than

23 times"; and again, "The assembly has existed more than 1486

under the chair of St. Peter which Christ has established." See

_Weimar Ed._, VI.

[61] _Gemeinde_.

[62] Still the old terminology.

[63] Equivalent to father-confessor. The pope's own confessor is

so called.

[64] Alveld makes this distinction in both of his treatises.

[65] _Gemeinde_.

[66] See page 373.

[67] See especially the _Resolutiones super Propositione XIII_.

[68] i. e., The Russians, who were in ecclesiastical fellowship

with the Orthodox Greek Church. The metropolitan see of Moscow

represented the opposition to union with Rome, which had been

proposed in 1439; the second metropolitan see of Russia, that of

Kief, was until 1519 favorable to the union. See A. Palmieri and

W. J. Shipman, in _The Catholic Encyclopedia_, X, 594 ff; XIII,

255 f., and Adeney, _Greek and Eastern Churches_, 385 ff.

[69] _Gemeinde_.

[70] Annates (_annatae_, _annalia_), originally the income which a

bishop received from the vacant benefices in his diocese, usually

amounting to a year's income of the benefice. By a decree of John

XXII, 1317 (_Extrav. Jn. XXII, Lib. I, C. 2_), the annates are

fixed at one-half of one year's income of the benefice reckoned

on the basis of the tithes, and payable on accession of the new

incumbent. Two years later (1319) the same Pope set an important

precedent by claiming for himself the annates from all benefices

falling vacant in the next two years (_Extrav. Comm. 3, 2, C.

II_). The right to receive annates subsequently became a regular

claim of the popes. The term was extended after 1418 to include,

beside the annates proper, the so-called _servitia_, payments

made to the curia by bishops and abbots at the time of their

accession. Luther discusses the subject at greater length in the

_Address to the Christian Nobility_. (See Vol. II)

[71] See above, p. 362.

[72] _Römische Einigkeit_.

[73] This is Alveld's explanation in his German treatise.

[74] _Comment_, equivalent to "lie" or "invention."

[75] _Rastrum_, see above, note on p. 362.

[76] The sheeps' clothing in which they come.

[77] A reference to the sale of dispensations, more fully

discussed in the _Address to the Christian Nobility_.

[78] At the well-known disputation in the previous year.

[79] John Lonicer in _Contra romanistam fratrem_, etc., and John

Bernhardi in _Confutatio inepti et impii libelli_, etc.; both

replies to Alveld's Latin treatise which appeared shortly before

this treatise of Luther's.

[80] _Gemeinde_.

[81] A promise fulfilled in his _Address to the Christian

Nobility_.

[82] In the title to his Latin treatise.

[83] Of the German treatise.

INDEX

SCRIPTURE REFERENCES

INDEX

Aaron

Abraham

Abraham's bosom

Absolution

Abuses, in the Mass

Achatius

Adam

Address to the Christian Nobility

Adlolf of Merseberg

Adversity, blessings of

the greatest

Aegidius, St.

Agatha, St.

Agricola

Albrecht of Mainz

Altar-cloths

Alveld

Ambrose

Anapatist

Annates

Anthony, St.

Antichrist

Antilogistae

Apology

Apostate

Apostle

Apostles

Aristotle

Articles of faith

Assurance of salvation

Attrition

Augsburg Confession

Diet of

Augustine

Augustine's Confessions

Auxiliatores

Ave Maria

Aven amal

Babylon, king of

Babylonian captivity

Baptism

three parts of

the sign of

a flood of grace

a covenant

and penance

significance of

makes guiltless

comfort of

always to be remembered

false confidence in

Baptismal collect

vows

Barbara, St.

Barbara's, St., Day

Begangniss

Beggars

Bendedictite

Benevolence

Bernard of Clairvaux

Bernhardi, John

Bertholdt

Bible, Translation of

Bishop, qualifications of

Bishops all equal

Blasius, St

Blessings

within us

before us

behind us

beneath us

on left hand

on right hand

above us

Bohemians

bon Christian

Boniface VIII.

Books, heathen, are dangerous

Both kinds, communion in

Brandenburg, Bishop of

Breviary

Bridget, St.

Cajetan

Canon of the Mass

Law

Canonical Hours

Canonisation

Carthusians

Castigation

Casuistry

Catherine, St.

Celia, St.

Ceremonies

one instituted by Christ

Charity

Charles V.

Chastity

vows of

Children, training of

Chimera

Christ, our example

our greatest blessing

our Priest

righteousness of

Christ, the Rock

Christenheit

Christian, the name

Church membership does not make

lord of all

Christopher, St.

Church

authority of

corruption of

House of Prayer

spiritual mother

worldliness of

not bound to Rome

a spiritual community

three uses of the term

marks of

Cicero

Clergy

Collects

Cologne

Commandments, Ten

First

Second

Third

First three

Fourth

First four

Fifth

Sixth

Seventh

Eighth

Ninth and Tenth

of God

a guide in confession

in prayer

of the Church

Comment

Commissaries

Communion without confession

of saints

Community, government of

Compostella

Confession

Roman Catholic conception of

Lutheran conception of

why we confess

insincere

when not to make

justifies

of sin

Sacrament

Confessionalia

Confessional Letters

Conscience

troubled

evil

Considerateness

Constitutions

Contrition

Corporal

Councils

Courtesans

Covenant

Covetousness

Cranach

Cranmer

Creed

Cross of Christ

Cup, why withheld

Curse, a fount of blessing

Custom, value of

Cypriacus, St.

Cyprian

Damned, the

David

Day and night

Death and dumb, Mass for

Death

a blessing

bitterness of, due to si

a door to life

a penance and satisfaction

Decrees, papal

Decretals

Defensores

Devil

Dietenberger, John

Dionysus

Dionysus, St.

Diseases, number known

Dishonesty

Disobedience

Dispensation from vows

Disputation

Doctors

Easter Day

Eck

Elevation of the host

Elmser

Endowments

Enemies, duties toward

Epicureans

Erasmus, Disider

Erasmus, St.

Estates, why instituted

Esther, Queen

Eternal punishment

Eucharistia

Eustachiua, St.

Evils, within us

never fully known

before us

behind us

beneath us

on our left hand

on our right hand

above us

to be loved

Excommunication

Exodus, a type

Extreme Unction

Faith

the highest good work

Faith makes works good

the test of good works

makes all works equal

in the Mass

true priestly office

stages of

work of the First Commandment

includes all good works

and daily sin

and prayer

infirmity of

baptismal

Fasting

Fathers, Church

Fear

Feeding, meaning of

Feiertag

Fides, Informis, formata, informata

Flattery

Flesh, the

Flood, a type of baptism

Forgiveness of sin

Fourteen defenders

Frederick the Wise

Fuggers, the

Gelübde

Gemeinde

General Councils

George of Saxony

George the Martyr

German Books

Mass

Germans, characterised

Gerson

Gideon

Glosses

Gluttony

God, Name

God, praise of

to have a god

wants our help

Goliath

a type of sin

Good name, danger of

need of

works

none pure

defined

how rejected

how they differ

Treatise.

outline

importance

Gospel

Gottesdienst

Graces of pardon

Gratia infusa

Gratias

Greed

Greek Church

Gregory

Guilt of sin

remission of

Gulden

Habitus

Head and lord

of Christendom

Heathen

Heaven

Heinse, Simon

Hell

full of God

Heresy

Heretic

Herod

Highpriest, a type of Christ

History, value of

Holidays

Holiness and prayer

as title of the pope

Holy Spirit

Home, a Church

Honor as a motive to good works

Hope

Husband and wife, duties of

Hymns quoted

Hypocrites

Idolatry

Imitatio Christi

Immersion

Indulgence Letters

fairs

Indulgences

Inner man

Instruction to indulgence sellers

Intercession of the Church

Israel, a type

Jahrmarket

James, St.

Jeduthun

Jerome

Jesus, Name of

Jews

the three

Job

Job's wife

John XXII.

John of Saxony

John Baptist, St., Day of

Joseph's wagons

Jubilee Indulgence

Judas

Julius II.

Justice of God

Justification

by faith

Keys of the Church

power of

Koestlin

Laity

Last Day

Law of Moses, abolished

Lawrence, St.

Laws

and works

produce sects

purpose of

Legends of saints

Leipzig

Disputation at

Leo X.

Letter to

Letters of pardon

Liberality

Liberty of a Christian

Life, a spiritual baptism

repentance

beginning of death

Lonicer

Lord's Day

Lord's Prayer

Supper

Louvaine

Love of God

required in a bishop

Low Mass

Luther's coarse language

inconsistency

indifference to slander

lack of love

love of peace

pride

submission to pope

zeal for Christ

Luther's zeal for the pope

writings

self-abasement

sense of duty

master of theology

called a heretic

Luxury

Mainz, Boshopric

Malvoisie

Man, two natures

three parts of

Manasseh, Payer of

king

Margaret, St.

Mass

a memorial

not a good work

not a sacrifice

fruit of

anniversary

golden

mortuary

requiem

yearly

of the Holy Cross

of our Lady

for the dead

Masters, duties of

Mathesius

Matthias, St.

Meekness

limits of

Meissen, bishop of

Melanchthon

Men, four classes of

Mersio

Metanoia

Micaiah

Mildigkeith

Miltitz

Modus confitendi

Monastic houses

Monica, St.

Monks

Monstrance

Mortal sin

when to be confessed

Muscovites

Moses

Mother of God

Naaman

New Testament

Treatise on

Year's Present

Noah

Nobility, German

Address to

Oaths

Obedience

to Church

to masters

to parents

to state

Octavianus

Oelgoetzen

Offering, in the Mass

Offertory

Officiales

Officium

Old Testament

Opus operatum

operati

operantis

Orders, monastic

Original sin

Our Lady

Outward man

Ovid

Pallium

Pantaleon, St.

Papacy, corruption of

Papacy, Luther's conclusion of

Treatise on

Papal bulls

pardons

power

of human right

Pardon

Parents, duties of

toward

Paschal, St.

Paschal Lamb

Passion of Christ

Passover

Pastor

Pater noster

Paul, St.

the hermit

Paul of Bourgos

peccata aliena

Penalty of sin

remission of

Penance

mistaken

Penitence

Penitential Canons

Persecution

Persia

Person and office

Personal faith

Peter, St.

Peter's, St., at Rome

Petros, Petra

Pfennig

Pharisee and Publican

Pharisees

Pilgrimages

Plagues

Pledge of Baptism

Plenary indulgence

Poentitentia

Pope

power over purgatory

powers of

the devil's vicar

Popes, some heretics

Power of the Church

of the keys

Praise of men, to be avoided

Prayer

as a good work

without ceasing

outward and inward

and holiness

common

power of

House of

in pulpit

thoughtless

what is to be prayed for

for the dead

in the mass

Preaching

Preceptorium, Luther's

Precepts of the Church

Preparation for the mass

Preparatotia

"Prevail against the gates of hell,"

Prierias

Priest

vicar of God

arrogance of

Priesthood of believers

reforms suggested to

Private confession

Princes, duties of

Promises of God

Prostitution

Protests against Indulgences

Proverbs quoted

Providence

Purgatory

Purpose of better life

Quæstiones

Rastrum

Real Presence

Reason of man, perilous

Reformation

Reforms, suggested to princes

Relics

Rent-charges

Repentance

Roman Catholic doctrine

Requiems

Reservatio culpæ

poenæ

Reserved cases

Resolutiones

super prop. XIII.

Rest, bodily

spiritual

Reuchlin

Riches not sin

Rietschl

Right hand and left band

Righteous man defined

Rock, a type of Christ

does not signify authority

Roman Church

See

Rome

corruption in

Rosary

Russians

Sabbath

Sacrament

Sacrament of the Altar

Sacramental sign

efficacy

Sacramentarians

Sacraments, number of

Sacrifice, of the Haas

spiritual

Sadducees

Saints

worship of

days

Sanctification

Sanctus

Sanftmüthigkeit

Satisfaction

sacramental

Scriptures

estimate of

Roman usage of

Sebastian's, St., Day

Sects

Sentences, of Peter Lombard

Sermo

Sermon, the

v. Sacrament des Leichnams

Serpent, a type of Christ

Servants, duties of

Severinus

Shame

mother of glory

motive to avoid evil

Seal, the sacrament a

Sheba, Queen of

Signs, given by God

of the sacrament

Silence, when a sin

Sin

after baptism

daily, and faith

distinctions of

fictitious

mortal

secret

venial

the nature of the body

the three armies of

Sinful inclinations, do not condemn

are truly sin

Sinnlichkeit

Sixtus IV.

Solicitude

Solomon, a type

Sorgfältigkeit

Spalatin

Spenlein, Georg

"Spiritual"

authority

birth

contrasted with temporal

when to be resisted

estate

finery

wickedness

Spirituales

Spiritualia

Staupitz

Still Mass

Suffering

sanctified by Christ

second step of faith

Sunday

Superstition in the Mast

Sylvester, v. Prierias

Taufe

Temporalis

Temporal authority

contrasted with spiritual

Temptation

sent by God

Terence

Tessaradecas

Testament, defined

of the Mass

parts of

Tetzel

Thanksgiving, in the Mass

Theses, XCV.

text of

Thief on the Cross

Torgau

Transubstantiation

Treasure of the Church

Trent, Decrees of

Trust, in God

Truth loveth light

witnessing to

Truthfulness

Turk

Romans the true Turks

Type and fulfilment

Unbelief

Unity of the Church

Veni sancte Spiritus

Venial sin

Verklärung etlicher Artikel

Vicar, the pope no

Vierzehnheiligenkirche

Vitus, St

Votum saciamenti

satisfactionis

Vow, of baptism

Vows

commutation of

dispensation of

Wahrheit sagen

War

Wicked, prosperity of

Will of man, perilous

Witness to truth

Wittenberg, castle church

Woman

Word of God

the

Words of the Sacrament

of baptism

Works and faith

Work-righteous saints

Works of mercy

Worldly

Worry

Worship

Writings of men

Wrong, to be resisted

Young, training of the

Zarephath, widow of

Zedekiah

Zwölfbote

SCRIPTURE REFERENCES

OLD TESTAMENT

Genesis--

1:31

1:51

2:3

2:17

3:15

3:19

6:2f.

6:15

8:21

9:9f.

12:1,3

12:6

15:6

17:11

18:18

22:18

45:28ff.

Exodus--

3:6ff.

12:7

12:11

12:13

13:9

13:18ff.

13:21

15:23ff.

15:27

16:4f.

18:17ff.

32:11

32:28

32:32

34:26

Leviticus--

11:4

21:5

21:14

Numbers--

14:15ff.

15:19ff.

21:7

21:8

25:1ff.

Deuteronomy--

6:16

12:8,32

17:6

28:14

28:65ff.

29:5ff.

32:10ff.

32:13

32:15

Joshua--

7:19

23:6

Judges

3:1ff.

6:37ff.

I. Samuel--

1:17f.

2:6

10:6

17:51

21:9

II. Samuel--

12:13

19:6

24:13f.

I. Kings--

10:19

19:4

22:24

II. Kings--

4:40

5:20

6:16f.

7:19

21:6

Esther 6:1f.

Job--

1:10f.

2:9f.

5:7

6:3

7:1

9:28

31:24

38:10f.

Psalm--

1:2

1:3

2:8

2:12

4:7

4:9

6

6:1

15:4

18:3

19:4

19:6

19:9

19:12

23

23:4

23:5

24:1

25:11

26:3

28:5

29:10

30:6

32:1

32:5

32:7

33:5

33:18

34:1

34:18

34:22

37:5

37:25

39

39:6

40:18

45:14f.

50:15

51:5

51:10

54:7

57:7

57:11

62:8

62:10

68:6

73:1

73:12

73:15

73:28

77:11

78:5

80:6

82:2ff.

82:3f.

84:4

89:23

90:10

91:7

91:14

91:15

92:5

102:22

104:15

104:24

104:25

104:33

106:23

106:24

110:4

111:3

111:4f.

115:1

116:11

116:13

119:35,37

119:52

120:4

125:2

128:1-4

132:9

137:9

138:4

139:2f.

139:5

139:12

139:13

142:2

143:2

143:5

145:18

146:12

147:11

Proverbs--

1:20

11:3

16:19

18:10

18:17

21:1

22:15

24:16

27:21

29:7

Ecclesiastes--

1:2,14

5:18

6:2

9:7ff.

10:15

Song of Songs--

2:9

4:6

8:6

Isaiah--

1:22

3:2

6:3

7:9

9:6

9:13

10:32

11:5

28:21

31:9

43:24

46:8

48:1

54:3

56:7

57:5

57:20

60:23

64:7

65:3

65:13ff.

66:17

Jeremiah--

1:6

2:28

7:21

7:31

10:23

12:1

18:4f.

18:8

27:6f.

29:7

32:35

49:12

Lamentations--

3:22f.

3:32f.

Ezekiel--

13:10

14:13ff.

20:44

22:30

Daniel 2:48

Hosea--

2:5

8:11f.

Amos--

4:11

7:10

Micah 3:2

Zechariah--

2:8

3:2

Malachi--

1:10

3:17

APOCRYPHA

Esther 14:10

Wisdom of Solomon--

2:24

3:2f.

4:7

4:10-14

5:6f.

7:16

8:1

15:2

Ecclesiasticus, or Wisdom of Sirach--

2:5

5:8

7:40

11:26

18:30

21:1

31:8f.

45:4

Baruch--

1:11f.

2:21f.

3:17

Prayer of Manasseh--

7

NEW TESTAMENT

Matthew--

4:17

5:16

5:18

5:22

5:44

6:2

6:7

6:10

6:26ff.

6:31f.

7:3

7:12

7:14

7:15

7:16f.

9:24

10:8

10:22

11:9

11:11

11:21ff.

11:30

13:25

14:3-11

14:30ff.

15:14

16:15

16:18

16:19

16:23

17:25

18:7

18:16

18:18

18:19f.

19:17ff.

21:9

21:13

22:35

22:44

23:4

23:24

24:9f.

24:23

24:24ff.

24:31

24:48ff.

25:34ff.

25:35

25:40

25:41

26:26ff.

26:27

26:28

28:19

Mark--

10:13ff.

11:24

14:22ff.

Luke--

2:14

6:27f.

6:32f.

6:36

10:6

10:37

11:9ff.

12:18

12:21ff.

12:32

12:50

13:1ff.

16:22f.

16:25

17:5

17:20

17:21

17:34

18:1

18:10f.

21:11

21:25

22:15

22:17

22:19ff.

22:20

22:32

23:14

23:28

23:35

23:39

24:46f.

24:47

John--

3:5

3:14

3:20f.

3:25

3:30

4:14f.

4:21f.

4:24

5:43

6:28f.

6:29

6:63

7:38

8:28

8:51

9:4

10:12f.

14:6

14:15,21

14:23

15:10

16:2

18:22

18:36

20:22

20:23

21:15

Acts--

1:3

1:23ff.

4:34

5:29

11:26

13:2

14:22

Romans--

1:17

1:24

2:3

2:4

2:6

3:8

3:25

5:3

5:4

5:8f.

6:4

6:8

6:12

7:7

7:14-19

7:18

7:19

7:22

7:24f.

8:1

8:2

8:26

8:28

8:32

8:34

8:36

9:3

9:5

10:9ff.

10:14

11:20

12:4

12:8

12:14f.

13:1

13:3f.

13:4

13:12f.

14:1

14:6

14:8f.

14:23

15:4

I. Corinthians--

1:30

2:16

3:1

3:5

3:23

5:7

10:3

10:4

10:6

10:12

10:13

10:17

10:30f.

10:31

11:21f.

11:23ff.

11:25

11:26

12

12:6

12:22ff.

12:26

13:3

15:55ff.

II. Corinthians--

3:7

3:17

4:2

5:20

10:30f.

12:7

Galatians--

2:20

3:2

3:28

5:6

5:13

5:17

5:24

6:2

6:10

Ephesians--

3:20

4:5

4:15f.

5:15

5:22ff.

6:5

6:7

6:17

Philippians--

1:21

2:4ff.

2:12

Colossians--

2:16

3:3

3:5

3:17

3:18ff.

3:22

4:1

II. Thessalonians 2:3f.

I. Timothy--

1:2ff.

1:9

4:1ff.

6:1

6:17

II. Timothy 3:1ff.

Titus--

1:14

2:8f.

2:1-10

3:1

3:5

Hebrews--

5:6,10

8:13

9:6ff.

9:16f.

9:24

11:1

11:6

11:24ff.

12:1

12:3

12:4ff.

12:6

13:15

James--

1:6

1:12

2:10

4:3

5:16

I. Peter--

2:7

2:9

2:11

2:13

2:14f.

2:16

2:18f.

2:19ff.

3:3

3:6ff.

3:20f.

4:1

4:12

4:18

4:19

5:7

5:9

II. Peter--

1:10

2:8

I. John--

1:9

2:1 f.

2:27

3:9

3:19ff.

Revelation--

1:6

5:10

13:17

17:4