Willy nilly, I am compelled to become every day more learned, with so
many and such able masters vying with one another to improve my mind.
Some two years ago I wrote a little book on indulgences[2], which I
now deeply regret having published; for at the time I was still sunk
in a mighty superstitious veneration for the Roman tyranny and held
that indulgences should not be altogether rejected, seeing they were
approved by the common consent of men. Nor was this to be wondered at,
for I was then engaged single-handed in my Sisyphean task. Since then,
however, through the kindness of Sylvester and the friars[3], who so
strenuously defended indulgences, I have come to see that they are
nothing but an imposture of the Roman sycophants by which they play
havoc with men's faith and fortunes. Would to God I might prevail upon
the book-sellers and upon all my readers to burn up the whole of my
writings on indulgences and to substitute for them this proposition:
INDULGENCES ARE A KNAVISH TRICK OF THE ROMAN SYCOPHANTS.
Next, Eck and Emser, with their fellows, undertook to instruct me
concerning the primacy of the pope. Here too, not to prove ungrateful
to such learned folk, I acknowledge how greatly I have profited by
their labors. For, while denying the divine authority of the papacy, I
had yet admitted its human authority[4]. But after hearing and reading
the subtle subtleties of these coxcombs with which they adroitly prop
their idol--for in these matters my mind is not altogether
unteachable--I now know of a certainty that the papacy is the kingdom
of Babylon[5] and the power of Nimrod the mighty hunter[6]. Once more,
therefore, that all may all out to my friends' advantage, I beg both
booksellers and readers to burn what I have published on that subject
and to hold to this proposition: THE PAPACY IS THE MIGHTY HUNTING OF
THE ROMAN BISHOP. This follows from the arguments of Eck, Emser and
the Leipzig lecturer[7] on the Holy Scriptures.
Now they are putting me to school again and teaching me about
communion in both kinds and other weighty subjects. And I must all to
with might and main, so as not to hear these my pedagogues without
profit. A certain Italian friar of Cremona[8] has written a
"Revocation of Martin Luther to the Holy See"--that is, a revocation
in which not I revoke anything (as the words declare) but he revokes
me. That is the kind of Latin the Italians are now beginning to
write[9]. Another friar, a German of Leipzig, that same lecturer, you
know, on the whole canon of the Scriptures, has written a book against
me concerning the sacrament in both kinds, and is planning, I
understand, still greater and more marvelous things. The Italian was
canny enough not to set down his name, fearing perhaps the fate of
Cajetan and Sylvester[10]. But the Leipzig man, as becomes a fierce
and valiant German, boasts on his ample title-page of his name, his
career, his saintliness, his scholarship, his office, glory, honor,
ay, almost of his very clogs[11]. Here I shall doubtless gain no
little information, since indeed his dedicatory epistle is addressed
to the Son of God Himself. On so familiar a footing are these saints
with Christ Who reigns in heaven! Moreover, methinks I hear three
magpies chattering in this book; the first in good Latin, the second
in better Greek, the third in purest Hebrew[12]. What think you, my
Herman, is there for me to do but to prick up my ears? The thing
emanates from Leipzig, from the Observance of the Holy Cross[13].
Fool that I was, I had hitherto thought it would be well if a general
council decided that the sacrament be administered to the laity in
both kinds[14]. The more than learned friar would set me right, and
declares that neither Christ nor the apostles commanded or commended
the administration of both kinds to the laity; it was, therefore, left
to the judgment of the Church what to do or not to do in this matter,
and the Church must be obeyed. These are his words.
You will perhaps ask, what madness has entered into the man, or
against whom he is writing, since I have not condemned the use of one
kind, but have left the decision about the use of both kinds to the
judgment of the Church--the very thing he attempts to assert and which
he turns against me. My answer is, that this sort of argument is
common to all those who write against Luther; they assert the very
things they assail, for they set up a man of straw whom they may
attack. Thus Sylvester and Eck and Emser, thus the theologians of
Cologne and Louvain[15]; and if this friar had not been of the same
kidney he would never have written against Luther.
Yet in one respect this man has been happier than his fellows. For in
undertaking to prove that the use of both kinds is neither commanded
nor commended, but left to the will of the Church, he brings forward
passages of Scripture to prove that by the command of Christ one kind
only was appointed for the laity. So that it is true, according to
this new interpreter of the Scriptures, that one kind was not
commanded, and at the same time was commanded, by Christ! This novel
sort of argument is, as you know, the particular forte of the Leipzig
dialecticians. Did not Emser in his earlier book[16] profess to write
of me in a friendly spirit, and then, after I had convicted him of
filthy envy and foul lying, did he not openly acknowledge in his later
book[17], written to refute my arguments, that he had written in both
a friendly and an unfriendly spirit? A sweet fellow, forsooth, as you
know.
But hearken to our distinguished distinguisher of "kinds," for whom
the will of the Church and a command of Christ, and a command of
Christ and no command of Christ, are all one and the same! How
ingeniously he proves that only one kind is to be given to the laity,
by the command of Christ, that is, by the will of the Church. He puts
it in capital letters, thus: THE INFALLIBLE FOUNDATION. Thereupon he
treats John vi with incredible wisdom, in which passage Christ speaks
of the bread from heaven and the bread of life, which is He Himself.
The learned fellow not only refers these words to the sacrament of the
altar, but because Christ says, "I am the living bread," [John 6:35,
41, 51] and not, "I am the living cup," he actually concludes that we
have in this passage the institution of the sacrament in only one kind
for the laity. But there follow the words,--"My flesh is meat indeed,
and my blood is drink indeed," [John 6:55] and, "Except ye eat the
flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood" [John 6:53]; and when it
dawned upon the good friar that these words speak undeniably or both
kinds and against one kind--presto! how happily and learnedly he slips
out of the quandary by asserting that in these words Christ means to
say only that whoever receives the one kind receives under it both
flesh and blood. This he puts or the "infallible foundation" of a
structure well worthy of the holy and heavenly Observance.
Now prithee, herefrom learn with me that Christ, in John vi, enjoins
the sacrament in one kind, yet in such wise that His commanding it
means leaving it to the will of the Church; and further, that Christ
is speaking in this chapter only of the laity and not of the priests.
For to the latter the living bread from heaven does not pertain, but
presumably the deadly bread from hell! And how is it with the deacons
and subdeacons, who are neither laymen nor priests?[18] According to
this brilliant writer, they ought to use neither the one kind nor both
kinds! You see, dear Tulich, this novel and observant method of
treating Scripture.
But learn this, too,--that Christ is speaking in John vi of the
sacrament of the altar; although He Himself teaches that His words
refer to faith in the Word made flesh, for He says, "This is the work
of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent." [John 6:29] But our
Leipzig professor of the Scriptures must be permitted to prove
anything he pleases from any Scripture passage whatsoever. For he is
an Anaxagorian, or rather an Aristotelian[19] theologian, for whom
nouns and verbs, interchanged, mean the same thing and any thing. So
aptly does he cite Scripture proof-texts throughout the whole of his
book, that if he set out to prove the presence of Christ in the
sacrament, he would not hesitate to commence thus: "Here beginneth the
book of the Revelation of St. John the Divine." All his quotations are
as apt as this one would be, and the wiseacre imagines he is adorning
his drivel with the multitude of his quotations. The rest I pass over,
lest you should smother in the filth of this vile cloaca.
In conclusion, he brings forward I Corinthians xi, where Paul says he
received from the Lord, and delivered to the Corinthians, the use of
both the bread and the cup [1 Cor. 11:23]. Here again our
distinguisher of kinds, treating the Scriptures with his usual
brilliance, teaches that Paul did not deliver, but permitted both
kinds. Do you ask where he gets his proof? Out of his own head, as he
did in the case of John vi. For it does not behoove this lecturer to
give a reason for his assertions; he belongs to the order of those who
teach and prove all things by their visions[20]. Accordingly we are
here taught that the Apostle, in this passage, addressed not the whole
Corinthian congregation, but the laity alone--but then he "permitted"
nothing at all to the clergy, and they are deprived of the sacrament
altogether!--and further, that, according to a new kind of grammar, "I
have received from the Lord" means "It is permitted by the Lord," and
"I have delivered it to you" means "I have permitted it to you." I
pray you, mark this well. For by this method, not only the Church, but
every passing knave will be at liberty, according to this magister, to
turn all the commands, institutions and ordinances of Christ and the
apostles into a mere "permission."
I perceive, therefore, that this man is driven by an angel of Satan,
and that he and his partners seek but to make a name or themselves
through me, as men who were worthy to cross swords with Luther. But
their hopes shall be dashed: I shall ignore them and not mention their
names from henceforth even for ever. This one reply shall suffice me
for all their books. If they be worthy of it, I pray Christ in His
mercy to bring them to a sound mind; if not, I pray that they may
never leave off writing such books, and that the enemies of the truth
may never deserve to read any other. It is a popular and true saying,
This I know of a truth--whenever with filth I contended,
Victor or vanquished, alike, came I defiled from the fray.
And, since I perceive that they have an abundance of leisure and of
writing-paper, I shall see to it that they may have ample opportunity
for writing. I shall run on before, and while they are celebrating a
glorious victory over one of my so-called heresies, I shall be
meanwhile devising a new one. For I too am desirous that these gallant
leaders in battle should win to themselves many titles and
decorations. Therefore, while they complain that I laud communion in
both kinds, and are happily engrossed in this most important and
worthy matter, I will go yet one step farther and undertake to show
that all those who deny communion in both kinds to the laity are
wicked men. And the more conveniently to do this, I will compose a
prelude on the captivity of the Roman Church. In due time I shall have
a great deal more to say, when the learned papists have disposed of
this book.
I take this course, lest any pious reader who may chance upon this
book, should be offended at my dealing with such filthy matters, and
should justly complain of finding in it nothing to cultivate and
instruct his mind or even to furnish good or learned thought. For you
know how impatient my friends are because I waste my time on the
sordid fictions of these men, which, they say, are amply refuted in
the reading; they look for greater things from me, which Satan seeks
in this way to hinder. I have at length resolved to follow their
counsel and to leave to those hornets the pleasant business of
wrangling and hurling invectives.
Of that friar of Cremona I will say nothing. He is an unlearned man
and a simpleton, who attempts with a few rhetorical passages to recall
me to the Holy See, from which I am not as yet aware of having
departed, nor has any one proved it to me. He is chiefly concerned in
those silly passages with showing that I ought to be moved by the vow
of my order and by the act that the empire has been transferred to us
Germans[21]. He seems thus to have set out to write, not my
"revocation," but rather the praises of the French people and the
Roman pontiff. Let him attest his loyalty in his little book; it is
the best he could do. He does not deserve to be harshly treated, for
methinks he was not prompted by malice; nor yet to be learnedly
refuted, for all his chatter is sheer ignorance and simplicity[22].
At the outset I must deny that there are seven sacraments, and hold
for the present[23] to but three--baptism, penance and the bread[24].
These three have been subjected to a miserable captivity by the Roman
curia, and the Church has been deprived of all her liberty. To be
sure, if I desired to use the term in its scriptural sense, I should
allow but a single sacrament[25], with three sacramental signs; but of
this I shall treat more fully at the proper time.