the papacy's building is based upon this passage just as though a madman built a straw hat upon a fire. We do not want to be blind either, juggling and making out of the "rock" (petra) "Peter" (Petrum) and all the sinful popes whom the gates of hell dominate. But Christ does not tolerate it and must not be given the lie.
What good does it do you, then, Murner and all you papists, to cite many fathers in connection with this passage? They have erred as men. But you want to regard error as foundation and truth. To me the principal saying of Christ is worth more than all the teachers and fathers, no matter how holy and learned they may be. Christ's words are clear enough and do not need any glosses. Therefore, get busy with all your papists and restitute the papacy with this passage and make your word come true. Otherwise, I shall not answer anything you say. Since I have proven you to be wrong in the main point, you are no longer worth believing until this lie is extinguished.
Let this be my answer to your babbling without Scripture this time. I did not want you to think that I was overlooking you. But I shall indicate to you in the following verses what other people think of your booklet. Sent to me from the Rhine, they show how unnecessary it is to answer you. I am surprised that you babblers and scribblers are courageous enough to appear on the scene, since you can see how many intelligent and reasonable judges are on guard! I myself could not have answered you as well as this poet did.
A Poem About Dr. Murner As I shall report, Dr. Murner Did not sleep one night.
He was busy composing two new booklets; He really outdid himself on these.
He attacks Dr. Luther's writings, But manages to miss the mark completely; Like a blind man, he lashes out in all directions,
Yet the target remains unscathed.
He beats around the bush, Careful, lest he get too close.
He sees the fox and looks fierce; However, he does not attack him.132
Scripture is twisted to agree with him; Long usage is the cornerstone of his argument; This does not satisfy his foes.
He puts many new laws into action To which, however, Luther pays no attention.
The bright light he would like to darken, But it will not let itself be hid.
For this reason, I think, it happens That Martin Luther does not answer him.
What do you suppose, goat Emser, such people think of you, since you present nothing but lies and the crudest monkey business, dreamed up in your own head? Even though Murner is certainly in agreement with your cause, he stayed away from lying.133 Lying, however, is your best deed in your booklet. Oh, better yourselves, dear brethren! Scripture will come to light, human eyes will be opened, and you will have to adorn your cause differently. Otherwise, the bright light will disgrace you. I warn you truly. May
God help us all to the real truth. Amen.
DR. LUTHER'S RETRACTION OF THE ERROR FORCED UPON HIM BY THE MOST HIGHLY LEARNED PRIEST OF GOD, SIR JEROME EMSER, VICAR IN MEISSEN
Eric W. and Ruth C. Gritsch - 91 As soon as Luther's treatise Answer to the Hyperchristian, Hyperspiritual, and Hyperlearned Book by Goat Eraser in Leipzig had left the press, Emser countered with a long reply entitled Quadruplica to Luther's Recent Answer, Concerning His Reformation.1 Attacking particularly Luther's assertion of the common priesthood of all believers, Emser restated at length his previous position that ecclesiastical tradition which teaches the superiority of the priestly estate is more authoritative than the "grammatical" meaning of Scripture. Accordingly, the passage in I Pet. 2:9, "You are a royal priesthood," is to be interpreted in terms of a twofold priesthood, a "spiritual" one (which includes the laymen) and a "physical" one (which consists of the priestly estate).
When Luther received the Quadruplica—probably from his friend Philip Melanchthon or George Spalatin sometime in early July, 15212—he told his friends in Wittenberg that he had no intention of replying. His confrontation with the emperor at the Diet of Worms in April and his subsequent exile at the Wartburg (from May 2, 1521, to March 6, 1522) placed him in the center of international political and literary feuds which he regarded as more important than the "prattling of the Leipzig goat." When
Melanchthon suggested to Luther3 that their friend Nicholas Amsdorf should reply to Emser, Luther reluctantly agreed. Plagued by illness—a recurrence of his intestinal trouble—Luther jotted down a few basic ideas and sent them to Amsdorf, urging him, however, not to be too concerned with Eraser, who was a "wicked spirit" rather than a man.4
But soon afterward Luther must have changed his mind—probably because his physical troubles disappeared5—and he penned a reply to Emser entitled Dr. Luther's Retraction of the Error Forced upon Him by the Most Highly Learned Priest of God, Sir Jerome Emser, Vicar in Meissen, which appeared in print shortly before October 8.6 It deals only with Emser's interpretation of I Pet. 2:9 and advances once again Luther's argument for a common priesthood of all believers while ironically agreeing with Emser's interpretation.
Emser, not realizing Luther's irony, felt obliged to expose Luther's "defeat" and "contradiction" in another pamphlet, entitled Reservation to Luther's First Retraction.7 But Luther showed his disgust by remaining silent. Thus Emser had the final word in the controversy lasting more than two years. Until his sudden death in 1527 he conducted a literary campaign against Luther. In 1523 he attacked Luther's translation of the Greek New Testament and encouraged others at the court of Duke George of Saxony to write against the new "archbishop" of Wittenberg.8 Shortly before his death Emser published his own translation of the New Testament, based on the Latin Vulgate text and adorned with a preface by Duke
George.9 Although Luther later occasionally referred to Emser's attacks,10 he summarized his feelings in a remark made about Emser in the context of his interpretation of Psalm 37, "What else is there to do but to let such people rage and rave and to despise them!"11
The following translation is based on the first German edition of Luther's final treatise against Emser, entitled Eyn widderspruch D. Luthersz seynis yrthumsz erczwungen durch den aller hochgelertisten priester gottis Herrn Hieronymu Emser, Vicarien tzu Meyssen and printed by John Grünenberg in Wittenberg. The text is found in WA 8, 247–254.
DR. LUTHER'S RETRACTION OF THE ERROR FORCED UPON HIM BY THE MOST HIGHLY LEARNED PRIEST OF GOD, SIR JEROME EMSER, VICAR IN Grace and peace from God to all Christian readers. Amen.
It is undoubtedly quite well known and obvious that a hard struggle has arisen between me, Martin Luther, and the most highly learned, excellent priest of God and licentiate of the holy canon law, Jerome Emser, about this passage in St. Peter:
"You are a royal priesthood."1
In this passage St. Peter calls all Christians priests. I insisted on this and said that all Christians are priests and that Scripture calls those who are now called priests not priests or sacerdotes but ministri, presbyteri, episcopi, that is, "servants," "elders," and "guardians."2
Thereupon the excellent man rose up and thought, "If we lose the priesthood all our power is lost." For the power associated with the priesthood, namely, preaching, celebrating mass, dispensing the sacraments, and using the keys of heaven, is well known. "If this business is stopped then the kitchen will certainly get
- 92 cold and the cellar will be empty." It was as a result of this great despair that he determined to fight against me, as is fitting for a priest of God.3
First, he tried his skill to the extent of consigning me to the devil and writing many shameful lies about me—as if blaspheming and lying would be any help to him! Yet he became angry when I called him a liar and a knave—which is what one customarily calls a liar in German. After that he dealt excellently with the matter and invented two kinds of priesthood—one spiritual and one physical. That is, he conceded to me that all Christians are spiritual priests, but [said] that he and those like him are physical priests. He collected many passages from the fathers in which his assembly is called priests; and so he attributed two meanings to St. Peter's saying [I Pet. 2:9], a spiritual one and a physical one.4
But I could not be satisfied with the passages from the fathers because they do not constitute articles of faith and are not binding, except insofar as they are founded on Scripture.5 Even though some fathers applied this saying of Peter to the Emserian priests,6 they substantiate nothing since such an interpretation is only human and without any scriptural foundation.
Furthermore, it seemed foolish to me, before I recognized the man, that with a long spear and short dagger he should threaten to unseat and to demolish the cuirassier (as he called me), and that he should threaten to strike me with the sword although he never touched this weapon. I thought it even more foolish when he interpreted my spiritual understanding to be a sheath and his physical understanding to be a blade.7 For at the time I had not been in that strange Egypt where the sheaths are stuck in the blade and the physical is hidden under the spiritual.
But I thought it completely foolish when he took the passage from Paul, "The Spirit gives life and the letter kills" [II Cor. 3:6], to signify that "Spirit" should mean his understanding and "letter" should mean my understanding. For even devils and public sinners share his understanding yet do not live before God through such a spirit,8 while all the saints share my understanding yet do not die before God through such a letter. What is even more peculiar is that the fulfilment and significance of his living understanding is for the most part dead. For his priesthood, interpreted through the living understanding, is for the most part dead in sin while still consisting of priests interpreted through the living understanding. This is unheard of, and it is impossible in every other word or matter. Moreover, I thought it no help at all when he used glosses and patchwork to write that the Spirit, that is, spiritual understanding, gives life if man lives in grace.9 For this is the same as saying that man must first live in grace and that spiritual understanding does not give him life (as he had struck and stabbed about before with blade, spear, and dagger), but instead finds him alive. Therefore, either St. Paul must have lied when he said, "The Spirit gives life," or Emser must have lied when he said that Spirit means spiritual understanding which does not give life, as he confesses in his gloss.10 Thus I thought Emser had unhorsed himself and granted me the victory when I wrote that Spirit could not mean spiritual understanding. If spiritual understanding meant "to give life," because those who first live in grace possess it, then the letter can give life too. Indeed, the tiled stove and the keg can give life too—that is, according to Emser's interpretation, they can be possessed by those who are alive. On the other hand, spiritual understanding can mean that which kills; that is, it can be possessed by those who are dead. Indeed, my ink bottle can kill in this way. Emser's glosses would therefore add a new dimension to St. Paul's saying that "the Spirit gives life," etc.; namely, the Spirit is possessed by the living and the dead, but the letter is possessed by the dead and the living.
Because these high and excellent things seemed so completely foolish and ridiculous to me, the excellent man became angry and said I ridiculed them because I could not refute them with good argument.11 Certainly it would not be right, and it would be quite unnecessary, for anyone to ridicule the most subtle inventions of such an excellent man.
But since there was no other way open to him than fighting with Scripture, he really got started and quoted more fathers than before. He began, "Step forward, Cyril,12 step forward, Ambrose, step forward,
Origen."13 I really thought he wanted to do a song and dance routine! But it was his intention to present Scripture, that is, passages from the fathers without Scripture. But I still did not understand all this and did not regard it as Scripture.
Finally, he hits the bottom of this disgrace and strikes at me one ell deep into hard rock. For once his razor–sharp sword is glinting as if he were Master Lawrence among the perspirers, and he says, "Step forward, Christ," etc.14 He indicates how Christ called these people priests when he said, Matthew 5[:13],
"You are the salt of the earth."15 There you have it, Luther! This is the Scripture which proves Emser's - 93 people are called priests. This is the interpretation of St. Peter's saying: "salt" means "priests," "incense" means "vicar," "water" means "sacristan," "fire" means "schoolmaster," and "straw" means "pupils." In this way, and only in this way, will the quarrel come to an end. Now I am satisfied. Now laughter must come to an end. May the hangman ridicule such seriousness. Who can with good argument refute the fact that "salt" means "priest"? Therefore, so that there is no more rain [from Emser's pen] I shall undertake my rebuttal with complete seriousness, and it shall be this:
I, Martin Luther, confess that I agree with the highly learned nobleman and priest of God, Sir Jerome Emser, that the saying of St. Peter applies not only to the spiritual priesthood but also to the physical priesthood or, to say it as clearly as possible, to the whole priesthood existing in Christendom. I say this with complete seriousness, for I did not really look at the truth of the matter before. Now I hope Luther is no longer a heretic, for I have even joined Emser.
But I do not want to start a fire on the other side, among my good friends, so I ask them not to be offended by this contradiction, in view of the fact that truth should be served before everything else.
Moreover, we lose nothing in this matter and gain more than before. If you ask how this can be I will tell you: in all my writings I never wanted more than that all Christians should be priests; yet not all should be consecrated by bishops, not all should preach, celebrate mass, and exercise the priestly office unless they have been appointed and called to do so. This was my final intention.16
But Emser overshoots the mark and insists most powerfully and unequivocally, with his cutting "living" understanding, that all Christians must also be physical priests, consecrated by bishops, allowed to preach, to celebrate mass, and to exercise all priestly offices without further order or call.17 That is the prize and thanks Emser sought, fought for, and captured with honors from Luther in this sand. I heartily grant them to him, will help him to protect them, and I ask everyone who does not wish to be a heretic to do the same thing.
In case anyone thinks I am being facetious, I shall earnestly prove that this interpretation of Emser is indisputable. Is it not indeed true and sufficiently evident that Emser says St. Peter also speaks of the physical priesthood? That is why he has lied so abominably and slandered me until I was forced to grant it to him. Thus it is even more indeed true and evident that no man can deny that St. Peter's saying is addressed to all Christians, be they young or old, men or women. Clearly, therefore, everything that is comprehended in [the physical priesthood] must be understood as given to all these Christians. For since all Christians are called priests when he says, "You are a royal priesthood" [I Pet. 2:9], and since it is also to be understood in the sense of the physical priesthood, which is consecrated and tonsured, as swordsman
Emser teaches and constructs, we have to confess that all Christians are undoubtedly such physical priests.
Otherwise, we are heretics and the devil's property, as Emser threatens. Perhaps this is why women wear veils and young maidens wear braids—so that no one can see that they are consecrated and tonsured.
Well then, this is finished. But it still has one major fault. I shall be glad to humble myself and hear women and children preach. But how do we convince Emser, the cuirassier–eater, to do the same? He will not want to be in the common priesthood. Besides, he will not permit women to teach him—even if they were only pretty, smooth young maids—because he is too chaste. But I wish he could be persuaded to make his confession to such a confessor at a secret place and to wait most humbly for his absolution! So that he does not get angry and complain that his cause is tomfoolery and a joke—which is true, however— we ourselves shall have to reflect what should be done in this matter.
I shall give my advice. Since they boast and brag about a special, uncommon priesthood, and since all priesthood—spiritual, physical, whatever it may be or may be called—is ascribed to all Christians in St.
Peter's words as the passage demands, it follows that the Emserian priestliness18 is a strange un–Christian thing. Therefore I think it is best if from now on we no longer call this special and strange priesthood
"priests" but rather "tonsure-bearers," and drive this useless crowd from the land. What good does such a tonsured crowd do us? They are neither spiritual nor physical priests. And why do we need them if we ourselves are all physical, spiritual, and all other kinds of priests? It is just as Emser himself teaches us with his blade: they eat our bread like strange and unnecessary guests. Therefore away, away with these knaves!
So that everyone may know that St. Peter's saying is addressed to all Christians—even though this need not be proven because Emser himself admits it—we shall include the text according to its order and logical arrangement. It is I Peter 2[:1–5] and reads as follows: "Put away all malice and all guile and all
- 94 insincerity and hatred and all slander. Like newborn babes, seek the reasonable pure milk, that by it you may grow up; for you have tasted the kindness of the Lord. You came to him as to the living stone, rejected by men but in God's sight precious and chosen; and like living stones be yourselves built into a spiritual house, into a holy priesthood, and offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus
What man is so dumb he does not see that these words are addressed to all people in common? Who are the people who should put away the enumerated vices and seek the reasonable pure milk? Indeed, can this be understood in terms of tonsure-bearers? He [Peter] speaks of seeking milk the way women customarily speak about their babies. A baby "seeks" when it desires its mother and milk. This is the way all Christians should seek their reasonable milk, namely, the evangelical teaching which is unadulterated by human teaching, which is pure and clean and comes from the true mother, the bride of Christ, the holy church. Now he [Peter] tells them they should themselves be built upon Christ into a holy priesthood.
When is "tonsurehood" holy? When does it offer spiritual sacrifices? Christianity is holy at all times or it is not Christianity. For he is not talking here of laymen's sacrifices but of priests' sacrifices. This occurs in the New Testament in such a way that as Christ himself was a priest and sacrifice, so all of us too as Christians are truly a holy priesthood and the sacrifice itself, as Paul elucidates in Romans 12[:1], where he teaches that we should sacrifice our bodies as a priestly sacrifice.
St. Peter Continues [I Pet. 2:6–10] "For it stands in Scripture, 'Behold, I am laying in Zion an extraordinary cornerstone, chosen and precious, and he who believes in him will not be put to shame.' To you who believe, therefore, he is precious, but for those who do not believe, 'The very stone which the builders rejected has become a principal cornerstone,' and 'a stone that will make men stumble, a rock that will make them fall'; they are offended by the word and do not believe him upon whom they are to be built.
"But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God's own people, that you may declare the wonderful deeds of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. Once you were no people but now you are a people," etc.
Tell me, can anyone be so crude as not to understand to whom St. Peter speaks here? Or do the passages from the fathers have to step forward here and provide the interpretation? He [Peter] names the people and the congregation very clearly, and he calls them all together a royal priesthood and commands them to preach the deeds of God who has called them. Now if this is also said of the Emserian priesthood, as our Emser teaches, all of us are certainly such priests. He may interpret "priests" as he pleases, but all
Christians are nevertheless such priests through this passage. If all of us should preach, then the tonsurebearers must keep silent, since they have a different, special priesthood above all Christians.
The two following passages are also to be understood in the same way. the first one is, "You did ransom us by your blood, and have made us a kingdom of God and priests," Revelation 5[:9–10], and the other one is Revelation 20[:6], "Over such the second death has no power, but they shall be priests of God and of his Christ." Both are said of the whole congregation and are to be understood in that sense as the words demand, without the aid of glosses. Moreover, these three passages are the only ones about priests in the New Testament. All the others call Emser's priests not priests but servants, guardians, and elders.19
Thereby the Holy Spirit teaches us that ointments, consecrations, tonsures, chasubles, albs, chalices, masses, sermons, etc., do not make priests or give power.20 Rather, priesthood and power have to be there first, brought from baptism and common to all Christians through the faith which builds them upon Christ the true high priest, as St. Peter says here.
But to exercise such power and to put it to work is not every man's business. Only he who is called by the common assembly, or the man representing the assembly's order and will, does this work in the stead of and as the representative of the common assembly and power. It is therefore not true that there is more than one simple priesthood in the church; and the tonsure-bearers are not called priests in accordance with Scripture, as Emser lies. The name "priest" belongs to all of us, with all its power, rights, and the respect these robbers and thieves of God would like to tear away from us and claim only for themselves. But just as they called themselves "church" and we have taken away from them what they stole, so too did they make themselves priests. But this is now also taken away from them. We shall leave them the tonsures so that they may be tonsure-bearers because they no longer want to bear the word of God, but only want to pervert it.
- 95 What good would it do if Emser quoted thousands of passages from the fathers, all of which uniformly call his crowd priests? There would still be no Scripture here, only the words of men who have erred— although they were not as stubborn as these tonsure-bearers. But St. Peter's words are God's word. They let nothing but the one, common priesthood remain. It pulverizes all the others, and no Emser can alter it, even if he lies and blasphemes himself to death.
However, I leave the usage now in force alone, namely, that in accordance with ancient human custom only the anointed and tonsured crowd are called priests—even though they no longer exercise that office.
It suffices for us to resist them so that they cannot draw Scripture into their trifles, threaten us into false fear with the word of God, and force their arbitrary will upon us, as they have done up until now and would still like to do. Instead, we have the power to make them afraid, and, if they hesitate, we can try the "guardian's rod"21 on them. They should be subject to the common assembly as servants and should discard their tyranny. If they do not do this, we shall show them Scripture and teach them manners. Of this they are afraid, these tender tyrants! That is why they want so much to be called only "squire priests" with the aid of Scripture. No, Emser's sword does not cut. This is no way for his spear to stab; this is no way for his dagger to break [open the cuirassier]. Lying and blaspheming do not help. But God and his word remain forever. Amen.
We have thus recaptured two names from these church robbers; they are no more either "church" or "priests" than all other Christians. Moreover, they must unwillingly return the names "clergy" and "laymen"—indeed, they shall be even less than laymen, so that they sit between two chairs, being neither spiritual nor worldly. May God help me to achieve this, so that we truly recognize this strange Egyptian people. May this be enough for the first rebuttal.
AGAINST THE SPIRITUAL ESTATE OF THE POPE AND THE BISHOPS FALSELY SO CALLED Eric W. and Ruth C. Gritsch On September 15, 1521, Archbishop Albrecht of Mainz celebrated the annual festival of relics at his newly built cathedral, the Church of St. Moritz and Mary Magdalene in Halle, with the official announcement that indulgences would be granted to all visitors to the exhibition of relics. Anyone who prayed at a shrine and gave alms was promised an indulgence of four thousand years; anyone who confessed his sins to one of the priests hearing confessions in the cathedral during the ten days of the celebration would receive a plenary indulgence. Pope Leo X had issued a bull in 1519 granting the cathedral of Halle the same privileges granted to the Church of St. Peter in Rome: its confessors were authorized to absolve cases usually absolved only by the apostolic see in Rome; in addition, they could convert vows into financial contributions for the completion of the Halle cathedral—privileges not unusual in the established indulgence practice of the Roman curia.
When Luther heard of Albrecht's announcement—probably by the end of September, 1521—he viewed it as a revival of the indulgence traffic he had so sharply opposed in his Ninety-five Theses of 1517.1 Other news from the episcopal court in Mainz had already aroused his anger: priests who intended to marry or had married had been arrested while at the same time other priests received special dispensations to keep women in the parsonage. In addition, the archbishop himself was said to live an immoral life at Moritz castle, where he supposedly kept his mistresses.2 "I shall not let myself be restrained," Luther wrote angrily to George Spalatin on October 7, 1521, "from privately and publicly attacking the idol at Mainz with regard to his brothel in Halle."3 By November 11, 1521, Luther had written his angry attack against Albrecht of Mainz entitled Against the Idol at Halle (Wider den Abgott zu
Halle). No longer extant,4 its contents were regarded a threat to public peace. Elector Frederick prohibited its publication when Luther sent it to Spalatin to have it printed. Moreover, Albrecht himself had sent a delegation to Wittenberg and Weimar to explain his position to Luther's friends and to the Saxon courts.
On September 30, 1521, Wolfgang Capito, head priest at the Mainz cathedral and a friend of Luther's - 96 cause, had traveled to Wittenberg in the company of Henry Stromer von Auerbach, Albrecht's personal physician, to speak with Luther's friends, Philip Melanchthon and Justus Jonas. On October 1 they had seen Elector Frederick and, between October 8 and 12, they had explained Albrecht's position to the Weimar court. Sometime later Spalatin informed Luther at the Wartburg about the Elector's decision to prohibit the publication of Luther's treatise Against the Idol at Halle. Luther was even more infuriated. "I will not put up with your statement," he wrote back to Spalatin on November 11, 1521, "that the Sovereign will not allow anything to be written against Mainz [Albrecht of Mainz] or anything that could disturb the public peace. I would rather lose you, the Sovereign himself, and the whole world [than be quiet]. If I have resisted [the] creator, the pope, why should I yield to his creature? Your idea about not disturbing the public peace is beautiful, but will you allow the eternal peace of God to be disturbed by the wicked and sacrilegious actions of that son of perdition? Not so, Spalatin! Not so, Elector!"5
He agreed to let Melanchthon make changes—he trusted Melanchthon's diplomatic skill—but insisted on publication. "Do not dissuade him [Melanchthon] from publishing it," he told Spalatin in his reply.
"This question is settled, and I will not listen to you."6
When Wittenberg remained silent after Luther's outburst, Luther could wait no longer. On December 1, 1521, he addressed a letter to Albrecht of Mainz which was written in a threatening tone and demanded a reply within two weeks. "Therefore be it finally made known in writing to Your Electoral Grace: if the idol [the sale of indulgences] is not taken down, my duty toward divine doctrine and Christian salvation is a necessary, urgent, and unavoidable reason to attack publicly Your Electoral Grace (as I did the pope) … and to show to all the world the difference between a bishop and a wolf."7 He closed with the ultimatum:
"I beg and expect Your Electoral Grace's definite and speedy reply to this letter within fourteen days; if after this appointed fortnight no public answer should appear, my little book Against the Idol at Halle will be released."8 On December 3, Luther secretly went to Wittenberg, arriving there after several hours of hard riding. Melanchthon told him that Spalatin held back the manuscript, obeying the Elector's orders.
Two days later, on December 5, Luther was back at the Wartburg. "What I have written," he wrote to Spalatin after his return, "I want published, if not in Wittenberg then certainly somewhere else."9
Spalatin's reply—the letter is no longer extant but can be guessed at from Luther's later correspondence— seems to have calmed Luther's fury; Capito had managed to persuade Albrecht to reform the situation in Mainz; arrested priests had been released and Albrecht himself had preached reform. On December 12,
1521, Luther, in a letter to Spalatin, agreed to wait with the publication of his treatise against Albrecht and advised Spalatin to give the manuscript to Melanchthon, who was authorized to edit it if he felt it necessary.10 Capito wrote to Luther from Mainz that Albrecht had indeed reformed and would write a personal letter to Luther indicating his compliance with Luther's demands. Luther then received
Albrecht's letter dated December 21, 1521, and seemed satisfied with Albrecht's good will. "I will act, God willing," Albrecht told Luther, "as becomes a pious, spiritual, and Christian prince, as far as God gives me grace and strength.… I am more than willing to show you grace and favor for Christ's sake, and I can well bear fraternal and Christian punishment."11 Thus Luther was completely victorious: Albrecht, his old foe, had humbled himself before the Reformer.
But Luther was not quite satisfied. He was more concerned with the evil of the indulgences than with the person of the archbishop of Mainz. "I wanted to put an end to ungodliness," he wrote to Melanchthon on January 13, 1522. Further on he wrote, "I shall restrain myself and not treat the man as he deserves.…
But I shall show him that I am alive."12 He instructed Melanchthon to keep the manuscript so that it might be published to "serve as a general censure, should others go insane like that."13 There is no convincing evidence that it was ever published. Instead, Luther turned to a general attack on the "papistic" establishment, which appeared sometime before July 9, 1522, under the title Against the Spiritual Estate of the Pope and the Bishops, Falsely So Called.14 Luther's highly polemical and satirical language, more evident in this treatise than in others, was prompted by the recurrence of the indulgence traffic in the territory of Albrecht of Mainz. The so-called "spiritual estate" was used, according to Luther, to cover up the sins of ecclesiastical princes who betrayed the gospel and perverted their calling. In arguing for the right of priests to marry, Luther tried to recover the evangelical morality imperative for any man, including a priest.
Luther's treatise was attacked by his old opponent from Leipzig, Jerome Emser, who countered with a pamphlet entitled Against the Ecclesiastic, Falsely So Called, and True Arch-heretic Martin Luther
(Wyder den falschgenanten Ecclesiasten und warhafftigen Ertzketzer Martinurn Luter),15 which was published on January 3, 1523. Luther left that one unanswered like the others.16
Against the Spiritual Estate of the Pope and the Bishops, Falsely So Called (Wider den falsch genantten geystlichen stand des Babst und der bischoffen) was printed by Nickel Schirlentz in Wittenberg.
The section entitled Dr. Luther's Bull and Reformation appeared separately in 1523 in two editions, one published in Erfurt, the other in Augsburg, under the title The Bull of the Ecclesiastic in Wittenberg
Against the Papal Bishops, Granting God's Grace and Merit to All who Keep and Obey It (Die Bulle Des Ecclesiastenn zu Wittenbergk Wider die Bepstischen Bischoff, Die da gibt Gottes genade zu lon allen den, die sy haltenz, und in volgen).17 A fragment of Luther's original manuscript was discovered by the WA editors in the Bodleian Library at Oxford University.18 Our translation is based on this manuscript and the Schirlentz edition printed in WA 10II, 105–158. We have translated the significant portions of Luther's original treatise as they appear in the notes of the WA and MA3 editions. These portions clearly indicate
Luther's concern for the real issue, namely, the proper understanding of the offices of priest and bishop, over against the attack on the person of Albrecht of Mainz.
AGAINST THE SPIRITUAL ESTATE OF THE POPE AND THE BISHOPS FALSELY Martin Luther, ecclesiastic1 in Wittenberg by the grace of God: To the papal bishops [I offer] my service and self-understanding in Christ.
Although I might be regarded as a fool by you, dear lords, because of the haughty title I call myself, an ecclesiastic by the grace of God, you should know that I am not at all surprised by this. You curse, slander, condemn, persecute, and possibly even burn me as a heretic for the sake of a high and noble cause. In this you act as you please, according to the pleasure of your idol. As a result of God's disfavor you have the virtue that you do not want to listen. Neither do you want to give an answer. Instead, like the hardened Jews you blasphemously and stubbornly want to condemn me without a hearing, without investigating the cause, without overcoming me. You are not even ashamed of letting a man defy you so frequently with such good reason. Very well then, since it is a question of lowering the horns and acting with brute force, I too have to lower my horns and risk my head for my Lord. In order to get things started,
I call myself an ecclesiastic by the grace of God in defiance of you and the devil, although you call me a heretic with an abundance of slander. And even if I called myself an evangelist by the grace of God, I would still be more confident of proving it than that any one of you could prove his episcopal title or name. I am certain that Christ himself, who is the master of my teaching, gives me this title and regards me as one. Moreover, he will be my witness on the Last Day that it is not my pure gospel but his. Thus your raging and raving is not going to help you at all. Rather, the more you rage and rave, the haughtier we shall be toward you, with God's help, and [the more we] shall despise your disgrace. Even though you might take my life, since you are murderers, you will annihilate neither my name nor my teaching. For you too will have to die at last and put an end to murder.
Now that I am deprived of my titles through papal and imperial disfavor and my bestial character2 is washed away with so many bulls that I need never be called either Doctor of Holy Scripture or some kind of papal creature, I am almost as shocked as an ass who has lost its bag. For these masks3 were my greatest shame before God. I too was once in error (which I learned from your crowd at great price and with great effort), a liar, a cheater, a seducer, and a blasphemer against God's pure teaching, as you are now. But the Father of all mercy did not look at my vice, blasphemy, and my very sinful, evil life; instead, out of the infinite richness of his grace, he permitted me to know his Son, Jesus Christ, and to teach [him] to others, until we were certain of his truth. However, I need not have any title and name to praise highly the word, office, and work which I have from God and which you blind blasphemers defile and persecute beyond measure. I trust my praise will overcome your defiling, just as my justice will overcome your injustice. It does not matter if, with your blasphemy, you are on top for the moment.
Therefore, I now let you know that from now on I shall no longer do you the honor of allowing you— or even an angel from heaven—to judge my teaching or to examine it. For there has been enough foolish humility now for the third time at Worms,4 and it has not helped. Instead, I shall let myself be heard and, as St. Peter teaches, give an explanation and defense of my teaching to all the world [I Pet. 3:15]. I shall