_________________________________________________________________

   Title: First Principles of the Reformation or the Ninety-five Theses and the
   Three Primary Works of Dr. Martin Luther Translated into English.
   Creator(s): Luther, Martin (1672-1719)
   Print Basis: London: John Murray, 1883
   Rights: Public Domain
   CCEL Subjects: All
   LC Call no:
     _________________________________________________________________

   Martin Luther

   Martin Luther

FIRST PRINCIPLES

OF

THE REFORMATION

OR

THE NINETY-FIVE THESES AND THE
THREE PRIMARY WORKS

OF

DR. MARTIN LUTHER

TRANSLATED INTO ENGLISH
     _________________________________________________________________

    EDITED

  WITH THEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL INTRODUCTIONS

BY HENRY WACE D.D.

   PREBENDARY OF ST. PAUL’S PREACHER OF LINCOLN’S INN PRINCIPAL OF KING’S
   COLLEGE LONDON
   CHAPLAIN TO THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY

    AND

C. A. BUCHHEIM PH.D.

   PROFESSOR OF THE GERMAN LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE IN RING’S COLLEGE LONDON

   WITH A PORTRAIT

LONDON
JOHN MURRAY. ALBEMARLE STREET
1883

   LONDON:
   PRINTED BY WILLIAM CLOWES AND SONS, Limited,
   STAMFORD STREET AND CHARING CROSS
     _________________________________________________________________
     _________________________________________________________________

ADVERTISEMENT.

   THE purpose and plan of this publication, which has been prompted by the
   celebration of the fourth centenary of Luther’s birth, is explained in the
   Introductory Essay. Here it is only necessary to state that, of the works of
   Luther contained in it, the "Address to the Nobility of the German Nation,"
   which was written in German, has been translated by Professor Buchheim, from
   the text given in the Erlangen, or Frankfort, Edition. The translation of
   this work offered very great difficulties, as it was written in Luther’s
   earliest German style, before the language had been improved, and rendered
   comparatively definite, by his translation of the Bible. Dr. Buchheim has
   endeavoured to make it as literal as was compatible with the genius of the
   English language, and with the necessity of modifying, now and then, some
   obscure or obsolete expression; and he has offered a few annotations. He
   desires, at the same time, to express his great obligations to Dr. Wace, who
   carefully compared his translation with the original work, and whose
   suggestions have been of great service to him. The Theses, and the two
   Treatises, "On Christian Liberty," and "On the Babylonish Captivity of the
   Church," have been translated from the original Latin Text, as given in the
   Frankfort Edition, by the Rev. R. S. Grignon, to whose generous assistance
   and accurate scholarship the editors feel greatly indebted.
     _________________________________________________________________

CONTENTS.

   page
   THEOLOGICAL INTRODUCTION. By Dr. Wace ix

   HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION. By Professor Buchheim
   xxxix
   THE NINETY-FIVE THESES                2
   THE THREE PRIMARY WORKS OF LUTHER:—

   I. ADDRESS TO THE NOBILITY OF THE GERMAN NATION.

   1. Dedicatory Letter
   17

   2. Introduction
   18

   3. The Three Walls of the Romanists
   20

   (a) That the Temporal Power has no Jurisdiction over the Spirituality
   21

   (b) That no one may interpret the Scriptures but the Pope
   25

   (c) That no one may call a Council but the Pope
   28

   4. Of the Matters to be considered in the Councils
   31

   5. Twenty-seven Articles respecting the Reformation of the Christian Estate
   44
   II. CONCERNING CHRISTIAN LIBERTY.

   1. Letter to Pope Leo X.
   95

   2. That a Christian man is the most free Lord of all, and subject to none
   104

   3. That a Christian man is the most dutiful Servant of all, and subject to
   every one
   118
   III. ON THE BABYLONISH CAPTIVITY OF THE CHURCH.

   1. Introduction
   141

   2. On the Lord’s Supper
   148

   3. On Baptism
   182

   4. ON PENANCE
   205

   5. On Confirmation
   214

   6. On Matrimony
   215

   7. On Orders
   227

   8. On Extreme Unction
   237
     _________________________________________________________________

  INTRODUCTORY ESSAYS
     _________________________________________________________________

    I

  ON THE PRIMARY PRINCIPLES

    OF

LUTHER’S LIFE AND TEACHING

  By Dr. WACE

ON THE PRIMARY PRINCIPLES OF LUTHER’S LIFE AND TEACHING

   The present publication is offered as a contribution to the due celebration
   in this country of the fourth Centenary of Luther’s birth. Much has been
   written about him, and the general history of his life and work is being
   sketched by able pens. But no adequate attempt has yet been made to let him
   speak for himself to Englishmen by his greatest and most characteristic
   writings. The three works which, together with the 95 Theses, are included
   in this volume, are well known in Germany as the Drei Grosse
   Reformations-Schriften, or “The Three Great Reformation Treatises” of
   Luther; but they seem never yet to have been brought in this character
   before the English public. The Treatise on Christian Liberty has indeed been
   previously translated, though not of late years. But from an examination of
   the catalogue in the British Museum, it would appear that no English
   translation is accessible, even if any has yet been published, of the
   Address to the German Nobility or of the Treatise on the Babylonish
   Captivity of the Church. Yet, as is well understood in Germany, it is in
   these that the whole genius of the Reformer appears in its most complete and
   energetic form. They are bound together in the closest dramatic unity. They
   were all three produced in the latter half of the critical year 1520, when
   nearly three years’ controversy, since the publication of the Theses, on
   Oct. 31 1517, had convinced Luther of the falseness of the Court of Rome,
   and the hollowness of its claims; and they were immediately followed by the
   bull of excommunication in the winter of the same year, and the summons to
   the Diet of Worms in 1521. Luther felt, as he says at the commencement of
   his Address to the German Nobility, that “the time for silence had passed,
   and the time for speech had come.” He evidently apprehended that
   reconciliation between himself and the Court of Rome was impossible; and he
   appears to have made up his mind to clear his conscience, whatever the cost.
   Accordingly in these three works he spoke out with a full heart, and with
   the consciousness that his life was in his hand, the convictions which had
   been forced on him by the conduct of the Papacy and of the Papal
   theologians.

   Those convictions had been slowly, and even reluctantly, admitted; but they
   had gradually accumulated in intense force in Luther’s mind and conscience;
   and when “the time for speech had come” they burst forth in a kind of
   volcanic eruption. Their maturity is proved by the completeness and
   thoroughness with which the questions at issue are treated. An insight into
   the deepest theological principles is combined with the keenest apprehension
   of practical details. In the Treatise on Christian Liberty we have the most
   vivid of all embodiments of that life of Faith to which the Reformer
   recalled the Church and which was the mainspring of the Reformation. In the
   Appeal to the German Nobility he first asserted those rights of the laity,
   and of the temporal power, without the admission of which no reformation
   would have been practicable, and he then denounced with burning moral
   indignation the numerous and intolerable abuses which were upheld by Roman
   authority. In the third Treatise, on the Babylonish Captivity of the Church,
   he applied the same cardinal principles to the elaborate Sacramental system
   of the Church of Rome, sweeping away by means of them the superstitions with
   which the original institutions of Christ had been overlaid, and thus
   releasing men’s consciences from a vast network of ceremonial bondage. The
   rest of the Reformation, it is not too much to say, was but the application
   of the principles vindicated in these three works. They were applied in
   different countries with varying wisdom and moderation; but nothing
   essential was added to them. Luther’s genius—if a higher word be not
   justifiable—brought forth at one birth, “with hands and feet,” to use his
   own image, and in full energy, the vital ideas by which Europe was to be
   regenerated. He was no mere negative controversialist, attacking particular
   errors in detail. His characteristic was the masculine grasp with which he
   seized essential and eternal truths, and by their central light dispersed
   the darkness in which men were groping.

   It occurred therefore to my colleague and myself that a permanent service
   might perhaps be rendered to Luther’s name, and towards a due appreciation
   of the principles of the Reformation, if these short but pregnant Treatises
   were made more accessible to the English public; and although they might
   well be left to speak for themselves, there may perhaps be some readers to
   whom a few explanatory observations on Luther’s position, theologically and
   politically, will not be unacceptable. My colleague, in the Essay which
   follows this, has dealt with the political course of the Reformation during
   his career; and in the present remarks an endeavour will simply be made to
   indicate the nature and the bearings of the central principles of the
   Reformer’s life and work, as exhibited in the accompanying translations.

   It is by no mere accident of controversy that the Ninty-five Theses mark the
   starting-point of Luther’s career as a reformer. The subject with which they
   dealt was not only in close connection with the centre of Christian truth,
   but it touched the characteristic thought of the Middle Ages. From the
   beginning to the end, those ages had been a stern school of moral and
   religious discipline, under what was universally regarded as the divine
   authority of the Church. St. Anselm, with his intense apprehension of the
   divine righteousness, and of its inexorable demands, is at once the noblest
   and truest type of the great school of thought of which he was the founder.
   The special mission of the Church since the days of Gregory the Great had
   been to tame the fierce energies of the new barbarian world, and to bring
   the wild passions of the Teutonic races under the control of the Christian
   law. It was the task to which the necessities of the hour seemed to summon
   the Church, and she roused herself to the effort with magnificent devotion.
   Monks and Schoolmen performed prodigies of self-denial and self-sacrifice,
   in order to realise in themselves, and to impose as far as possible on the
   world at large, the laws of perfection which the Church held before their
   vision. The glorious cathedrals which arose in the best period of the Middle
   Ages are but the visible types of those splendid structures of ideal
   virtues, which a monk like St. Bernard, or a Schoolman like St. Thomas
   Aquinas, piled up by laborious thought and painful asceticism. Such men felt
   themselves at all times surrounded by a spiritual world, at once more
   glorious in its beauty and more awful in its terrors, than either the
   pleasures or the miseries of this world could adequately represent. The
   great poet of the Middle Ages affords perhaps the most vivid representation
   of their character in this respect. The horrible images of the Inferno, the
   keen sufferings of purification in the Purgatorio, form the terrible
   foreground behind which the Paradiso rises. Those visions of terror and
   dread and suffering had stamped themselves on the imagination of the
   medieval world, and lay at the root of the power with which the Church
   overshadowed it. In their origin they embodied a profound and noble truth.
   It was a high and divine conception that the moral and spiritual world with
   which we are encompassed has greater heights and lower depths than are
   generally apprehended in the visible experience of this life; and Dante has
   been felt to be in an unique degree the poet of righteousness. But it is
   evident, at the same time, what a terrible temptation was placed in the
   hands of a hierarchy who were believed, in whatever degree, to wield power
   over these spiritual realities. It was too easy to apply them, like the
   instruments of physical torture with which the age was familiar, to extort
   submission from tender consciences, or to make a bargain with selfish
   hearts. But in substance the menaces of the Church appealed to deep
   convictions of the human conscience, and the mass of men were not prepared
   to defy them.

   Now it was into this world of spiritual terrors that Luther was born, and he
   was in an eminent degree the legitimate child of the Middle Ages. The
   turning-point in his history is that the awful visions of which we have
   spoken, the dread of the Divine judgments, brought home to him by one of the
   solemn accidents of life, checked him in a career which promised all worldly
   prosperity, and drove him into a monastery. There, as he tells us, he was
   driven almost frantic by his vivid realization of the demands of the Divine
   righteousness on the one hand, and of his own incapacity to satisfy them on
   the other. With the intense reality characteristic of his nature he took in
   desperate earnest all that the traditional teaching and example of the
   Middle Ages had taught him of the unbending necessities of Divine justice.
   But for the very reason that he accepted those necessities with such
   earnestness, he did but realize the more completely the hopelessness of his
   struggles to bring himself into conformity with them. It was not because he
   was out of sympathy with St. Anselm or St. Bernard or Dante, that he burst
   the bonds of the system they represented; but, on the contrary, because he
   entered even more deeply than they into the very truths they asserted.
   Nothing was more certain to him than that Divine justice is inexorable; no
   conviction was more deeply fixed in his heart than that righteousness is the
   supreme law of human life. But the more he realized the truth, the more
   terrible he found it, for it seemed to shut him up in a cruel prison,
   against the bars of which he beat himself in vain. In one of his most
   characteristic passages, in the Introduction to his Latin Works, he
   describes how he was repelled and appalled by the statement of St. Paul
   respecting the Gospel, that ‘therein is the righteousness, or justice, of
   God revealed.’ For, he says, ‘however irreprehensible a life I had lived as
   a monk, I felt myself before God a sinner, with a most restless conscience,
   and I could not be confident that He was appeased by my satisfaction. I
   could not, therefore, love—nay, I hated—a God who was just and punished
   sinners; and if not with silent blasphemy, certainly with vehement
   murmuring, I was indignant against God. As if, I said, it were not enough
   that sinners, miserable and eternally ruined by original sin, should be
   crushed with all kind of calamity by the law of the Decalogue, but God by
   the Gospel must needs add grief to grief, and by the Gospel itself must
   inflict still further on us His justice and anger. I raged with this savage
   and disturbed conscience, and I knocked importunately at Paul in that place,
   with burning thirst to know what St. Paul could mean.’ Such an experience is
   not a mere revolt against the Middle Ages. In great measure it is but the
   full realization of their truest teaching. It is Dante intensified, and
   carried to the inevitable development of his principles.

   But if this be the case, what it meant was that the Middle Ages had brought
   men to a deadlock. They had led men up to a gate so strait that no human
   soul could pass through it. In the struggle, men had devised the most
   elaborate forms of self-torture, and had made the most heroic sacrifices,
   and in the very desperation of their efforts they had anticipated the more
   vivid insight and experience of Luther. The effort, in fact, had been too
   much for human nature, and the end of it had been that the Church had
   condescended to human weakness. The most obvious and easy way out of the
   difficulty was to modify, by virtue of some dispensing authority, the
   extreme requirements of Divine justice, and by a variety of
   half-unconscious, half-acknowledged devices, to lessen the severity of the
   strait gate and of the narrow way. Such a power, as has been said, was an
   enormous temptation to unscrupulous Churchmen, and at length it led to the
   hideous abuses of such preaching of indulgences as that of Tetzel. In this
   form the matter came before Luther in his office as parish priest and
   confessor; and it will be apparent from the Theses that what first revolts
   him is the violation involved of the deepest principles which the Church of
   his day had taught him. He had learned from it the inexorable character of
   the Divine law, the necessity and blessedness of the Divine discipline of
   punishment and suffering; he had learned, as his first Thesis declares, that
   the law of Christian life is that of lifelong penitence; and he denounced
   Tetzel’s teaching as false to the Church herself, in full confidence that he
   would be supported by his ecclesiastical superiors. When he found that he
   was not—when, to his surprise and consternation, he found that the Papal
   theologians of the day, under the direct patronage of the Pope and the
   bishops, were ready to support the most flagrant evasions of the very
   principles on which their power had originally been based—then at length,
   though most reluctantly, he turned against them, and directed against the
   corrupted Church of the close of the Middle Ages the very principles he had
   learned from its best representatives and from its noblest institutions.

   Luther, in the course of his spiritual struggles, had found the true
   deliverance from what we have ventured to call that deadlock to which the
   grand vision of Divine righteousness had led him. He realised that the
   strait gate was impassable by any human virtue; but he had found the
   solution in the promise of a supernatural deliverance which was offered to
   faith. To quote again his words in the preface to his Latin works already
   referred to: ‘At length by the mercy of God, meditating days and nights, I
   observed the connection of the words namely “therein is the righteousness of
   God revealed from faith to faith, as it is written: The just shall live by
   faith.” Then I began to understand the justice of God to be that by which
   the just man lives by the gift of God, namely, by faith, and that the
   meaning was that the Gospel reveals that justice of God by which He
   justifies us beggars through faith, as it is written: “The just shall live
   by faith.” Here I felt myself absolutely born again; the gates of heaven
   were opened, and I had entered paradise itself. From thenceforward the face
   of the whole Scriptures appeared changed to me. I ran through the
   Scriptures, as my memory would serve me, and observed the same analogy in
   other words—as, the work of God, that is, the work which God works in us;
   the strength of God, that with which He makes us strong; the wisdom of God,
   that with which He makes us wise; the power of God, the salvation of God,
   the glory of God. And now, as much as I had formerly hated that word, the
   Justice of God, so much did I now love it and extol it as the sweetest of
   words to me; and thus that place in Paul was to me truly the gate of
   paradise.’ In other words, Luther had realised that the Gospel, while
   reasserting the inexorable nature of the moral law, and deepening its
   demands, had revealed a supernatural and divine means of satisfying and
   fulfilling it. All barriers had thus been removed between God and man, and
   men had been placed in the position of children living by Faith on His grace
   and bounty. He offers to bestow upon them the very righteousness He requires
   from them, if they will but accept it at His hands as a free gift. Their
   true position is no longer that of mere subjects living under a law which
   they must obey at their peril. They may, indeed, by their own act remain in
   that condition, with all its terrible consequences. But God invites them to
   regard Him as their Father, to live in the light of His countenance, and to
   receive from Him the daily food of their souls. The most intimate personal
   relation is thus established between Himself and them; and the righteousness
   which they could never acquire by their own efforts He is ready to create in
   them if they will but live with Him in faith and trust. That faith, indeed,
   must needs be the beginning, and the most essential condition, of this
   Divine life. Faith is the first condition of all fellowship between persons;
   and if a man is to live in personal fellowship with God, he must trust Him
   absolutely, believe His promises, and rest his whole existence, here and
   hereafter, upon His word. But let a man do this, and then God’s law ceases
   to be like a flaming sword, turning every way, with too fierce an edge for
   human hearts to bear. It assumes the benignant glow of a revelation of
   perfect righteousness which God Himself will bestow on all who ask it at His
   hands.

   This belief is essentially bound up with a distinction on which great stress
   is laid in the Theses. It touches a point at once of the highest theological
   import, and of the simplest practical experience. This is the distinction
   between guilt and punishment; or, in other words, between personal
   forgiveness, and the remission of the consequences of sins. In our mutual
   relations, a son may be forgiven by his father, a wrongdoer by the person
   whom he has injured, and yet it may neither be possible nor desirable that
   the offender should be at once released from the consequences of his
   offence. But for all generous hearts, the personal forgiveness is infinitely
   more precious than the remission of the penalty, and Luther had learned from
   the Scriptures to regard our relation to God in a similar light. He realized
   that he must live, here and hereafter, in personal relationship to God; and
   the forgiveness of God, the removal from him, in God’s sight, of the
   imputation and the brand of guilt, his reception into God’s unclouded
   favour—this was the supreme necessity of his spiritual existence. If this
   were assured to him, not only had he no fear of punishment, but he could
   welcome it, whatever its severity, as part of the discipline of the divine
   and loving hand to which he had trusted himself. His deepest indignation,
   consequently, was aroused by preaching which, under official sanction, urged
   men to buy indulgence from punishment, of whatever kind, as practically the
   greatest spiritual benefit they could obtain; and he devoted his whole
   energy to assert the supreme blessing of that remission from guilt, of which
   the preachers of indulgences said practically nothing. It is this remission
   of guilt, this personal forgiveness, which is the essential element in the
   justification of which he spoke. It involves of course salvation from the
   final ruin and doom which sin, and the moral corruption of our nature, would
   naturally entail; but its chief virtue does not consist in deliverance from
   punishment, nor does it in any way derogate from the truth that “we must all
   appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that every one may receive the
   things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good
   or bad.” What it taught men was to accept all God’s judgments and discipline
   in perfect peace of soul, as being assured of His love and favour.

   No divine, in fact, has ever dwelt with more intense conviction on the
   blessedness of the discipline of suffering and of the Cross. The closing
   Theses express his deepest feelings in this respect, and a passage in one of
   his letters, written before the controversy about Indulgences had arisen,
   affords a most interesting illustration of the manner in which the
   principles he came forward to assert had grown out of his personal
   experience. “Away,” he says, in the 92nd and 93rd Theses, “with all those
   prophets who say to the people of Christ, ‘Peace, peace,’ and there is no
   peace. Blessed be all those prophets who say to the people of Christ, ‘The
   Cross, the Cross,’ and there is no Cross.” These somewhat enigmatic
   expressions are at once explained in the letter referred to, written to a
   Prior of the Augustinian order, on the 22nd of June, 1516. [1] He says:—

   “You are seeking and craving for peace, but in the wrong order. For you are
   seeking it as the world giveth, not as Christ giveth. Know you not that God
   is ‘wonderful among His saints,’ for this reason, that He establishes His
   peace in the midst of no peace, that is, of all temptations and
   afflictions.’ It is said ‘Thou shalt dwell in the midst of thine enemies.’
   The man who possesses peace is not the man whom no one disturbs—that is the
   peace of the world; he is the man whom all men and all things disturb, but
   who bears all patiently, and with joy. You are saying with Israel, ‘Peace,
   peace,’ and there is no peace. Learn to say rather with Christ: ‘The Cross,
   the Cross,’ and there is no Cross. For the Cross at once ceases to be the
   Cross as soon as you have joyfully exclaimed, in the language of the hymn,


   “‘Blessed Cross, above all other,

   One and only noble tree.’”

   One other extract of the same import it may be well to quote from these
   early letters, as it is similarly the germ of one of the noblest passages in
   Luther’s subsequent explanation of the Ninety-five Theses. [2] The letter
   was addressed to a brother Augustinian on the 15th of April, 1516. Luther
   says:—

   “The cross of Christ has been divided throughout the whole world, and every
   one meets with his own portion of it. Do not you therefore reject it, but
   rather accept it as the most holy relic, to be kept, not in a gold or silver
   chest, but in a golden heart, that is, a heart imbued with gentle charity.
   For if, by contact with the flesh and blood of Christ, the wood of the Cross
   received such consecration that its relics are deemed supremely precious,
   how much more should injuries, persecutions, sufferings and the hatred of
   men, whether of the just or of the unjust, be regarded as the most sacred of
   all relics—relics which, not by the mere touch of His flesh, but by the
   charity of His most bitterly tried heart and of His divine will, were
   embraced, kissed, blessed, and abundantly consecrated; for thus was a curse
   transformed into a blessing, and injury into justice, and passion into
   glory, and the Cross into joy.” [3]

   The few letters, in fact, in our possession, written by Luther before he
   came forward in 1517, are sufficient to afford the most vivid proof both of
   the mature thought and experience in which his convictions were rooted, and
   of their being prompted, not by the spirit of reckless confidence to which
   they have sometimes been ignorantly ascribed, but by the deepest sympathy
   with the lessons of the Cross. The purport of his characteristic doctrine of
   justification by faith was not to give men the assurance of immunity from
   suffering and sorrow, as the consequence of sin, but to give them peace of
   conscience and joy of heart in the midst of such punishments. What it
   proclaimed was that, if men would but believe it, they could at any moment
   grasp God’s forgiveness, and live henceforth in the assured happiness of His
   personal favour and love. Of this blessing His promise was the only possible
   warrant, and like all other promises, it could only be accepted by Faith.
   Every man is invited to believe it, since it is offered to all for Christ’s
   sake; but by the nature of the case, none can enjoy it who do not believe
   it.

   The ground, however, on which this promise was based affords another
   striking illustration of the way in which Luther’s teaching was connected
   with that of the Middle Age. Together with that keen apprehension of the
   divine judgments and of human sin just mentioned, the awful vision of our
   Lord’s sufferings and of His atonement overshadowed the whole thought of
   those times. St. Anselm, in the Cur Deus Homo, had aroused deeper meditation
   on this subject than had before been bestowed upon it; and in this, as in
   other matters, he is the type of the grand school of thought which he
   founded. As in his mind, so throughout the Middle Age, in proportion to the
   apprehension of the terrible nature of the Divine justice, is the prominence
   given to the sacrificial means for averting the Divine wrath. The
   innumerable Masses of the later Middle Ages were so many confessions of the
   deep-felt need of atonement; and formal as they ultimately became, they were
   in intention so many cries for forgiveness from the terror-struck
   consciences of sinful men and women. Luther was a true child of the Church
   in his deep apprehension of the same need, and it was precisely because he
   realised it with exceptional truth and depth that he was forced to seek some
   deeper satisfaction than the offering of Masses could afford. He reasserted
   the truth that the need had been met and answered once for all by the
   Sacrifice on the Cross; and by proclaiming the sufficiency of that one
   eternal offering he swept away all the “Sacrifices of Masses,” while at the
   same time he provided the answer to the craving to which they testified. The
   doctrine of the Atonement, as asserted at the Reformation, is the true
   answer to that cry of the human conscience which the Church of the preceding
   age had vainly endeavoured to satisfy. The Sacrament, of which the Mass was
   a perversion, was thus restored to its true character on a pledge and an
   instrument of blessings bestowed by God, instead of a propitiatory offering
   on the part of men. The Cross of Christ, the favourite symbol of the
   mediæval Church, was thus held aloft by the Reformer in still deeper
   reality, as the central symbol of the Church’s message, and as the one
   adequate ground for the faith to which he called men.

   Now the view of the Christian life involved in this principle of
   Justification by Faith found its most complete and beautiful expression in
   the Treatise “On Christian Liberty,” translated in this volume; and a brief
   notice of the teaching of that treatise will best serve to explain the
   connection between Luther’s cardinal doctrine and the other principles which
   he asserted. As is explained at the close of the introductory letter to Leo
   X. (p. 101), he designed it as a kind of peace-offering to the Pope, and as
   a declaration of the sole objects he had at heart, and to which he desired
   to devote his life. “It is a small matter,” he says, “if you look to its
   bulk, but unless I mistake, it is a summary of the Christian life in small
   compass, if you apprehend its meaning.” In fact, it presents the most
   complete view of Luther’s theology, alike in its principles and in its
   practice, almost entirely disembarrassed of the controversial elements by
   which, under the inevitable pressure of circumstances, his other works, and
   especially those of a later date, were disturbed. Perhaps the only part of
   his works to compare with it in this respect is the precious collection of
   his House-postills, or Exposition of the Gospels for the Sundays of the
   Christian Year. They were delivered within his domestic circle, and recorded
   by two of his pupils, and though but imperfectly reported, they are
   treasures of Evangelical exposition, exhibiting in a rare degree the
   exquisitely childlike character of the Reformer’s faith, and marked by all
   the simplicity and the poetry of feeling by which his mind was
   distinguished. It is by such works as these, and not simply by his
   controversial treatises or commentaries, that Luther must be judged, if we
   wish either to understand his inner character, or to comprehend the vast
   personal influence he exerted. But in its essence, the Gospel which he
   preached, the substance of what he had learned from the temptations, the
   prayers, the meditations—tentationes, orationes, meditationes—of his life as
   a monk, is sufficiently embodied in the short Treatise on Christian Liberty.

   The argument of the Treatise is summed up, with the antithetical force so
   often characteristic of great genius, in the two propositions laid down at
   the outset. “A Christian man is the most free lord of all and subject to
   none: A Christian man is the most dutiful servant of all, and subject to
   every one.” The first of these propositions expresses the practical result
   of the doctrine of Justification by Faith. The Christian is in possession of
   a promise of God, which in itself, and in the assurance it involves, is a
   greater blessing to him than all other privileges or enjoyments whatever.
   Everything sinks into insignificance compared with this word and Gospel.
   “Let us,” he says, “hold it for certain and firmly established that the soul
   can do without everything except the word of God, without which none of its
   wants are provided for. But, having the word, it is rich and wants for
   nothing, since it is the word of life, of truth, of light, of peace, of
   justification, of salvation, of joy, of liberty, of wisdom, of virtue, of
   grace, of glory, and of every good thing.” If it be asked, “What is this
   word?” he answers that the Apostle Paul explains it, namely that “it is the
   Gospel of God, concerning His Son, incarnate, suffering, risen, and
   glorified through the Spirit, the Sanctifier. To preach Christ is to feed
   the soul, to justify it, to set it free, and to save it, if it believes the
   preaching . . . For the word of God cannot be received and honoured by any
   works, but by Faith alone.” This is the cardinal point around which not
   merely Luther’s theology, but his whole life turns. God had descended into
   the world, spoken to him by His Son, His Apostles, the Scriptures, and the
   voice of the Church, and promised him forgiveness in the present, and final
   deliverance from his evil in the future, if he would but trust Him. The mere
   possession of such a promise outweighed in Luther’s view all other
   considerations whatever, and absolute faith was due to it. No higher offence
   could be offered to God than to reject or doubt His promise, and at the same
   time no higher honour could be rendered Him than to believe it. The
   importance and value of the virtue of Faith is thus determined entirely by
   the promise on which it rests. These “promises of God are words of holiness,
   truth, righteousness, liberty, and peace, and are full of universal
   goodness, and the soul which cleaves to them with a firm faith is so united
   to them, nay, thoroughly absorbed by them, that it not only partakes in, but
   is penetrated and saturated by all their virtue. For if the touch of Christ
   was health, how much more does that most tender spiritual touch, nay,
   absorption of the word, communicate to the soul all that belongs to the
   word? In this way, therefore, the soul through faith alone, without works,
   is by the word of God justified, sanctified, endued with truth, peace, and
   liberty, and filled full with every good thing, and is truly made the child
   of God . . . As is the word, such is the soul made by it; just as iron
   exposed to fire glows like fire on account of its union with the fire.”
   Moreover, just as it is faith which unites husband and wife, so faith in
   Christ unites the soul to Him in indissoluble union. For “if a true
   marriage, nay, by far the most perfect of all marriages, is accomplished
   between them—for human marriages are but feeble types of this one great
   marriage—then it follows that all they have becomes theirs in common, as
   well good things as evil things; so that whatsoever Christ possesses, the
   believing soul may take to itself and boast of as its own, and whatever
   belongs to the soul, Christ claims as his . . . Thus the believing soul, by
   the pledge of its faith in Christ, becomes free from all sin, fearless of
   death, safe from hell, and endowed with the eternal righteousness, life and
   salvation of its husband Christ.”

   It is essential to dwell upon these passages, since, the force of the
   Reformer’s great doctrine cannot possibly be apprehended as long as he is
   supposed to attribute the efficacy of which he speaks to any inherent
   quality in the human heart itself. It is the word and promise of God which
   is the creative force. But this summons a man into a sphere above this
   world, bids him rest upon the divine love which speaks to him, and places
   him on the eternal foundation of a direct covenant with God Himself in
   Christ. As in the Theses, so in this Treatise, Luther reiterates that it in
   no way implies exemption from the discipline of suffering. “Yea,” he says,
   “the more of a Christian any man is, to so many the more evils, sufferings,
   and deaths is he subject; as we see in the first place in Christ the
   first-born and in all His holy brethren.” The power of which he speaks is a
   spiritual one “which rules in the midst of enemies, in the midst of
   distresses. It is nothing else than that strength is made perfect in my
   weakness, and that I can turn all things to the profit of my salvation; so
   that even the cross and death are compelled to serve me and to work together
   for my salvation.” “It is a lofty and eminent dignity, a true and Almighty
   dominion, a spiritual empire in which there is nothing so good, nothing so
   bad, as not to work together for my good, if only I believe.”

   If we compare this language with those conceptions of spiritual terror by
   which Luther had been driven into a monastery, and under which, like so many
   in his age, he had groaned and struggled in despair, we can appreciate the
   immense deliverance which he had experienced. The Divine promise had lifted
   him “out of darkness and out of the shadow of death, and had broken his
   bonds in sunder.” It is this which is the source of the undaunted and joyful
   faith which marks the whole of the Reformer’s public career. “Whose
   heart,” he exclaims, “would not rejoice in its inmost core at hearing these
   things? Whose heart, on receiving so great a consolation, would not become
   sweet with the love of Christ: a love to which it can never attain by any
   laws or works? Who can injure such a heart, or make it afraid? If the
   consciousness of sin, or the horror of death rush in upon it, it is prepared
   to hope in the Lord, and is fearless of these evils and undisturbed, until
   it shall look down upon its enemies.” Such a conviction, uttered in such
   burning language, lifted the same cloud of darkness and fear from the hearts
   of the common people of that day, and was welcomed as good tidings of great
   joy by multitudes of burdened and terror-stricken hearts. Nothing is more
   characteristic of Luther’s preaching, and of the Reformers who follow him,
   than the sense they display that they have before them souls “weary and
   heavy-laden.” Their language presupposes the prevalence of that atmosphere
   of spiritual apprehension and gloom already described, and their grand aim
   is to lead men out of it into the joy and peace and liberty of the Gospel.
   The consequence is that a new confidence, hope and energy is infused into
   the moral and spiritual world of that day. The tone of unbounded joy and
   hope which marks the earliest Christian literature, particularly in the
   Apostolic Fathers, re-appears in such a Treatise as we are considering, and
   in the whole religious thought of the Reformers; and it would almost seem as
   if the long agony of the Middle Ages had but enhanced the joy of the final
   deliverance.

   It is unnecessary, for our present purpose, to dwell long upon the second
   point of the Treatise, in which Luther illustrates his second proposition
   that “a Christian man is the most dutiful servant of all and subject to
   every one.” It will be enough to observe that Luther is just as earnest in
   insisting upon the application of faith in the duties of charity and
   self-discipline as upon the primary importance of faith itself. The spirit
   of faith, he says, “applies itself with cheerfulness and zeal” to restrain
   and repress the impulses of the lower nature. “Here works begin; here a man
   must not take his ease; here he must give heed to exercise his body by
   fastings, watchings, labour, and other reasonable discipline, so that it may
   be subdued to the spirit, and obey and conform itself to the inner man and
   to faith.” Similarly, he will give himself up to the service of others, and
   it is partly with a view to rendering them such service that he will
   discipline his body and keep it in due energy and soundness. He starts from
   the belief that God, without merit on his part, has of his pure and free
   mercy bestowed on him, an unworthy creature, all the riches of justification
   and salvation in Christ, so that he is no longer in want of anything except
   of faith to believe that this is so. For such a Father, then, who has
   overwhelmed him with these inestimable riches of His, must he not freely,
   cheerfully, and from voluntary zeal, do all that he knows will be pleasing
   to Him and acceptable in His sight? “I will, therefore,” he says, “give
   myself as a sort of Christ to my neighbour, as Christ has given Himself to
   me; and will do nothing in this life except what I see will be needful,
   advantageous and wholesome for my neighbour, since by faith I abound in all
   good things in Christ.” These practical considerations will afford the
   measure by which a man determines the discipline to which he subjects
   himself, and the ceremonies which he observes. They will not be observed for
   their own sake, but as means to an end, and therefore will never be
   practised in excess, as though there were some merit in the performance of
   them. They are like the scaffoldings of builders, valuable only as a
   temporary assistance, in the construction of the building itself. “We do not
   condemn works and ceremonies; nay, we set the highest value on them. We only
   condemn that opinion of works which regards them as constituting true
   righteousness.” In asserting these principles, Luther was certainly putting
   the axe to the root of the portentous growth of ascetic and ceremonial
   observances which prevailed in his day, and which were too generally
   regarded as of the very essence of religion. He enabled men, as it were, to
   look on such ceremonies from the outside, as a thing external to them, and
   to reduce or rearrange them with a simple view to practical usefulness. But
   no more earnest exhortations to due self-discipline, and to true charity,
   could well be found than are contained in the second part of the De
   Libertate

   It will be evident, however, what a powerful instrument of reformation was
   placed in men’s hands by the principles of this Treatise. Every Christian
   man, by virtue of the promise of Christ, was proclaimed free, so far as the
   eternal necessities of his soul were concerned, from all external and human
   conditions whatever. Nothing, indeed, was further from Luther’s intention or
   inclination than the overthrow of existing order, or the disparagement of
   any existing authority which could be reasonably justified. His letter to
   Pope Leo, prefixed to the Treatise we have been considering, shows that
   while denouncing unsparingly the abuses of the Court of Rome, he was sincere
   in his deference to the See of Rome itself. But the principle of
   justification enabled him to proclaim that if that See or any existing
   Church authority, misused its power, and refused to reform abuses, then, in
   the last resort, the soul of man could do without it. In that day at all
   events—and perhaps in our own to a greater extent than is sometimes
   supposed—this conviction supplied the fulcrum which was essential for any
   effectual reforming movement. As is observed by the Church historian
   Gieseler, in his admirable account of the early history of the Reformation,
   the Papacy had ever found its strongest support in the people at large. In
   spite of all the discontent and disgust provoked by the corruption of the
   Church and the clergy, an enormous though indefinite authority was still
   popularly attributed to the Pope and the ecclesiastical hierarchy. The Pope
   was believed to be in some sense or other the supreme administrator of
   spiritual powers which were effectual in the next world as well as in the
   present; and consequently when any controversy with the Church came to a
   crisis, men shrank from direct defiance of the Papal authority. They did not
   feel that they had any firm ground on which they could stand if they
   incurred its formal condemnation; and thus it always had at its command, in
   the strongest possible sense, the ultima ratio of rulers. The convictions to
   which Luther had been led at once annihilated these pretensions. “One thing
   and one alone,” he declared, “is necessary for life, justification and
   Christian liberty, and that is, the most holy word of God, the Gospel of
   Christ.” As we have seen, he proclaimed it “for certain, and firmly
   established, that the soul can do without everything except the word of
   God.” It is the mission of the Christian ministry, in its administration of
   the Word and Sacraments, to convey this Gospel to the soul, and to arouse a
   corresponding faith. But the promise is not annexed indissolubly to that
   administration, and the only invariable rule of salvation is that “the just
   shall live by faith.” By this principle, that vague fear of the spiritual
   powers of the hierarchy was removed, and men were endowed with real
   Christian liberty.

   But the principle went still further; for it vindicated for the laity the
   possession of spiritual faculties and powers the same in kind as those of
   the clergy. All Christian men are admitted to the privilege of priesthood,
   and are “worthy to appear before God to pray for others, and to teach one
   another mutually the things which are of God.” In case of necessity, as is
   universally recognized, Baptism can be validly administered by lay hands,
   and English Divines, of the most unimpeachable authority on the subject,
   have similarly recognized that the valid administration of the Holy
   Communion is not dependent on the ordination of the minister by Episcopal
   authority. [4] Luther urges accordingly that all Christians possess
   virtually the capacities which, as a matter of order, are commonly
   restricted to the clergy. Whether that restriction is properly dependent
   upon regular devolution from Apostolic authority, or whether the ministerial
   commission can be sufficiently conferred by appointment from the Christian
   community or congregation as a whole, becomes on this principle a secondary
   point. Luther pronounced with the utmost decision in favour of the latter
   alternative; but the essential element of his teaching is independent of
   this question. By whatever right the exercise of the ministry may be
   restricted to a particular body of men, what he asserted was that the
   functions of the clergy are simply ministerial, and that they do but
   exercise, on behalf of all, powers which all virtually possess. This
   principle Luther proceeded to assert in the first of the Treatises
   translated in this volume, the “Address to the Christian Nobility of the
   German Nation respecting the Reformation of the Christian Estate.” This
   Treatise is perhaps the one which appealed most widely and directly to the
   German nation at large. Luther completed it at the very moment when the Bull
   of excommunication against him was being prepared, and it contributed,
   perhaps more than anything, to paralyze the influence of that Bull with the
   mass of the people and their lay leaders. It appeared in August, 1520, and
   by the 18th of that month more than four thousand copies had been already
   dispersed—a prodigious circulation, considering the state of literature at
   that day. The reader, however, will not be surprised at this popularity of
   the Treatise when he sees with what astonishing vigour, frankness, humour,
   good sense, and at the same time intense moral indignation, Luther denounces
   in it the corruptions of the Church, and the injuries inflicted by the Court
   of Rome on the German people. So tremendous an indictment, sustained with
   such intense and concentrated force, could hardly be paralleled in
   literature. The truth of the charges alleged in it could be amply sustained
   by reference to Erasmus’s works alone, particularly to the Encomium Moriæ;
   but Erasmus lacked alike the moral energy necessary to rouse the action of
   the laity, and the spiritual insight necessary to justify that action.
   Luther possessed both; and it was the combination of the two which rendered
   him so mighty a force. It is this perhaps which essentially distinguishes
   him from previous reformers. They attacked particular errors and abuses, and
   deserve unbounded honour for the protests they raised, and Wycliff in
   particular merits the homage of Englishmen as one of the chief motive powers
   in the first reforming movement. But they did not assert, at least with
   sufficient clearness, the central principle without which all reform was
   impracticable—that of the equal rights of laity and clergy, and of the
   soul’s independence of all human power, by virtue of the truth of
   Justification by Faith. Luther’s doctrine of Christian liberty was the
   emancipation alike of individuals and of the laity at large. It vindicated
   for the whole lay estate, and for all ranks and conditions of lay life, a
   spiritual dignity, and a place in the spiritual life of the Church. It
   restored a sense of independent responsibility to all natural authorities;
   and it reasserted the sacredness of all natural relations. Practically, even
   if not theoretically, the Roman system had disparaged the ordinary relations
   of life as compared with the so-called “religious” or ecclesiastical.
   Luther, by placing all men and women on the same spiritual standing ground,
   swept away any such privileges; and gave men as clear a conscience, and as
   great a sense of spiritual dignity, in the ordinary duties of marriage, of
   fatherhood, and in the common offices of life, as in any ecclesiastical
   order.

   The “Address to the Nobility of the German Nation” exhibits these
   principles, and their application to the practical problems of the day, in
   the most vigorous and popular form; and if some expressions appear too
   sweeping and violent, due allowance must be made for the necessity which
   Luther must have felt of appealing with the utmost breadth and force to the
   popular mind. But it remains to consider a further aspect of these
   principles which is illustrated by the third Treatise translated in this
   volume—that on the “Babylonish Captivity of the Church.” Luther, as has been
   seen, was appealing to laity and clergy alike, on the ground of their
   spiritual freedom, to abolish the abuses of the Roman Church. But it became
   at once a momentous question by what principles the exercise of that liberty
   was to be guided, and within what limits it was to be exerted. In a very
   short time fanatics sprung up, who claimed to exercise such liberty without
   any restrictions at all, and who refused to recognize any standard but that
   of their own supposed inspiration. But the service which Luther rendered in
   repelling such abuses of his great doctrine was only second to that of
   establishing the doctrine itself. The rule of faith and practice on which he
   insisted was indeed necessarily involved in his primary principle. Faith, as
   has been seen, was with him no abstract quality, but was simply a response
   to the word and promise of God. That word, accordingly, in its various
   forms, was in Luther’s mind the sole creative power of the Christian life.
   In the form of a simple promise, it is the basis of justification and of our
   whole spiritual existence; and similarly in its more general form, as
   recorded in the Holy Scriptures, it contains all truths, alike of belief and
   of practice, which are essential to salvation here and hereafter. The word
   of God, in whatever form, whether a simple promise, or a promise embodied in
   a Sacrament, or a series of revelations made by God’s Spirit to the soul of
   man, as recorded in the Bible, is the grand reality which, in Luther’s view,
   dwarfed all other realities on earth. It must needs do so, if it be a
   reality at all; but no one has ever grasped this truth with such intense
   insight as Luther. Consequently, in his view, the Anabaptist, who held
   himself emancipated from the authority of God’s word on the one side, was as
   grievously in error as the Romanist on the other, who superseded its
   authority by that of the Church; and in applying his great principle and
   working out the Reformation, Luther’s task consisted in upholding the due
   authority of the Scriptures against the extremes on both sides.

   Now in the Treatise on the Babylonish Captivity of the Church he applies
   this rule, in connection with his main principle, to the elaborate
   sacramental system of the Church of Rome. Of the seven sacraments recognised
   by that church, he recognizes, strictly speaking, only two, Baptism and the
   Lord’s Supper; and the connection of this conclusion with the central truth
   he was asserting is a point of deep interest. Here, too, the one
   consideration which overpowers every other in his view is the supreme import
   of a promise or word of God. But there are two institutions under the Gospel
   which are distinguished from all others by a visible sign, instituted by
   Christ Himself, as a pledge of the Divine promise. A sign so instituted, and
   with such a purpose, constituted a peculiarly precious form of those Divine
   promises which are the life of the soul; and for the same reason that the
   Divine word and the Divine promise are supreme in all other instances, so
   must these be supreme and unique among ceremonies. The distinction, by which
   the two Sarcaments acknowledged by the Reformed Churches are separated from
   the remaining five of the Roman Church, is thus no question of names but of
   things. It was a question whether a ceremony instituted by Christ’s own
   command, and embodying His own promise in a visible pledge, could for a
   moment be put on the same level with ceremonies, however edifying, which had
   been established solely by the authority or custom of the Church. It was of
   the essence of Luther’s teaching to assert a paramount distinction between
   these classes of ceremonies and to elevate the two Divine pledges of
   forgiveness and spiritual life to a height immeasurably superior to all
   other institutions. He hesitates, indeed, whether to allow an exception in
   favour of Absolution, as conveying undoubtedly a direct promise from Christ;
   but he finally decides against it, on the ground that it is without any
   visible and divinely appointed sign, and is after all only an application of
   the Sacrament of Baptism.

   If, moreover, the force of his argument on this subject is to be
   apprehended, due attention must be paid to the efficacy which he thus
   attributes to the two Sacraments. The cardinal point on which he insists in
   respect to them is that they are direct pledges from God, through Christ,
   and thus contain the whole virtue of the most solemn Divine promises. They
   are, as it were, the sign and seal of those promises. They are messages from
   God, not mere acts of devotion on the part of man. In Baptism the point of
   importance is not that men dedicate themselves or their children to Him, but
   that He, through His minister, gives them a promise and a pledge of His
   forgiveness, and of His Fatherly good will. Similarly in the Holy Communion
   the most important point is not the offering made on the part of man, but
   the promise and assurance of communion with the Body and Blood of Christ,
   made on the part of God. It is this which constitutes the radical
   distinction between the Lutheran and the so-called Zwinglian view of the
   Sacraments. Under the latter view they are ceremonies which embody and
   arouse due feelings on the part of men. On the former principle, they are
   ceremonies which embody direct messages and promises from God.

   It may be worth while to observe in passing the position which Luther
   assumes towards the doctrine of Transubstantiation. What he is concerned to
   maintain is that there is a Real Presence in the Sacrament. All he is
   concerned to deny is that Transubstantiation is the necessary explanation of
   that Presence. In other words, it is not necessary to believe in
   Transubstantiation in order to believe in the Real Presence. There seems a
   clear distinction between this view and the formal doctrine of
   Consubstantiation as afterwards elaborated by Lutheran divines; and
   Luther’s caution, at least in this Treatise, in dealing with so difficult a
   point, is eminently characteristic of the real moderation with which he
   formed his views, as distinguished from the energy with which he asserted
   them. Another interesting point in this Treatise is the urgency with which
   he protests against the artificial restraints upon the freedom of marriage
   which had been imposed by the Roman See. It would have been too much to
   expect that in applying, single-handed, to so difficult a subject as
   marriage, the rule of rejecting every restriction not expressly declared in
   the Scriptures, Luther should have avoided mistakes. But they are at least
   insignificant in comparison with the value of the principle he asserted,
   that all questions of the marriage relation should be subjected to the
   authority of Holy Scripture alone. That principle provided, by its inherent
   force, a remedy for any errors in particulars which Luther or any individual
   divine might commit. The Roman principle, on the contrary, admitted of the
   most scandalous and unlimited elasticity; and of all the charges brought by
   Roman controversialists against Luther’s conduct, none is marked by such
   effrontery as their accusations on this point. While there are few
   dispensations which their Church is not prepared, for what it considers due
   causes, to allow, Luther recalled men’s consciences to the Divine law on the
   subject. He reasserted the true dignity and sanctity of the marriage
   relation, and established the rule of Holy Scripture as the standard for its
   due control.

   Such are the main truths asserted in the Treatises translated in this
   volume, and it is but recognising an historical fact to designate them
   “First Principles of the Reformation.” From them, and by means of them, the
   whole of the subsequent movement was worked out. They were applied in
   different countries in different ways; and we are justly proud in this
   country of the wisdom and moderation exhibited by our Reformers. But it
   ought never to be forgotten that for the assertion of the principles
   themselves, we, like the rest of Europe, are indebted to the genius and the
   courage of Luther. All of those principles—Justification by Faith, Christian
   Liberty, the spiritual rights and powers of the Laity, the true character of
   the Sacraments, the supremacy of the Holy Scriptures as the supreme standard
   of belief and practice—were asserted by the Reformer, as the Treatises in
   this volume bear testimony, almost simultaneously, in the latter half of the
   year 1520. At the time he asserted them, the Roman Church was still in full
   power; and the year after he had to face the whole authority of the Papacy
   and of the Empire, and to decide whether, at the risk of a fate like that of
   Huss, he would stand by these truths. These were the truths—the cardinal
   principles of the whole subsequent Reformation, which he was called on to
   abandon at Worms; and his refusal to act against his conscience at once
   translated them into vivid action and reality. It was one thing for
   Englishmen, several decades after 1520, to apply these principles with the
   wisdom and moderation of which we are proud. It was another thing to be the
   Horatius of that vital struggle. These grand facts speak for themselves, and
   need only to be understood in order to justify the unprecedented honours now
   being paid to the Reformer’s memory.

   It may not, however, be out of place to dwell in conclusion upon one
   essential characteristic of the Reformer’s position, which is in danger at
   the present day of being disregarded. The general effect of this teaching
   upon the condition of the world is evident. It restored to the people at
   large, to rulers and to ruled, to clergy and laity alike, complete
   independence of the existing ecclesiastical system, within the limits of the
   revelation contained in the Holy Scriptures. In a word, in Luther’s own
   phrase, it established Christian Liberty. But the qualification is emphatic,
   and it would be wholly to misunderstand Luther if it were disregarded.
   Attempts are made at the present day to represent him as a pioneer of
   absolute liberty, and to treat it as a mere accident of his teaching and his
   system that he stopped short where he did. But on the contrary, the
   limitation is of the very essence of his teaching, because that teaching is
   based on the supremacy and sufficiency of the Divine word and the Divine
   promise. If there were no such word and promise, no such Divine revelation,
   and no living God to bring it home to men’s hearts, and to enforce His own
   laws, Luther felt that his protest against existing authority, usurped and
   tyrannical as it might be, would have been perilous in the extreme. But when
   men shrank from the boldness of his proclamation, and urged that he was
   overthrowing the foundations of Society, his reply was that he was recalling
   them to the true foundations of Society, and that God, if they would have
   faith in Him, would protect His own word and will. The very essence of his
   teaching is summed up in the lines of his great Psalm:


   “Das Wort sie sollen lassen stahn,

   Und kein Dank dazu haben,

   Er ist bei uns wohl auf dem Plan

   Mit seinem Geist und Gaben.”

   Luther believed that God had laid down the laws which were essential to the
   due guidance of human nature, that he had prescribed sufficiently the limits
   within which that nature might range, and had indicated the trees of which
   it could not safely eat. To erect any rules beyond these as of general
   obligation, to restrict the free play of nature by any other limitations, he
   treated as an unjust violation of liberty, which would provoke a dangerous
   reaction. But let men be brought face to face with God, and with His
   reasonable and merciful laws, let them be taught that He is their Father,
   that all His restrictions are for their benefit, all His punishments for
   their reformation, all His restraints on liberty for their ultimate good,
   and you have then established an authority which cannot be shaken, and under
   which human nature may be safely left to develop. In this faith, but in this
   alone, he let loose men’s natural instincts, he taught men that married
   life, and lay life, and all lawful occupations, were holy and divine,
   provided they were carried on in faith and in obedience to God’s will. The
   result was a burst of new life wherever the Reformation was adopted, alike
   in national energies, in literature, in all social developments, and in
   natural science. But while we prize and celebrate the liberty thus won, let
   us beware of forgetting, or allowing others to forget, that it is
   essentially a Christian Liberty, and that no other Liberty is really free.
   Luther’s whole work, and his whole power, lay in his recognition of our
   personal relation to God, and of a direct revelation, promise, and command,
   given to us by God. Any influences, under whatever colour, which tend to
   obscure the reality of that revelation, which would substitute for it any
   mere natural laws or forces, are undoing Luther’s work, and contradicting
   his most essential principles. If he was a great Reformer, it was because he
   was a great divine; if he was a friend of the people, it was because he was
   the friend of God.
     _________________________________________________________________

   [1] Letters, edited by De Wette, i. 27.

   [2] It is a pleasure to be able to refer for this passage to the first
   volume of the new Critical Edition of Luther’s works, just published in
   Germany, page 613, line 21. This magnificent edition, prepared under the
   patronage of the German Emperor, is the best of all contributions to the
   present Commemoration. It must supersede all other editions, and it ought to
   find a place in all considerable libraries in England. A translation of the
   passage in question will be found in the Bampton Lectures of the present
   writer, p. 186.

   [3] Letters, edited by De Wette, i. p. 19.

   [4] See, for instance, Bp. Cosin’s Works, Appendix, vol. i., 31, in the
   Library of Anglo-Catholic Theology.
     _________________________________________________________________

    II.

THE POLITICAL COURSE

    OF THE

REFORMATION IN GERMANY.

  (1517–1546.)

  By PROFESSOR BUCHHEIM.

THE POLITICAL COURSE OF THE REFORMATION

  I.

   THERE is hardly any instance on record in the annals of history of a single
   peaceful event having exercised such a lasting and baneful influence on the
   destinies of a nation, as the coronation of Charles the Great at Rome
   towards the close of the eighth century. By placing the Imperial crown on
   the head of the then most powerful ruler in Christendom, Pope Leo III.
   symbolically established a spiritual supremacy over the whole Christian
   world, but more especially over Germany proper. It is true it was alleged
   that the new Cæsar was to be considered the secular head of the Christian
   world by the side of the spiritual head, but as it was the latter who
   crowned the former, it was evident that the sovereign pontiff arrogated to
   himself superior authority over the sovereign monarch.

   Another disadvantage which resulted from that coronation was the peculiar
   nature of the newly created dignity, which became manifest by the
   designation, applied to Germany, of the “Holy Roman Empire of the German
   nation.” This self-contradictory title was intended to convey the notion
   that the German Emperors were—through transmission from the Greeks—the heirs
   and successors of the Roman Cæsars. They were not to be German sovereigns of
   the German monarchy, but Roman Emperors of the German Empire. [5]

   It is true the ancient German institution of royalty was not actually
   abolished, but it was so much eclipsed by the more pompous, though recent
   dignity, that in the course of time its former existence was almost entirely
   forgotten, or at least looked upon with contempt; so much so, that a German
   sovereign of the fourteenth century—Henry VII.—considered it an insult to be
   addressed as “King of Germany,” instead of as “King of the Romans.” Even the
   German Electoral Princes claimed to exercise the function of “Roman
   Senators.” The foreign stamp thus imprinted upon Germany at the time when
   she had only just begun to emerge from a state of barbarism had, therefore,
   a most pernicious influence on the Germans, diverting as it did the free
   development of their national character from its natural course. Thus it may
   be truly said, that on Christmas Eve of the year 799, Germany was conquered
   a second time, if not by the Romans, still by Rome.

   It was not long before the conflict between the two principal elements in
   the government of the world—the secular and the clerical—broke out in the
   two-headed Empire. This antagonism became manifest even under Charles the
   Great himself, in spite of the splendour of his reign, and the firmness and
   circumspection of his government. The encroachments of the clergy soon
   showed in what sense they understood the division of power. It was the
   practical application of the old fable about the lion’s share. Everything
   was to be done for the clergy, but without it nothing. This ambitious aim
   revealed itself more openly and effectively under the descendants of Charles
   the Great, the internal dissensions of whose reigns greatly facilitated the
   victory of the clerical order in their interference in secular matters.

   Under the powerful rule of Henry I. (919–936), surnamed “The Fowler,” or
   more appropriately “the founder of the German Empire,” and also under the
   still more splendid reign of his son, Otho the Great (936–973), nay, even
   under the first Frankish Emperors (1024–1056), the authority of the Roman
   hierarchy was considerably diminished, while on the other hand the influence
   of the German clergy at home had greatly increased; which circumstance was a
   powerful factor in the conflict between the iron Pope Gregory VII. and the
   impetuous and vacillating Emperor Henry IV. (1056–1106), and brought about
   in conjunction with the high-handed dealings of the self-dubbed “Roman
   Senators” of Germany, the degradation of the German Empire. The Papacy was
   now in the zenith of its power and glory, so that Gregory VII. could
   boastingly compare the Pope to the sun, and the Emperor to the moon; and
   although Henry IV. ultimately succeeded in taking revenge for his
   humiliation at Canossa, he never could wipe out its shame, and what is more,
   he was unable to suppress or eradicate the ideas represented by his defeated
   enemy, which had taken a firm hold on the minds of men. People believed in
   the supremacy of the Pope, even when he was driven from his seat of
   government; for his realm was of a spiritual kind and he had his invisible
   throne, as it were, in the hearts of Christian believers. An erring Pope was
   still the visible representative of the Church. The priests for the most
   part remained faithful to him under all circumstances. Such, however, was
   not the case with the Emperors and the Princes. In the first instance the
   former had no absolute power; secondly, they were elected by men, who
   considered themselves their equals, and lastly from the moment they lost
   their throne—no matter what the reasons were—they ceased to have a claim on
   the obedience of the people. The priests wished for a powerful Pope, because
   he was the natural guardian of their interests, whilst the German Princes
   objected to a powerful Emperor, because they trembled for their own
   independence and local authority.

   If the German Emperors had not been constantly chasing the phantom of royal
   dignity in Italy, in order to be—plausibly at least—entitled to the
   vain-glorious designation of “Roman Kings,” they might have directed their
   whole energy to the consolidation of their power at home, and have held
   their own against Popes and Prince-Electors. Unfortunately, however, they
   were constantly attracted by the delusive brilliancy of possessions in
   Italy, as if by an ignis fatuus; thus leading on the best forces of Germany
   to moral and physical ruin, and leaving their native country an easy prey to
   scheming priests and ambitious nobles. The result was that, towards the end
   of the eleventh century, the Emperor of Germany had neither any influence on
   the priests, who now depended entirely upon Rome, nor any power over the
   nobles, whose fiefs had become hereditary; nor did he possess any
   considerable domains, or actual revenue in his Imperial capacity. He had
   nothing but the high-sounding titles of successor of the Cæsars and of ruler
   of the whole Christian world.

   As a matter of course under these circumstances all progress of national
   life and culture was impeded. It did not spring spontaneously from within,
   nor did it receive any impulse from without. The Germans did not benefit
   intellectually in any way by their contact with the Italians. The conquered
   have often times become the teachers of their conquerors; but only when the
   latter settled in the vanquished country and made it their home. The German
   hordes, however, who crossed the Alps at the behests of their sovereigns,
   and urged on by the desire for adventure, warfare, and rapine, never
   permanently settled, as a body, in the flowery plains and flourishing towns
   of Italy. Numbers of those who survived the sanguinary battles fought in
   Italy, perished in the unused climate; the others returned home, frequently
   enriched by plunder and generally tainted by depraved morals. Thus the
   Germans did not even derive that small advantage from their connection with
   the Italians—who at that time did not themselves possess any literature or
   culture in the highest sense of the word—which a permanent settlement in
   Italy would have conferred on them.

   The intellectual life of the Germans did not begin to flourish before the
   times of the Hohenstaufen (1138–1254). Unfortunately both Frederick I.
   (Barbarossa) and Frederick II. were almost constantly engaged in warfare
   with the Popes and the Italians, and both monarchs, especially the latter,
   utterly neglected the internal affairs of Germany, which country became a
   prey of the sanguinary contest between Guelphs and Ghibellines. The result
   was that Conrad IV., the last king from the Hohenstaufen dynasty in Germany,
   ruled without even a shadow of royal authority, and on his death, in 1254,
   the dissolution of the old German Empire may be said to have been complete.

   During the lawless times of the Interregnum (1254–1273) the power of the
   German Princes consolidated itself more and more amidst the general anarchy.
   Order was restored, however, by Rudolf von Hapsburg (1273–1291), who
   concerned himself with the affairs of the country only. He had a right
   notion of what a King of Germany should be, and emancipated her—though
   temporarily only—from the fatal connection as an Empire with Rome. More than
   half a century later the Electoral Princes went a step further in this
   direction, by the formation of the Kurverein (1338) or “Election Union,” of
   Rhens, when the principle was adopted that the election of German Kings
   depended upon the Electoral Princes alone, and that the Pope had no voice
   whatever in the matter. This patriotic proceeding received, however, a
   counter-check in the unworthy dealings of the mercenary Charles IV.
   (1347–1378), who repaired to Rome to receive there the crown from the Pope.
   He little thought that by resuming the connection with Rome he conjured up
   the greatest danger for his own son and successor, Wenceslaus, who was
   deposed through the conspiracy of Boniface IX. with the priests, and his
   influence over the Electoral Princes.

   In the course of time a new power—the third Estate—arose in Germany; namely,
   the Middle Classes as represented by the thriving cities of the Empire. The
   burghers generally sided with the Emperors, to whom they looked up as their
   natural protectors against the exactions of priests and nobles. But being
   imbued with a true mercantile spirit, they did not give away their good will
   for nothing; they asked for sundry privileges as compensating equivalents.
   The Emperors had, therefore, now to contend against three powerful elements,
   the clergy, the nobles, and the burghers. The first were, through their
   chief representatives—as we have seen—at all times the most dangerous
   antagonists to Imperial authority, and generally achieved the victory in
   their contests with it. It was only during the time in which the Papacy had
   transferred its seat of government to Avignon, that the Romish hierarchy
   received a check, chiefly in consequence of the depravity of the Papal Court
   and its surroundings. With the return of the Popes to Rome by the Decree of
   the Council of Constance (1411–1418), the Papacy recovered its former
   ground; but this recovery of the lost authority was external only, for with
   the cruel execution of John Huss—which no sensible Roman Catholic ever
   thought of justifying—the Papacy received a most fatal blow. That scandalous
   crime could not have been committed at a more unpropitious time both for the
   Roman hierarchy and the dignity of the Councils, which latter pretended, at
   times at least, to have received their mandate immediately from Christ, as
   the sovereign representatives of the universal Roman Catholic Church. The
   reforms in the Church, advocated by the celebrated French theologians
   Cardinal Peter d’Ailly and Chancellor John Gerson, had already met with the
   approval of numerous thinking men, and the doctrines of Wycliffe had also
   found, through the teaching of John Huss and his disciples, a sympathetic
   echo in the hearts of a large portion of the Christian community. Had the
   Council of Constance shown itself, not magnanimous, but merely just, towards
   the Bohemian Reformer, the ascendancy of the Councils, in general, over the
   Popes, would probably have been for ever established; whilst as it was, the
   next great Council—at Basle (1431–1449)—had to give way to the Pope, and the
   Roman hierarchy was once more re-established in its former strength and
   power.

   The results of the Councils of Constance and Basle were, however,
   particularly disastrous to Germany. The former brought about the terrible
   wars of the Hussites, while the latter was the indirect cause of placing the
   Imperial power in the hands of Frederick III. (1440–1493), who was a staunch
   adherent of the Pope and delivered over to him the few rights and privileges
   which were still left to the German Empire. The Imperial dignity existed now
   in name only; for Frederick, who, as Heeren says, “had slumbered away more
   than half a century on the throne,” cared so little for Germany proper, that
   he remained absent from it for the space of full twenty-seven years. No
   wonder then that whilst the Imperial authority sank to the lowest level, the
   Papal supremacy rose higher than ever, and the Emperor became nothing more
   than the satellite of the Pope. Under these circumstances the German Princes
   began to raise the voice of opposition against their sluggish head; but as
   he was supported by the influential and subtle Pius II., all their efforts
   to make a stand against the encroachments of the Church were in vain.

   A new order of things arose, however, when Maximilian, the son of Frederick
   III., was elected “Roman King” in 1486 by the Electoral Princes. The young
   King acquiesced in the constitutional demands of the Estates for concessions
   in return for various grants. Feuds were abolished for ever, an independent
   Chamber of Justice, Kammergericht, was established, and Germany received a
   new Imperial constitution. Nevertheless there were almost constant conflicts
   between the adventurous Maximilian and the Imperial Estates, so that the
   national unity, earnestly aimed at by both parties, could not be effected,
   in consequence of the absence of any connecting link between them. The only
   step which Maximilian took for the partial emancipation of Germany was his
   assumption of the title of “elected King of Rome” without being crowned by
   the Pope, and what is more, he also adopted the ancient title of King of
   Germany. This designation was, however, not intended to convey at the same
   time the notion of a severance from Rome in spiritual matters. This was now
   soon to be accomplished, but not by one bearing the imaginary crown of the
   Cæsars, nor by the decrees of a stately assembly. It was destined for one
   lowly born to break the fatal bondage in which Germany had been for
   centuries kept in durance vile by Rome.

  II.

   One of the few blessings which Germany derived in former times from her
   otherwise deplorable decentralization, was the establishment, throughout the
   country, of educational and other beneficial institutions, which even found
   their way into the most obscure nooks and corners, where under other
   political conditions no Government would have thought of founding any
   establishment of the kind. This is the reason why culture and learning—but
   more especially the latter—spread more generally in Germany than in other
   countries. What great centralized Government would ever have chosen the
   insignificant place of Wittenberg, which resembled more a village than a
   town, as the seat of an University? And this, too, by the side of the
   Universities of Leipzig and Erfurt which already enjoyed a high reputation
   and were well endowed? Yet this was done by the Prince Elector of Saxony,
   Frederick, surnamed the Wise. He had himself received a learned education,
   and it was his legitimate ambition to see his petty electoral principality
   adorned by a High School. The Elector himself was, as is well known, very
   poor. The only means at his disposal for such a learned foundation were the
   proceeds from the sale of Indulgences in his Electorate, which had been
   collected in 1501 for the purpose of a war against the Turks. Those moneys
   were deposited with him, and he refused to give them up to the Pope even at
   the intercession of the Emperor, unless they were employed for the purpose
   for which they had been collected. The war against the Turks was not
   undertaken at the time, and so Frederick employed the money for the
   endowment of the new University. It was also a significant fact, that
   Wittenberg was the first German University which did not receive its
   “Charter” from the Pope, but from the then Emperor of Germany—Maximilian I.
   The Prince Elector hit further upon the expedient of connecting several
   clerical benefices with some of the professorial chairs, and he hoped,
   moreover, that the members of the Augustine Order, settled at Wittenberg,
   would furnish some teachers for the learned institution, which was
   established by him in 1502. The connection of the new University with that
   Order was in many respects an intimate one. It was specially dedicated to
   St. Augustine; and Staupitz, the vicar of that Order at Erfurt, was the
   first Dean of the Theological Faculty. Through his influence it was that
   several Augustine monks received a call to the University, and among those
   who responded was the monk Martin Luther.

   The early history of the poor miner’s son may, in fact, serve as an
   illustration of the wholesome spread of education throughout Germany. Poor
   as his parents were, he had received a learned education, and became, in
   consequence of the religious turn of his mind, a monk. It was then in his
   double capacity of scholar and priest that he became connected with the
   University of Wittenberg (1508), and composed, and sent forth into the
   world, his famous 95 Theses, [6] against the wholesale disposal of
   Indulgences (31st Oct., 1517). Luther issued his challenge to the
   theological world from religious motives only, and it so happened that it
   fully coincided with the political views of the Elector; but, to the credit
   of both Prince and monk, it should be remembered that there was no mutual
   understanding between them. They had never seen each other before the
   publication of the 95 Theses; nor did they correspond on the subject,
   although they were of one accord about it. Frederick always viewed it with
   disfavour, and begrudged that such large amounts of money should be sent to
   Rome under the cloak of Indulgences, and we have seen how he had employed
   the proceeds resulting from their former sale. Now, however, he must have
   objected still more to the attempt to drain his poor country, because the
   object of the sale was not a holy war—if ever a war can be so called—but the
   alleged erection of St. Peter’s Church. If such was really the case, it
   might be truly said that Leo X. undermined the Chair of St. Peter for the
   sake of the Church of St. Peter. But people were incredulous. It was
   whispered, that the Pope required the money for the benefit of his family.
   Another disagreeable element in the whole transaction was the then commonly
   known fact, that the Archbishop of Mentz had actually “farmed” the sale of
   the Indulgences in his own episcopal territory on condition that one half of
   the proceeds should fall to his share. He had promised to bear the expenses
   of obtaining the Pall himself, and having borrowed a considerable amount of
   money from the celebrated house of Fugger, he allowed their agents to travel
   about in company with the notorious Tetzel, as commercial controllers, and
   to take possession of half of the proceeds as they came in. Through this and
   other circumstances the affair assumed the ugly aspect of a very worldly and
   mercenary transaction, carried on in the meanest spirit. There was, besides,
   a tension between Frederick and the Prince Elector of Mentz; it was,
   therefore, natural that the step which Luther had taken should meet with his
   tacit approval. More than this Luther did not expect, for he well knew the
   lethargic character of Frederick; but under the circumstances that was quite
   sufficient, for the latter granted him shelter and protection, in spite of
   the urgent entreaties of zealots to deliver up the bold Augustinian monk at
   once to Rome.

   The defence of the 95 Theses, which Luther transmitted to the Pope, was of
   no avail; for Leo X., urged by the fanatical Dominican Prierias—so notorious
   from the Reuchlin trial—cited the Wittenberg monk before an inquisitorial
   tribunal at Rome. Now for the first time it was seen how fortunate it was
   for Luther and the cause he defended, that he had found a prudent and humane
   protector in the Prince who exercised sovereign power in his own limited
   territory. To repair to Rome under the accusation of heresy would have been
   like plunging with open eyes into an abyss. Confiding and courageous as
   Luther was, he saw this himself very clearly, and it was at his request that
   the Saxon Court preacher, Spalatin, who was one of his most constant and
   zealous friends, persuaded the Emperor Maximilian as well as the Prince
   Elector—both of whom were at that time (1518) at the Diet of Augsburg—that
   the accused monk should be arraigned before a German tribunal. Frederick
   readily acquiesced, although, as he repeatedly declared, he did not fully
   share the views of Luther; and the Emperor also consented, partly because he
   required the moral support of the Prince Elector at the approaching election
   of a successor in the Imperial dignity, and partly because he hoped one day
   to make use of the enlightened monk, in his endeavour to bring about the
   much-needed reforms in the Church. In this sense it undoubtedly was, that he
   said to Frederick’s councillor, Pfeffinger: “Luther is sure to begin a game
   with the priests. The Prince Elector should take good care of the monk, as
   he might one day be of use.” It seems, therefore, that both friends and foes
   recognised (at an early stage) the great capacity which still lay hidden in
   the insignificant-looking monk. The Papal Nuncio, Cajetan, discovered at
   once, in his interview with him at Augsburg (1518), that he had to do with a
   superior power, when he heard the conclusive and thoughtful arguments of the
   Augustinian monk, and saw the divine fire of genius flashing from his eyes;
   and his friends already considered him of importance sufficient to induce
   them to bring about his sudden escape at night-time.

   Urged by the wrathful Papal Legate not to disgrace the honour of his
   Electoral house by giving shelter to a heretic friar, Frederick, encouraged
   by his own University, drily replied that as no scholar, either in his own
   or in foreign lands, had as yet refuted the theories of Luther, he would
   continue to give him shelter until that was done. This was no subterfuge on
   the part of Frederick. It was the key-note of his conduct, from the
   beginning of the Reformation to the end of his own life, to have the
   teachings of Luther properly tested by a learned discussion. The Pope, being
   desirous of securing the Elector’s co-operation at the impending Imperial
   election, humoured his learned whim, and tried to win him over by unctuous
   kindliness. Frederick was still a staunch Roman Catholic. He possessed a
   regular treasure of reliques—partly brought home from the Holy Land—which
   were displayed for the spiritual benefit of the devout on certain occasions,
   and it was known that he was yearning for the acquisition of the Golden
   Rose. Leo X. bestowed, therefore, on him that mark of apostolic favour, and
   dispatched to him as his Nuncio the Elector’s own agent at Rome, Carl von
   Miltitz, a native of Saxony.

   What the imperious haughtiness of the pompous Papal Legate was unable to
   achieve was, partly at least, effected by the shrewd bonhomie of Miltitz. He
   imploringly appealed to Luther’s German good-nature, not to create any
   scandal in the Church, and after having agreed that the controversy should
   be submitted for investigation to the Archbishops of Würzburg and Treves, he
   obtained the promise of Luther to observe perfect silence on religious
   matters, provided his enemies would do the same, and to write an apologetic
   letter to the Pope. It is well known how badly the antagonists of Luther
   kept faith with him, and that he was obliged, in consequence, to break his
   conditionally promised silence, and to take part in the great public
   Disputation at Leipzig, in 1519. He now had to vindicate against Dr. Eck,
   his most bitter opponent, not only his own honour, but also that of his
   University, and this circumstance formed the subject of his justification
   before the Prince Elector, to whose personal esteem he attached the highest
   value. When, however, that Disputation ended, as is the case with most
   learned discussions, in something like a drawn battle, Luther was driven to
   a declaration virtually involving his secession from Rome.

  III.

   About the time when the celebrated Disputation was going on at Leipzig, in
   which two peasants’ sons—for Dr. Eck was, like Martin Luther, the son of a
   peasant—took the most prominent part, another momentous gathering took place
   at Frankfort-on-the-Main. The Emperor Maximilian had died on 12th January,
   1519, without being able to secure the succession in the royal dignity to
   his grandson Charles, Archduke of Austria and King of Spain and Naples. More
   than five months elapsed before the Electoral Princes assembled for the
   election of a new Emperor, and during that interval the “Vicariate of the
   Empire,” as it was styled, was put into the hands of Lewis V. of the
   Palatinate, and of Frederick the Wise, in accordance with a provision of the
   “Golden Bull,” which placed the Regency of the Empire, during a vacancy, in
   the hands of the rulers of those Electorates for the time being. The
   circumstance that the seat of the Imperial Government was at Wittenberg
   during the present short Interregnum bestowed not a little lustre both on
   Frederick and his University; but the work of the incipient Reformation was
   not particularly promoted by it, because it coincided with the truce which
   Luther faithfully kept until it was faithlessly broken by his antagonists.

   There were three aspirants to the Imperial throne of Germany. First and
   foremost Maximilian’s grandson Charles, Archduke of Austria; secondly,
   Francis I., King of France, and thirdly, Henry VIII. of England. The
   last-named monarch did not, however, seriously press his candidature. It was
   only when he saw the two other sovereigns contending for the prize that he
   deemed the moment favourable for securing it to himself. When he received,
   however, the practical hint that the barren honour would not be worth the
   trouble and the necessary expenditure, and when, moreover, it was taken into
   account, that since the introduction of Christianity into England this
   country did in no way belong to the “Holy Roman Empire,” he prudently
   retired from all competition. Not so the ambitious Francis I., who spared
   neither promises nor bribes to secure his election, and obtained a party
   among the Electoral Princes.

   If it should be asked, how it was actually possible that foreign kings ever
   thought of aspiring to a throne to which they had not even the shadow of a
   claim, the reason must be found in the above-mentioned circumstance, that
   the Imperial dignity of Germany was not a national institution, and that any
   Christian prince might think himself justified in aspiring to the crown of
   the “Holy Roman Empire,” accidentally bestowed upon the “German nation.”
   Were they not aware that in the thirteenth century two ecclesiastical
   Electoral Princes raised to the German throne, Richard of Cornwall and King
   Alfonso of Castile, respectively, in consideration of great bribes? And had
   not the French King sufficient wealth to buy the votes of both the secular
   and ecclesiastic Electoral Princes? He had, moreover, the precedent before
   him, that Philip VI. of Valois had, about a century before, endeavoured to
   transfer the dignity of the “Holy Roman Empire” from the Germans to the
   “Franks,” to whom it originally belonged.

   Both the French and Austrians lavishly distributed money in all directions.
   Frederick the Wise alone kept his hands pure, and he strictly prohibited
   even his officials and servants from accepting any presents. For a moment
   the Princes had turned their eyes to Frederick himself. But he had no
   confidence in his capability to sustain worthily and efficiently the
   functions incumbent upon the Imperial dignity. The Empire, as such, invested
   him with no material power and resources, and his own dynastic power was
   insignificant. How should he be able to hold his own against the ambitious
   and frequently turbulent Princes? Why, even under the “Imperial
   Vicariate,” the peace of the land was broken. He, therefore, declined the
   proffered honour, and the Princes, fearing lest the powerful French King
   should curb their independence, suddenly remembered that he was a foreign
   sovereign, and that in order to keep up the national freedom of the Empire,
   they should give the preference to the Archduke Charles, who was, partially
   at least, of German descent. The latter, to whom also Frederick of Saxony
   finally gave his vote, was accordingly chosen Emperor, and he soon proved
   that it is not always the kinship which constitutes the sympathetic bond
   between a sovereign and his subjects.

   The time which elapsed from the election of Charles to his arrival in
   Germany, more especially to his presence at the Diet of Augsburg in 1521,
   was most propitious for the spread of the work of Luther. It may be said
   that during that interval the Reformation assumed shape and form. Luther
   indefatigably continued to inculcate his religious principles on the minds
   of the people by sermons and numerous publications, and he found adherents
   so readily everywhere among all classes of the German nation, that
   Frederick, who still hoped the schism might be prevented by learned
   discussions, was of opinion, that if it should be attempted to suppress his
   teachings by force instead of by refutation, there would arise a great storm
   in Germany. Several distinguished members of the lower nobility, such as the
   brave Hutten and the martial Sickingen and many others, placed their swords
   at the disposal of Luther; the former was already active for him with the
   all-powerful weapon of the pen. Amidst this general commotion the humble
   Augustinian monk sent forth his powerful appeal, entitled: “To the Christian
   Nobility of the German Nation concerning the Reformation of the Christian
   Estate.” [7] This production, which is rightly considered as the manifesto
   of the Reformation, clearly shows that Luther not only saw the clerical
   abuses, but also the political disadvantages under which Germany laboured
   and groaned. He was not what we should call a politician, but, unlike so
   many of his learned countrymen, he had a true patriotic instinct. The mere
   title of the appeal seems already to contain a protest against the
   designation of Germany as the Holy Roman Empire. That he addressed his
   appeal to the “Nobility” in general is only an additional proof of the
   remarkable tact which guided him throughout his career.

   Some historians have blamed Luther for not having appealed to the
   “People.” But the reproach is wrong. The German people in general had no
   power whatever in those days. It only obtained in the course of time a voice
   in the management of public affairs through the Reformation. It was Luther
   who proclaimed the freedom of man, or rather the “Christian man.” The
   acknowledgment of political rights of the middle classes may, therefore, be
   said to date from the Reformation only. In appealing to the German Nobility,
   Luther addressed himself to the legitimate representatives of Germany; and
   he did so in the candid belief, that it was only necessary to open the eyes
   of those in power, in order to effect at once the abolition of any abuses.
   To address himself to the people, would have required his placing himself at
   the head of a revolution; but Luther was no revolutionist. It should also be
   remembered that a large number of noblemen had offered him support and
   shelter. Political power lay mainly in the hands of the nobles, who alone,
   in conjunction with the Emperor, could decide on the destiny of Germany. It
   is, however, a significant fact, that he wrote his appeal, not in Latin, but
   in German. In this way, indeed, he actually addressed himself to the German
   people.

   In the meantime Leo X. had hurled his Bull of excommunication against
   Luther. When it arrived at Wittenberg both the University and the Government
   of the Prince Elector decided to take no notice of it, and now it again
   became manifest what a powerful support Luther had found in Frederick. On
   his return journey from the coronation of Charles V. at Aix-la-Chapelle, in
   1520, the Papal Legates Aleander and Caraccioli demanded of the Elector, at
   Cologne, in the name of the Pope, to give effect to the Bull by burning the
   writings of Luther and punishing him as a heretic, or to deliver him to the
   Pope. The threat uttered on this occasion was certainly curious. In case the
   Papal Bull should not meet with ready obedience in Germany, the Legates
   menaced the country with the withdrawal of the title of the “Holy Roman
   Empire.” Germany would forfeit that dignity in the same way as the Greeks
   had lost it after having seceded from the Pope. A more fortunate fate, in
   truth, could not have befallen the German Empire than its total political
   severance from Rome; but in those days the empty glory of the baneful union
   was still highly valued, and so the Elector asked time to consider.

   Erasmus, whom Frederick consulted, clothed his opinion on the religious
   controversy in the humorous reply, “that Luther had sinned in two points: he
   had touched the crown of the Pope and the bellies of the monks.” In his
   interview with Spalatin he was still more explicit, by expressing his
   conviction, that the attacks against Luther arose simply from hatred against
   the enlightenment of science and from tyrannical presumption. He further
   agreed with Luther in insisting on the question being examined and tried by
   the tribunal of public discussion. We know that this opinion fully coincided
   with the views of the Elector, and his answer to the threatening Papal
   Legates ran in accordance with his views. His additional and often-repeated
   assurance, that he had never made common cause with Luther, and that he
   would greatly disapprove of it, if the latter wrote anything adverse to the
   Pope, was of the greatest importance. This declaration was more decisive
   than if he had acknowledged himself openly in favour of the Reformer; he
   would then have been considered as a biassed partizan, whilst now he only
   played the part of an impartial patron, who wished to see his protégé judged
   by a fair trial. On his return to Saxony, Frederick sent to Luther a
   reassuring message, and the latter continued his work by teaching, writing
   and preaching, unmolested and without remission.

   In other parts of Germany the Papal Bull was proclaimed with varying and
   unequal effect. Luther’s works were in the first instance burnt at Louvain,
   by command of Charles V., in his capacity of hereditary sovereign of the
   Netherlands. The same fate befell them at Cologne and Mentz. It will,
   therefore, readily be acknowledged that it was the Pope and his overzealous
   adherents who drove Luther to the committal of perhaps the boldest act ever
   accomplished by a single individual, more especially by one in Luther’s
   dependent position. By the public burning of the Papal Bull before the
   Elstergate of Wittenberg (1520), the act of secession from Rome was
   consummated. What no Emperor had dared before him, the humble Augustine monk
   accomplished courageously and deliberately. Well might he do so. He acted on
   conviction with that moral courage which knows no fear, and he had the
   German people at his back to support him. [8]

  IV.

   “Your majesty must go to Germany and show there some favour to a certain
   Martin Luther, who is at the Court of Saxony and causes anxiety to the Roman
   Court by his sermons.” Such were the words which the shrewd Spanish
   ambassador, Don Juan Manuel, addressed to Charles V. from Rome in 1520. They
   were written at a time when it was still doubtful whether Leo X. would side
   in the impending struggle in Italy with the King of France or with the
   Emperor of Germany, and moreover at a time when the latter had reason to be
   dissatisfied with the course the Pope had taken. Leo X. had consented, in
   compliance with a petition from the Castilian Cortes, to introduce some
   reforms in the exercise of the Inquisition. This concession was, however,
   entirely opposed to the views of the young Emperor, who was completely
   guided by his Dominican confessor. Under these circumstances it was deemed
   expedient to make use of Luther as a kind of bugbear in order to frighten
   the Pope. To people not accustomed to the tortuous windings of politics it
   seems, of course, bewildering, that a heretic should be favoured in one
   country, in order to make it possible to enforce the rigours of the
   Inquisition in another country. In like manner Francis I. acted. In France
   he persecuted and burnt mercilessly the opponents of the Roman Catholic
   Church, whilst in Germany he befriended the adherents of the Reformation.
   This much, however, is certain, had Luther entertained the slightest
   suspicion at what price it was intended to extend indulgence to his work, he
   would have been the first to scorn that indulgence.

   The advice of the diplomatic Spanish ambassador was, however, not followed.
   Pope and Emperor came to an amicable understanding. The former cancelled his
   concession to the Castilian Cortes, and promised the coveted assistance
   against Francis I., in Italy, whilst the latter pledged himself to crush the
   Reformation and to issue an Edict for the execution of the Papal Bull
   against Luther. Now it came to light how ill-advised was the election of
   Charles V. as Emperor of Germany. At the time when the celebrated Diet of
   1521 assembled at Worms, the Emperor had his whole attention directed across
   the Alps. The affairs of Germany had only in so far any importance for him
   as they had any influence or bearing on the affairs of Italy. He took no
   note of the great objects which then agitated the hearts and minds of the
   Germans, and had he been able to recognise them, they would have excited in
   him no corresponding sympathy for them. He did not even fully understand the
   cultured language—as far as it existed in those days—of Germany, being able
   to speak Low German only. The political institutions of the country—the
   lingering fragments of the ancient German liberty—were thoroughly
   distasteful to him. He was also a bigoted Roman Catholic at heart, and—as we
   have seen—entirely opposed to all religious reforms. It must, therefore, be
   acknowledged, that among the many historical misfortunes which have befallen
   Germany—and no country perhaps has been tried by so many—the accession of
   Charles V. to the throne of the German Empire was one of the greatest. What
   might a German sovereign, with a due appreciation of the political and
   religious aspirations of the people, not have achieved at that important
   epoch, which was the turning-point in the history of Germany!

   After the Emperor had laid his Edict regarding the Papal Bull before the
   Estates, they made him earnest representations, alleging that the people
   were throughout Germany so thoroughly impregnated by the doctrines of
   Luther, that any violent measures undertaken against him would call forth
   the greatest commotion. They submitted, therefore, to Charles the opinion
   that the Reformer should be summoned to Worms, not for the sake of any
   argumentative or learned disputation, but merely for a summary
   interrogatory. In case he should recant his doctrines concerning the
   Christian faith, he might further be interrogated about the minor points in
   his writings, and whatever was advisable should be adopted. If, however, he
   persisted in his refusal to recant, the necessary steps would be taken
   against him. We see by this that the Estates drew a distinction in Luther’s
   doctrines between those points which concerned the ecclesiastical
   administration only, and those which referred to the Christian faith proper
   and were chiefly contained in his work ‘On the Babylonish Captivity of the
   Church.’ [9]

   Charles V. consented to this proposal, by which the Estates may be said to
   have betrayed the cause of the Reformation. Frederick was charged with the
   task of summoning Luther to Worms, but he prudently declined. As he was to
   be summoned in the name of the Emperor and the Estates, he ought to receive
   the citation direct from them. The stubborn character of the Elector being
   well known, the Emperor was obliged to yield also on this point, and in
   order to be consistent with official etiquette, Luther was addressed by
   Charles V. in the citation, issued on March 6, 1521, as “honourable,
   beloved, and pious!” A safe conduct for the journey to and from Worms
   accompanied the citation. A man less endowed with moral courage than Luther
   would nevertheless have shrunk from completing the journey. On his way to
   Worms he learned that a Mandate for the confiscation of his writings had
   been issued by the Emperor, and the Imperial herald actually asked him,
   whether he still intended to continue his journey. The Reformer undauntedly
   proceeded on his way, although the Imperial Mandate clearly showed him that
   his writings had already been unconditionally condemned, and that he was
   merely summoned to declare whether he would recant or not.

   Luther’s appearance before the Diet of Worms may be considered as the first
   official recognition of the German people as a power; for it was only by
   representing the danger which would arise from the unconditional
   condemnation of the Reformer before being heard, that the Emperor was
   induced to consent to the step which was resented by the Papal Legate and
   his party. The wrath of Aleander greatly increased, when the Imperial
   Estates presented to Charles V. their gravamina respecting the abuses of the
   Church, the abolition of which they had a right to expect in accordance with
   the capitulation made at the time of the Emperor’s election. That petition,
   which is generally regarded as a pendant to Luther’s programme of the
   Reformation, as contained in his address to the “Christian Nobility of the
   German Nation,” and which had even obtained the approval of George, Duke of
   Saxony (that great opponent of Luther), was, formally at least,
   “graciously” received by the Emperor.

   When Luther arrived at Worms both his adherents and antagonists were
   startled. The former trembled for his safety, and the latter feared the
   influence of his presence—his eloquence and the victorious power of inner
   conviction. The Emperor’s expectations of so remarkable a personage—who was
   capable of inspiring such a high degree of enthusiasm and aversion—must,
   therefore, have been very great, and we do not wonder at his disappointment
   on seeing before him an insignificant-looking monk. He did not believe in
   the power of the mind, and it was quite natural in the young monarch that he
   should have looked forward to a commanding, giant-like figure, with a
   thundering voice, somewhat like Dr. Eck, who derived no little benefit from
   these accessories, so advantageous both on the political and religious
   platform. Even after Luther had produced—on the second day of his appearance
   before the Diet—a deep impression on almost all his hearers, Charles V.
   could never be brought to believe that the meek Augustinian monk was the
   author of all the energetic and impetuous compositions which passed under
   his name.

   Luther’s public refusal to recant unless convinced of his error through the
   Scriptures, was the official proclamation of the Reformation, and well might
   he exclaim, on the evening of the 18th of April, on coming home from perhaps
   the most memorable sitting of any Diet—“Ich bin durch!” But the decision of
   the Emperor was also taken, and on the morning of the 19th of April he
   declared to the Diet—in a French document written in his own hand—“that as a
   descendant of the most Christian German Emperors, and the Catholic Kings of
   Spain, he had resolved to maintain everything which had been adopted by his
   ancestors, more especially at the Council of Constance. . . . That he will
   not hear Luther again, but let him go back to Wittenberg in accordance with
   his safe conduct, and then he will proceed with him as a heretic.”

   The fanatic advisers of the Emperor certainly wished that he should not only
   strictly adhere to the doctrines confirmed by the Diet of Constance, but
   that he also should follow its example, set by the execution of Huss, with
   respect to Luther; for the simple reason “that there is no need of keeping
   faith with heretics.” Charles V. had, however, not been informed in vain of
   the disposition of the people regarding the Reformer. He also took into
   account the views of the Imperial Estates.

   The times had evidently changed since the Council of Constance. It was no
   longer safe to burn a heretic after he had received Imperial protection; and
   it may be assumed futhermore that the young monarch also possessed too much
   sense of honour to listen to the ruthless suggestions of his fanatical
   advisers. After some more attempts to induce Luther to retract—all of which,
   of course, proved futile—he allowed him to depart; but as he had uttered the
   threat to treat the excommunicated monk as a heretic, after the expiration
   of his safe conduct, Frederick, who was not undeservedly called the Wise,
   considered it expedient to bring Luther, by means of a stratagem, to a place
   of safety.

   The sudden disappearance of Luther naturally caused great anxiety among his
   adherents; but his opponents seemed to have instinctively guessed the truth.
   They knew very well how little they themselves were to be trusted, and
   suspected that his friends had secretly saved him from their clutches.
   Cardinal Eleander even went nearer the mark, and expressed his opinion, that
   the “Saxon fox” had hidden the monk. Charles V. himself took no cognisance
   of the occurrence; nay, he even cautiously deferred the promulgation of the
   Edict against Luther, and it was only after Frederick the Wise, accompanied
   by the Palatine Elector, had left Worms on account of illness, that the
   Emperor summoned to his private residence the three clerical Electors,
   together with the Elector of Brandenburg, and several other members of the
   Imperial Estates, and communicated to them the long-expected Edict. The
   Imperial ban was thus promulgated on May 25, without the formal sanction of
   the Diet. And in order to stamp it with the appearance of legality, it was
   postdated to the 8th of May, when the Estates were still together in good
   numbers. But it was at the same time an ominous date; for on that day an
   alliance was concluded between the Emperor and the Pope to the effect “to
   have the same friends and without exception the same enemies; the same
   willingness and unwillingness for defence and attack.”

   Another expedient was resorted to in order to gain some plausibility for the
   illegally issued Edict. It was sophistically averred that, as the Diet had
   already decided that Luther was to be proceeded against, in case he should
   not recant, there was no further necessity for obtaining the additional
   sanction of that body for the publication of the Edict. By this decree the
   Papal ban was confirmed, and Luther himself was now outlawed as a heretic,
   and his books were prohibited. The Emperor having accomplished this step,
   which was one of the most momentous in the eventful course of the
   Reformation, now hastened to the Netherlands, and strengthened by the league
   with the Pope and Henry VIII., soon began his great war against the King of
   France.

  V.

   It is an amiable trait in human nature, though frequently bordering on
   weakness, to endeavour to find out the good side of any evil. Thus it has
   been considered a propitious coincidence that the German Empire had some
   “claims” on certain territories in Italy. For it was, in a great measure, in
   consequence of this fact, that the war broke out between the Emperor of
   Germany and the King of France, which necessitated the absence of the former
   from his German domains for several years and gave the Reformation time for
   its consolidation and expansion. We will not deny the advantages which
   resulted from that political combination, but it is to a certain extent
   counterbalanced by the ill which it produced. Without the contingency of
   that war, Charles V. would have had no occasion for leaguing himself with
   the Pope, the Edict of Worms would, in all probability, never have been
   issued, and the pressing demand for a General Council would have been
   acceded to. Luther would not have been obliged to hide himself at the
   Wartburg, and the subsequent troubles at Wittenberg would certainly never
   have broken out; and finally the firm hand of a sovereign residing in the
   country would have stemmed the torrent of the Peasants’ War at the outset.
   Another drawback resulting from the absence of Charles V. was his utter
   estrangement from Germany, whose aspirations he neither cared for nor
   understood.

   During the first few months after the departure of Charles from Germany the
   work of the Reformation went on undisturbed. The Edict of Worms found, in
   general, no responsive reception there. Its effect quite vanished before the
   impression made by Luther’s manly, nay heroic, conduct in presence of the
   Diet. The rumour which had got abroad that he had been captured by an enemy
   of the Elector Frederick and perchance killed, rather promoted than damaged
   his cause. It aroused warm sympathy for the Reformer and increased the
   hatred against his enemies, who were alleged to have resorted to brutal
   force, because they could not disprove his arguments. In fact, the adoption
   of the Reformation was now so general, that Luther’s antagonists hardly
   dared to denounce them openly. It is well known, that the Elector of Mentz
   would not give permission to the Minorite monks to preach against Luther.
   The Edict of Worms was thus practically set at defiance, and in spite of its
   prohibition not to publish any thing in favour of the Reformation, numerous
   writings in its favour issued from the German printing presses.

   Whilst the seed which Luther had sown on German soil began to produce a
   magnificent harvest, and he himself was busy at the Wartburg, under the
   disguise of Junker Georg, with various religious writings, but more
   especially with the great work of his life, the translation of the Bible
   from the original text, some of his adherents began to precipitate matters
   at Wittenberg under the leadership of the impassioned Carlstadt. A time of
   general dissolution suddenly came on, in which there was a violent rupture
   with the past. Mass was abrogated, monks left their convents, and priests
   married. Holy images were destroyed, and nearly all the usages of the Roman
   Catholic Church were abruptly abolished. Other innovations were introduced,
   and the movement tended towards the introduction of a Christian socialism,
   or rather communism. If Luther had not been absent, the movement would never
   have broken out, and Melanchthon, who was present, was quite perplexed and
   not energetic enough to be able to stem the surging tide of the Revolution.
   The Prince Elector, too, looked on quite bewildered, and, imbued with a
   sense of unbounded tolerance, he fancied that, after all, the revolutionary
   “saints” might be right.

   When Luther heard of the local excesses at Wittenberg, he suddenly left his
   “Patmos,” in order to find out for himself the real state of things. In
   travelling to and from Wittenberg, where he stayed a few days only, he had
   to pass the territory of his great opponent, the Duke of Saxony. This was at
   the beginning of December, 1521, consequently only a few months after the
   publication of the Edict of Worms, and his conduct shows both his moral
   courage, of which he has given so many striking proofs, and his anxiety for
   the cause of the Reformation.

   Soon, however, he was to give still more striking proofs of both. For after
   the “prophets of Zwickau,” those deluded and deluding disciples of Thomas
   Münzer had chosen the birthplace of the Reformation for their field of
   action, more especially when he heard of the innovations introduced in his
   own community since his furtive visit there, he defied all danger, and
   disregarded the remonstrances of the Elector Frederick not to leave his
   place of refuge. His heart was so devoid of fear and he had so much
   confidence in the righteousness of his cause, that he actually declared to
   the Prince Elector that he might give to the latter greater protection than
   he could receive from him. He apologised nevertheless for his disobedience
   to Frederick, and a few days after his arrival at Wittenberg at the
   beginning of March, 1522, he began the series of sermons by which he soon
   allayed the storm and extended both his influence and reputation.

   Several of the religious innovations introduced during the absence of Luther
   were quite in accordance with his views, but he chiefly objected to the
   violent manner in which the established usages were thrown over. Thus he
   approved the abolition of the Mass, but considered that it ought not to have
   been done in a way which was vexatious to another portion of the Christian
   community. The secular authorities should have been consulted and everything
   done in a legal manner. Luther was, besides, tolerant in the highest degree.
   He did not wish to force others to adopt his theories; he merely wanted to
   convince them. His mode of acting was concisely summed up in the following
   words, which contain the keynote of his activity as a Reformer: “I will
   preach about it, speak about it, write about it; but I will compel and drive
   no one by force; for belief is to be accepted freely and spontaneously. Take
   me as an example. I have opposed the Indulgences and the Papists, but not
   with force. I have only worked, preached, and written the Word of the Lord;
   else I have done nothing . . . I have done nothing; the Word has done and
   accomplished everything. If I had wished to proceed turbulently, I could
   have caused great bloodshed in Germany, and I might have played such a game
   at Worms, that even the Emperor would not have been safe,” [10] etc.

   These words, which Luther uttered in his celebrated sermons preached after
   his return to Wittenberg, not only fully reveal to us one of his principal
   characteristics as a Reformer, but contain at the same time a full
   revelation of the cause of the peaceful course of the Reformation during his
   lifetime. He held the reins in his firm hands, and it would only have
   required an encouraging signal on his part, and the furies of civil war
   would have been at once let loose. But those words also confirm the charge
   which has been brought forward against the Imperial Estates, that they had
   betrayed the cause of the Reformation at the Diet of Worms. They had the
   German people at their back, and the Emperor, with all his Spanish and
   Italian courtiers and Papal Legates, would have been powerless. Had only
   some of them given signs of energetic opposition, the Emperor would, in all
   probability, have yielded. That the Princes did not fully answer Luther’s
   expectations caused him considerable grief, and now he had experienced
   another disappointment in the conduct of the middle classes—the people
   proper—a portion of whom eagerly supported the violent innovations of the
   extreme reformers. But the greatest disappointment with regard to the
   healthiest class of the people—the peasants—was yet in store for him.

   The effect which resulted from Luther’s return to Wittenberg was doubly
   beneficial. It allayed the turbulent excitement at home, and prevented the
   breaking out of a storm abroad, which had well-nigh been conjured up by Duke
   George of Saxony at the “Imperial Regency,” or Reichsregiment; which body
   conducted the government of the Empire in the absence of the Emperor, and
   had assembled at Nuremberg during the troubles at Wittenberg. The Duke
   actually prevailed upon the members of the Imperial Regency to issue an
   Edict enjoining the Bishops of Naumburg, Meissen and Merseburg,
   energetically to suppress all religious innovations; but when quiet had been
   restored at Wittenberg the tide turned in Luther’s favour, partly owing to
   the direct and indirect influence of the Elector of Saxony; and thus the
   Edict of Worms was virtually set at naught. The Imperial Regency did not
   rest satisfied, however, with the tacit approval of the doctrines of Luther,
   and when Adrian VI., who had succeeded Leo X. in 1522, demanded through his
   Nuncio that a check should be put to the Lutheran innovations, the Imperial
   Regency replied by a Resolution in which it declared its refusal to carry
   out the Edict of Worms. On the other hand it demanded “the summoning of a
   General Council, if possible within a year’s time, in a German town and
   under the co-operation of the Emperor.” It was, of course, understood that
   the secular Estates should also take part in that council, and perfect
   immunity for a free expression of opinion was at the same time admitted.
   Moreover, one hundred gravamina with respect to the prevailing abuses of the
   Church were handed to the Legate.

   One of the most remarkable features in the passing of the above Resolution
   was the circumstance that it even obtained the consent of the adherents of
   the Pope, and that the views of the latter regarding the necessity of Church
   reforms, in some degree at least, contributed to it. Adrian VI. was in
   almost every respect the opposite of Leo X. He had the welfare of the Church
   truly at heart, and fully saw the abuses which had crept in through the
   depravity of its representatives. He therefore energetically and earnestly
   urged the necessity of reforming the Church, or rather the clergy. He
   himself showed the way by setting, in his own person, the example of a true
   Apostolic Pontiff, by leading the life of a humble and austere monk, whereas
   Leo X. had surrounded himself with regal pomp and the luxuries of an Asiatic
   potentate. On the other hand Adrian was also an orthodox Dominican, and
   detested the religious innovations more intensely than his predecessor did,
   who, as a true Medici, being an enthusiastic admirer of art and a zealous
   cultivator of polite literature, was quite indifferent to ecclesiastical and
   religious matters. Leo X. was opposed to Luther because, as Erasmus
   expressed it, “he had touched the Papal crown,” whilst Adrian took up the
   gauntlet against the Reformer because, in his opinion, the latter weakened
   the corner-stone of the Church and undermined its very foundations. For this
   reason he had sent his Nuncio Chieregati to the Imperial Regency at
   Nuremberg with the demand to have the Edict of Worms carried into effect.
   This demand was only consistent with the Pope’s line of action; but the
   times had changed, even during the short space which had elapsed since
   Charles V. had issued his Edict against Luther by a shuffling proceeding,
   and the Imperial Regency openly refused to enact it.

   That the Estates should have been able thus to act in defiance of both Pope
   and Emperor, was in itself the result of the influence which the Reformation
   exercised on the political status of the German people. The civic element
   now assumed a political importance which it never enjoyed before. The
   commoner began to feel his dignity, as a man, as a member of the State. The
   teachings of Luther had set free human intelligence and free thought, which
   had been so long held imprisoned and bound by political and religious
   tyranny, and the people began—to think and reason for themselves. From the
   moment this was done, they were free, and as soon as they obtained political
   rights, they well understood how to assert them. The re-establishment of an
   Imperial Regency on a “constitutional basis,” formed one of the principal
   stipulations at the election of Charles V., and the Deputies having been
   chosen by the Electoral Princes and the various “Circles,” or districts into
   which Germany was then divided, the commonwealth was for the first time
   officially represented at a German constitutional assembly. We have seen how
   worthily the members of the Imperial Regency had discharged their trust; and
   it may be said, that from that moment dates the political emancipation of
   Germany.

  VI.

   The answer of the Imperial Regency to Adrian VI. was the first political
   triumph of the Reformation, but its effect was considerably weakened by
   several events which occurred shortly after. First came the rising of the
   knights—who constituted the lower nobility—under the banner of the brave and
   restless Franz von Sickingen. Grave discontent reigned among the knights
   with the doings of the all-powerful “Suabian League,” formed in 1488 by the
   Estates of Suabia for the maintenance of general peace, and also with the
   encroachments of the Princes; and Sickingen, aided by Ulrich von Hutten,
   united the lesser nobles into one body with the avowed object of breaking
   the power of the higher nobility, and of acknowledging one head only—the
   Emperor. It has been plausibly assumed, that Sickingen pursued a more
   ambitious aim, and he has therefore been compared with Wallenstein.
   Sickingen professed, however, another object in his enterprise: the
   furtherance of the cause of the Reformation; and at the head of a large and
   powerful army, he directed his first attack (Sept. 1522), against the
   Archbishop of Treves. The knights were defeated, their leader lost his life,
   and Hutten wandered away—outlawed and proscribed—to find an exile’s grave in
   a small island of Switzerland. The enemies of Luther considered, or
   pretended to consider, the Reformation as the main cause of Sickingen’s
   undertaking, and this circumstance estranged from the Reformer a number of
   his adherents and confirmed his antagonists in their enmity against him,
   although he had no immediate connection with the revolt of the nobles.

   The first result of the rising and of the defeat of the knights was, that
   several Princes now assumed a somewhat hostile attitude towards the Imperial
   Regency, that had shown itself so tolerant respecting religious reforms; but
   a still severer blow threatened that body from another quarter. The wealthy
   German cities sent a deputation to Charles V. in Spain, with a petition
   against some ordinances which the Imperial Chamber had decided upon and
   which were considered detrimental to their commercial interests. The
   Emperor, dissatisfied with that liberal Institution, readily promised a new
   administration. This promise was fulfilled at the next Diet, in 1524, at
   Nuremberg, when it was decided to reorganise the Imperial Regency by
   electing for it entirely new members. Those who consented to this proceeding
   were influenced, partly by political and partly by commercial reasons, but
   as regards religious matters there was still a majority in favour of the
   Reformation. On this account it came to pass that a Resolution was carried
   at the Diet, to convoke another assembly of the Estates in the same year at
   Spires, the points to be discussed there being in the meantime drawn up for
   the Princes by scholars and counsellors. Till then the Resolution of the
   preceding Diet, “that the Gospel should be allowed to be freely preached,”
   was to remain in force. Thus the mission of the Papal Nuncio Campeggi, who
   had been sent to Germany by Clement VII. (the successor of Adrian VI. since
   1523) to bring about the enactment of the Edict of Worms, proved
   unsuccessful. It is true the Diet passed a Resolution, that the Edict of
   Worms should be executed, but this decision was rendered ineffective by the
   additional elastic clause: “As far as possible.” At the same time the demand
   for a General Council was added.

   The above Mandate now shared the fate of most compromises; inasmuch as it
   satisfied neither party. Luther himself and his followers saw in it an
   indirect confirmation of the Edict of Worms, and he expressed his
   indignation at it in an outspoken publication, in which he bitterly
   reproached the Emperor and the Princes for their treatment of him. He had
   now lost all confidence in both. But the Emperor’s indignation at the
   Nuremberg Mandate was not less strongly marked, and he issued an Edict, in
   which he energetically denied the Estates the right of interference in
   religious matters, demanding at the same time the strict execution of the
   Edict of Worms. The constant recurrence of the Emperor and the adherents of
   the Pope to that Edict must not surprise us. It is the point upon which the
   whole movement turned; for if the condemnation of Luther was confirmed, all
   his reforms and his adherents would be comprised in that condemnation.

   Various circumstances now combined to strengthen the effect of the
   Emperor’s new Edict. The Papal Nuncio Campeggi succeeded in inducing several
   influential forces, hostile to the Reformation, to form a League for the
   protection of the old faith. The Archduke Ferdinand and the Dukes of
   Bavaria—Princes who had for some time been conspiring with the Roman
   Curia—together with a number of Prelates, assembled for that purpose in the
   summer of 1524 at Ratisbon, and agreed upon stringent measures against the
   Reformation. They decided to give effect to the Edict of Worms, to proscribe
   again the works of Luther, and even to forbid to their subjects the
   attending of the University of Wittenberg.

   The next step of the Ratisbon Convention was now to obtain the co-operation
   of Charles V., which was effected easily enough, inasmuch as the projected
   measures fully coincided with his own views; and being about to attack
   Francis I. in France itself, from the direction of Italy, he stood in great
   need of the Pope’s tacit acquiescence. He issued, therefore, a stringent
   Edict, in which the convocation of a General Council was strictly
   prohibited, and all interference in religious matters was energetically
   forbidden. Those who dared to set at nought the provision of the Edict,
   would render themselves liable to a charge of high treason, and on
   conviction would be punished with the highest degree of the Imperial Ban,
   (Acht- und Aberacht). In that Imperial Order Luther himself—one of the
   noblest men who ever lived—was likened to some loathsome monster.

   The Convention of Ratisbon, which was chiefly brought about by foreign
   influence, may be said to have caused the first violent rupture among the
   German people, and to be the origin of all the calamities which befell
   Germany in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Without that Convention
   the projected General Council would, in all probability, have been held, the
   proposed reforms would have been peacefully and legally discussed, and there
   would not have occurred that violent disruption among the Germans, of which
   the evil effects, not only from a religious, but also from a political point
   of view, have not yet entirely disappeared. The only advantage which
   resulted from the Ratisbon Convention was the agreement to introduce a
   number of internal reforms in the Church. Thus the improved state of Roman
   Catholicism is entirely due to the doctrines of Luther and his Reformation.

  VII.

   The year 1525 was perhaps the most trying in Luther’s career. He had
   hitherto been disappointed in the Princes and the burghers, and now he
   experienced the mortification of seeing that class of people, from which he
   sprang himself, entering on a path which must needs prove injurious to
   themselves, and to the cause for which he lived and worked. Various risings
   of the Peasants had taken place before the time of the Reformation, in
   consequence of the inhuman treatment to which they were subjected by the
   nobles. The exactions of the priests were likewise intolerable. Some local
   risings took place in 1524; but in the following year that terrible contest,
   known as “The Peasants’ War,” broke out in the south of Germany with all the
   fury of long-pent up despair. The origin of the insurrection must therefore
   be sought solely in the cause, which produced the risings of slaves or serfs
   in ancient and modern times. It was the revolt of men who felt their inner
   worth, and who were determined to shake off an unbearable yoke. The enemies
   of Luther attributed, however, the outbreak of the war to the influence of
   his teachings, in the same way as they attributed to these any other public
   calamity which then befell Germany; just as in modern times blinded
   political passions will trace the cause of the failure of a harvest, for
   instance, to the fact of this or that party being in power.

   The first programme of the Peasants, as contained in the well-known Twelve
   Articles, was moderate enough. Even Luther did not entirely reject their
   demands, some of which he wished to see referred to the decision of legal
   authorities. He admonished the Peasants, however, not to have recourse to
   brutal violence, and at the same time he exhorted the nobles to lend a
   merciful ear to the cries of the sufferers. The last clause of the Twelve
   Articles must have struck in his heart a sympathetic chord. The Peasants
   declared that their demands shall not stand, in case they should be refuted
   by Scripture, which statement seems to be an echo of Luther’s own
   declaration at the Diet of Worms. But it was just that external similarity
   which turned out so fatal for the cause of the Reformation. The Peasants
   borrowed the phraseology, as it were, of Luther; they clothed their
   grievances in the language of the Gospel, and thus gave to the enemies of
   the Reformation the plausible pretext of confounding it with their own
   insurrection. It was of little avail for Luther himself to protest against
   the allegation of the insurgents that their rising was founded on a
   religious basis, since his enemies persistently took the form for the
   substance.

   If all the rebellious Peasants had strictly adhered to their first
   programme, their cause might yet have taken a favourable turn; but, as is
   generally the case with revolutionary movements, there soon arose an extreme
   party which aimed at the total subversion of the existing order of things.
   Here again it was unfortunate that some points started in the manifesto of
   that party had been previously advocated by Luther, for his unjust
   antagonists laid all their demands, which have been compared to the French
   revolutionary doctrines of 1783, to his charge. The climax of the
   insurrectionary outbreak was, however, reached by the doings of Thomas
   Münzer and his followers, who preached and practised evangelical communism,
   and who accelerated by their fanatic and fantastic conduct the tragic
   catastrophe in this sanguinary drama. Luther was now in a most critical
   position. He made every effort to stem the tide of the revolution—he
   energetically exhorted both Princes and Peasants, and travelled about as a
   missionary of peace; but all in vain. His influence seemed, for the first
   time, to have lost its effect, and friends and foes censured him alike. The
   former reproached him with having deserted his own cause, whilst the latter
   blamed him as the originator of this fatal war. Thomas Münzer and his
   followers even accused Luther of base servility towards the Princes; and one
   of the grossest calumnies perhaps ever brought forward against a man of
   Luther’s stamp, was the charge that he had written his vehement publication,
   “against the murderous robber-bands of the Peasants,” after their total
   defeat. But this was untrue. He wrote it, in fact, whilst the Peasants were
   in the ascendancy, and whilst they disgraced their victory by barbarous acts
   of cruelty. When the nobles got the upper hand, and wreaked their vengeance
   in a most inhuman manner on the vanquished, the wrath of Luther was turned
   against the cruel victors. He pleaded for mercy even for the guilty, and
   with some of the Princes his intercession was successful. Large numbers of
   defeated Peasants were allowed, by Landgrave Philip of Hesse and the Prince
   Elector John of Saxony, the brother and successor of the Elector Frederick,
   to return home unmolested, whilst the Bishop of Würzburg and other
   anti-Lutheran lords distinguished themselves by a most refined cruelty in
   their treatment of the Peasant prisoners.

  VIII.

   In addition to the various disasters which befell Luther—and in him the
   whole of Germany—in the calamitous year of 1525, he also had the misfortune
   to lose his friend and protector, the Elector of Saxony, who died in the
   spring of that year. Frederick had looked with true paternal compassion on
   the insurgent Peasants, and had life and health been spared him, he might
   have quelled the civil war by the dint of his authority, or at least have
   mitigated its evils. Besides him, there was no one in Germany who enjoyed
   the same universal respect, and both the Imperial Regency and the Estates
   were, as a body, powerless. If Germany had been ruled over at that time by a
   sovereign residing in the country, and caring for the welfare of his people,
   the Peasants’ War would never have assumed such gigantic dimensions, nor
   would its consequences have been so fatal. But whilst Germany was convulsed
   by one of the most sanguinary of intestine wars, the Emperor resided in
   Spain, and his army fought and defeated the King of France before Pavia;
   which circumstance may serve as an additional proof of the evil caused by
   the election of Charles V. as head of the German Empire.

   The only interest which the Emperor manifested with reference to Germany
   consisted in his relentless efforts to exterminate the Lutheran doctrines.
   Thus he again and again issued from Spain energetic admonitions to the
   Princes and Bishops to make a firm resistance against the Reformation;
   promising and threatening at the same time to come shortly to Germany
   himself, in order to crush the heretics. These acts, together with the
   consultation at Mentz at which a number of priests agreed on the suppression
   of Lutheran heresy, induced the Landgrave Philip of Hesse, and John the
   Elector of Saxony, in the spring of 1526, to form the so-called “League of
   Torgau” for the protection and defence of the Reformation. Luther himself,
   being, in principle, against all armed resistance to any constituted
   authority, had consistently opposed the formation of that or any other
   League, with a view to revolt.

   Luther was of opinion that a bad Prince must be patiently borne with, like
   any other scourge or calamity sent by Heaven. In this sense it was, that he
   taught “that the badness and perversity of a government does not justify
   active resistance or rebellion.” Indeed he considered the sufferings
   inflicted by a tyrannical ruler on his subjects as part and parcel of a
   man’s destiny upon earth. It was his Christian duty to suffer. According to
   his opinion man was not destined to be happy in this world, where he has
   been placed as a martyr. Such were his honest convictions and his views of
   life; his denial of the right of resistance arose therefore from a purely
   religious feeling, and not from any servile instinct. Surely a man who
   speaks in the following strain of Princes cannot be accused of servility:
   “From the beginning of the world,” says Luther, “a good Prince has been a
   rare bird and a pious Prince a still rarer one. They are as a rule the
   greatest fools and worst knaves upon earth. If there is a Prince who is a
   wise and pious man, or a Christian, it is a great miracle and the best sign
   of divine grace for a country. Therefore one must always expect the worst
   from them, and not hope for any good from them. They are the scourges and
   the executioners of God, and He employs them to punish the wicked and to
   maintain external peace.”

   Luther was well aware of the fact that Germany required a thorough reform as
   regards its civic or secular government, more especially as he had found out
   that both the Princes and the Emperor had betrayed the German people. With
   that dignified self-consciousness which is quite compatible with true
   modesty, he said: “At times it seems to me as if the Government and the
   Jurists also required a Luther.” If there had been during his time a great
   man in Germany, capable of achieving in politics what he had himself
   achieved in religion, he would undoubtedly have co-operated with him. For
   Luther was a true German patriot, if ever there was one, as is evident from
   so many of his writings, and more especially from his appeal to the
   “Christian Nobility of the German Nation.” What he abhorred was the use of
   brutal force, either by Princes or by the people, for the acquisition of
   political freedom, and this was—as we have seen—in strict accordance with
   his religious views. His notions of the individual freedom of man had also a
   religious basis. He regarded man as designed to be a free being, but it was
   only Christian belief which imparted to him that stamp of true freedom. This
   view Luther forcibly expressed in the well-known antithesis in his Treatise,
   ‘Concerning Christian Liberty:’ “A Christian man is the most free lord of
   all, and subject to none; a Christian man is the most dutiful servant of
   all, and subject to every one.” [11]

   The liberty of man, as interpreted by Luther, may be regarded by some
   persons as only of limited extent, and as having merely an ideal existence,
   but at any rate it marks a great progress in the history of civilization,
   and may be considered as the germ of the emancipation of the human race. It
   was the first step in the acknowledgment of the right of man as a human
   being. The principle of political freedom which now benefits the adherents
   of all creeds in civilized society must therefore be traced back to the
   Reformation. If the teachings of Luther had not first freed the Christian
   man, the liberty of man, in general—the equality of men—would scarcely have
   met with such a ready recognition in later centuries.

   If Luther had not so strenuously opposed all active resistance against
   authority, the political course of the Reformation would certainly have
   taken a different turn; and it was fortunate enough for its consolidation,
   that some of the Princes, who otherwise followed his teachings, did not
   share his opinions on that subject. The formation of the above-mentioned
   League of Torgau was the first result of that difference of opinion; and
   when the Diet assembled, in the summer of 1526, at Spires, the Princes John
   and Philip, strengthened by their union, could dare to acknowledge and
   practise openly the doctrines of the Reformation in the face of the Diet. In
   vain did the Imperial Commissioners urge the Estates to carry out at last
   the Edict of Worms. The Diet was, however, so much the less inclined to obey
   the Emperor’s behests on this point, because he was now himself at enmity
   with the Pope. Clement VII. being afraid of the ascendency of Charles V.
   after his victory at Pavia, released the French King from his solemn oath at
   the Peace of Madrid, and formed with him and several Italian Princes the
   League of Cognac, also blasphemously called the “Holy League,” which was
   directed against Charles V. The Estates, therefore, eagerly seized the
   opportunity of declaring that the antagonism between Pope and Emperor made
   it impossible for them to give effect even indirectly to the Papal
   Excommunication against Luther. The Turk was also threatening from the East,
   and the Estates did not consider it prudent to cause dissensions among the
   German people. They resolved therefore to petition the Emperor, through an
   embassy, to come in person to Germany and to convoke a General Council. They
   further decided that in matters of religion, perfect freedom and tolerance
   should prevail.

   The Resolution of the Diet of Spires in 1526 was of considerable moment. The
   Reformation was now formally acknowledged and legalised, and had gained full
   time to recover lost ground and to obtain a firm footing throughout Germany.
   It also was a fortunate coincidence that Charles V. was now occupied in
   Italy with his war against the Pope and Francis I., whilst his brother
   Ferdinand, now King of Hungary and Bohemia, was encumbered by his troubles
   in those countries.

  IX.

   In consequence of the absence of both the Emperor and his locum tenens from
   Germany, the projected General Council was not convoked, and the next Diet
   did not assemble before the year 1529, at Spires. Till then the Reformation
   had full scope to expand; but after the armies of Charles V. had captured
   Rome, and a terrible pestilence had well-nigh destroyed the French troops in
   Italy, the Emperor was again free to terrorize over Germany. He concluded
   peace with Clement VII. at Barcelona, and with Francis I. at Cambray, and
   the first result of the diplomatic union between the three belligerents was
   a combination of their efforts to crush the “heresy” in Germany. Soon after
   the beginning of the Diet at Spires, a palpable proof was given that a great
   change had taken place in public affairs since 1526. On March 15, 1529, the
   Imperial Commissioners laid a Mandate before the Diet to the effect that the
   Resolution of the last Diet at Spires, which granted free exercise of
   religion, should be revoked, and that, on the other hand, the Edict of Worms
   should be enforced. The majority, though now consisting of adherents of the
   Pope, did not accept the proposal exactly in that form; but still they
   issued a Decree, the general acceptance of which would have implied a total
   condemnation of the Reformation on the part of its supporters.

   In this emergency several German Princes and Imperial towns gave proof of a
   most praiseworthy moral courage. John, Prince Elector of Saxony, Philip,
   Landgrave of Hesse, George, Margrave of Brandenburg, Duke Ernest of
   Brunswick-Luneburg, Prince Wolfgang of Anhalt, and fourteen Imperial free
   towns, having in vain demurred against the decision of the Diet, laid before
   it a Protest against the pernicious decree, declaring at the same time, that
   in matters of religion and conscience the decision of majorities was not
   binding. How deep was the impression which that remarkable step had produced
   on the minds of the German people, may be inferred from the fact that it
   gave occasion to single out the adherents of Luther as a body and to apply
   to them the name of Protestants.

   The rupture between the two religious parties was now complete. They no
   longer formed merely two different shades of the same party, but were
   distinguished from each other even as to the name. Roman Catholics stood
   opposite Protestants. In one respect the new appellation was a gain; for it
   embraced all the members of that Christian community, which did not
   acknowledge the supremacy of the Pope. On the other hand the name has the
   disadvantage that it is like the word “Reformation,” of a negative
   character. It is true the Protest of the Princes actually was a positive
   assertion of the right of conscience, but popular interpretation applied to
   it the character of an aggressive document, and the adherents of Luther were
   consequently regarded henceforth in the light of a merely malcontent party.
   The term “Lutherans”—Lutheraner—does not embrace the whole body of those who
   seceded from the Roman Catholic Church. Luther himself deprecated, moreover,
   the distinction of being called a “founder of a religion,” and although one
   of the greatest theological authorities of our times is still inclined to
   consider him as such, it seems to me—if I may venture to express an opinion
   on anything touching a theological subject—that Luther merely modified and
   reformed an established religious faith, but did not found one. The
   designation “Old Catholic” might perhaps have been the most appropriate, and
   would not perchance have caused such a violent disruption among the members
   of the great Christian community.

  X.

   At the Diet of 1529 the Protestants had gained a moral victory, but they had
   suffered a material defeat; for the government of the Empire was now
   entirely in the hands of their antagonists. It seemed, therefore, prudent to
   prepare for future emergencies, and some of the Protestant Princes began
   negotiations with several cities, both German and Swiss. A comprehensive
   scheme was devised which, if successfully carried out, would have entirely
   changed the political aspect of Germany, if not of Europe. Unfortunately
   this plan, the execution of which could alone have saved the cause of
   Protestantism, was frustrated by the well-known theological difference
   between the adherents of Luther and Zwingli. Thus, instead of first
   combining against the common enemy, and subsequently in firm union settling
   the theological differences, or even leaving them unsettled, the logical
   order of the proceeding was reversed. The Theologians first assembled to
   discuss their religious differences, and the result was that fatal schism
   which divided the camp of the Protestants, and permanently damaged their
   cause. Luther and his more immediate followers decided that it would not be
   justifiable to form an alliance with the Zwinglians, and further, that it
   would be an offence against law and religion to offer armed resistance to
   the Emperor. The co-operation of Upper Germany, Suabia and Switzerland was
   lost in consequence, and—in face of the armed and threatening enemy—all
   preparations for defence were neglected on account of religious scruples.
   “Surely,” says Ranke, “this was not prudent, but it was grand.”

   Whilst the German Theologians discussed religious subjects and the “right of
   resistance,” Charles V. strengthened his position in Italy, and Clement VII.
   placed on his head, at Bologna, the crown of Charles the Great. The Emperor
   was surrounded on this occasion chiefly by Italian Princes and Spanish
   Grandees, and only one or two German Princes were present. The coronation
   was, therefore, against the “ancient German custom,” but Charles was crowned
   as a Roman and not as a German Emperor of Germany. He might have been like
   Henry the Fowler, another founder or regenerator of the German Empire,
   whereas he renovated the Imperial dignity only so far as his own personality
   was concerned. This step was very significant, and may serve as a clue to
   his subsequent course of action.

   It is well known that the Pope and Emperor distrusted each other, but they
   were diplomatic enough to assume the mask of mutual friendship. There was,
   moreover, one powerful bond of union between them, namely, the determination
   to eradicate German “heresy.” This resolve was one of the principal motives
   of the Emperor’s journey to Germany, in the summer of 1530, for the purpose
   of holding a Diet at Augsburg. The writ issued on that occasion was peaceful
   and gracious enough. His avowed object was “to settle the prevailing
   discord, and to learn and graciously to consider everybody’s conviction,
   opinion, and views, for the benefit of Christian truth.”

   It may reasonably be assumed that the Emperor was benevolently disposed, and
   would have preferred to see his point carried by gentle means. His
   benevolence was, however, of that conditional kind only, which first tries
   peaceful means, but subsequently has recourse to arbitrary and violent
   measures, should the gentle measures prove futile. He was not imbued with
   that absolute benevolence and clemency which shows mercy even to the guilty,
   or the supposed guilty. The Roman Catholic Princes were aware of this
   disposition of the Emperor, and of his secret agreement with the Pope,
   though the Protestant Princes implicitly believed in his peaceful and
   gracious assurances. The latter now hopefully looked forward to an amicable
   settlement of the prevailing discord, and at once proceeded to draw up a
   Programme, containing the substance of the reformed creed.

   It did not take long however for the Protestants to see their error. Even
   before the Emperor’s arrival at Augsburg he urged the Elector John of Saxony
   not to allow the preachers he had brought with him to preach in public. This
   demand was repeated in Augsburg, in the Emperor’s presence, after his
   arrival in that city, to the Elector of Saxony, and several other Protestant
   Princes. The theological defence of the evangelical sermons by the Landgrave
   of Hesse merely served to arouse the wrath and indignation of Charles. When,
   however, the aged warrior, the Margrave George of Brandenburg emphatically
   exclaimed: “Sire, before renouncing the word of God, I would rather kneel
   down on this spot and let my head be cut off,” the Emperor was deeply moved
   by this energetic protest, and uttered in his Low-German vernacular the
   reassuring words: “No heads off! no heads off, my dear Prince!”

   The Protestant Princes also declined to join in the public procession on the
   festival of Corpus Christi, which was celebrated the following day, in spite
   of the Emperor’s earnest invitation to attend it. Charles was startled by
   this stubborn resistance. He had cherished the hope that the halo of worldly
   glory which surrounded him, together with his brilliant entry into Augsburg,
   would dazzle and overawe the Protestant Princes; but they remained firm.
   Neither threats nor promises could move them. They were quite of a distinct
   caste from the Princes who had betrayed the cause of the Reformation at
   Worms; they were conscious of the risk they ran, and were ready to die for
   their religious convictions. It is true they were greatly encouraged by
   Luther, who, in order to be nearer to them while the Diet was held at
   Augsburg, had repaired to Coburg. He addressed to the Prince Elector of
   Saxony from his second “Patmos,” as it were, letters of exhortation and
   comfort, full of energy and of that irresistible eloquence which is the
   result of inner conviction. Whenever the Princes and Melanchthon wavered,
   they were inspired by Luther’s cheering and manly words, which proved
   particularly effective during the course of the Diet.

   The religious contest being the first subject which was brought before the
   Diet, the Protestant Princes presented, on 25th June, 1530, their
   “Confession of Faith,” which had been prepared by Melanchthon. There were
   two versions of it, one in German and another in Latin. The Emperor
   naturally desired to have the second version read, but the Protestant
   Princes advised him patriotically to admit on German soil the German
   version. This step may be considered as one of the results of the
   Reformation. Luther had awakened in the Germans the feelings of nationality
   and patriotism, and had also politically freed them from the fetters of
   Roman bondage.

   The profession of faith of the Protestant Princes, known as the “Augsburg
   Confession,” was drawn up in such a conciliatory spirit and contained so
   many concessions to Roman Catholicism, that some kind of agreement seemed to
   be possible, if not near at hand. The Protestants had now honestly fulfilled
   their duty. In accordance with the Imperial rescript they had laid their
   profession of faith before the Diet; and confidently expecting a similar
   profession on the part of the Roman Catholics, they looked forward to the
   promised mediation of the Emperor. But instead of drawing up a declaration
   in a defensive and conciliatory spirit, as had been done by the Protestants,
   the Catholic party at the Diet forming the majority, issued an aggressive
   “Refutation,” which, receiving the Emperor’s full approval, was issued in
   his name, with the appended threat, that in case the Protestants should
   henceforth not obediently return to the Roman Catholic faith, “the Emperor
   would proceed against them as befitted a Roman Emperor—the protector and
   defender of the Church.” Manifest proofs that the admonitions of Charles V.
   were not mere empty threats were soon given. He made the Protestant Princes
   individually feel his displeasure, and he seemed fully determined to give
   effect to his threats by the force of arms. Fortunately the warning of the
   Prince Elector of Mentz in reference to the Turks of Hannibal ad portas, had
   the desirable effect of paving the way for mediation.

   At the Conference which was held in August, 1530, for the purpose of
   effecting an agreement between the contending parties, a spirit of
   reconciliation prevailed. Both sides made concessions, and it was agreed to
   refer certain points of difference which were still pending to a General
   Council; so that there was a near prospect of a mutual understanding. Some
   agreement would, in all probability, have been brought about, but for the
   relentless spirit of fanaticism of the Roman Curia, as represented by the
   Legate Campeggi. It was he who frustrated the success of all further
   attempts at a reconciliation by inducing the Emperor and the majority of the
   Diet to make such conditions as the Protestants could not accept. The allied
   Princes remained firm, and as the attitude of the Imperial Court became more
   and more threatening, and the Theologians could not agree among themselves,
   the energetic Landgrave Philip of Hesse suddenly left Augsburg at the
   beginning of August. The Emperor was so startled by this unexpected event,
   that he ordered the gates of the city to be watched by his soldiers; but,
   too late, the bird had already flown. The Prince Elector of Saxony still
   remained behind, but his son, the hereditary Prince, had some time
   previously returned home and was now in perfect safety. It was, therefore,
   useless to attempt a coup de main against the leaders of the Protestant
   party.

   The Emperor’s disappointment was great, and the more so, as he was indignant
   against the Protestant Princes on account of their refusing to consent to
   the election of his brother Ferdinand as “King of Rome.” Charles V. now
   proceeded to the last step which made the breach between the two great
   portions of the German nation irremediable. On the 22nd of September, 1530,
   he communicated to the Estates the draft of the Decree upon which he had
   resolved with reference to the religious contest, and which announced his
   determination “to carry out unconditionally the Edict of Worms.” The
   Protestants were treated in that Decree as a mere sect, and their
   doctrines—of all shades—were indiscriminately condemned. All the usages of
   the old creed were to be maintained intact, and the rights of the
   Ecclesiastical Princes were to be fully restored, under pain of the Imperial
   ban. This Imperial Decree, which was virtually a total abolition of the work
   of the Reformation, was finally issued on the 19th of November with the
   additional clause—which savoured of mockery—that a time of respite should be
   granted to the Protestants until the 15th April, 1531, to enable them to
   declare their adhesion to the contested points. In the meantime the Emperor
   was to use his efforts with the Pope to convene a General Council to discuss
   the abolition of certain unquestionable abuses in the Church.

   This amounted to an open declaration of war, and the Protestant Princes were
   prudent enough to take their measures accordingly.

  XI.

   The Diet of Augsburg in 1530 may be considered, in some respects, as the
   key-stone in the religious and political course of the Reformation. The
   “Augsburg Confession” practically completed the work of the Reformation from
   a religious point of view, whilst the Imperial Edict marked out in distinct
   features the line of action which the Papal and Imperial party was resolved
   to pursue towards the Protestants. It was an ultimatum in due form. All the
   subsequent events in the history of the Reformation—even as far down as the
   Peace of Westphalia in 1648—must, therefore, be regarded as merely the
   natural sequence of the Diet of Augsburg, and do not actually belong to the
   making or unmaking of the Reformation.

   The stern necessity of self-defence caused at last the Protestant Princes to
   form the “Convention” or “League of Smalkald” in December 1530. Even Luther
   was induced to approve of it, and some of his writings, more especially his
   ‘Warning to my beloved Germans,’ showed that he no longer viewed
   self-defence in the light of rebellion. The schism among the Germans was now
   political as well as religious. A compact body stood armed, not against the
   sovereign power of the German Empire, but against the Roman Emperor of the
   German nation; against the monarch who identified himself with the Pope.
   Charles V. fully recognised the drift of the Protestant opposition, and it
   is not quite improbable that on account of it he insisted on the speedy
   election and coronation of his brother Ferdinand as “Roman King,” which took
   place at Cologne at the end of 1530, and at Aix-la-Chapelle at the beginning
   of the following year. The Protestant Princes protested against this
   proceeding, as being contrary to the Imperial Constitution of Germany; but
   we have already seen that Charles cared very little either for the laws or
   the aspirations of the German people. The illegal election of Ferdinand
   necessarily widened the breach between the Emperor and the Protestant
   Princes, who plainly saw the danger impending from the supremacy of the
   house of Hapsburg.

   The Dukes of Bavaria, who also aspired to the Imperial dignity, looked
   grudgingly on the ascendency of the Hapsburgs, and seemed inclined—staunch
   Roman Catholics though they were—to make common cause with the Protestants.
   Moreover the Turks were again threatening an invasion of the Austro-German
   provinces, and all these circumstances combined, induced the Emperor to
   conclude with the Protestant Princes, in the summer of 1532, the “Peace of
   Nuremberg.” Considerable concessions were made to the Protestants, and the
   promise of a “General, free and Christian Council,” was again held out; but
   of far greater moment was the fact, that by consenting to the “Peace of
   Nuremberg,” the Emperor actually recognised the members of the “Smalkaldic
   League” as a regularly constituted power, with which it was desirable to
   come to an amicable understanding. The political element, which, as we have
   seen, had been at work throughout the course of the Reformation, became
   henceforth a more and more powerful factor in the struggle between the two
   hostile camps of the German nation.

   After the Diet of Augsburg in 1530, Charles was again occupied with his
   military enterprises abroad, and remained absent from Germany for the space
   of nine years. His brother, King Ferdinand I., was likewise prevented from
   effectively interfering with religious affairs in consequence of the
   troubles in his hereditary dominions, and so the Reformation had again free
   scope to make its way through the greater portion of Germany. The indulgence
   granted to the Protestants was, however, apparent only. Both Charles and his
   brother treacherously bided their time to enter on the struggle of
   annihilation against them. That time seemed to them to have arrived when
   Charles, in conjunction with Henry VIII., had forced the King of France to
   sign the Peace of Crepy in 1544. It is true the Emperor consented to convene
   a Council in December, 1545, and so he did at Trent, but the Princes of
   Hesse and Saxony justly declined to attend it. The Emperor’s hostile
   intentions against the Protestants now became patent, first by his renewed
   League with Paul III., the successor of Pope Clement VII., and afterwards by
   the mustering of his forces. If the Protestants had acted with energy and
   concord they might, with the greatest ease, have defeated the small Imperial
   forces in the summer of 1545; but instead of this they gave the Emperor full
   time to collect a considerable army.

   In the meantime Martin Luther, the life and soul of the Reformation, had
   died on the 18th of February, 1546, and was spared the pain of witnessing
   the outbreak of the unfortunate Smalkaldic War, which laid Germany prostrate
   at the feet of the Emperor and his Spaniards. This calamity was, of course,
   due mostly to the fact that the old German Empire identified itself with the
   Papacy and considered itself bound to defend its cause. It is, however, a
   significant fact, that Charles V. was actually the last Roman Emperor of
   Germany crowned by a Pope. When he proceeded for his coronation, in 1530, to
   the Church of St. Petronio at Bologna, through a wooden structure which had
   been erected to connect his Palace with the church, the temporary passage
   gave way a few steps behind the Emperor. Popular superstition saw in this an
   evil omen—for Germany, it proved to be a happy one—and prophesied that
   Charles would be the last German Emperor thus crowned. The prophecy became
   true, but it was not in Italy that the link was broken which connected
   Germany with Rome. This was done in Germany itself, and as we have seen, by
   the humble peasants’ son, Martin Luther.

   Luther it was who actually freed Germany from the secular and spiritual
   bondage of Rome; for although the Protestants had been vanquished in the
   Smalkaldic war, they were not entirely crushed. The spirit of the
   Reformation survived, and exercised its beneficial influence not only
   throughout Germany, but over the whole of the civilised world, and it is in
   this sense that the Reformation is universally considered as the beginning
   of a New Era in the history of the world. The Reformation is the source,
   directly or indirectly, by action or by reaction, of everything great and
   noble which has taken place from about the beginning of the sixteenth
   century. Through the Reformation alone men of all creeds have become free
   and enlightened. And this is the reason why not only the Theologian, but
   also the political and literary Historian hails the work of the Reformation
   as one of the greatest blessings ever bestowed on mankind.
     _________________________________________________________________

   [5] Cp. pp. 82-85, in this volume.

   [6] Cp. pp. 1-12 in this volume.

   [7] Cp. pp. 15-92 in this volume.

   [8] In one of his letters to Dr. Eck—communicated in the Documenta Lutherana
   recently issued by the Vatican—the Papal Nuncio Aleander confesses, that the
   excitement in consequence of the burning of Luther’s work was so great among
   the people, that he trembled for his own safety.

   [9] See pp. 130-243 in the present volume.

   [10] That the above assertion was no mere boast is confirmed—if anything
   what so truthful a man as Luther said requires confirmation—by the
   above-mentioned Documenta Lutherana, in which we find a letter from the
   Nuncio Aleander, describing the great popularity of Luther throughout
   Germany, and in particular at Augsburg. “Know then,” he writes to Dr. Eck,
   “there are so many Lutherans here, that not only the men, but also the very
   trees and stones cry: Luther!”

   [11] See p. 102 in the present volume.
     _________________________________________________________________
     _________________________________________________________________

FIRST PRINCIPLES

    OF

                               THE REFORMATION.
     _________________________________________________________________

THE NINETY-FIVE THESES.
     _________________________________________________________________

  INTRODUCTORY LETTER.

   To the most Reverend Father in Christ and most illustrious Lord, Albert,
   Archbishop and Primate of the Churches of Magdeburg and Mentz, Marquis of
   Brandenburg, etc., his lord and pastor in Christ, most gracious and worthy
   of all fear and reverence—

  Jesus.

   The grace of God be with you, and whatsoever it is and can do.

   Spare me, most reverend Father in Christ, most illustrious Prince, if I, the
   very dregs of humanity, have dared to think of addressing a letter to the
   eminence of your sublimity. The Lord Jesus is my witness that, in the
   consciousness of my own pettiness and baseness, I have long put off the
   doing of that which I have now hardened my forehead to perform, moved
   thereto most especially by the sense of that faithful duty which I feel that
   I owe to your most reverend Fatherhood in Christ. May your Highness then in
   the meanwhile deign to cast your eyes upon one grain of dust, and, in your
   pontifical clemency, to understand my prayer.

   Papal indulgences are being carried about, under your most distinguished
   authority, for the building of St. Peter’s. In respect of these I do not so
   much accuse the extravagant sayings of the preachers, which I have not
   heard, but I grieve at the very false ideas which the people conceive from
   them, and which are spread abroad in common talk on every side—namely, that
   unhappy souls believe that, if they buy letters of indulgences, they are
   sure of their salvation; also, that, as soon as they have thrown their
   contribution into the chest, souls forthwith fly out of purgatory; and
   furthermore, that so great is the grace thus conferred, that there is no sin
   so great—even, as they say, if, by an impossibility, any one had violated
   the Mother of God—but that it may be pardoned; and again, that by these
   indulgences a man is freed from all punishment and guilt.

   O gracious God! it is thus that the souls committed to your care, most
   excellent Father, are being taught unto their death, and a most severe
   account, which you will have to render for all of them, is growing and
   increasing. Hence I have not been able to keep silence any longer on this
   subject, for by no function of a bishop’s office can a man become sure of
   salvation, since he does not even become sure through the grace of God
   infused into him, but the Apostle bids us to be ever working out our
   salvation in fear and trembling. (Phil. ii. 12.) Even the righteous man—says
   Peter—shall scarcely be saved. (1 Pet. iv. 18.) In fine, so narrow is the
   way which leads unto life, that the Lord, speaking by the prophets Amos and
   Zachariah, calls those who are to be saved brands snatched from the burning,
   and our Lord everywhere declares the difficulty of salvation.

   Why then, by these false stories and promises of pardon, do the preachers of
   them make the people to feel secure and without fear? since indulgences
   confer absolutely no good on souls as regards salvation or holiness, but
   only take away the outward penalty which was wont of old to be canonically
   imposed.

   Lastly, works of piety and charity are infinitely better than indulgences,
   and yet they do not preach these with such display or so much zeal; nay,
   they keep silence about them for the sake of preaching pardons. And yet it
   is the first and sole duty of all bishops, that the people should learn the
   Gospel and Christian charity: for Christ nowhere commands that indulgences
   should be preached. What a dreadful thing it is then, what peril to a
   bishop, if, while the Gospel is passed over in silence, he permits nothing
   but the noisy outcry of indulgences to be spread among his people, and
   bestows more care on these than on the Gospel! Will not Christ say to them:
   “Straining at a gnat, and swallowing a camel”?

   Besides all this, most reverend Father in the Lord, in that instruction to
   the commissaries which has been put forth under the name of your most
   reverend Fatherhood it is stated—doubtless without the knowledge and consent
   of your most reverend Fatherhood—that one of the principal graces conveyed
   by indulgences is that inestimable gift of God, by which man is reconciled
   to God, and all the pains of purgatory are done away with; and further, that
   contrition is not necessary for those who thus redeem souls or buy
   confessional licences.

   But what can I do, excellent Primate and most illustrious Prince, save to
   entreat your reverend Fatherhood, through the Lord Jesus Christ, to deign to
   turn on us the eye of fatherly care, and to suppress that advertisement
   altogether and impose on the preachers of pardons another form of preaching,
   lest perchance some one should at length arise who will put forth writings
   in confutation of them and of their advertisements, to the deepest reproach
   of your most illustrious Highness. It is intensely abhorrent to me that this
   should be done, and yet I fear that it will happen, unless the evil be
   speedily remedied.

   This faithful discharge of my humble duty I entreat that your most
   illustrious Grace will deign to receive in a princely and bishoplike
   spirit—that is, with all clemency—even as I offer it with a most faithful
   heart, and one most devoted to your most reverend Fatherhood, since I too am
   part of your flock. May the Lord Jesus keep your most reverend Fatherhood
   for ever and ever. Amen.

   From Wittemberg, on the eve of All Saints, in the year 1517.

   If it so please your most reverend Fatherhood, you may look at these
   Disputations, that you may perceive how dubious a matter is that opinion
   about indulgences, which they disseminate as if it were most certain.

   To your most reverend Fatherhood.

   Martin Luther.
     _________________________________________________________________

  DISPUTATION OF DR. MARTIN LUTHER CONCERNING PENITENCE AND INDULGENCES.

   In the desire and with the purpose of elucidating the truth, a disputation
   will be held on the underwritten propositions at Wittemberg, under the
   presidency of the Reverend Father Martin Luther, Monk of the Order of St.
   Augustine, Master of Arts and of Sacred Theology, and ordinary Reader of the
   same in that place. He therefore asks those who cannot be present and
   discuss the subject with us orally, to do so by letter in their absence. In
   the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.

   1. Our Lord and Master Jesus Christ in saying: “Repent ye,” [12] etc.,
   intended that the whole life of believers should be penitence.

   2. This word cannot be understood of sacramental penance, that is, of the
   confession and satisfaction which are performed under the ministry of
   priests.

   3. It does not, however, refer solely to inward penitence; nay such inward
   penitence is naught, unless it outwardly produces various mortifications of
   the flesh.

   4. The penalty [13] thus continues as long as the hatred of self—that is,
   true inward penitence—continues; namely, till our entrance into the kingdom
   of heaven.

   5. The Pope has neither the will nor the power to remit any penalties,
   except those which he has imposed by his own authority, or by that of the
   canons.

   6. The Pope has no power to remit any guilt, except by declaring and
   warranting it to have been remitted by God; or at most by remitting cases
   reserved for himself; in which cases, if his power were despised, guilt
   would certainly remain.

   7. God never remits any man’s guilt, without at the same time subjecting
   him, humbled in all things, to the authority of his representative the
   priest.

   8. The penitential canons are imposed only on the living, and no burden
   ought to be imposed on the dying, according to them.

   9. Hence the Holy Spirit acting in the Pope does well for us, in that, in
   his decrees, he always makes exception of the article of death and of
   necessity.

   10. Those priests act wrongly and unlearnedly, who, in the case of the
   dying, reserve the canonical penances for purgatory.

   11. Those tares about changing of the canonical penalty into the penalty of
   purgatory seem surely to have been sown while the bishops were asleep.

   12. Formerly the canonical penalties were imposed not after, but before
   absolution, as tests of true contrition.

   13. The dying pay all penalties by death, and are already dead to the canon
   laws, and are by right relieved from them.

   14. The imperfect soundness or charity of a dying person necessarily brings
   with it great fear, and the less it is, the greater the fear it brings.

   15. This fear and horror is sufficient by itself, to say nothing of other
   things, to constitute the pains of purgatory, since it is very near to the
   horror of despair.

   16. Hell, purgatory, and heaven appear to differ as despair, almost despair,
   and peace of mind differ.

   17. With souls in purgatory it seems that it must needs be that, as horror
   diminishes, so charity increases.

   18. Nor does it seem to be proved by any reasoning or any scriptures, that
   they are outside of the state of merit or of the increase of charity.

   19. Nor does this appear to be proved, that they are sure and confident of
   their own blessedness, at least all of them, though we may be very sure of
   it.

   20. Therefore the Pope, when he speaks of the plenary remission of all
   penalties, does not mean simply of all, but only of those imposed by
   himself.

   21. Thus those preachers of indulgences are in error who say that, by the
   indulgences of the Pope, a man is loosed and saved from all punishment.

   22. For in fact he remits to souls in purgatory no penalty which they would
   have had to pay in this life according to the canons.

   23. If any entire remission of all penalties can be granted to any one, it
   is certain that it is granted to none but the most perfect, that is, to very
   few.

   24. Hence the greater part of the people must needs be deceived by this
   indiscriminate and high-sounding promise of release from penalties.

   25. Such power as the Pope has over purgatory in general, such has every
   bishop in his own diocese, and every curate in his own parish, in
   particular.

   26. The Pope acts most rightly in granting remission to souls, not by the
   power of the keys (which is of no avail in this case) but by the way of
   suffrage.

   27. They preach man, who say that the soul flies out of purgatory as soon as
   the money thrown into the chest rattles.

   28. It is certain that, when the money rattles in the chest, avarice and
   gain may be increased, but the suffrage of the Church depends on the will of
   God alone.

   29. Who knows whether all the souls in purgatory desire to be redeemed from
   it, according to the story told of Saints Severinus and Paschal.

   30. No man is sure of the reality of his own contrition, much less of the
   attainment of plenary remission.

   31. Rare as is a true penitent, so rare is one who truly buys
   indulgences—that is to say, most rare.

   32. Those who believe that, through letters of pardon, they are made sure of
   their own salvation, will be eternally damned along with their teachers.

   33. We must especially beware of those who say that these pardons from the
   Pope are that inestimable gift of God by which man is reconciled to God.

   34. For the grace conveyed by these pardons has respect only to the
   penalties of sacramental satisfaction, which are of human appointment.

   35. They preach no Christian doctrine, who teach that contrition is not
   necessary for those who buy souls out of purgatory or buy confessional
   licences.

   36. Every Christian who feels true compunction has of right plenary
   remission of pain and guilt, even without letters of pardon.

   37. Every true Christian, whether living or dead, has a share in all the
   benefits of Christ and of the Church, given him by God, even without letters
   of pardon.

   38. The remission, however, imparted by the Pope is by no means to be
   despised, since it is, as I have said, a declaration of the Divine
   remission.

   39. It is a most difficult thing, even for the most learned theologians, to
   exalt at the same time in the eyes of the people the ample effect of pardons
   and the necessity of true contrition.

   40. True contrition seeks and loves punishment; while the ampleness of
   pardons relaxes it, and causes men to hate it, or at least gives occasion
   for them to do so.

   41. Apostolical pardons ought to be proclaimed with caution, lest the people
   should falsely suppose that they are placed before other good works of
   charity.

   42. Christians should be taught that it is not the mind of the Pope that the
   buying of pardons is to be in any way compared to works of mercy.

   43. Christians should be taught that he who gives to a poor man, or lends to
   a needy man, does better than if he bought pardons.

   44. Because, by a work of charity, charity increases, and the man becomes
   better; while, by means of pardons, he does not become better, but only
   freer from punishment.

   45. Christians should be taught that he who sees any one in need, and,
   passing him by, gives money for pardons, is not purchasing for himself the
   indulgences of the Pope, but the anger of God.

   46. Christians should be taught that, unless they have superfluous wealth,
   they are bound to keep what is necessary for the use of their own
   households, and by no means to lavish it on pardons.

   47. Christians should be taught that, while they are free to buy pardons,
   they are not commanded to do so.

   48. Christians should be taught that the Pope, in granting pardons, has both
   more need and more desire that devout prayer should be made for him, than
   that money should be readily paid.

   49. Christians should be taught that the Pope’s pardons are useful, if they
   do not put their trust in them, but most hurtful, if through them they lose
   the fear of God.

   50. Christians should be taught that, if the Pope were acquainted with the
   exactions of the preachers of pardons, he would prefer that the Basilica of
   St. Peter should be burnt to ashes, than that it should be built up with the
   skin, flesh, and bones of his sheep.

   51. Christians should be taught that, as it would be the duty, so it would
   be the wish of the Pope, even to sell, if necessary, the Basilica of St.
   Peter, and to give of his own money to very many of those from whom the
   preachers of pardons extract money.

   52. Vain is the hope of salvation through letters of pardon, even if a
   commissary—nay, the Pope himself—were to pledge his own soul for them.

   53. They are enemies of Christ and of the Pope, who, in order that pardons
   may be preached, condemn the word of God to utter silence in other churches.

   54. Wrong is done to the word of God when, in the same sermon, an equal or
   longer time is spent on pardons than on it.

   55. The mind of the Pope necessarily is that, if pardons, which are a very
   small matter, are celebrated with single bells, single processions, and
   single ceremonies, the Gospel, which is a very great matter, should be
   preached with a hundred bells, a hundred processions, and a hundred
   ceremonies.

   56. The treasures of the Church, whence the Pope grants indulgences, are
   neither sufficiently named nor known among the people of Christ.

   57. It is clear that they are at least not temporal treasures, for these are
   not so readily lavished, but only accumulated, by many of the preachers.

   58. Nor are they the merits of Christ and of the saints, for these,
   independently of the Pope, are always working grace to the inner man, and
   the cross, death, and hell to the outer man.

   59. St. Lawrence said that the treasures of the Church are the poor of the
   Church, but he spoke according to the use of the word in his time.

   60. We are not speaking rashly when we say that the keys of the Church,
   bestowed through the merits of Christ, are that treasure.

   61. For it is clear that the power of the Pope is alone sufficient for the
   remission of penalties and of reserved cases.

   62. The true treasure of the Church is the Holy Gospel of the glory and
   grace of God.

   63. This treasure, however, is deservedly most hateful, because it makes the
   first to be last.

   64. While the treasure of indulgences is deservedly most acceptable, because
   it makes the last to be first.

   65. Hence the treasures of the Gospel are nets, wherewith of old they fished
   for the men of riches.

   66. The treasures of indulgences are nets, wherewith they now fish for the
   riches of men.

   67. Those indulgences, which the preachers loudly proclaim to be the
   greatest graces, are seen to be truly such as regards the promotion of gain.

   68. Yet they are in reality in no degree to be compared to the grace of God
   and the piety of the cross.

   69. Bishops and curates are bound to receive the commissaries of apostolical
   pardons with all reverence.

   70. But they are still more bound to see to it with all their eyes, and take
   heed with all their ears, that these men do not preach their own dreams in
   place of the Pope’s commission.

   71. He who speaks against the truth of apostolical pardons, let him be
   anathema and accursed.

   72. But he, on the other hand, who exerts himself against the wantonness and
   licence of speech of the preachers of pardons, let him be blessed.

   73. As the Pope justly thunders against those who use any kind of
   contrivance to the injury of the traffic in pardons,

   74. Much more is it his intention to thunder against those who, under the
   pretext of pardons, use contrivances to the injury of holy charity and of
   truth.

   75. To think that Papal pardons have such power that they could absolve a
   man even if—by an impossibility—he had violated the Mother of God, is
   madness.

   76. We affirm on the contrary that Papal pardons cannot take away even the
   least of venial sins, as regards its guilt.

   77. The saying that, even if St. Peter were now Pope, he could grant no
   greater graces, is blasphemy against St. Peter and the Pope.

   78. We affirm on the contrary that both he and any other Pope has greater
   graces to grant, namely, the Gospel, powers, gifts of healing, etc. (1 Cor.
   xii. 9.)

   79. To say that the cross set up among the insignia of the Papal arms is of
   equal power with the cross of Christ, is blasphemy.

   80. Those bishops, curates, and theologians who allow such discourses to
   have currency among the people, will have to render an account.

   81. This licence in the preaching of pardons makes it no easy thing, even
   for learned men, to protect the reverence due to the Pope against the
   calumnies, or, at all events, the keen questionings of the laity.

   82. As for instance:—Why does not the Pope empty purgatory for the sake of
   most holy charity and of the supreme necessity of souls—this being the most
   just of all reasons—if he redeems an infinite number of souls for the sake
   of that most fatal thing money, to be spent on building a basilica—this
   being a very slight reason?

   83. Again; why do funeral masses and anniversary masses for the deceased
   continue, and why does not the Pope return, or permit the withdrawal of the
   funds bequeathed for this purpose, since it is a wrong to pray for those who
   are already redeemed?

   84. Again; what is this new kindness of God and the Pope, in that, for
   money’s sake, they permit an impious man and an enemy of God to redeem a
   pious soul which loves God, and yet do not redeem that same pious and
   beloved soul, out of free charity, on account of its own need?

   85. Again; why is it that the penitential canons, long since abrogated and
   dead in themselves in very fact and not only by usage, are yet still
   redeemed with money, through the granting of indulgences, as if they were
   full of life?

   86. Again; why does not the Pope, whose riches are at this day more ample
   than those of the wealthiest of the wealthy, build the one Basilica of St.
   Peter with his own money, rather than with that of poor believers?

   87. Again; what does the Pope remit or impart to those who, through perfect
   contrition, have a right to plenary remission and participation?

   88. Again; what greater good would the Church receive if the Pope, instead
   of once, as he does now, were to bestow these remissions and participations
   a hundred times a day on any one of the faithful?

   89. Since it is the salvation of souls, rather than money, that the Pope
   seeks by his pardons, why does he suspend the letters and pardons granted
   long ago, since they are equally efficacious.

   90. To repress these scruples and arguments of the laity by force alone, and
   not to solve them by giving reasons, is to expose the Church and the Pope to
   the ridicule of their enemies, and to make Christian men unhappy.

   91. If then pardons were preached according to the spirit and mind of the
   Pope, all these questions would be resolved with ease; nay, would not exist.

   92. Away then with all those prophets who say to the people of Christ:
   “Peace, peace,” and there is no peace.

   93. Blessed be all those prophets, who say to the people of Christ: “The
   cross, the cross,” and there is no cross.

   94. Christians should be exhorted to strive to follow Christ their head
   through pains, deaths, and hells.

   95. And thus trust to enter heaven through many tribulations, rather than in
   the security of peace.
     _________________________________________________________________

   [12] In the Latin, from the Vulgate, “agite pœnitentiam,” sometimes
   translated “Do penance.” The effect of the following theses depends to some
   extent on the double meaning of “pœnitentia”—penitence and penance.

   [13] I.e. “Pœna,” the connection between “pœna” and “pœnitentia” being again
   suggestive.
     _________________________________________________________________

  Protestation.

   I, Martin Luther, Doctor, of the Order of Monks at Wittemberg, desire to
   testify publicly that certain propositions against pontifical indulgences,
   as they call them, have been put forth by me. Now although, up to the
   present time, neither this most celebrated and renowned school of ours, nor
   any civil or ecclesiastical power has condemned me, yet there are, as I
   hear, some men of headlong and audacious spirit, who dare to pronounce me a
   heretic, as though the matter had been thoroughly looked into and studied.
   But on my part, as I have often done before, so now too I implore all men,
   by the faith of Christ, either to point out to me a better way, if such a
   way has been divinely revealed to any, or at least to submit their opinion
   to the judgment of God and of the Church. For I am neither so rash as to
   wish that my sole opinion should be preferred to that of all other men, nor
   so senseless as to be willing that the word of God should be made to give
   place to fables, devised by human reason.
     _________________________________________________________________
     _________________________________________________________________
     _________________________________________________________________

THE THREE PRIMARY WORKS

    OF

                               DR. MARTIN LUTHER
     _________________________________________________________________
     _________________________________________________________________

  I.

    TO

THE CHRISTIAN NOBILITY

    OF THE

GERMAN NATION

  RESPECTING THE REFORMATION

    OF THE

  CHRISTIAN ESTATE.
     _________________________________________________________________

  JESUS
     _________________________________________________________________
     _________________________________________________________________

  DEDICATORY LETTER.

   To the respected and worthy
   NICOLAUS VON AMSDORF,
   Licentiate in the Holy Scriptures and Canon of Wittenberg, [14]

   My particular and affectionate friend.

   Dr. MARTIN LUTHER.

   The Grace and Peace of God be with you! Respected, worthy Sir and dear
   friend.

   The time for silence is gone and the time to speak has come, as we read in
   Ecclesiastes (iii. 7.) I have in conformity with our resolve put together
   some few points concerning the Reformation of the Christian Estate, with the
   intent of placing the same before the Christian Nobility of the German
   Nation, in case it may please God to help His Church by means of the laity,
   inasmuch as the clergy, whom this task rather befitted, have become quite
   careless. I send all this to your worship, to judge and to amend where
   needed. I am well aware that I shall not escape the reproach of taking far
   too much upon me, in presuming, insignificant as I am, to address such high
   estates on such weighty and great subjects; as if there were no one in the
   world but Dr. Luther, to have a care for Christianity, and to give advice to
   such wise people.

   Let who will blame me, I shall not offer any excuse. Perhaps I still owe God
   and the world another folly. This debt I have now resolved honestly to
   discharge, as well as may be, and to be court fool for once in my life: if I
   fail, I shall at any rate gain this advantage, that no one need buy me a
   fool’s cap or shave my poll. But it remains to be seen which shall hang the
   bells on the other. I must fulfil the proverb: When anything is to be done
   in the world, a monk must be in it, were it only as a painted figure. I
   suppose, it has often happened that a fool has spoken wisely, and wise men
   have often done foolishly, as St. Paul says: “If any man among you seemeth
   to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise.” (1
   Cor. iii. 18.)

   Now, inasmuch as I am not only a fool, but also a sworn doctor of the Holy
   Scriptures, I am glad that I have an opportunity of fulfilling my oath, just
   in this fool’s way. I beg you to excuse me to the moderately wise: for I
   know not how to deserve the favour and grace of the supremely wise, which I
   have so often sought with much labour, but now for the future shall neither
   have nor regard.

   God help us to seek not our glory, but His alone. Amen.

   From Wittenberg, in the monastery of St. Augustine, on the eve of St. John
   the Baptist, in the year 1520.
     _________________________________________________________________

  Jesus.
     _________________________________________________________________
     _________________________________________________________________

   [14] Nicolaus von Amsdorf (1483-1565) was a colleague of Luther at the
   University of Wittenberg, and one of his most zealous fellow-workers in the
   cause of the Reformation.
     _________________________________________________________________

   To his most Serene and Mighty Imperial Majesty, and to the Christian
   Nobility of the German Nation.

   Dr. MARTINUS LUTHER.

   The grace and might of God be with you, Most Serene Majesty! most gracious,
   well beloved gentlemen!

   It is not out of mere arrogance and perversity that I, a single poor man,
   have taken upon me to address your lordships. The distress and misery that
   oppress all the Christian estates, more especially in Germany, have led not
   only myself, but every one else, to cry aloud and to ask for help, and have
   now forced me too, to cry out and to ask, if God would give His Spirit to
   any one, to reach a hand to His wretched people. Councils have often put
   forward some remedy, but through the cunning of certain men it has been
   adroitly frustrated, and the evils have become worse; whose malice and
   wickedness I will now, by the help of God, expose, so that, being known,
   they may henceforth cease to be so obstructive and injurious. God has given
   us a young and noble sovereign, [15] and by this has roused hope in many
   hearts: now it is right that we too should do what we can, and make good use
   of time and grace.

   The first thing that we must do is to consider the matter with great
   earnestness, and, whatever we attempt, not to trust in our own strength and
   wisdom alone, even if the power of all the world were ours; for God will not
   endure that a good work should be begun, trusting to our own strength and
   wisdom. He destroys it; it is all useless: as we read in the xxxiii. Psalm.
   “There is no king saved by the multitude of an host: a mighty man is not
   delivered by much strength.” And I fear it is for that reason, that those
   beloved Princes, the Emperors Frederick, the First and the Second, and many
   other German Emperors were, in former times, so piteously spurned and
   oppressed by the Popes, though they were feared by all the world. Perchance
   they trusted rather in their own strength than in God; therefore they could
   not but fall: and how would the sanguinary tyrant Julius II. have risen so
   high in our own days, but, that, I fear, France, the Germans and Venice
   trusted to themselves? The children of Benjamin slew forty-two thousand
   Israelites, for this reason, that these trusted to their own strength.
   (Judges xx. etc.)

   That it may not happen thus to us and to our noble Emperor Charles, we must
   remember that in this matter we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but
   against the rulers of the darkness of this world (Eph. vi. 12), who may fill
   the world with war and bloodshed, but cannot themselves be overcome thereby.
   We must renounce all confidence in our natural strength, and take the matter
   in hand with humble trust in God; we must seek God’s help with earnest
   prayer, and have nothing before our eyes but the misery and wretchedness of
   Christendom, irrespective of what punishment the wicked may deserve. If we
   do not act thus, we may begin the game with great pomp; but when we are well
   in it, the spirits of evil will make such confusion, that the whole world
   will be immersed in blood, and yet nothing be done. Therefore let us act in
   the fear of God, and prudently. The greater the might of the foe, the
   greater is the misfortune, if we do not act in the fear of God, and with
   humility. As Popes and Romanists have hitherto, with the Devil’s help,
   thrown Kings into confusion, so will they still do, if we attempt things
   with our own strength and skill, without God’s help.
     _________________________________________________________________

   [15] Charles V. was at that time not quite twenty years of age.
     _________________________________________________________________

  I. The Three Walls of the Romanists.

   The Romanists have, with great adroitness, drawn three walls round
   themselves, with which they have hitherto protected themselves, so that no
   one could reform them, whereby all Christendom has fallen terribly.

   Firstly, if pressed by the temporal power, they have affirmed and maintained
   that the temporal power has no jurisdiction over them, but on the contrary
   that the spiritual power is above the temporal.

   Secondly, if it were proposed to admonish them with the Scriptures, they
   objected that no one may interpret the Scriptures but the Pope.

   Thirdly, if they are threatened with a Council, they pretend that no one may
   call a Council but the Pope.

   Thus they have secretly stolen our three rods, so that they may be
   unpunished, and entrenched themselves behind these three walls, to act with
   all wickedness and malice, as we now see. And whenever they have been
   compelled to call a Council, they have made it of no avail, by binding the
   Princes beforehand with an oath to leave them as they were. Besides this
   they have given the Pope full power over the arrangement of the Council, so
   that it is all one, whether we have many Councils, or no Councils, for in
   any case they deceive us with pretences and false tricks. So grievously do
   they tremble for their skin before a true, free Council; and thus they have
   overawed Kings and Princes, that these believe they would be offending God,
   if they were not to obey them in all such knavish, deceitful artifices.

   Now may God help us, and give us one of those trumpets, that overthrew the
   walls of Jericho, so that we may blow down these walls of straw and paper,
   and that we may set free our Christian rods, for the chastisement of sin,
   and expose the craft and deceit of the devil, so that we may amend ourselves
   by punishment and again obtain God’s favour.
     _________________________________________________________________

    The First Wall.

   Let us, in the first place, attack the first wall.

   It has been devised, that the Pope, bishops, priests and monks are called
   the Spiritual Estate; Princes, lords, artificers and peasants, are the
   Temporal Estate; which is a very fine, hypocritical device. But let no one
   be made afraid by it; and that for this reason: That all Christians are
   truly of the Spiritual Estate, and there is no difference among them, save
   of office alone. As St. Paul says (1 Cor. xii.), we are all one body, though
   each member does its own work, to serve the others. This is because we have
   one baptism, one gospel, one faith, and are all Christians alike; for
   baptism, gospel and faith, these alone make Spiritual and Christian people.

   As for the unction by a pope or a bishop, tonsure, ordination, consecration,
   clothes differing from those of laymen—all this may make a hypocrite or an
   anointed puppet, but never a Christian, or a spiritual man. Thus we are all
   consecrated as priests by baptism, as St. Peter says: “Ye are a royal
   priesthood, a holy nation” (1 Peter ii. 9); and in the book of Revelations:
   “and hast made us unto our God, kings and priests.” (Rev. v. 10.) For, if we
   had not a higher consecration in us than Pope or bishop can give, no priest
   could ever be made by the consecration of Pope or bishop; nor could he say
   the mass, or preach, or absolve. Therefore the bishop’s consecration is just
   as if in the name of the whole congregation he took one person out of the
   community, each member of which has equal power, and commanded him to
   exercise this power for the rest; in the same way as if ten brothers,
   co-heirs as king’s sons, were to choose one from among them to rule over
   their inheritance; they would, all of them, still remain kings and have
   equal power, although one is ordered to govern.

   And to put the matter even more plainly; If a little company of pious
   Christian laymen were taken prisoners and carried away to a desert, and had
   not among them a priest consecrated by a bishop, and were there to agree to
   elect one of them, married or unmarried, and were to order him to baptize,
   to celebrate the mass, to absolve and to preach; this man would as truly be
   a priest, as if all the bishops and all the Popes had consecrated him. That
   is why in cases of necessity every man can baptize and absolve, which would
   not be possible if we were not all priests. This great grace and virtue of
   baptism and of the Christian Estate, they have almost destroyed and made us
   forget by their ecclesiastical law. In this way the Christians used to
   choose their bishops and priests out of the community; these being
   afterwards confirmed by other bishops, without the pomp that we have now. So
   was it that St. Augustine, Ambrose, Cyprian, were bishops.

   Since then the temporal power is baptized as we are, and has the same faith
   and gospel, we must allow it to be priest and bishop, and account its office
   an office that is proper and useful to the Christian community. For whatever
   issues from baptism, may boast that it has been consecrated priest, bishop,
   and Pope, although it does not beseem everyone to exercise these offices.
   For, since we are all priests alike, no man may put himself forward, or take
   upon himself, without our consent and election, to do that which we have all
   alike power to do. For, if a thing is common to all, no man may take it to
   himself without the wish and command of the community. And if it should
   happen that a man were appointed to one of these offices and deposed for
   abuses, he would be just what he was before. Therefore a priest should be
   nothing in Christendom but a functionary; as long as he holds his office, he
   has precedence of others; if he is deprived of it, he is a peasant and a
   citizen like the rest. Therefore a priest is verily no longer a priest after
   deposition. But now they have invented characters indelebiles, [16] and
   pretend that a priest after deprivation still differs from a simple layman.
   They even imagine that a priest can never be anything but a priest, that is,
   that he can never become a layman. All this is nothing but mere talk and
   ordinance of human invention.

   It follows then, that between layman and priests, princes and bishops, or as
   they call it, between spiritual and temporal persons, the only real
   difference is one of office and function, and not of estate: for they are
   all of the same Spiritual Estate, true priests, bishops and Popes, though
   their functions are not the same: just as among priests and monks every man
   has not the same functions. And this St. Paul says (Rom. xii.; 1 Cor. xii.)
   and St. Peter (1 Peter ii.); “we being many are one body in Christ, and
   every one members one of another.” Christ’s body is not double or twofold,
   one temporal, the other spiritual. He is one head, and he has one body.

   We see then that just as those that we call spiritual, or priests, bishops
   or popes, do not differ from other Christians in any other or higher degree,
   but in that they are to be concerned with the word of God, and the
   sacraments—that being their work and office—in the same way the temporal
   authorities hold the sword and the rod in their hands to punish the wicked
   and to protect the good. A cobbler, a smith, a peasant, every man has the
   office and function of his calling, and yet all alike are consecrated
   priests and bishops, and every man in his office must be useful and
   beneficial to the rest, that so many kinds of work may all be united into
   one community: just as the members of the body all serve one another.

   Now see, what a Christian doctrine is this: that the temporal authority is
   not above the clergy, and may not punish it. This is, as if one were to say,
   the hand may not help, though the eye is in grievous suffering. Is it not
   unnatural, not to say unchristian, that one member may not help another, or
   guard it against harm? Nay, the nobler the member, the more the rest are
   bound to help it. Therefore I say: forasmuch as the temporal power has been
   ordained by God for the punishment of the bad, and the protection of the
   good, therefore we must let it do its duty throughout the whole Christian
   body, without respect of persons: whether it strike popes, bishops, priests,
   monks, or nuns. If it were sufficient reason for fettering the temporal
   power that it is inferior among the offices of Christianity to the offices
   of priest or confessor, or to the spiritual estate—if this were so, then we
   ought to restrain tailors, cobblers, masons, carpenters, cooks, servants,
   peasants, and all secular workmen, from providing the Pope, or bishops,
   priests and monks, with shoes, clothes, houses or victuals, or from paying
   them tithes. But if these laymen are allowed to do their work without
   restraint, what do the Romanist scribes mean by their laws? They mean that
   they withdraw themselves from the operation of temporal Christian power,
   simply in order that they may be free to do evil, and thus fulfil what St.
   Peter said: “There shall be false teachers among you, . . . and through
   covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandize of you.” (2
   Peter ii. 1, etc.)

   Therefore the temporal Christian power must exercise its office without let
   or hindrance, without considering whom it may strike, whether pope, or
   bishop, or priest: whoever is guilty let him suffer for it. Whatever the
   ecclesiastical law says in opposition to this, is merely the invention of
   Romanist arrogance. For this is what St. Paul says to all Christians: “Let
   every soul” (I presume including the Popes) “be subject unto the higher
   powers: for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God,
   a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.” (Rom. xiii. 1-4.)
   Also St. Peter: “Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s
   sake . . . for so is the will of God.” (1 Peter ii. 13, 15.) He has also
   said, that men would come, who should despise government (2 Peter ii.); as
   has come to pass through ecclesiastical law.

   Now I imagine, the first paper wall is overthrown, inasmuch as the temporal
   power has become a member of the Christian body, and although its work
   relates to the body, yet does it belong to the spiritual estate. Therefore
   it must do its duty without let or hindrance upon all members of the whole
   body, to punish or urge, as guilt may deserve, or need may require, without
   respect of Pope, bishops or priests; let them threaten or excommunicate as
   they will. That is why a guilty priest is deprived of his priesthood before
   being given over to the secular arm; whereas this would not be right, if the
   secular sword had not authority over him already by divine ordinance.

   It is, indeed, past bearing that the spiritual law should esteem so highly
   the liberty, life and property of the clergy, as if laymen were not as good
   spiritual Christians, or not equally members of the Church. Why should your
   body, life, goods, and honour be free and not mine, seeing that we are equal
   as Christians, and have received alike baptism, faith, spirit and all
   things? If a priest is killed, the country is laid under an interdict: [17]
   why not also if a peasant is killed? Whence comes all this difference among
   equal Christians? Simply from human laws and inventions.

   It can have been no good spirit, that devised these exceptions, and made sin
   to go unpunished. For, if as Christ and the Apostles bid us, it is our duty
   to oppose the evil one, and all his works and words, and to drive him away
   as well as may be; how then should we look on in silence, when the Pope and
   his followers are guilty of devilish works and words? Are we for the sake of
   men to allow the commandments and the truth of God to be defeated, which at
   our baptism we vowed to support with body and soul? Truly we should have to
   answer for all souls that are thus led away into error.

   Therefore it must have been the archdevil himself who said, as we read in
   the ecclesiastical law: If the Pope were so perniciously wicked, as to be
   dragging souls in crowds to the devil, yet he could not be deposed. This is
   the accursed and devilish foundation on which they build at Rome, and think
   that the whole world is to be allowed to go to the devil, rather than they
   should be opposed in their knavery. If a man were to escape punishment
   simply because he is above the rest, then no Christian might punish another,
   since Christ has commanded each of us to esteem himself the lowest and the
   humblest. (Matt. xviii. 4; Luke ix. 48.)

   Where there is sin, there remains no avoiding the punishment, as St. Gregory
   says: We are all equal, but guilt makes one subject to another. Now see, how
   they deal with Christendom, depriving it of its freedom without any warrant
   from the Scriptures, out of their own wickedness, whereas God and the
   Apostles made them subject to the secular sword; so that we must fear, that
   it is the work of Antichrist, or a sign of his near approach.
     _________________________________________________________________

   [16] In accordance with a doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church the act of
   ordination impresses upon the priest an indelible character; so that he
   immutably retains the sacred dignity of priesthood.

   [17] By the Interdict, or general excommunication, whole countries,
   districts, or towns, were deprived of all the spiritual benefits of the
   Church, such as divine service, the administering of the sacraments, etc.
     _________________________________________________________________

    The Second Wall.

   The second wall is even more tottering and weak: that they alone pretend to
   be considered masters of the Scriptures; although they learn nothing of them
   all their life, they assume authority, and juggle before us with impudent
   words, saying that the Pope cannot err in matters of faith, whether he be
   evil or good; albeit they cannot prove it by a single letter. That is why
   the canon law contains so many heretical and unchristian, nay, unnatural
   laws; but of these we need not speak now. For whereas they imagine the Holy
   Ghost never leaves them, however unlearned and wicked they may be, they grow
   bold enough to decree whatever they like. But were this true, where were the
   need and use of the Holy Scriptures? Let us burn them, and content ourselves
   with the unlearned gentlemen at Rome, in whom the Holy Ghost dwells, who
   however can dwell in pious souls only. If I had not read it, I could never
   have believed, that the Devil should have put forth such follies at Rome and
   find a following.

   But not to fight them with our own words, we will quote the Scriptures. St.
   Paul says: “If anything be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the
   first hold his peace.” (1 Cor. xiv. 30.) What would be the use of this
   commandment, if we were to believe him alone that teaches or has the highest
   seat? Christ Himself says: “And they shall be all taught of God.” (St. John
   vi. 45.) Thus it may come to pass that the Pope and his followers are wicked
   and not true Christians, and not being taught by God, have no true
   understanding, whereas a common man may have true understanding. Why should
   we then not follow him? Has not the Pope often erred? Who could help
   Christianity, in case the Pope errs, if we do not rather believe another,
   who has the Scriptures for him?

   Therefore it is a wickedly devised fable, and they cannot quote a single
   letter to confirm it, that it is for the Pope alone to interpret the
   Scriptures or to confirm the interpretation of them: they have assumed the
   authority of their own selves. And though they say, that this authority was
   given to St. Peter when the keys were given to him, it is plain enough that
   the keys were not given to St. Peter alone, but to the whole community.
   Besides, the keys were not ordained for doctrine or authority, but for sin,
   to bind or loose; and what they claim besides this is mere invention. But
   what Christ said to St. Peter: “I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail
   not” (St. Luke xxii. 32), cannot relate to the Pope, inasmuch as there have
   been many Popes without faith, as they are themselves forced to acknowledge.
   Nor did Christ pray for Peter alone, but for all the Apostles and all
   Christians, as He says, “Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also
   which shall believe on me through their word.” (St. John xvii.) Is not this
   plain enough?

   Only consider the matter. They must needs acknowledge that there are pious
   Christians among us, that have the true faith, spirit, understanding, word,
   and mind of Christ; why then should we reject their word and understanding,
   and follow a Pope who has neither understanding nor Spirit? Surely this were
   to deny our whole faith and the Christian Church. Moreover, if the article
   of our faith is right: I believe in the Holy Christian Church, the Pope
   cannot alone be right; else we must say: I believe in the Pope of Rome, and
   reduce the Christian Church to one man, which is a devilish and damnable
   heresy. Besides that, we are all priests, as I have said, and have all one
   faith, one gospel, one sacrament; how then should we not have the power of
   discerning and judging what is right or wrong in matters of faith? What
   becomes of St. Paul’s words: “But he that is spiritual judgeth all things,
   yet he himself is judged of no man” (1 Cor. ii. 15); and also, “we having
   the same spirit of faith.” (2 Cor. iv. 13.) Why then should we not perceive
   as well as an unbelieving Pope, what agrees, or disagrees with our faith?

   By these and many other texts we should gain courage and freedom, and should
   not let the spirit of liberty (as St. Paul has it) be frightened away by the
   inventions of the Popes; we should boldly judge what they do and what they
   leave undone, by our own understanding of the Scriptures, and force them to
   follow the better understanding, and not their own. Did not Abraham in old
   days have to obey his Sarah, who was in stricter bondage to him than we are
   to any one on earth? Thus too Balaam’s ass was wiser than the prophet. If
   God spoke by an ass against a prophet, why should He not speak by a pious
   man against the Pope? Besides, St. Paul withstood St. Peter as being in
   error. (Gal. ii.) Therefore it behoves every Christian to aid the faith by
   understanding and defending it, and by condemning all errors.
     _________________________________________________________________

    The Third Wall.

   The third wall falls of itself, as soon as the first two have fallen; for if
   the Pope acts contrary to the Scriptures, we are bound to stand by the
   Scriptures, to punish and to constrain him, according to Christ’s
   commandment; “Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and
   tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou
   hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee
   one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may
   be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the
   church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an
   heathen man and a publican.” (St. Matt. xviii. 15-17.) Here each member is
   commanded to take care for the other; much more then should we do this, if
   it is a ruling member of the community that does evil, which by its evil
   doing, causes great harm and offence to the others. If then I am to accuse
   him before the church, I must collect the church together. Moreover they can
   show nothing in the Scriptures giving the Pope sole power to call and
   confirm councils; they have nothing but their own laws; but these hold good
   only so long as they are not injurious to Christianity and the laws of God.
   Therefore, if the Pope deserves punishment, these laws cease to bind us,
   since Christendom would suffer, if he were not punished by a council. Thus
   we read (Acts xv.), that the council of the Apostles was not called by St.
   Peter, but by all the Apostles and the elders. But if the right to call it
   had lain with St. Peter alone, it would not have been a Christian council,
   but a heretical conciliabulum. Moreover the most celebrated Nicene Council
   was neither called nor confirmed by the Bishop of Rome, but by the Emperor
   Constantine; and after him many other Emperors have done the same, and yet
   the councils called by them were accounted most Christian. But if the Pope
   alone had the power, they must all have been heretical. Moreover if I
   consider the councils that the Pope has called, I do not find that they
   produced any notable results.

   Therefore when need requires and the Pope is a cause of offence to
   Christendom, in these cases whoever can best do so, as a faithful member of
   the whole body, must do what he can to procure a true free council. This no
   one can do so well as the temporal authorities, especially since they are
   fellow-Christians, fellow-priests, sharing one spirit, and one power in all
   things; and since they should exercise the office that they have received
   from God without hindrance, whenever it is necessary and useful that it
   should be exercised. Would it not be most unnatural, if a fire were to break
   out in a city, and everyone were to keep still and let it burn on and on,
   whatever might be burnt, simply because they had not the mayor’s authority,
   or because the fire perhaps broke out at the mayor’s house? Is not every
   citizen bound in this case to rouse and call in the rest? How much more
   should this be done in the spiritual city of Christ, if a fire of offence
   breaks out, either at the Pope’s government or wherever it may! The like
   happens if an enemy attacks a town. The first to rouse up the rest earns
   glory and thanks. Why then should not he earn glory that announces the
   coming of our enemies from hell, and rouses and summons all Christians?

   But as for their boasts of their authority, that no one must oppose it, this
   is idle talk. No one in Christendom has any authority to do harm, or to
   forbid others to prevent harm being done. There is no authority in the
   Church but for reformation. Therefore if the Pope wished to use his power to
   prevent the calling of a free council, so as to prevent the reformation of
   the Church, we must not respect him or his power; and if he should begin to
   excommunicate and fulminate, we must despise this as the ravings of a
   madman, and trusting in God, excommunicate and repel him, as best we may.
   For this his usurped power is nothing; he does not possess it, and he is at
   once overthrown by a text from the Scriptures. For St. Paul says to the
   Corinthians, “That God has given us authority for edification and not for
   destruction.” (2 Cor. x. 8.) Who will set this text at naught? It is the
   power of the Devil and of Antichrist that prevents what would serve for the
   reformation of Christendom. Therefore we must not follow it, but oppose it
   with our body, our goods and all that we have. And even if a miracle were to
   happen in favour of the Pope, against the temporal power, or if some were to
   be stricken by a plague, as they sometimes boast has happened: all this is
   to be held as having been done by the Devil, for our want of faith in God,
   as was foretold by Christ: “There shall arise false Christs, and false
   prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were
   possible, they shall deceive the very elect” (Matt. xxiv. 23); and St. Paul
   tells the Thessalonians that the coming of Antichrist shall be “after the
   working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders.” (2 Thess. ii.
   9.)

   Therefore let us hold fast to this: that Christian power can do nothing
   against Christ, as St. Paul says: “for we can do nothing against Christ, but
   for Christ.” (2 Cor. xiii. 8.) But, if it does anything against Christ, it
   is the power of Antichrist and the Devil, even if it rained and hailed
   wonders and plagues. Wonders and plagues prove nothing, especially in these
   latter evil days, of which false wonders are foretold in all the Scriptures.
   Therefore we must hold fast to the words of God with an assured faith; then
   the Devil will soon cease his wonders.

   And now I hope we have laid the false, lying spectre with which the
   Romanists have long terrified and stupefied our consciences. And we have
   shown that, like all the rest of us, they are subject to the temporal sword;
   that they have no authority to interpret the Scriptures by force without
   skill; and that they have no power to prevent a council, or to pledge it in
   accordance with their pleasure, or to bind it beforehand, and deprive it of
   its freedom; and that if they do this, they are verily of the fellowship of
   Antichrist and the Devil, and have nothing of Christ but the name.
     _________________________________________________________________
     _________________________________________________________________

  II.

  Of the Matters to be Considered in the Councils.

   Let us now consider the matters which should be treated in the councils, and
   with which popes, cardinals, bishops, and all learned men should occupy
   themselves day and night, if they loved Christ and His Church. But if they
   do not do so, the people at large and the temporal powers must do so,
   without considering the thunders of their excommunications. For an unjust
   excommunication is better than ten just absolutions, and an unjust
   absolution is worse than ten just excommunications. Therefore let us rouse
   ourselves, fellow-Germans, and fear God more than man, that we be not
   answerable for all the poor souls that are so miserably lost through the
   wicked, devilish government of the Romanists, through which also the
   dominion of the Devil grows day by day; if indeed this hellish government
   can grow any worse, which for my part I can neither conceive nor believe.

   1. It is a distressing and terrible thing to see that the head of
   Christendom, who boasts of being the Vicar of Christ and the successor of
   St. Peter, lives in a worldly pomp that no king or emperor can equal: so
   that in him that calls himself most holy and most spiritual, there is more
   worldliness than in the world itself. He wears a triple crown, whereas the
   mightiest kings only wear one crown. If this resembles the poverty of Christ
   and St. Peter, it is a new sort of resemblance. They prate of its being
   heretical to object to this; nay, they will not even hear how unchristian
   and ungodly it is. But I think that if he should have to pray to God with
   tears, he would have to lay down his crowns; for God will not endure any
   arrogance. His office should be nothing else than to weep and pray
   constantly for Christendom, and to be an example of all humility.

   However this may be, this pomp is a stumbling-block, and the Pope, for the
   very salvation of his soul, ought to put it off; for St. Paul says: “Abstain
   from all appearance of evil” (1 Thess. v. 21); and again: “Provide things
   honest in the sight of all men.” (2 Cor. viii. 21.) A simple mitre would be
   enough for the Pope: wisdom and sanctity should raise him above the rest;
   the crown of pride he should leave to Antichrist, as his predecessors did
   for some hundreds of years. They say: He is the ruler of the world. This is
   false; for Christ, whose vice-gerent and vicar he claims to be, said to
   Pilate: “My kingdom is not of this world.” (John xviii. 36.) But no
   vice-gerent can have a wider dominion than his Lord. Nor is he a vice-gerent
   of Christ in His glory, but of Christ crucified, as St. Paul says: “For I
   determined not to know anything among you, save Jesus Christ, and him
   crucified” (2 Cor. ii. 2); and (Phil. ii. 7): “Let this mind be in you,
   which was also in Christ Jesus; who made himself of no reputation, and took
   upon himself the form of a servant.” (Phil. ii. 5, 7.) Again (1 Cor. i.):
   “We preach Christ crucified.” Now they make the Pope a vice-gerent of Christ
   exalted in heaven, and some have let the Devil rule them so thoroughly, that
   they have maintained that the Pope is above the angels in heaven, and has
   power over them; which is precisely the true work of the true Antichrist.

   2. What is the use in Christendom of the people called “Cardinals”? I will
   tell you. In Italy and Germany there are many rich convents, endowments,
   fiefs and benefices, and as the best way of getting these into the hands of
   Rome, they created cardinals, and gave them the sees, convents, and
   prelacies, and thus destroyed the service of God. That is why Italy is
   almost a desert now: the convents are destroyed, the sees consumed, the
   revenues of the prelacies and of all the churches drawn to Rome; towns are
   decayed; the country and the people ruined, while there is no more any
   worship of God or preaching; why? Because the cardinals must have all the
   wealth. No Turk could have thus desolated Italy and overthrown the worship
   of God.

   Now that Italy is sucked dry, they come to Germany and begin very quietly;
   but we shall see, that Germany is soon to be brought into the same state as
   Italy. We have a few cardinals already. What the Romanists mean thereby the
   drunken Germans [18] are not to see until they have lost
   everything—bishoprics, convents, benefices, fiefs, even to their last
   farthing. Antichrist must take the riches of the earth, as it is written.
   (Dan. xi. 8, 39, 43.) They begin by taking off the cream of the bishoprics,
   convents, and fiefs; and as they do not dare to destroy everything as they
   have done in Italy, they employ such holy cunning to join together ten or
   twenty prelacies, and take such a portion of each, annually, that the total
   amounts to a considerable sum. The priory of Würzburg gives one thousand
   guilders, those of Bamberg, Mayence, Treves and others also contribute. In
   this way they collect one thousand or ten thousand guilders, in order that a
   cardinal may live at Rome in a state like that of a wealthy monarch.

   After we have gained this, we will create thirty or forty cardinals on one
   day, and give one St. Michael’s Mount, [19] near Bamberg, and likewise the
   see of Würzburg, to which belong some rich benefices, until the churches and
   the cities are desolated; and then we shall say: We are the vicars of
   Christ, the shepherds of Christ’s flocks; those mad, drunken Germans must
   submit to it. I advise, however, that there be made fewer cardinals, or that
   the Pope should have to support them out of his own purse. It would be amply
   sufficient, if there were twelve, and if each of them had an annual income
   of one thousand guilders. What has brought us Germans to such a pass, that
   we have to suffer this robbery and this destruction of our property by the
   Pope? If the kingdom of France has resisted it, why do we Germans suffer
   ourselves to be fooled and deceived? It would be more endurable, if they did
   nothing but rob us of our property; but they destroy the church and deprive
   Christ’s flock of their good shepherds, and overthrow the service and word
   of God. Even if there were no cardinals at all, the Church would not perish;
   for they do nothing for the good of Christendom; all they do is to bargain
   and traffic in prelacies and bishoprics; which any robber could do as well.

   3. If we took away ninety-nine parts of the Pope’s court and only left one
   hundredth, it would still be large enough to answer questions on matters of
   belief. Now there is such a swarm of vermin at Rome, all called Papal, that
   Babylon itself never saw the like. There are more than three thousand Papal
   secretaries alone; but who shall count the other office-bearers, since there
   are so many offices that we can scarcely count them, and all waiting for
   German benefices, as wolves wait for a flock of sheep? I think Germany now
   pays more to the Pope, than it formerly paid the Emperors; nay, some think
   more than three hundred thousand guilders are sent from Germany to Rome
   every year, for nothing whatever; and in return we are scoffed at and put to
   shame. Do we still wonder why princes, noblemen, cities, foundations,
   convents and people are poor? We should rather wonder that we have anything
   left to eat.

   Now that we have got well into our game, let us pause awhile and show that
   the Germans are not such fools, as not to perceive or understand this Romish
   trickery. I do not here complain, that God’s commandments and Christian
   justice are despised at Rome; for the state of things in Christendom,
   especially at Rome, is too bad for us to complain of such high matters. Nor
   do I even complain that no account is taken of natural or secular justice
   and reason. The mischief lies still deeper. I complain that they do not
   observe their own fabricated canon law, though this is in itself rather mere
   tyranny, avarice and worldly pomp, than a law. This we shall now show.

   Long ago the Emperors and Princes of Germany allowed the Pope to claim the
   annates [20] from all German benefices; that is, half of the first year’s
   income from every benefice. The object at this concession was that the Pope
   should collect a fund with all this money, to fight against the Turks and
   infidels, and to protect Christendom, so that the nobility should not have
   to bear the burden of the struggle alone, and that the priests should also
   contribute. The Popes have made such use of this good simple piety of the
   Germans, that they have taken this money for more than one hundred years,
   and have now made of it a regular tax and duty; and not only have they
   accumulated nothing, but they have founded out of it many posts and offices
   at Rome, which are paid by it yearly, as out of a settled rent.

   Whenever there is any pretence of fighting the Turks, they send out some
   commission for collecting money, and often send out indulgences under the
   same pretext of fighting the Turks. They think we Germans will always remain
   such great and inveterate fools, that we will go on giving money to satisfy
   their unspeakable greed, though we see plainly that neither annates nor
   absolution money, nor any other—not one farthing—goes against the Turks, but
   all goes into the bottomless sack. They lie and deceive, form and make
   covenants with us of which they do not mean to keep one jot. And all this is
   done in the holy name of Christ and St. Peter.

   This being so, the German nation, the bishops and princes, should remember
   that they are Christians, and should defend the people, who are committed to
   their government and protection in temporal and spiritual affairs, from
   these ravenous wolves in sheep’s clothing, that profess to be shepherds and
   rulers; and since the annates are so shamefully abused, and the covenants
   concerning them not carried out, they should not suffer their lands and
   people to be so piteously and unrighteously flayed and ruined; but by an
   imperial or a national law they should either retain the annates in the
   country, or abolish them altogether. For since they do not keep to the
   covenants, they have no right to the annates; therefore bishops and princes
   are bound to punish this thievery and robbery, or prevent it, as justice
   demands. And herein should we assist and strengthen the Pope, who is
   perchance too weak to prevent this scandal by himself; or, if he wishes to
   protect or support it, restrain and oppose him as a wolf and tyrant; for he
   has no authority to do evil or to protect evil-doers. Even if it were
   proposed to collect any such treasure for use against the Turks, we should
   be wise in future, and remember that the German nation is more fitted to
   take charge of it than the Pope, seeing that the German nation by itself is
   able to provide men enough, if the money is forthcoming. This matter of the
   annates is like many other Romish pretexts.

   Moreover the year has been divided among the Pope and the ruling bishops and
   foundations, in such wise, that the Pope has taken every other month—six in
   all—to give away the benefices that fall in his month; in this way almost
   all the benefices are drawn into the hands of Rome, and especially the best
   livings and dignities. And those that once fall into the hands of Rome never
   come out again, even if they never again fall vacant in the Pope’s month. In
   this way the foundations come very short of their rights, and it is a
   downright robbery, by which it is intended that nothing of them should be
   left. Therefore it is now high time to abolish the Pope’s months and to take
   back again all that has thereby fallen into the hands of Rome. For all the
   princes and nobles should insist, that the stolen property shall be
   returned, the thieves punished, and that those who abuse their powers shall
   be deprived of them. If the Pope can make a law on the day after his
   election, by which he takes our benefices and livings to which he has no
   right; the Emperor Charles should so much the more have a right to issue a
   law for all Germany on the day after his coronation, [21] that in future no
   livings and benefices are to fall to Rome by virtue of the Pope’s month, but
   that those that have so fallen are to be freed and taken from the Romish
   robbers. This right he possesses by his office in virtue of his temporal
   sword.

   But the see of avarice and robbery at Rome is unwilling to wait for the
   benefices to fall in one after another by means of the Pope’s month; and in
   order to get them into its insatiable maw, as speedily as possible, they
   have devised the plan of taking livings and benefices in three other ways:

   First, if the incumbent of a free living dies at Rome or on his way thither,
   his living remains for ever the property of the see of Rome, or I rather
   should say, the see of robbers, though they will not let us call them
   robbers, although no one has ever seen or read of such robbery.

   Secondly, if a servant of the Pope, or of one of the cardinals, takes a
   living, or if having a living he becomes a servant of the Pope or of a
   cardinal, the living remains with Rome. But who can count the servants of
   the Pope and his cardinals, seeing that if he goes out riding, he is
   attended by three or four thousand mule-riders; more than any king or
   emperor. For Christ and St. Peter went on foot; in order that their
   vice-gerents might indulge the better in all manner of pomp. Besides, their
   avarice has devised and invented this, that in foreign countries also there
   are many called papal servants, as at Rome: so that in all parts this single
   crafty little word “papal servant” brings all benefices to the Chair of Rome
   and they are kept there for ever. Are not these mischievous, devilish
   devices? Let us only wait awhile. Mayence, Magdeburg, and Halberstadt will
   fall very nicely to Rome, and we shall have to pay dearly for our cardinal.
   [22] Hereafter, all the German bishops will be made cardinals, so that there
   shall remain nothing to ourselves.

   Thirdly, whenever there is any dispute about a benefice; and this is, I
   think, well-nigh the broadest and commonest road by which benefices are
   brought to Rome. For where there is no dispute numberless knaves can be
   found at Rome, who are ready to scrape up disputes, and attack livings
   wherever they like. In this way many a good priest loses his living, or has
   to buy off the dispute for a time with a sum of money. These benefices,
   confiscated by right or wrong of dispute, are to be for ever the property of
   the see of Rome. It would be no wonder, if God were to rain sulphur and fire
   from heaven and cast Rome down into the pit, as he did formerly to Sodom and
   Gomorrah. What is the use of a Pope in Christendom, if the only use made of
   his power is to commit these supreme villainies under his protection and
   assistance? O noble princes and sirs, how long will you suffer your lands
   and your people to be the prey of these ravening wolves?

   But these tricks did not suffice, and Bishoprics were too slow in falling
   into the power of Roman avarice. Accordingly our good friend Avarice made
   the discovery that all Bishoprics are abroad in name only; but that their
   land and soil is at Rome; from this it follows, that no bishop may be
   confirmed until he has bought the “Pall” [23] for a large sum, and has with
   a terrible oath bound himself a servant of the Pope. That is why no bishop
   dare oppose the Pope. This was the object of the oath, and this is how the
   wealthiest bishoprics have come to debt and ruin. Mayence, I am told, pays
   20,000 guilders. These are true Roman tricks, it seems to me. It is true
   that they once decreed in the canon law, that the Pall should be given free,
   the number of the Pope’s servants diminished, disputes made less frequent,
   that foundations and bishops should enjoy their liberty; but all this
   brought them no money. They have, therefore, reversed all this: bishops and
   foundations have lost all their power; they are mere cyphers, without
   office, authority or function; all things are regulated by the chief knaves
   at Rome; even the offices of sextons and bell-ringers in all churches. All
   disputes are transferred to Rome; each one does what he will, strong in the
   Pope’s protection.

   What has happened in this very year? The bishop of Strasburg, wishing to
   regulate his see in a proper way and reform it in the matter of divine
   service, published some divine and Christian ordinances for that purpose.
   But our worthy Pope and the holy Chair at Rome overturns altogether this
   holy and spiritual order on the accusation of the priests. This is what they
   call being the shepherd of Christ’s sheep—supporting priests against their
   own bishops, and protecting their disobedience by divine decrees.
   Antichrist, I hope, will not insult God in this open way. There you have the
   Pope, as you have chosen to have him, and why? Why, because if the Church
   were to be reformed, many things would have to be destroyed, and possibly
   Rome among them. Therefore it is better to prevent priests from being at one
   with each other; they should rather, as they have done hitherto, sow discord
   among kings and princes, flood the world with Christian blood, lest
   Christian unity should trouble the holy Roman See with reforms.

   So far we have seen what they do with the livings that fall vacant. Now
   there are not enough vacancies for this delicate greed; therefore it has
   also taken prudent account of the benefices that are still held by their
   incumbents, so that they may become vacant, though they are in fact not
   vacant, and this they effect in many ways:

   First, they lie in wait for fat livings or sees which are held by an old or
   sick man, or even by one afflicted by an imaginary incompetence; him the
   Roman See gives a coadjutor, that is an assistant without his asking or
   wishing it, for the benefit of the coadjutor, because he is a papal servant,
   or pays for the office, or has otherwise earned it by some menial service
   rendered to Rome. Thus there is an end of free election on the part of the
   chapter, or of the right of him that presents the living; and all goes to
   Rome.

   Secondly, there is a little word: commendam, that is, when the Pope gives a
   rich and fat convent or church into the charge of a cardinal or any other of
   his servants, just as I might command you to take charge of one hundred
   guilders for me. In this way the convent is neither given, nor lent, nor
   destroyed, nor is its divine service abolished; but only entrusted to a
   man’s charge: not, however, for him to protect and improve it, but to drive
   out the one he finds there; to take the property and revenue, and to instal
   some apostate [24] runaway monk, who is paid five or six guilders a year,
   and sits in the church all day and sells symbols and pictures to the
   pilgrims; so that neither chanting nor reading in the church goes on there
   any more. Now if we were to call this the destruction of convents and
   abolition of divine service, we should be accusing the Pope of destroying
   Christianity and abolishing divine service—for truly he is doing this
   effectually—but this would be thought harsh language at Rome, therefore it
   is called a commendam, or an order to take charge of the convent. In this
   way the Pope can make commendams of four or more convents a year, any one of
   which produces a revenue of more than six thousand guilders. This is the way
   divine service is advanced and convents kept up at Rome. This will be
   introduced into Germany as well.

   Thirdly, there are certain benefices that are said to be incompatible, that
   is, they may not be held together according to the canon law; such as two
   cures, two sees and the like. Now the Holy See and avarice twists itself out
   of the canon law by making “glosses,” or interpretations, called Unio, or
   Incorporatio, that is, several incompatible benefices are incorporated, so
   that one is a member of the other, and the whole is held to be one benefice;
   then they are no longer incompatible, and we have got rid of the holy canon
   law, so that it is no longer binding, except on those, who do not buy those
   glosses of the Pope, and his Datarius. [25] Unio is of the same kind: a
   number of benefices are tied together like a bundle of faggots, and on
   account of this coupling together, they are held to be one benefice. Thus
   there may be found many a courtling at Rome who alone holds twenty-two
   cures, seven priories, and forty-four prebends; all which is done in virtue
   of this masterly gloss, so as not to be contrary to law. Any one can imagine
   what cardinals and other prelates may hold. In this way the Germans are to
   have their purses emptied and be deprived of all comfort.

   There is another gloss called Administratio, that is, that besides his see a
   man holds an abbey or other high benefice, and possesses all the property of
   it, without any other title but administrator. For at Rome it is enough that
   words should change and not deeds, just as if I said, a procuress was to be
   called a mayoress, yet may remain as good as she is now. Such Romish rule
   was foretold by St. Peter, when he said: “There shall be false teachers
   among you . . . and through covetousness shall they with feigned words make
   merchandize of you.” (2 Pet. ii. 1, 3.)

   This precious Roman avarice has also invented the practice of selling and
   lending prebends and benefices on condition that the seller or lender has
   the reversion, so that if the incumbent dies, the benefice falls to him that
   has sold it, lent it, or abandoned it; in this way they have made benefices
   heritable property, so that none can come to hold it unless the seller sells
   it to him, or leaves it to him at his death. Then there are many that give a
   benefice to another in name only; and on condition that he shall not receive
   a farthing. It is now too an old practice for a man to give another a
   benefice and to receive a certain annual sum, which proceeding was formerly
   called simony. And there are many other such little things which I cannot
   recount; and so they deal worse with the benefices than the heathens by the
   cross dealt with Christ’s clothes.

   But all this that I have spoken of is old and common at Rome. Their avarice
   has invented other device, which I hope will be the last and choke it. The
   Pope has made a noble discovery, called Pectoralis Reservatio, that is,
   “mental reservation”—et proprius motus, that is, “and his own will and
   power.” The matter is managed in this way: Suppose a man obtains a benefice
   at Rome, which is confirmed to him in due form; then comes another, who
   brings money, or who has done some other service of which the less said the
   better, and requests the Pope to give him the same benefice, then the Pope
   will take it from the first and give it him. If you say, that is wrong; the
   Most Holy Father must then excuse himself, that he may not be openly blamed
   for having violated justice; and he says: “that in his heart and mind he
   reserved his authority over the said benefice;” whilst he never had heard or
   thought of the same in all his life. Thus he has devised a gloss which
   allows him in his proper person to lie and cheat and fool us all; and all
   this impudently and in open daylight, and nevertheless he claims to be the
   head of Christendom; letting the evil spirit rule him with manifest lies.

   This “mere motion” and lying reservation of the Popes has brought about an
   unutterable state of things at Rome. There is a buying and a selling, a
   changing, exchanging, and bargaining, cheating and lying, robbing and
   stealing, debauchery, and villainy, and all kinds of contempt of God, that
   Antichrist himself could not rule worse. Venice, Antwerp, Cairo, are nothing
   to this fair and market at Rome, except that there things are done with some
   reason and justice, whilst here things are done as the Devil himself could
   wish. And out of this ocean a like virtue overflows all the world. Is it not
   natural that such people should dread a reformation and a free council, and
   should rather embroil all kings and princes, than that their unity should
   bring about a council? Who would like his villainy to be exposed?

   Finally the Pope has built a special house for this fine traffic, that is,
   the house of the Datarius at Rome. Thither all must come that bargain in
   this way for prebends and benefices; from his they must buy the glosses and
   obtain the right to practise such prime villainy. In former days it was
   fairly well at Rome, when justice had to be bought, or could only be put
   down by money; but now she has become so fastidious, that she does not allow
   any one to commit villainies, unless he has first bought the right to do it
   with great sums. If this is not a house of prostitution, worse than all
   houses of prostitution that can be conceived, I do not know what houses of
   prostitution really are.

   If you bring money to this house, you can arrive at all that I have
   mentioned; and more than this, any sort of usury is made legitimate for
   money; property got by theft or robbery is here made legal. Here vows are
   annulled; here a monk obtains leave to quit his order; here priests can
   enter married life for money; here bastards can become legitimate; and
   dishonour and shame may arrive at high honours; all evil repute and disgrace
   is knighted and ennobled; here a marriage is suffered that is in a forbidden
   degree, or has some other defect. Oh, what a trafficking and plundering is
   there! one would think that the canon laws were only so many ropes of gold,
   from which he must free himself who would become a Christian man. Nay, here
   the Devil becomes a saint, and a God besides. What heaven and earth might
   not do, may be done by this house. Their ordinances are called
   compositions—compositions, forsooth! confusions rather. [26] Oh what a poor
   treasury is the toll on the Rhine, [27] compared with this holy house!

   Let no one think that I say too much. It is all notorious, so that even at
   Rome they are forced to own that it is more terrible and worse than one can
   say. I have said and will say nothing of the foul dregs of private vices. I
   only speak of well-known public matters, and yet my words do not suffice.
   Bishops, priests, and especially the doctors of the universities, who are
   paid to do it, ought to have unanimously written and exclaimed against it.
   Yea, if you will turn the leaf, you will discover the truth.

   I have still to give a farewell greeting. These treasures, that would have
   satisfied three mighty kings, were not enough for this unspeakable greed,
   and so they have made over and sold their traffic to Fugger [28] at
   Augsburg, so that the lending and buying and selling sees and benefices, and
   all this traffic in ecclesiastical property, has in the end come into the
   right hands, and spiritual and temporal matters have now become one
   business. Now I should like to know what the most cunning would devise for
   Romish greed to do that it has not done; except that Fugger might sell or
   pledge his two trades that have now become one. I think they must have come
   to the end of their devices. For what they have stolen and yet steal in all
   countries by Bulls of Indulgences, Letters of Confession, Letters of
   Dispensation [29] and other confessionalia, all this I think mere bungling
   work, and much like playing toss with a devil in hell. Not that they produce
   little, for a mighty king could support himself by them; but they are as
   nothing compared to the other streams of revenue mentioned above. I will not
   now consider what has become of that Indulgence money; I shall enquire into
   this another time, for Campofiore and Belvedere [30] and some other places
   probably know something about it.

   Meanwhile since this devilish state of things is not only an open robbery,
   deceit and tyranny of the gates of hell, but also destroys Christianity,
   body and soul, we are bound to use all our diligence to prevent this misery
   and destruction of Christendom. If we wish to fight the Turks, let us begin
   here, where they are worst. If we justly hang thieves and behead robbers,
   why do we leave the greed of Rome so unpunished, who is the greatest thief
   and robber that has appeared or can appear on earth, and does all this in
   the holy name of Christ and St. Peter? Who can suffer this and be silent
   about it? Almost everything that he possesses has been stolen, or got by
   robbery, as we learn from all histories. Why, the Pope never bought those
   great possessions, so as to be able to raise wellnigh ten hundred thousand
   ducats from his ecclesiastical offices, without counting his gold mines
   described above, and his land. He did not inherit it from Christ and St.
   Peter; no one gave it or lent it him, he has not acquired it by
   prescription. Tell me, where can he have got it? You can learn from this,
   what their object is, when they sent out legates to collect money to be used
   against the Turk.
     _________________________________________________________________

   [18] The epithet “drunken” was formerly often applied by the Italians to the
   Germans.

   [19] Luther alludes here to the Benedictine convent standing on the
   Mönchberg, or St. Michael’s Mount.

   [20] The duty of paying annates to the Pope was established by John XXII. in
   1318.

   [21] At the time when the above was written—June 1520—the Emperor Charles
   had been elected, but not yet crowned.

   [22] Luther alludes here to the Archbishop Albert of Mayence, who was,
   besides, Archbishop of Magdeburg, and administrator of the bishopric of
   Halberstadt. In order to be able to defray the expense of the Archiepiscopal
   tax due to Rome, amounting to 30,000 guilders, he had farmed the sale of the
   Pope’s indulgences—employing the notorious Tetzel as his agent, and sharing
   the profits with the Pope. In 1518 Albert was appointed Cardinal. See Ranke:
   Deutsche Geschichte, &c.; vol. i. p. 309, &c.

   [23] The Pallium was since the fourth century the symbol of archiepiscopal
   power, and had to be redeemed from the Pope by means of a large sum of money
   and a solemn oath of obedience.

   [24] Monks who forsook their order without any legal dispensation were
   called “apostates.”

   [25] The Papal office for the issue and registration of certain documents
   was called Dataria, from the phrase appended to them, Datum apud S. Petrum.
   The chief of that office, usually a cardinal, bore the title of Datarius.

   [26] Luther uses here the expressions compositiones and confusiones as a
   kind of pun.

   [27] Tolls were levied at many places along the Rhine.

   [28] The commercial House of Fugger was in those days the wealthiest in
   Europe.

   [29] Luther uses the word Butterbriefe, i.e. letters of indulgence allowing
   the enjoyment of butter, cheese, milk, etc., during Lent. They formed part
   only of the confessionalia, which granted various other indulgences.

   [30] Parts of the Vatican.
     _________________________________________________________________

  III.

  Twenty-seven Articles respecting the Reformation of the Christian Estate.

   Now though I am too lowly to submit articles that could serve for the
   reformation of these fearful evils, I will yet sing out my fool’s song, and
   will show, as well as my wit will allow, what might and should be done by
   the temporal authorities or by a General Council.

   1. Princes, nobles and cities should promptly forbid their subjects to pay
   the annates and should even abolish them altogether. For the Pope has broken
   the compact, and turned the annates into robbery for the harm and shame of
   the German nation; he gives them to his friends; he sells them for large
   sums of money and founds benefices on them. Therefore he has forfeited his
   right to them, and deserves punishment. In this way the temporal power
   should protect the innocent and prevent wrongdoing, as we are taught by St.
   Paul (Rom. xiii.) and by St. Peter (1 Pet. ii.) and even by the canon law.
   (16. q. 7. de Filiis.) That is why we say to the Pope and his followers: tu
   ora! “thou shalt pray;” to the Emperor and his followers: tu protege! “thou
   shalt protect;” to the commons: tu labora! “thou shalt work;” not that each
   man should not pray, protect and work; for if a man fulfils his duty, that
   is prayer, protection and work; but every man must have his proper task.

   2. Since by means of those Romish tricks commendams, coadjutors,
   reservations, expectations, Pope’s months, incorporations, unions, Palls,
   rules of chancellery, and other such knaveries, the Pope takes unlawful
   possession of all German foundations, to give and sell them to strangers at
   Rome, that profit Germany in no way; so that the incumbents are robbed of
   their rights, and the bishops are made mere cyphers and anointed idols; and
   thus besides natural justice and reason the Pope’s own canon law is
   violated; and things have come to such a pass, that prebends and benefits
   are sold at Rome to vulgar, ignorant asses and knaves, out of sheer greed,
   while pious learned men have no profit by their merit and skill, whereby the
   unfortunate German people must needs lack good, learned Prelates and suffer
   ruin—on account of these evils the Christian nobility should rise up against
   the Pope as a common enemy and destroyer of Christianity, for the sake of
   the salvation of the poor souls that such tyranny must ruin. They should
   ordain, order and decree that henceforth no benefice shall be drawn away to
   Rome, and that no benefice shall be claimed there in any fashion whatsoever;
   and after having once got these benefices out of the hands of Romish
   tyranny, they must be kept from them, and their lawful incumbents must be
   reinstated in them to administer them as best they may, within the German
   nation. And if a courtling came from Rome, he should receive the strict
   command to withdraw, or to leap into the Rhine, or whatever river be
   nearest, and to administer a cold bath to the Interdict, seal and letters
   and all. Thus those at Rome would learn, that we Germans are not to remain
   drunken fools for ever, but that we, too, are become Christians, and that as
   such, we will no longer suffer this shameful mockery of Christ’s holy name,
   that serves as a cloak for such knavery and destruction of souls, and that
   we shall respect God and the glory of God more than the power of men.

   3. It should be decreed by an Imperial law, that no episcopal cloak, and no
   confirmation of any appointment shall for the future be obtained from Rome.
   The order of the most holy and renowned Nicene Council must again be
   restored, namely, that a bishop must be confirmed by the two nearest
   bishops, or by the archbishop. If the Pope cancels the decrees of these and
   all other councils, what is the good of councils at all? Who has given him
   the right thus to despise councils and to cancel them? If this is allowed,
   we had better abolish all bishops, archbishops and primates, and make simple
   rectors of all of them, so that they would have the Pope alone over them; as
   is indeed the case now; he deprives bishops, archbishops and primates of all
   the authority of their office, taking everything to himself, and leaving
   them only the name and the empty title; more than this: by his exemption he
   has withdrawn convents, abbots and prelates from the ordinary authority of
   the Bishops, so that there remains no order in Christendom. The necessary
   result of this must be, and has been, laxity in punishing, and such a
   liberty to do evil in all the world, that I very much fear one might call
   the Pope “the man of sin.” Who but the Pope is to blame for this absence of
   all order, of all punishment, of all government, of all discipline in
   Christendom? By his own arbitrary power he ties the hands of all his
   prelates, and takes from them their rods, while all their subjects have
   their hands unloosed, and obtain license by gift or purchase.

   But, that he have no cause for complaint, as being deprived of his
   authority, it should be decreed, that in cases where the primates and
   archbishops are unable to settle the matter, or where there is a dispute
   among them, the matters shall then be submitted to the Pope, but not every
   little matter; as was done formerly, and was ordered by the most renowned
   Nicene Council. His Holiness must not be troubled with small matters, that
   can be settled without his help; so that he may have leisure to devote
   himself to his prayers and study, and to his care of all Christendom, as he
   professes to do. As indeed the Apostles did, saying (Acts vi. 2, 4): “It is
   not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables . . . But
   we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the
   word.” But now we see at Rome nothing but contempt of the Gospel and of
   prayer, and the service of tables, that is, the service of the goods of this
   world; and the government of the Pope agrees with the government of the
   Apostles as well as Lucifer with Christ, hell with heaven, night with day;
   and yet he calls himself Christ’s Vicar, and the successor of the Apostles.

   4. Let it be decreed that no temporal matter shall be submitted to Rome, but
   all shall be left to the jurisdiction of the temporal authorities. This is
   part of their own canon law, though they do not obey it. For this should be
   the Pope’s office, that he, the most learned in the Scriptures, and the most
   holy, not in name only, but in fact, should rule in matters concerning the
   faith and the holy life of Christians; he should make primates and bishops
   attend to this, and should work and take thought with them to this end: as
   St. Paul teaches (1 Cor. vi.), severely upbraiding those that occupy
   themselves with the things of this world. For all countries suffer
   unbearable damage by this practice of settling such matters at Rome, since
   it involves great expense; and besides this, the judges at Rome, not knowing
   the manners, laws and customs of other countries, frequently pervert the
   matter according to their own laws and their own opinions, thus causing
   injustice to all parties. Besides this, we should prohibit in all
   foundations the grievous extortion of the ecclesiastical judges; they should
   only be allowed to consider matters concerning faith and good morals; but
   matters concerning money, property, life and honour, should be left to the
   temporal judges. Therefore the temporal authorities should not permit
   excommunication or expulsion except in matters of faith and righteous
   living. It is only reasonable, that spiritual authorities should have power
   in spiritual matters; spiritual matters, however, are not money or matters
   relating to the body, but faith and good works.

   Still we might allow matters respecting benefices or prebends to be treated
   before bishops, archbishops and primates. Therefore, when it is necessary to
   decide quarrels and strifes let the Primate of Germany hold a general
   consistory, with assessors and chancellors, who would have the control over
   the signaturas gratiae and justitiae, [31] and to whom matters arising in
   Germany might be submitted by appeal. The officers of such court should be
   paid out of the annates, or in some other way, and should not have to draw
   their salaries as at Rome from chance presents and offerings; whereby they
   grow accustomed to sell justice and injustice, as they must needs do at
   Rome, where the Pope gives them no salary, but allows them to fatten
   themselves on presents; for at Rome no one heeds what is right or what is
   wrong, but only what is money and what is not money. But this matter of
   salaries I must leave to men of higher understanding and of more experience
   in these things than I have. I am content with making these suggestions and
   giving some materials for consideration to those who may be able and willing
   to help the German nation to become a free people of Christians, after this
   wretched, heathen, unchristian misrule of the Pope.

   5. Henceforth no reservations shall be valid, and no benefices shall be
   appropriated by Rome, whether the incumbent die, or there be a dispute, or
   the incumbent be a servant of the Pope, or of a cardinal; and all courtiers
   shall be strictly prohibited and prevented from causing a dispute about any
   benefice, so as to cite the pious priests, to trouble them and to drive them
   into a lawsuit. And if in consequence of this there comes an interdict from
   Rome, let it be despised, just as if a thief were to excommunicate any man
   because he would not allow him to steal in peace. Nay, they should be
   punished most severely, for making such a blasphemous use of Excommunication
   and of the name of God, to support their robberies, and for wishing by their
   false threats to drive us to suffer and approve this blasphemy of God’s
   name, and this abuse of Christian authority; and thus to become sharers
   before God in their wrongdoing, whereas it is our duty before God to punish
   it, as St. Paul (Rom. i.) upbraids the Romans for not only doing wrong, but
   allowing wrong to be done. But above all that lying mental reservation
   (pectoralis reservatio) is unbearable, by which Christendom is so openly
   mocked and insulted, in that its head notoriously deals with lies, and
   impudently cheats and fools every man for the sake of accursed wealth.

   6. The cases reserved [32] (casus reservati) should be abolished, by which
   not only are the people cheated out of much money, but besides many poor
   consciences are confused and led into error by the ruthless tyrants to the
   intolerable harm of their faith in God, especially those foolish and
   childish cases that are made important by the Bull ‘In Coena Domini,’ [33]
   and which do not deserve the name of daily sins; not to mention those great
   cases for which the Pope gives no absolution: such as preventing a pilgrim
   from going to Rome, furnishing the Turks with arms or forging the Pope’s
   letters. They only fool us with these gross, mad and clumsy matters: Sodom
   and Gomorrah, and all sins that are committed and that can be committed
   against God’s commandments are, not reserved cases; but what God never
   commanded and they themselves have invented—these must be made reserved
   cases; solely in order that none may be prevented from bringing money to
   Rome, that they may live in their lust without fear of the Turk, and may
   keep the world in their bondage by their useless Bulls and Briefs.

   Now all priests ought to know, or rather it should be a public ordinance,
   that no secret sin constitutes a reserved case, if there be no public
   accusation; and that every priest has power to absolve from all sin,
   whatever its name, if it be secret, and that no abbot, bishop or Pope has
   power to reserve any such case; and lastly, that if they do this, it is null
   and void, and they should moreover be punished as interfering without
   authority in God’s judgment and confusing and troubling without cause our
   poor witless consciences. But in respect to any great open sin, directly
   contrary to God’s commandments, there is some reason for a reserved case;
   but there should not be too many, nor should they be reserved arbitrarily
   without due cause. For God has not ordained tyrants, but shepherds in His
   Church, as St. Peter says. (1 Pet. v. 2.)

   7. The Roman See must abolish the Papal offices, and diminish that crowd of
   crawling vermin at Rome, so that the Pope’s servants may be supported out of
   the Pope’s own pocket, and that his court may cease to surpass all royal
   courts in its pomp and extravagance; seeing that all this pomp has not only
   been of no service to the Christian faith, but has also kept them from study
   and prayer, so that they themselves know hardly anything concerning matters
   of faith; as they proved clumsily enough at the last Roman Council, [34]
   where among many childishly trifling matters, they decided “that the soul is
   immortal,” and that a priest is bound to pray once every month on pain of
   losing his benefice. [35] How are men to rule Christendom and to decide
   matters of faith, who, callous and blinded by their greed, wealth, and
   worldly pomp, have only just decided that the soul is immortal? It is no
   slight shame to all Christendom that they should deal thus scandalously with
   the faith at Rome. If they had less wealth and lived in less pomp, they
   might be better able to study and pray, that they might become able and
   worthy to treat matters of belief, as they were once, when they were content
   to be bishops and not kings of kings.

   8. The terrible oaths must be abolished which bishops are forced, without
   any right, to swear to the Pope, by which they are bound like servants, and
   which are arbitrarily and foolishly decreed in the absurd and shallow
   chapter, Significasti. [36] Is it not enough that they oppress us in goods,
   body, and soul by all their mad laws, by which they have weakened faith and
   destroyed Christianity; but must they now take possession of the very
   persons of Bishops, with their offices and functions, and also claim the
   investiture [37] which used formerly to be the right of the German Emperors,
   and is still the right of the King in France and other kingdoms? This matter
   caused many wars and disputes with the Emperors until the Popes impudently
   took the power by force; since which time they have retained it; just as if
   it were only right for the Germans, above all Christians on earth, to be the
   fools of the Pope and the Holy See, and to do and suffer what no one beside
   would suffer or do. Seeing then that this is mere arbitrary power, robbery,
   and a hindrance to the exercise of the bishop’s ordinary power, and to the
   injury of poor souls; therefore it is the duty of the Emperor and his nobles
   to prevent and punish this tyranny.

   9. The Pope should have no power over the Emperor, except to anoint and
   crown him at the altar, as a bishop crowns a king; nor should that devilish
   pomp be allowed, that the Emperor should kiss the Pope’s feet, or sit at his
   feet, or, as it is said, hold his stirrup, or the reins of his mule, when he
   mounts to ride; much less should he pay homage to the Pope, or swear
   allegiance, as is impudently demanded by the Popes, as if they had a right
   to it. The chapter Solite, [38] in which the papal authority is exalted
   above the Imperial, is not worth a farthing, and so of all those that depend
   on it or fear it; for it does nothing but pervert God’s holy words from
   their true meaning, according to their own imaginations, as I have proved in
   a Latin treatise.

   All these excessive, over-presumptuous and most wicked claims of the Pope
   are the invention of the Devil, with the object of bringing in Antichrist in
   due course, and to raise the Pope above God; as indeed many have done and
   are now doing. It is not meet that the Pope should exalt himself above
   temporal authority, except in spiritual matters, such as preaching and
   absolution; in other matters he should be subject to it, according to the
   teaching of St. Paul (Rom. xiii.), and St. Peter (1 Pet. iii.), as I have
   said above. He is not the Vicar of Christ in heaven, but only of Christ upon
   earth. For Christ in heaven, in the form of a ruler, requires no vicar, but
   there sits, sees, does, knows, and commands all things. But He requires him
   “in the form of a servant” to represent Him as He walked upon earth,
   working, preaching, suffering and dying. But they reverse this; they take
   from Christ His power as a heavenly ruler, and give it to the Pope, and
   allow “the form of a servant” to be entirely forgotten. (Phil. ii. 7.) He
   should properly be called the counter-Christ, whom the Scriptures call
   Antichrist; for his whole existence, work, and proceedings are directed
   against Christ, to ruin and destroy the existence and will of Christ.

   It is also absurd and puerile for the Pope to boast for such blind, foolish
   reasons, in his decretal Pastoralis, that he is the rightful heir to the
   Empire, if the throne be vacant. Who gave it to him? Did Christ do so, when
   He said: “The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them, but ye
   shall not do so”? (Luke xxii. 25, 26.) Did St. Peter bequeath it to him? It
   disgusts me that we have to read and teach such impudent, clumsy, foolish
   lies in the canon law, and moreover to take them for Christian doctrine,
   while in reality they are mere devilish lies. Of this kind also is the
   unheard-of lie touching the “donation of Constantine.” [39] It must have
   been a plague sent by God that induced so many wise people to accept such
   lies, though they are so gross and clumsy, that one would think a drunken
   boor could lie more skilfully. How could preaching, prayer, study and the
   care of the poor consist with the government of the Empire? These are the
   true offices of the Pope, which Christ imposed with such insistence that He
   forbade them to take either coat or scrip (Matt. x. 10), for he that has to
   govern a single house can hardly perform these duties. Yet the Pope wishes
   to rule an Empire and to remain a Pope. This is the invention of the knaves
   that would fain become lords of the world in the Pope’s name, and set up
   again the old Roman empire, as it was formerly, by means of the Pope and
   name of Christ, in its former condition.

   10. The Pope must withdraw his hand from the dish, and on no pretence assume
   royal authority over Naples and Sicily. He has no more right to it than I,
   and yet claims to be the lord of it. It has been taken by force and robbery
   like almost all his other possessions. Therefore the Emperor should grant
   him no such fief, nor any longer allow him those he has, but direct him
   instead to his Bibles and Prayer-books, so that he may leave the government
   of countries and peoples to the temporal power, especially of those that no
   one has given him. Let him rather preach and pray! The same should be done
   with Bologna, Imola, Vicenza, Ravenna, and whatever the Pope has taken by
   force and holds without right in the Ancontine territory, in the Romagna and
   other parts of Italy, interfering in their affairs against all the
   commandments of Christ and St. Paul. For St. Paul says (2 Tim. ii. 4): “that
   he that would be one of the soldiers of Heaven must not entangle himself in
   the affairs of this life.” Now the Pope should be the head and the leader of
   the soldiers of Heaven, and yet he engages more in worldly matters than any
   king or emperor. He should be relieved of his worldly cares and allowed to
   attend to his duties as a soldier of Heaven. Christ also, whose vicar he
   claims to be, would have nothing to do with the things of this world, and
   even asked one that desired of him a judgment concerning his brother: “Who
   made me a judge over you?” (St. Luke xii. 14.) But the Pope interferes in
   these matters unasked, and concerns himself with all matters, as though he
   were a god, until he himself has forgotten what this Christ is, whose vicar
   he professes to be.

   11. The custom of kissing the Pope’s feet must cease. It is an un-Christian,
   or rather an anti-Christian example, that a poor sinful man should suffer
   his foot to be kissed by one who is a hundred times better than he. If it is
   done in honour of his power, why does he not do it to others in honour of
   their holiness? Compare them together: Christ and the Pope. Christ washed
   His disciples’ feet and dried them, and the disciples never washed His. The
   Pope, pretending to be higher than Christ, inverts this, and considers it a
   great favour to let us kiss his feet: whereas if any one wished to do so, he
   ought to do his utmost to prevent them, as St. Paul and Barnabas would not
   suffer themselves to be worshipped as Gods by the men at Lystra, saying: “We
   also are men of like passions with you.” (Acts xiv. 14 seq.) But our
   flatterers have brought things to such a pitch, that they have set up an
   idol for us, until no one regards God with such fear, or honours Him with
   such reverence as they do the Pope. This they can suffer, but not that the
   Pope’s glory should be diminished a single hair’s-breadth. Now if they were
   Christians and preferred God’s honour to their own, the Pope would never be
   willing to have God’s honour despised and his own exalted, nor would he
   allow any to honour him, until he found that God’s honour was again exalted
   above his own.

   It is of a piece with this revolting pride, that the Pope is not satisfied
   with riding on horseback or in a carriage, but though he be hale and strong,
   is carried by men like an idol in unheard-of pomp. I ask you, how does this
   Lucifer-like pride agree with the example of Christ, who went on foot, as
   did also all His Apostles? Where has there been a king who lived in such
   worldly pomp as he does, who professes to be the head of all whose duty it
   is to despise and flee from all worldly pomp—I mean, of all Christians? Not
   that this need concern us for his own sake, but that we have good reason to
   fear God’s wrath, if we flatter such pride and do not show our discontent.
   It is enough that the Pope should be so mad and foolish; but it is too much
   that we should sanction and approve it.

   For what Christian heart can be pleased at seeing the Pope, when he
   communicates, sit still like a gracious lord and have the sacrament handed
   to him on a golden reed, by a cardinal bending on his knees before him? Just
   as if the holy sacrament were not worthy that a Pope, a poor miserable
   sinner, should stand to do honour to his God, although all other Christians,
   who are much more holy than the Most Holy Father, receive it with all
   reverence? Could we be surprised if God visited us all with a plague, for
   that we suffer such dishonour to be done to God by our prelates, and approve
   it, becoming partners of the Pope’s damnable pride by our silence or
   flattery? It is the same when he carries the sacrament in procession. He
   must be carried, but the sacrament stands before him like a cup of wine on a
   table. In short, at Rome Christ is nothing, the Pope is everything; yet they
   urge us and threaten us, to make us suffer and approve and honour this
   Antichristian scandal, contrary to God and all Christian doctrine. Now, may
   God so help a free Council, that it may teach the Pope that he too is a man,
   not above God as he makes himself out to be.

   12. Pilgrimages to Rome must be abolished, or at least no one must be
   allowed to go from his own wish or his own piety, unless his priest, his
   town magistrate, or his lord has found that there is sufficient reason for
   his pilgrimage. This I say, not because pilgrimages are bad in themselves,
   but because at the present time they lead to mischief; for at Rome a pilgrim
   sees no good examples, but only offence. They themselves have made a
   proverb: “The nearer to Rome, the farther from Christ,” and accordingly men
   bring home contempt of God and of God’s commandments. It is said: “The first
   time one goes to Rome, he goes to seek a rogue; the second time he finds
   him; the third time he brings him home with him.” But now they have become
   so skilful, that they can do their three journeys in one, and they have in
   fact brought home from Rome this saying:—It were better never to have seen
   or heard of Rome.

   And even if this were not so, there is something of more importance to be
   considered; namely, that simple men are thus led into a false delusion and a
   wrong understanding of God’s commandments. For they think that these
   pilgrimages are precious and good works; but this is not true. It is but a
   little good work; often a bad, misleading work, for God has not commanded
   it. But He has commanded that each man should care for his wife and children
   and whatever concerns the married state; and should, besides, serve and help
   his neighbour. Now it often happens that one goes on a pilgrimage to Rome,
   spends fifty or one hundred guilders, more or less, which no one has
   commanded him, while his wife and children, or those dearest to him, are
   left at home in want and misery; and yet he thinks, poor foolish man, to
   atone for this disobedience and contempt of God’s commandments by his
   self-willed pilgrimage, while he is in truth misled by idle curiosity, or
   the wiles of the Devil. This the Popes have encouraged with their false and
   foolish inventions of Golden Years, [40] by which they have incited the
   people, have torn them away from God’s commandments and turned them to their
   own delusive proceedings, and set up the very thing that they ought to have
   forbidden. But it brought them money and strengthened their false authority,
   and therefore it was allowed to continue, though against God’s will and the
   salvation of souls.

   That this false, misleading belief on the part of simple Christians may be
   destroyed, and a true opinion of good works may again be introduced, all
   pilgrimages should be done away with. For there is no good in them; no
   commandment; but countless causes of sin and of contempt of God’s
   commandments. These pilgrimages are the reason for there being so many
   beggars, that commit numberless villainies, taught by them and accustomed to
   beg without need. Hence arises a vagabond life; besides other miseries which
   I cannot dwell on now. If any one wishes to go on a pilgrimage or to make a
   vow for a pilgrimage, he should first inform his priest or the temporal
   authorities of the reason, and if it should turn out that he wished to do it
   for the sake of good works, let this vow and work be just trampled upon by
   the priest or the temporal authority as an infernal delusion, and let them
   tell him to spend his money, and the labour a pilgrimage would cost, on
   God’s commandments, and on a thousand-fold better work, namely, on his
   family and his poor neighbours. But if he does it out of curiosity, to see
   cities and countries, he may be allowed to do so. If he have vowed it in
   sickness, let such vows be prohibited, and let God’s commandments be
   insisted upon in contrast to them; so that a man may be content with what he
   vowed in baptism, namely, to keep God’s commandments. Yet, for this once he
   may be suffered, for a quiet conscience sake, to keep his silly vow. No one
   is content to walk on the broad high road of God’s commandments; every one
   makes for himself new roads and new vows, as if he had kept all God’s
   commandments.

   13. Now we come to the great crowd that promises much and performs little.
   Be not angry, my good sirs, I mean well. I have to tell you this bitter and
   sweet truth: Let no more mendicant monasteries be built! God help us! there
   are too many as it is. Would to God they were all abolished, or at least
   made over to two or three orders. It has never done good, it will never do
   good, to go wandering about over the country. Therefore my advice is that
   ten, or as many as required, may be put together and made into one, which
   one, sufficiently provided for is not to beg. Oh! it is of much more
   importance to consider what is necessary for the salvation of the common
   people, than what St. Francis, or St. Dominic, or St. Augustine, [41] or any
   other man, laid down; especially, since things have not turned out as they
   expected. They should also be relieved from preaching and confession, unless
   specially required to do so by bishops, priests, the congregation or other
   authority. For their preaching and confession has led to nought but mere
   hatred and envy between priests and monks, to the great offence and
   hindrance of the people, so that it well deserves to be put a stop to, since
   its place may be very well supplied. It does not look at all improbable that
   the Holy Roman See had its own reasons for encouraging all this crowd of
   monks: the Pope perhaps feared that priests and bishops, growing weary of
   his tyranny, might become too strong for him, and begin a reformation
   unendurable to his Holiness.

   Besides this, one should also do away with the sections and the divisions in
   the same order which, caused for little reason and kept up for less, oppose
   each other with unspeakable hatred and malice. The result being, that the
   Christian faith, which is very well able to stand without their divisions,
   is lost on both sides, and that a true Christian life is sought and judged
   only by outward rules, works and manners, from which arise only hypocrisy
   and the destruction of souls; as every one can see for himself. Moreover the
   Pope should be forbidden to institute or to confirm the institution of such
   new orders, nay, he should be commanded to abolish several and to lessen
   their number. For the faith of Christ, which alone is the important matter
   and can stand without any particular Order, incurs no little danger, lest
   men should be led away by these diverse works and manners, rather to live
   for such works and manners than to care for faith. And unless there are wise
   prelates in the monasteries who preach and urge faith rather than the rule
   of the order, it is inevitable that the order should be injurious and
   misleading to simple souls, who have regard to works alone.

   Now in our own time all the prelates are dead that had faith and founded
   orders. Just as it was in old days with the children of Israel; when their
   fathers were dead, that had seen God’s works and miracles, their children,
   out of ignorance of God’s work and of faith, soon began to set up idolatry
   and their own human works. In the same way, alas! these orders, not
   understanding God’s works and faith, grievously labour and torment
   themselves by their own rules and laws, and yet never arrive at a true
   understanding of a spiritual and good life; as was foretold by the Apostle,
   saying of them, “Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof.
   . . . Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge” of what a true
   spiritual life is. (2 Tim. iii. 2-7.) Better to have no convents, where
   there is no truly spiritual prelate, of understanding in Christian faith, to
   govern them; for such a prelate cannot but rule with injury and harm, and
   the greater the apparent holiness of his life in external works, the greater
   the harm.

   It would be, I think, necessary, especially in these perilous times, that
   foundations and convents should again be organised as they were in the time
   of the Apostles and a long time after: namely, when they were all free, for
   every man to remain there as long as he wished. For what were they but
   Christian schools, in which the Scriptures and Christian life were taught,
   and where folk were trained to govern and to preach; as we read that St.
   Agnes went to school, and as we see, even now, in some nunneries, as at
   Quedlinburg and other places? Truly all foundations and convents ought to be
   free in this way, that they may serve God of a free will and not as slaves.
   But now they have been bound round with vows and turned into eternal
   prisons, so that these vows are regarded even more than the vows of baptism.
   But what fruit has come of this we daily see, hear, read and learn more and
   more.

   I dare say that this my counsel will be thought very foolish, but I care not
   for this. I advise what I think best; reject it, who will. I know how these
   vows are kept, especially that of chastity, which is so general in all
   convents, [42] and yet was not ordered by Christ, and it is given to
   comparatively few to be able to keep it, as He says and St. Paul also: (Col.
   ii. 20.) I wish all to be helped, and that Christian souls should not be
   held in bondage, through customs and laws invented by men.

   14. We see also how the priesthood is fallen, and how many a poor priest is
   encumbered with a woman and children, and burdened in his conscience, and no
   one does anything to help him, though he might very well be helped. Popes
   and bishops may let that be lost that is being lost, and that be destroyed
   which is being destroyed; I will save my conscience and open my mouth
   freely, let it vex Popes and bishops or whoever it may be; therefore I say:
   According to the ordinances of Christ and His Apostles every town should
   have a minister, as St. Paul plainly says (Tit. i.), and this minister
   should not be forced to live without a lawful wife, but should be allowed to
   have one, as St. Paul writes (1 Tim. iii.), saying that “A bishop then must
   be blameless, the husband of one wife . . . having his children in
   subjection with all gravity.” For with St. Paul a bishop and a presbyter are
   the same thing, as St. Jerome also confirms. But as for the bishops that we
   now have, of these the Scriptures know nothing; they were instituted by the
   Christian congregations, so that one might rule over many ministers.

   Therefore, we teach clearly according to the Apostle, that every town should
   elect a pious learned citizen from the congregation and charge him with the
   office of minister; the congregation should support him and he should be
   left at liberty to marry or not. He should have as assistants, several
   priests and deacons, married or not, as they please, who should help him to
   govern the people and the congregation with sermons and the ministration of
   the sacraments, as is still the case in the Greek Church. In these latter
   times, where there are so many persecutions and conflicts against heretics,
   there were many holy fathers, who voluntarily abstained from the marriage
   state, that they might study more, and might be ready at all times for death
   and conflict. Now the Roman See has interfered of its own perversity, and
   has made a general law by which priests are forbidden to marry. This must
   have been at the instigation of the Devil, as was foretold by St. Paul (1
   Tim. iv. 1, 2, seq.), saying that “there shall come teachers giving heed to
   seducing spirits . . . forbidding to marry,” etc. This has been the cause of
   so much misery that it cannot be told, and has given occasion to the Greek
   Church to separate from us, and has caused infinite disunion, sin, shame and
   scandal, like everything that the Devil does or suggests. Now what are we to
   do?

   My advice is, to restore liberty, and to leave every man free to marry or
   not to marry. But if we did this we should have to introduce a very
   different rule and order for property; the whole canon law would be
   overthrown and but few benefices would fall to Rome. I am afraid greed was a
   cause of this wretched, unchaste chastity; for the result of it was that
   every man wished to become a priest, or to have his son brought up to the
   priesthood—not with the intention of living in chastity, for this could be
   done without the priestly state, but to obtain his worldly support without
   labour or trouble, contrary to God’s command (Gen. iii.): “In the sweat of
   thy face shalt thou eat thy bread;” and they have given a colour to this
   commandment as though their work was praying and reading the mass. I am not
   here considering Popes, bishops, canons, clergy and monks, who were not
   ordained by God; they have laid burdens on themselves, and they may bear
   them. I speak of the office of parish priest, which God ordained, who must
   rule a congregation with sermons and the ministration of the sacraments, and
   must live with them and manage their own worldly affairs. These should have
   the liberty given them by a Christian Council to marry and to avoid danger
   and sin. For as God has not bound them, no one may bind them, though he were
   an angel from heaven—let alone the Pope; and whatever is contrary to this in
   the canon law is mere idle talk and invention.

   My advice further is, whoever henceforth is ordained priest, he should in no
   wise take the vow of chastity, but should protest to the bishop that he has
   no authority to demand this vow, and that it is a devilish tyranny to demand
   it. But if one is forced, or wishes to say, as some do, “so far as human
   frailty permits,” let every man interpret that phrase as a plain negative,
   that is, “I do not promise chastity;” for human frailty does not allow men
   to live an unmarried life, but only angelic fortitude and celestial virtue.
   In this way he will have a clear conscience without any vow. I offer no
   opinion, one way or the other, whether those who have at present no wife
   should marry, or remain unmarried. This must be settled by the general order
   of the Church and by each man’s discretion. But I will not conceal my honest
   counsel, nor withhold comfort from that unhappy crowd who now live in
   trouble with wife and children, and remain in shame, with a heavy
   conscience, hearing their wife called a priest’s harlot, and the children
   bastards. And this I say frankly, by my fool’s privilege.

   There is many a poor priest free from blame in all other respects, except
   that he has succumbed to human frailty and come to shame with a woman, both
   minded in their hearts to live together always in conjugal fidelity, if only
   they could do so with a good conscience, though, as it is, they live in
   public shame. I say, these two are surely married before God. I say,
   moreover, that when two are so minded, and so come to live together, they
   should save their conscience; let the man take the woman as his lawful wife,
   and live with her faithfully as her husband, without considering whether the
   Pope approve or not, or whether it is forbidden by canon law, or temporal.
   The salvation of your soul is of more importance than their tyrannous,
   arbitrary, wicked laws, which are not necessary for salvation, nor ordained
   by God. You should do as the children of Israel did, who stole from the
   Egyptians the wages they had earned; or as a servant steals his well-earned
   wages from a harsh master; in the same way do you also steal your wife and
   child from the Pope.

   Let him who has faith enough to dare this, only follow me courageously: I
   will not mislead him. I may not have the Pope’s authority, yet I have the
   authority of a Christian to help my neighbour and to warn him against his
   sins and dangers. And here there is good reason for doing so.

   a. It is not every priest that can do without a woman, not only on account
   of human frailty, but still more for his household. If, therefore, he takes
   a woman, and the Pope allows this, but will not let them marry, what is this
   but expecting a man and a woman to live together and not to fall? Just as if
   one were to set fire to straw, and command it should neither smoke nor burn.

   b. The Pope having no authority for such a command, any more than to forbid
   a man to eat and drink, or to digest or to grow fat, no one is bound to obey
   it, and the Pope is answerable for every sin against it, for all the souls
   that it has brought to destruction, and for all the consciences that have
   been troubled and tormented by it. He has long deserved to be driven out of
   the world, so many poor souls has he strangled with this Devil’s rope;
   though I hope that God has shown many more mercy at their death than the
   Pope did in their life. No good has ever come and can ever come from the
   Papacy and its laws.

   c. Even though the Pope’s laws forbid it, still after the married state has
   been entered, the Pope’s laws are superseded, and are valid no longer: for
   God has commanded that no man shall put asunder husband and wife, and this
   commandment is far above the Pope’s laws, and God’s command must not be
   cancelled or neglected for the Papal commands. It is true that mad lawyers
   have helped the Pope to invent impediments or hindrances to marriage, and
   thus troubled, divided, and perverted the married state: destroying the
   commandments of God. What need I say further? In the whole body of the
   Pope’s canon law, there are not two lines that can instruct a pious
   Christian, and so many false and dangerous ones, that it were better to
   treat it as waste paper.

   But if you object that this would give offence, and that one must first
   obtain the Pope’s dispensation, I answer that if there is any offence in it,
   it is the fault of the See of Rome, which has made unjust and unholy laws.
   It is no offence to God and the Scriptures. Even where the Pope has power to
   grant dispensation for money by his covetous tyrannical laws, every
   Christian has power to grant dispensation in the same matter for the sake of
   Christ and the salvation of souls. For Christ has freed us from all human
   laws, especially when they are opposed to God and the salvation of souls, as
   St. Paul teaches. (Gal. v. 1, and 1 Cor. viii. 9, 10.)

   15. I must not forget the poor convents. The evil spirit, who has troubled
   all estates of life by human laws, and made them unendurable, has taken
   possession of some Abbots, Abbesses, and Prelates, and led them so to rule
   their brothers and sisters, that they do but go soon to hell, and live a
   wretched life even upon earth, as is the case with all the Devil’s martyrs.
   For they have reserved in confession all, or at least some, deadly sins,
   which are secret, and from these no brother may on pain of excommunication
   and on his obedience absolve another. Now we do not always find angels
   everywhere, but men of flesh and blood, who would rather incur all
   excommunication and menace than confess their secret sins to a prelate or
   the confessor appointed for them; consequently they receive the sacrament
   with these sins on their conscience, by which they become irregular [43] and
   suffer much misery. Oh blind shepherds! Oh foolish Prelates! Oh ravenous
   wolves! Now I say that in cases where a sin is public and notorious, it is
   only right that the Prelate alone should punish it, and such sins and no
   others he may reserve and except for himself; over private sins he has no
   authority, even though they may be the worst that can be committed or
   imagined. And if the Prelate excepts these, he becomes a tyrant and
   interferes with God’s judgment.

   Accordingly I advise these children, brothers and sisters: if your superiors
   will not allow you to confess your secret sins to whomsoever you will, then
   take them yourself, and confess them to your brother or sister, to
   whomsoever you will; be absolved and comforted, and then go or do what your
   wish or duty commands; only believe firmly that you have been absolved, and
   nothing more is necessary. And let not their threats of excommunication, or
   irregularity, or what not, trouble or disturb you; these only apply to
   public or notorious sins, if they are not confessed: you are not touched by
   them. How canst thou take upon thyself, thou blind Prelate, to restrain
   private sins by thy threats? Give up what thou canst not keep publicly; let
   God’s judgment and mercy also have its place with thy inferiors. He has not
   given them into thy hands so completely as to have let them go out of His
   own; nay, thou hast received the smaller portion. Consider thy statutes as
   nothing more than thy statutes, and do not make them equal to God’s judgment
   in Heaven.

   16. It were also right to abolish annual festivals, processions, and masses
   for the dead, or at least to diminish their number; for we evidently see
   that they have become no better than a mockery, exciting the anger of God,
   and having no object but money getting, eating and drinking. How should it
   please God to hear the poor vigils and masses mumbled in this wretched way,
   neither read nor prayed? Even when they are properly read, it is not done
   freely for the love of God, but for the love of money and as payment of a
   debt. Now it is impossible that anything should please God, or win anything
   from Him that is not done freely, out of love for Him. Therefore, as true
   Christians, we ought to abolish or lessen a practice that we see is abused,
   and that angers God instead of appeasing Him. I should prefer, and it would
   be more agreeable to God’s will, and far better for a foundation, church or
   convent, to put all the yearly masses and vigils together into one mass, so
   that they would every year celebrate, on one day, a true vigil and mass with
   hearty sincerity, devotion and faith, for all their benefactors. This would
   be better than their thousand upon thousand masses said every year—each for
   a particular benefactor—without devotion and faith. My dear
   fellow-Christians! God cares not for much prayer, but for good prayer. Nay,
   He condemns long and frequent prayers (Matt. vi. 2, seq.), saying: “Verily I
   say unto you, they have their reward.” But it is the greed that cannot trust
   God by which such practices are set up; it is afraid it will die of
   starvation.

   17. One should also abolish certain punishments inflicted by the canon law,
   especially the interdict, which is doubtless the invention of the evil one.
   Is it not the mark of the Devil to wish to better one sin by more and worse
   sins? It is surely a greater sin to silence God’s word and service, than if
   we were to kill twenty Popes at once, not to speak of a single priest or of
   keeping back the goods of the Church. This is one of those gentle virtues
   which are learnt in the Spiritual law; for the Canon or Spiritual law is so
   called because it comes from a spirit—not however from the Holy Spirit, but
   from the Evil Spirit.

   Excommunication should not be used except where the Scriptures command it:
   that is, against those that have not the right faith, or that live in open
   sin, and not in matters of temporal goods. But now the case has been
   inverted; each man believes and lives as he pleases, especially those that
   plunder and disgrace others with excommunications; and all excommunications
   are now only in matters of worldly goods. For which we have no one to thank
   but the holy canonical injustice. But of all this I have spoken previously
   in a sermon.

   The other punishments and penalties—suspension, irregularity, aggravation,
   re-aggravation, deposition, [44] thundering, lightning, cursing, damning and
   what not, all these should be buried ten fathoms deep in the earth, that
   their very name and memory may no longer live upon earth. The evil spirit,
   who was let loose by the spiritual law, has brought all this terrible plague
   and misery into the heavenly kingdom of the holy Church, and has thereby
   brought about nothing but the harm and destruction of souls, that we may
   well apply to it the words of Christ (Matt. xxiii. 13): “But woe unto you,
   scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you shut up the kingdom of heaven
   against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that
   are entering to go in.”

   18. One should abolish all saints’ days, keeping only Sunday. But if it were
   desired to keep the festival of Our Lady and the greater saints, they should
   all be held on Sundays, or only in the morning with the mass; the rest of
   the day being a working day. My reason is this: with our present abuses of
   drinking, gambling, idling, and all manner of sin, we vex God more on holy
   days than on others. And the matter is just reversed; we have made holy days
   unholy, and working days holy, and do no service but great dishonour to God
   and His saints with all our holy days. There are some foolish prelates that
   think they have done a good deed, if they establish a festival to St.
   Otilia, or St. Barbara, and the like, each in his own blind fashion, whilst
   he would be doing a much better work to turn a saint’s day into a working
   day, in honour of a saint.

   Besides these spiritual evils, these saints’ days inflict bodily injury on
   the common man in two ways: he loses a day’s work and he spends more than
   usual, besides weakening his body and making himself unfit for labour, as we
   see every day, and yet no one tries to improve it. One should not consider
   whether the Pope instituted these festivals, or whether we require his
   dispensation or permission. If anything is contrary to God’s will and
   harmful to men in body and soul, not only has every community, council or
   government authority to prevent and abolish such wrong without the knowledge
   or consent of Pope or bishop; but it is their duty, as they value their
   soul’s salvation, to prevent it, even though Pope and bishop (that should be
   the first to do so) are unwilling to see it stopped. And first of all we
   should abolish church wakes, since they are nothing but taverns, fairs and
   gaming places, to the greater dishonour of God and the damnation of souls.
   It is no good to make a talk about their having had a good origin and being
   good works. Did not God set aside His own law that He had given forth out of
   heaven, when He saw that it was abused? and does He not now reverse every
   day what He has appointed, and destroy what He has made, on account of the
   same perverse misuse, as it is written in the eighteenth Psalm (v. 26):
   “With the froward thou wilt show thyself froward.”

   19. The degrees of relationship in which marriage is forbidden must be
   altered, such as so-called spiritual relations [45] in the third and fourth
   degrees; and where the Pope at Rome can dispense in such matters for money,
   and make shameful bargains, every priest should have the power of granting
   the same dispensations freely for the salvation of souls. Would to God that
   all those things that have to be bought at Rome, for freedom from the golden
   noose of the canon law, might be given by any priest without payment, such
   as Indulgences, letters of Indulgences, letters of dispensation, mass
   letters, and all the other religious licences and knaveries at Rome by which
   the poor people are deceived and robbed! For if the Pope has the power to
   sell for money his golden snares, or canon nets (laws, I should say), much
   more has a priest the power to cancel them and to trample on them for God’s
   sake. But if he has no such power, then the Pope can have no authority to
   sell them in his shameful fair.

   Besides this, fasts must be made optional, and every kind of food made free,
   as is commanded in the Gospels. (Matt. xv. 11.) For whilst at Rome they
   laugh at fasts, they let us abroad eat oil which they would not think fit
   for greasing their boots, and then sell us the liberty of eating butter and
   other things, whereas the Apostle says, that the Gospel has given us freedom
   in all such matters. (1 Cor. x. 25 seq.) But they have caught us in their
   canon law and have robbed us of this right, so that we have to buy it back
   from them; they have so terrified the consciences of the people, that one
   cannot preach this liberty without rousing the anger of the people, who
   think the eating of butter to be a worse sin than lying, swearing and
   unchastity. We may make of it what we will; it is but the work of man, and
   no good can ever come of it.

   20. The country chapels and churches must be destroyed, such as those to
   which the new pilgrimages have been set on foot, Wilsnacht, Sternberg,
   Treves, the Grimmenthal, and now Ratisbon, and many others. Oh what a
   reckoning there will be for those bishops that allow these inventions of the
   Devil and make a profit out of them! They should be the first to stop it;
   they think that it is a godly, holy thing, and do not see that the Devil
   does this to strengthen covetousness, to teach false beliefs, to weaken
   parish churches, to increase drunkenness and debauchery, to waste money and
   labour, and simply to lead the poor people by the nose. If they had only
   studied the Scriptures as much as their accursed canon law, they would know
   well how to deal with the matter.

   The miracles performed there prove nothing, for the Evil One can also show
   wonders, as Christ has taught us. (Matt. xxiv. 24.) If they took up the
   matter earnestly, and forbade such doings, the miracles would soon cease; or
   if they were done by God, they would not be prevented by their commands. And
   if there were nothing else to prove that these are not works of God, it
   would be enough that people go about turbulently and irrationally like herds
   of cattle, which could not possibly come from God. God has not commanded it;
   there is no obedience, and no merit in it; and therefore it should be
   vigorously interfered with and the people warned against it. For what is not
   commanded by God and goes beyond God’s commandments is surely the Devil’s
   own work. In this way also the parish churches suffer, in that they are less
   venerated. In fine, these pilgrimages are signs of great want of faith in
   the people; for if they truly believed, they would find all things in their
   own churches, where they are commanded to go.

   But what is the use of my speaking? Every man thinks only how he may get up
   such a pilgrimage in his own district, not caring whether the people
   believes and lives rightly. The rulers are like the people—blind leaders of
   the blind. Where pilgrimages are a failure, they begin to glorify their
   saints; not to honour the saints, who are sufficiently honoured without
   them, but to cause a concourse, and to bring in money. Then Pope and bishops
   help them; it rains indulgences, and every one can afford to buy them; but
   what God has commanded no one cares for; no one runs after it, no one can
   afford any money for it. Alas for our blindness, that we not only suffer the
   Devil to have his way with his phantoms, but support him! I wish one would
   leave the good saints alone and not lead the poor people astray. What spirit
   gave the Pope authority to “glorify” the saints? Who tells him whether they
   are holy, or not holy? Are there not enough sins on earth, as it is, but we
   must tempt God, interfere in His judgment, and make money-bags of his
   saints? Therefore my advice is to let the saints glorify themselves; or
   rather, God alone should glorify them, and every man should keep to his own
   parish, where he will profit more than in all these shrines, even if they
   were all put together into one shrine. Here a man finds Baptism, the
   Sacrament, preaching, and his neighbour, and these are more than all the
   saints in Heaven, for it is by God’s word and sacrament that they have all
   been hallowed.

   Our contempt for these great matters justifies God’s anger in giving us over
   to the devil to lead us astray, to get up pilgrimages, to found churches and
   chapels, to glorify the saints and to commit other like follies, by which we
   are led astray from the true faith into new false beliefs; just as he did in
   old time with the people of Israel, whom he led away from the temple to
   countless other places; all the while in God’s name, and with the appearance
   of holiness, against which all the prophets preached, suffering martyrdom
   for their words. But now no one preaches against it; and probably if he did,
   bishops, Popes, priests and monks would combine to martyr him. In this way
   Antonius of Florence and many others are made saints, so that their holiness
   may serve to produce glory and wealth, whereas otherwise they would have
   served simply as good examples for the glory of God.

   Even if this glorification of the Saints had been good once, it is not good
   now; just as many other things were good once and are now occasion of
   offence and injurious, such as holidays, ecclesiastical treasures and
   ornaments. For it is evident that what is aimed at in the glorification of
   saints is not the glory of God, nor the bettering of Christendom, but money
   and fame alone; one church wishes to have an advantage over another, and
   would be sorry to see another church enjoying the same advantages. In this
   way they have in these latter days abused the goods of the Church so as to
   gain the goods of the world; so that everything, and even God Himself, must
   serve their avarice. Moreover these privileges cause nothing but dissensions
   and worldly pride; one church being different from the rest, they despise or
   magnify one another, whereas all goods that are of God should be common to
   all, and should serve to produce unity. This, too, is why they please the
   Pope, who would be sorry to see all Christians equal and at one with one
   another.

   Here must be added that one should abolish, or treat as of no account, or
   give to all churches alike, the licences, bulls, and whatever the Pope sells
   at his flying-ground at Rome. For if he sells or gives to Wittenberg, to
   Halle, to Venice, and above all to his own city of Rome, special
   permissions, privileges, indulgences, graces, advantages, faculties, why
   does he not give them to all churches alike? Is it not his duty to do all
   that he can for all Christians without reward, solely for God’s sake, nay,
   even to shed his blood for them? Why then, I should like to know, does he
   give or sell these things to one church and not to another? Or does this
   accursed gold make a difference in his Holiness’s eyes between Christians
   who all alike have baptism, gospel, faith, Christ, God, and all things? Do
   they wish us to be blind, when our eyes can see, to be fools, when we have
   reason, that we should worship this greed, knavery and delusion? He is a
   shepherd forsooth—so long as you have money, no further; and yet they are
   not ashamed to practise all this knavery right and left with their bulls.
   They care only for that accursed gold and for nought besides.

   Therefore my advice is this: If this folly is not done away with, let all
   pious Christians open their eyes and not be deceived by these Romish Bulls
   and seals, and all their specious pretences; let them stop at home in their
   own churches, and be satisfied with their Baptism, Gospel, Faith, Christ and
   God (who is everywhere the same), and let the Pope continue to be a blind
   leader of the blind. Neither Pope nor angel can give you as much as God
   gives you in your own parish; nay, he only leads you away from God’s gifts,
   which you have for nothing, to his own gifts, which you must buy; giving you
   lead for gold, skin for meat, strings for a purse, wax for honey, words for
   goods, the letter for the spirit; as you can see for yourselves though you
   will not perceive it. If you try to ride to heaven on the Pope’s wax and
   parchment, your carriage will soon break down and you will fall into hell,
   not in God’s name.

   Let this be a fixed rule for you, Whatever has to be bought of the Pope is
   neither good, nor of God. For whatever comes from God is not only given
   freely, but all the world is punished and condemned for not accepting it
   freely. So is it with the Gospel and the works of God. We have deserved to
   be led into these errors, because we have despised God’s holy word and the
   grace of baptism, as St. Paul says: “And for this cause God shall send them
   strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: that they all might be
   damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.” (2
   Thess. ii. 11, 12.)

   21. It is one of the most urgent necessities to abolish all begging in
   Christendom. No one should go about begging among Christians. It would not
   be hard to do this, if we attempted it with good heart and courage: each
   town should support its own poor and should not allow strange beggars to
   come in—whatever they may call themselves: pilgrims or mendicant monks.
   Every town could feed its own poor; and if it were too small, the people in
   the neighbouring villages should be called upon to contribute. As it is,
   they have to support many knaves and vagabonds under the name of beggars. If
   they did what I propose, they would at least know who were really poor or
   not.

   There should also be an overseer or guardian who should know all the poor,
   and should inform the town or council, or the priest, of their requirements;
   or some other similar provision might be made. There is no occupation, in my
   opinion, in which there is so much knavery and cheating as among beggars;
   and it could so easily be prevented. This general, unrestricted begging is,
   besides, injurious for the common people. I estimate that of the five or six
   orders of mendicant monks, each one visits every place more than six or
   seven times in the year; then there are the common beggars, messengers and
   pilgrims; in this way I calculate every city has a blackmail levied on it
   about sixty times a year, not counting rates and taxes paid to the civil
   government and the useless robberies of the Roman See; so that it is to my
   mind one of the greatest of God’s miracles how we manage to live and support
   ourselves.

   Some may think that in this way the poor would not be well cared for, and
   that such great stone houses and convents would not be built, and not so
   plentifully, and I think so too. But there would be no harm in that. If a
   man will be poor, he should not be rich; if he will be rich, let him put his
   hand to the plough, and get wealth himself out of the earth. It is enough to
   provide decently for the poor, that they may not die of cold and hunger. It
   is not right, that one should work that another may be idle, and live ill
   that another may live well, as is now the perverse abuse, for St. Paul says
   (2 Thess. iii. 10): “If any would not work, neither should he eat.” God has
   not ordained that any one should live of the goods of others, except priests
   and ministers alone, as St. Paul says (1 Cor. ix. 14), for their spiritual
   work’s sake; as also Christ says to the Apostles (Luke x. 7): “The labourer
   is worthy of his hire.”

   22. It is also to be feared that the many masses that have been founded in
   convents and foundations, instead of doing any good, arouse God’s anger;
   wherefore it would be well to endow no more masses and to abolish many of
   those that have been endowed; for we see that they are only looked upon as
   sacrifices and good works, though in truth they are sacraments like baptism
   and confession, and as such profit him only that receives them. But now the
   custom obtains of saying masses for the living and the dead, and everything
   is based upon them. This is the reason why there are so many, and that they
   have come to be what we see.

   But perhaps all this is a new and unheard of doctrine, especially in the
   eyes of those that fear to lose their livelihood, if these masses were
   abolished. I must therefore reserve what I have to say on this subject until
   men have arrived at a truer understanding of the mass, its nature and use.
   The mass has, alas! for so many years been turned into means of gaining a
   livelihood, that I should advise a man to become a shepherd, a labourer,
   rather than a priest, or monk, unless he knows what the mass is.

   All this, however, does not apply to the old foundations and chapters; which
   were doubtless founded in order that, since according to the custom of
   Germany all the children of nobles cannot be landowners and rulers, they
   should be provided for in these foundations, and these serve God freely,
   study and become learned themselves, and help others to acquire learning. I
   am speaking only of the new foundations, endowed for prayers and masses, by
   the example of which the old foundations have become burdened with the like
   prayers and masses, making them of very little, if of any use. Through
   God’s righteous punishment they have at last come down to the dregs as they
   deserve; that is, to the noise of singers and organs, and cold, spiritless
   masses, with no end but to gain and spend the money due to them. Popes,
   bishops and doctors should examine and report on such things; as it is they
   are the guiltiest, allowing anything that brings them money; the blind ever
   leading the blind. This comes of covetousness and the canon law.

   It must, moreover, not be allowed in future that one man should have more
   than one endowment or prebend. He should be content with a moderate position
   in life, so that others may have something besides himself; and thus we must
   put a stop to the excuses of those that say that they must have more than
   one office to enable them to live in their proper station. It is possible to
   estimate one’s proper station in such a way, that a whole kingdom would not
   suffice to maintain it. So it is that covetousness and want of faith in God
   go hand in hand, and often men take for the requirements of their station
   what is mere covetousness and want of faith.

   23. As for the fraternities, together with indulgences, letters of
   indulgence, dispensations, masses and all the rest of such things, let it
   all be drowned and abolished; there is no good in it at all. If the Pope has
   the authority to grant dispensation in the matter of eating butter and
   hearing masses, let him allow priests to do the same; he has no right to
   take the power from them. I speak also of the fraternities in which
   indulgences, masses, and good works are distributed. My friend, in baptism
   you joined a fraternity of which Christ, the angels, the saints and all
   Christians are members; be true to this, and satisfy it, and you will have
   fraternities enough. Let others make what show they wish; they are as
   counters compared to coins. But if there were a fraternity that subscribed
   money to feed the poor, or to help others in any way, this would be good,
   and it would have its indulgence and its deserts in Heaven. But now they are
   good for nothing but gluttony and drunkenness.

   First of all we should expel from all German lands the Pope’s legates with
   their faculties, which they sell to us for much money, though it is all
   knavery; as, for instance, their taking money for making goods unlawfully
   acquired to be good, for freeing from oaths, vows, and bonds, thus
   destroying and teaching others to destroy truth and faith mutually pledged;
   saying the Pope has authority to do so. It is the Evil Spirit that bids them
   talk thus, and so they sell us the Devil’s teaching, and take money for
   teaching us sins and leading us to hell.

   If there were nothing else to show that the Pope is Antichrist, this would
   be enough. Dost thou hear this, O Pope! not the most holy, but the most
   sinful? Would that God would hurl thy Chair headlong from heaven, and cast
   it down into the abyss of hell! Who gave you the power to exalt yourself
   above your God? To break and to loose what He has commanded? To teach
   Christians, more especially Germans, who are of noble nature, and are famed
   in all histories for uprightness and truth, to be false, unfaithful,
   perjured, treacherous and wicked? God has commanded to keep faith and
   observe oaths even with enemies; you dare to cancel this command, laying it
   down in your heretical, antichristian decretals, that you have power to do
   so; and through your mouth and your pen Satan lies as he never lied before,
   teaching you to twist and pervert the Scriptures according to your own
   arbitrary will. O, Lord Christ! look down upon this, let Thy day of judgment
   come and destroy the Devil’s lair at Rome. Behold him of whom St. Paul spoke
   (2 Thess. ii., 3, 4), that he should exalt himself above Thee and sit in Thy
   Church, showing himself as God—the man of sin, and the child of damnation.
   What else does the Pope’s power do, but teach and strengthen sin and
   wickedness, leading souls to damnation in Thy name?

   The children of Israel in old times kept the oath that they had sworn, in
   ignorance and error, to the Gibeonites, their enemies. And King Zedekiah was
   destroyed utterly with his people, because he broke the oath that he had
   sworn to the King of Babylon. And among us, a hundred years ago, the noble
   King Ladislaus V. of Poland and Hungary was slain by the Turk with so many
   of his people, because he allowed himself to be misled by Papal legates and
   cardinals, and broke the good and useful treaty that he had made with the
   Turk. The pious Emperor Sigismond had no good fortune after the Council of
   Constance, in which he allowed the knaves to violate the safe conduct that
   he had promised to John Huss and Jerome; from this has followed all the
   miserable strife between Bohemia and ourselves. And in our own time, God
   help us! how much Christian blood has been shed on account of the oath and
   bond which Pope Julius made and unmade between the Emperor Maximilian and
   King Lewis of France! How can I tell all the misery the Popes have caused by
   such devilish insolence, claiming the power of breaking oaths between great
   lords, causing a shameful scandal for the sake of money! I hope the day of
   judgment is at hand; things cannot and will not become worse than the
   dealings of the Roman Chair. The Pope treads God’s commandments under foot
   and exalts his own; if this is not Antichrist I do not know what is. But of
   this and to more purpose another time.

   24. It is high time to take up earnestly and truthfully the cause of the
   Bohemians, to unite them with ourselves and ourselves with them, so that all
   mutual accusations, envy and hatred may cease. I will be the first, in my
   capacity of fool, to give my opinion, with all due deference to those of
   better understanding.

   First of all, we must honestly confess the truth, without attempting
   self-justification, and own one thing to the Bohemians, namely, that John
   Huss and Jerome of Prague were burnt at Constance in violation of the Papal,
   Christian, and Imperial oath and safe conduct, and that thus God’s
   commandment was broken and the Bohemians excited to great anger. And though,
   no doubt, they ought to have been perfect men, and have patiently endured
   this wrong and disobedience to God, yet we cannot expect them to approve it
   and think it right. Nay, even now they should run any danger of life and
   limb rather than own that it is right to break an Imperial, Papal, Christian
   safe conduct and act faithlessly in opposition to it. Therefore, though the
   Bohemians may be to blame for their impatience, yet the Pope and his
   followers are most to blame for all the misery, all the error and
   destruction of souls, that followed this Council of Constance.

   It is not my intention here to judge John Huss’s belief and to defend his
   errors; although my understanding has not been able to find any error in
   him, and I would willingly believe that men who violated a safe conduct and
   God’s commandment (doubtless possessed rather by the evil spirit than by the
   Spirit of God) were unable to judge well or to condemn with truth. No one
   can imagine that the Holy Ghost can break God’s commandments; no one can
   deny that it is breaking God’s commandments to violate faith and a safe
   conduct, even though it were promised to the devil himself, much more then
   in the case of a heretic; it is also notorious that a safe conduct was
   promised to John Huss and the Bohemians, and that the promise was broken and
   Huss was burnt. I have no wish to make a saint or a martyr of John Huss (as
   some Bohemians do), though I own that he was treated unjustly, and that his
   books and his doctrines were wrongfully condemned; for God’s judgments are
   inscrutable and terrible, and none but Himself may reveal or explain them.

   All I say is this: Granting he was a heretic, however bad he may have been,
   yet he was burnt unjustly and in violation of God’s commandments, and we
   must not require the Bohemians to approve this, if we wish ever to be at one
   with them. Plain truth must unite us, not obstinacy. It is no use to say, as
   they said at the time, that a safe conduct need not be kept, if promised to
   a heretic; that is as much as to say, one may break God’s commandments, in
   order to keep God’s commandments. They were infatuated and blinded by the
   Devil, that they could not see what they said or did. God has commanded us
   to observe a safe conduct; and this we must do though the world should
   perish, much more then where it is only a question of a heretic being let
   free. We should overcome heretics with books, not with fire, as the old
   Fathers did. If there were any skill in overcoming heretics with fire the
   executioner would be the most learned doctor in the world; and there would
   be no need to study, but he that could get another into his power could burn
   him.

   Besides this, the Emperor and the Princes should send to Bohemia several
   pious, learned bishops and doctors, but, for their life, no cardinal or
   legate or inquisitor, for such people are far too unlearned in all Christian
   matters, and do not seek the salvation of souls; but like all the Papal
   hypocrites, they seek only their own glory, profit and honour; they were
   also the leaders in that calamitous affair at Constance. But those learned
   men should inquire into the faith of the Bohemians to ascertain whether it
   would be possible to unite all their sects into one. Moreover the Pope
   should (for their souls’ sake) for a time abandon his supremacy and, in
   accordance with the statutes of the Nicene Council, allow the Bohemians to
   choose for themselves an Archbishop of Prague. This choice to be confirmed
   by the Bishops of Olmütz in Moravia, or of Grun in Hungary, or the Bishop of
   Gnesen in Poland, or the Bishop of Magdeburg in Germany. It is enough that
   it be confirmed by one or two of these bishops, as in the time of St.
   Cyprian. And the Pope has no authority to forbid it; if he forbids it, he
   acts as a wolf and a tyrant, and no one should obey him, but answer his
   excommunication by excommunicating him.

   Yet if, for the honour of the Chair of St. Peter, any one prefers to do this
   with the Pope’s knowledge, I do not object, provided that the Bohemians do
   not pay a farthing for it, and that the Pope do not bind them a single
   hair’s breadth, or subject them to his tyranny by oath, as he does all other
   bishops, against God and justice. If he is not satisfied with the honour of
   his assent being asked, leave him alone by all means with his own rights,
   laws, and tyrannies; be content with the election, and let the blood of all
   the souls that are in danger be upon his head. For no man may countenance
   wrong, and we have already shown enough respect to tyranny. If we cannot do
   otherwise, we may consider the popular election and consent as equal to a
   tyrannical confirmation; but I hope this will not be necessary. Sooner or
   later some Romans, or pious bishops and learned men, must perceive and avert
   the Pope’s tyranny.

   I do not advise that they be forced to abandon the sacrament in both kinds,
   for it is neither unchristian nor heretical. They should be allowed to
   continue in their present way; but the new bishop must see that there be no
   dissensions about this matter, and they must learn that neither practice is
   actually wrong; just as there need be no disputes about the priests not
   wearing the same dress as the laity. In the same way, if they do not wish to
   submit to the canon laws of the Roman Church, we must not force them, but we
   must content ourselves with seeing that they live in faith and according to
   the Scriptures. For Christian life and Christian faith may very well exist
   without the Pope’s unbearable laws; nay, they cannot well exist until there
   are fewer of those laws or none. Our baptism has freed us and made us
   subject to God’s word alone, why then should we suffer a man to make us the
   slaves of his words? As St. Paul says: “Stand fast, therefore, in the
   liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with
   the yoke of bondage.” (Gal. v. 1.)

   If I knew that the only error of the Hussites [46] was that they believe
   that in the sacrament of the altar there is true bread and wine, though
   under it the body and the blood of Christ; if, I say, this were their only
   error, I should not condemn them; but let the Bishop of Prague see to this.
   For it is not an article of faith that in the sacrament there is bread and
   wine in substance and nature, which is a delusion of St. Thomas and the
   Pope: but it is an article of faith, that in the natural bread and wine
   there is Christ’s true flesh and blood. We should accordingly tolerate the
   views of both parties until they are at one; for there is not much danger
   whether you believe there is, or there is not, bread in the sacrament. For
   we have to suffer many forms of belief and order that do not injure the
   Faith; but if they believe otherwise, it would be better not to unite with
   them, and yet to instruct them in the truth.

   All other errors and dissensions to be found in Bohemia should be tolerated
   until the Archbishop has been reinstated, and has succeeded, in time, in
   uniting the whole people in one harmonious doctrine. We shall never unite
   them by force, by driving or hurrying them. We must be patient, and use
   gentleness. Did not Christ have to walk with His disciples, suffering their
   unbelief, until they believed in His resurrection? If they had but once more
   a regular bishop, and good discipline without Romish tyranny, I think
   matters would mend.

   The temporal possessions of the Church should not be too strictly claimed;
   but since we are Christians and bound to help one another, we have the right
   to give them these things for the sake of unity, and to let them keep them,
   before God and the world; for Christ says: “Where two or three are gathered
   together in My name, there am I in the midst of them.” Would to God, we
   helped on both sides to bring about this unity, giving our hands one to the
   other in brotherly humility, not insisting on our authority or our rights!
   Love is more, and more necessary than the Papacy at Rome; the Papacy can
   exist without love, and love can exist without the Papacy. I hope I have
   done my best for this end. If the Pope or his followers hinder this good
   work, they will have to give an account of their actions, for having,
   against the love of God, sought their own advantage more than their
   neighbours’. The Pope should abandon his Papacy, all his possessions and
   honours, if he could save a soul by so doing. But he would rather see the
   world go to ruin than give up a hair’s breadth of the power he has usurped;
   and yet he would be our most holy father! Herewith am I at least excused.

   25. The Universities also require a good, sound Reformation. I must say
   this, let it vex whom it may. The fact is that whatever the Papacy has
   ordered or instituted is only designed for the propagation of sin and error.
   What are the Universities, as at present ordered, but as the Book of
   Maccabees says: “Schools of ‘Greek fashion’ and ‘heathenish manners.”’ (2
   Maccab. iv. 12, 13); full of dissolute living, where very little is taught
   of the Holy Scriptures and of the Christian faith, and the blind heathen
   teacher, Aristotle, rules even further than Christ. Now, my advice would be
   that the books of Aristotle, the ‘Physics,’ the ‘Metaphysics,’ ‘Of the
   Soul,’ ‘Ethics,’ which have hitherto been considered the best, be altogether
   abolished, with all others that profess to treat of nature, though nothing
   can be learned from them, either of natural or of spiritual things. Besides,
   no one has been able to understand his meaning, and much time has been
   wasted, and many noble souls vexed, with much useless labour, study, and
   expense. I venture to say that any potter has more knowledge of natural
   things than is to be found in these books. My heart is grieved to see how
   many of the best Christians this accursed, proud, knavish heathen has fooled
   and led astray with his false words. God sent him as a plague for our sins.

   Does not the wretched man in his best book, ‘Of the Soul,’ teach that the
   soul dies with the body; though many have tried to save him with vain words,
   as if we had not the Holy Scriptures to teach us fully of all things, of
   which Aristotle had not the slightest perception. Yet this dead heathen has
   conquered, and has hindered and almost suppressed the books of the living
   God; so that, when I see all this misery, I cannot but think that the evil
   spirit has introduced this study.

   Then there is the ‘Ethics,’ which is accounted one of the best, though no
   book is more directly contrary to God’s will and the Christian virtues. Oh,
   that such books could be kept out of the reach of all Christians! Let no one
   object that I say too much, or speak without knowledge. My friend, I know of
   what I speak. I know Aristotle as well as you or men like you. I have read
   him with more understanding than St. Thomas or Scotus; which I may say
   without arrogance, and can prove if need be. It matters not that so many
   great minds have exercised themselves in these matters for many hundred
   years. Such objections do not affect me as they might have done once; since
   it is plain as day that many more errors have existed for many hundred years
   in the world and the Universities.

   I would, however, gladly consent that Aristotle’s books of Logic, Rhetoric
   and Poetic should be retained; or they might be usefully studied in a
   condensed form, to practise young people in speaking and preaching; but the
   notes and comments should be abolished, and just as Cicero’s Rhetoric is
   read without note or comment, Aristotle’s Logic should be read without such
   long commentaries. But now neither speaking nor preaching are taught out of
   them, and they are used only for disputation and confusion. Besides this
   there are languages, Latin, Greek and Hebrew, the Mathematics, History; but
   this I leave to men of higher understanding; if they seriously strive after
   reform, all these things will come of themselves. And truly it is an
   important matter! for it concerns the teaching and training of Christian
   youths and of our noble people, in whom Christianity still abides. Therefore
   I think that Pope and Emperor could have no better task than the reformation
   of the Universities, just as there is nothing more devilishly mischievous
   than an unreformed University.

   Physicians I would leave to reform their own faculty; Lawyers and
   Theologians I take under my charge, and say firstly, that it would be right
   to abolish the canon law entirely, from beginning to end, more especially
   the decretals. We are taught quite sufficiently in the Bible how we ought to
   act; all this study only prevents the study of the Scriptures, and for the
   most part it is tainted with covetousness and pride. And even though there
   were some good in it, it should nevertheless be destroyed, for the Pope
   having the canon law in scrinio pectoris, [47] all further study is useless
   and deceitful. At the present time the canon law is not to be found in the
   books, but in the whims of the Pope and his sycophants. You may have settled
   a matter in the best possible way according to the canon law, but the Pope
   has his scrinium pectoris, to which all law must bow in all the world. Now
   this scrinium is oftentimes directed by some knave, and the devil himself,
   whilst it boasts that it is directed by the Holy Ghost. This is the way they
   treat Christ’s poor people, imposing many laws and keeping none; forcing
   others to keep them, or to free themselves by money.

   Therefore since the Pope and his followers have cancelled the whole canon
   law, despising it and setting their own will above all the world, we should
   follow them and reject the books. Why should we study them to no purpose? We
   should never be able to know the Pope’s caprice, which has now become the
   canon law. Let it fall then in God’s name, after having risen in the
   devil’s name. Let there be henceforth no doctor decretorum, but let them all
   be doctores scrinii papalis, that is, the Pope’s sycophants. They say that
   there is no better temporal government than among the Turks, though they
   have no canon nor civil law, but only their Koran; we must at least own that
   there is no worse government than ours with its canon and civil law, for no
   estate lives according to the Scriptures, or even according to natural
   reason.

   The civil law, too, good God! what a wilderness it is become! It is, indeed,
   much better, more skilful and more honest than the canon law, of which
   nothing is good but the name. Still there is far too much of it. Surely good
   governors, judging according to the Scriptures, would be law enough, as St.
   Paul says: “Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? No, not one
   that shall be able to judge between his brethren?” (1 Cor. vi. 5.) I think
   also that the common law and the usage of the country should be preferred to
   the law of the Empire, and that the law of the Empire should only be used in
   cases of necessity. And would to God that, as each land has its own peculiar
   character and nature, they could all be governed by their own simple laws,
   just as they were governed before the law of the Empire was devised, and as
   many are governed even now! Elaborate and far-fetched laws are only
   burdensome to the people, and a hindrance rather than a help to business.
   But I hope that others have thought of this, and considered it to more
   purpose than I could.

   Our worthy Theologians have saved themselves much trouble and labour by
   leaving the Bible alone and only reading the Sentences. [48] I should have
   thought that young Theologians might begin by studying the Sentences and
   that Doctors should study the Bible. Now they invert this: the Bible is the
   first thing they study; this ceases with the Bachelor’s degree; the
   Sentences are the last, and these they keep for ever with the Doctor’s
   degree; and this too under such sacred obligation that one that is not a
   priest may read the Bible, but a priest must read the Sentences; so that, as
   far as I can see, a married man might be a Doctor in the Bible, but not in
   the Sentences. How should we prosper so long as we act so perversely, and
   degrade the Bible, the holy word of God? Besides this, the Pope orders with
   many stringent words that his laws be read and used in schools and courts;
   while the law of the Gospel is but little considered. The result is that in
   schools and courts the Gospel lies dusty on the shelf, so that the Pope’s
   mischievous laws may alone be in force.

   Since, then, we hold the name and title of teachers of the Holy Scriptures,
   we should verily be forced to act according to our title, and to teach the
   Holy Scriptures and nothing else. Although, indeed, it is a proud,
   presumptuous title, for a man to proclaim himself teacher of the Scriptures,
   still it could be suffered, if the works confirmed the title. But as it is,
   under the rule of the Sentences, we find among Theologians more human and
   heathenish fallacies than true holy knowledge of the Scriptures. What then
   are we to do? I know not, except to pray humbly to God to give us Doctors of
   Theology. Doctors of Arts, of Medicine, of Law, of the Sentences, may be
   made by Popes, Emperors and the Universities; but of this we may be certain,
   a Doctor of the Holy Scriptures can be made by none but the Holy Ghost, as
   Christ says: “They shall all be taught of God.” (John vi. 45.) Now the Holy
   Ghost does not consider red caps or brown, or any other pomp; nor whether we
   are young or old, layman or priest, monk or secular, virgin or married; nay,
   he once spoke by an ass against the prophet that rode on it. Would to God we
   were worthy of having such Doctors given us, be they laymen or priests,
   married or virgin! but now they try to force the Holy Ghost to enter into
   Popes, Bishops or Doctors, though there is no sign to show that He is in
   them.

   We must also lessen the number of theological books, and choose the best;
   for it is not the number of books that make the learned man; nor much
   reading, but good books often read, however few, make a man learned in the
   Scriptures and pious. Even the Fathers should only be read for a short time
   as an introduction to the Scriptures. As it is, we read nothing else, and
   never get from them into the Scriptures, as if one should be gazing at the
   sign-posts and never follow the road. These good Fathers wished to lead us
   into the Scriptures by their writings, whereas we lead ourselves out by
   them, though the Scriptures are our vineyard in which we should all work and
   exercise ourselves.

   Above all, in schools of all kinds the chief and most common lesson should
   be the Scriptures, and for young boys the Gospel; and would to God each town
   had also a girl’s school in which girls might be taught the Gospel for an
   hour daily, either in German or Latin! In truth, schools, monasteries and
   convents, were founded for this purpose, and with good Christian intentions;
   as we read concerning St. Agnes, and other saints; [49] then were there holy
   virgins and martyrs; and in those times it was well with Christendom; but
   now it has been turned into nothing but praying and singing. Should not
   every Christian be expected by his ninth or tenth year to know all the holy
   Gospels, containing as they do his very name and life? A spinner or a
   seamstress teaches her daughter her trade, while she is young, but now even
   the most learned Prelates and Bishops do not know the Gospel.

   Oh, how badly we treat all these poor young people that are entrusted to us
   for discipline and instruction! and a heavy reckoning shall we have to give
   for it that we keep them from the word of God; their fate is that described
   by Jeremiah: “Mine eyes do fail with tears, my bowels are troubled, my liver
   is poured upon the earth, for the destruction of the daughter of my people;
   because the children and the sucklings swoon in the streets of the city.
   They say to their mothers, Where is corn and wine? when they swooned as the
   wounded in the streets of the city, when their soul is poured out into their
   mothers’ bosom.” (Lamen. ii. 11, 12.) We do not perceive all this misery,
   how the young folk are being pitifully corrupted in the midst of
   Christendom, all for want of the Gospel, which we should always read and
   study with them.

   However, if the high schools studied the Scriptures diligently we should not
   send every one to them, as we do now, when nothing is considered but
   numbers, and every man wishes to have a Doctor’s title; we should only send
   the aptest pupils, well prepared in the lower schools. This should be seen
   to by princes or the magistrates of the towns, and they should take care
   none but apt pupils be sent. But where the Holy Scriptures are not the rule,
   I advise no one to send his child. Everything must perish where God’s word
   is not studied unceasingly; and so we see what manner of men there are now
   in the high schools, and all this is the fault of no one but of the Pope,
   the Bishops and the Prelates, to whom the welfare of the young has been
   entrusted. For the High Schools should train men simply to be of good
   understanding in the Scriptures, fit to become bishops and priests, and to
   stand at our head against heretics and the Devil and all the world. But
   where do we find this? I greatly fear the High Schools are nothing but great
   gates of hell, unless they diligently study the Holy Scriptures and teach
   them to the young people.

   26. I know well the Romish mob will object and loudly pretend that the Pope
   took the Holy Roman Empire from the Greek Emperor and gave it to Germany,
   for which honour and favour he is supposed to deserve submission and thanks
   and all other kinds of returns from the Germans. For this reason we are not
   to presume to make any attempt to reform them, and we are to consider
   nothing but these gifts of the Roman Empire. This is also the reason why
   they have so arbitrarily and proudly persecuted and oppressed many good
   Emperors, so that it were pity to tell, and with the same cleverness have
   they made themselves lords of all the temporal power and authority, in
   violation of the holy Gospel; and accordingly I must speak of this matter
   also.

   There is no doubt that the true Roman Empire, of which the prophets (Num.
   xxiv. 24) and Daniel (ii. 44) spoke, was long ago destroyed, as Balaam
   clearly foretold, saying: “And ships shall come from the coast of Chittim,
   and shall afflict Asshur, and shall afflict Eber, and he also shall perish
   for ever.” (Num. xxiv. 24.) [50] And this was done by the Goths, and more
   especially since the empire of the Turks was formed, about one thousand
   years ago, and so gradually Asia and Africa were lost, and subsequently
   France, Spain, and finally Venice arose, so that Rome retains no part of its
   former power.

   Since, then, the Pope could not force the Greeks and the Emperor at
   Constantinople, who is the hereditary Roman Emperor, to obey his will, he
   invented this device to rob him of his empire and title, and to give it to
   the Germans, who were at that time strong and of good repute; in order that
   they might take the power of the Roman Empire and hold it of the Pope; and
   this is what actually has happened. It was taken from the Emperor at
   Constantinople, and the name and title were given to us Germans, and
   therewith we became subject to the Pope, and he has built up a new Roman
   Empire on the Germans. For the other Empire, the original, came to an end
   long ago, as was said above.

   Thus the Roman See has got what it wished: Rome has been taken possession
   of, and the German Emperor driven out and bound by oaths not to dwell in
   Rome. He is to be Roman Emperor and nevertheless not to dwell in Rome; and
   moreover always to depend on the Pope and his followers, and to do their
   will. We are to have the title, and they are to have the lands and the
   cities. For they have always made our simplicity the tool of their pride and
   tyranny, and they consider us as stupid Germans to be deceived and fooled by
   them as they choose.

   Well, for our Lord God it is a small thing to toss kingdoms and
   principalities hither and thither; He is so free with them, that He will
   sometimes take a kingdom from a good man and give it to a knave; sometimes
   through the treachery of false, wicked men; sometimes by inheritance, as we
   read concerning Persia, Greece, and nearly all kingdoms; and Daniel says:
   “Wisdom and might are His: and He changes the times and the seasons, and He
   removeth Kings and setteth up Kings.” (Dan. ii. 20, 21.) Therefore, no one
   need think it a grand matter, if he has a kingdom given to him, especially
   if he be a Christian; and so we Germans need not be proud of having had a
   new Roman Empire given us. For in His eyes, it is a poor gift, that He
   sometimes gives to the least deserving; as Daniel says: “And all the
   inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing; and He does according to
   His will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth.”
   (Dan. iv. 35.)

   Now although the Pope has violently and unjustly robbed the true Emperor of
   the Roman Empire, or its name, and has given it to us Germans, yet it is
   certain that God has used the Pope’s wickedness to give the German nation
   this Empire and to raise up a new Roman Empire, that exists now, after the
   fall of the old Empire. We gave the Pope no cause for this action, nor did
   we understand his false aims and schemes; but still, through the craft and
   knavery of the Popes, we have, alas! all too dearly, paid the price of this
   Empire with incalculable bloodshed, with the loss of our liberty, with the
   robbery of our wealth, especially of our churches and benefices, and with
   unspeakable treachery and insult. We have the Empire in name, but the Pope
   has our wealth, our honour, our bodies, lives and souls, and all that we
   have. This was the way to deceive the Germans, and with a double deceit.
   What the Popes wished was, to become Emperors; and as they could not do
   this, they put themselves above the Emperors.

   Since, then, we have received this Empire through God’s providence and the
   schemes of evil men, without our fault, I would not advise that we should
   give it up, but that we should govern it honestly, in the fear of God, so
   long as He is pleased to let us hold it. For, as I have said, it is no
   matter to Him how a kingdom is come by, but He will have it duly governed.
   If the Popes took it from others dishonestly, we, at least, did not come by
   it dishonestly. It was given to us through evil men, under the will of God,
   to whom we have more regard than the false intentions of the Popes, who
   wished to be Emperors and more than Emperors, and to fool and mock us with
   the name.

   The King of Babylon obtained his kingdom by force and robbery. Yet God would
   have it governed by the holy princes, Daniel, Ananias, Asarias and Misael.
   Much more then does He require this Empire to be governed by the Christian
   princes of Germany, though the Pope may have stolen or robbed, or newly
   fashioned it. It is all God’s ordering, which came to pass before we knew of
   it.

   Therefore the Pope and his followers have no reason to boast, that they did
   a great kindness to the German nation in giving them this Roman Empire.
   Firstly, because they intended no good to us in the matter; but only abused
   our simplicity to strengthen their own power against the Roman Emperor at
   Constantinople, from whom, against God and justice, the Pope has taken what
   he had no right to.

   Secondly, the Pope sought to give the Empire, not to us, but to himself, and
   to become lord over all our power, liberty, wealth, body and soul, and
   through us over all the world, if God had not prevented it; as he plainly
   says in his decretals, and has tried with many mischievous tricks in the
   case of many German Emperors. Thus we Germans have been prettily taught
   German: Whilst we expected to become lords, we have become the servants of
   the most crafty tyrants; we have the name, title and arms of the Empire, but
   the Pope has the treasure, authority, law and freedom; thus whilst the Pope
   eats the kernel, he leaves us the empty shells to play with.

   Now may God help us (who, as I have said, assigned us this kingdom through
   crafty tyrants, and charged us to govern it) to act according to our name,
   title and arms, and to secure our freedom; and thus let the Romans see at
   last what we have received of God through them. If they boast that they have
   given us an Empire; well, be it so, by all means: then, let the Pope give up
   Rome, all he has of the Empire, and free our country from his unbearable
   taxes and robberies, and give back to us our liberty, authority, wealth,
   honour, body and soul, rendering to the Empire those things that are the
   Empire’s; so as to act in accordance with his words and pretences.

   But if he will not do this, what game is he playing with all his falsehoods
   and pretences? Was it not enough to lead this great people by the nose for
   so many hundred years? Because the Pope crowns or makes the Emperor, it does
   not follow that he is above him; for the prophet, St. Samuel, anointed and
   crowned King Saul and David, at God’s command, and was yet subject to them.
   And the prophet Nathan anointed King Solomon, and yet was not placed over
   him; moreover St. Elisha let one of his servants anoint King Jehu of Israel;
   yet they obeyed him. And it has never yet happened in the whole world that
   any one was above the king, because he consecrated or crowned him, except in
   the case of the Pope.

   Now he is himself crowned Pope by three cardinals; yet they are subject to
   him and he is above them. Why then, contrary to his own example, and to the
   doctrine and practice of the whole world and the Scriptures, should he exalt
   himself above the temporal authorities and the Empire, for no other reason
   than that he crowns and consecrates the Emperor? It suffices that he is
   above him in all divine matters, that is in preaching, teaching and the
   ministration of the sacrament, in which matters, however, every priest or
   bishop is above all other men; just as St. Ambrose in his Chair was above
   the Emperor Theodosius, and the prophet Nathan above David, and Samuel above
   Saul. Therefore let the German Emperor be a true free Emperor, and let not
   his authority or his sword be overborne by these blind pretences of the
   Pope’s sycophants, as if they were to be exceptions, and be above the
   temporal sword in all things.

   27. Let this be enough about the faults of the spiritual Estate, though many
   more might be found, if the matter were properly considered: we must now
   consider the defects of the temporal Estates. In the first place, we require
   a general law and consent of the German nation against profusion and
   extravagance in dress, which is the cause of so much poverty among the
   nobles and the people. Surely God has given to us, as to other nations,
   enough wool, fur, flax, and whatever else is required for the decent
   clothing of every class; and it cannot be necessary to spend such enormous
   sums for silk, velvet, cloth of gold and all other kinds of outlandish
   stuff. I think that even if the Pope did not rob us Germans with his
   unbearable taxes, we should be robbed more than enough by these secret
   thieves, the dealers in silk and velvet. As it is we see that every man
   wishes to be every other man’s equal, and that this causes and increases
   pride and envy among us, as we deserve; all which would cease, with many
   other misfortunes, if our self-will would but let us be gratefully content
   with what God has given us.

   It is similarly necessary to diminish the use of spices, which is one of the
   ships in which our gold is sent away from Germany. God’s mercy has given us
   more food, and that both precious and good, than is to be found in other
   countries. I shall probably be accused of making foolish and impossible
   suggestions, as if I wished to destroy the great business of commerce. But I
   am only doing my part; if the community does not mend matters, every man
   must do it himself. I do not see many good manners that have ever come into
   a land through commerce, and therefore God let the people of Israel dwell
   far from the sea and not carry on much trade.

   But without doubt the greatest misfortune of the Germans is buying on
   credit. But for this, many a man would have to leave unbought his silk,
   velvet, cloth of gold, spices and all other luxuries. The system has not
   been in force for more than one hundred years, and has already brought
   poverty, misery, and destruction on almost all princes, foundations, cities,
   nobles and heirs. If it continues for another hundred years Germany will be
   left without a farthing, and we shall be reduced to eating one another. The
   Devil invented this system, and the Pope has done an injury to the whole
   world by sanctioning it.

   My request and my cry, therefore, is this: Let each man see to the
   destruction of himself and his family, which is no longer at the door, but
   has entered the house; and let Emperors, Princes, Lords and Corporations,
   see to the condemnation and prohibition of this kind of trade, without
   considering the opposition of the Pope and all his justice and injustice,
   nor whether livings or endowments depend upon it. Better a single foundation
   in a city based on a freehold estate or honest interest, than a hundred
   based on credit; yea, a single endowment on credit is worse and more
   grievous than twenty based on real estate. Truly this credit is a sign and
   warning, that the world has been given over to the Devil for its sins; and
   that we are losing our spiritual and temporal welfare alike; yet we heed it
   not.

   Doubtless we should also find some bridle for the Fuggers and similar
   companies. Is it possible that in a single man’s lifetime such great wealth
   should be collected together, if all were done rightly and according to
   God’s will? I am not skilled in accounts. But I do not understand how it is
   possible for one hundred guilders to gain twenty in a year, or how one
   guilder can gain another, and that not out of the soil, or by cattle, seeing
   that possessions depend not on the wit of men, but on the blessing of God. I
   commend this to those that are skilled in worldly affairs. I as a theologian
   blame nothing but the evil appearance, of which St. Paul says: “abstain from
   all appearance of evil.” (1 Thess. v. 22.) All I know is that it were much
   more godly to encourage agriculture and lessen commerce; and that they do
   the best who, according to the Scriptures, till the ground to get their
   living, as we are all commanded in Adam: “Cursed is the ground for thy sake.
   . . . Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee. . . . In the
   sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread.” (Gen. iii. 17-19.) There is still
   much ground that is not ploughed or tilled.

   Then there is the excess in eating and drinking, for which we Germans have
   an ill reputation in foreign countries, as our special vice, and which has
   become so common, and gained so much the upper hand, that sermons avail
   nothing. The loss of money caused by it is not the worst; but in its train
   come murder, adultery, theft, blasphemy and all vices. The temporal power
   should do something to prevent it; otherwise it will come to pass, as Christ
   foretold, that the last day shall come as a thief in the night, and shall
   find them eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, planting and
   building, buying and selling (Matt. xxiv. 38; Luke xvii. 26)—just as things
   go on now; and that so strongly, that I apprehend lest the day of judgment
   be at hand, even now when we least expect it.

   Lastly, is it not a terrible thing that we Christians should maintain public
   brothels, though we all vow chastity in our baptism? I well know all that
   can be said on this matter, that it is not peculiar to one nation, that it
   would be difficult to alter it, and that it is better thus than that
   virgins, or married women, or honourable women should be dishonoured. But
   should not the spiritual and temporal powers combine to find some means of
   meeting these difficulties without any such heathen practice? If the people
   of Israel existed without this scandal, why should not a Christian nation be
   able to do so? How do so many towns and villages manage to exist without
   these houses? Why should not great cities be able to do so?

   In all, however, that I have said above, my object has been to show how much
   good temporal authority might do, and what should be the duty of all
   authorities, so that every man might learn what a terrible thing it is to
   rule and to have the chief place. What boots it though a ruler be in his own
   person as holy as St. Peter, if he be not diligent to help his subjects in
   these matters? His very authority will be his condemnation; for it is the
   duty of those in authority to seek the good of their subjects. But if those
   in authority considered how young people might be brought together in
   marriage, the prospect of marriage would help every man, and protect him
   from temptations.

   But as it is, every man is urged to become a priest or a monk; and of all
   these I am afraid not one in a hundred has any other motive, but the wish of
   getting a livelihood, and the uncertainty of maintaining a family. Therefore
   they begin by a dissolute life and sow their wild oats (as they say), but I
   fear they rather gather in a store of wild oats. [51] I hold the proverb to
   be true: “Most men become monks and priests in desperation.” That is why
   things are as we see them.

   But in order that many sins may be prevented that are becoming too common, I
   would honestly advise that no boy or girl be allowed to take the vow of
   chastity, or to enter a religious life, before the age of thirty years. For
   this requires a special grace, as St. Paul says. Therefore, unless God
   specially urge any one to a religious life, he will do well to leave all
   vows and devotions alone. I say further: If a man has so little faith in God
   as to fear that he will be unable to maintain himself in the married state,
   and if this fear is the only thing that makes him become a priest, then I
   implore him, for his own soul’s sake, not to become a priest, but rather to
   become a peasant, or what he will. For if simple trust in God be necessary
   to ensure temporal support, tenfold trust in God is necessary to live a
   religious life. If you do not trust to God for your worldly food, how can
   you trust to Him for your spiritual food? Alas, this unbelief and want of
   faith destroys all things, and leads us into all misery, as we see among all
   conditions of men.

   Much might be said concerning all this misery. Young people have no one to
   look after them, they are left to go on just as they like, and those in
   authority are of no more use to them than if they did not exist; though this
   should be the chief care of the Pope, of Bishops, Lords and Councils. They
   wish to rule over everything, everywhere, and yet they are of no use. Oh,
   what a rare sight, for these reasons, will a lord or ruler be in Heaven,
   though he might build a hundred churches to God and raise all the dead! But
   this may suffice for the present.

   For of what concerns the temporal authority and the nobles, I have, I think,
   said enough in my tract on ‘Good Works.’ For their lives and governments
   leave room enough for improvement; but there is no comparison between
   spiritual and temporal abuses, as I have there shown. I dare say I have sung
   a lofty strain, that I have proposed many things that will be thought
   impossible, and attacked many points too sharply. But what was I to do? I
   was bound to say this: if I had the power, this is what I would do. I had
   rather incur the world’s anger than God’s; they cannot take from me more
   than my life. I have hitherto made many offers of peace to my adversaries.
   But, as I see, God has forced me through them to open my mouth wider and
   wider, and, because they do not keep quiet, to give them enough cause for
   speaking, barking, shouting and writing. Well, then, I have another song
   still to sing concerning them and Rome; if they wish to hear it, I will sing
   it to them, and sing with all my might. Do you understand, my friend Rome,
   what I mean?

   I have frequently offered to submit my writings for inquiry and examination,
   but in vain; though I know, if I am in the right, I must be condemned upon
   earth, and justified by Christ alone in Heaven. For all the Scriptures teach
   us, that the affairs of Christians and Christendom must be judged by God
   alone; they have never yet been justified by men in this world, but the
   opposition has always been too strong. My greatest care and fear is, lest my
   cause be not condemned by men; by which I should know for certain that it
   does not please God. Therefore let them go freely to work, Pope, bishop,
   priest, monk, or doctor; they are the true people to persecute the truth, as
   they have always done. May God grant us all a Christian understanding, and
   especially to the Christian nobility of the German nation true spiritual
   courage, to do what is best for our unhappy Church. Amen!

   At Wittenberg, in the year 1520.
     _________________________________________________________________

   [31] At the time when the above was written the function of the signatura
   gratiæ was to superintend the conferring of grants, concessions, favours,
   etc., whilst the signatura justitiæ embraced the general administration of
   ecclesiastical matters.

   [32] “Reserved cases” refer to those great sins for which the Pope or the
   bishops only could give absolution.

   [33] The celebrated Papal Bull known under the name of In Cænar Domini,
   containing anathemas and excommunications against all those who dissented in
   any way from the Roman Catholic creed, used, until the year 1770, to be read
   publicly at Rome on Maundy Thursday.

   [34] The council alluded to above was held at Rome from 1512 to 1517.

   [35] Luther’s objection is not, of course, to the recognition of the
   immortality of the soul; what he objects to is (1) that it was thought
   necessary for a council to decree that the soul is immortal, and (2) that
   this question was put on a level with trivial matters of discipline.

   [36] The above is the title of a chapter in the Corpus juris canonici.

   [37] The right of investiture was the subject of the dispute between Gregory
   VII. and Henry IV., which led to the Emperor’s submission at Canossa.

   [38] The chapter Solite is also contained in the Corpus juris canonici.

   [39] In order to legalise the secular power of the Pope, the fiction was
   invented during the latter part of the eighth century, that Constantine the
   Great had made over to the Popes the dominion over Rome and over the whole
   of Italy.

   [40] The Jubilees, during which plenary indulgences were granted to those
   who visited the churches of St. Peter and St Paul at Rome, were originally
   celebrated every hundred years and subsequently every twenty-five years.
   Those who were unable to go to Rome in person could obtain the plenary
   indulgences by paying the expenses of the journey to Rome into the Papal
   treasury.

   [41] The above-mentioned saints were the patrons of the well-known mendicant
   orders, Franciscans, Dominicans and Augustines.

   [42] Luther alludes here, of course, to the vow of celibacy, which was
   curiously styled the vow of chastity; thus indirectly condemning marriage in
   general.

   [43] Luther uses the expression irregulares, which was applied to those
   monks who were guilty of heresy, apostasy, transgression of the vow of
   chastity, etc.

   [44] Luther enumerates here the various grades of punishment inflicted on
   priests. The aggravation consisted of a threat of excommunication, after a
   thrice-repeated admonition, whilst the consequence of re-aggravation was
   immediate excommunication.

   [45] Those, namely, between Sponsors at Baptism and their Godchildren.

   [46] Luther uses here the word “Pickarten,” which is a corruption of
   Begharden, i.e. “Beghards,” a nickname frequently applied in those days to
   the Hussites.

   [47] In the shrine of his heart.

   [48] Luther refers here to the ‘Sentences’ of Petrus Lombardus, the
   so-called magister sententiarum, which formed the basis of all dogmatic
   interpretation from about the middle of the 12th century down to the
   Reformation.

   [49] See above p. 58.

   [50] Luther here follows the Vulgate, translating the above verse by: “Es
   werden die Römer kommen und die Juden verstören: und hernach werden sie auch
   untergehen.”

   [51] Luther uses the expression ausbuben in the sense of sich austoben,
   viz., “to storm out one’s passions,” and then coins the word sich einbuben,
   viz., “to storm in one’s passions.”
     _________________________________________________________________
     _________________________________________________________________

CONCERNING CHRISTIAN LIBERTY
     _________________________________________________________________

DEDICATORY

  LETTER OF MARTIN LUTHER TO POPE LEO X.

   AMONG those monstrous evils of this age, with which I have now for three
   years been waging war, I am sometimes compelled to look to you and to call
   you to mind, most blessed father Leo. In truth, since you alone are
   everywhere considered as being the cause of my engaging in war, I cannot at
   any time fail to remember you; and although I have been compelled by the
   causeless raging of your impious flatterers against me to appeal from your
   seat to a future council—fearless of the futile decrees of your predecessors
   Pius and Julius, who in their foolish tyranny prohibited such an action—yet
   I have never been so alienated in feeling from your Blessedness as not to
   have sought with all my might, in diligent prayer and crying to God, every
   best gift for you and for your See. But those who have hitherto endeavoured
   to terrify me with the majesty of your name and authority, I have begun
   quite to despise and triumph over. One thing I see remaining, which I cannot
   despise, and this has been the reason of my writing anew to your
   Blessedness; namely, that I find that blame is cast on me, and that that
   rashness, in which I am judged to have spared not even your person, is
   imputed to me as a great offence.

   Now, to confess the truth openly, I am conscious that, whenever I have had
   to mention your person, I have said nothing of you but what was honourable
   and good. If I had done otherwise, I could by no means have approved my own
   conduct, but should have supported with all my power the judgment of those
   men concerning me; nor would anything have pleased me better, than to recant
   such rashness and impiety. I have called you Daniel in Babylon; and every
   reader thoroughly knows with what distinguished zeal I defended your
   conspicuous innocence against Silvester, who tried to stain it. Indeed the
   published opinion of so many great men, and the repute of your blameless
   life, are too widely famed and too much reverenced throughout the world to
   be assailable by any man of however great name, or by any arts. I am not so
   foolish as to attack one whom everybody praises; nay, it has been and always
   will be my desire not to attack even those whom public repute disgraces. I
   am not delighted at the faults of any man, since I am very conscious myself
   of the great beam in my own eye, nor can I be the first to cast a stone at
   the adulteress.

   I have indeed inveighed sharply against impious doctrines, and I have not
   been slack to censure my adversaries on account, not of their bad morals,
   but of their impiety. And for this I am so far from being sorry, that I have
   brought my mind to despise the judgments of men, and to persevere in this
   vehement zeal, according to the example of Christ, who, in his zeal, calls
   his adversaries a generation of vipers, blind, hypocrites, and children of
   the devil. Paul too charges the sorcerer with being a child of the devil,
   full of all subtlety and all malice; and defames certain persons as evil
   workers, dogs, and deceivers. In the opinion of those delicate-eared
   persons, nothing could be more bitter or intemperate than Paul’s language.
   What can be more bitter than the words of the prophets? The ears of our
   generation have been made so delicate by the senseless multitude of
   flatterers, that, as soon as we perceive that anything of ours is not
   approved of, we cry out that we are being bitterly assailed; and when we can
   repel the truth by no other pretence, we escape by attributing bitterness,
   impatience, intemperance, to our adversaries. What would be the use of salt,
   if it were not pungent? or of the edge of the sword, if it did not slay?
   Accursed is the man, who does the work of the Lord deceitfully.

   Wherefore, most excellent Leo, I beseech you to accept my vindication, made
   in this letter, and to persuade yourself that I have never thought any evil
   concerning your person; further, that I am one who desires that eternal
   blessing may fall to your lot, and that I have no dispute with any man
   concerning morals, but only concerning the word of truth. In all other
   things I will yield to any one, but I neither can nor will forsake and deny
   the Word. He who thinks otherwise of me or has taken in my words in another
   sense, does not think rightly, and has not taken in the truth.

   Your see, however, which is called the Court of Rome, and which neither you
   nor any man can deny to be more corrupt than any Babylon or Sodom, and
   quite, as I believe, of a lost, desperate, and hopeless impiety, this I have
   verily abominated, and have felt indignant that the people of Christ should
   be cheated under your name and the pretext of the Church of Rome; and so I
   have resisted, and will resist, as long as the spirit of faith shall live in
   me. Not that I am striving after impossibilities, or hoping that by my
   labours alone, against the furious opposition of so many flatterers, any
   good can be done in that most disordered Babylon, but that I feel myself a
   debtor to my brethren, and am bound to take thought for them, that fewer of
   them may be ruined, or that their ruin may be less complete, by the plagues
   of Rome. For many years now, nothing else has overflowed from Rome into the
   world—as you are not ignorant—than the laying waste of goods, of bodies, and
   of souls, and the worst examples of all the worst things. These things are
   clearer than the light to all men; and the Church of Rome, formerly the most
   holy of all churches, has become the most lawless den of thieves, the most
   shameless of all brothels, the very kingdom of sin, death, and hell; so that
   not even Antichrist, if he were to come, could devise any addition to its
   wickedness.

   Meanwhile you, Leo, are sitting like a lamb in the midst of wolves, like
   Daniel in the midst of lions, and, with Ezekiel, you dwell among scorpions.
   What opposition can you alone make to these monstrous evils? Take to
   yourself three or four of the most learned and best of the Cardinals. What
   are these among so many? You would all perish by poison, before you could
   undertake to decide on a remedy. It is all over with the Court of Rome; the
   wrath of God has come upon her to the uttermost. She hates councils, she
   dreads to be reformed, she cannot restrain the madness of her impiety, she
   fills up the sentence passed on her mother, of whom it is said, “We would
   have healed Babylon, but she is not healed; let us forsake her.” It had been
   your duty and that of your Cardinals, to apply a remedy to these evils, but
   this gout laughs at the physician’s hand, and the chariot does not obey the
   reins. Under the influence of these feelings I have always grieved that you,
   most excellent Leo, who were worthy of a better age, have been made Pontiff
   in this. For the Roman Court is not worthy of you and those like you, but of
   Satan himself, who in truth is more the ruler in that Babylon than you are.

   O would that, having laid aside that glory which your most abandoned enemies
   declare to be yours, you were living rather in the office of a private
   priest, or on your paternal inheritance! In that glory none are worthy to
   glory, except the race of Iscariot, the children of perdition. For what
   happens in your court, Leo, except that, the more wicked and execrable any
   man is, the more prosperously he can use your name and authority for the
   ruin of the property and souls of men, for the multiplication of crimes, for
   the oppression of faith and truth, and of the whole Church of God? O Leo! in
   reality most unfortunate, and sitting on a most perilous throne—I tell you
   the truth, because I wish you well; for if Bernard felt compassion for his
   Anastasius at a time when the Roman See, though even then most corrupt, was
   as yet ruling with better hope than now, why should not we lament, to whom
   so much additional corruption and ruin has happened in three hundred years?

   Is it not true that there is nothing under the vast heavens more corrupt,
   more pestilential, more hateful than the Court of Rome? She incomparably
   surpasses the impiety of the Turks, so that in very truth she, who was
   formerly the gate of heaven, is now a sort of open mouth of hell, and such a
   mouth as, under the urgent wrath of God, cannot be blocked up; one course
   alone being left to us wretched men, to call back and save some few, if we
   can, from that Roman gulf.

   Behold, Leo my father, with what purpose and on what principle it is that I
   have stormed against that seat of pestilence. I am so far from having felt
   any rage against your person, that I even hoped to gain favour with you, and
   to aid in your welfare, by striking actively and vigorously at that your
   prison, nay, your hell. For whatever the efforts of all intellects can
   contrive against the confusion of that impious Court will be advantageous to
   you and to your welfare, and to many others with you. Those who do harm to
   her are doing your office; those who in every way abhor her are glorifying
   Christ; in short, those are Christians who are not Romans.

   But, to say yet more, even this never entered my heart, to inveigh against
   the Court of Rome, or to dispute at all about her. For, seeing all remedies
   for her health to be desperate, I looked on her with contempt, and, giving
   her a bill of divorcement, said to her, “He that is unjust, let him be
   unjust still; and he that is filthy, let him be filthy still;” giving myself
   up to the peaceful and quiet study of sacred literature, that by this I
   might be of use to the brethren living about me.

   While I was making some advance in these studies, Satan opened his eyes and
   goaded on his servant John Eccius, that notorious adversary of Christ, by
   the unchecked lust for fame, to drag me unexpectedly into the arena, trying
   to catch me in one little word concerning the primacy of the Church of Rome,
   which had fallen from me in passing. That boastful Thraso, foaming and
   gnashing his teeth, proclaimed that he would dare all things for the glory
   of God, and for the honour of the holy apostolic seat; and, being puffed up
   respecting your power, which he was about to misuse, he looked forward with
   all certainty to victory; seeking to promote, not so much the primacy of
   Peter, as his own pre-eminence among the theologians of this age; for he
   thought it would contribute in no slight degree to this, if he were to lead
   Luther in triumph. The result having proved unfortunate for the sophist, an
   incredible rage torments him; for he feels that whatever discredit to Rome
   has arisen through me, has been caused by the fault of himself alone.

   Suffer me, I pray you, most excellent Leo, both to plead my own cause, and
   to accuse your true enemies. I believe it is known to you in what way
   Cardinal Cajetan, your imprudent and unfortunate, nay, unfaithful legate,
   acted towards me. When, on account of my reverence for your name, I had
   placed myself and all that was mine in his hands, he did not so act as to
   establish peace, which he could easily have established by one little word,
   since I at that time promised to be silent and to make an end of my case, if
   he would command my adversaries to do the same. But that man of pride, not
   content with this agreement, began to justify my adversaries, to give them
   free licence, and to order me to recant; a thing which was certainly not in
   his commission. Thus indeed, when the case was in the best position, it came
   through his vexatious tyranny into a much worse one. Therefore, whatever has
   followed upon this is the fault, not of Luther, but entirely of Cajetan,
   since he did not suffer me to be silent and remain quiet, which at that time
   I was intreating for with all my might. What more was it my duty to do?

   Next came Charles Miltitz, also a nuncio from your Blessedness. He, though
   he went up and down with much and varied exertion, and omitted nothing which
   could tend to restore the position of the cause, thrown into confusion by
   the rashness and pride of Cajetan, had difficulty, even with the help of
   that very illustrious prince the Elector Frederick, in at last bringing
   about more than one familiar conference with me. In these I again yielded to
   your great name, and was prepared to keep silence, and to accept as my judge
   either the Archbishop of Treves, or the Bishop of Naumburg; and thus it was
   done and concluded. While this was being done with good hope of success, lo!
   that other and greater enemy of yours, Eccius, rushed in with his Leipsic
   disputation, which he had undertaken against Carlstadt, and, having taken up
   a new question concerning the primacy of the Pope, turned his arms
   unexpectedly against me, and completely overthrew the plan for peace.
   Meanwhile Charles Miltitz was waiting, disputations were held, judges were
   being chosen, but no decision was arrived at. And no wonder; for by the
   falsehoods, pretences, and arts of Eccius the whole business was brought
   into such thorough disorder, confusion, and festering soreness, that,
   whichever way the sentence might lean, a greater conflagration was sure to
   arise; for he was seeking, not after truth, but after his own credit. In
   this case too I omitted nothing which it was right that I should do.

   I confess that, on this occasion, no small part of the corruptions of Rome
   came to light; but, if there was any offence in this, it was the fault of
   Eccius, who, in taking on him a burden beyond his strength, and in furiously
   aiming at credit for himself, unveiled to the whole world the disgrace of
   Rome.

   Here is that enemy of yours, Leo, or rather of your Court; by his example
   alone we may learn that an enemy is not more baneful than a flatterer. For
   what did he bring about by his flattery, except evils, which no king could
   have brought about? At this day the name of the Court of Rome stinks in the
   nostrils of the world, the papal authority is growing weak, and its
   notorious ignorance is evil spoken of. We should hear none of these things,
   if Eccius had not disturbed the plans of Miltitz and myself for peace. He
   feels this clearly enough himself, in the indignation he shows, too late and
   in vain, against the publication of my books. He ought to have reflected on
   this at the time when he was all mad for renown, and was seeking in your
   cause nothing but his own objects, and that with the greatest peril to you.
   The foolish man hoped that, from fear of your name, I should yield and keep
   silence; for I do not think he presumed on his talents and learning. Now,
   when he sees that I am very confident and speak aloud, he repents too late
   of his rashness, and sees—if indeed he does see it—that there is One in
   Heaven who resists the proud, and humbles the presumptuous.

   Since, then, we were bringing about by this disputation nothing but the
   greater confusion of the cause of Rome, Charles Miltitz for the third time
   addressed the Fathers of the Order, assembled in chapter, and sought their
   advice for the settlement of the case, as being now in a most troubled and
   perilous state. Since, by the favour of God, there was no hope of proceeding
   against me by force, some of the more noted of their number were sent to me,
   and begged me at least to show respect to your person, and to vindicate in a
   humble letter both your innocence and my own. They said that the affair was
   not as yet in a position of extreme hopelessness, if Leo X., in his inborn
   kindliness, would put his hand to it. On this I, who have always offered and
   wished for peace, in order that I might devote myself to calmer and more
   useful pursuits, and who for this very purpose have acted with so much
   spirit and vehemence, in order to put down by the strength and impetuosity
   of my words as well as of my feelings, men whom I saw to be very far from
   equal to myself—I, I say, not only gladly yielded, but even accepted it with
   joy and gratitude, as the greatest kindness and benefit, if you should think
   it right to satisfy my hopes.

   Thus I come, most blessed Father, and in all abasement beseech you to put to
   your hand, if it is possible, and impose a curb upon those flatterers, who
   are enemies of peace, while they pretend peace. But there is no reason, most
   blessed Father, why any one should assume that I am to utter a recantation,
   unless he prefers to involve the case in still greater confusion. Moreover,
   I cannot bear with laws for the interpretation of the Word of God, since the
   Word of God, which teaches liberty in all other things, ought not to be
   bound. Saving these two things, there is nothing which I am not able, and
   most heartily willing, to do or to suffer. I hate contention; I will
   challenge no one; in return I wish not to be challenged; but, being
   challenged, I will not be dumb in the cause of Christ my Master. For your
   Blessedness will be able by one short and easy word to call these
   controversies before you and suppress them, and to impose silence and peace
   on both sides; a word which I have ever longed to hear.

   Therefore, Leo my Father, beware of listening to those Sirens, who make you
   out to be not simply a man, but partly a God, so that you can command and
   require whatever you will. It will not happen so, nor will you prevail. You
   are the servant of servants, and, more than any other man, in a most
   pitiable and perilous position. Let not those men deceive you, who pretend
   that you are Lord of the world; who will not allow any one to be a Christian
   without your authority; who babble of your having power over heaven, hell,
   and purgatory. These men are your enemies and are seeking your soul to
   destroy it, as Isaiah says: “My people, they that call thee blessed are
   themselves deceiving thee.” They are in error, who raise you above councils
   and the universal Church. They are in error, who attribute to you alone the
   right of interpreting Scripture. All these men are seeking to set up their
   own impieties in the Church under your name, and alas! Satan has gained much
   through them in the time of your predecessors.

   In brief, trust not in any who exalt you, but in those who humiliate you.
   For this is the judgment of God: “He hath cast down the mighty from their
   seat, and hath exalted the humble.” See how unlike Christ was to His
   successors, though all will have it that they are His vicars. I fear that in
   truth very many of them have been in too serious a sense His vicars, for a
   vicar represents a prince who is absent. Now if a Pontiff rules while Christ
   is absent and does not dwell in his heart, what else is he but a vicar of
   Christ? And then what is that Church but a multitude without Christ? What
   indeed is such a vicar but Antichrist and an idol? How much more rightly did
   the Apostles speak, who call themselves the servants of a present Christ,
   not the vicars of an absent one.

   Perhaps I am shamelessly bold, in seeming to teach so great a head, by whom
   all men ought to be taught, and from whom, as those plagues of yours boast,
   the thrones of judges receive their sentence; but I imitate Saint Bernard in
   his book concerning “Considerations” addressed to Eugenius, a book which
   ought to be known by heart by every Pontiff. I do this, not from any desire
   to teach, but as a duty, from that simple and faithful solicitude, which
   teaches us to be anxious for all that is safe for our neighbours, and does
   not allow considerations of worthiness or unworthiness to be entertained,
   being intent only on the dangers or advantage of others. For since I know
   that your Blessedness is driven and tossed by the waves at Rome, while the
   depths of the sea press on you with infinite perils, and that you are
   labouring under such a condition of misery that you need even the least help
   from any the least brother, I do not seem to myself to be acting unsuitably,
   if I forget your majesty till I shall have fulfilled the office of charity.
   I will not flatter in so serious and perilous a matter; and if in this you
   do not see that I am your friend and most thoroughly your subject, there is
   One to see and judge.

   In fine, that I may not approach you empty handed, Blessed Father, I bring
   with me this little treatise, published under your name, as a good omen of
   the establishment of peace, and of good hope. By this you may perceive in
   what pursuits I should prefer and be able to occupy myself to more profit,
   if I were allowed, or had been hitherto allowed, by your impious flatterers.
   It is a small matter, if you look to its exterior, but, unless I mistake, it
   is a summary of the Christian life put together in small compass, if you
   apprehend its meaning. I, in my poverty, have no other present to make you;
   nor do you need anything else than to be enriched by a spiritual gift. I
   commend myself to your Paternity and Blessedness, whom may the Lord Jesus
   preserve for ever. Amen.

   Wittenberg; 6th September, 1520.
     _________________________________________________________________

  CONCERNING CHRISTIAN LIBERTY

   CHRISTIAN faith has appeared to many an easy thing; nay, not a few even
   reckon it among the social virtues, as it were; and this they do, because
   they have not made proof of it experimentally, and have never tasted of what
   efficacy it is. For it is not possible for any man to write well about it,
   or to understand well what is rightly written, who has not at some time
   tasted of its spirit, under the pressure of tribulation. While he who has
   tasted of it, even to a very small extent, can never write, speak, think, or
   hear about it sufficiently. For it is a living fountain, springing up unto
   eternal life, as Christ calls it in the 4th chapter of St. John.

   Now, though I cannot boast of my abundance, and though I know how poorly I
   am furnished, yet I hope that, after having been vexed by various
   temptations, I have attained some little drop of faith, and that I can speak
   of this matter, if not with more elegance, certainly with more solidity than
   those literal and too subtle disputants who have hitherto discoursed upon
   it, without understanding their own words. That I may open, then, an easier
   way for the ignorant—for these alone I am trying to serve—I first lay down
   these two propositions, concerning spiritual liberty and servitude.

   A Christian man is the most free lord of all, and subject to none; a
   Christian man is the most dutiful servant of all, and subject to every one.

   Although these statements appear contradictory, yet, when they are found to
   agree together, they will be highly serviceable to my purpose. They are both
   the statements of Paul himself, who says: “Though I be free from all men,
   yet have I made myself servant unto all” (1 Cor. ix. 19), and: “Owe no man
   anything, but to love one another.” (Rom. xiii. 8.) Now love is by its own
   nature dutiful and obedient to the beloved object. Thus even Christ, though
   Lord of all things, was yet made of a woman; made under the law; at once
   free and a servant; at once in the form of God and in the form of a servant.

   Let us examine the subject on a deeper and less simple principle. Man is
   composed of a twofold nature, a spiritual and a bodily. As regards the
   spiritual nature, which they name the soul, he is called the spiritual,
   inward, new man; as regards the bodily nature, which they name the flesh, he
   is called the fleshly, outward, old man. The Apostle speaks of this: “Though
   our outward man perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day.” (2 Cor.
   iv. 16.) The result of this diversity is, that in the Scriptures opposing
   statements are made concerning the same man; the fact being that in the same
   man these two men are opposed to one another; the flesh lusting against the
   spirit, and the spirit against the flesh. (Gal. v. 17.)

   We first approach the subject of the inward man, that we may see by what
   means a man becomes justified, free, and a true Christian; that is, a
   spiritual, new, and inward man. It is certain that absolutely none among
   outward things, under whatever name they may be reckoned, has any weight in
   producing a state of justification and Christian liberty, nor, on the other
   hand, an unjustified state and one of slavery. This can be shown by an easy
   course of argument.

   What can it profit the soul, that the body should be in good condition,
   free, and full of life; that it should eat, drink, and act according to its
   pleasure; when even the most impious slaves of every kind of vice are
   prosperous in these matters? Again, what harm can ill-health, bondage,
   hunger, thirst, or any other outward evil, do to the soul, when even the
   most pious of men, and the freest in the purity of their conscience, are
   harassed by these things? Neither of these states of things has to do with
   the liberty or the slavery of the soul.

   And so it will profit nothing that the body should be adorned with sacred
   vestments, or dwell in holy places, or be occupied in sacred offices, or
   pray, fast, and abstain from certain meats, or do whatever works can be done
   through the body and in the body. Something widely different will be
   necessary for the justification and liberty of the soul, since the things I
   have spoken of can be done by any impious person, and only hypocrites are
   produced by devotion to these things. On the other hand, it will not at all
   injure the soul that the body should be clothed in profane raiment, should
   dwell in profane places, should eat and drink in the ordinary fashion,
   should not pray aloud, and should leave undone all the things
   abovementioned, which may be done by hypocrites.

   And, to cast everything aside, even speculations, meditations, and whatever
   things can be performed by the exertions of the soul itself, are of no
   profit. One thing, and one alone, is necessary for life, justification, and
   Christian liberty; and that is the most holy word of God, the Gospel of
   Christ, as He says: “I am the resurrection and the life; he that believeth
   in me shall not die eternally” (John xi. 25); and also (John viii. 36) “If
   the Son shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed;” and (Matt. iv. 4),
   “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of
   the mouth of God.”

   Let us therefore hold it for certain and firmly established, that the soul
   can do without everything, except the word of God, without which none at all
   of its wants are provided for. But, having the word, it is rich and wants
   for nothing; since that is the word of life, of truth, of light, of peace,
   of justification, of salvation, of joy, of liberty, of wisdom, of virtue, of
   grace, of glory, and of every good thing. It is on this account that the
   prophet in a whole psalm (Ps. cxix.), and in many other places, sighs for
   and calls upon the word of God with so many groanings and words.

   Again, there is no more cruel stroke of the wrath of God than when He sends
   a famine of hearing His words (Amos viii. 11); just as there is no greater
   favour from Him than the sending forth of His word, as it is said: “He sent
   his word and healed them, and delivered them from their destructions.” (Ps.
   cvii. 20.) Christ was sent for no other office than that of the word, and
   the order of apostles, that of bishops, and that of the whole body of the
   clergy, have been called and instituted for no object but the ministry of
   the word.

   But you will ask:—“What is this word, and by what means is it to be used,
   since there are so many words of God?” I answer, the Apostle Paul (Rom. i.)
   explains what it is, namely, the Gospel of God, concerning His Son,
   incarnate, suffering, risen, and glorified through the Spirit, the
   sanctifier. To preach Christ is to feed the soul, to justify it, to set it
   free, and to save it, if it believes the preaching. For faith alone, and the
   efficacious use of the word of God, bring salvation. “If thou shalt confess
   with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God
   hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.” (Rom. x. 9.) And again:
   “Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that
   believeth” (Rom. x. 4); and “The just shall live by faith.” (Rom. i. 17.)
   For the word of God cannot be received and honoured by any works, but by
   faith alone. Hence it is clear that, as the soul needs the word alone for
   life and justification, so it is justified by faith alone and not by any
   works. For if it could be justified by any other means, it would have no
   need of the word, nor consequently of faith.

   But this faith cannot consist at all with works; that is, if you imagine
   that you can be justified by those works, whatever they are, along with it.
   For this would be to halt between two opinions, to worship Baal, and to kiss
   the hand to him, which is a very great iniquity, as Job says. Therefore,
   when you begin to believe, you learn at the same time that all that is in
   you is utterly guilty, sinful, and damnable; according to that saying: “All
   have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.” (Rom. iii. 23.) And also:
   “There is none righteous, no, not one; they are all gone out of the way;
   they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no,
   not one.” (Rom. iii. 10-12.) When you have learnt this, you will know that
   Christ is necessary for you, since He has suffered and risen again for you,
   that, believing on Him, you might by this faith become another man, all your
   sins being remitted, and you being justified by the merits of another,
   namely, of Christ alone.

   Since then this faith can reign only in the inward man, as it is said: “With
   the heart man believeth unto righteousness” (Rom. x. 10); and since it alone
   justifies, it is evident that by no outward work or labour can the inward
   man be at all justified, made free, and saved; and that no works whatever
   have any relation to him. And so, on the other hand, it is solely by impiety
   and incredulity of heart that he becomes guilty, and a slave of sin,
   deserving condemnation; not by any outward sin or work. Therefore the first
   care of every Christian ought to be, to lay aside all reliance on works, and
   strengthen his faith alone more and more, and by it grow in the knowledge,
   not of works, but of Christ Jesus, who has suffered and risen again for him;
   as Peter teaches, when he makes no other work to be a Christian one. Thus
   Christ, when the Jews asked Him what they should do that they might work the
   works of God, rejected the multitude of works, with which He saw that they
   were puffed up, and commanded them one thing only, saying: “This is the work
   of God, that ye believe on him whom He hath sent, for him hath God the
   Father sealed.” (John vi. 27, 29.)

   Hence a right faith in Christ is an incomparable treasure, carrying with it
   universal salvation, and preserving from all evil, as it is said: “He that
   believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be
   damned.” (Mark xvi. 16.) Isaiah, looking to this treasure, predicted: “The
   consumption decreed shall overflow with righteousness. For the Lord God of
   hosts shall make a consumption, even determined, in the midst of the
   land.” (Is. x. 22, 23.) As if he said:—“Faith, which is the brief and
   complete fulfilling of the law, will fill those who believe with such
   righteousness, that they will need nothing else for justification.” Thus too
   Paul says: “For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness.” (Rom. x.
   10.)

   But you ask how it can be the fact that faith alone justifies, and affords
   without works so great a treasure of good things, when so many works,
   ceremonies, and laws are prescribed to us in the Scriptures. I answer:
   before all things bear in mind what I have said, that faith alone without
   works justifies, sets free, and saves, as I shall show more clearly below.

   Meanwhile it is to be noted, that the whole Scripture of God is divided into
   two parts, precepts and promises. The precepts certainly teach us what is
   good, but what they teach is not forthwith done. For they show us what we
   ought to do, but do not give us the power to do it. They were ordained,
   however, for the purpose of showing man to himself; that through them he may
   learn his own impotence for good, and may despair of his own strength. For
   this reason they are called the Old Testament, and are so.

   For example: “thou shalt not covet,” is a precept by which we are all
   convicted of sin; since no man can help coveting, whatever efforts to the
   contrary he may make. In order therefore that he may fulfil the precept, and
   not covet, he is constrained to despair of himself, and to seek elsewhere
   and through another the help which he cannot find in himself; as it is said:
   “O Israel, thou hast destroyed thyself; but in me is thine help.” (Hosea
   xiii. 9.) Now what is done by this one precept, is done by all; for all are
   equally impossible of fulfilment by us.

   Now when a man has through the precepts been taught his own impotence, and
   become anxious by what means he may satisfy the law—for the law must be
   satisfied, so that no jot or tittle of it may pass away; otherwise he must
   be hopelessly condemned—then, being truly humbled and brought to nothing in
   his own eyes, he finds in himself no resource for justification and
   salvation.

   Then comes in that other part of Scripture, the promises of God, which
   declare the glory of God, and say: “If you wish to fulfil the law, and, as
   the law requires, not to covet, lo! believe in Christ, in whom are promised
   to you grace, justification, peace, and liberty.” All these things you shall
   have, if you believe, and shall be without them, if you do not believe. For
   what is impossible for you by all the works of the law, which are many and
   yet useless, you shall fulfil in an easy and summary way through faith;
   because God the Father has made everything to depend on faith, so that
   whosoever has it, has all things, and he who has it not, has nothing. “For
   God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that He might have mercy upon
   all.” (Rom. xi. 32.) Thus the promises of God give that which the precepts
   exact, and fulfil what the law commands; so that all is of God alone, both
   the precepts and their fulfilment. He alone commands. He alone also fulfils.
   Hence the promises of God belong to the New Testament; nay, are the New
   Testament.

   Now since these promises of God are words of holiness, truth, righteousness,
   liberty, and peace, and are full of universal goodness; the soul, which
   cleaves to them with a firm faith, is so united to them, nay, thoroughly
   absorbed by them, that it not only partakes in, but is penetrated and
   saturated by, all their virtue. For if the touch of Christ was healing, how
   much more does that most tender spiritual touch, nay, absorption of the
   word, communicate to the soul all that belongs to the word. In this way,
   therefore, the soul, through faith alone, without works, is from the word of
   God justified, sanctified, endued with truth, peace, and liberty, and filled
   full with every good thing, and is truly made the child of God; as it is
   said: “To them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that
   believe on his name.” (John i. 12.)

   From all this it is easy to understand why faith has such great power, and
   why no good works, nor even all good works put together, can compare with
   it; since no work can cleave to the word of God, or be in the soul. Faith
   alone and the word reign in it; and such as is the word, such is the soul
   made by it; just as iron exposed to fire glows like fire, on account of its
   union with the fire. It is clear then that to a Christian man his faith
   suffices for everything, and that he has no need of works for justification.
   But if he has no need of works, neither has he need of the law; and, if he
   has no need of the law, he is certainly free from the law, and the saying is
   true: “The law is not made for a righteous man.” (1 Tim. i. 9.) This is that
   Christian liberty, our faith, the effect of which is, not that we should be
   careless or lead a bad life, but that no one should need the law or works
   for justification and salvation.

   Let us consider this as the first virtue of faith; and let us look also to
   the second. This also is an office of faith, that it honours with the utmost
   veneration and the highest reputation him in whom it believes, inasmuch as
   it holds him to be truthful and worthy of belief. For there is no honour
   like that reputation of truth and righteousness, with which we honour him,
   in whom we believe. What higher credit can we attribute to any one than
   truth and righteousness, and absolute goodness? On the other hand, it is the
   greatest insult to brand any one with the reputation of falsehood and
   unrighteousness, or to suspect him of these, as we do when we disbelieve
   him.

   Thus the soul, in firmly believing the promises of God, holds Him to be true
   and righteous; and it can attribute to God no higher glory than the credit
   of being so. The highest worship of God is to ascribe to Him truth,
   righteousness, and whatever qualities we must ascribe to one in whom we
   believe. In doing this the soul shows itself prepared to do His whole will;
   in doing this it hallows His name, and gives itself up to be dealt with as
   it may please God. For it cleaves to His promises, and never doubts that He
   is true, just, and wise, and will do, dispose, and provide for all things in
   the best way. Is not such a soul, in this its faith, most obedient to God in
   all things? What commandment does there remain which has not been amply
   fulfilled by such an obedience? What fulfilment can be more full than
   universal obedience? Now this is not accomplished by works, but by faith
   alone.

   On the other hand, what greater rebellion, impiety, or insult to God can
   there be, than not to believe His promises? What else is this, than either
   to make God a liar, or to doubt His truth—that is, to attribute truth to
   ourselves, but to God falsehood and levity? In doing this, is not a man
   denying God and setting himself up as an idol in his own heart? What then
   can works, done in such a state of impiety, profit us, were they even
   angelic or apostolic works? Rightly hath God shut up all—not in wrath nor in
   lust—but in unbelief; in order that those who pretend that they are
   fulfilling the law by works of purity and benevolence (which are social and
   human virtues), may not presume that they will therefore be saved; but,
   being included in the sin of unbelief, may either seek mercy, or be justly
   condemned.

   But when God sees that truth is ascribed to Him, and that in the faith of
   our hearts He is honoured with all the honour of which He is worthy; then in
   return He honours us on account of that faith; attributing to us truth and
   righteousness. For faith produces truth and righteousness, in rendering to
   God what is His; and therefore in return God gives glory to our
   righteousness. It is a true and righteous thing, that God is true and
   righteous; and to confess this, and ascribe these attributes to Him, is to
   be ourselves true and righteous. Thus He says: “Them that honour me I will
   honour, and they that despise me shall be lightly esteemed.” (1 Sam. ii.
   30.) And so Paul says that Abraham’s faith was imputed to him for
   righteousness, because by it he gave glory to God; and that to us also, for
   the same reason, it shall be reputed for righteousness, if we believe. (Rom.
   iv.)

   The third incomparable grace of faith is this, that it unites the soul to
   Christ, as the wife to the husband; by which mystery, as the Apostle
   teaches, Christ and the soul are made one flesh. Now if they are one flesh,
   and if a true marriage—nay, by far the most perfect of all marriages—is
   accomplished between them (for human marriages are but feeble types of this
   one great marriage), then it follows that all they have becomes theirs in
   common, as well good things as evil things; so that whatsoever Christ
   possesses, that the believing soul may take to itself and boast of as its
   own, and whatever belongs to the soul, that Christ claims as his.

   If we compare these possessions, we shall see how inestimable is the gain.
   Christ is full of grace, life, and salvation; the soul is full of sin,
   death, and condemnation. Let faith step in, and then sin, death, and hell
   will belong to Christ, and grace, life, and salvation to the soul. For, if
   he is a husband, he must needs take to himself that which is his wife’s,
   and, at the same time, impart to his wife that which is his. For, in giving
   her his own body and himself, how can he but give her all that is his? And,
   in taking to himself the body of his wife, how can he but take to himself
   all that is hers?

   In this is displayed the delightful sight, not only of communion, but of a
   prosperous warfare, of victory, salvation, and redemption. For since Christ
   is God and man, and is such a person as neither has sinned, nor dies, nor is
   condemned,—nay, cannot sin, die, or be condemned; and since his
   righteousness, life, and salvation are invincible, eternal, and almighty;
   when, I say, such a person, by the wedding-ring of faith, takes a share in
   the sins, death, and hell of his wife, nay, makes them his own, and deals
   with them no otherwise than as if they were his, and as if he himself had
   sinned; and when he suffers, dies, and descends to hell, that he may
   overcome all things, since sin, death, and hell cannot swallow him up, they
   must needs be swallowed up by him in stupendous conflict. For his
   righteousness rises above the sins of all men; his life is more powerful
   than all death; his salvation is more unconquerable than all hell.

   Thus the believing soul, by the pledge of its faith in Christ, becomes free
   from all sin, fearless of death, safe from hell, and endowed with the
   eternal righteousness, life, and salvation of its husband Christ. Thus he
   presents to himself a glorious bride, without spot or wrinkle, cleansing her
   with the washing of water by the word; that is, by faith in the word of
   life, righteousness, and salvation. Thus he betrothes her unto himself “in
   faithfulness, in righteousness, and in judgment, and in lovingkindness, and
   in mercies.” (Hosea ii. 19, 20.)

   Who then can value highly enough these royal nuptials? Who can comprehend
   the riches of the glory of this grace? Christ, that rich and pious husband,
   takes as a wife a needy and impious harlot, redeeming her from all her
   evils, and supplying her with all His good things. It is impossible now that
   her sins should destroy her, since they have been laid upon Christ and
   swallowed up in Him, and since she has in her husband Christ a righteousness
   which she may claim as her own, and which she can set up with confidence
   against all her sins, against death and hell, saying: “If I have sinned, my
   Christ, in whom I believe, has not sinned; all mine is His, and all His is
   mine;” as it is written, “My beloved is mine, and I am his. (Cant. ii. 16.)
   This is what Paul says: “Thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory
   through our Lord Jesus Christ;” victory over sin and death, as he says: “The
   sting of death is sin, and the strength of sin is the law.” (1 Cor. xv. 56,
   57.)

   From all this you will again understand, why so much importance is
   attributed to faith, so that it alone can fulfil the law, and justify
   without any works. For you see that the first commandment, which says, “Thou
   shalt worship one God only,” is fulfilled by faith alone. If you were
   nothing but good works from the soles of your feet to the crown of your
   head, you would not be worshipping God, nor fulfilling the first
   commandment, since it is impossible to worship God, without ascribing to Him
   the glory of truth and of universal goodness, as it ought in truth to be
   ascribed. Now this is not done by works, but only by faith of heart. It is
   not by working, but by believing, that we glorify God, and confess Him to be
   true. On this ground faith is the sole righteousness of a Christian man, and
   the fulfilling of all the commandments. For to him who fulfils the first,
   the task of fulfilling all the rest is easy.

   Works, since they are irrational things, cannot glorify God; although they
   may be done to the glory of God, if faith be present. But at present we are
   enquiring, not into the quality of the works done, but into him who does
   them, who glorifies God, and brings forth good works. This is faith of
   heart, the head and the substance of all our righteousness. Hence that is a
   blind and perilous doctrine which teaches that the commandments are
   fulfilled by works. The commandments must have been fulfilled, previous to
   any good works, and good works follow their fulfilment, as we shall see.

   But, that we may have a wider view of that grace which our inner man has in
   Christ, we must know that in the Old Testament God sanctified to Himself
   every first-born male. The birthright was of great value, giving a
   superiority over the rest by the double honour of priesthood and kingship.
   For the first-born brother was priest and lord of all the rest.

   Under this figure was foreshown Christ, the true and only first-born of God
   the Father and of the Virgin Mary, and a true king and priest, not in a
   fleshly and earthly sense. For His kingdom is not of this world; it is in
   heavenly and spiritual things that He reigns and acts as priest; and these
   are righteousness, truth, wisdom, peace, salvation, &c. Not but that all
   things, even those of earth and hell, are subject to Him—for otherwise how
   could He defend and save us from them?—but it is not in these, nor by these,
   that His kingdom stands.

   So too His priesthood does not consist in the outward display of vestments
   and gestures, as did the human priesthood of Aaron and our ecclesiastical
   priesthood at this day, but in spiritual things, wherein, in His invisible
   office, He intercedes for us with God in heaven, and there offers Himself,
   and performs all the duties of a priest; as Paul describes Him to the
   Hebrews under the figure of Melchizedek. Nor does He only pray and intercede
   for us; He also teaches us inwardly in the spirit with the living teachings
   of His Spirit. Now these are the two special offices of a priest, as is
   figured to us in the case of fleshly priests, by visible prayers and
   sermons.

   As Christ by His birthright has obtained these two dignities, so He imparts
   and communicates them to every believer in Him, under that law of matrimony
   of which we have spoken above, by which all that is the husband’s is also
   the wife’s. Hence all we who believe on Christ are kings and priests in
   Christ, as it is said: “Ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an
   holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him
   who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light.” (1 Pet. ii.
   9.)

   These two things stand thus. First, as regards kingship, every Christian is
   by faith so exalted above all things, that, in spiritual power, he is
   completely lord of all things; so that nothing whatever can do him any hurt;
   yea, all things are subject to him, and are compelled to be subservient to
   his salvation. Thus Paul says: “All things work together for good to them
   who are the called” (Rom. viii. 28); and also; “Whether life, or death, or
   things present, or things to come: all are yours; and ye are Christ’s. (1
   Cor. iii. 22, 23.)

   Not that in the sense of corporeal power any one among Christians has been
   appointed to possess and rule all things, according to the mad and senseless
   idea of certain ecclesiastics. That is the office of kings, princes, and men
   upon earth. In the experience of life we see that we are subjected to all
   things, and suffer many things, even death. Yea, the more of a Christian any
   man is, to so many the more evils, sufferings, and deaths is he subject; as
   we see in the first place in Christ the first-born, and in all His holy
   brethen.

   This is a spiritual power, which rules in the midst of enemies, and is
   powerful in the midst of distresses. And this is nothing else than that
   strength is made perfect in my weakness, and that I can turn all things to
   the profit of my salvation; so that even the cross and death are compelled
   to serve me and to work together for my salvation. This is a lofty and
   eminent dignity, a true and almighty dominion, a spiritual empire, in which
   there is nothing so good, nothing so bad, as not to work together for my
   good, if only I believe. And yet there is nothing of which I have need—for
   faith alone suffices for my salvation—unless that, in it, faith may exercise
   the power and empire of its liberty. This is the inestimable power and
   liberty of Christians.

   Nor are we only kings and the freest of all men, but also priests for ever,
   a dignity far higher than kingship, because by that priesthood we are worthy
   to appear before God, to pray for others, and to teach one another mutually
   the things which are of God. For these are the duties of priests, and they
   cannot possibly be permitted to any unbeliever. Christ has obtained for us
   this favour, if we believe in Him, that, just as we are His brethren, and
   co-heirs and fellow kings with Him, so we should be also fellow priests with
   Him, and venture with confidence, through the spirit of faith, to come into
   the presence of God, and cry “Abba, Father!” and to pray for one another,
   and to do all things which we see done and figured in the visible and
   corporeal office of priesthood. But to an unbelieving person nothing renders
   service or works for good. He himself is in servitude to all things, and all
   things turn out for evil to him, because he uses all things in an impious
   way for his own advantage, and not for the glory of God. And thus he is not
   a priest, but a profane person, whose prayers are turned into sin; nor does
   he ever appear in the presence of God, because God does not hear sinners.

   Who then can comprehend the loftiness of that Christian dignity which, by
   its royal power, rules over all things, even over death, life, and sin, and,
   by its priestly glory, is all powerful with God; since God does what He
   Himself seeks and wishes; as it is written: “He will fulfil the desire of
   them that fear Him: He also will hear their cry, and will save them”? (Ps.
   cxlv. 19.) This glory certainly cannot be attained by any works, but by
   faith only.

   From these considerations any one may clearly see how a Christian man is
   free from all things; so that he needs no works in order to be justified and
   saved, but receives these gifts in abundance from faith alone. Nay, were he
   so foolish as to pretend to be justified, set free, saved, and made a
   Christian, by means of any good work, he would immediately lose faith with
   all its benefits. Such folly is prettily represented in the fable, where a
   dog, running along in the water, and carrying in his mouth a real piece of
   meat, is deceived by the reflection of the meat in the water, and, in trying
   with open mouth to seize it, loses the meat and its image at the same time.

   Here you will ask: “If all who are in the Church are priests, by what
   character are those, whom we now call priests, to be distinguished from the
   laity?” I reply: By the use of these words, “priest,” “clergy,” “spiritual
   person,” “ecclesiastic,” an injustice has been done, since they have been
   transferred from the remaining body of Christians to those few, who are now,
   by a hurtful custom, called ecclesiastics. For Holy Scripture makes no
   distinction between them, except that those, who are now boastfully called
   popes, bishops, and lords, it calls ministers, servants, and stewards, who
   are to serve the rest in the ministry of the Word, for teaching the faith of
   Christ and the liberty of believers. For though it is true that we are all
   equally priests, yet we cannot, nor, if we could, ought we all to minister
   and teach publicly. Thus Paul says: “Let a man so account of us as of the
   ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God.” (1 Cor. iv. 1.)

   This bad system has now issued in such a pompous display of power, and such
   a terrible tyranny, that no earthly government can be compared to it, as if
   the laity were something else than Christians. Through this perversion of
   things it has happened that the knowledge of Christian grace, of faith, of
   liberty, and altogether of Christ, has utterly perished, and has been
   succeeded by an intolerable bondage to human works and laws; and, according
   to the Lamentations of Jeremiah, we have become the slaves of the vilest men
   on earth, who abuse our misery to all the disgraceful and ignominious
   purposes of their own will.

   Returning to the subject which we had begun, I think it is made clear by
   these considerations that it is not sufficient, nor a Christian course, to
   preach the works, life, and words of Christ in a historic manner, as facts
   which it suffices to know as an example how to frame our life; as do those
   who are now held the best preachers: and much less so, to keep silence
   altogether on these things, and to teach in their stead the laws of men and
   the decrees of the Fathers. There are now not a few persons who preach and
   read about Christ with the object of moving the human affections to
   sympathise with Christ, to indignation against the Jews, and other childish
   and womanish absurdities of that kind.

   Now preaching ought to have the object of promoting faith in Him, so that He
   may not only be Christ, but a Christ for you and for me, and that what is
   said of Him, and what He is called, may work in us. And this faith is
   produced and is maintained by preaching why Christ came, what He has brought
   us and given to us, and to what profit and advantage He is to be received.
   This is done, when the Christian liberty which we have from Christ Himself
   is rightly taught, and we are shown in what manner all we Christians are
   kings and priests, and how we are lords of all things, and may be confident
   that whatever we do in the presence of God is pleasing and acceptable to
   Him.

   Whose heart would not rejoice in its inmost core at hearing these things?
   Whose heart, on receiving so great a consolation, would not become sweet
   with the love of Christ, a love to which it can never attain by any laws or
   works? Who can injure such a heart, or make it afraid? If the consciousness
   of sin, or the horror of death, rush in upon it, it is prepared to hope in
   the Lord, and is fearless of such evils, and undisturbed, until it shall
   look down upon its enemies. For it believes that the righteousness of Christ
   is its own, and that its sin is no longer its own, but that of Christ, for,
   on account of its faith in Christ, all its sin must needs be swallowed up
   from before the face of the righteousness of Christ, as I have said above.
   It learns too, with the Apostle, to scoff at death and sin, and to say: “O
   death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory? The sting of death
   is sin, and the strength of sin is the law. But thanks be to God, which
   giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.” (1 Cor. xv. 55-57.)
   For death is swallowed up in victory; not only the victory of Christ, but
   ours also; since by faith it becomes ours, and in it we too conquer.

   Let it suffice to say this concerning the inner man and its liberty, and
   concerning that righteousness of faith, which needs neither laws nor good
   works; nay, they are even hurtful to it, if any one pretends to be justified
   by them.

   And now let us turn to the other part, to the outward man. Here we shall
   give an answer to all those who, taking offence at the word of faith and at
   what I have asserted, say: “If faith does everything, and by itself suffices
   for justification, why then are good works commanded? Are we then to take
   our ease and do no works, content with faith?” Not so, impious men, I reply;
   not so. That would indeed really be the case, if we were thoroughly and
   completely inner and spiritual persons; but that will not happen until the
   last day, when the dead shall be raised. As long as we live in the flesh, we
   are but beginning and making advances in that which shall be completed in a
   future life. On this account the Apostle calls that which we have in this
   life, the first-fruits of the Spirit. (Rom. viii. 23.) In future we shall
   have the tenths, and the fulness of the Spirit. To this part belongs the
   fact I have stated before, that the Christian is the servant of all and
   subject to all. For in that part in which he is free, he does no works, but
   in that in which he is a servant, he does all works. Let us see on what
   principle this is so.

   Although, as I have said, inwardly, and according to the spirit, a man is
   amply enough justified by faith, having all that he requires to have, except
   that this very faith and abundance ought to increase from day to day, even
   till the future life; still he remains in this mortal life upon earth, in
   which it is necessary that he should rule his own body, and have intercourse
   with men. Here then works begin; here he must not take his ease; here he
   must give heed to exercise his body by fastings, watchings, labour, and
   other moderate discipline, so that it may be subdued to the spirit, and obey
   and conform itself to the inner man and faith, and not rebel against them
   nor hinder them, as is its nature to do if it is not kept under. For the
   inner man, being conformed to God, and created after the image of God
   through faith, rejoices and delights itself in Christ, in whom such
   blessings have been conferred on it; and hence has only this task before it,
   to serve God with joy and for nought in free love.

   In doing this he offends that contrary will in his own flesh, which is
   striving to serve the world, and to seek its own gratification. This the
   spirit of faith cannot and will not bear; but applies itself with
   cheerfulness and zeal to keep it down and restrain it; as Paul says: “I
   delight in the law of God after the inward man; but I see another law in my
   members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity
   to the law of sin.” (Rom. vii. 22, 23.) And again: “I keep under my body,
   and bring it into subjection, lest that by any means, when I have preached
   to others, I myself should be a castaway.” (1 Cor. ix. 27.) And: “They that
   are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.” (Gal.
   v. 24.)

   These works, however, must not be done with any notion that by them a man
   can be justified before God—for faith, which alone is righteousness before
   God, will not bear with this false notion—but solely with this purpose, that
   the body may be brought into subjection, and be purified from its evil
   lusts, so that our eyes may be turned only to purging away those lusts. For
   when the soul has been cleansed by faith and made to love God, it would have
   all things to be cleansed in like manner; and especially its own body, so
   that all things might unite with it in the love and praise of God. Thus it
   comes that, from the requirements of his own body, a man cannot take his
   ease, but is compelled on its account to do many good works, that he may
   bring it into subjection. Yet these works are not the means of his
   justification before God he does them out of disinterested love to the
   service of God; looking to no other end than to do what is well-pleasing to
   Him whom he desires to obey most dutifully in all things.

   On this principle every man may easily instruct himself in what measure, and
   with what distinctions, he ought to chasten his own body. He will fast,
   watch, and labour, just as much as he sees to suffice for keeping down the
   wantonness and concupiscence of the body. But those who pretend to be
   justified by works are looking, not to the mortification of their lusts, but
   only to the works themselves; thinking that, if they can accomplish as many
   works and as great ones as possible, all is well with them, and they are
   justified. Sometimes they even injure their brain, and extinguish nature, or
   at least make it useless. This is enormous folly, and ignorance of Christian
   life and faith, when a man seeks, without faith, to be justified and saved
   by works.

   To make what we have said more easily understood, let us set it forth under
   a figure. The works of a Christian man, who is justified and saved by his
   faith out of the pure and unbought mercy of God, ought to be regarded in the
   same light as would have been those of Adam and Eve in Paradise, and of all
   their posterity, if they had not sinned. Of them it is said: “The Lord God
   took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep
   it.” (Gen. ii. 15.) Now Adam had been created by God just and righteous, so
   that he could not have needed to be justified and made righteous by keeping
   the garden and working in it; but, that he might not be unemployed, God gave
   him the business of keeping and cultivating Paradise. These would have
   indeed been works of perfect freedom, being done for no object but that of
   pleasing God, and not in order to obtain justification, which he already had
   to the full, and which would have been innate in us all.

   So it is with the works of a believer. Being by his faith replaced afresh in
   Paradise and created anew, he does not need works for his justification, but
   that he may not be idle, but may keep his own body and work upon it. His
   works are to be done freely, with the sole object of pleasing God. Only we
   are not yet fully created anew in perfect faith and love; these require to
   be increased, not however through works, but through themselves.

   A bishop, when he consecrates a church, confirms children, or performs any
   other duty of his office, is not consecrated as bishop by these works; nay,
   unless he had been previously consecrated as bishop, not one of those works
   would have any validity; they would be foolish, childish, and ridiculous.
   Thus a Christian, being consecrated by his faith, does good works; but he is
   not by these works made a more sacred person, or more a Christian. That is
   the effect of faith alone; nay, unless he were previously a believer and a
   Christian, none of his works would have any value at all; they would really
   be impious and damnable sins.

   True then are these two sayings: Good works do not make a good man, but a
   good man does good works. Bad works do not make a bad man, but a bad man
   does bad works. Thus it is always necessary that the substance or person
   should be good before any good works can be done, and that good works should
   follow and proceed from a good person. As Christ says: “A good tree cannot
   bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good
   fruit.” (Matt. vii. 18.) Now it is clear that the fruit does not bear the
   tree, nor does the tree grow on the fruit; but, on the contrary, the trees
   bear the fruit and the fruit grows on the trees.

   As then trees must exist before their fruit, and as the fruit does not make
   the tree either good or bad, but, on the contrary, a tree of either kind
   produces fruit of the same kind; so must first the person of the man be good
   or bad, before he can do either a good or a bad work; and his works do not
   make him bad or good, but he himself makes his works either bad or good.

   We may see the same thing in all handicrafts. A bad or good house does not
   make a bad or good builder, but a good or bad builder makes a good or bad
   house. And in general, no work makes the workman such as it is itself; but
   the workman makes the work such as he is himself. Such is the case too with
   the works of men. Such as the man himself is, whether in faith or in
   unbelief, such is his work; good if it be done in faith, bad if in unbelief.
   But the converse is not true—that, such as the work is, such the man becomes
   in faith or in unbelief. For as works do not make a believing man, so
   neither do they make a justified man; but faith, as it makes a man a
   believer and justified, so also it makes his works good.

   Since, then, works justify no man, but a man must be justified before he can
   do any good work, it is most evident that it is faith alone which, by the
   mere mercy of God through Christ, and by means of His word, can worthily and
   sufficiently justify and save the person; and that a Christian man needs no
   work, no law, for his salvation; for by faith he is free from all law, and
   in perfect freedom does gratuitously all that he does, seeking nothing
   either of profit or of salvation—since by the grace of God he is already
   saved and rich in all things through his faith—but solely that which is
   well-pleasing to God.

   So too no good work can profit an unbeliever to justification and salvation;
   and on the other hand no evil work makes him an evil and condemned person,
   but that unbelief, which makes the person and the tree bad, makes his works
   evil and condemned. Wherefore, when any man is made good or bad, this does
   not arise from his works, but from his faith or unbelief, as the wise man
   says: “The beginning of sin is to fall away from God;” that is, not to
   believe. Paul says: “He that cometh to God must believe” (Heb. xi. 6); and
   Christ says the same thing: “Either make the tree good, and his fruit good;
   or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt.” (Matt. xii. 33.) As
   much as to say: He who wishes to have good fruit, will begin with the tree,
   and plant a good one; even so he who wishes to do good works must begin, not
   by working, but by believing, since it is this which makes the person good.
   For nothing makes the person good but faith, nor bad but unbelief.

   It is certainly true that, in the sight of men, a man becomes good or evil
   by his works; but here “becoming” means that it is thus shown and recognised
   who is good or evil; as Christ says: “By their fruits ye shall know them.”
   (Matt. vii. 20.) But all this stops at appearances and externals; and in
   this matter very many deceive themselves, when they presume to write and
   teach that we are to be justified by good works, and meanwhile make no
   mention even of faith, walking in their own ways, ever deceived and
   deceiving, going from bad to worse, blind leaders of the blind, wearying
   themselves with many works, and yet never attaining to true righteousness;
   of whom Paul says: “Having a form of godliness, but denying the power
   thereof; ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the
   truth.” (2 Tim. iii. 5, 7.)

   He then, who does not wish to go astray with these blind ones, must look
   further than to the works of the law or the doctrine of works; nay, must
   turn away his sight from works, and look to the person, and to the manner in
   which it may be justified. Now it is justified and saved, not by works or
   laws, but by the word of God, that is, by the promise of His grace; so that
   the glory may be to the Divine majesty, which has saved us who believe, not
   by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy, by
   the word of His grace.

   From all this it is easy to perceive on what principle good works are to be
   cast aside or embraced, and by what rule all teachings put forth concerning
   works are to be understood. For if works are brought forward as grounds of
   justification, and are done under the false persuasion that we can pretend
   to be justified by them, they lay on us the yoke of necessity, and
   extinguish liberty along with faith, and by this very addition to their use,
   they become no longer good, but really worthy of condemnation. For such
   works are not free, but blaspheme the grace of God, to which alone it
   belongs to justify and save through faith. Works cannot accomplish this, and
   yet, with impious presumption, through our folly, they take it on themselves
   to do so; and thus break in with violence upon the office and glory of
   grace.

   We do not then reject good works; nay, we embrace them and teach them in the
   highest degree. It is not on their own account that we condemn them, but on
   account of this impious addition to them, and the perverse notion of seeking
   justification by them. These things cause them to be only good in outward
   show, but in reality not good; since by them men are deceived and deceive
   others, like ravening wolves in sheep’s clothing.

   Now this Leviathan, this perverted notion about works, is invincible, when
   sincere faith is wanting. For those sanctified doers of works cannot but
   hold it, till faith, which destroys it, comes and reigns in the heart.
   Nature cannot expel it by her own power; nay, cannot even see it for what it
   is, but considers it as a most holy will. And when custom steps in besides,
   and strengthens this pravity of nature, as has happened by means of impious
   teachers, then the evil is incurable, and leads astray multitudes to
   irreparable ruin. Therefore, though it is good to preach and write about
   penitence, confession, and satisfaction, yet if we stop there, and do not go
   on to teach faith, such teaching is without doubt deceitful and devilish.
   For Christ, speaking by His servant John, not only said: “Repent ye;” but
   added: “for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” (Matt. iii. 2.)

   For not one word of God only, but both, should be preached; new and old
   things should be brought out of the treasury, as well the voice of the law,
   as the word of grace. The voice of the law should be brought forward, that
   men may be terrified and brought to a knowledge of their sins, and thence be
   converted to penitence and to a better manner of life. But we must not stop
   here; that would be to wound only and not to bind up, to strike and not to
   heal, to kill and not to make alive, to bring down to hell and not to bring
   back, to humble and not to exalt. Therefore the word of grace, and of the
   promised remission of sin, must also be preached, in order to teach and set
   up faith; since, without that word, contrition, penitence, and all other
   duties, are performed and taught in vain.

   There still remain, it is true, preachers of repentance and grace, but they
   do not explain the law and the promises of God to such an end, and in such a
   spirit, that men may learn whence repentance and grace are to come. For
   repentance comes from the law of God, but faith or grace from the promises
   of God, as it is said: “Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of
   God.” (Rom. x. 17.) Whence it comes, that a man, when humbled and brought to
   the knowledge of himself by the threatenings and terrors of the law, is
   consoled and raised up by faith in the Divine promise. Thus “weeping may
   endure for a night, but joy cometh in the morning.” (Ps. xxx. 5.) Thus much
   we say concerning works in general, and also concerning those which the
   Christian practises with regard to his own body.

   Lastly, we will speak also of those works which he performs towards his
   neighbour. For man does not live for himself alone in this mortal body, in
   order to work on its account, but also for all men on earth; nay, he lives
   only for others and not for himself. For it is to this end that he brings
   his own body into subjection, that he may be able to serve others more
   sincerely and more freely; as Paul says: “None of us liveth to himself, and
   no man dieth to himself. For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and
   whether we die, we die unto the Lord.” (Rom. xiv. 7, 8.) Thus it is
   impossible that he should take his ease in this life, and not work for the
   good of his neighbours; since he must needs speak, act, and converse among
   men; just as Christ was made in the likeness of men, and found in fashion as
   a man, and had His conversation among men.

   Yet a Christian has need of none of these things for justification and
   salvation, but in all his works he ought to entertain this view, and look
   only to this object, that he may serve and be useful to others in all that
   he does; having nothing before his eyes but the necessities and the
   advantage of his neighbour. Thus the Apostle commands us to work with our
   own hands, that we may have to give to those that need. He might have said,
   that we may support ourselves; but he tells us to give to those that need.
   It is the part of a Christian to take care of his own body for the very
   purpose that, by its soundness and wellbeing, he may be enabled to labour,
   and to acquire and preserve property, for the aid of those who are in want;
   that thus the stronger member may serve the weaker member, and we may be
   children of God, thoughtful and busy one for another, bearing one another’s
   burdens, and so fulfilling the law of Christ.

   Here is the truly Christian life; here is faith really working by love; when
   a man applies himself with joy and love to the works of that freest
   servitude, in which he serves others voluntarily and for nought; himself
   abundantly satisfied in the fulness and riches of his own faith.

   Thus, when Paul had taught the Philippians how they had been made rich by
   that faith in Christ, in which they had obtained all things, he teaches them
   further in these words—“If there be therefore any consolation in Christ, if
   any comfort of love, if any fellowship of the Spirit, if any bowels and
   mercies, fulfil ye my joy, that ye be like-minded, having the same love,
   being of one accord, of one mind. Let nothing be done through strife or
   vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than
   themselves. Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the
   things of others.” (Phil. ii. 1-4.)

   In this we see clearly that the Apostle lays down this rule for a Christian
   life, that all our works should be directed to the advantage of others;
   since every Christian has such abundance through his faith, that all his
   other works and his whole life remain over and above, wherewith to serve and
   benefit his neighbour of spontaneous good will.

   To this end he brings forward Christ as an example, saying: “Let this mind
   be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: who, being in the form of God,
   thought it not robbery to be equal with God: but made himself of no
   reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the
   likeness of men; and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself,
   and became obedient unto death.” (Phil. ii. 5-8.) This most wholesome saying
   of the Apostle has been darkened to us by men who, totally misunderstanding
   the expressions: “form of God,” “form of a servant,” “fashion,” “likeness of
   men,” have transferred them to the natures of Godhead and manhood. Paul’s
   meaning is this: Christ, when He was full of the form of God, and abounded
   in all good things, so that He had no need of works or sufferings to be
   justified and saved—for all these things He had from the very beginning—yet
   was not puffed up with these things, and did not raise Himself above us, and
   arrogate to Himself power over us, though He might lawfully have done so,
   but on the contrary so acted in labouring, working, suffering, and dying, as
   to be like the rest of men, and no otherwise than a man in fashion and in
   conduct, as if he were in want of all things, and had nothing of the form of
   God; and yet all this He did for our sakes, that He might serve us, and that
   all the works He should do under that form of a servant, might become ours.

   Thus a Christian, like Christ his head, being full and in abundance through
   his faith, ought to be content with this form of God, obtained by faith;
   except that, as I have said, he ought to increase this faith, till it be
   perfected. For this faith is his life, justification, and salvation,
   preserving his person itself and making it pleasing to God, and bestowing on
   him all that Christ has; as I have said above, and as Paul affirms: “The
   life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God.”
   (Gal. ii. 20.) Though he is thus free from all works, yet he ought to empty
   himself of this liberty, take on him the form of a servant, be made in the
   likeness of men, be found in fashion as a man, serve, help, and in every way
   act towards his neighbour as he sees that God through Christ has acted and
   is acting towards him. All this he should do freely, and with regard to
   nothing but the good pleasure of God, and he should reason thus:

   Lo! my God, without merit on my part, of His pure and free mercy, has given
   to me, an unworthy, condemned, and contemptible creature, all the riches of
   justification and salvation in Christ, so that I no longer am in want of
   anything, except of faith to believe that this is so. For such a Father
   then, who has overwhelmed me with these inestimable riches of His, why
   should I not freely, cheerfully, and with my whole heart and from voluntary
   zeal, do all that I know will be pleasing to Him, and acceptable in His
   sight? I will therefore give myself, as a sort of Christ, to my neighbour,
   as Christ has given Himself to me; and will do nothing in this life, except
   what I see will be needful, advantageous, and wholesome for my neighbour,
   since by faith I abound in all good things in Christ.

   Thus from faith flow forth love and joy in the Lord, and from love a
   cheerful, willing, free spirit, disposed to serve our neighbour voluntarily,
   without taking any account of gratitude or ingratitude, praise or blame,
   gain or loss. Its object is not to lay men under obligations, nor does it
   distinguish between friends and enemies, or look to gratitude or
   ingratitude, but most freely and willingly spends itself and its goods,
   whether it loses them through ingratitude, or gains good will. For thus did
   its Father, distributing all things to all men abundantly and freely; making
   His sun to rise upon the just and the unjust. Thus too the child does and
   endures nothing, except from the free joy with which it delights through
   Christ in God, the giver of such great gifts.

   You see then that, if we recognise those great and precious gifts, as Peter
   says, which have been given to us, love is quickly diffused in our hearts
   through the Spirit, and by love we are made free, joyful, all-powerful,
   active workers, victors over all our tribulations, servants to our
   neighbour, and nevertheless lords of all things. But for those who do not
   recognise the good things given to them through Christ, Christ has been born
   in vain; such persons walk by works, and will never attain the taste and
   feeling of these great things. Therefore, just as our neighbour is in want,
   and has need of our abundance, so we too in the sight of God were in want,
   and had need of His mercy. And as our heavenly Father has freely helped us
   in Christ, so ought we freely to help our neighbour by our body and works,
   and each should become to other a sort of Christ, so that we may be mutually
   Christs, and that the same Christ may be in all of us; that is, that we may
   be truly Christians.

   Who then can comprehend the riches and glory of the Christian life? It can
   do all things, has all things, and is in want of nothing; is lord over sin,
   death, and hell, and at the same time is the obedient and useful servant of
   all. But alas! it is at this day unknown throughout the world; it is neither
   preached nor sought after, so that we are quite ignorant about our own name,
   why we are and are called Christians. We are certainly called so from
   Christ, who is not absent, but dwells among us, provided, that is, that we
   believe in Him, and are reciprocally and mutually one the Christ of the
   other, doing to our neighbour as Christ does to us. But now, in the doctrine
   of men, we are taught only to seek after merits, rewards, and things which
   are already ours, and we have made of Christ a task-master far more severe
   than Moses.

   The Blessed Virgin, beyond all others, affords us an example of the same
   faith, in that she was purified according to the law of Moses, and like all
   other women, though she was bound by no such law, and had no need of
   purification. Still she submitted to the law voluntarily and of free love,
   making herself like the rest of women, that she might not offend or throw
   contempt on them. She was not justified by doing this; but, being already
   justified, she did it freely and gratuitously. Thus ought our works too to
   be done, and not in order to be justified by them; for, being first
   justified by faith, we ought to do all our works freely and cheerfully for
   the sake of others.

   St. Paul circumcised his disciple Timothy, not because he needed
   circumcision for his justification, but that he might not offend or contemn
   those Jews, weak in the faith, who had not yet been able to comprehend the
   liberty of faith. On the other hand, when they contemned liberty, and urged
   that circumcision was necessary for justification, he resisted them, and
   would not allow Titus to be circumcised. For as he would not offend or
   contemn any one’s weakness in faith, but yielded for the time to their will,
   so again he would not have the liberty of faith offended or contemned by
   hardened self-justifiers, but walked in a middle path, sparing the weak for
   the time, and always resisting the hardened, that he might convert all to
   the liberty of faith. On the same principle we ought to act, receiving those
   that are weak in the faith, but boldly resisting these hardened teachers of
   works, of whom we shall hereafter speak at more length.

   Christ also, when His disciples were asked for the tribute money, asked of
   Peter, whether the children of a king were not free from taxes. Peter agreed
   to this; yet Jesus commanded him to go to the sea, saying: “Lest we should
   offend them, go thou to the sea, and cast a hook, and take up the fish that
   first cometh up; and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find a
   piece of money; that take, and give unto them for me and thee.” (Matt. xvii.
   27.)

   This example is very much to our purpose; for here Christ calls Himself and
   His disciples free men, and children of a king, in want of nothing; and yet
   He voluntarily submits and pays the tax. Just as far then as this work was
   necessary or useful to Christ for justification or salvation, so far do all
   His other works or those of His disciples avail for justification. They are
   really free and subsequent to justification, and only done to serve others
   and set them an example.

   Such are the works which Paul inculcated; that Christians should be subject
   to principalities and powers, and ready to every good work (Tit. iii. 1);
   not that they may be justified by these things, for they are already
   justified by faith, but that in liberty of spirit they may thus be the
   servants of others, and subject to powers, obeying their will out of
   gratuitous love.

   Such too ought to have been the works of all colleges, monasteries, and
   priests; every one doing the works of his own profession and state of life,
   not in order to be justified by them, but in order to bring his own body
   into subjection, as an example to others, who themselves also need to keep
   under their bodies; and also in order to accommodate himself to the will of
   others, out of free love. But we must always guard most carefully against
   any vain confidence or presumption of being justified, gaining merit, or
   being saved by these works; this being the part of faith alone, as I have so
   often said.

   Any man possessing this knowledge may easily keep clear of danger among
   those innumerable commands and precepts of the Pope, of bishops, of
   monasteries, of churches, of princes, and of magistrates, which some foolish
   pastors urge on us as being necessary for justification and salvation,
   calling them precepts of the Church, when they are not so at all. For the
   Christian freeman will speak thus: I will fast, I will pray, I will do this
   or that, which is commanded me by men, not as having any need of these
   things for justification or salvation, but that I may thus comply with the
   will of the Pope, of the bishop, of such a community or such a magistrate,
   or of my neighbour as an example to him; for this cause I will do and suffer
   all things, just as Christ did and suffered much more for me, though He
   needed not at all to do so on His own account, and made Himself for my sake
   under the law, when He was not under the law. And although tyrants may do me
   violence or wrong in requiring obedience to these things, yet it will not
   hurt me to do them, so long as they are not done against God.

   From all this every man will be able to attain a sure judgment and faithful
   discrimination between all works and laws, and to know who are blind and
   foolish pastors, and who are true and good ones. For whatsoever work is not
   directed to the sole end, either of keeping under the body, or of doing
   service to our neighbour—provided he require nothing contrary to the will of
   God—is no good or Christian work. Hence I greatly fear that at this day few
   or no colleges, monasteries, altars, or ecclesiastical functions are
   Christian ones; and the same may be said of fasts and special prayers to
   certain Saints. I fear that in all these nothing is being sought but what is
   already ours; while we fancy that by these things our sins are purged away
   and salvation is attained, and thus utterly do away with Christian liberty.
   This comes from ignorance of Christian faith and liberty.

   This ignorance, and this crushing of liberty, are diligently promoted by the
   teaching of very many blind pastors, who stir up and urge the people to a
   zeal for these things, praising such zeal and puffing up men with their
   indulgences, but never teaching faith. Now I would advise you, if you have
   any wish to pray, to fast, or to made foundations in churches, as they call
   it, to take care not to do so with the object of gaining any advantage,
   either temporal or eternal. You will thus wrong your faith which alone
   bestows all things on you, and the increase of which, either by working or
   by suffering, is alone to be cared for. What you give, give freely and
   without price, that others may prosper and have increase from you and from
   your goodness. Thus you will be a truly good man and a Christian. For what
   do you want with your goods and your works, which are done over and above
   for the subjection of the body, since you have abundance for yourself
   through your faith, in which God has given you all things?

   We give this rule: the good things which we have from God ought to flow from
   one to another, and become common to all, so that every one of us may, as it
   were, put on his neighbour, and so behave towards him as if he were himself
   in his place. They flowed and do flow from Christ to us; he put us on, and
   acted for us as if he himself were what we are. From us they flow to those
   who have need of them; so that my faith and righteousness ought to be laid
   down before God as a covering and intercession for the sins of my neighbour,
   which I am to take on myself, and so labour and endure servitude in them, as
   if they were my own; for thus has Christ done for us. This is true love and
   the genuine truth of Christian life. But only there is it true and genuine,
   where there is true and genuine faith. Hence the Apostle attributes to
   Charity this quality, that she seeketh not her own.

   We conclude therefore that a Christian man does not live in himself, but in
   Christ and in his neighbour, or else is no Christian; in Christ by faith, in
   his neighbour by love. By faith he is carried upwards above himself to God,
   and by love he sinks back below himself to his neighbour, still always
   abiding in God and His love, as Christ says: “Verily I say unto you,
   hereafter ye shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and
   descending upon the Son of man.” (John i. 51.)

   Thus much concerning liberty, which, as you see, is a true and spiritual
   liberty, making our hearts free from all sins, laws, and commandments; as
   Paul says: “The law is not made for a righteous man” (1 Tim. i. 9); and one
   which surpasses every other and outward liberty, as far as heaven is above
   earth. May Christ make us to understand and preserve this liberty. Amen.

   Finally, for the sake of those to whom nothing can be stated so well but
   that they misunderstand and distort it, we must add a word, in case they can
   understand even that. There are very many persons, who, when they hear of
   this liberty of faith, straightway turn it into an occasion of licence. They
   think that everything is now lawful for them, and do not choose to show
   themselves free men and Christians in any other way than by their contempt
   and reprehension of ceremonies, of traditions, of human laws; as if they
   were Christians merely because they refuse to fast on stated days, or eat
   flesh when others fast, or omit the customary prayers; scoffing at the
   precepts of men, but utterly passing over all the rest that belongs to the
   Christian religion. On the other hand, they are most pertinaciously resisted
   by those who strive after salvation solely by their observance of and
   reverence for ceremonies; as if they would be saved merely because they fast
   on stated days, or abstain from flesh, or make formal prayers; talking
   loudly of the precepts of the Church and of the Fathers, and not caring a
   straw about those things which belong to our genuine faith. Both these
   parties are plainly culpable, in that, while they neglect matters which are
   of weight and necessary for salvation, they contend noisily about such as
   are without weight and not necessary.

   How much more rightly does the Apostle Paul teach us to walk in the middle
   path, condemning either extreme, and saying: “Let not him that eateth
   despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that
   eateth.” (Rom. xiv. 3.) You see here how the Apostle blames those who, not
   from religious feeling, but in mere contempt, neglect and rail at ceremonial
   observances; and teaches them not to despise, since this “knowledge puffeth
   up.” Again he teaches the pertinacious upholders of these things not to
   judge their opponents. For neither party observes towards the other that
   charity which edifieth. In this matter we must listen to Scripture, which
   teaches us to turn aside neither to the right hand nor to the left, but to
   follow those right precepts of the Lord which rejoice the heart. For just as
   a man is not righteous, merely because he serves and devotes himself to
   works and ceremonial rites, so neither will he be accounted righteous,
   merely because he neglects and despises them.

   It is not from works that we are set free by the faith of Christ, but from
   the belief in works, that is, from foolishly presuming to seek justification
   through works. Faith redeems our consciences, makes them upright and
   preserves them, since by it we recognise the truth that justification does
   not depend on our works, although good works neither can nor ought to be
   wanting to it; just as we cannot exist without food and drink and all the
   functions of this mortal body. Still it is not on them that our
   justification is based, but on faith; and yet they ought not on that account
   to be despised or neglected. Thus in this world we are compelled by the
   needs of this bodily life; but we are not hereby justified. “My kingdom is
   not hence, nor of this world,” says Christ; but He does not say: “My kingdom
   is not here, nor in this world.” Paul too says: “Though we walk in the
   flesh, we do not war after the flesh” (2 Cor. x. 3); and: “The life which I
   now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God.” (Gal. ii. 20.)
   Thus our doings, life, and being, in works and ceremonies, are done from the
   necessities of this life, and with the motive of governing our bodies; but
   yet we are not justified by these things, but by the faith of the Son of
   God.

   The Christian must therefore walk in the middle path, and set these two
   classes of men before his eyes. He may meet with hardened and obstinate
   ceremonialists, who, like deaf adders, refuse to listen to the truth of
   liberty, and cry up, enjoin, and urge on us their ceremonies, as if they
   could justify us without faith. Such were the Jews of old, who would not
   understand, that they might act well. These men we must resist, do just the
   contrary to what they do, and be bold to give them offence; lest by this
   impious notion of theirs they should deceive many along with themselves. In
   the sight of these men it is expedient to eat flesh, to break fasts, and to
   do in behalf of the liberty of faith things which they hold to be the
   greatest sins. We must say of them: “Let them alone; they be blind leaders
   of the blind.” (Matt. xv. 14.) In this way Paul also would not have Titus
   circumcised, though these men urged it; and Christ defended the Apostles,
   who had plucked ears of corn on the Sabbath day; and many like instances.

   Or else we may meet with simple-minded and ignorant persons, weak in the
   faith, as the Apostle calls them, who are as yet unable to apprehend that
   liberty of faith, even if willing to do so. These we must spare, lest they
   should be offended. We must bear with their infirmity, till they shall be
   more fully instructed. For since these men do not act thus from hardened
   malice, but only from weakness of faith, therefore, in order to avoid giving
   them offence, we must keep fasts and do other things which they consider
   necessary. This is required of us by charity, which injures no one, but
   serves all men. It is not the fault of these persons that they are weak, but
   that of their pastors, who by the snares and weapons of their own traditions
   have brought them into bondage, and wounded their souls, when they ought to
   have been set free and healed by the teaching of faith and liberty. Thus the
   Apostle says: “If meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while
   the world standeth.” (1 Cor. viii. 13.) And again: “I know, and am persuaded
   by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself; but to him that
   esteemeth anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean. It is evil for that
   man who eateth with offence.” (Rom. xiv. 14, 20.)

   Thus, though we ought boldly to resist those teachers of tradition, and
   though those laws of the pontiffs, by which they make aggressions on the
   people of God, deserve sharp reproof, yet we must spare the timid crowd, who
   are held captive by the laws of those impious tyrants, till they are set
   free. Fight vigorously against the wolves, but on behalf of the sheep, not
   against the sheep. And this you may do by inveighing against the laws and
   lawgivers, and yet at the same time observing these laws with the weak, lest
   they be offended; until they shall themselves recognise the tyranny as such,
   and understand their own liberty. If you wish to use your liberty, do it
   secretly, as Paul says: “Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God.”
   (Rom. xiv. 22.) But take care not to use it in the presence of the weak. On
   the other hand, in the presence of tyrants and obstinate opposers, use your
   liberty in their despite, and with the utmost pertinacity, that they too may
   understand that they themselves are tyrants, and their laws useless for
   justification; nay, that they had no right to establish such laws.

   Since, then, we cannot live in this world without ceremonies and works;
   since the hot and inexperienced period of youth has need of being restrained
   and protected by such bonds; and since everyone is bound to keep under his
   own body by attention to these things; therefore the minister of Christ must
   be prudent and faithful in so ruling and teaching the people of Christ in
   all these matters that no root of bitterness may spring up among them, and
   so many be defiled, as Paul warned the Hebrews; that is, that they may not
   lose the faith, and begin to be defiled by a belief in works, as the means
   of justification. This is a thing which easily happens, and defiles very
   many, unless faith be constantly inculcated along with works. It is
   impossible to avoid this evil, when faith is passed over in silence, and
   only the ordinances of men are taught, as has been done hitherto by the
   pestilent, impious, and soul-destroying traditions of our pontiffs, and
   opinions of our theologians. An infinite number of souls have been drawn
   down to hell by these snares, so that you may recognise the work of
   Antichrist.

   In brief, as poverty is imperilled amid riches, honesty amid business,
   humility amid honours, abstinence amid feasting, purity amid pleasures, so
   is justification by faith imperilled among ceremonies. Solomon says: “Can a
   man take fire in his bosom, and his clothes not be burned?” (Prov. vi. 27.)
   And yet, as we must live among riches, business, honours, pleasures,
   feastings, so must we among ceremonies, that is, among perils. Just as
   infant boys have the greatest need of being cherished in the bosoms and by
   the care of girls, that they may not die; and yet, when they are grown,
   there is peril to their salvation in living among girls; so inexperienced
   and fervid young men require to be kept in and restrained by the barriers of
   ceremonies, even were they of iron, lest their weak mind should rush
   headlong into vice. And yet it would be death to them to persevere in
   believing that they can be justified by these things. They must rather be
   taught that they have been thus imprisoned, not with the purpose of their
   being justified or gaining merit in this way, but in order that they might
   avoid wrong doing, and be more easily instructed in that righteousness which
   is by faith; a thing which the headlong character of youth would not bear,
   unless it were put under restraint.

   Hence in the Christian life ceremonies are to be no otherwise looked upon
   than builders and workmen look upon those preparations for building or
   working which are not made with any view of being permanent or anything in
   themselves, but only because without them there could be no building and no
   work. When the structure is completed, they are laid aside. Here you see
   that we do not contemn these preparations, but set the highest value on
   them; a belief in them we do contemn, because no one thinks that they
   constitute a real and permanent structure. If any one were so manifestly out
   of his senses as to have no other object in life but that of setting up
   these preparations with all possible expense, diligence, and perseverance,
   while he never thought of the structure itself, but pleased himself and made
   his boast of these useless preparations and props; should we not all pity
   his madness, and think that, at the cost thus thrown away, some great
   building might have been raised?

   Thus too we do not contemn works and ceremonies; nay, we set the highest
   value on them; but we contemn the belief in works, which no one should
   consider to constitute true righteousness; as do those hypocrites who employ
   and throw away their whole life in the pursuit of works, and yet never
   attain to that for the sake of which the works are done. As the Apostle
   says, they are “ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of
   the truth.” (2 Tim. iii. 7). They appear to wish to build, they make
   preparations, and yet they never do build; and thus they continue in a show
   of godliness, but never attain to its power.

   Meanwhile they please themselves with this zealous pursuit, and even dare to
   judge all others, whom they do not see adorned with such a glittering
   display of works; while, if they had been imbued with faith, they might have
   done great things for their own and others’ salvation, at the same cost
   which they now waste in abuse of the gifts of God. But since human nature
   and natural reason, as they call it, are naturally superstitious, and quick
   to believe that justification can be attained by any laws or works proposed
   to them; and since nature is also exercised and confirmed in the same view
   by the practice of all earthly lawgivers, she can never, of her own power,
   free herself from this bondage to works, and come to a recognition of the
   liberty of faith.

   We have therefore need to pray that God will lead us, and make us taught of
   God, that is, ready to learn from God; and will Himself, as He has promised,
   write His law in our hearts; otherwise there is no hope for us. For unless
   He himself teach us inwardly this wisdom hidden in a mystery, nature cannot
   but condemn it and judge it to be heretical. She takes offence at it and it
   seems folly to her; just as we see that it happened of old in the case of
   the prophets and apostles; and just as blind and impious pontiffs, with
   their flatterers, do now in my case and that of those who are like me; upon
   whom, together with ourselves, may God at length have mercy, and lift up the
   light of His countenance upon them, that we may know His way upon earth and
   His saving health among all nations, Who is blessed for evermore. Amen. In
   the year of the Lord MDXX.
     _________________________________________________________________

III

ON THE BABYLONISH CAPTIVITY OF THE CHURCH

  ON

THE BABYLONISH CAPTIVITY OF THE CHURCH.
     _________________________________________________________________
     _________________________________________________________________

  Jesus.

   Martin Luther, of the Order of St. Augustine, salutes his friend Hermann
   Tulichius.

   Whether I will or not, I am compelled to become more learned day by day,
   since so many great masters vie with each other in urging me on and giving
   me practice. I wrote about indulgences two years ago, but now I extremely
   regret having published that book. At that time I was still involved in a
   great and superstitious respect for the tyranny of Rome, which led me to
   judge that indulgences were not to be totally rejected, seeing them, as I
   did, to be approved by so general a consent among men. And no wonder, for at
   that time it was I alone who was rolling this stone. Afterwards, however,
   with the kind aid of Sylvester and the friars, who supported indulgences so
   strenuously, I perceived that they were nothing but mere impostures of the
   flatterers of Rome, whereby to make away with the faith of God and the money
   of men. And I wish I could prevail upon the booksellers, and persuade all
   who have read them, to burn the whole of my writings on indulgences, and in
   place of all I have written about them to adopt this proposition:
   Indulgences are wicked devices of the flatterers of Rome.

   After this, Eccius and Emser, with their fellow-conspirators, began to
   instruct me concerning the primacy of the Pope. Here too, not to be
   ungrateful to such learned men, I must confess that their works helped me on
   greatly; for, while I had denied that the Papacy had any divine right, I
   still admitted that it had a human right. But after hearing and reading the
   super-subtle subtleties of those coxcombs, by which they so ingeniously set
   up their idol—my mind being not entirely unteachable in such matters—I now
   know and am sure that the Papacy is the kingdom of Babylon, and the power of
   Nimrod the mighty hunter. Here moreover, that all may go prosperously with
   my friends, I entreat the booksellers, and entreat my readers, to burn all
   that I have published on this subject, and to hold to the following
   proposition:

   The Papacy is the mighty hunting of the Bishop of Rome.

   This is proved from the reasonings of Eccius, of Emser, and of the Leipzig
   lecturer on the Bible.

   At the present time they are playing at schooling me concerning communion in
   both kinds, and some other subjects of the greatest importance. I must take
   pains not to listen in vain to these philosophical guides of mine. A certain
   Italian friar of Cremona has written a “Revocation of Martin Luther to the
   Holy See”—that is to say, not that I revoke, as the words imply, but that he
   revokes me. This is the sort of Latin that the Italians nowadays are
   beginning to write. Another friar, a German of Leipzig, Lecturer, as you
   know, on the whole canon of the Bible, has written against me concerning the
   Sacrament in both kinds, and is about, as I hear, to do still greater and
   wonderful wonders. The Italian indeed has cautiously concealed his name;
   perhaps alarmed by the examples of Cajetan and Sylvester. The man of
   Leipzig, however, as befits a vigorous and fierce German, has set forth in a
   number of verses on his title-page, his name, his life, his sanctity, his
   learning, his office, his glory, his honour, almost his very shoe-lasts.
   From him no doubt I shall learn not a little, since he writes a letter of
   dedication to the very Son of God; so familiar are these saints with Christ,
   who reigns in heaven. In short, three magpies seem to be addressing me, one,
   a Latin one, well; another, a Greek one, still better; the third, a Hebrew
   one, best of all. What do you think I have to do now, my dear Hermann, but
   to prick up my ears? The matter is handled at Leipzig by the Observants of
   the Holy Cross.

   Hitherto I have foolishly thought that it would be an excellent thing, if it
   were determined by a General Council, that both kinds in the Sacrament
   should be administered to the laity. To correct this opinion, this more than
   most learned friar says that it was neither commanded nor decreed, whether
   by Christ or by the Apostles, that both kinds should be administered to the
   laity; and that it has therefore been left to the judgment of the Church,
   which we are bound to obey, what should be done or left undone on this
   point. Thus speaks he. You ask, perhaps, what craze has possession of the
   man, or against whom he is writing; since I did not condemn the use of one
   kind, and did leave it to the judgment of the Church to ordain the use of
   both kinds. And this he himself endeavours to assert, with the object of
   combating me by this very argument. I reply, that this kind of argument is a
   familiar one with all who write against Luther; namely, either to assert the
   very thing which they attack, or to set up a figment that they may attack
   it. Thus did Sylvester, Eccius, Emser, the men of Cologne too, and those of
   Louvain. If this friar had gone back from their spirit, he would not have
   written against Luther.

   A greater piece of good fortune, however, has befallen this man than any of
   the others. Whereas he intended to prove that the use of one kind had
   neither been commanded nor decreed, but left to the decision of the Church,
   he brings forward Scriptures to prove that, by the command of Christ, the
   use of one kind was ordained for the laity. Thus it is true, according to
   this new interpreter of Scripture, that the use of one kind was not
   commanded, and at the same time was commanded, by Christ. You know how
   specially those logicians of Leipzig employ this new kind of argument. Does
   not Emser also, after having professed in his former book to speak fairly
   about me, and after having been convicted by me of the foulest envy and of
   base falsehoods, confess, when about to confute me in his later book, that
   both were true, and that he had written of me in both an unfair and a fair
   spirit? A good man indeed, as you know!

   But listen to our specious advocate of one species, in whose mind the
   decision of the Church and the command of Christ are the same thing; and
   again the command of Christ and the absence of his command are the same
   thing. With what dexterity he proves that only one kind should be granted to
   the laity, by the command of Christ, that is, by the decision of the Church!
   He marks it with capital letters in this way, “AN INFALLIBLE FOUNDATION.”
   Next he handles with incredible wisdom the sixth chapter of the Gospel of
   St. John, in which Christ speaks of the bread of heaven and the bread of
   life, which is Himself. These words this most learned man not only
   misapplies to the Sacrament of the Altar, but goes farther, and, because
   Christ said: “I am the living bread,” and not: “I am the living cup,” he
   concludes that in that passage the sacrament in only one kind was appointed
   for the laity. But the words that follow: “My flesh is meat indeed, and my
   blood is drink indeed;” and again, “Unless ye eat the flesh of the Son of
   Man and drink his blood”—since it was evident to this friar’s brains that
   they tell irrefutably in favour of reception in both kinds, and against that
   in one kind—he evades very happily and learnedly in this way: “That Christ
   meant nothing else by these words, than that he who should receive one kind,
   should receive under this both the body and the blood.” This he lays down as
   his infallible foundation of a structure so worthy of holy and heavenly
   reverence.

   Learn now, along with me, from this man, that in the sixth chapter of St.
   John Christ commands reception in one kind, but in such a manner that this
   commanding means leaving the matter to the decision of the Church; and
   further, that Christ in the same chapter speaks of the laity only, not of
   the presbyters. For to us this living bread from heaven, that is, the
   sacrament in one kind, does not belong, but perchance the bread of death
   from hell. Now what is to be done with the deacons and sub-deacons? As they
   are neither laymen nor priests, they ought, on this distinguished authority,
   to use neither one nor both kinds. You understand, my dear Tulichius, this
   new and observant manner of handling Scripture. But you must also learn
   this, that Christ, in the sixth chapter of St. John, is speaking of the
   sacrament of the Eucharist; though He Himself teaches us that He is speaking
   of faith in the incarnate word, by saying: “This is the work of God, that ye
   believe in him whom He hath sent.” But this Leipzig professor of the Bible
   must be permitted to prove whatever he pleases out of any passage of
   Scripture he pleases. For he is an Anaxagorean, nay, an Aristotelian
   theologian, to whom names and words when transposed mean the same things and
   everything. Throughout his whole book he so fits together the testimonies of
   Scripture, that, if he wishes to prove that Christ is in the sacrament, he
   ventures to begin thus: “The Lesson of the book of the Revelation of the
   blessed John.” And as suitably as this would be said, so suitably does he
   say everything, and thinks, like a wise man, to adorn his ravings by the
   number of passages he brings forward.

   I pass over the rest, that I may not quite kill you with the dregs of this
   most offensive drain. Lastly he adduces Paul (1 Cor. xi.), who says that he
   had received from the Lord and had delivered to the Corinthians the use both
   of the bread and of the cup. Here again, as everywhere else, our advocate of
   one species handles the Scriptures admirably, and teaches that in that
   passage Paul permitted—not “delivered”—the use of both kinds. Do you ask how
   he proves it? Out of his own head, as in the case of the sixth chapter of
   John; for it does not become this lecturer to give a reason for what he
   says, since he is one of those whose proofs and teachings all come from
   their own visions. Here then we are taught that the Apostle in that passage
   did not write to the whole church of Corinth, but only to the laity, and
   that therefore he gave no permission to the priests, but that they were
   deprived of the whole sacrament; and next, that, by a new rule of grammar,
   “I have received from the Lord” means the same thing as “It has been
   permitted by the Lord;” and “I delivered to you” the same thing as “I
   permitted to you.” I beg you especially to note this. For it follows hence
   that not only the Church, but every worthless fellow anywhere will be at
   liberty, under the teaching of this master, to turn into permissions the
   whole body of the commandments, institutions, and ordinances of Christ and
   the Apostles.

   I see that this man is possessed by an angel of Satan, and that those who
   act in collusion with him are seeking to obtain a name in the world through
   me, as being worthy to contend with Luther. But this hope of theirs shall be
   disappointed, and, in my contempt for them, I shall leave them for ever
   unnamed, and shall content myself with this one answer to the whole of their
   books. If they are worthy that Christ should bring them back to a sound
   mind, I pray him to do so in his mercy. If they are not worthy of this, then
   I pray that they may never cease to write such books, and that the enemies
   of the truth may not be permitted to read any others. It is a common and
   true saying: “This I know for certain, that if I fight with filth, whether I
   conquer or am conquered, I am sure to be defiled.” In the next place, as I
   see that they have plenty of leisure and of paper, I will take care that
   they shall have abundant matter for writing, and will keep in advance of
   them, so that while they, in the boastfulness of victory, are triumphing
   over some one heresy of mine, as it seems to them, I shall meanwhile be
   setting up a new one. For I too am desirous that these illustrious leaders
   in war should be adorned with many titles of honour. And so, while they are
   murmuring that I approve of communion in both kinds, and are most
   successfully engaged on this very important subject, so worthy of
   themselves, I shall go farther, and shall now endeavour to show that all who
   deny to the laity communion in both kinds are acting impiously. To do this
   the more conveniently, I shall make a first essay on the bondage of the
   Church of Rome; with the intention of saying very much more in its own
   proper time, when those most learned papists shall have got the better of
   this book.

   This, moreover, I do in order that no pious reader who may meet with my book
   may be disgusted at the dross I have handled, and have reason to complain
   that he finds nothing to read which can cultivate or instruct his mind, or
   at least give occasion for instructive reflection. You know how dissatisfied
   my friends are that I should occupy myself with the paltry twistings of
   these men. They say that the very reading of their books is an ample
   confutation of them, but that from me they look for better things, which
   Satan is trying to hinder by means of these men. I have determined to follow
   the advice of my friends, and to leave the business of wrangling and
   inveighing to those hornets.

   Of the Italian friar of Cremona I shall say nothing. He is a simple and
   unlearned man, who is endeavouring to bring me back by some thongs of
   rhetoric to the Holy See, from which I am not conscious of having ever
   withdrawn, nor has any one proved that I have. His principal argument in
   some ridiculous passages is, that I ought to be moved for the sake of my
   profession, and of the transfer of the imperial power to the Germans. He
   seems indeed altogether to have meant not so much to urge my return as to
   write the praises of the French and of the Roman pontiff, and he must be
   allowed to testify his obsequiousness to them by this little work, such as
   it is. He neither deserves to be handled severely, since he does not seem to
   be actuated by any malice, nor to be learnedly confuted, since through pure
   ignorance and inexperience he trifles with the whole subject.

   To begin. I must deny that there are seven Sacraments, and must lay it down,
   for the time being, that there are only three, baptism, penance, and the
   bread, and that by the Court of Rome all these have been brought into
   miserable bondage, and the Church despoiled of all her liberty. And yet, if
   I were to speak according to the usage of Scripture, I should hold that
   there was only one sacrament, and three sacramental signs. I shall speak on
   this point more at length at the proper time; but now I speak of the
   sacrament of the bread, the first of all sacraments.

   I shall say then what advance I have made as the result of my meditations in
   the ministry of this sacrament. For at the time when I published a discourse
   on the Eucharist I was still involved in the common custom, and did not
   trouble myself either about the rightful or the wrongful power of the Pope.
   But now that I have been called forth and become practised in argument, nay,
   have been dragged by force into this arena, I shall speak out freely what I
   think. Let all the papists laugh or lament against me alone.

   In the first place, the sixth chapter of John must be set aside altogether,
   as not saying a single syllable about the sacrament; not only because the
   sacrament had not yet been instituted, but much more because the very
   sequence of the discourse and of its statements shows clearly that Christ
   was speaking—as I have said before—of faith in the incarnate Word. For He
   says: “My words, they are spirit and they are life;” showing that He was
   speaking of that spiritual eating, wherewith he who eats, lives; while the
   Jews understood Him to speak of a carnal eating, and therefore raised a
   dispute. But no eating gives life, except the eating of faith, for this is
   the really spiritual and living eating; as Augustine says: “Why dost thou
   get ready thy stomach and thy teeth? Believe, and thou hast eaten.” A
   sacramental eating does not give life, for many eat unworthily, so that
   Christ cannot be understood to have spoken of the sacrament in this passage.

   There are certainly some who have misapplied these words to the sacrament,
   as did the writer of the decretals some time ago, and many others. It is one
   thing, however, to misapply the Scriptures, and another to take them in
   their legitimate sense; otherwise when Christ says: “Except ye eat my flesh,
   and drink my blood, ye have no life in you,” He would be condemning all
   infants, all the sick, all the absent, and all who were hindered in whatever
   manner from a sacramental eating, however eminent their faith, if in these
   words He had meant to enjoin a sacramental eating. Thus Augustine, in his
   second book against Julianus, proves from Innocentius that even infants,
   without receiving the sacrament, eat the flesh and drink the blood of
   Christ; that is, partake in the same faith as the Church. Let this then be
   considered as settled, that the sixth chapter of John has nothing to do with
   the matter. For which reason I have written elsewhere that the Bohemians
   could not rightfully depend upon this passage in their defence of reception
   in both kinds.
     _________________________________________________________________

  CONCERNING THE LORD’S SUPPER

   There are two passages which treat in the clearest manner of this subject,
   and at which we shall look,—the statements in the Gospels respecting the
   Lord’s Supper, and the words of Paul. (1 Cor. xi.) Matthew, Mark, and Luke
   agree that Christ gave the whole sacrament to all His disciples; and that
   Paul taught both parts of it is so certain, that no one has yet been
   shameless enough to assert the contrary. Add to this, that according to the
   relation of Matthew, Christ did not say concerning the bread, “Eat ye all of
   this,” but did say concerning the cup, “Drink ye all of this.” Mark also
   does not say, “they all ate,” but “they all drank of it.” Each writer
   attaches the mark of universality to the cup, not to the bread; as if the
   Spirit foresaw the schism that should come, and should forbid to some that
   communion in the cup which Christ would have common to all. How furiously
   would they rave against us, if they had found the word “all” applied to the
   bread, and not to the cup. They would leave us no way of escape, would
   clamour us down, pronounce us heretics, condemn us as schismatics. But when
   the word stands on our side against them, they allow themselves to be bound
   by no laws of logic, these men of freest will, while they change, and change
   again, and throw into utter confusion even the things which are of God.

   But suppose me to be standing on the other side and questioning my lords the
   papists. In the Supper of the Lord, the whole sacrament, or the sacrament in
   both kinds, was either given to the presbyters alone, or at the same time to
   the laity. If to the presbyters alone (for thus they will have it to be),
   then it is in no wise lawful that any kind should be given to the laity; for
   it ought not to be rashly given to any, to whom Christ did not give it at
   the first institution. Otherwise, if we allow one of Christ’s institutions
   to be changed, we make the whole body of His laws of no effect; and any man
   may venture to say that he is bound by no law or institution of Christ. For
   in dealing with Scripture one special exception does away with any general
   statement. If on the other hand it was given to the laity as well, it
   inevitably follows, that reception in both kinds ought not to be denied to
   the laity; and in denying it to them when they seek it, we act impiously,
   and contrary to the deed, example, and institution of Christ.

   I confess that I have been unable to resist this reasoning, and have neither
   read, heard of, nor discovered anything to be said on the other side, while
   the words and example of Christ stand unshaken, who says—not by way of
   permission, but of commandment—“Drink ye all of this.” For if all are to
   drink of it, and this cannot be understood as said to the presbyters alone,
   then it is certainly an impious deed to debar the laity from it when they
   seek it, were it even an angel from heaven who did so. For what they say of
   its being left to the decision of the Church which kind should be
   administered, is said without rational ground, is alleged without authority,
   and is as easily contemned as proved; nor can it avail against an adversary
   who opposes to us the word and deed of Christ, and whose blows must
   therefore be returned with the word of Christ; and this we have not on our
   side.

   If, however, either kind can be denied to the laity, then by the same
   decision of the Church a part of baptism or of penance might be taken from
   them, since in each case the reason of the matter and the power are alike.
   Therefore as the whole of baptism and the whole of absolution are to be
   granted to all the laity, so is the whole sacrament of the bread, if they
   seek it. I am much astonished, however, at their assertion that it is wholly
   unlawful, under pain of mortal sin, for presbyters to receive only one kind
   in the mass; and this for no other reason than that (as they all unanimously
   say) the two kinds form one full sacrament, which ought not to be divided.
   Let them tell me, then, why it is lawful to divide it in the case of the
   laity, and why they alone should not be granted the entire sacrament. Do
   they not admit, on their own showing, that either both kinds ought to be
   granted to the laity, or that it is no lawful sacrament which is granted to
   them under one kind? How can the one kind be a full sacrament in the case of
   the laity, and not a full one in the case of the presbyters? Why do they
   vaunt the decision of the Church and the power of the Pope in this matter?
   The words of God and the testimonies of truth cannot thus be done away with.

   It follows further that, if the Church can take from the laity the one kind,
   the wine, she can also take from them the other kind, the bread, and thus
   might take from the laity the whole Sacrament of the Altar, and deprive the
   institution of Christ of all effect in their case. But, I ask, by what
   authority? If, however, she cannot take away the bread, or both kinds,
   neither can she the wine. Nor can any possible argument on this point be
   brought against an opponent, since the Church must necessarily have the same
   power in regard to either kind as in regard to both kinds; if she has it not
   as regards both kinds, she has it not as regards either. I should like to
   hear what the flatterers of Rome may choose to say on this point.

   But what strikes me most forcibly of all, and thoroughly convinces me, is
   that saying of Christ: “This is my blood, which is shed for you and for
   many, for the remission of sins.” Here you see most clearly that the blood
   is given to all for whose sins it is shed. Now who will dare to say that it
   was not shed for the laity? Do you not see who it is that He addresses as He
   gives the cup? Does He not give it to all? Does He not say that it was shed
   for all? “For you,” He says. Let us grant that these are priests. “And for
   many,” He continues. These cannot be priests; and yet He says: “Drink ye all
   of it.” I also could easily trifle on this point, and turn the words of
   Christ into a mockery by my words, as that trifler my opponent does. But
   those who rest upon the Scriptures in arguing against us, must be refuted by
   the Scriptures. These are the reasons which have kept me from condemning the
   Bohemians, who, whether they be good or bad men, certainly have the words
   and deeds of Christ on their side, while we have neither, but only that idle
   device of men: “The Church hath thus ordered it;” while it was not the
   Church, but the tyrants of the churches, without the consent of the Church,
   that is, of the people of God, who have thus ordered it.

   Now where, I ask, is the necessity, where is the religious obligation, where
   is the use, of denying to the laity reception in both kinds, that is, the
   visible sign, when all men grant them the reality of the sacrament without
   the sign? If they grant the reality, which is the greater, why do they not
   grant the sign, which is the less? For in every sacrament the sign, in so
   far as it is a sign, is incomparably less than the reality itself. What
   then, I ask, should hinder the granting of the lesser thing, when the
   greater is granted; unless indeed, as it seems to me, this has happened by
   the permission of God in His anger, to be the occasion of a schism in the
   Church; and to show that, having long ago lost the reality of the sacrament,
   we are fighting on behalf of the sign, which is the lesser thing, against
   the reality, which is the greatest and only important thing; just as some
   persons fight on behalf of ceremonies against charity. This monstrous
   perversion appears to have begun at the same time at which we began in our
   folly to set Christian charity at nought for the sake of worldly riches,
   that God might show by this terrible proof that we think signs of greater
   consequence than the realities themselves. What perversity it would be, if
   you were to concede that the faith of baptism is granted to one seeking
   baptism, and yet deny him the sign of that very faith, namely, water.

   Last of all stand the irrefutable words of Paul, which must close every
   mouth (1 Cor. xi.): “I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered
   unto you.” He does not say, as this friar falsely asserts out of his own
   head, “I permitted to you.” Nor is it true that he granted the Corinthians
   reception in both kinds on account of the contentions among them. In the
   first place, as the text itself shows, the contention was not about the
   reception in both kinds, but about the contemptuousness of the rich and the
   envy of the poor, as is clear from the text, which says: “One is hungry and
   another is drunken,” and, “Ye shame them that have not.” Then too he is not
   speaking of what he delivered as if it were for the first time. He does not
   say: “I receive from the Lord and I deliver to you,” but “I have received
   and I have delivered,” namely, at the beginning of his preaching, long
   before this contention arose, thus signifying that he had delivered to them
   the reception in both kinds. This “delivering” means “enjoining,” as he
   elsewhere uses the same word. Thus the smoke clouds of assertion which this
   friar heaps together concerning permission, without Scripture, without
   reason, and without cause, go for nothing. His opponents do not ask what his
   dreams are, but what the judgment of Scripture is on these points; and out
   of it he can produce not a tittle in support of his dream, while they can
   bring forward so many thunderbolts in defence of their belief.

   Rise up then in one body, all ye flatterers of the Pope, be active, defend
   yourselves from the charge of impiety, tyranny, and treason against the
   Gospel, and wrongful calumniation of your brethren, ye who proclaim as
   heretics those who cannot approve of the mere dreams of your brains, in
   opposition to such plain and powerful Scriptures. If either of the two are
   to be called heretics and schismatics, it is not the Bohemians, not the
   Greeks, since they take their stand on the Gospels; but you Romans who are
   heretics and impious schismatics, you who presume upon your own figments
   alone, against the manifest teaching of the Scriptures of God.

   But what can be more ridiculous, or more worthy of the head of this friar,
   than to say that the Apostle wrote thus and gave this permission to a
   particular church, that of Corinth, but not to the universal Church? Whence
   does he prove this? Out of his usual store—his own impious head. When the
   universal Church takes this epistle as addressed to itself, reads it, and
   follows it in every respect, why not in this part of it? If we admit that
   any one epistle of Paul, or one passage in any one epistle, does not concern
   the universal Church, we do away with the whole authority of Paul. The
   Corinthians might say that what he taught concerning faith, in writing to
   the Romans, did not concern them. What could be more blasphemous or more mad
   than this mad idea? Far be it from us to imagine that there can be one
   tittle in the whole of Paul, which the whole of the universal Church ought
   not to imitate and keep. Not thus thought the Fathers, nor any until these
   perilous times, in which Paul foretold that there should be blasphemers,
   blind and senseless men; among whom this friar is one, or even the foremost.

   But let us grant this intolerably wild assertion. If Paul gave permission to
   a particular church, then, on your own showing, the Greeks and the Bohemians
   are acting rightly, for they are particular churches, and therefore it is
   enough that they are not acting against the teaching of Paul, who at least
   gives them permission. Furthermore, Paul had not power to permit of anything
   contrary to the institution of Christ. Therefore, on behalf of the Greeks
   and the Bohemians, I set up these sayings of Christ and of Paul against
   thee, Rome, and all thy flatterers; nor canst thou show that power has been
   given thee to change these things by one hair’s breadth; much less to accuse
   others of heresy, because they disregard thy presumptuous pretensions. It is
   thou who deservest to be accused of impiety and tyranny.

   We also read the words of Cyprian, who by himself is powerful enough to
   stand against all the Romanists, and who testifies in his discourse
   concerning the lapsed in the fifth book, that it had been the custom in that
   church for both kinds to be administered to laymen and even to children;
   yea, for the body of the Lord to be given into their hands; as he shows by
   many instances. Among other things he thus reproves some of the people: “And
   because he does not immediately receive the body of the Lord with unclean
   hands, or drink the blood of the Lord with polluted mouth, he is angry with
   the priests as sacrilegious.” You see that he is here speaking of certain
   sacrilegious laymen, who wished to receive from the priests the body and the
   blood. Have you here, wretched flatterer, anything to gabble? Say that this
   holy martyr, this teacher of the Church, so highly endowed with the
   apostolic spirit, was a heretic, and availed himself of a permission in his
   particular church!

   He relates in the same place an incident which had occurred in his own sight
   and presence, when he writes in the plainest terms that as deacon he had
   given the cup to an infant girl, and when the child struggled against it,
   had even poured the blood of the Lord into its mouth. We read the same thing
   of St. Donatus, whose broken cup how dully does this wretched flatterer try
   to get rid of. “I read,” he says, “that the cup was broken, I do not read
   that the blood was given.” What wonder that he who perceives in the Holy
   Scriptures what he wills to perceive, should also read in historical
   narratives what he wills to read! But can he in this way at all establish
   the power of the Church to decide, or can he thus confute heretics? But
   enough said on this subject; for I did not begin this treatise in order to
   answer one who is unworthy of an answer, but in order to lay open the truth
   of the matter.

   I conclude, then, that to deny reception in both kinds to the laity is an
   act of impiety and tyranny, and one not in the power of any angel, much less
   of any Pope or Council whatever. Nor do I care for the Council of Constance,
   for, if its authority is to prevail, why should not also that of the Council
   of Basle, which decreed on the other hand that the Bohemians should be
   allowed to receive in both kinds? a point which was carried there after long
   discussion, as the extant annals and documents of that Council prove. This
   fact that ignorant flatterer brings forward on behalf of his own dreams, so
   wisely does he handle the whole matter.

   The first bondage, then, of this sacrament is as regards its substance or
   completeness, which the tyranny of Rome has wrested from us. Not that they
   sin against Christ, who use one kind only, since Christ has not commanded
   the use of any, but has left it to the choice of each individual, saying:
   “This do ye, as oft as ye shall do it, in remembrance of me;” but they sin
   who forbid that both kinds should be given to those who desire to use this
   freedom of choice, and the fault is not in the laity, but in the priests.
   The sacrament does not belong to the priests, but to all; nor are the
   priests lords, but servants, whose duty it is to give both kinds to those
   who seek them, as often as they seek them. If they have snatched this right
   from the laity, and forcibly denied it to them, they are tyrants, and the
   laity are free from blame, whether they go without one or both kinds; for
   meanwhile they will be saved by their faith, and by their desire for a
   complete sacrament. So too the ministers themselves are bound to grant
   baptism and absolution to him who seeks them; if they do not grant them, the
   seeker has the full merit of his own faith, while they will be accused
   before Christ as wicked servants. Thus of old the holy Fathers in the desert
   passed many years without communicating in either kind of the sacrament.

   I am not, therefore, advocating the seizing by force on both kinds, as if we
   were of necessity commanded and compelled to receive them, but I am
   instructing the conscience, that every man may endure the tyranny of Rome,
   knowing that he has been forcibly deprived of his right in the sacrament on
   account of his sins. This only I would have, that none should justify the
   tyranny of Rome, as if she had done right in denying one kind to the laity,
   but that we should abhor it, and withhold our consent from it, though we may
   bear it, just as if we were in bondage with the Turk, where we should not be
   at liberty to use either kind. For this reason I have said that it would be
   a fine thing, in my opinion, if this bondage were done away with by the
   decree of a general council, and Christian liberty restored to us out of the
   hands of the tyrant of Rome; and if to each man were left his own free
   choice about seeking and using it, as it is left in the case of baptism and
   penance. Now, however, by the same tyranny, he compels one kind to be
   received year by year; so extinct is the liberty granted us by Christ, and
   such are the deserts of our impious ingratitude.

   The other bondage of the same sacrament is a milder one, inasmuch as it
   regards the conscience, but one which it is by far the most perilous of all
   things to touch, much more to condemn. Here I shall be a Wickliffite, and a
   heretic under six hundred names. What then? Since the Bishop of Rome has
   ceased to be a bishop and has become a tyrant, I fear absolutely none of his
   decrees, since I know that neither he, nor even a general council, has power
   to establish new articles of the faith.

   Formerly, when I was imbibing the scholastic theology, my lord the Cardinal
   of Cambray gave me occasion for reflection, by arguing most acutely, in the
   fourth book of the Sentences, that it would