Martin Luther
The Babylonian Captivity of the Church
A prelude 1520
Jesus
THE SACRAMENT OF EXTREME UNCTION
Martin Luther,
Augustinian, to his friend, Herman Tulich,
Greeting
1.1 Like
it or not, I am compelled to learn more every day, with so many and such able
masters vying with one another to improve my mind. Some two years ago I wrote a
little book on indulgences, which I now deeply regret having published. For at
the time I still clung to the Roman tyranny with great superstition and held
that indulgences should not be altogether rejected, seeing they were approved
by the common consent of men. Nor was this to be wondered at, for I was then
engaged single-handed in my Sisyphean task. Since then, however, through the
kindness of Sylvester and the friars, who so strenuously defended indulgences,
I have come to see that they are nothing but an fraud
of the Roman flaterers by which they rob people of their faith and fortunes. I
wish I could convince the booksellers and all my readers to burn up the whole
of my writings on indulgences and to substitute for them this proposition:
INDULGENCES
are a Swindler's Trick of the Roman flaterers.
1.3 Next,
Eck and Emser, with their fellows, undertook to instruct me concerning the
primacy of the pope. Here too, not to be ungrateful to such learned folk, I
acknowledge how greatly I have profited by their labors. For, while denying the
divine authority of the papacy, I still admitted its human authority. But after hearing and reading the subtle subtleties of these
pretentious and conceited men, with which they skilfully prop their idol for
in these matters my mind is not altogether unreachable I now know of a
certainty that the papacy is the
1.4 THE
PAPACY IS THE MIGHTY prey of the Roman Bishop.
This
follows from the arguments of Eck, Emser and the
1.5 Now they send me back to school again to teach me about communion in both
kinds and other weighty subjects. And I must begin to study with all my
strength, so as not to hear my teachers without profit. A certain Italian friar
of
1.6 Fool
that I was, I used to think it would be good if a general council decided that the sacrament be administered to the laity in both
kinds. The more than learned friar wants to correct my opinion, and declares
that neither Christ nor the apostles commanded or commended the administration
of both kinds to the laity. It was, therefore, left to the judgment of the
Church what to do or not to do in this matter, and the
Church must be obeyed. These are his words.
1.7 You
will perhaps ask, what madness has entered into the man, or against whom he is
writing, since I have not condemned the use of one kind, but have left the
decision about the use of both kinds to the judgment of the Church the very
thing he attempts to assert and which he turns against me. My answer is, that
this sort of argument is common to all those who write against Luther. They
assert the very things they assail, or they set up a man of straw whom they may
attack. Thus Sylvester, Eck and Emser! Thus the theologians of
1.8 Yet in
one respect this man luckier than his fellows. For in undertaking to prove that
the use of both kinds is neither commanded nor commended, but left to the will of
the Church, he brings forward passages of Scripture to prove that by the
command of Christ one kind only was appointed for the laity. So that it is
true, according to this new interpreter of the Scriptures, that one kind was
not commanded, and at the same time was commanded by Christ! This novel sort of
argument is, as you know, the particular forte of the
1.9 But
listen to our distinguished distinguisher of "kinds," for whom the
will of the Church and a command of Christ, and a command of Christ and no
command of Christ, are all one and the same! How
ingeniously he proves that only one kind is to be given to the laity, by the
command of Christ, that is, by the will of the Church. He puts it in capital
letters, thus: THE INFALLIBLE FOUNDATION. Thereupon he treats John 6 with
incredible wisdom, in which passage Christ speaks of the bread from heaven and
the bread of life, which is He Himself. The learned fellow not only refers
these words to the Sacrament of the Altar, but because Christ says: " I am the living bread" and not, "I am the
living cup" he actually concludes that we have in this passage the
institution of the sacrament in only one kind for the laity. But here follow
the words: " For my flesh is food indeed, and my
blood is drink indeed," and, " Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of
man, and drink his blood." When it dawned upon the good friar that these
words speak undeniably for both kinds and against one kind Poof! how
happily and learnedly he slips out of the quandary by asserting that in these
words Christ means to say only that whoever receives the one kind receives
under it both flesh and blood. This he puts for the "infallible foundation"
of a structure well worthy of the holy and heavenly Observance.
1.10 Now, I
beg you, learn with me from this passage that Christ, in John 6, enjoins the
sacrament in one kind, yet in such a way that His commanding it means leaving
it to the will of the Church. Further, that Christ is speaking in this chapter
only of the laity and not of the priests. For to the latter the living bread
from heaven does not pertain, but presumably the deadly bread from hell! And
how is it with the deacons and subdeacons, who are neither laymen nor priests?
According to this brilliant writer, they ought to use neither the one kind nor
both kinds! You see, dear Tulich, this novel and observant method of treating
Scripture.
The
Sacrament of the Altar
2.1 Now,
about the Sacrament of the Bread, the most important of all sacraments:
2.2 Let me
tell you what progress I have made in my studies on the administration of this
sacrament. For when I published my treatise on the Eucharist, I clung to the
common usage, being in no way concerned with the question whether the papacy
was right or wrong. But now, challenged and attacked, no, forcibly thrust into
the arena, I shall freely speak my mind, let all the papists laugh or weep
together.
2.3 IN THE
FIRST PLACE, John 6 is to be entirely excluded from
this discussion, since it does not refer in a single syllable to the sacrament.
For not only was the sacrament not yet instituted, but the whole context
plainly shows that Christ is speaking of faith in the Word made flesh, as I
have said above. For He says, " My words are spirit, and they are life,"
which shows that He is speaking of a spiritual eating, whereby whoever eats has
life, while the Jews understood Him to be speaking of bodily eating and
therefore disputed with Him. But no eating can give life save the eating which
is by faith, for that is the truly spiritual and living eating. As Augustine also says: "Why make ready teeth and stomach?
Believe, and you have eaten." For the sacramental eating
does not give life, since many eat unworthily. Therefore, He cannot be
understood as speaking of the sacrament in this passage.
2.4 These
words have indeed been wrongly applied to the sacrament, as in the decretal
Dudum and often elsewhere. But it is one thing to misapply the Scriptures, it
is quite another to understand them in their proper meaning. But if Christ in
this passage enjoined the sacramental eating, then by saying, " Except you
eat my flesh and drink my blood, you have no life in you," He would
condemn all infants, invalids and those absent or in any way hindered from the
sacramental eating, however strong their faith might be. Thus Augustine, in the
second book of his Contra Julianum, proves from Innocent that even infants eat
the flesh and drink the blood of Christ, without the sacrament, that is, they
partake of them through the faith of the Church. Let this then be accepted as
proved John 6 does not belong here. For this reason I have elsewhere written
that the Bohemians have no right to rely on this passage in support of their
use of the sacrament in both kinds.
2.5 Now
there are two passages that do clearly bear upon this matter the Gospel
narratives of the institution of the Lord's Supper, and Paul in 1 Corinthians 11. Let us examine these. Matthew, Mark and
Luke agree that Christ gave the whole sacrament to all the disciples, and it is
certain that Paul delivered both kinds. No one has ever had the temerity to
assert the contrary. Further, Matthew reports that Christ did not say of the
bread, "All of you, eat of it," but of the cup, " Drink of it
all of you." Mark likewise does not say, "They all ate from it,"
but, " They all drank from it."
Both
Matthew and Mark attach the note of universality to the cup, not to the bread,
as though the Spirit saw this schism coming, by which some would be forbidden
to partake of the cup, which Christ desired should be common to all. How
furiously, do you think, would they rave against us, if they had found the word
"all" attached to the bread instead of the cup! They would not leave
us a loophole to escape, they would cry out against us and set us down as heretics,
they would damn us for schismatics. But now, since it stands on our side and
against them, they will not be bound by any force of logic these men of the
most free will, who change and change again even the things that are God's, and
throw everything into confusion.
2.6 But imagine me standing over against them and interrogating my lords the
papists. In the Lord's Supper, I say, the whole sacrament, or communion in both
kinds, is given only to the priests or else it is given also to the laity. If it
is given only to the priests, as they would have it, then it is not right to
give it to the laity in either kind. It must not be rashly given to any to whom
Christ did not give it when He instituted it. For if we permit one institution
of Christ to be changed, we make all of His laws
invalid, and every one will boldly claim that he is not bound by any law or
institution of His. For a single exception, especially in the Scriptures,
invalidates the whole. But if it is given also to the laity, then it inevitably
follows that it ought not to be withheld from them in either form. And if any
do withhold it from them when they desire it, they act impiously and contrary
to the work, example and institution of Christ.
2.7 I
confess that I am conquered by this, to me, unanswerable
argument, and that I have neither read nor heard nor found anything to
advance against it. For here the word and example of Christ stand firm, when He
says, not by way of permission but of command, "All of you, drink from
it." For if all are to drink, and the words cannot be understood as
addressed to the priests alone, then it is certainly an impious act to withhold
the cup from laymen who desire it, even though an angel from heaven were to do
it. For when they say that the distribution of both kinds was left to the
judgment of the Church, they make this assertion without giving any reason for
it and put it forth without any authority. It is ignored just as readily as it
is proved, and does not stand up against an opponent who confronts us with the
word and work of Christ. such a one must be refuted
with a word of Christ, but this we do not possess.
2.8 But if one kind may be withheld from the laity, then with equal right and
reason a portion of baptism and penance might also be taken from them by this
same authority of the Church. Therefore, just as baptism and absolution must be
administered in their entirety, so the Sacrament of the Bread must be given in
its entirety to all laymen, if they desire it. I am amazed to find them
asserting that the priests may never receive only the one kind, in the mass, on
pain of committing a mortal sin that for no other reason, as they unanimously
say, than that both kinds constitute the one complete sacrament, which may not
be divided. I beg them to tell me why it may be divided in the case of the
laity, and why to them alone the whole sacrament may not be given. Do they not
acknowledge, by their own testimony, either that both kinds are to be given to
the laity, or that it is not a valid sacrament when only one kind is given to
them? How can the one kind be a complete sacrament for the laity and not a
complete sacrament for the priests? Why do they flaunt the authority of the
Church and the power of the pope in my face? These do not make void the Word of
God and the testimony of the truth.
2.9 But further, if the Church can withhold the wine from the laity,
it can also withhold the bread from them. It could, therefore, withhold the
entire Sacrament of the Altar from the laity and completely annul Christ's institution
so far as they are concerned. I ask, by what authority? But if the Church
cannot withhold the bread, or both kinds, neither can it withhold the wine.
This cannot possibly be contradicted. For the Church's power must be the same
over either kind as over both kinds, and if she has no power over both kinds,
she has none over either kind. I am curious to hear what the Roman flaterers
will have to say to this.
2.20 I
conclude, then, that it is wicked and despotic to deny both kinds to the laity,
and that this is not in the power of any angel, much less of any pope or
council. Nor does the Council of Constance give me pause, for if its authority
carries weight, why does not that of the Council of Basel also carry weight?
For the latter council decided, on the contrary, after much disputing, that the
Bohemians might use both kinds, as the extant records and documents of the
council prove. And to that council this ignorant flatterer refers in support of
his dream. In such wisdom does his whole treatise abound.
2.21 The
first captivity of this sacrament, therefore, concerns its substance or
completeness, of which we have been deprived by the despotism of
2.23 The
second captivity of this sacrament is less grievous so
far as the conscience is concerned, yet the very gravest danger threatens the
man who would attack it, to say nothing of condemning it. Here I shall be
called a Wycliffite and a heretic a thousand times over. But
what of that? Since the Roman bishop has ceased to be a bishop and become a
tyrant, I fear none of his decrees, for I know that it is not in his power, nor
even in that of a general council, to make new articles of faith. Years ago,
when I was delving into scholastic theology, the Cardinal of Cambrai gave me
food for thought, in his comments on the fourth Book of the Sentences, where he
argues with great acumen that to hold that real bread and real wine, and not
their accidents only, are present on the altar, is much more probable and
requires fewer unnecessary miracles if only the Church had not decreed
otherwise. When I learned later what church it was that had decreed this
namely, the Church of Thomas, i.e., of Aristotle I waxed bolder, and after
floating in a sea of doubt, at last found rest for my conscience in the above
view namely, that it is real bread and real wine, in which Christ's real
flesh and blood are present, not otherwise and not less really than they assume
to be the case under their accidents. I reached this conclusion because I saw
that the opinions of the Thomists, though approved by pope and council, remain
but opinions and do not become articles of faith, even though an angel from
heaven were to decree otherwise. For what is asserted without Scripture or an
approved revelation, may be held as an opinion, but need not be believed. But this opinion of Thomas hangs so completely in the air,
devoid of Scripture and reason, that he seems here to have forgotten both his
philosophy and his logic. For Aristotle writes about subject and accidents so
very differently from St. Thomas, that I think this great man is to be pitied,
not only for drawing his opinions in matters of faith from Aristotle, but for
attempting to base them on him without understanding his meaning an
unfortunate superstructure upon an unfortunate foundation.
2.26 Therefore
it is an absurd and unheard-of juggling with words, to understand
"bread" to mean "the form, or accidents of bread," and
"wine" to mean "the form, or accidents of wine." Why do
they not also understand all other things to mean their forms, or accidents?
Even if this might be done with all other things, it would yet not be right
thus to emasculate the words of God and arbitrarily to empty them of their
meaning.
2.27 Moreover,
the Church had the true faith for more than twelve hundred years, during which
time the holy Fathers never once mentioned this transubstantiation certainly,
a monstrous word for a monstrous idea until the pseudo-philosophy of
Aristotle became rampant in the Church these last three hundred years. During
these centuries many other things have been wrongly defined, for example, that
the Divine essence neither is begotten nor begets, that the soul is the
substantial form of the human body, and the like assertions, which are made
without reason or sense, as the Cardinal of Cambray himself admits.
2.28 Perhaps
they will say that the danger of idolatry demands that bread and wine be not
really present. How ridiculous! The laymen have never become familiar with
their subtle philosophy of substance and accidents, and could not grasp it if
it were taught them. Besides, there is the same danger in the case of the
accidents which remain and which they see, as in the case of the substance
which they do not see. For if they do not adore the accidents, but Christ
hidden under them, why should they adore the bread, which they do not see?
2.29 But
why could not Christ include His body in the substance of the bread just as
well as in the accidents? The two substances of fire and iron are so mingled in
the heated iron that every part is both iron and fire. Why could not much
rather Christ's body be thus contained in every part of the substance of the
bread?
2.30 What will they say? We believe that in His birth Christ came forth out of
the unopened womb of His mother. Let them say here too that the flesh of the
Virgin was meanwhile annihilated, or as they would more aptly say,
transubstantiated, so that Christ, after being enfolded in its accidents,
finally came forth through the accidents! The same thing will have to be said
of the shut door and of the closed opening of the tomb, through which He went
in and out without disturbing them. Hence has risen
that Babylonian philosophy of constant quantity distinct from the substance,
until it has come to such a pass that they themselves no longer know what are
accidents and what is substance. For who has ever proved beyond the shadow of a
doubt that heat, colour, cold, light, weight or shape are mere accidents?
Finally, they have been driven to the fancy that a new substance is created by
God for their accidents on the altar all on account of Aristotle, who says,
"It is the essence of an accident to be in something," and endless
other monstrosities, all of which they would be rid if they simply permitted
real bread to be present. And I rejoice greatly that the simple faith of this
sacrament is still to be found at least among the common people. They do not
understand, so they do not dispute, whether accidents are present or substance,
but believe with a simple faith that Christ's body and blood are truly
contained in whatever is there, and leave to those who have nothing else to do
the business of disputing about that which contains them.
2.31 But
perhaps they will say: From Aristotle we learn that in an affirmative
proposition subject and predicate must be identical, or, to set down the
beast's own words, in the sixth book of his Metaphysics: "An affirmative
proposition demands the agreement of subject and predicate," which they
interpret as above. Hence, when it is said, "This is my body," the
subject cannot be identical with the bread, but must be identical with the body
of Christ.
2.32 What
shall we say when Aristotle and the doctrines of men are made to be the
arbiters of these lofty and divine matters? Why do we not put aside such
curiosity, and cling simply to the word of Christ, willing to remain in
ignorance of what here takes place, and content with this, that the real body
of Christ is present by virtue of the words? Or is it necessary to comprehend
the manner of the divine working in every detail?
2.33 But
what do they say to Aristotle's assigning a subject to whatever is predicated
of the attributes, although he holds that the substance is the chief subject?
Hence for him, "this white," "this large," etc., are
subjects of which something is predicated. If that is correct, I ask: If a transubstantiation must be assumed in order that Christ's
body is not predicated of the bread, why not also a transaccidentation in order
that it be not predicated of the accidents? For the same danger remains if one
understands the subject to be "this white" or "this round"
is my body, and for the same reason that a transubstantiation is assumed, a
transaccidentation must also be assumed, because of this identity of subject
and predicate.
2.34 [Si
autem, intellectu excedens, eximis accidens, ut non velis subjectum pro eo
supponere, cum dicis, "Hoc est corpus meum," Cur non eadem facilitate
transcendis substantiam panis, ut et illam velis non accipi per subiectum, ut
non minus in substantia quam accidente sit, "hoc corpus meum?"
Praesertim, cum divinum illud sit opus, virtutis omnipotentis, quae tantum et taliter in substantia, quantum et qualiter in accidente
potest operari.]
2.35 Let us
not, however, dabble too much in philosophy. Does not Christ appear to have
admirably anticipated such curiosity by saying of the wine, not, "Hoc est
sanguis meus," but " Hic est sanguis meus"? And yet more
clearly, by bringing in the word "cup," when He said, "This cup
is the new testament in my blood." Does it not seem as though He desired
to keep us in a simple faith, so that we might but believe His blood to be in
the cup? For my part, if I cannot fathom how the bread is the body of Christ, I
will take my reason captive to the obedience of Christ, and clinging simply to
His word, firmly believe not only that the body of Christ is in the bread, but
that the bread is the body of Christ. For this is proved by the words, "
He took bread, and giving thanks, He broke it and said, Take, eat; this [i.e.,
this bread which He took and broke] is my body." And Paul says: " The
bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?" He
says not, in the bread, but the bread itself, is the communion of the body of
Christ. What does it matter if philosophy cannot fathom this? The Holy Spirit
is greater than Aristotle. Does philosophy fathom their transubstantiation, of
which they themselves admit that here all philosophy breaks down? But the
agreement of the pronoun "this" with "body," in Greek and
Latin, is owing to the fact that in these languages the two words are of the
same gender. But in the Hebrew language, which has no neuter gender,
"this" agrees with "bread," so that it would be proper to
say, "Hic est corpus meum." This is proved also by the use of
language and by common sense. The subject, certainly, points to the bread, not
to the body, when He says, "Hoc est corpus meum," "Das ist mein
Leib," i.e., This bread is my body.
2.36 Therefore
it is with the sacrament even as it is with Christ. In order that divinity may
dwell in Him, it is not necessary that the human nature be transubstantiated
and divinity be contained under its accidents. But both natures are there in
their entirety, and it is truly said, "This man is God," and
"This God is man." Even though philosophy cannot grasp this, faith
grasps it, and the authority of God's Word is greater than the grasp of our
intellect. Even so, in order that the real body and the real blood of Christ
may be present in the sacrament, it is not necessary that the bread and wine be
transubstantiated and Christ be contained under their accidents. But both
remain there together, and it is truly said, "This bread is my body, this
wine is my blood," and vice versa. Thus I will for now understand it, for
the honour of the holy words of God, which I will not allow any petty human
argument to override or give to them meanings foreign to them. At the same
time, I permit other men to follow the other opinion, which is laid down in the
decree Firmiter. Only let them not press us to accept their opinions as
articles of faith, as I said above.
2.37 The
third captivity of this sacrament is that most wicked abuse of all, in
consequence of which there is today no more generally accepted and firmly
believed opinion in the Church than this that the mass is a good work and a
sacrifice. This abuse has brought an endless host of others in its wake, so
that the faith of this sacrament has become utterly extinct and the holy
sacrament has truly been turned into a fair, tavern, and place of merchandise.
Hence participations, brotherhoods, intercessions, merits, anniversaries,
memorial days, and the like wares are bought and sold, traded and bartered in
the Church, and from this priests and monks derive their whole living.
2.38 I am
attacking a difficult matter, and one perhaps impossible to abate, since it has
become so firmly entrenched through century-long custom and the common consent
of men that it would be necessary to abolish most of the books now in vogue, to
alter almost the whole external form of the churches, and to introduce, or
rather re-introduce, a totally different kind of ceremony. But my Christ lives,
and we must be careful to give more heed to the Word of God than to all the
thoughts of men and of angels. I will perform the duties of my office, and
uncover the facts in the case. I will give the truth as I have received it,
freely and without malice. For the rest let every man
look to his own salvation. I will faithfully do my part that none may cast on
me the blame for his lack of faith and knowledge of the truth, when we appear
before the judgment seat of Christ.
2.39 IN THE
FIRST PLACE, in order to grasp safely and fortunately a true and unbiased
knowledge of this sacrament, we must above all else be careful to put aside
whatever has been added by the zeal and devotion of men to the original, simple
institution of this sacrament such things as vestments, ornaments, chants,
prayers, organs, candles, and the whole pageantry of outward things. We must
turn our eyes and hearts simply to the institution of Christ and to this alone,
and put nothing before us but the very word of Christ by which He instituted
this sacrament, made it perfect, and committed it to us. For in that word, and
in that word alone, reside the power, the nature, and the whole substance of
the mass. All else is the work of man, added to the word of Christ. And the
mass can be held and remain a mass just as well without it. Now the words of
Christ, in which He instituted this sacrament, are these:
2.40 "And
while they were at supper, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke it: and
gave to His disciples, and said: Take it and eat. This is my body, which shall
be given for you. And taking the chalice, He gave
thanks, and gave to them, saying: All of you, drink of this. This is the
chalice, the new testament in my blood, which shall be
shed for you and for many the remission of sins. This do
to commemorate me."
2.41 These
words the Apostle also delivers and more fully expounds in 1 Corinthians 11. On
them we must lean and build as on a firm foundation, if we would not be carried
about with every wind of doctrine, even as we have until now been carried about
by the wicked doctrines of men, who turn aside the truth. For in these words
nothing is omitted that concerns the completeness, the use and the blessing of
this sacrament and nothing is included that is superfluous and not necessary
for us to know. Whoever sets them aside and meditates or teaches concerning the
mass, will teach monstrous and wicked doctrines, as they have done who made of
the sacrament an opus operatum and a sacrifice.
2.42 Therefore
let this stand at the outset as our infallibly certain proposition the mass,
or Sacrament of the Altar, is Christ's testament which He left behind Him at
His death, to be distributed among His believers. For that is the meaning of
His word "This is the chalice, the new testament in my blood." Let
this truth stand, I say, as the immovable foundation on which we shall base all
that we have to say, for we are going to overthrow, as you will see, all the
godless opinions of men imported into this most precious sacrament. Christ, who
is the Truth, said truly that this is the new testament
in His blood, which is shed for us. Not without reason do
I dwell on this sentence. The matter is not at all trivial, and must be most
deeply impressed upon us.
2.43 Let us
inquire, therefore, what a testament is, and we shall learn at the same time
what the mass is, what its use is, what its blessing
is, and what its abuse is.
2.44 A
testament, as every one knows, is a promise made by one about to die, in which
he designates his bequest and appoints his heirs. Therefore a testament
involves, first, the death of the testator, and secondly, the promise of the
bequest and the naming of the heir. Thus
2.45 You
see, therefore, that what we call the mass is the promise of remission of sins
made to us by God the kind of promise that has been confirmed by the death of
the Son of God. For the one difference between a promise and a testament is
that a testament is a promise which implies the death of him who makes it. A
testator is a man who is about to die making a promise. While
he that makes a promise is, if I may so put it, a testator who is not about to
die. This testament of Christ was forshadowed in all the promises of God
from the beginning of the world. Yes, whatever value those ancient promises
possessed was altogether derived from this new promise that was to come in
Christ. This is why the words "covenant" and "testament of the
Lord" occur so frequently in the Scriptures, which words signified that
God would one day die. For where there is a testament, the death of the
testator must follow (Hebrews 9). Now God made a testament. Therefore it was
necessary that He should die. But God could not die unless He became man. Thus
both the incarnation and the death of Christ are briefly understood in this one
word "testament."
2.46 From
the above it will at once be seen what is the right and what is the wrong use
of the mass, what is the worthy and what is the
unworthy preparation for it. If the mass is a promise, as has been said, it is
to be approached, not with any work, strength or merit, but with faith alone.
For where there is the word of God Who makes the promise, there must be the
faith of man who takes it. It is plain, therefore, that the first step in our
salvation is faith, which clings to the word of the promise made by God, Who
without any effort on our part, in free and unmerited mercy makes a beginning
and offers us the word of His promise. For He sent His Word,
and by it healed them. He did not accept our work and thus heal us.
God's Word is the beginning of all. Faith follows it, and love follows faith.
Then love works every good work, for it does cause harm, no, it is the
fulfilling of the law. In no other way can man come to God and deal with Him
than through faith. That is, not man, by any work of his, but God, by His
promise, is the author of salvation, so that all things depend on the word of
His power, and are upheld and preserved by it, with which word He conceived us,
that we should be a kind of firstfruits of His creatures.
2.47 Thus,
in order to raise up Adam after the fall, God gave him this promise, addressing
the serpent: "I will put hostility between you and the woman, and you seed
and her seed. She shall crush your head, and you will lie in wait for her
heel." In this word of promise Adam, with his descendants, was carried as
it were in God's arms, and by faith in it he was preserved, patiently waiting
for the woman who should crush the serpent's head, as God had promised. And in
that faith and expectation he died, not knowing when or in what form she would
come, yet never doubting that she would come. For such a promise, being the
truth of God, preserves, even in hell, those who believe it and wait for it.
After this came another promise, made to Noah to last until the time of
Abraham when a rainbow was set as a sign in the clouds, by faith in which
Noah and his descendants found a gracious God. After that He promised Abraham
that all nations should be blessed in his seed. This is Abraham's arms, in
which his posterity was carried. Then to Moses and the children of
2.48 So it
came finally to the most complete promise of the new
testament, in which with plain words life and salvation are freely
promised, and granted to such as believe the promise. He distinguished this
testament by a particular mark from the old, calling it the "new
testament." For the old testament, which He gave
by Moses, was a promise not of remission of sins or of eternal things, but of
temporal things namely, the
2.49 The
mass, according to its substance, is, therefore, nothing else than the words of
Christ mentioned above "Take and eat." It is as if He said:
"Behold, condemned, sinful man, in the pure and unmerited love with which
I love you, and by the will of the Father of all mercies, I promise you in
these words, even though you do not desire or deserve them, the forgiveness of
all your sins and life everlasting. And, so that you may be most certainly assured
of this my irrevocable promise, I give my body and shed my blood, thus by my
very death confirming this promise, and leaving my body and blood to you as a
sign and memorial of this same promise. As often, therefore, as you partake of
them, remember me, and praise, magnify, and give thanks for my love and bounty
for you."
2.50 From
this you will see that nothing else is needed to have a worthy mass than a
faith that confidently relies on this promise, believes these words of Christ
are true, and does not doubt that these infinite blessings have been bestowed
upon it. Following closely behind this faith there follows, by itself, a most
sweet stirring of the heart, by which the spirit of man is enlarged and grows
fat that is love, given by the Holy Spirit through faith in Christ so that
he is drawn to Christ, that gracious and good Testator, and made quite another
and a new man. Who would not shed tears of gladness, no, nearly faint for the
joy he has for Christ, if he believed with unshaken faith that this inestimable
promise of Christ belonged to him! How could one help loving so great a
Benefactor, who offers, promises and grants, all unasked, such great riches,
and this eternal inheritance, to someone unworthy and deserving of something
far different?
2.51 Therefore,
it is our one misfortune, that we have many masses in the world, and yet none
or but the fewest of us recognize, consider and receive these promises and
riches that are offered, although truly we should do nothing else in the mass
with greater zeal (yes, it demands all our zeal) than set before our eyes,
meditate, and ponder these words, these promises of Christ, which truly are the
mass itself, in order to exercise, nourish, increase, and strengthen our faith
by such daily remembrance. For this is what He commands, saying, "This do in remembrance of me." This should be
done by the preachers of the Gospel, in order that this promise might be
faithfully impressed upon the people and commended to them, to the awakening of
faith in the same.
2.52 But
how many are there now who know that the mass is the promise of Christ? I will
say nothing of those godless preachers of fables, who teach human traditions
instead of this promise. And even if they teach these words of Christ, they do
not teach them as a promise or testament, and, therefore, not to the awakening
of faith.
2.53 O the
pity of it! Under this captivity, they take every precaution that no layman
should hear these words of Christ, as if they were too sacred to be delivered
to the common people. So mad are we priests that we arrogantly claim that the
so-called words of consecration may be said by ourselves alone, as secret
words, yet so that they do not profit even us, for we too fail to regard them
as promises or as a testament, for the strengthening of faith. Instead of
believing them, we reverence them with I know not what superstitious and
godless fancies. This misery of ours, what is it but a device of Satan to
remove every trace of the mass out of the Church? although he is meanwhile at
work filling every nook and corner on earth with masses, that is, abuses and
mockeries of God's testament, and burdening the world more and more heavily
with grievous sins of idolatry, to its deeper condemnation. For what worse
idolatry can there be than to abuse God's promises with perverse opinions and
to neglect or extinguish faith in them?
2.54 For
God does not deal, nor has He ever dealt, with man otherwise than through a
word of promise, as I have said. Again, we cannot deal with God otherwise than
through faith in the word of His promise. He does not desire works, nor has He need of them. We deal with men and with ourselves on the
basis of works. But He has need of this that we deem Him true to His
promises, wait patiently for Him, and thus worship Him with faith, hope and
love. Thus He obtains His glory among us, since it is not of ourselves who run,
but of God who shows mercy, promises and gives, that we have and hold every
blessing. That is the true worship and service of God which we must perform in
the mass. But if the words of promise are not proclaimed, what exercise of
faith can there be? And without faith, who can have hope or love? Without
faith, hope and love, what service can there be? There is no doubt, therefore,
that in our day all priests and monks, together with all their bishops and
superiors, are idolaters and in a most perilous state, by reason of this
ignorance, abuse and mockery of the mass, or sacrament, or testament of God.
2.55 For
any one can easily see that these two the promise and faith must go
together. For without the promise there is nothing to believe, while without
faith the promise remains without effect, for it is established and fulfilled
through faith. From this every one will readily gather that the mass, which is
nothing else than the promise, is approached and observed only in this faith,
without which whatever prayers, preparations, works, signs of the cross, or
genuflections are brought to it, are incitements to impiety rather than
exercises of piety. For they who come thus prepared are likely to imagine themselves on that account justly entitled to approach the
altar, when in reality they are less prepared than at any other time and in any
other work, by reason of the unbelief which they bring with them. How many
priests will you find every day offering the sacrifice of the mass, who accuse
themselves of a horrible crime if they wretched men! commit a trifling
blunder such as putting on the wrong robe or forgetting to wash their hands
or stumbling over their prayers but that they neither regard nor believe the
mass itself, namely, the divine promise. This causes them not the slightest
qualms of conscience. O worthless religion of this our age, the most godless
and thankless of all ages!
2.56 Hence the
only worthy preparation and proper use of the mass is faith in the mass, that
is to say, in the divine promise. Whoever, therefore, is minded to approach the
altar and to receive the sacrament, let him beware of appearing empty before
the Lord God. But he will
appear empty unless he has faith in the mass, or this new testament. What
godless work that he could commit would be a more grievous crime against the
truth of God, than this unbelief of his, by which, as much as in him lies, he
convicts God of being a liar and a maker of empty promises? The safest course,
therefore, will be to go to mass in the same spirit in which you would go to
hear any other promise of God, that is, not to be ready to perform and bring
many works, but to believe and receive all that is there promised, or
proclaimed by the priest as having been promised to you. If you do not go in
this spirit, beware of going at all. You will surely go to your condemnation.
2.57 I was right,
then, in saying that the whole power of the mass consists in the words of
Christ, in which He testifies that the remission of sins is bestowed on all
those who believe that His body is given and His blood shed for them. For this
reason nothing is more important for those who go to hear mass than diligently
and in full faith to ponder these words. Unless they do this, all else that
they do is in vain. But while the mass is the word of Christ, it is also true
that God usually adds to nearly every one of His promises a certain sign as a
mark or memorial of His promise, so that we may thereby the more faithfully
hold to His promise and be the more forcibly admonished by it. Thus, to his
promise to Noah that He would not again destroy the world by a flood, He added
His rainbow in the clouds, to show that He would be mindful of His covenant.
And after promising Abraham the inheritance in his seed, He gave him the sign
of circumcision as the seal of his righteousness by faith. Thus, to Gideon He
granted the sign of the dry and the wet fleece, to confirm His promise of
victory over the Midianites. And to Ahaz He offered a
sign through Isaiah concerning his victory over the kings of
2.58 Thus
also to the mass, that crown of all His promises, He adds His body and blood in
the bread and wine, as a memorial sign of this great promise, as He says, " This do in remembrance of me." Even so in
baptism He adds to the words of the promise, the sign of immersion in water. We
learn from this that in every promise of God two things are presented to us
the word and the sign so that we are to understand the word to be the
testament, but the sign to be the sacrament. Thus, in the mass, the word of
Christ is the testament, and the bread and wine are the sacrament. And as there
is greater power in the word than in the sign, so there is greater power in the
testament than in the sacrament. For a man can have and use the word, or
testament, apart from the sign, or sacrament. "Believe," says
Augustine, "and you have eaten." But what does one believe save the
word of promise? Therefore I can hold mass every day, yes, every hour, for I
can set the words of Christ before me, and with them refresh and strengthen my
faith, as often as I choose. That is a truly spiritual eating and drinking.
2.59 Here
you may see what great things our theologians of the Sentences have produced.
That which is the principal and chief thing, namely, the testament and word of
promise, is not treated by one of them. Thus they have obliterated faith and
the whole power of the mass. But the second part of the mass the sign, or
sacrament this alone do they discuss, yet in such a manner that here too they
teach not faith but their preparations and opera operata, participations and
fruits, as though these were the mass, until they have fallen to babbling of
transubstantiation and endless other metaphysical quibbles, and have destroyed
the proper understanding and use of both sacrament and testament, altogether
abolished faith, and caused Christ's people to forget their God, as the prophet
says, days without number. Let the others count the manifold fruits of hearing
mass. Focus your attention on this: say and believe with the prophet, that God
prepares a table before you in the presence of your enemies, at which your soul
may eat and grow fat. But your faith is fed only with the word of divine
promise, for " not by bread alone does man live,
but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God." Hence, in the mass
you must above all things pay closest heed to the word of promise, as to your
rich banquet, green pasture, and sacred refreshment. You must esteem this word
higher than all else, trust in it above all things, and cling firmly to it even
through the midst of death and all sins. By thus doing you will attain not
merely to those tiny drops and crumbs of "fruits of the mass," which
some have superstitiously imagined, but to the very fountainhead of life, which
is faith in the word, from which every blessing flows. As it is said in John 4:
"He who believes in me, out of his heart will flow rivers of living
water" and again: " He who will drink of the water that I will give
him, it shall become in him a fountain of living water, springing up to life
everlasting."
2.60 Now
there are two roadblocks that commonly prevent us from gathering the fruits of
the mass. First, the fact that we are sinners and unworthy of
such great things because of our exceeding vileness. Secondly, the fact
that, even if we were worthy, these things are so high that our faint-hearted
nature dare not aspire to them or ever hope to attain to them. For to have God for our Father, to be His sons and heirs of all His
goods these are the great blessings that come to us through the forgiveness
of sins and life everlasting. If you see these things clearly, aren't
you more likely to stand in awe before them than to desire to possess them?
Against this twofold faintness of ours we must lay hold on the word of Christ
and fix our gaze on it much more firmly than on those thoughts of our weakness.
For "great are the works of the Lord; all who enjoy them study them,"
" who is able to do exceeding abundantly above
all that we ask or think." If they did not surpass our worthiness, our
grasp and all our thoughts, they would not be divine. Thus Christ also
encourages us when He says: "Fear not, little flock, for your Father is
pleased to give you a kingdom." For it is just this overflowing goodness
of the incomprehensible God, lavished upon us through Christ, that moves us to
love Him again with our whole heart above all things, to be drawn to Him with
all confidence, to despise all things else, and be ready to suffer all things for
Him. For this reason, this sacrament is correctly called "a fount of
love."
2.61 Let us take an illustration of this from human experience. If a
thousand gold coins were bequeathed by a rich lord to a beggar or an unworthy
and wicked servant, it is certain that he would boldly claim and take them
regardless of his unworthiness and the greatness of the bequest. And if any one
should seek to oppose him by pointing out his unworthiness and the large amount
of the legacy, what do you suppose he would say? Certainly, he would say:
"What is that to you? What I accept, I accept not on my merits or by any
right that I may personally have to it. I know that I am unworthy and receive
more than I have deserved, no, I have deserved the very opposite. But I claim
it because it is so written in the will, and on the account of another's
goodness. If it was not an unworthy thing for him to bequeath so great a sum to
an unworthy person, why should I refuse to accept this other man's gracious
gift?" With such thoughts we need to fortify the consciences of men
against all qualms and scruples, that they may lay hold of the promise of
Christ with unwavering faith, and take the greatest care to approach the
sacrament, not trusting in their confession, prayer and preparation, but rather
despairing of these and with a proud confidence in Christ Who gives the
promise. For, as we have said again and again, the word of promise must here
reign supreme in a pure and unalloyed faith, and such faith is the one and
all-sufficient preparation.
2.62 Hence
we see how angry God is with us, in that he has permitted godless teachers to
conceal the words of this testament from us, and thereby, as much as in them
lay, to extinguish faith. And the inevitable result of this extinguishing of
faith is even now plainly to be seen namely, the most godless superstition of
works. For when faith dies and the word of faith is silent, works and the
traditions of works immediately crowd into their place. By them we have been
carried away out of our own land, as in a Babylonian captivity, and despoiled
of all our precious possessions. This has been the fate of the mass. It has
been converted by the teaching of godless men into a good work, which they
themselves call an opus operatum and by which they presumptuously imagine
themselves all-powerful with God. Thereupon they proceeded to the very height
of madness, and having invented the lie that the mass works ex opere operato,
they asserted further that it is none the less profitable to others, even if it
be harmful to the wicked priest celebrating it. On such a foundation of sand
they base their applications, participations, sodalities, anniversaries and
numberless other money-making schemes.
2.63 These
lures are so powerful, widespread and firmly entrenched that you will scarcely
be able to prevail against them unless you keep before you with unremitting
care the real meaning of the mass, and bear well in mind what has been said
above. We have seen that the mass is nothing else than the divine promise or
testament of Christ, sealed with the sacrament of His body and blood. If that
is true, you will understand that it cannot possibly be a work, and that there
is nothing to do in it, nor can it be dealt within any
other way than by faith alone. And faith is not a work, but the mistress and
the life of all works. Where in all the world is there
a man so foolish as to regard a promise made to him, or a testament given to
him, as a good work which by his acceptance of it he renders to the testator?
What heir will imagine he is doing his departed father a kindness by accepting
the terms of the will and the inheritance bequeathed to him? What godless
audacity is it, therefore, when we who are to receive the testament of God come
as those who would perform a good work for Him! This ignorance of the
testament, this captivity of the sacrament are they not too sad for tears?
When we ought to be grateful for benefits received, we come in our pride to
give that which we ought to take, mocking with unheard-of perversity the mercy
of the Giver by giving as a work the thing we receive as a gift. So the
testator, instead of being the dispenser of His own goods, becomes the
recipient of ours. What sacrilege!
2.64 Who
has ever been so mad as to regard baptism as a good
work, or to believe that by being baptised he was performing a work which he
might offer to God for himself and communicate to others? If, therefore, there
is no good work that can be communicated to others in this one sacrament or
testament, neither will there be any in the mass, since it too is nothing else
than a testament and sacrament. Hence it is a manifest and wicked error to
offer or apply masses for sins, for satisfactions, for the dead, or for any
necessity whatsoever of one's own or of others. You will readily see the
obvious truth of this if you but hold firmly that the mass is a divine promise,
which can profit no one, be applied to no one, intercede for no one, and be
communicated to no one, save him alone who believes with a faith of his own.
Who can receive or apply, in behalf of another, the promise of God, which
demands the personal faith of every individual? Can I give to another what God has promised, even if he does not believe?
Can I believe for another, or cause another to believe? But this is what I must
do if I am able to apply and communicate the mass to others. For
there are but two things in the mass the promise of God, and the faith of man
which takes that which the promise offers. But if it is true that I can
do this, then I can also hear and believe the Gospel for others, I can be
baptised for another, I can be absolved from sins for another, I can also
partake of the Sacrament of the Altar for another, and to run the gamut of
their sacraments also I can marry a wife for another, be ordained for
another, receive confirmation and extreme unction for another!
2.65 So,
then, why didn't Abraham believe for all the Jews? Why was faith in the promise
made to Abraham demanded of every individual Jew? Therefore, let this
irrefutable truth stand fast. Where there is a divine promise every one must
stand upon his own feet, every one's personal faith is demanded, every one will
give an account for himself and will bear his own burden, as it is said in the
last chapter of Mark: "He that believes and is baptised, shall be saved.
But he that does not believe, shall be damned."
Even so everyone may derive a blessing from the mass for himself alone and only
by his own faith, and no one can commune for any other. Just as the priest
cannot administer the sacrament to any one in another's place, but administers
the same sacrament to each individual by himself. For in consecrating and
administering, the priests are our ministers, through whom we do not offer a
good work or commune (in the active), but receive the promises and the sign and
are communed (in the passive). That has remained to this day the custom among
the laity, for they are not said to do good, but to receive it. But the priests
have departed into godless ways. Out of the sacrament and testament of God, the
source of blessings to be received, they have made a good work which they may
communicate and offer to others.
2.66 But
you will say: "How is this? Will you not overturn the practice and
teaching of all the churches and monasteries, by virtue of which they have
flourished these many centuries? For the mass is the foundation of their
anniversaries, intercessions, applications, communications, etc. that is to
say, of their fat income." I answer: This is the very thing that has
constrained me to write of the captivity of the Church, for in this manner the
adorable testament of God has been subjected to the bondage of a godless
traffic, through the opinions and traditions of wicked men, who, passing over
the Word of God, have put forth the thoughts of their own hearts and misled the
whole world. What do I care for the number and influence of those who are in
this error? The truth is mightier than they all. If you are able to refute
Christ, according to Whom the mass is a testament and
sacrament, then I will admit that they are right. Or if you can bring yourself
to say that you are doing a good work, when you receive the benefit of the
testament, or when you use this sacrament of promise in order to receive it,
then I will gladly condemn my teachings. But since you
can do neither, why do you hesitate to turn your back on the multitude who go
after evil, and to give God the glory and confess His truth? Which
is, indeed, that all priests today are perversely mistaken, who regard the mass
as a work whereby they may relieve their own necessities and those of others,
dead or alive. I am uttering unheard-of and startling things. But if you
will consider the meaning of the mass, you will realize that I have spoken the
truth. The fault lies with our false sense of security, in which we have become
blind to the wrath of God that is raging against us.
2.67 I am
ready, however, to admit that the prayers which we pour out before God when we
are gathered together to partake of the mass, are good works or benefits, which
we impart, apply and communicate to one another, and which we offer for one
another. As James teaches us to pray for one another that we may be saved, and
as Paul, in 1 Timothy 2, commands that supplications, prayers and intercessions
be made for all men, for kings, and for all that are in high station. These are
not the mass, but works of the mass if the prayers of heart and lips may be
called works for they flow from the faith that is kindled or increased in the
sacrament. For the mass, being the promise of God, is
not fulfilled by praying, but only by believing. But when we believe, we shall
also pray and perform every good work. But what priest offers the sacrifice of
the mass in this sense and believes that he is offering up nothing but the
prayers? They all imagine themselves to be offering up Christ Himself, as
all-sufficient sacrifice, to God the Father, and to be performing a good work
for all whom they have the intention to benefit. For they put
their trust in the work which the mass accomplishes, and they do not ascribe
this work to prayer. Thus, gradually, the error has grown, until they
have come to ascribe to the sacrament what belongs to the prayers, and to offer
to God what should be received as a benefit.
2.68 It is
necessary, therefore, to make a sharp distinction between the testament or sacrament itself and the prayers which are there offered.
And it is no less necessary to bear in mind that the prayers avail nothing,
either for him who offers them or for those for whom they are offered, unless
the sacrament be first received in faith, so that it is faith that offers the
prayers, for it alone is heard, as James teaches in his first chapter. So great
is the difference between prayer and the mass. The prayer may be extended to as
many persons as one desires. But the mass is received by none but the person
who believes for himself, and only in proportion to his faith. It cannot be
given either to God or to men, but God alone gives it, by the ministration of
the priest, to such men as receive it by faith alone, without any works or
merits. For no one would dare to make the mad assertion that a ragged beggar
does a good work when he comes to receive a gift from a rich man. But the mass
is, as has been said, the gift and promise of God, offered to all men by the
hand of the priest.
2.69 It is
certain, therefore, that the mass is not a work which may be communicated to
others, but it is the object, as it is called, of faith, for the strengthening
and nourishing of the personal faith of each individual. But there is yet
another stumbling-block that must be removed, and this is much greater and the
most dangerous of all. It is the common belief that the mass is a sacrifice,
which is offered to God. Even the words of the canon tend in this direction,
when they speak of "these gifts," "these offerings,"
"this holy sacrifice," and farther on, of "this offering."
Prayer also is made, in so many words, "that the sacrifice may be accepted
even as the sacrifice of Abel," etc., and hence Christ is termed the
"Sacrifice of the altar." In addition to this
there are the sayings of the holy Fathers, the great number of examples, and
the constant usage and custom of all the world.
2.70 We
must resolutely oppose all of this, firmly entrenched as it is, with the words
and example of Christ. For unless we hold fast to the truth, that the mass is
the promise or testament of Christ, as the words clearly say, we shall lose the
whole Gospel and all our comfort. Let us permit nothing to prevail against
these words, even though an angel from heaven should teach otherwise. For there
is nothing said in them of a work or a sacrifice.
Moreover, we have also the example of Christ on our side. For at the Last
Supper, when He instituted this sacrament and established this testament,
Christ did not offer Himself to God the Father, nor did He perform a good work
on behalf of others, but He set this testament before each of them that sat at
table with Him and offered him the sign. Now, the more closely our mass
resembles that first mass of all, which Christ performed at the Last Supper,
the more Christian will it be. But Christ's mass was most simple, without the
pageantry of vestments, genuflections, chants and other ceremonies. Indeed, if
it were necessary to offer the mass as a sacrifice, then Christ's institution
of it was not complete.
2.71 Not that any one should condemn the Church universal for
embellishing and amplifying the mass with many additional rites and ceremonies. But this is what we contend
for: no one should be deceived by the glamour of the ceremonies and entangled
in the multitude of pompous forms, and thus lose the simplicity of the mass
itself, and indeed practice a sort of transubstantiation losing sight of the
simple substance of the mass and clinging to the manifold accidents of outward
pomp. For whatever has been added to the word and example of Christ, is an
accident of the mass, and ought to be regarded just as we regard the so-called
monstrances and corporal cloths in which the host itself is contained.
Therefore, as distributing a testament, or accepting a promise, differs
diametrically from offering a sacrifice, so it is a contradiction in terms to
call the mass a sacrifice. The former is something that we receive, while the
latter is something that we offer. The same thing cannot be received and
offered at the same time, nor can it be both given and taken by the same
person. Just as little as our prayer can be the same as that
which our prayer obtains, or the act of praying the same as the act of
receiving the answer to our prayer.
2.72 What
shall we say, then, about the canon of the mass and the sayings of the Fathers?
First of all, if there were nothing at all to be said against them, it would
yet be the safer course to reject them all rather than admit that the mass is a
work or a sacrifice, lest we deny the word of Christ and overthrow faith
together with the mass. Nevertheless, not to reject altogether the canons and
the Fathers, we shall say the following: The Apostle instructs us in 1
Corinthians 11 that it was customary for Christ's believers, when they came
together to mass, to bring with them meat and drink, which they called
"collections" and distributed among all who were in need, after the
example of the apostles in Acts 4. From this store was taken the portion of
bread and wine that was consecrated for use in the sacrament. And since all
this store of meat and drink was sanctified by the word and by prayer, being
"lifted up" according to the Hebrew rite of which we read in Moses,
the words and the rite of this lifting up, or offering, have come down to us,
although the custom of collecting that which was offered, or lifted up, has
fallen long since into disuse. Thus, in Isaiah 37, Hezekiah commanded Isaiah to
lift up his prayer in the sight of God for the remnant. The Psalmist sings: "Lift up your hands to the holy places" and "To you
will I lift up my hands." And in 1 Timothy
2 we read: "Lifting up pure hands in every place." For this reason
the words "sacrifice" and "offering" must be taken to
refer, not to the sacrament and testament, but to these collections, from this
also the word "collect" has come down to us, as meaning the prayers
said in the mass.
2.73 The
same thing is indicated when the priest elevates the bread and the chalice
immediately after the consecration, whereby he shows that he is not offering
anything to God, for he does not say a single word here about a victim or an
offering. But this elevation is either a survival of that Hebrew rite of lifting
up what was received with thanksgiving and returned to God, or else it is an
admonition to us, to provoke us to faith in this testament which the priest has
set forth and exhibited in the words of Christ, so that now he shows us also
the sign of the testament. Thus the offering of the bread properly accompanies
the demonstrative this in the words, "This is my body," by which sign
the priest addresses us gathered about him. In like manner the offering of the
chalice accompanies the demonstrative this in the words, "This chalice is
the new testament, etc." For it is faith that the priest
ought to awaken in us by this act of elevation. I wish that, as he
elevates the sign, or sacrament, openly before our eyes, he might also sound in
our ears the words of the testament with a loud, clear voice, and in the
language of the people, whatever it may be, in order that faith may be the more
effectively awakened. For why may mass be said in Greek and Latin and Hebrew,
and not also in German or in any other language?
2.74 Let
the priests, therefore, who in these corrupt and perilous times offer the
sacrifice of the mass, take heed, first, that the words of the greater and the
lesser canon together with the collects, which smack too strongly of sacrifice,
be not referred by them to the sacrament, but to the bread and wine which they
consecrate, or to the prayers which they say. For the bread and wine are
offered at the first, in order that they may be blessed and thus sanctified by
the Word and by prayer. But after they have been blessed and consecrated, they
are no longer offered, but received as a gift from God. And let the priest bear
in mind that the Gospel is to be set above all canons and collects devised by
men. The Gospel does not sanction the calling of the mass a sacrifice, as has
been shown.
2.75 Further,
when a priest celebrates a public mass, he should determine to do nothing else
through the mass than to commune himself and others.
Yet he may at the same time offer prayers for himself and for others, but he
must beware lest he presume to offer the mass. But let him determine to commune
himself, if he holds a private mass. The private mass does not differ in the
least from the ordinary communion which any layman receives at the hand of the
priest, and has no greater effect, apart from the special prayers and the fact
that the priest consecrates the elements for himself and administers them to
himself. So far as the blessing of the mass and
sacrament is concerned, we are all of us on an equal footing, whether we be
priests or laymen.
2.76 If a
priest be requested by others to celebrate so-called "votive" masses,
let him beware of accepting a reward for the mass, or of presuming to offer a
votive sacrifice. He should be careful to refer all to the prayers which he
offers for the dead or the living, saying within himself, "I will go and
partake of the sacrament for myself alone, and while partaking I will say a
prayer for this one and that." Thus he will take his reward to buy him
food and clothing not for the mass, but for the prayers. And
let him not be disturbed because all the world holds and practices the
contrary. You have the most sure Gospel, and relying
on this you may well despise the opinions of men. But
if you despise me and insist upon offering the mass and not the prayers alone,
know that I have faithfully warned you and will be without blame on the day of
judgment. You will have to bear your sin alone. I have said what I was bound to
say as brother to brother for his soul's salvation. Yours will be the gain if
you observe it, yours the loss if you neglect it. And if some should even
condemn what I have said, I reply in the words of Paul: " But evil men and
seducers shall grow worse and worse: erring and driving into error."
2.77 From
the above every one will readily understand what there is in that often quoted
saying of Gregory's: "A mass celebrated by a wicked priest is not to be
considered of less effect than one celebrated by any godly priest. St. Peter's
mass would not have been better than Judas the traitor's, if they had offered
the sacrifice of the mass." This saying has served many as a cloak to
cover their godless doings, and because of it they have invented the
distinction between opus operati and opus operantis, so as to be free to lead
wicked lives themselves and yet to benefit other men. Gregory speaks truth, but
they misunderstand and pervert his words. For it is true beyond a question,
that the testament or sacrament is given and received through the ministration
of wicked priests no less completely than through the ministration of the most
saintly. For who has any doubt that the Gospel is preached by the ungodly? Now
the mass is part of the Gospel, no, its sum and substance. For what is the
whole Gospel but the good tidings of the forgiveness of sins? But whatever can
be said of the forgiveness of sins and the mercy of God, is all briefly
comprehended in the word of this testament. So popular
sermons ought to be nothing else than expositions of the mass, that is, a
setting forth of the divine promise of this testament. Doing this
teaches faith and truly edifies the Church. But in our day the expounders of
the mass play with the allegories of human rites and make it a joke to people.
2.78 Therefore,
just as a wicked priest may baptise, that is, apply the word of promise and the
sign of the water to a candidate for baptism, so he may also set forth the
promise of this sacrament and administer it to those who partake, and even
himself partake, like Judas the traitor, at the Lord's Supper. It still remains
always the same sacrament and testament, which works in the believer its own
work, in the unbeliever a "strange work." But when it comes to
offering a sacrifice the case is quite different. For not the mass but the
prayers are offered to God, and therefore it is as plain as day that the
offerings of a wicked priest avail nothing, but, as Gregory says again, when an
unworthy intercessor is chosen, the heart of the judge is moved to greater
displeasure. We must, therefore, not confound these two the mass and the
prayers, the sacrament and the work, the testament and the sacrifice. For the
one comes from God to us, through the ministration of the priest, and demands
our faith, the other proceeds from our faith to God, through the priest, and demands
His answer. The former descends, the latter ascends. Therefore the former does
not necessarily require a worthy and godly minister, but the latter does indeed
require such a priest, because " God does not
hear sinners." He knows how to send down blessings through evildoers, but
He does not accept the work of any evildoer, as He showed in the case of Cain,
and as it is said in Proverbs 15, "The victims of the wicked are
abominable to the Lord" and in Romans 14, "All that is not of faith
is sin."
2.79 But in
order to make an end of this first part, we must take up one remaining point
against which an opponent might arise. From all that has been said we conclude
that the mass was provided only for such as have a sad, afflicted, disturbed,
perplexed and erring conscience, and that they alone commune worthily. For,
since the word of divine promise in this sacrament sets forth the remission of
sins, that man may fearlessly draw near, whoever he be, whose sins distress
him, either with remorse for past or with temptation to future wrongdoing. For
this testament of Christ is the one remedy against sins, past, present and
future, if you but cling to it with unwavering faith and believe that what the
words of the testament declare is freely granted to you. But if you do not
believe this, you will never, nowhere, and by no works or efforts of your own,
find peace of conscience. For faith alone sets the conscience
at peace, and unbelief alone keeps the conscience troubled.
THE
SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM
3.1
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Who according to the
riches of His mercy has preserved in His Church this sacrament at least,
untouched and untainted by the ordinances of men, and has made it free to all
nations and every estate of mankind, nor suffered it to be oppressed by the
filthy and godless monsters of greed and superstition. For He desired that by
it little children, incapable of greed and superstition, might be initiated and
sanctified in the simple faith of His Word. Even today baptism's chief blessing
is for them. But if this sacrament were to be given to adults and older people,
I think it could not possibly have retained its power and its glory against the
tyranny of greed and superstition which has everywhere laid waste to divine
things. Doubtless the wisdom of the flesh would here too have devised its
preparations and worthinesses, its reservations, restrictions, and I know not
what other snares for taking money, until water fetched as high a price as
parchment does now.
3.2 But Satan, though he could
not quench the power of baptism in little children, nevertheless succeeded in
quenching it in all adults, so that scarcely anyone calls to mind their baptism
and still fewer glory in it. So many other ways have they discovered of ridding
themselves of their sins and of reaching heaven. The source of these false
opinions is that dangerous saying of
3.3 It was
the duty of the pontiffs to abate this evil, and with
all diligence to lead Christians to the true understanding of baptism, so that they
might know what manner of men they are and how Christians ought to live. But instead of this, their work is now to lead the people as
far astray as possible from their baptism, to immerse all men in the flood of
their oppression, and to cause the people of Christ, as the prophet says, to
forget Him days without number. ( Jeremiah 2:32) How
unfortunate are all who bear the name of pope today! Not only do they not know
or do what popes should do, but they are ignorant of what they ought to know
and do. They fulfill the saying in Isaiah 56: "His watchmen are all blind,
they are all ignorant. The shepherds themselves knew no understanding. All have
declined into their own way, every one after his own
gain."
3.4 Now,
the first thing in baptism to be considered is the divine promise, which says: " He that believes and is baptised shall be
saved." This promise must be set far above all the glitter of works, vows,
religious orders, and whatever man has added to it. For on it all our salvation
depends. We must consider this promise, exercise our faith in it and never
doubt that we are saved when we are baptised. For unless this faith be present
or be conferred in baptism, we gain nothing from baptism. No, it becomes a
hindrance to us, not only in the moment of its reception, but all the days of
our life. For such lack of faith calls God's promise a lie,
and this is the blackest of all sins. When we try to exercise this faith, we
shall at once perceive how difficult it is to believe this promise of God. For
our human weakness, conscious of its sins, finds nothing more difficult to
believe than that it is saved or will be saved. Yet unless it does believe
this, it cannot be saved, because it does not believe the truth of God that
promises salvation.
3.5 This
message should have been persistently impressed upon the people and this
promise diligently repeated to them. Their baptism should have been called
again and again to their mind, and faith constantly awakened and nourished.
Just as the truth of this divine promise, once pronounced over us, continues to
death, so our faith in the same ought never to cease, but to be nourished and
strengthened until death, by the continual remembrance of this promise made to
us in baptism. Therefore, when we rise from sins, or repent, we are only
returning to the power and the faith of baptism from this we fell, and
find our way back to the promise then made to us, from which we departed when
we sinned. For the truth of the promise once made remains steadfast, ever ready
to receive us back with open arms when we return.
This, if I am not mistaken, is the real meaning of the obscure saying, that
baptism is the beginning and foundation of all the sacraments, without which
none of the others may be received.
3.6 Therefore
a penitent will gain much by laying hold of the memory of his baptism above all
else, confidently calling to mind the promise of God, which he has forsaken. He
should plead it with His Lord, rejoicing that he is baptised and therefore is
yet within the fortress of salvation. He should detest his wicked ingratitude
in falling away from its faith and truth. His soul will find wondrous comfort,
and will be encouraged to hope for mercy, when he considers that the divine
promise which God made to him and which cannot possibly lie, still stands
unbroken and unchanged, yes, unchangeable by any sins, as Paul says in 2
Timothy 2. "If we do not believe, He continues to be faithful, He cannot
deny Himself." Yes, this truth of God will sustain him, so that if all
else should sink in ruins, this truth, if he believes it, will not fail him.
For in it he has a shield against all assaults of the enemy, an answer to the
sins that disturb his conscience, an antidote for the dread of death and
judgment, and a comfort in every temptation namely, this one truth he can
say, " God is faithful that promised, Whose sign I have received in my
baptism. If God be for me, who is against me?"
3.7 The
children of
3.8 See,
how rich therefore is a Christian, the one who is baptised! Even if he wants
to, he cannot lose his salvation, however much he sin, unless he will not
believe. For no sin can condemn him save unbelief alone. All other sins so
long as the faith in God's promise made in baptism returns or remains all
other sins, I say, are immediately blotted out through that same faith, or
rather through the truth of God, because He cannot deny Himself. If only you
confess Him and cling believing to Him that promises. But as for contrition,
confession of sins, and satisfaction along with all those carefully thought
out exercises of men if you turn your attention to them and neglect this
truth of God, they will suddenly fail you and leave you more wretched than
before. For whatever is done without faith in the truth of God, is vanity of
vanities and vexation of spirit.
3.9 Again, how perilous, no, how false it is to suppose that penance is
the second plank after the shipwreck! How harmful an error it is to
believe that the power of baptism is broken, and the ship has foundered,
because we have sinned! No! That one, solid and unsinkable ship remains, and is
never broken up into floating timbers. It carries all those who are brought to
the harbor of salvation. It is the truth of God giving us its promise in the
sacraments. Many, indeed, rashly leap overboard and perish in the waves. These
are they who depart from faith in the promise and plunge into sin. But the ship
herself remains intact and holds her steady course. If one be able somehow to
return to the ship, it is not on any plank but in the good ship herself that he
is carried to life. Such a one is he who through faith returns to the sure
promise of God that lasts forever. Therefore Peter, in 1 Peter 1, rebukes those
who sin, because they have forgotten that they were purged from their old sins,
in which words he doubtless chides their ingratitude for the baptism they had
received and their wicked unbelief.
3.20 It
cannot be true, therefore, that there is in the sacraments a power efficacious
for justification, or that they are effective signs of grace. All such
assertions tend to destroy faith, and arise from ignorance of the divine
promise. Unless you should call them effective in the sense
that they certainly and efficaciously impart grace, where faith is unmistakably
present. But it is not in this sense that efficacy is now ascribed to
them. Witness the fact that they are said to benefit all men, even the godless
and unbelieving, provided they do not put an "obstacle" in the path
of grace as if such unbelief were not in itself the most obstinate and
hostile of all obstacles to grace. That is how firmly they are bent on turning
the sacrament into a command, and faith into a work. For if the sacrament
confers grace on me because I receive it, then indeed I obtain grace by virtue
of my work and not of faith. I lay hold not on the promise in the sacrament,
but on the sign instituted and commanded by God. Do you not see, then, how
completely the sacraments have been misunderstood by our theologians of the
Sentences? They do not account for either faith or the promise, in their
discussions on the sacraments. They only cling to the sign and the use of the
sign, and draw us away from faith to the work, from the word to the sign. Thus
they have not only carried the sacraments captive (as I have said), but have
completely destroyed them, as far as they were able.
3.26 Therefore,
whatever we do in this life that promotes the mortifying of the flesh and the
giving life to the spirit, belongs to baptism. The sooner we depart this life
the sooner we fulfill our baptism. The greater our sufferings the more closely
do we conform to our baptism. Hence those were the Church's happiest days, when
the martyrs were being killed everyday and accounted as sheep for the
slaughter. For then the power of baptism reigned supreme in the Church, which
power we have today lost sight of in the midst of the multitude of works and
doctrines of men. For all our life should be baptism, and the fulfilling of the
sign, or sacrament, of baptism. We have been set free from all else and wholly
given over to baptism alone, that is, to death and resurrection.
3.27 This
glorious liberty of ours, and this understanding of
baptism have been carried captive in our day. And whom
have we to thank for this but the Roman pontiff with his despotism? More than
all others, it was his first duty, as chief shepherd, to preach and defend this
liberty and this knowledge, as Paul says in 1 Corinthians 4 "Let a man so
account of us as of the ministers of Christ, and the dispensers of the
mysteries, or sacraments, of God." Instead of this, he seeks only to
oppress us with his decrees and his laws, and to enslave and ensnare us in the
tyranny of his power. By what right, in God's name, does the pope impose his
laws upon us to say nothing of his wicked and damnable neglect to teach these
mysteries? Who gave him power to despoil us of this liberty, granted us in
baptism? One thing only (as I have said) has been enjoined upon us all the days
of our life be baptised That is, to be put to death and to live again,
through faith in Christ. This faith alone should have been taught, especially
by the chief shepherd. But now there is not a word
said about faith, and the Church is laid waste with endless laws concerning
works and ceremonies So the power and right understanding of baptism are put
aside, and faith in Christ is prevented.
3.28 Therefore
I say: neither the pope nor a bishop nor any other man has the right to impose
a single syllable of law upon a Christian man without his consent. If he does,
it is done in the spirit of tyranny. Therefore the prayers, fasts, donations,
and whatever else the pope decrees and demands in all of his decretals, as
numerous as they are evil, he demands and decrees without any right whatever.
He sins against the liberty of the Church whenever he attempts any such thing.
In fact, today's churchmen are indeed such vigorous defenders of the liberty of
the Church, that is, of wood and stone, of land and rents for
"churchly" is nowadays the same as "spiritual" yet with
such fictions they not only take captive but utterly destroy the true liberty
of the Church, and deal with us far worse than the Turk, in opposition to the
word of the Apostle, "Do not be enslaved by men." Yes, to be
subjected to their statutes and tyrannical laws is to be enslaved by men.
3.29 This
impious and sinful tyranny is fostered by the pope's disciples, who here drag
in and pervert that saying of Christ, "He that hears you hears me."
With puffed cheeks they blow up this saying to a great size in support of their
traditions. Though Christ said this to the apostles when they went forth to
preach the Gospel, and though it applies solely to the Gospel, they pass over
the Gospel and apply it only to their fables. He says in John 10 "My sheep
hear my voice, but the voice of a stranger they do not hear." To this end
He left us the Gospel, that His voice might be uttered by the pontiffs. But they utter their own voice, and themselves desire to be
heard. Moreover, the Apostle says that he was not sent to baptise but to preach
the Gospel. Therefore, no one is bound to the traditions of the pope, nor does
he need to give ear to him unless he teaches the Gospel and Christ, and the
pope should teach nothing but faith without any restrictions. But since Christ
says, "He that hears you hears me," and does not say to Peter only,
"He that hears you," why doesn't the pope also hear others? Finally,
where there is true faith, there must also be the word of faith. Why then does
not an unbelieving pope now and then hear a believing servant of his, who has
the word of faith? It is blindness, sheer blindness, that
holds the popes in their power.
3.30 But
others, more shameless still, arrogantly ascribe to the pope the power to make
laws, on the basis of Matthew 16, "Whatever you shall bind," etc.,
though Christ treats in this passage of binding and loosing sins, not of taking
the whole Church captive and oppressing it with laws. So this tyranny treats
everything with its own lying words and violently wrests and perverts the words
of God. I admit indeed that Christians ought to bear this accursed tyranny just
as they would bear any other violence of this world, according to Christ's
word: " If someone strikes you on your right
cheek, turn to him also the other cheek." But this is my complaint നat the godless pontiffs boastfully claim the right to do this, that they
pretend to be seeking the Church's welfare with this
3.31 I only
lift my voice to defend this freedom of conscience. I confidently cry out: No
one not men not angels may justly impose laws upon Christians without their
consent, for we are free from all things. If any laws are laid on us, we must
bear them in such a way as to preserve the consciousness of our liberty. We
must know and strongly affirm that the making of such laws is unjust, that we
will bear and rejoice in this injustice. We will be careful neither to justify
the tyrant nor complain against his tyranny. "For who is he," says
Peter, "that will harm you, if you are followers of that which is
good?" " All things work together for good
to the elect." Nevertheless, since few know this glory of baptism and the
blessedness of Christian liberty, and cannot know them because of the tyranny
of the pope, I for one will walk away from it all and redeem my conscience by
bringing this charge against the pope and all his papists: Unless they will
abolish their laws and traditions, and restore to Christ's churches their
liberty and have it taught among them, they are guilty of all the souls that
perish under this miserable captivity, and the papacy is truly the kingdom of
Babylon, yes, the kingdom of the real Antichrist! For who is "
the man of sin" and "the son of perdition" but he that
with his doctrines and his laws increases sins and the perdition of souls in
the Church, while he sits in the Church as if he were God? All this the papal tyranny has fulfilled, and more than
fulfilled, these many centuries. It has extinguished faith, obscured the
sacraments and oppressed the Gospel. But its own laws,
which are not only impious and sacrilegious, but even barbarous and foolish, it
has enjoined and multiplied world without end.
3.32 Behold, then, our miserable captivity. How empty is the city
that was full of people! The mistress of the Gentiles has become like a widow.
The princess of provinces has been made a client nation! There is none to
comfort her. All her friends despise her. There are so many orders, so many
rites, so many sects, so many vows, exertions and works, in which Christians
are engaged, that they lose sight of their baptism. This swarm of locusts,
cankerworms and caterpillars not one of them is able to remember that he is
baptised or what blessings his baptism brought him. Are engaged in no efforts
and no works, but are free in every way, secure and saved only through the
glory of their baptism. For we are indeed little children,
continually baptised anew in Christ.
3.33 Perhaps
someone will oppose what I have said by pointing to the baptism of infants.
Infants do not understand God's promise and cannot have baptismal faith. So
either faith is not necessary or else infant baptism is useless. Here I say
what everyone says: the faith of others, namely, the faith of those who bring
them to baptism aids infants. For the Word of God is
powerful, when it is uttered. It can change even a godless heart, which
is no less unresponsive and helpless than any infant. Even so the infant is
changed, cleansed and renewed by faith poured into it, through the prayer of
the Church that presents it for baptism and believes. All things are possible
for this prayer. Nor should I doubt that even a godless adult might be changed,
in any of the sacraments, if the same Church prayed and presented him. We read
in the Gospel of the paralytic, who was healed through the faith of others. I
should be ready to admit that in this sense the sacraments of the New Law
confer grace effectively, not only to those who do not resist, but even to
those who do resist it very obstinately. Is there any obstacle that the faith
of the Church and the prayer of faith cannot remove? We believe that Stephen by
this powerful means converted Paul the Apostle, don't we? But then the
sacraments accomplish what they do not by their own power, but by the power of
faith, without which they accomplish nothing at all, as has been said.
3.34 The
question remains, whether it is proper to baptise an infant not yet born, with
only a hand or a foot outside the womb. Here I will decide nothing hastily, and
confess my ignorance. I am not sure whether the reason given by some is
sufficient that the soul resides in its entirety in every part of the body.
After all, it is not the soul but the body that is externally baptised with
water. Nor do I share the view of others that he who is not yet born cannot be
born again, even though it has considerable force. I leave these matters to the
teaching of the Spirit. For the moment I permit every
one to be convinced by his own opinion.
3.35 One
thing I will add and I wish I could persuade everyone to do it! namely, to completely abolish or avoid all the making of
vows, whether they are vows to enter religious orders, to make pilgrimages or
to do any works whatsoever. Then we could remain in the freedom of our baptism,
which is the most religious, rich in works, state of all. It is impossible to
say how greatly that widespread delusion of vows weakens baptism and obscures
the knowledge of Christian liberty. This is to say nothing now of the
unspeakable and infinite peril to souls which that mania for making vows and
that ill-advised rashness daily increase. Godless pontiffs and unhappy pastors!
You slumber on without heeding, and indulge your evil lusts, without pity for
this "affliction of Joseph," so dreadful and fraught with peril!
3.36 Vows
should be abolished by a general edict, especially life-long vows, and all men
diligently recalled to the vows of baptism. If this is not possible, everyone
should be warned not to take a vow rashly. No one should be encouraged to do
so. Permission to make vows should be given only with difficulty and
reluctance. For we have vowed enough in baptism more than we can ever fulfill. If we devote ourselves to the keeping of this one vow, we shall have
all we can do. But now we travel over earth and sea to make many converts. We
fill the world with priests, monks and nuns, and imprison them all in life-long
vows. You will find those who argue and decree that a work done in fulfilment
of a vow ranks higher than one done without a vow. They claim such works are
rewarded with I know not what great rewards in heaven. Blind and godless
Pharisees, who measure righteousness and holiness by the greatness, number or
other quality of the works! But God measures them by faith alone, and with Him
there is no difference between works except in the faith which performs them.
3.37 These
wicked men inflate with bombast their own opinions and human works. They do
this to lure the unthinking populace, who are almost always led by the glitter
of works to make shipwreck of their faith, to forget their baptism and to harm
their Christian liberty. For a vow is a kind of law or requirement. Therefore,
when vows are multiplied, laws and works are necessarily multiplied. When this
is done, faith is extinguished and the liberty of baptism taken captive.
Others, not content with these wicked allurements, go on to say that entrance into a religious order is like a new baptism
which may be repeated later and as often as the commitment to live the
religious life is renewed. Thus these "votaries" have taken for
themselves alone all righteousness, salvation and glory, and left to those who
are merely baptised nothing to compare with them. No, the Pope of Rome, that
fountain and source of all superstitions, confirms, approves and adorns this
mode of life with high-sounding bulls and dispensations, while no one deems
baptism worthy of even a thought. And with such glittering pomp (as we have
said) they drive the easily led people of Christ into certain disaster, so that
lose their gratitude for baptism and presume to achieve greater things by their
works than others achieve by their faith.
3.38 Therefore,
God again shows Himself perverse to the perverse. He
repays the makers of vows for their ingratitude and pride, causes them to break
their vows or to keep them only with prodigious labor. He compels them to
remain sunk in these vows, never coming to the knowledge of the grace of faith
and baptism. He makes them continue in their hypocrisy to the end since God
does not approve their spirit and that at last makes them a laughing-stock to
the whole world, always persuing righteousness, yet never achieving
righteousness. God ordains all this so that they fulfill the word of Isaiah: " The land is full of idols."
3.39 I am
indeed far from forbidding or discouraging any one who may desire to take a vow
privately and of his own free choice; for I would not altogether despise and
condemn vows. But I would most strongly advise against setting up and
sanctioning the making of vows as a public mode of life. It is enough that
every one should have the private right to take a vow at his peril; but to commend
the vowing of vows as a public mode of life this I hold to be most harmful to
the Church and to simple souls. And I hold this, first, because it runs
directly counter to the Christian life; for a vow is a certain ceremonial law
and a human tradition or presumption, and from these the Christian has been set
free through baptism. For a Christian is subject to no laws but the law of God.
Again, there is no instance in Scripture of such a vow, especially of life-long
chastity, obedience and poverty. But whatever is without warrant of Scripture
is hazardous and should by no means be commended to any one, much less
established as a common and public mode of life, although whoever will must be
permitted to make the venture at his own peril. For certain works are wrought
by the Spirit in a few men, but they must not be made an example or a mode of
life for all.
3.40 Moreover,
I greatly fear that these modes of life of the religious orders belong to those
things which the Apostle foretold: " They shall
teach a lie in hypocrisy, forbidding to marry, to abstain from meats, which God
has created to be received with thanksgiving." Let no one retort by
pointing to Sts. Bernard, Francis, Dominic and others, who founded or fostered
monastic orders. Terrible and marvelous is God in His counsels toward the sons
of men. He could keep Daniel, Ananias, Azarias and Misael holy at the court of
the king of Babylon, that is, in the midst of godlessness; why could He not
sanctify those men also in their perilous mode of living or guide them by the
special operation of His Spirit, yet without desiring it to be an example to
others? Besides, it is certain that none of them was saved through his vows and
his "religious" life; they were saved through faith alone, by which
all men are saved, and with which that splendid slavery of vows is more than
anything else in conflict.
3.42 Therefore
I advise no one to enter any religious order or the priesthood no, I dissuade
everyone unless he be forearmed with this knowledge and understand that the
works of monks and priests, be they never so holy and arduous, differ no whit
in the sight of God from the works of the rustic toiling in the field or the
woman going about her household tasks, but that all works are measured before
Him by faith alone; as Jeremiah says: " O Lord, thine eyes are upon faith";
and Ecclesiasticus: " In every work of thine regard your soul in faith:
for this is the keeping of the commandments." no, he should know that the
menial housework of a maidservant or manservant is ofttimes more acceptable to
God than all the fastings and other works of a monk or a priest, because the
latter lacks faith. Since, therefore, vows seem to tend nowadays only to the
glorification of works and to pride, it is to be feared that there is nowhere
less of faith and of the Church than among the priests, monks and bishops, and
that these men are in truth heathen or hypocrites, who imagine themselves to be
the Church or the heart of the Church, and "spiritual," and the
Church's leaders, when they are everything else but that. And it is to be
feared that this is indeed " the people of the
captivity," among whom all things freely given us in baptism are held
captive, while "the people of the earth" are left behind in poverty
and in small numbers, and, as is the lot of married folk, appear vile in their
eyes.
3.43 From
what has been said we learn that the Roman pontiff is guilty of two glaring
errors.
3.44 In the
first place, he grants dispensations from vows, and does it as though he alone
of all Christians possessed this authority; such is the temerity and audacity
of wicked men. If it be possible to grant a dispensation from a vow, then any
brother may grant one to his neighbour or even to himself. But if one's
neighbour
cannot grant a dispensation, neither can the pope by any right. For from this
has he his authority? From the power of the keys? But
the keys belong to all, and avail only for sins (Matthew
3.45 The
other error is this. The pope decrees, on the other hand, that marriage is dissolved
if one party enter a monastery even without the consent of the other, provided
the marriage be not yet consummated. Grammercy, what
devil puts such monstrous things into the pope's mind! God commands men to keep
faith and not break their word to one another, and again, to do good with that
which is their own; for He hates "robbery in a holocaust," as he says
by the mouth of Isaiah. (Isaiah 61:8) But one spouse is bound by the marriage
contract to keep faith with the other, and he is not his own. He cannot break
his faith by any right, and whatever he does with himself is robbery if it be
without the other's consent. Why does not one who is burdened with debts follow
this same rule and obtain admission to an order, so as to be released from his
debts and be free to break his word? O more than blind! Which is greater; the
faith commanded by God or a vow devised and chosen by man? you
art a shepherd of souls, O pope? And ye that teach such things are doctors of
sacred theology? Why then do ye teach them? Because, forsooth, ye have decked
out your vow as a better work than marriage, and do not exalt faith, which
alone exalts all things, but ye exalt works, which are nothing in the sight of
God, or which are all alike so far as any merit is concerned.
3.46 I have
no doubt, therefore, that neither men nor angels can grant a dispensation from
vows, if they be proper vows. But I am not fully clear in my own mind whether
all the things that men nowadays vow come under the head of vows. For instance,
it is simply foolish and stupid for parents to dedicate their children, before
birth or in early infancy , to "the religious
life," or to perpetual chastity; no, it is certain that this can by no
means be termed a vow. It seems a mockery of God to vow things which it is not
at all in one's power to keep. As to the triple vow of the monastic orders, the
longer I consider it, the less I comprehend it, and I marvel from this the
custom of exacting this vow has arisen. Still less do I understand at what age
vows may be taken in order to be legal and valid. I am pleased to find them
unanimously agreed that vows taken before the age of puberty are not valid.
Nevertheless, they deceive many young children who are ignorant both of their
age and of what they are vowing; they do not observe the age of puberty in
receiving such children, who after making their profession are held captive and
devoured by a troubled conscience, as though they had afterward given their
consent. As if a vow which was invalid could afterward become valid with the
lapse of time.
3.47 It
seems absurd to me that the terms of a legal vow should be prescribed to others
by those who cannot prescribe them for themselves. Nor do I see why a vow taken
at eighteen years of age should be valid, and not one taken at ten or twelve
years. It will not do to say that at eighteen a man feels his carnal desires.
How is it when he scarcely feels them at twenty or thirty, or when he feels
them more keenly at thirty than at twenty? Why do they not also set a certain
age-limit for the vows of poverty and obedience? But at what age will you say a
man should feel his greed and pride? Even the most spiritual hardly become
aware of these emotions. Therefore, no vow will ever become binding and valid
until we have become spiritual, and no longer have any need of vows. You see,
these are uncertain and perilous matters, and it would therefore be a wholesome
counsel to leave such lofty modes of living, unhampered by vows, to the Spirit
alone, as they were of old, and by no means to change them into a rule binding
for life.
3.48 But
let this suffice for the present concerning baptism and its liberty; in due
time I may discuss the vows at greater length. Of a truth they stand sorely in
need of it.
THE
SACRAMENT OF PENANCE
4.1 We
come in the third place to the sacrament of penance. On this subject I have
already given no little offense by my published treatise and disputations, in
which I have amply set forth my views. These I must now briefly rehearse, in
order to unmask the tyranny that is rampant here no less than in the sacrament
of the bread. For because these two sacraments furnish opportunity for gain and
profit, the greed of the shepherds rages in them with incredible zeal against
the flock of Christ; although baptism, too, has sadly declined among adults and
become the servant of avarice, as we have just seen in our discussion of vows.
4.2 This is the first and chief
abuse of this sacrament: They have utterly abolished the sacrament itself, so
that there is not a vestige of it left. For they have overthrown both the word
of divine promise and our faith, in which this as well as other sacraments
consists. They have applied to their tyranny the word of promise which Christ
speak in Matthew
4.3 For Christ has not ordained
principalities or powers or lordships, but ministries, in the Church; as we
learn from the Apostle, who says.: " Let a man so account of us as of the
ministers of Christ, and the dispensers of the mysteries of God." (1
Corinthians 4:1) Now when He said: " He that believe and is baptised shall
be saved," (Mark 16:16) He called forth the faith of those to be baptised,
so that by this word of promise a man might be certain of being saved if he
believed and was baptised. In that word there is no impartation of any power whatever,
but only the institution of the ministry of those who baptise. Similarly, when
He says here: "Whatsoever you shall bind," etc., (Matthew
4.4 Thus the promise of baptism remains in some sort, at least to
infants; the promise of bread and the cup has been destroyed and made
subservient to greed, faith becoming a work and the testament a sacrifice;
while the promise of penance has fallen prey to the most oppressive despotism
of all and serves to establish a more than temporal rule.
4.5 Not
content with these things, this
4.6 Now
let us see what they have put in the place of the promise and the faith which they have blotted out and overthrown. Three
parts have they made of penance contrition, confession, and satisfaction; yet
so as to destroy whatever of good there might be in any of them and to
establish here also their covetousness and tyranny.
4.7 In the
first place, they teach that contrition precedes faith in the promise; they hold
it, much too cheap, making it not a work of faith,
but a merit; no, they do not mention it at all. So deep are they sunk in works
and in those instances of Scripture that show how many obtained grace by reason
of their contrition and humility of heart; but they take no account of the
faith which wrought such contrition and sorrow of heart, as it is written of
the men of Nineveh in Jonah 3:5, "And the men of Nineveh believed in God:
and they proclaimed a fast," etc. Others, again, more bold and wicked,
have invented a so-called "attrition," which is, converted into
contrition by virtue of the power of the keys, of which they know nothing. This
attrition they grant to the wicked and unbelieving and thus abolish contrition
altogether. O the intolerable wrath of God, that such things
should be taught in the
4.8 Therefore, although there is something of truth in their teaching
that contrition is to be attained by what they call the recollection and
contemplation of sins, yet their teaching is perilous and perverse so long as
they do not teach first of all the beginning and cause of contrition the
immutable truth of God's threatening and promise, to the awakening of faith
so that men may learn to pay more heed to the truth of God, whereby they are
cast down and lifted up, than to the multitude of their sins, which will rather
irritate and increase the sinful desires than lead to contrition, if they be
regarded apart from the truth of God. I will say nothing now of the
intolerable burden they have bound upon us with their demand that we should
frame a contrition for every sin. That is impossible;
we can know only the smaller part of our sins, and even our good works are
found to be sins, according to Psalm 143:2, "Enter not into judgement with
your servant; for in your sight shall no man living be justified." It is
enough to lament the sins which at the present moment distress our conscience, as
well as those which we can readily call to mind. Whoever is in this frame of
mind is without doubt ready to grieve and fear for all his sins, and will do so
whenever they are brought to his knowledge in the future.
4.9 Beware,
then, of putting your trust, in your own contrition and of ascribing the
forgiveness of sins to your own sorrow. God does not have respect to you
because of that, but because of the faith by which you have believed His
threatenings and promises, and which wrought such sorrow within you. Thus we
owe whatever of good there may be in our penance, not to our scrupulous
enumeration of sins, but to the truth of God and to our faith. All other things
are the works and fruits of this, which follow of their own accord, and do not
make a man good, but are done by a man already made good through faith in the
truth of God. Even so, "a smoke goeth up in His wrath, because He is angry
and troubleth the mountains and kindleth them," as it is said in Psalm
18:8. First comes the terror of His threatening, which burns; up the wicked,
then faith, accepting this, sends up the cloud of contrition, etc.
4.20 But
this must suffice in repetition of what I have more fully said on indulgences,
and in general this must suffice for the present concerning the three
sacraments, which have been treated, and yet not treated, in so many harmful
books, theological as well as juristic. It remains to attempt some discussion
of the other sacraments also, lest I seem to have rejected them without cause.
CONFIRMATION
5.1 I wonder what could have possessed them to make a sacrament of
confirmation out of the laying on of hands, (Mark
5.2 I do
not say this because I condemn the seven sacraments, but because I deny that
they can be proved from the Scriptures. Would to God we had in the Church such
a laying on of hands as there was in apostolic times, whether we called it
confirmation or healing! But there is nothing left of
it now but what we ourselves have invented to adorn the office of the bishops,
that they may have at least something to do in the Church. For after they relinquished
to their inferiors those arduous sacraments together with the Word, as being
too common for themselves since, forsooth, whatever the divine Majesty has
instituted has to be despised of men
it was no more than right that we should discover something easy and not
too burdensome for such delicate and great heroes to do, and should by no means
entrust it to the lower clergy as something common for whatever human wisdom
has decreed has to be held in honor among men! Therefore, as are the priests,
so let their ministry and duty be. For a bishop who
does not preach the Gospel or care for souls, what is he but an idol in the
world, having but the name and appearance of a bishop? (1 Corinthians 8:4) But
we seek, instead of this, sacraments that have been divinely instituted, among
which we see no reason for numbering confirmation. For, in order that there be
a sacrament, there is required above all things a word of divine promise,
whereby faith, may be trained. But we read nowhere that Christ ever gave a
promise concerning confirmation, although He laid hands on many and included
the laying on of hands among the signs in Mark
5.3 Hence it is sufficient to regard confirmation as a certain churchly rite or
sacramental ceremony, similar to other ceremonies, such as the blessing of holy
water and the like. For if every other creature is sanctified by the word and
by prayer, (1 Timothy 4:4 f.) why should not much rather man be sanctified by
the same means? Still, these things cannot be called sacraments of faith,
because there is no divine promise connected with them, neither do they save;
but sacraments do save those who believe the divine promise.
MARRIAGE
6.1 Not
only is marriage regarded as a sacrament without the least warrant of
Scripture, but the very traditions which extol it as a sacrament have turned it
into a farce. Let me explain.
6.2 We said
that there is in every sacrament a word of divine promise, to be believed by
whoever receives the sign, and that the sign alone cannot be a sacrament. Now
we read nowhere that the man who marries a wife receives any grace of God. no, there is not even a divinely instituted sign in
marriage, or nowhere do we read that marriage was instituted by God to be a
sign of anything. To be sure, whatever takes place in a visible manner may be
regarded as a type or figure of something invisible; but types and figures are
not sacraments in the sense in which we use this term.
6.3 Furthermore,
since marriage existed from the beginning of the world and is
still found among unbelievers, it cannot possibly be called a sacrament
of the New Law and the exclusive possession of the Church. The marriages of the
ancients were no less sacred than are ours, nor are those of unbelievers less
true marriages than those of believers, and yet they are not regarded, as
sacraments. Besides, there are even among believers married folk who are wicked
and worse than any heathen; why should marriage be called a sacrament in their
case and not among the heathen? Or are we going to rant so foolishly of baptism
and the Church as to hold that marriage is a sacrament only in the Church, just
as some make the mad claim that temporal power exists only in the Church? That
is childish and foolish talk, by which we expose our ignorance and our
arrogance to the ridicule of unbelievers.
6.4 But
they will say: The Apostle writes in Ephesians
6.5 Thus
Christ Himself is called a sacrament in 1 Timothy
6.6 Therefore, sacrament, or mystery, in Paul's writings, is that wisdom
of the Spirit, hidden in a mystery, as he says in 1 Corinthians 2, which is
Christ, Who is for this very reason not known to the princes of this world,
wherefore they also crucified Him, and Who still is to them foolishness, an
offense, a stone of stumbling, and a sign which is spoken against. (1 Corinthians
6.7 Christ and the Church are, therefore, a mystery, that is, a great and secret thing, which it was possible and proper to represent by marriage as by a certain outward allegory, but that was no reason for their calling marriage a sacrament. The heavens are a type of the apostles, as Psalm 19:1 declares; the sun is a type of Christ; the waters, of the peoples; but that does not make those things sacraments, for in every case there are lacking both the divine institution and the divine promise, which constitute a sacrament.
6.8
Hence Paul,
in Ephesians 5, following his own mind, applies to Christ these words in
Genesis 2 about marriage, or else, following the general view, he teaches that
the spiritual marriage of Christ is also contained therein, saying: "As
Christ cherisheth the Church: because we are members, of his body, of his flesh
and of his bones. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and
shall cleave to his wife, and they shall be two in one flesh. This is a great
sacrament; I speak in Christ and in the Church." You see, he would have
the whole passage apply to Christ, and is at pains to admonish the reader to
find the sacrament in Christ and the Church, and not in marriage.
6.9 Therefore we grant that marriage is a type of Christ and the
Church, and a sacrament, yet not divinely instituted but invented by men in the
Church, carried away by their ignorance both of the word and of the thing.
Which ignorance, since it does not conflict with the faith, is to be charitably
borne with, just as many other practices of human weakness and ignorance are
borne with in the Church, so long as they do not conflict with the faith and
with the Word of God. But we are now dealing with the certainty and purity of
the faith and the Scriptures; so that our faith be not exposed to ridicule,
when after affirming that a certain thing is contained in the Sacred Scriptures
and in the articles of our faith, we are refuted and shown that it is not
contained therein, and, being found ignorant of our own affairs, become a
stumbling block to our opponents and to the weak; no, that we destroy not the
authority of the Holy Scriptures. For those things which have been delivered to
us by God in the Sacred Scriptures must be sharply distinguished from those
that have been invented by men in the Church, it matters not how eminent they
be for saintliness and scholarship.
6.19 Another
hindrance is that which they call "the hindrance of a tie," when a
man is bound by being befaithfulnessed to another woman. Here they decide that,
if he has had carnal knowledge of the second, the betrothal with the first
becomes null and void. This I do not understand at all I hold that he who has
befaithfulnessed himself to one woman belongs no longer to himself, and because
of this fact, by the prohibition of the divine law, he belongs to the first,
though he has not known her, even if he has known the second. For it was not in
his power to give the latter what was no longer his own; he deceived her and
actually committed adultery. But they regard the matter differently because
they pay more heed to the carnal union than to the divine command, according to
which the man, having pledged his faithfulness to the first, is bound to keep
it for ever. For whoever would give anything must give of that which is his
own. And God forbids a man to overreach or circumvent his brother in any
matter. (1 Thessalonians 4:6) This prohibition must be kept, over and above all
the traditions of all men. Therefore, the man in the above case cannot with a
good conscience live in marriage with the second woman, and this hindrance
should be completely overthrown. For if a monastic vow make a man to be no
longer his own, why does not a promise, of betrothal given and received do the
same? since this is one of the precepts and fruits
of the Spirit (Galatians
6.20 The
"hindrance of ordination" also is a lying invention of men,
especially since they rant that even a contracted marriage is annulled by it.
Thus they constantly exalt their traditions above the commands of God. I do not
indeed sit in judgment on the present state of the priestly order, but I
observe that Paul charges a bishop to be the husband of one wife; (1 Timothy
3:2) hence no marriage of deacon, priest, bishop or any other order can be
annulled although it is true that Paul knew nothing of this species of
priests, and of the orders that we have today. Perish those cursed human
traditions, which have crept into the Church only to multiply perils, sins and
evils! There exists, therefore, between a priest and his wife a true and
indissoluble marriage, approved by the divine commandment. But what if wicked
men in sheer despotism prohibit or annul it? So be it! Let it be wrong among
men; it is nevertheless right before God, Whose command has to take precedence
if it conficts with the commands of men.
6.25
Moreover, if the man will not give his consent, or agree to this division
rather than allow the woman to burn or to commit adultery, I should counsel
her to contract a marriage with another and flee to distant parts unknown. What
other counsel could be given to one constantly in danger from lust? Now I know
that some are troubled by the fact that then the children of this secret
marriage are not the rightful heirs of their putative father. But if it was
done with the consent of the husband, then the children will be the rightful
heirs. If, however, it was done without his knowledge or against his will, then
let unbiased Christian reason, no, let Christian charity, decide which of the
two has done the greater injury to the other. The wife alienates the
inheritance, but the husband has deceived his wife and is completely defrauding
her of her body and her life. Is not the sin of the man who wastes his wife's
body and life a greater sin than that of the woman who merely alienates the
temporal goods of her husband? Let him, therefore, agree to a divorce, or else
be satisfied with strange heirs; for by his own fault he deceived the innocence
of a maiden and defrauded her of the proper use of her body, besides giving her
a wellnigh irresistible opportunity to commit adultery. Let both be weighed in
the same scales. Certainly, by every right, deceit should fall back on the
deceiver, and whoever has done an injury must make it good. What is the
difference between such a husband and the man who holds another's wife captive
together with her husband? Is not such a tyrant compelled to support wife and
children and husband, or else to set them free? Why should not the same hold
here? Therefore I maintain that the man should be compelled either to submit to
a divorce or to support the other man's child as his heir. Doubtless this would
be the judgment of charity. In that case, the impotent man, who is not really
the husband, should support the heirs of his wife in the same spirit in which
he would at great cost wait on his wife if she fell sick or suffered some other
ill; for it is by his fault and not by his wife's that she suffers this ill.
This have I set forth to the best of my ability, for the strengthening of anxious
consciences, being desirous to bring my afflicted brethren in this captivity
what little comfort I can.
6.26 As to
divorce, it is still a moot question whether it be allowable. For my part I so greatly detest divorce that I should prefer bigamy
to it, but whether it be allowable, I do not venture to decide. Christ Himself,
the Chief Pastor, says in Matthew
ORDINATION
7.1 Of this
sacrament the
7.3 Not that the Church is, therefore, above the Gospel; if that were
true, she would also be above God, in whom we believe because she proclaims
that He is God. But, as Augustine elsewhere says, the truth itself lays hold on the
soul and thus renders it able to judge most certainly of all things; but the
truth it cannot judge, but is forced to say with unerring certainty that it is
the truth. For example, our reason declares with unerring certainty that three
and seven are ten, and yet it cannot give a reason why this is true, although
it cannot deny that it is true; it is taken captive by the truth and does not
so much judge the truth as it is judged by the truth. Thus it is also with the
mind of the Church, when under the enlightenment of the Spirit she judges and
approves doctrines; she is unable to prove it, and yet is most certain of
having it. (1 Corinthians 2:16) For as in philosophy no one judges general
conceptions, but all are judged by them, so it is in the Church with the mind
of the Spirit, that judges all things and is judged by none, as the Apostle
says. (1 Corinthians 2:15) But
of this another time.
7.3 Let
this then stand fast the Church can give no promises of grace; that is the
work of God alone. Therefore she cannot institute a sacrament. But even if she
could, it yet would not follow that ordination is a sacrament. For who knows
which is the Church that has the Spirit? since when such decisions are made
there are usually only a few bishops or scholars present; it is possible that
these may not be really of the Church, and that all may err, as councils have
repeatedly erred, particularly the Council of Constance, which fell into the
most wicked error of all. Only that which has the approval of the Church universal,
and not of the Roman church alone, rests on a trustworthy foundation. I
therefore admit that ordination is a certain churchly rite, on a par with many
others introduced by the Church Fathers, such as the blessing of vases, houses,
vestments, water, salt, candles, herbs, wine, and the like. No one calls any of
these a sacrament, nor is there in them any promise. In the same manner, to
anoint a man's hands with oil, or to shave his head, and the like, is not to
administer a sacrament, since there is no promise given to those things; he is
simply prepared, like a vessel or an instrument, for a certain work.
7.4 But you will reply: "What do you say to Dionysius, who in his
Ecclesiastical Hierarchy enumerates six sacraments, among which he also includes
orders?" I answer: I am well aware that this is the one writer of
antiquity who is cited in support of the seven sacraments, although he omits
marriage and thus has only six. We read simply nothing about these
"sacraments" in the other Fathers, nor do they ever refer to them as
sacraments; for the invention of sacraments is of recent date. Indeed, to speak
more boldly, the setting so great store by this Dionysius, whoever he may have
been, greatly displeases me, for there is scarce a line of sound scholarship in
him. I ask you, by what authority and with what reasons does he establish his
assortment of arguments about the angels, in his Celestial Hierarchy? a book over which many curious and superstitious spirits
have cudgeled their brains. If one were to read and judge fairly, is not all Shaken out of his sleeve and very like a dream? But in his
Mystic Theology, which certain most ignorant theologians greatly puff, he is
downright dangerous, being more of a Platonist than a Christian; so that, if I
had my way, no believing mind would give the least attention to these books. So
far from learning Christ in them, you will lose even what you know of Him. I
know whereof I speak. Let us rather hear Paul, that we
may learn Jesus Christ and Him crucified. (1 Corinthians 2:2) He is the way,
the life and the truth; He is the ladder by which we come to the Father, as He
said: "No man cometh to the Father but by me." (John 14:6)
7.5 And in the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, what does this Dionysius do but
describe certain churchly rites and play round them with his allegories without
proving them? just as among us the author of the book
entitled Rationale divinorum. Such allegorical studies are the work of idle
men. do you think I should find it difficult to play
with allegories round anything in creation? Did not Bonaventure by allegory
draw the liberal arts into theology? And Gerson even converted the smaller
Donatus into a mystic theologian. It would not be a difficult task for me to
compose a better hierarchy than that of Dionysius, for he knew nothing of pope,
cardinals and archbishops, and put the bishop at the top. no,
who has so weak a mind as not to be able to launch into allegories? I would not
have a theologian give himself to allegorizing until he has perfected himself
in the grammatical and literal interpretation of the Scriptures; otherwise his
theology will bring him into danger, as Origen discovered.
7.6 Therefore a thing does not need to be a sacrament simply
because Dionysius describes it. Otherwise, why not also make a sacrament of the
processions, which he describes in his book, and which continue to this day?
There will then be as many sacraments as there have been rites and ceremonies
multiplied in the Church. Standing on so unsteady a foundation, they have
nevertheless invented "characters" which they attribute to this
sacrament of theirs and which are indelibly impressed on those who are
ordained. from this do such ideas come? By what
authority, with what reasons, are they established? We do not object to their
being free to invent, say and give out whatever they please; but we also insist
on our liberty and demand that they shall not arrogate to themselves the right
to turn their ideas into articles of faith, as they have hitherto presumed to
do. It is enough that we accommodate ourselves to their rites and ceremonies
for the sake of peace; but we refuse to be bound by such things as though they
were necessary to salvation, when they are not. Let them put by their despotic
demands, and we shall yield free obedience to their opinions, and thus live at
peace with them. It is a shameful and wicked slavery for a Christian man, who
is free, to be subject to any but heavenly and divine traditions.
7.7 We
come now to their strongest argument. It is this: Christ said at the Last
Supper: "Do this in remembrance of me." (1 Corinthians 11:24) Here,
they say, Christ ordained the apostles to the priesthood. From this passage
they also concluded, among other things, that both kinds are to be administered
to the priests alone. In fine, they have drawn out of this passage whatever
they pleased, as men who might arrogate to themselves the free will to prove
anything whatever from any words of Christ, no matter where found. But is that
interpreting the words of God? Pray, answer me! Christ gives us no promise
here, but only commands that this be done in remembrance of Him. Why do they
not conclude that He also ordained priests when He laid upon them the office of
the Word and of baptism, saying, "Go ye into all the
world, and preach the Gospel to every creature, baptising them in the
name," etc.? (Mark
7.8 But which of the ancient Fathers claimed that in this passage priests were
ordained? from this comes this novel interpretation? I
will tell you. They have sought by this device to set up a nursery of implacable
discord, whereby clerics and laymen should be separated from each other farther
than heaven from earth, to the incredible injury of the grace of baptism and
the confusion of our fellowship in the Gospel. Here, indeed, are the roots of
that detestable tyranny of the clergy over the laity; trusting in the external
anointing by which their hands are consecrated, in the tonsure and in
vestments, they not only exalt themselves above lay Christians, who are only
anointed with the Holy Spirit, but regard them almost as dogs and unworthy to
be included with them in the Church. Hence they are bold to demand, to exact,
to threaten, to urge, to oppress, as much as they please. In short, the
sacrament of ordination has been and is a most approved device for the
establishing of all the horrible things that have been wrought hitherto and
will yet be wrought in the Church. Here Christian brotherhood has perished,
here shepherds have been turned into wolves, servants into tyrants, churchmen
into worse than worldlings.
7.9 If they were forced to grant that as many of
us as have been baptised are all priests without distinction, as indeed we are,
and that to them was committed the ministry only, yet with our consent, they
would presently learn that they have no right to rule over us except in so far
as we freely concede it. For thus it is written in 1
Peter 2:9, "Ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, and a priestly
kingdom." Therefore we are all priests, as many
of us as are Christians. But the priests, as we call them, are ministers chosen
from among us, who do all that they do in our name. And the priesthood is
nothing but a ministry, as we learn from 1 Corinthians 4:1, "Let a man so
account of us as of the ministers of Christ, and the dispensers of the mysteries
of God."
THE
SACRAMENT OF EXTREME UNCTION
8.1 To the
rite of anointing the sick our theologians have made two additions which are
worthy of them; first, they call it a sacrament, and secondly, they make it the
last sacrament. So that it is now the sacrament of extreme unction, which may
be administered only to such as are at the point of death. Being such subtle
dialecticians, perchance they have done this in order to relate it to the first
unction of baptism and the two succeeding unctions of confirmation and
ordination. But here they are able to cast in my
teeth, that in the case of this sacrament there are, on the authority of James
the Apostle, both promise and sign, which, as I have all along maintained,
constitute a sacrament. For does not James say: (James
8.2 But I reply: If ever there was a mad conceit, here is one indeed. I will
say nothing of the fact that many assert with much probability that this
Epistle is not by James the Apostle, nor worthy of an apostolic spirit,
although, whoever be its author, it has come to be esteemed as authoritative.
But even if the Apostle James did write it, I yet should say, no Apostle has
the right on his own authority to institute a sacrament, that is, to give a
divine promise with a sign attached; for this belongs to Christ alone. Thus Paul
says that he received from the Lord the sacrament of the Eucharist, (1
Corinthians
8.3 In the first place, then, if they believe the Apostle's words to be
true and binding, by what right do they change and contradict them? Why do they
make an extreme and a particular kind of unction of that which the Apostle
wished to be general? For he did not desire it to be an extreme unction or
administered only to the dying; but he says quite generally: "If any man
be sick" not, "If any man be dying." I care not what learned
discussions Dionysius has on this point in his Ecclesiastical Hierarchy; the
Apostle's words are clear enough, on which words he as well as they rely,
without, however, following them. It is evident, therefore, that they have
arbitrarily and without any authority made a sacrament and an extreme unction
out of the misunderstood words of the Apostle, to the detriment of all other
sick persons, whom they have deprived of the benefit of the unction which the
Apostle enjoined.
8.4 But what follows is still better. The Apostle's promise expressly declares
that the prayer of faith shall save the sick man, and the Lord shall raise him
up. The Apostle commands us to anoint the sick man and to pray, in order that
he may be healed and raised up; that is, that he may not die, and that it may
not be an extreme unction. This is proved also by the prayers which are said,
during the anointing, for the recovery of the one who is sick. But they say, on
the contrary, that the unction must be administered to none but the dying; that
is, that they may not be healed and raised up. If it were not
so serious a matter, who could help laughing at this beautiful, apt and sound
exposition of the Apostle's words? Is not the folly of the sophists,
here shown in its true colors? As here, so in many other places, they affirm
what the Scriptures deny, and deny what they affirm. Why should we not give
thanks to these excellent magisters of ours? I therefore spoke truth when I
said they never conceived a crazier notion than this?
8.5 Furthermore,
if this unction is a sacrament it must necessarily be, as they say, an
effective sign of that which it signifies and promises. Now it promises health
and recovery to the sick, as the words plainly say: "The prayer of faith
shall save the sick man, and the Lord shall raise him up." But who does
not see that this promise is seldom if ever fulfilled? Scarce one in a thousand
is restored to health, and when one is restored nobody believes that it came
about through the sacrament, but through the working of nature or the medicine;
for to the sacrament they ascribe the opposite power. What shall we say then?
Either the Apostle lies in making this promise or else this unction is no
sacrament. For the sacramental promise is certain; but this promise deceives in
the majority of cases. Indeed and here again we recognize the shrewdness and
foresight of these theologians for this very reason they would have it to be
extreme unction, that the promise should not stand; in other words, that the
sacrament should be no sacrament. For if it is extreme unction, it does not
heal, but gives way to the disease; but if it heals, it cannot be extreme
unction. Thus, by the interpretation of these magisters, James is shown to have
contradicted himself, and to have instituted a sacrament in order not to
institute one; for they must have an extreme unction just to make untrue what
the Apostle intends, namely, the healing of the sick. If that is not madness,
pray what is?
8.6 These
people exemplify the word of the Apostle in 1 Timothy
1:7, "Desiring to be teachers of the law, understanding neither the things
they say, nor whereof they affirm." Thus they read and follow all things
without judgment. With the same thoughtlessness they
have also found auricular confession in our Apostle's words "Confess
your sins one to another." (James 5:16) But they
do not observe the command of the Apostle, that the priests of the church be
called, and prayer be made for the sick. Scarce a single priestling is sent
nowadays, although the Apostle would have many present, not because of the
unction but of the prayer. Wherefore he says: "The prayer of faith shall
save the sick man," etc. I have my doubts, however, whether he would have
us understand priests when he says presbyters, that is, elders. For one who is
an elder is not therefore a priest or minister; so that the suspicion is justified
that the Apostle desired the older and graver men in the Church to visit the
sick; these should perform a work of mercy and pray in faith and thus heal him.
Still it cannot be denied that the ancient churches were ruled by elders,
chosen for this purpose, without these ordinations and consecrations, solely on
account of their age and their long experience.
8.7 Therefore,
I take it, this unction is the same as that which the
Apostles practiced, in Mark
8.8 For this very contingency James provided with care and foresight by attaching
the promise of healing and the forgiveness of sins not to the unction, but to
the prayer of faith. For he says: "And the prayer of faith shall save the
sick man, and the Lord shall raise him up: and if he be in sins, they shall be
forgiven him." A sacrament does not demand prayer or faith on the part of
the minister, since even a wicked person may baptise and consecrate without
prayer; a, sacrament depends solely on the promise and institution of God, and
requires faith on the part of him who receives it. But where is the prayer of
faith in our present use of extreme unction? Who prays over the sick one in
such faith as not to doubt that he will recover? Such a prayer of faith James
here describes, of which he said in the beginning of his Epistle: (James 1:6)
"But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering." And Christ says of it:
"Whatsoever you ask, believe that you shall receive and it shall be done
to you." (Mark
8.9 If
such prayer were made, even today, over a sick man
that is, prayer made in full faith by older, grave and saintly men it is
beyond all doubt that we could heal as many sick as we would. For what could
not faith do? But we neglect, this faith, which the
authority of the Apostle demands above all else. By presbyters that is, men
preeminent by reason of their age and their faith we understand the common
herd of priests. Moreover, we turn the daily or voluntary unction into an
extreme unction, and finally, we not only do not effect the result promised by
the Apostle, namely, the healing of the sick, but we make it of none effect by
striving after the very opposite. And yet we boast that our sacrament, no, our
figment, is established and proved by this saying of the Apostle, which is
diametrically opposed to it. What theologians we are!
9.1 Let this suffice now for these four sacraments. I know how it
will displease those who believe that the number and use of the sacraments are
to be learned not from the sacred Scriptures, but from the Roman See. As though
the Roman See had given those sacraments and had not rather got them from the
lecture halls of the universities, to which it is unquestionably indebted for
whatever it has. The papal despotism would not have attained its present
position, had it not taken over so many things from the universities. For there
was scarce another of the celebrated bishoprics that had so few learned
pontiffs; only in violence, intrigue, and superstition has it hitherto
surpassed the rest. For the men who occupied the Roman See a thousand years ago
differ so vastly from those who have since come into power, that one is
compelled to refuse the name of Roman pontiff either to the former or to the
latter.
9.2 There
are yet a few other things it might seem possible to regard as sacraments;
namely, all those to which a divine promise has been given,
such as prayer, the Word, and the cross. Christ promised, in many places, that those who pray should be heard; especially in
Luke 11, where He invites us in many parables to pray. Of the Word He says:
"Blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it." (Luke
11.28) And who will tell how often He promises aid and glory to such as are
afflicted, suffer, and are cast down? no, who will
recount all the promises of God? The whole Scripture is concerned with
provoking us to faith; now driving us with precepts and threats, now drawing us
with promises and consolations. Indeed, whatever things are written are either
precepts or promises; the precepts humble the proud with their demands, the
promises exalt the humble with. their forgiveness.
9.3 Nevertheless,
it has seemed best to restrict the name of sacrament to such promises as have
signs attached to them. The remainder, not being bound to signs, are bare
promises. Hence there are, strictly speaking, but two sacraments in the
9.4 Baptism,
however, which we have applied to the whole of life, will truly be a sufficient
substitute for all the sacraments we might need as long as we live. And the
bread is truly the sacrament of the dying; for in it we commemorate the passing
of Christ out of this world, that we may imitate Him. Thus we may apportion
these two sacraments as follows: baptism belongs to the beginning and the
entire course of life, the bread belongs to the end and to death. And the
Christian should use them both as long as he is in this poor body, until, fully
baptised and strengthened, he passes out of this world and is born to the new
life of eternity, to eat with Christ in the Kingdom of His Father, as He
promised at the Last Supper "Amen I say to you, I will not drink from
henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of
God." (Matthew 26:29) Thus He seems clearly to have instituted the
sacrament of the bread with a view to our entrance into the life to come. Then,
when the meaning of both sacraments is fulfilled, baptism and bread will cease.
9.5 Herewith I conclude this prelude, and freely and gladly offer it to all pious
souls who desire to know the genuine sense of the Scriptures and the proper use
of the sacraments. For it is a gift of no mean importance, to know the things
that are given us, as it is said in 1 Corinthians 2, and what use we ought to
make of them. Endowed with this spiritual judgment, we shall not mistakenly
rely on that which does not belong here. These two things our theologians never
taught us, no, I think they took particular pains to conceal them from us. If I
have not taught them, I certainly did not conceal them, and have given occasion
to others to think out something better. It has at least been my endeavor to
set forth these two things. Nevertheless, not all can do all things. To the
godless, on the other hand, and those who in obstinate tyranny force on us
their own teachings inas God's representative's, I
confidently and freely oppose these pages, utterly indifferent to their
senseless fury. Yet I wish even them a sound mind, and do not despise their
efforts, but only distinguish them from such as are sound and truly Christian.
9.6 I hear
a rumor of new bulls and papal curses sent out against me, in which I am urged to recant or be declared a heretic. If that is
true, I desire this book to be a portion of the recantation I shall make; so
that these tyrants may not complain of having had their pains for nothing. The
remainder I will publish ere long, and it will, please Christ, be such as the
Roman See has hitherto neither seen nor heard. I shall give ample proof of my
obedience. In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.
9.7 Why
doth that impious Herod fear
When told
that Christ the King is near?
He takes
not earthly realms away,
Who gives
the realms that ne'er decay.
This
electronic text was created by Ages Software from the version in the
Philadelphia Edition of Luther's works. Robert E. Smith converted it to HTML
for Project Wittenberg and edited it with the assistance of Wesley R. Smith and
Lucas C. Smith.
The source
translation and modifications are both in the public domain. You may freely distribute, copy or print this text.
Please direct any comments or
suggestions to:
Rev. Robert E. Smith
Walther Library
Concordia Theological Seminary
E-mail: smithre@mail.ctsfw.edu
Surface Mail: 6600 N.
Phone: (219) 452-3149 - Fax: (219)
452-2126