October 1520 A.D. (TEXT) Luther Publishes On the Babylonian Captivity of the Church
October 1520 A.D. (TEXT) Luther Publishes On the
Babylonian Captivity of the Church
Luther,
Martin. “On the Babylonian Captivity of
the Church.” Concordia Theological
Seminary. N.d. http://www.lutherdansk.dk/Web-babylonian%20Captivitate/Martin%20Luther.htm#_Toc58730612. Accessed
16 Dec 2014.
Martin Luther
The Babylonian Captivity of the Church
A prelude 1520
Jesus
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:
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 kingdom of Babylon and the power of Nimrod the
mighty hunter. Once more, therefore, that all may fall out to my friends'
advantage, I beg both booksellers and readers to burn what I have published on
that subject and to hold to this proposition:
1.4 THE PAPACY IS THE MIGHTY prey of the Roman Bishop.
This follows from the arguments of Eck, Emser and the Leipzig lecturer
on the Holy Scriptures.
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 Cremona has written a Revocation of Martin Luther to the Holy See – that is,
a revocation in which I do not revoke anything (as the words declare) but he
revokes me. That is the kind of Latin the Italians are now beginning to write.
Another friar, a German of Leipzig, that same lecturer, you know, on the whole
canon of the Scriptures, has written a book against me concerning the sacrament
in both kinds, and is planning, I understand, still greater and more marvelous
things. The Italian was canny enough not to set down his name, fearing perhaps
the fate of Cajetan and Sylvester. But the Leipzig man, as becomes a fierce and
valiant German, boasts on his ample title page of his name, his career, his
saintliness, his scholarship, his office, glory, honour, yes, almost of his
very shoes. Doubtless I shall gain here a lot of information, since indeed his
dedicatory epistle is addressed to the Son of God Himself. On so familiar a
footing are these saints with Christ Who reigns in heaven! Moreover, I think I
hear three magpies chattering in this book: the first in good Latin, the second
in better Greek, the third in purest Hebrew. What do you think, my Herman, what
is there for me to do but to prick up my ears? The thing emanates from Leipzig,
from the Order of the Observance of the Holy Cross.
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
Cologne and Louvain! If this friar had not been of the same type, he would
never have written against Luther.
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 Leipzig dialecticians. Did not Emser in his earlier book profess to write
of me in a friendly spirit, and then, after I had convicted him of filthy envy
and foul lying, did he not openly acknowledge in his later book, written to
refute my arguments, that he had written in both a friendly and an unfriendly
spirit? A sweet fellow, certainly, as you know.
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.
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
Rome. Not that they sin against Christ, who use the one kind, for Christ did
not command the use of either kind, but left it to every one's free will, when
He said: "As often as you do this, do it in remembrance of me." But
they sin who forbid the giving of both kinds to such as desire to exercise this
free will. The fault lies not with the laity, but with the priests. The
sacrament does not belong to the priests, but to all, and the priests are not
lords but ministers, in duty bound to administer both kinds to those who desire
them, and as often as they desire them. If they wrest this right from the laity
and forcibly withhold it, they are tyrants. But the laity are without fault,
whether they lack one kind or both kinds. They must meanwhile be sustained by
their faith and by their desire for the complete sacrament. The priests, being
ministers, are bound to administer baptism and absolution to whoever seeks
them, because he has a right to them. But if they do not administer them, he
that seeks them has at least the full merit of his faith, while they will be
accused before Christ as wicked servants. In like manner the holy Fathers of
old who dwelt in the desert did not receive the sacrament in any form for many
years together.
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 St. Paul discusses at length
the nature of a testament in Romans 4, Galatians 3 and 4, and Hebrews 9. The
same thing is also clearly seen in these words of Christ. Christ testifies
concerning His death when He says: "This is my body, which shall be given;
this is my blood, which shall be shed." He designates the bequest when He
says: "For remission of sins." And He appoints the heirs when He
says: "For you, and for many" – i.e., for such as accept and believe
the promise of the testator. For here it is faith that makes men heirs, as we
shall see.
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 Israel,
and especially to David, He gave the plain promise of Christ, thereby at last
making clear what was meant by the ancient promise to them.
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 land of Canaan
– by which no man was renewed in his spirit, to lay hold of the heavenly
inheritance. Therefore it was also necessary that irrational beasts should be
slain, as types of Christ, that by their blood the testament might be
confirmed. So the testament was like the blood, and the promise like the
sacrifice. But here He says: "The new testament in my blood" – not in
another's, but in His own. By this blood grace is promised, through the Spirit,
for the remission of sins, that we may obtain the inheritance.
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 Syria and Samaria, to
strengthen his faith in the promise. And many such signs of the promises of God
do we find in the Scriptures.
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.
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 St. Jerome's – either unhappily phrased or
wrongly interpreted – which he terms penance "the second plank" after
the shipwreck, as if baptism were not penance. Accordingly, when men fall into
sin, they despair of "the first plank," which is the ship, as though
it had gone under, and fasten all their faith on the second plank, that is,
penance. This has produced those endless burdens of vows, religious works,
satisfactions, pilgrimages, indulgences, and sects, from this has arisen that
flood of books, questions, opinions and human traditions, which the world
cannot contain. So that this tyranny plays worse havoc with the Church of God
than any tyrant ever did with the Jewish people or with any other nation under
heaven.
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 Israel, whenever they repented of their sins, turned
their thoughts first of all to the exodus from Egypt, and, remembering this,
returned to God Who had brought them out. This memory and this refuge were many
times impressed upon them by Moses, and afterward repeated by David. How much
rather ought we to call to mind our exodus from Egypt, and, remembering, turn
back again to Him Who led us forth through the washing of regeneration, which
we are bidden remember for this very purpose. And this we can do most fittingly
in the sacrament of bread and wine. Indeed, in ancient times these three
sacraments –penance, baptism and the bread – were all celebrated at the same
service, and one supplemented and assisted the other. We read also of a certain
holy virgin who in every time of temptation made baptism her sole defense,
saying simply, "I am a Christian." Immediately the adversary fled
from her, for he knew the power of her baptism and of her faith which clung to
the truth of God's promise.
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 Babylon
of theirs, and that they foist this fiction upon all mankind. For if they did
these things, and we suffered their violence, well knowing, both of us, that it
was godlessness and tyranny, then we might number it among the things that
contribute to the mortifying of this life and the fulfilling of our baptism,
and might with a good conscience rejoice in the inflicted injury. But now they
seek to deprive us of this consciousness of our liberty, and would have us
believe that what they do is well done, and must not be censured or complained
of as wrongdoing. Since they wolves, they want to look like shepherds. Since
they are antichrists, they want to be honored as Christ.
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 18:15 ). Now they themselves claim that vows are
"of divine right." Why then does the pope deceive and destroy the
poor souls of men by granting dispensations in matters of divine right, in
which no dispensations can be granted? He babbles indeed, in the section
"Of vows and their redemption," of having the power to change vows,
just as in the law the firstborn of an ass was changed for a sheep (Exodus
13:13) – if the firstborn of an ass, and the vow he commands to be everywhere
and always offered, were one and the same thing, or as if when God decrees in
His law that a sheep shall be changed for an ass, the pope, a mere man, may
immediately claim the same power, not in his own law but in God's! It was not a
pope, but an ass changed for a pope, that made this decretal; so egregiously
senseless and godless is it.
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.
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 16:19,
"Whatsoever you shall bind," etc., in Matthew 18:18 ,
" Whatsoever ye shall bind," etc., and in John, the last chapter,
(John 20:23 )
"Whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted to them," etc. In these
words the faith of penitents is aroused, to the obtaining of remission of sins.
But in all their writing, teaching and preaching their sole concern has been,
not to teach Christians what is promised in these words, or what they ought to
believe and what great comfort they might find in them, but only to extend
their own tyranny far and wide through force and violence, until it has come to
such a pass that some of them have begin to command the very angels in heaven
and to boast in incredible mad wickedness of having in these words obtained the
right to a heavenly and an earthly rule, and of possessing the power to bind
even in heaven. Thus they say nothing of the saving faith of the people, but
babble only of the despotic power of the pontiffs, while Christ speaks not at
all of power, but only of faith.
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 16:19 ) He calls
forth the faith of the penitent, so that by this word of promise he may be
certain of being truly absolved in heaven, if he be absolved and believe. Here
there is no mention at all of power, but of the ministry of him that absolves,
it is a wonder these blind and arrogant men missed the opportunity of
arrogating a despotic power to themselves from the promise of baptism. But if
they do not do this in the case of baptism, why should they have presumed to do
it in the case of the promise of penance? For in both there is a like ministry,
a similar promise, and the same kind of sacrament. So that, if baptism does not
belong to Peter alone, it is undeniably a wicked usurpation of power to claim
the keys for the pope alone. Again, when Christ says: "Take, eat; this is
my body, which is given for you. Take, drink; this is the chalice in my
blood," ( 1 Corinthians 11:24
f.) etc., He calls forth the faith of those who eat, so that through these
words their conscience may be strengthened by faith and they may rest assured
of receiving the forgiveness of sins, if they have eaten. Here, too, He says
nothing of power, but only of a ministry.
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 Babylon of ours has so
completely extinguished faith that it insolently denies its necessity in this
sacrament; no, with the wickedness of Antichrist: it calls it heresy if any one
should assert its necessity. What more could this tyranny do that it has not
done? (Isaiah 5:4) Verily, by the rivers of Babylon we sit and weep, when we
remember you, O Zion. (Psalm 137:1, 2) We hang our harps upon the willows in
the midst thereof. The Lord curse the barren willows of those streams! Amen.
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 Church of Christ! Thus, with both faith and its work destroyed, we go on
secure in the doctrines and opinions of men – yes, we go on to our destruction.
A contrite heart is a precious thing, but it is found only where there is a
lively faith in the promises and the threats of God. Such faith, intent on the
immutable truth of God, startles and terrifies the conscience and thus renders
it contrite, and afterwards, when it is contrite, raises it up, consoles and
preserves it; so that the truth of God's threatening is the cause of
contrition, and the truth of His, promise the cause of consolation, if it be
believed. By such faith a man merits the forgiveness of sins. Therefore faith
should be taught and aroused before all else; and when faith is obtained,
contrition and consolation will follow inevitably and of themselves.
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.
5.1 I wonder what could have possessed them to make a sacrament of
confirmation out of the laying on of hands, (Mark 16:18; Acts 6:6, Acts 8:17, Acts 19:6) which Christ employed when He
blessed young children, (Mark 10:16) and the apostles when they imparted the
Holy Spirit, ordained elders and cured the sick, as the Apostle writes to
Timothy, "Lay hands suddenly on no man." (1 Timothy 5:22) Why have
they not also turned the sacrament of the bread into confirmation? For it is
written in Acts 9:19 , "And when he had taken
meat he was strengthened," and in Psalm 104:15, "And that bread may
cheer man's heart." Confirmation would thus include three sacraments – the
bread, ordination, and confirmation itself. But if everything the apostles did
is a sacrament, why have they not rather made preaching a sacrament?
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 16:18 "They shall lay their hands on the
sick, and they shall recover." Yet no one referred this to a sacrament,
nor can this be done.
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.
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 5:31, "They shall be two in one
flesh. This is a great sacrament." Surely you are not going to contradict
so plain a statement of the Apostle! I reply: This argument, like the others,
betrays great shallowness and a negligent and thoughtless reading of Scripture.
Nowhere in Holy Scripture is this word sacrament employed in the meaning to
which we are accustomed; it has an entirely different meaning. For wherever it
occurs it signifies not the sign of a sacred thing, but a sacred, secret,
hidden thing. Thus Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 4:1, "Let a man so account
of us as the ministers of Christ, and dispensers of the mysteries – i.e.,
sacraments – of God." Where we have the word sacrament the Greek text
reads mystery, which word our version sometimes translates and sometimes
retains in its Greek form. Thus our verse reads in the Greek: "They Shall
be two in one flesh; this is a great mystery." (Ephesians 5:31 f.) This explains how they came
to find a sacrament of the New Law here – a thing they would never have done if
they had read the word "mystery", as it is in the Greek.
6.5 Thus Christ Himself is called a sacrament in 1 Timothy 3:16, "And evidently great is
the sacrament – i.e., mystery – of godliness, which was manifested in the
flesh, was justified in the spirit, appeared to angels, has been preached to
the Gentiles, is believed, by the world, is taken up in glory." Why have
they not drawn out of this passage an eighth sacrament of the New Law, since
they have the clear authority of Paul? But if they restrained themselves here,
where they had a most excellent opportunity to unearth a new sacrament, why are
they so wanton in the former passage? It was their ignorance, forsooth, of both
words and things; they clung to the mere sound of the words, no, to their own
fancies. For, having once arbitrarily taken the word sacrament to mean a sign,
they immediately, without thought or scruple, made a sign of it every time they
came upon it in the Sacred Scriptures. Such new meanings of words and such
human customs they have also elsewhere dragged into Holy Writ, and conformed it
to their dreams, making anything out of any passage whatsoever. Thus they
continually chatter nonsense about the terms: good and evil works, sin, grace,
righteousness, virtue, and well-nigh every one of the fundamental words and
things. For they employ them all after their own arbitrary judgment, learned
from the writings of men, to the detriment both of the truth of God and of our
salvation.
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 1:23; Romans 9:33; Luke 2:34;
1 Corinthians 1:23 f., 1
Corinthians 4:1) The preachers he calls dispensers of these mysteries because
they preach Christ, the power and the wisdom of God, yet so that one cannot
receive this unless one believe. Therefore, a sacrament is a mystery, or secret
thing, which is set forth in words and is received by the faith of the heart.
Such a sacrament is spoken of in the verse before us – "They shall be two
in one flesh. This is a great sacrament" (Ephesians 5:31 f.) – which they understand as
spoken of marriage, while Paul wrote these words of Christ and the Church, and
clearly explained his meaning by adding, "But I speak in Christ and in the
Church." Yes, how well they agree with Paul! He declares he is setting
forth a great sacrament in Christ and the Church, but they set it forth in a
man and a woman! If such wantonness be permitted in the Sacred Scriptures, it
is small wonder if one find there anything one please, even a hundred
sacraments.
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 5:22 ),
(Ephesians 5:9) while a monastic vow is of human invention. And if a wife may
claim her husband despite the fact that he has taken a monastic vow, why may
not a bride claim her betrothed, even though he has known another? But we said
above that he who has pledged his faithfulness to a maiden ought not to take a
monastic vow, but is in duty bound to keep faith with her, which faith he
cannot break for any tradition of men, because it is commanded by God. Much
more should the man here keep faith with his first bride, since he could not
pledge his faithfulness to a second save with a lying heart, and therefore did
not really pledge it, but deceived her, his neighbor, against God's command.
Therefore, the "hindrance of error" enters in here, by which his
marriage to the second woman is rendered null and void.
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 5:32,
"Whosoever shall put away his wife, Matthew excepting for the cause of
fornication, maketh her commit adultery; and he that shall marry her that is
put away, committeth adultery." Christ, then, permits divorce, but for the
cause of fornication only. The pope must, therefore, be in error whenever he
grants a divorce for any other cause, and no one should feel safe who has
obtained a dispensation by this temerity (not authority) of the pope. Yet it is
a still greater wonder to me, why they compel a man to remain, unmarried after
bring separated from his wife, and why they will not permit him to remarry. For
if Christ pennies divorce for the cause, of fornication and compels no one to
remain unmarried, and if Paul would rather have one marry than burn, (1
Corinthians 7:9) then He certainly seems to permit a man to marry another woman
in the stead of the one who has been put away. Would to God this matter were
thoroughly threshed out and derided, so that counsel might be given in the infinite
perils of those who, without any fault of their own, are nowadays compelled to
remain unmarried, that is, of those whose wives or husbands have run away and
deserted them, to come back perhaps after ten years, perhaps never. This matter
troubles and distresses me; I meet cases of it every day, whether it happen by
the special malice of Satan or because of our neglect of the word of God.
7.1 Of this sacrament the Church of Christ knows nothing; it is an
invention of the pope's church. Not only is there nowhere any promise of grace
attached to it, but there is not the least mention of it in the whole New
Testament. Now it is ridiculous to put forth as a sacrament of God that which
cannot be proved to have been instituted by God. I do not hold that this rite,
which has been observed for so many centuries, should be condemned; but in
sacred things I am opposed to the invention of human fictions, nor is it right
to give out as divinely instituted what was not divinely instituted, lest we
become a laughing-stock to our opponents. We ought to see to it that every
article of faith of which we boast be certain, pure, and based on clear
passages of Scripture. But that we are utterly unable to do in the case of the
sacrament under consideration.
7.2 The Church has no power to make new divine promises, as some rant,
who hold that what is decreed by the Church is of no less authority than what
is decreed by God, since the Church is under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
But the Church owes its life to the word of promise through faith, and is
nourished and preserved by this same word. That is to say, the promises of God
make the Church, not the Church the promise of God. For the Word of God is
incomparably superior to the Church, and in this Word the Church, being a
creature, has nothing to decree, ordain or make, but only to be decreed,
ordained and made. For who begets his own parent? Who first brings forth his
own maker? This one thing indeed the Church can do – it can distinguish the
Word of God from the words of men; as Augustine confesses that he believed the
Gospel, moved thereto by the authority of the Church, which proclaimed, this is
the Gospel.
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 16:15 ) (Matthew 28:19) For it is the
proper duty of priests to preach and to baptise. Or, since it is nowadays the
chief and, as they say, indispensable duty of priests to read the canonical
hours, why have they not discovered the sacrament of ordination in those
passages in which Christ, in many places and particularly in the garden,
commanded them to pray that they might not enter into temptation? (Matthew
26:41) But perhaps they will evade this argument by saying that it is not
commanded to pray; it is enough to read the canonical hours. Then it follows
that this priestly work can be proved nowhere in the Scriptures, and thus their
praying priesthood is not of God, as, indeed, it is not.
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."
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 5:14
f.) "Is any man sick among you? Let him bring in the priests of the
church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the
Lord. And the prayer of faith shall raise him up: and if he be in sins, they
shall be forgiven him." There, say they, you have the promise of the
forgiveness of sins, and the sign of the oil.
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 11:23 ) and
that he was not sent to baptise but to preach the Gospel. (1 Corinthians 1:17)
And we read nowhere in the Gospel of this sacrament of extreme unction. But let
us also waive that point. Let us examine the words of the Apostle, or whoever
was the author of the Epistle, and we shall at once see how little heed these
multipliers of sacraments have given to them.
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 6:13,
"They anointed with oil many that were sick, and healed them." It was
a ceremony of the early Church, by which they wrought miracles on the sick, and
which has long since ceased; even as Christ, in the last chapter of Mark, gave
them that believe the power to take up serpents, to lay hands on the sick, etc.
(Mark 16:17) It is a wonder that they have not made sacraments also of these
things; for they have the same power and promise as the words of James.
Therefore, this extreme – that is, this fictitious – unction is not a
sacrament, but a counsel of James, which whoever will may use, and it is
derived from Mark 6, as I have shown. I do not believe it was a counsel given
to all sick persons, (Romans 5:3) for the Church's infirmity is her glory and
death is gain; (Philippians 1:21) but it was given only to such as might bear
their sickness impatiently and with little faith. These the Lord allowed to
remain in the Church, in order that miracles and the power of faith might be
manifest in them.
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 11:24 )
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 Church of God – baptism and bread; for only in these two do
we find both the divinely instituted sign and the promise of forgiveness of
sins. The sacrament of penance, which I added to these two, lacks the divinely
instituted visible sign, and is, as I have said, nothing but a return to
baptism. Nor can the scholastics say that their definition fits penance, for
they too ascribe to the sacrament a visible sign, which is to impress upon the
senses the form of that which it effects invisibly. But penance, or absolution,
has no such sign; wherefore they are constrained by their own definition,
either to admit that penance is not a sacrament, and thus to reduce the number
of sacraments, or else to bring forward another definition.
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
Surface Mail: 6600 N.
Clinton St., Ft. Wayne, IN 46825 USA
Phone: (219) 452-3149
(219) 452-3149 - Fax: (219) 452-2126
Comments
Post a Comment