The Eight Wittenberg Sermons (1522)

THE EIGHT WITTENBERG SERMONS AFTER the bold utterance of unshaken conviction at the Diet of Worms Luther disappeared from the scene of his activities. In the darkness of night he was taken by the friendly "foe" to the secure hiding-place where the imperial proscription could not affect him. Thus he entered the Wart-burg on May 4, 1521. But the "crowded canvas of the sixteenth century," bereft of its central figure, threatened to become mere portrayal of turbulence and confusion. In Wittenberg and other places the new life of the soul had burst its ancient fetters and was about to lose its spiritual value in a destructive lateral movement. The inability of the hesitating elector and the helpless

Melanchthon to stem the tide, caused Luther, in utter disregard of personal safety, to return to his beloved city on March 6, 1522, and on Sunday,

March 9th, and the seven days following to preach the Eight Sermons herewith given, guiding the turbulent waves of popular uprising into the channels marked by faith and love.

During his absence others had heeded the clarion call to lead the Church out of its "Babylonian Captivity," and had put into practice the measures which would carry out the principles he had uttered. The mass was abolished, FB34 monks left the monasteries, some priests took wives, and communion under both kinds was instituted. With these measures Luther was in sympathy, which is evident from his letters to Melanchthon FB35 and to Wenceslaus Link, Staupitz's successor as the Augustinian vicar, FB36 and the treatises De votis monasticis and De abroganda missa privata . FB37 But these treatises also show that Luther was not fully informed of the disturbances accompanying the new measures. In so critical a time the absence of a great leader was soon manifest. Melanchthon, ardent in the beginning, could not hold back the radical procedure of Carlstadt and Carlstadt, moderate at first in his conduct, nevertheless had sown the seeds, in his teaching, which resulted in the bountiful harvest of disorder.

Without Luther's clearness of vision and aptness of speech, he likewise failed to discern the pitfalls which Luther so carefully avoided. "In my opinion, he who partakes only of the bread, sins." FB38 "In all things of divine appointment, the divine law must be taught and observed, even if it cause offense." FB39 "The Gregorian chant keeps the spirit away from God.... Organs belong to theatrical exhibitions and princes' palaces." FB40

"That we have images in churches is wrong and contrary to the first commandment. To have carved and painted idols standing on the altar is even more harmful and devilish." FB41 For his Scripture proof in other places, too, particularly concerning vows, Carlstadt drew largely from the Old Testament. On Christmas Day, 1521, he preached a sermon in which he opposed going to confession before receiving communion. Attired in his street garb he then proceeded to celebrate and "evangelical" mass by giving communion in both kinds to the people, placing the elements directly into their hands. Many of the communicants had not previously confessed, nor observed the prescribed rule of fasting. From a denial of any distinction between clergy and laity, Carlstadt finally progressed to a condemnation of the Divine Word, since it is given directly from above. FB42

Without the theological acumen of Carstadt, and with less restraint, the Augustinian monk Gabriel Zwilling labored in season and out of season for the new order of things. In December the Zwickau prophets, Niclas Storch,

Thomas Drechsel, weavers by trade, and Marcus Stubner, a former university student, appeared in Wittenberg claiming direct divine inspiration, and preached the overturn of present conditions. Earlier in the month (December 3d) some students and citizens had caused a disturbance after a number of citizens crowded into the council chamber and demanded of the three councillors who presided over Wittenberg the abolition of the mass by law, the restitution of the cup, and the release of those in custody for causing the tumult of December 3d. On Christmas Eve both the parish and the castle churches witnessed scenes of wild disorder. On January 11th the monks, led by Zwilling, destroyed all the altars except one in the convent church, and cast out the images. The city council, in the endeavor to restore order, on January 24, 1522, in full accord with a commission of the university, adopted a "Worthy Ordinance for the princely City of Wittenberg," FB43 in which the popular demands were met and a date was fixed on which the images should be removed from the parish church — the only one of the four churches of Wittenberg subject to the council's control. But the excited populace did not await the day. Taking the matter into its own hands it invaded the church, tore images and pictures from the walls and burned them up.

The council and the university turned to Luther. Immediately after his three-day secret visit to Wittenberg in December, on which he had sensed the unrest in Wittenberg and elsewhere, he issued his Faithful Exhortation for all Christians to shun Riot and Rebellion, FB44 in which he emphasizes the principles reiterated in the Eight Sermons, the sufficiency of the Word and the duty of dealing gently with the weak. But the time for writing had passed. "Satan had broken into his sheepfold" and had caused such havoc that he could not meet it "by writing." FB45 In spite of the elector's instruction to remain — the same whose ineffectual measures had failed to avert the storm — Luther on March 1st bade farewell to the Wartburg. On his way to Wittenberg, in Borna on March 5th, he wrote the famous letter to the elector FB46 in which he declared that he desired no protection from the elector. "I come to Wittenberg under much higher protection." He arrived in Wittenberg on Thursday, March 6th, and on the following

Sunday, March 9th, the first Sunday in Lent, he again ascended the pulpit in the parish church. In an interesting report of an eye and ear witness —

Johann Kessler — we are told that he first gave an explanation of the Gospel for the day on the temptation of Christ (<400401>Matthew 4:1 ff.), after which "he dropped the text and took up the present affair." FB47 This earlier portion of the sermon has not come down to us. It may be that Luther likewise first preached on the Gospel for the day on the following Sunday, and for that reason it is called "a brief summary" (see Sermon No. 8) in the early printed editions, when, in reality, it is longer than that of Saturday

The sermons, delivered in a vox suavis et sonora, FB48 produced immediate results. In a letter by Schurf, dated March 15th, even before the last of the sermons had been delivered, it is stated that "Gabriel [ZWilling] has confessed that he was wrong." Carlstadt was silenced, the city council made acknowledgment to Luther by substantial gifts and Wittenberg bowed to law and order.

Luther did not publish these sermons himself. He elaborated the principles here uttered in the treatise, published a few weeks later, The Reception of both Kinds in the Sacrament. FB49 A fragment, covering the thoughts of sermons 1 to 4, and formerly described as a pastoral letter to the Wittenberg congregation, is now held to be a piece of written preparation by Luther for these sermons. FB50

The notes of a hearer of these sermons furnished the basis for the printed editions. The Wednesday sermon (No. 4 — On the Images) was published separately at Augsburg and other places; the eight sermons were published in Augsburg and Mainz. Seven editions of the former and six of the latter are known.

Johann Aurifaber, the publisher of Luther's Table-talk, also edited and published these sermons at Eisleben in 1564. His free amplification of the older text, in an attempt to modernixe it, is not an improvement. His considerable additions to Luther's Scripture citations are from Luther's own translation of a later date. Yet for two centuries this edition remained the standard. The Walch Edition was the first again to pay attention to the original text, however placing the Aurifaber text first. (Walch Ed., XX.)

The Erlangen Edition (XXVIII) observes the same order. O. VON GERLACH, Luthers Werke, Auswahl seiner Hauptschriften (Berlin, 1841), gives only the older text (V); BUCHWALD, in the Berlin Edition (I), gives only the Aurfaber text. The Weimer Edition (Xc) places the old text on the upper half of the page, with the Aurifaber recension immediately below.

The translation which follows is based on the older text as found in the Weimar Edition, with which the other editions have been compared.

For further discussion, see, in addition to the literature mentioned, the biographies of Luther and the Church Histories. Also

Barge's articles in the Realencyklopadie, X, 73 ff. and XXIII, 738 ff.; also KOLDE'S, IV, 639 ff. and XIII, 556 ff.

Barge, Fruhprotestantisches Gemeindechristentum in Wittenberg und Orlamunde, Leipzig, 1909.

Cristiani, Du Lutheranisme au Protestantisme, Paris, 1911.

Boehmer, Luther im Lichte der neueren Forschung, third ed., Leipzig, Vedder, The Reformation in Germany, New York, 1914.

PREACHED AT WITTENBERG IN LENT, 1522 Treating Briefly of the Mass, Images, Both Kinds in the Sacrament, Eating of Meats, Private Confession, etc.

THE challenge of death comes to us all, and no one can die for another.

Every one must fight his own battle with death by himself, alone. We can shout into one another's ears, but every one must be prepared finally to meet death alone. I will not be with you then, nor you with me. Therefore every one must know for himself the chief things in Christianity, and be armed therewith. They are the same which you, my beloved, have long ago heard from me.

In the first place, We must know that we are the children of wrath, and all our works, intentions and thoughts are nothing at all. To prove this point we must have a clear, strong text, and although there are many such in the Bible I will not overwhelm you with them, but ask you to note just this one, "We are all the children of wrath." And pray, do not boast in reply: I have builded an altar, given a foundation for masses, etc.

Secondly, That God has sent us His only-begotten Son that we may believe in Him, and whosoever will put his trust in Him, should be free from sin and a child of God, as John declares in the first chapter, "He gave them power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe in his name."

Here we should all be thoroughly at home in the Bible and be ready with many passages to confront the devil. In respect to these two points nothing seems to be lacking or amiss, but they have been rightly preached to you; I should be very sorry if it were otherwise. Nay, I am well aware and I dare say, that you are more learned herein than I, and that there are not only one, two, three, or four, but perhaps ten or more, who have this wisdom and enlightenment.

Thirdly, There must also be love, and through love we must do unto one another as God has done unto us through faith. For without love faith is nothing, as St. Paul says, <460201>1 Corinthians 2:1, "If I could speak with the tongues of angels, and of the highest things in faith, and have not love, I am nothing." And here, dear friends, have you not grievously failed? I see no signs of love among you, and I observe that you have not been grateful to God for His rich gifts and treasures.

Let us beware lest Wittenberg become Capernaum. I notice that you have a great deal to say of the doctrine which is preached to you, of faith and of love. This is not surprising; an ass can almost intone the lessons, and why should you not be able to repeat the doctrines and formulas? Dear friends, the kingdom of God, — and we are that kingdom, — consists not in speech or in words, but in deeds, in works and exercises. God does not want hearers and repeaters of words, but doers and followers who exercise themselves in the faith that worketh by love. For a faith themselves in the faith that worketh by love. For a faith without love is not enough — rather it is not faith at all, but a counterfeit of faith, just as a face seen in a mirror is not a real face, but merely the reflection of a face.

Fourthly, We likewise need patience. For whoever has faith, trusts in God and shows love to his neighbor, practicing it day by day, must needs suffer persecution. For the devil never sleeps, and continually molests. But patience works and produces hope, which freely yields itself to God and finds solace in Him. Thus faith, by much affliction and persecution, ever increases, and is strengthened day by day. And the heart which by God's grace has received such virtues must ever be active and freely expend itself for the benefit and service of the brethren, even as it has received from And here, dear friends, one must not insist upon his rights, but must see what may be useful and helpful to his brother, as St. Paul says, Omnia mihi licent, sed non omnia expediunt, "All things are lawful for me, but not all things are expedient." We are not all equally strong in faith; some of you have a stronger faith than I. Therefore we must not look upon ourselves, or our strength, or our rank, but upon our neighbor, for God has said through Moses, "I have borne and nourished thee, even as a mother her child."

How does a mother nourish her child? First, she feeds it with milk, then gruel, then eggs and soft food. If she weaned it and at once gave it the ordinary, coarse food, the child would never thrive. So we should also deal with our brother, have patience with him for a time, suffer his weakness and help him bear it; we should give him milk-food, too, as was done with us, until he likewise grows strong, and thus we do not travel heavenward alone, but bring the brethren, who are not now on our side, with us. If all mothers were to abandon their children, where would we have been? Dear brother, if you have suckled long enough, do not at once cut off the breast, but let thy brother be nourished also. I would not have gone so far as you have done, if I had been here. What you did was good, but you have gone too fast. For there are also brothers and sisters on the other side who belong to us, and must still be won.

Let me illustrate. The sun has two properties, light and heat. No king has power enough to bend or guide the light of the sun; it remains straight in the place where it shines. But the heat may be turned and guided, and yet is ever about the sun. Thus the faith must always remain pure and immovable in the heart, never wavering; but love moves and is guided, according as our neighbors may grasp it or follow us. There are some who can run, others must walk, still others can hardly creep. Therefore we must not look upon our own, but upon our brother's powers, so that he who is weak in faith, and attempts to follow the strong, may not be destroyed of the devil.

Therefore, dear brethren, obey me. I have never been a destroyer, and I was also the very first whom God called to this work. Neither can I run away, but must remain as long as it pleases God. I was the first, too, to whom God revealed it, to preach His Word to you; moreover, I am sure that you have the pure Word of God.

Let us, therefore, take up this matter with fear and humility, cast ourselves at one another's feet, join hands with each other, and help one another. I will do my part, which is no more than my duty, for I love you even as I love my own soul. For here we battle now against pope or bishop, but against the devil, and do you imagine he is asleep? He sleeps not, but sees the true light rising, and to keep it from shining into his eyes he would make a flank attack — and he will succeed, if we are not on our guard. I know him well, FB51 and I hope, too, that with the help of God I am his master. But if we yield him but an inch, we must soon look to it how we may be rid of him. Therefore all those have erred who have consented and helped to abolish the mass — in itself a good undertaking, but not accomplished in an orderly way. You say it was right according to the Scriptures. I agree, but what becomes of order? For it was done in wantonness, with no regard to proper order and with offense to your neighbor. If, beforehand, you had called upon God in earnest prayer, and had obtained the aid of the authorities, one could be certain that it had come from God. I, too, would have taken steps toward the same end if it had been a good thing to do; and if the mass were not so evil a thing, I would introduce it again. For I cannot defend your action, as I have just said. To the papists and the blockheads I could defend it, for I could say:

How do you know whether it was done with good or bad intention, since the work in itself was really a good work? But I can find nothing to reply to the devil. For if on their deathbeds the devil reminds those who began this affair of texts like these, "Every plant, which My father hath not planted, shall be rooted up," or "I have not sent them, yet they ran," how will they be able to withstand? FB52 He will cast them into hell. But I have a weapon to brandish in the devil's face, so that the wide world will become too small for him: I know that in spite of my reluctance I was regularly called by the Council to preach in this place. And I would that you should have the same assurance as I. You could so easily have consulted me about the matter.

I was not so far away that you could not reach me with a letter, especially since I did not interfere with you in any way. Did you want to begin something, and then leave me to shoulder the responsibility? That is more than I can undertake, and I will not do it. Here one can see that you have not the Spirit, in spite of your deep knowledge of the Scriptures. Take note of these two things, "must" and "free." The "must" is that which necessity requires, and which must ever be unyielding; as, for instance, the faith, which I shall never permit any one to take away from me, but which I must always keep in my heart and freely confess before every one. But "free" is that in which I have choice, and may use or not, yet in such wise that it profit my brother and not me. Now do not make a "must" out of what is

"free," as you have done, so that you may not be called to account for those who were led astray by your exercise of liberty without love. For if you entice any one to eat meat on Friday, and he is troubled about it on his deathbed, and thinks, Woe is me, for I have eaten meat and I am lost! God will call you to account for that soul. I would like to begin many things, in which but few would follow me; but what is the use? I know that those who have begun this thing, when it comes to the point, cannot maintain themselves, and will be the first to retreat. How would it be, if I brought the people to the point of attack, and though I had been the foremost to exhort others, I would then flee, and not face death with courage? How the poor people would be deceived!

Let us, therefore, feed others also with the milk which we received, until they, too, become strong in the faith. For there are many who are otherwise in accord with us and who would also gladly accept this one thing, but they do not yet fully understand it — all such we drive aware.

Therefore, let us show love to our neighbors, or our work will not endure.

We must have patience with them for a time, and not cast out him who is weak in the faith; much more should we regulate our doing and our not doing according to the demands of love, provided no injury is done to our faith. If we do not earnestly pray to God, and act circumspectly in this matter, the thing looks to me as if all the misery which we have begun to cause the papists will fall upon us. Therefore I could no longer remain away, but was compelled to come and say these things to you.

This is enough about the mass; tomorrow we shall treat of the images.

MONDAY AFTER INVOCAVIT Dear Friends: You heard yesterday the characteristics of a Christian man, how his whole life is faith and love. Faith is directed toward God, love toward man and one's neighbor, and consists in such love and service for him as we have received from God without our work and merit. Thus there are two things: the one, which is the most needful, and which must be done in one way and no other; the other, which is a matter of choice and not of necessity, which may be kept or not, without endangering faith or incurring hell. In both, love must deal with our neighbor in the same manner as God has dealt with us; it must walk the straight road, straying neither to the left nor to the right. In the things which are "musts" and are matters of necessity, such as believing in Christ, love nevertheless never uses force or undue constraint. Thus the mass is an evil thing, and God is displeased with it, because it is performed as a sacrifice and work of merit. Therefore it must be abolished. Here there is no room for question, just as little as if you should ask whether you should pray to God. Here we are entirely agreed: the private mass must be abolished, as I have said in my writings.

FB53 And I heartily wish it would be abolished everywhere and only the evangelical mass for all the people be retained. Yet Christian love should not employ harshness here nor force the matter. It should be preached and taught with tongue and pen, that to hold mass in such a manner is a sin, but no one should be dragged away from it by force. The matter should be left to God; His word should do the work alone, without our work. Why?

Because it is not in my power to fashion the hearts of men as the potter moulds the clay, and to do with them as I please. I can get no farther than to men's ears; their hearts I cannot reach. And since I cannot pour faith into their hearts, I cannot, nor should I, force any one to have faith. That is

God's work alone, who causes faith to live in the heart. Therefore we should give free course to the Word, and not add our works to it. We have the jus verbi, FB54 but not the executio; FB55 we should preach the Word, but the consequences must be left to God's own good pleasure.

Now if I should rush in and abolish the mass by force, there are many who would be compelled to consent to it and yet not know their own minds, but say: I do not know if it is right or wrong, I do not know where I stand, I was compelled by force to submit to the majority. And this forcing and commanding results in a mere mockery, an external show, a fool's play, man-made ordinances, sham-saints and hypocrites. For where the heart is not good, I care nothing at all for the work. We must first win the hearts of the people. And that is done when I teach only the Word of God, preach the Gospel and say: "Dear lords or pastors, desist from holding the mass, it is not right, you are sinning when you do it; I cannot refrain from telling you this." But I would not make it an ordinance for them, nor urge a general law; he who would follow me could do so, and he who refused would remain without. In the latter case the Word would sink into the heart and perform its work. Thus he would become convinced and acknowledge his error, and fall away from the mass; to-morrow another would do the same, and thus God would accomplish more with His Word than if you and I would forge into one all power and authority. For if you have won the heart, you have won the whole man — and the mass must finally fall of its own weight and come to an end. And if the hearts and minds of all men are united in the purpose — abolish the mass; but if all are not heart and soul for its abolishment — leave it in God's hands, I beseech you, otherwise the result will not be good. Not, indeed, that I would again set up the mass; I let it lie in God's name. Faith must not be chained and imprisoned, nor bound by an ordinance to any work. This is the principle by which you must be governed. For I am sure you will not be able to carry out your plans, and if you should carry them out with such general laws, then I will recant all the things that I have written and preached, and I will not support you, and therefore I ask you plainly: What harm can the mass do to you? You have your faith, pure and strong, toward God, and the mass cannot hurt you.

Love, therefore, demands that you have compassion on the weak, as all the apostles had. Once, when Paul came to Athens, a mighty city, he found in the temple many altars, and he went from one to the other and looked at them all, but did not touch any one of them even with his foot. But he stood in the midst of the market-place and said they were all idolatrous works, and begged the people to forsake them; yet he did not destroy one of them by force. When the word took hold of their hearts, they forsook their idols of their own accord, and in consequence idolatry fell of itself.

Now, if I had seen that they held mass, I would have preached and admonished them concerning it. Had they heeded my admonition, they would have been won; if not, I would nevertheless not have torn them from it by the hair or employed any force, but simply allowed the Word to act, while I prayed for them. For the Word created heaven and earth and all things; the Word must do this thing, and not we poor sinners.

In conclusion: I will preach it, teach it, write it, but I will constrain no man by force, for faith must come freely without compulsion. Take myself as an example. I have opposed the indulgences and all the papists, but never by force. I simply taught, preached, wrote God's Word; otherwise I did nothing. And then while I slept, or drank Wittenberg beer with my philip

FB56 and with Amsdoff, the Word so greatly weakened the papacy, that never a prince or emperor inflicted such damage upon it. I did nothing; the Word did it all. Had I desired to foment trouble, I could have brought great bloodshed upon Germany. Yea, I could have started such a little game at Worms that even the emperor would not have been safe. But what would it have been? A fool's play. I did nothing; I left it to the Word. What do you suppose is Satan's thought, when an effort is made to do things by violence? He sits back in hell and thinks: How fine a game these fools will make for me! But it brings him distress when we only spread the Word, and let it alone do the work. For it is almighty and takes captive the hearts, and if the hearts are captured the evil work will fall of itself. Let me cite and instance. Aforetime there were sects, too, Jewish and Gentile

Christians, differing on the law of Moses in respect to circumcision. The former would keep it, the latter not. Then came Paul and preached that it might be kept or not, it mattered not one way or the other; they should make no "must" of it, but leave it to the choice of the individual; to keep it or not, was immaterial. Later came Jerome, who would have made a "must" out of it, and wanted laws and ordinances to prohibit it. Then came

St. Augustine, who held to the opinion of St. Paul: it might be kept or not, as one wished; St. Jerome had missed the meaning of St. Paul by a hundred miles. The two doctors bumped heads rather hard over the proposition.

But when St. Augustine died, St. Jerome accomplished his purpose. After that came the popes; they would add something of their own, and they, too, made laws. Thus out of the making of one law grew a thousand laws, until they have completely buried us under laws. And so it will be here; one law will soon make two, two will increase to three, and so forth.

Let this be enough at this time concerning the things that are necessary, and let us beware lest we lead astray those of weak conscience.

TUESDAY AFTER INVOCAVIT We have heard the things most necessary in Christian life, and what is a necessary result, namely, the doing away with the private mass. For the works which are necessary are those which God has either commanded or forbidden, according to the appointment of the Majesty on high. But no one shall be dragged to them by the hair, or kept from them by force, for I can drive no man to heaven with a club. I said this plainly enough, and I believe you understood what I said.

We shall now consider the things that are not matters of necessity, but are left to our free choice by God, and which we may keep or not; for instance, whether one shall marry or not, or whether monks and nuns shall leave the cloisters. These things are matters of choice and must not be forbidden by any one, and if they are forbidden, the forbidding is wrong, since it is contrary to God's appointment. In the things that are free, such as being married or remaining single, you should do on this wise: If you can restrain yourself without burdening your conscience thereby, do so by all means, but there must be no general law, and every one shall be perfectly free. Any priest, monk or nun who cannot restrain the desires of the flesh, should marry, and thus relieve the burden of conscience. But see to it that you be well-armed and fortified, so that you can stand before God and the world when you are assailed, and especially when the devil attacks you in the hour of death. It is not enough to say: This man or that has done the same,

I followed the example of the crowd, according to the preaching of the provost, FB58 or Dr. Carlstadt, FB59 or Gabriel, or Michael. FB60 Not so, but every one must stand on his own feet and be prepared to give battle to the devil. You must rest upon a strong and clear text of Scripture if you would stand the test. If you cannot do that, you will never withstand, — the devil will pluck you like a withered leaf. Therefore the priests who have taken wives, and the nuns who have taken husbands, in order to save their consciences must stand squarely upon a clear text of Scripture, such as this one by St. Paul — although there are many more: "In the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils (methinks Paul uses plain language here!) forbidding to marry and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created." This text the devil shall not overthrow nor devour, it shall rather overthrow and devour him. There fore any monk or nun who is too weak to keep the vow of chastity, should conscientiously examine himself; if heart and conscience are strong, so that he can defend himself with a good conscience, let him marry. Would to God all monks and nuns could hear this sermon and properly understood this matter and would all forsake the cloisters and thus all the cloisters in the world cease to exist — this is my earnest desire.

But now they have no understanding of the matter (for no one preaches it to them), and hearing that in other places many are leaving the cloisters, who however are well-prepared for such a step, they would follow their example, but have not yet fortified their consciences and do not know that it is a matter of liberty. This is bad, although it is better that the evil should be outside than inside. FB61 Therefore I say, what God has made free shall remain free, and you must not obey if some one forbids it, even as the pope has done, the Antichrist. He who can do so without harm and for love of his neighbor, may wear a cowl or a tonsure, since it will not injure his faith; wearing a cowl will not kill him.

Thus, dear friends, it is plain enough, and I believe you ought to understand it and not make liberty a law, saying: This priest has taken a wife, therefore all priests must take wives. Not at all. Or this monk or that nun has left the cloister, therefore they must all come out. Not at all. Or this man has broken the images and burnt them, therefore all images must be burned — not at all, dear brother! And again, this priest has no wife, therefore no priest dare marry. Not at all! They who cannot retain their chastity should take wives, and for others who can be chaste, it is good that they restrain themselves, as those who live in the spirit and not in the flesh. Neither should they be troubled about the vows they have made, such as the monks' vows of obedience, chastity and poverty (though they are rich enough withal). For we cannot vow anything that is contrary to God's commands. God has made it a matter of liberty to marry or not to marry, and thou fool under-takest to turn this liberty into a vow against the ordinance of God? Therefore you must leave liberty alone and not make a compulsion out of it; your vow is contrary to God's liberty. Suppose I should vow to strike my father on the mouth, or to steal some one's property, do you believe God would be pleased with such a vow? And as little as I ought to keep a vow to strike my father on the mouth, so little ought I to abstain from marriage because I am bound by a vow of chastity, for in both cases God has ordered it otherwise. God has ordained that I should be free to eat fish or flesh, and there should be no commandment concerning them. Therefore all the Carthusians FB62 and all monks and nuns forsake the ordinance and liberty which God has given when they believe that if they eat meat they are defiled.

But we must come to the images, and concerning them also it is true that they are unnecessary, and we are free to have them or not, although it would be much better if we did not have them. I am not partial to them. A great controversy arose on the subject of images between the Roman emperor and the pope; the emperor held that he had the authority to banish the images, but the pope insisted that they should remain, and both were wrong. Much blood was shed, but the pope emerged as victor and the emperor lost. FB63 What was it all about? They wished to make a "must" out of that which is free, and that God cannot tolerate. Do you wish to change the ordering of the Majesty on high? Not so; you will not do any such thing. You read in the Law, <022004>Exodus 20:4, "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth." There you take your stand; that is your ground. Now let us see!

When our adversaries shall say: The first commandment aims at this, that we should worship one God alone and not any image, even as it is said immediately following, "Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them nor serve them," and declare that the worship of images is forbidden and not the making of them, they disturb and unsettle our foundation for us. And if you reply: The text says, "Thou shalt not make any images," They answer:

It also says, "Thou shalt not worship them." In the face of such uncertainty who would e so bold as to destroy the images? Not I. But let us go farther.

They say: Did not Noah, Abraham, Jacob build altars? And who will deny that? We must admit it. Again, did not Moses erect a brazen serpent, as we read in his fourth book? How can you say Moses forbids the making of images when he himself makes one? It seems to me, such a serpent is an image, too. How shall we answer that? Again, do we not read that two birds were erected on the mercy-seat, the very place where God willed that He should be worshiped? Here we must admit, that we may make images and have images, but we must not worship them, and when they are worshiped, they should be put away and destroyed, just as King Hezekiah brake in pieces the serpent erected by Moses. And who will be so bold as to say, when called to account: They worship the images. They will answer: Art thou the man who dares to accuse us of worshiping the images? Do not believe that they will acknowledge it. To be sure it is true, but we cannot make them admit it. Remember how they acted when I condemned works without faith. They said: Do you believe that we have no faith, or that our works are performed without faith? I can do nothing more than put my flute back in its pocket; give them a hair's breadth, and they take a hundred miles.

Therefore it should have been preached that images were nothing and that God is not served by their erection, and they would have fallen of themselves. That is what I did; that is what Paul did in Athens, when he went into their churches and saw all their idols. He did not strike at any of them, but stood in the market-place and said, "Ye men of Athens, ye are all idolatrous." He preached against their idols, but he overthrew none by force. And you would rush in, create an uproar, break down the altars and overthrow the images? Do you really believe you can abolish the images on this wise? Nay, you will only set them up more firmly. Even if you overthrew the images in this place, do you think you have overthrown those in Nuremberg and the rest of the world? Not at all. St. Paul, as we read in the Book of Acts, sat in a ship on whose prow were painted or carved the Twin Brothers. FB65 He went on board and did not bother about it at all, neither did he break them off. Why must Luke describe the Twins at this place? Without doubt he wanted to show that outward things could do no harm to faith, if only the heart does not cleave to them nor put its trust in them. This is what we must preach and teach, and let the Word alone do the work, as I said before. The Word must first capture the hearts of men and enlighten them, — we cannot do it. Therefore the apostles gloried in their service, ministerium, and not in its effect, executio.

We will let this be enough for to-day, and pray God for His grace.

WEDNESDAY AFTER INVOCAVIT Dear Friends: We have heard the things which are necessary, as for instance, that the mass is regarded as a sacrifice. FB66 Then we considered the things which are left to our liberty, such as marriage, the monastic life, the abolishing of images. We have treated these four subjects, and have said that in all these matters love is the captain. On the subject of images, in particular, we saw that they ought to be abolished if they are going to be worshipped, otherwise not, although I wish they were abolished everywhere because they are abused,--it is useless to deny it. For whoever places an image in a church, imagines he has performed a service unto God and a good work, which is downright idolatry. And this, the greatest, foremost and highest reason for abolishing the images, you have neglected, and taken up the very lowest. For I suppose there is scarcely any man who does not understand that yonder crucifix is not my God, for my God is in heaven, but that this is simply a sign. But the world is full of the other abuse, for who would place an image of silver or of wood in a church, if he did not think that in so doing he was doing God a service? Think you that Duke Frederick, the bishop of Halle, and the others would have placed so many silver images in the churches, if they thought it counted nothing before God? Nay, they would not do it. But this is not sufficient reason to abolish, destroy and burn all the images; and why? Because we must admit that there are still people who have not the wrong opinion of them, but to whom they may be useful. Although they are few, yet we cannot and should not condemn anything which is still useful to the devotions of any man. But you should have taught that images are nothing, God cares nothing for them, and that He is not served, nor pleased when we make an image for Him, but that we would do better to give a poor man a goldpiece than to give God a golden image, for God has forbidden the latter, but not the former. If they had heard this teaching, that images count for nothing, they would have ceased of their own accord, and the images would have fallen without any uproar or tumult, even as it was already coming to pass.

We must, therefore, be on our guard, for the devil is after us, through his apostles, with all his craft and cunning. Now, although it is true, and no one can deny that the images are evil because they are abused, nevertheless we must not on that account reject them, nor condemn anything because it is abused. That would result in utter confusion. God has commanded us not to lift up our eyes unto the sun, etc., that we may not worship them, for they are created to serve all nations. (<050419>Deuteronomy 4:19) But there are many people who worship the sun and the stars. Shall we, therefore, essay to pull the sun and stars from the skies? Nay, we will not do it.

Again, wine and women bring many a man to misery and make a fool of him. Shall we, therefore, kill all the women and pour out all the wine?

Again, gold and silver cause much evil, shall we, therefore, condemn them?

Nay, if we would drive away our one worst enemy, who does us the most harm, we would have to kill ourselves, for we have no greater enemy than our own heart, even as Jeremiah says, "The heart of man is crooked," or, as I take the meaning, "always twisting to one side or the other."

(<241709>Jeremiah 17:9) And what good would that do us?

He who would blacken the devil must have good charcoal, for he, too, wears fine clothes and goes to the fair. But I can catch him by asking him:

Do you not place the images in the churches because you think it a special service of God? and when he says Yes, as he must, you may conclude that what was meant as a service of God he has turned into idolatry by abusing the images; he eagerly sought what God has not commanded and neglected

God's positive command, to help the neighbor. But I have not yet caught him; he escapes me by saying: I help the poor, too; cannot I give to my neighbor and at the same time place images in churches? That is not true,-for who would not rather give his neighbor a gold-piece, than God a golden image! Nay, he would not trouble himself about placing images in churches if he believed that God was not served thereby. Therefore I freely admit, images are neither here nor there, neither evil nor good, we may have them or not, as we please. This trouble has been caused by you; the devil would not have accomplished it with me, for I cannot deny that it is possible to find some one to whom images are useful. And if I were asked about it, I would confess that none of these things give offense to me, and if just one man were found upon earth who used the images aright, the devil would soon draw the conclusion against me: Why condemnest thou that which is still useful in worship? This challenge I could not answer; he would have successfully defied me. He would not have got nearly so far if I had been here. He played a bold game, and won, although it does no harm to the Word of God. You wanted to paint the devil black, but forgot the charcoal and used chalk. If you would fight the devil, you must be well versed in the Scriptures, and, besides, use them at the right time.

Let us proceed and speak of the eating of meats. It is true that we are free to eat any manner of food, meats, fish, eggs or butter. This no one can deny. God has given us this liberty. That is true; nevertheless we must know how to use our liberty, and treat the weak brother differently from the stubborn. Observe, then, how you must use this liberty.

First of all, If you cannot give up meat without harm to yourself, or if you are sick, you may eat whatever you like, and if any one takes offense, let him be offended. And if the whole world took offense, yet you are not committing a sin, for God can excuse you in view of the liberty He has so graciously bestowed upon you, and of the necessities of your health, which would be endangered by your abstinence.

Secondly, If you should be pressed to eat fish instead of meat on Friday, and to eat fish and abstain from eggs and butter during Lent, etc., as the pope has done with his fools' laws, then you must in no wise allow yourself to be drawn away from the liberty in which God has placed you, but do just the contrary to spite him, and say: Because you forbid me to eat meat, and presume to turn my liberty into law, I will eat meat in spite of you. (Liberty and Law) And thus you must do in all other things which are matters of liberty. To give you an example: If the pope, or any one else would force me to wear a cowl, just as he prescribes it, I would take off the cowl just to spite him. But since it is left to my own free choice, I wear it or take it off, according to my pleasure.

Thirdly, There are some who are still weak in faith, who ought to be instructed, and who would gladly believe as we do. But their ignorance prevents them, and if this were faithfully preached to them, as it was to us, they would be one with us. Toward such well-meaning people we must assume an entirely different attitude from that which we assume toward the stubborn. We must bear patiently with them and not use our liberty, since it brings no peril or harm to body or soul, nay, rather is salutary, and we are doing our brothers and sisters a great service besides. But if we use our liberty without need, and deliberately cause offense to our neighbor, we drive away the very one who in time would come to our faith. Thus St.

Paul circumcised Timothy because simple-minded Jews had taken offense; he thought, What harm can it do, since they are offended because of their ignorance? (<441603>Acts 16:3) But when, in Antioch, they would insist that he ought and must circumcise Titus, Paul withstood them all and to spite them would not have Titus circumcised. (<480203>Galatians 2:3) And he held his ground. He did the same when St. Peter by the exercise of his liberty caused a wrong conception in the minds of the unlearned. (<480211>Galatians

2:11 ff.) It was on this wise: When Peter was with the Gentiles, he ate pork and sausage with them, but when the Jews came in, he would not touch this food and ate no more with them. (Peter and the Gentiles) Then the Gentiles who had become Christians, thought: Alas! we, too, must be like the Jews, eat no pork and live according to the law of Moses. But when

Paul found that it would injure the liberty of the Gospel, he reproved Peter publicly and read him an apostolic lecture, saying: "If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of the Gentiles, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?" (<480214>Galatians 2:14) Thus we, too, should order our lives and use our liberty at the proper time, so that Christian liberty may suffer no injury, and no offense be given to our weak brothers and sisters who are still without the knowledge of this liberty.

A SERMON ON THE SACRAMENT THURSDAY AFTER INVOCAVIT We have heard of the things that are necessary, such as the mass, which is regarded as a sacrifice, and of the unnecessary things, such as the leaving of monasteries by monks, the marriage of priests, and the images. We have seen how we must treat these matters, that no compulsion ,or law must be made of them, and that no one shall be dragged from them by the hair, but that we must let the Word of God alone do the work. Let us now consider how we must observe the blessed sacrament.

You have heard how I preached against the foolish law of the pope and opposed his precept, that no woman shall wash the altar-linen on which the body of Christ has lain, even if it be a pure nun, except it first be washed by a pure priest. Likewise, when any one touches the body of Christ with the hand, the priests come running and scrape his fingers, and much more of the same sort. But when a priest is incontinent, the pope winks at it. If the woman bears a child, he lets that pass, too. The altar-linen and the sacrament, however, dare not be touched.

Against such fools' laws we have preached, and set forth that no sin is involved in these foolish prescriptions of the pope:, and that a layman does not commit sin if he touch the cup or the body of Christ with his hands.

You should give thanks to God that you have: come to such clear knowledge, which many great men have lacked. But now you have become just as foolish as the pope, with your notion that you must handle the sacrament; you would prove that you are good Christians by touching the sacrament with your hands. You have dealt with the sacrament, our highest treasure, in such a. way that it is a wonder you were not struck down by thunder and lightning. The other things God would have suffered you to do, but to make this a matter of compulsion, He can in no wise tolerate.

And if you do not recede from this, neither the emperor nor any one else need drive me from you, I will go without urging; yea, I dare say, none of my enemies, although they have caused me much sorrow, have wounded me as you have wounded me in this matter. If you would show that you are good Christians by handling the sacrament, and boast of it before everybody, then indeed Herod and Pilate are the chief and best Christians.

Methinks they handled the body of Christ when they had him nailed to the cross and put to death.

Nay, my dear friends, the kingdom of God consists not in outward things, which can be touched or perceived, but in faith. (<421720>Luke 17:20 <460420>1

Corinthians 4:20) But you may say: We live and should live in accordance with the Scriptures, and God has instituted the sacrament in such a manner that we should take it with our hands, for He said: "Take and eat, 'this is my body." (<402636>Matthew 26:36) Answer: Though I am convinced beyond a doubt that the disciples of the Lord took it with their hands, and though I admit that you may do the same without committing sin, nevertheless I can neither make it compulsory nor prove that it is the only way. And my reason therefore is this: when the devil, in his seeking after us, argues,

Where have you read in the Scriptures that "take" means "seizing with the hands"? — -how shall I prove or defend it? (What does "Take" mean?)

Nay, how will I answer him when he cites, from the Scriptures, the very opposite, and proves that "take" does not mean to receive with the hands only, but also to convey to ourselves in other ways? "See, my good fellow," so he says, "how the word 'take' is used by three Evangelists in describing the taking of gall and vinegar by the Lord. (<402734>Matthew 27:34

<411523>Mark 15:23) You must admit that the Lord did not touch or handle it with His hands, for His hands were nailed to the cross." (<422336>Luke 23:36)

This verse is a strong argument against me. Again, he cites the passage: Et accepit omnes timor , —"And fear took hold on all," where again we must admit that fear has no hands. (<420716>Luke 7:16) Thus I am driven into a corner and must concede, even against my will, that "take" means not only to receive with the hands, but to convey to myself in any other way in which it can be done. So you see, dear friends, we must be on firm ground, if we are to withstand the devil's attack. Although I must acknowledge that you committed no sin when you touched the sacrament with your hands, nevertheless I must tell you that it was not a good work, because it caused offense everywhere. For the universal custom is, to receive the blessed sacrament directly from the hands of the priest. Why will you not herein also serve those who are weak in the faith and abstain from your liberty? It does not help you if you do it, nor harm you if you do it not.

Therefore no new practices should be introduced, unless the Gospel has first been thoroughly preached and understood, even as it has been with you. On this account, dear friends, let us deal soberly and wisely in the things that pertain to God, for God will not be mocked. You may mock the saints, but with God it is vastly different. Therefore, I pray you, give up this practice.

Let us now speak of the two kinds. Although I hold that it is necessary that the sacrament should be received in both kinds, according to the institution of the Lord, nevertheless it must not be made compulsory nor a general law. We must occupy ourselves with the Word, practice it and preach it.

For the result we should look entirely to the Word, and let every one have his liberty in this matter. Where that is not done, the sacrament becomes an external observance and a hypocrisy, which is just what the devil wants.

But when the Word is given free course and is not bound to any observance, it takes hold of one today and falls into his heart, tomorrow it touches another, and so on. Thus quietly and soberly it will do its work, and no one will know how it all came about.

I was glad to know when some one wrote me, that some people in this city had begun to receive the sacrament in both kinds. You should have allowed it to remain thus and not have forced it into a law. But now you go at it pell-mell, and headlong force every one to it. Dear friends, you will not succeed in that way. And if you desire to be regarded as better

Christians than others, by this that you take the sacrament into your hands and receive it in both kinds, you are really poor Christians indeed! In this way even a sow could be a Christian, for she has a big enough snout to receive the sacrament outwardly. We must deal soberly with such high things. Dear friends, this dare be no mockery, and if you would heed me, give it up. If you will not heed me, no one need drive me away from you

— I will leave you unbidden, and I shall regret that I ever preached so much as one sermon in this place. The other things could be passed by, but this cannot be passed by; you have gone so far that men say: "At Wittenberg there are very good Christians, for they take the sacrament with the hands and handle the cup, and then they go to their brandy and drink until they are drunken." Thus are the weak and simple-minded men driven away, who would come to us if as much instruction had been given to them as was given to us.

But if there is any one so stupid that he must touch the sacrament with his hands, let him have it brought home to his house and there let him handle it to his heart's content. But in public let him abstain, since that will not bring him harm and the offense will be avoided which is caused to our brothers, sisters and neighbors, who are now so angry with us that they are ready to kill us. I may say that none of the enemies who have opposed me until now have brought so much grief upon me as you.

This is enough for today; we shall continue on the morrow.

FRIDAY AFTER INVOCAVIT In our discussion of the chief things we have come to the reception of the sacrament, which we have not yet finished. Today We shall see how we must conduct ourselves here, and also who is worthy to receive the sacrament and who belongs there.

It is very necessary here that your hearts and consciences be well instructed, so that you distinguish well between the outward reception and the inner and spiritual reception. This is the bodily and outward reception, when a man receives with his mouth the body of Christ and His blood. Any man can receive the sacrament in this way, for such reception may be without faith and love. But that reception does not make a man a Christian, for if it did, even a mouse would be a Christian, for it can likewise eat the bread and drink out of the cup. It is such a simple thing to do. But the true, inner, spiritual reception is a very different thing, for it consists in the right use of the sacrament and of its fruits.

I would say in the first place that such reception is the true inner one, and is a reception in faith. We Christians have no other outward sign by which we may be distinguished from others than this sacrament and baptism; but a mere outward reception, without faith, amounts to nothing. There must be faith to make one well prepared for the reception and acceptable before God, otherwise it is all sham and a mere external show, which is not Christianity at all. Christianity is a thing of faith, which is never bound to any external work.

But faith (which we all must have, if we wish to go to the sacrament worthily) is a firm trust, that Christ, the Son of God, stands in our place and has taken all our sins upon His shoulders, that He is the eternal satisfaction for our sin and reconciles us with God the Father. He who has this faith belongs to this sacrament, and neither devil nor hell nor sin can harm him. Do you ask why? Because God is his protector and defender.

And when I have this faith, then I am certain God is fighting for me; I can defy devil, death, hell and sin and all the harm with which they threaten me.

This is the great, inestimable treasure given us in Christ, which the words of man fail to describe. Only faith can take hold of the heart, and not every one has such faith. Therefore this sacrament must not be made a law, as the most holy father, the pope, has done with his fools' commandment: All

Christians must go to the sacrament at the holy Eastertide, and he who does not go shall not be buried in consecrated ground. FB69 Is it not a foolish law which the pope has set up? You ask why? Because we are not all alike; we do not all have equal faith; the faith of one is stronger than that of another. It is therefore impossible that the sacrament can be made a law, and the greatest sins are committed at Easter solely on account of this unchristian command, which would drive everybody to the sacrament. And if all robbery, usury, unchastity and all the other sins were cast upon one great heap, this sin would overtop it — even at the time and place of seeming greatest holiness. And why? Because the pope can look into no one's heart to see .whether he has faith or not.

But if you believe that God is with you and stakes all his treasures and His blood for you, as if He said: Fall in behind Me without fear or delay, and then let come what may to attempt thy harm, let devil, death, sin and hell and all creation try it, I shall go before thee, for I will be thy captain and thy shield, trust Me and rely upon Me completely — he who believes thus cannot be harmed by devil, hell, sin or death; if God fights for him, what can you do to him?

He who has such faith is fit for the altar and receives the sacrament as an assurance, or seal, or sign to assure him of God's promises and grace. But such faith we do not all have; would to God one-tenth of the Christians had it! See, such rich, immeasurable treasures, which God in His grace showers upon us, cannot be the possession of every one, but only of those who suffer either bodily or spiritual adversity: the bodily through the persecution of man, and the spiritual by despair of conscience; outwardly or inwardly, when the devil causes your heart to be weak, timid and discouraged, so that you know not how you stand with God, and when he reproaches you with your sins. And in such terrified and trembling hearts alone God desires to dwell, as the prophet Isaiah says. (<236602>Isaiah 66:2) For he who has not felt the battle within him, is not distressed by his sins nor has a daily quarrel with them, and wishes no protector, defender and shield to stand before him, is not yet ready for this food. This food demands a hungering and longing man, for it delights to enter a hungering soul, one that is in constant battle with its sins and eager to be rid of them.

He who is not thus prepared should abstain for a while from this sacrament, for this food is not for a sated and full heart, and if it comes to such, it is harmful. Therefore, if we think upon, and feel within us, such distress of conscience and the fear of a timid heart, we shall come with all humbleness and reverence, and not rush to it pell-mell, with insolence and without fear and humility. We are not always fit for it; today I have the grace, and am fit for it, but not tomorrow, yea, it may be that for six months I have no desire nor fitness for it.

Therefore are they the most worthy who are constantly vexed by death and the devil, and they receive it most opportunely, to remind them and strengthen them in the faith that no harm can come unto them, for He is now with them, from Whom no one can take them away; let come death or devil or sin, they cannot do them harm.

This is what Christ did, when He prepared to institute the blessed sacrament. He brought anguish upon His disciples and trembling to their hearts when He said that He would go away from them, (<402602>Matthew

26:2) and again they were tormented when He said: One of you shall betray me. (<402621>Matthew 26:21) Think you not that that cut them to the heart? Truly, they received the word with all fear, and sat there as though they were all traitors to God. And after He had made them all tremble with fear and sorrow, then only did He institute the blessed sacrament as a comfort, and consoled them again. For this bread is a comfort for the sorrowing, a healing for the sick, a life for the dying, a food for all the hungry, and a rich treasure for all the poor and needy.

Let this be enough at this time concerning the proper use of this sacrament.

I commend you to God.

SATURDAY BEFORE REMINISCERE Yesterday we heard of the use of the holy and blessed sacrament and saw who are worthy to receive it, even those in whom is the fear of death, who have timid and despairing consciences and who live in fear of hell. All such come prepared to partake of this food for the strengthening of their weak faith and the comforting of their conscience. This is the true and right use of this sacrament, and whoever does not find himself in this state, let him refrain from coming until God also takes hold of him and draws him through His Word.

We shall now speak of the fruit of this sacrament, which is love; that is, that we should treat our neighbor even as God has treated us. Now we have received from God naught but love and favor, for Christ has pledged and given us His righteousness and everything that He has, has poured out upon us all His treasures, which no man can measure and no angel can understand or fathom, for God is a glowing furnace of love, reaching even from the earth to the heavens.

Love, I say, is a fruit of this sacrament. But I do not yet perceive it among you here in Wittenberg, although there is much preaching of love and you ought to practice it above all other things. This is the principal thing, and alone is seemly in a Christian. But no one shows eagerness for this, and you want to do all sorts of unnecessary things, which are of no account. If you do not want to show yourselves Christians by your love, then leave the other things undone, too, for St. Paul says in 1 Corinthians, "If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not love, I am as sounding brass or a tinkling cymbal." (<461301>1 Corinthians 13:1) This is a terrible saying of Paul. And further: "And though, I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries of God, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not love, I am nothing.

And if I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and if I give my body to be burned, but have not love, it profiteth me nothing." (<461302>1 Corinthians

13:2,3) You have not got so far as that, although you have received great and rich gifts from God, especially a knowledge of the Scriptures. It is true, you have the pure Gospel and the true Word of God, but no one as yet has given his goods to the poor, no one has yet been burned, and even these things would profit nothing without love. You would take all of God's goods in the sacrament, and yet not pour them forth again in love.

One will not lend the other a helping hand, no one thinks first of another, but every one looks out for himself and his own gain, seeks but his own and lets everything else go as it will, — if anybody is helped, well and good. No one looks after the poor or seeks how to help them. It is pitiful.

You have heard many sermons about it and all my books are full of it and have the one purpose, to urge you to faith and love.

And if you will not love one another, God will send a great plague upon you; let this be a warning to you, for God will not reveal His Word and have it preached in vain. You are tempting God too far. my friends. If some one in times past had preached the Word to our forefathers, they would perchance have acted differently. Or if the Word were preached today to many poor children in the cloisters, they would receive it with much greater joy than you. You do not heed it at all, and give yourselves to other things, which are unnecessary and foolish.

I commend you to God.

A SHORT SUMMARY OF THE SERMON OF DR, M. LUTHER DELIVERED ON REMINISCERE SUNDAY ON Now we have heard all the things which ought to be considered here, except confession. Of this we shall speak now.

In the first place, There is a confession which is founded on the Scriptures; namely, when some one commits a sin publicly, or with other men's knowledge, and is accused before the congregation. If he abandons his sin, they intercede for him with God. But if he will not hear the congregation, he is excluded from the church and cast out, so that no one will have anything to do with him. And this confession is commanded by God in <401815>Matthew 18:15, "If thy brother trespass against thee (so that thou and others are offended), go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone."

Of this confession there is no longer even a trace to be found, and in this particular the Gospel is put aside in this place. He who could reestablish it would perform a good work. Here is where you ought to have taken pains and reestablished this kind of confession, and let the other things go. For by this no one would have been offended, and it would have been accomplished without disturbance. It should be done in this way: When you see a usurer, adulterer, thief or drunkard, you should go to him in secret and admonish him to give up his sin. If he will not hear, you should take two others with you and admonish him once more, in a brotherly way, to give up his sin. But if he scorns that, you should tell the pastor before the whole congregation, have your witnesses with you, and accuse him before the pastor in the presence of the people, saying: "Dear pastor, this man has done this and that, and would not receive our brotherly admonition to give up his sin. therefore I accuse him, together with my witnesses who were present." And then, if he will not give up and willingly acknowledge his guilt, the pastor should exclude him and put him under the ban before the whole assembly, for the sake of the congregation, until he comes to himself and is received back again. This would be Christian.

But I cannot undertake to carry it out single-handed.

Secondly, A confession is necessary for us, when we go away in a corner by ourselves, and confess to God Himself and pour out before Him all our faults. And this confession is also commanded. From this comes the familiar word of Scripture: "Facite judicium et justitiam." (<011819>Genesis

18:19) Judicium facere est nos ipsos accusare et damnare; justitiam autem facere est fidere misericordiae Dei. FB72 As it is written, "Blessed are they that keep judgment and do righteousness at all times." (<19A603>Psalm 106:3)

The judgment is nothing else than a man's knowing and judging and condemning himself, and this is true humility and self-abasement. The righteousness is nothing else than a man's knowing himself and praying to God for the mercy and help through which God raises him up again. This is what David means when he says: "I have sinned; I will confess my transgressions unto the Lord," (<193205>Psalm 32:5 f.) and, "Thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin; for this all Thy saints shall pray 'unto Thee."

Thirdly, There is also a confession when one takes another aside, and tells him what troubles him, so that he may hear from him a word of comfort; and this confession is commanded by the pope. It is this urging and forcing which I condemned when I wrote concerning confession, FB73 and I refuse to go to confession just because the pope wishes it and has commanded it.

For I wish him to keep his hands off the confession and not make of it a compulsion or command, which he has not the power to do. Yet I will let no man take private confession away from me, and I would not give it up for all the treasures in the world, since I know what comfort and strength it has given me. No one knows what it can do for him except one who has struggled much with the devil. Yea, the devil would have slain me long ago, if the confession had not sustained me. For there are many doubts which a man cannot resolve by himself, and so he takes a brother aside and tells him his trouble. What harm is there, if he humbles himself a little before his neighbor, puts himself to shame, looks for a word of comfort from him, and takes it to himself and believes it, as if he heard it from God himself, as we read in <401819>Matthew 18:19 "If two of you shall agree as touching anything that they shall ask, ill shall be done for them."

And we must have many absolutions, so that we may strengthen our timid consciences and despairing hearts against the devil and against God. (Many

Absolutions) Therefore no man shall forbid the confession nor keep or drive any one away from it. And if any one wrestles with his sins, is eager to be rid of them and looks for some assurance from the Scriptures, let him go and confess to another in secret, and receive what is said to him there as if it came directly from God's own lips. Whoever has the strong and firm faith that his sins are forgiven, may ignore this confession and confess to God alone. But how many have such a strong faith? Therefore, as I have said, I will not let this private confession be taken from me. Yet I would force no one to it, but leave the matter to every one's free will.

For our God is not so miserly that He has left us with only one comfort or strengthening for our conscience, or one absolution, but we have many absolutions in the Gospel, and are showered richly with them. For instance, we have this in the Gospel: "If ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you." (<400614>Matthew 6:14) Another comfort we have in the Lord's Prayer: "Forgive us our trespasses," etc.

(<400612>Matthew 6:12) A third is our baptism, when I reason thus: See, my Lord, I am baptized in Thy name so that I may be assured of Thy grace and mercy. After that we have the private confession, when I go and receive a sure absolution as if God Himself spake it, so that I may be assured that my sins are forgiven. Finally I take to myself the blessed sacrament, when I eat

His body and drink His blood as a sign that I am rid of my sins and God has freed me from all my frailties; and in order to make me sure of this, He gives me His body to eat and His blood to drink, so that I shall not and cannot despair: I cannot doubt I have a gracious God.

Thus we see that confession must not be despised, but that it is a true comfort. And since we need many absolutions and comforts, because we must fight against the devil, death, hell and sin, we must not allow any of our weapons to be taken away, but keep intact the whole armor and equipment which God has given us for use against our enemies. For you do not yet know what work it is to fight with the devil and to overcome him. I know it well; I have eaten salt with him once or twice. I know him well, and he knows me well, too. If only you knew him, you would not in this manner drive out confession.

I commend you to God. Amen.

THAT DOCTRINES OF MEN ARE A REPLY TO TEXTS QUOTED IN DEFENSE OF (VON MENSCHENLEHREN ZU MEIDEN) "Silver and gold have I none: but such as I have give I thee." Somewhat in the spirit of these words Luther had planned to dedicate a small book to his host of the Wartburg, Hans von Berlepsch. For a time Luther had thought that von Berlepsch himself was bearing the expense of his entertainment in that retreat, and that he was being more royally treated than he deserved.

Not only the material comforts with which he was surrounded appealed to him, however. Von Berlepsch was interested in Luther and in Luther's work. He talked with him seriously on religious questions, and expressed a desire to have more information, particularly concerning the authority of the teachings of the Roman Church which had no direct warrant in To this desire of von Berlepsch we can trace the origin of our treatise, That the Doctrines of Men are to be Rejected. There is no dedication to von

Berlepsch, however, and no reference to the months of companionship on the Wartburg. Luther returned from the Wartburg early in March, 1522, and on the 28th of March sent the first part of the treatise to Spalatin, with the request that it be forwarded to von Berlepsch. The second part, the Reply to Texts Quoted in Defense of the Doctrines of Men, was added in a second edition.

This was not the only writing forwarded to you Berlepsch in memory of the pleasant days spent on the Wartburg. Perhaps of even greater interest was the gift sent on September 25, 1522 — one of the first complete copies of the German New Testament.

Buchwald has called our treatise "a model of sound explanation of the Scriptures for the purpose of refuting error." We must caution the reader, however, not to think of Luther's occasional statements concerning the authority of Scripture as final. Luther is still largely upon medieval ground, accepting the premise of the Roman Church, and refuting the practice of the popes, priests and monks from the fundamental assumption of the authority of the Scriptures. The succeeding years, the controversies with the leaders of the peasants and with the heavenly prophets, led him to clearer views. Where in this treatise he wrote, "The same things which are found in the Books of Moses are found in the others. For the other books do no more than show how in the course of history the word of Moses was kept or not kept," he was thinking of the one Gospel which he found everywhere in the Scriptures. But he distinguished carefully between the permanent and the temporary in the Books of Moses and elsewhere, and speaks of "that which God has decreed" in the Old Testament as having

"come to an end, and no longer binding the consciences of men" (p. 442).

That which is permanent is the Gospel, "for it is beyond question that all the Scriptures point to Christ alone" (p. 432). Probably the clearest statement of his views is found in a sermon preached in 1557: "The Word was given in many ways from the beginning. We must not only ask whether it is God's Word, whether God spoke it, but much more, to whom He spoke it, whether it applies to you or to another." "The false prophets rush in and say, 'Dear people, this is God's Word.' It is true, and we cannot deny it; but we are not the people to whom He speaks" (Er1. Ed., 33, 16.)

In reading the treatise, therefore, it will be well to consider when it was written and for whom; and not to think of it as a final statement of Luther's views on the authority of the Scriptures.

The treatise is found in the original German in Weimar Ed., X2; in Erlangen, 28, 318-343; in Berlin, 2, 289-314.

W. A. LAMBERT. — SOUTH BETHLEHEM, PA.

THAT WE ARE TO REJECT THE DOCTRINES OF MEN:

TOGETHER WITH A REPLY TO THE TEXTS QUOTED IN DEFENCE OF THE DOCTRINES OF MEN To all who read or hear this little book may God grant grace and understanding. Amen.

I, Martin Luther, have published this brief book for the comfort and saving of the poor consciences which are by the law of men held in bondage in monasteries and convents; that they may be able to arm and strengthen themselves with the Word of God, so as to be steadfast in the pains of death and other trials. But those who are overbold and unruly, who give no other evidence of being Christians except that they can eat eggs, meat and milk, stay away from confession and break the images, etc. , — these I warn that I do not wish my words to help them. For I regard them as the filthy people who defiled the camp of Israel, (<052312>Deuteronomy 23:12 f) although such cleanliness was enjoined upon the people that a man was required to go outside the camp to ease himself and to cover up with earth that which came from him. (<051418>Deuteronomy 14:18 <031119>Leviticus 11:19)

We also must endure these unclean lapwings in our nest, until God teach them manners. This Christian liberty I would have preached only to poor, humble, captive consciences, so that poor children, nuns and monks, who would like to escape from their bondage may inform their consciences how they may do so with God's approval and without danger, and use their freedom in an orderly and Christian way. May God grant His blessing.

That the doctrines of men are to be rejected: proof from the Scriptures.

Moses in Deuteronomy 4: 2 says, "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish aught from it."

But some one will say that Moses speaks only of his word; but to the books of Moses there have also been added many books of the prophets and the entire New Testament. I answer: True; but nothing new has been added: the same things that are found in the books of Moses are found in the others. For the other books do no more than show how in the course of history the word of Moses was kept or not kept. It is indeed stated in different words and the histories are different, but though out there is one and the same teaching. And here we can challenge them to point out anywhere in all the books added to the books of Moses a single word that is not found earlier in the books of Moses. For it is beyond question that all the Scriptures point to Christ alone. Now Christ says, in <430546>John 5:46,

"Moses wrote of me." Therefore everything that is in the other books is also in the books of Moses, and these are the original documents.

<232913>Isaiah 29:13, which the Lord quotes in <401508>Matthew 15:8: "This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, but their heart is far from me. But in vain do they worship me, teaching the doctrines and commandments of men."

Mark the word of Christ, Who calls it vain worship to serve God after the doctrines of men. For Christ is not drunken or a fool; on His word we must build in all things rather than on all angels and creatures. (<480108>Galatians 1:8)

The same Christ in the same chapter, <401511>Matthew 15:11, says, "Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man."

This saying must be well understood, for it is powerful and mightily overthrows all teaching, custom and manner of life that distinguishes between foods, and it sets all consciences free from all laws concerning food and drink; so that it is allowable to eat milk, butter, eggs, cheese and meat every day, whether it be Sunday or Friday, Lent or Advent; and no one needs to pay butter-money or buy butter-letters. For this word stands firm and does not deceive: "That which goeth into the mouth doth not defile a man."

From this it follows, first, that it is a lie when they say that St. Peter instituted the fast-days and that the commandment of the Church has made it a mortal sin to eat eggs, butter, milk and meat on fast-days. (Fastdays)

For neither St. Peter nor the Church institutes or teaches anything contrary to Christ. And if they did, we must not obey them. To do what they ask would indeed not be wicked; but it is wicked to make a necessity and a commandment of that which is free, and to pretend that something does defile and is sin of which Christ Himself says that it is no sin and does not defile.

It follows, secondly, that it is sheer devil's knavery for the pope to sell letters and grant permission to eat butter, meat, etc.; for Christ in this word has already made it a matter of liberty and has permitted it. (Dispensations)

In the third place, it is an error and a lie to say that goldfasts, FB75 banfasts, FB76 and the fasts on the eve of Apostles' and saints' days must be observed and that their non observance is sin, because the Church has so commanded. For against everything of the kind stands this word of Christ:

"That which goeth into the mouth doth not defile the man." Fasting should be free and voluntary, both as to the day and as to the food, forever.

Fourthly, the orders of St. Benedict, and of St. Bernard, the Carthusians, and all others which avoid the use of meat and other food because they hold that this is necessary and commanded and that not to do so would be sin, contradict Christ. For their law flatly contradicts the word of Christ and says: That which goeth into the mouth defileth. Then they must make

Christ a liar when He says: "That which goeth into the mouth defileth not the man." Thus you see that this one saying of Christ mightily condemns all orders and spiritual rules. For if that which goeth into the mouth does not defile, how much less will that defile which is put on the body? whether it be cowl, coat, shirt, hose, shoes, cloak, whether green, yellow, blue, red, white, motley, or whatever one wish. And the same is true of places, whether churches, cells or the rooms of a house.

It follows that he who regards it a sin for a monk to go without the dress of his order, and would not leave it a matter of freedom, also makes Christ a liar and makes that a sin which Christ freed from sin, and says Yes! where Christ says No! What then are such monks but people who say to Christ's very face, Thou liest! there is sin in that which thou sayest is not sin. It will not help them to quote St. Bernard, St. Gregory, St. Francis and other saints. We must hear what Christ says, Who alone has been made our

Teacher by the Father, when on Mount Tabor He said, <401705>Matthew 17:5, "This is my beloved Son, in Whom I am well pleased; hear ye Him." He did not say, Hear ye St. Bernard, St. Gregory, etc., but, Hear ye Him, Him,

Him, my beloved Son. Who knows how far the saints sinned or did right in this matter? What they did, they did not of necessity nor by commandment.

Or if they did it as of necessity and by commandment, they erred, and we must not forsake Christ to follow them.

All this is confirmed by Christ in the words which follow in <401511>Matthew 15:11, "That which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man. For out of the mouth, coming forth from the heart, come evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies, etc. These defile a man."

Here we ask, If that alone is sin and defiles a man, which proceeds from the heart, as Christ here so strongly argues and decides, how then can butter, milk, eggs, cheese defile, which proceed not from the mouth nor from the heart, but come from the bellies of cows and of hens? Who has ever seen meat, tonsures, cowls, monasteries, hair-shirts coming out of men's mouths? Then it must be the cows that sin in giving us milk and butter, and in bearing calves.

Therefore, all the laws of monks and of men concerning food, clothing and places and all things that are external, are not only blasphemy of God and lying and deceiving, but the buffoonery of apes. It is true, a man may have an inordinate desire to eat excessively and to dress extravagantly; but that proceeds from the heart, and may refer to fish as well as to meat, to gray homespun as well as to red velvet. In short, Christ does not lie when He says, "That which goeth into the mouth defileth not a man, but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man."

But if it is true that neglect to do what men command neither defiles nor is sin, then on the other hand, the keeping and doing of men's commandments cannot make us clean nor give us merit; since only the opposite of sin and of the unclean is clean and gives merit. Therefore, all of the monastic life neither makes clean nor gives merit. And that is what the Lord Christ means when He says, <401509>Matthew 15:9, "In vain do they worship me with the commandments of men." Why 'in vain'? Because neglecting them is no sin and keeping them is no merit, but both are free.

They deceive themselves, therefore, and make a merit of that which is no merit, and are afraid of sinning where there is no sin, as <191405>Psalm 14:5, says, "There have they trembled for fear, where there was no fear."

St. Paul in <540401>1 Timothy 4:1-7 says: "Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their consciences seared with a hot iron; forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving: for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer. If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine, whereunto thou hast attained. But refuse profane and old wives' fables."

O how this thunders and storms against all the works, doctrines and orders of men. First, if they boast that they have derived their practice from the pope and from holy fathers, what will Christ's judgment be? Will He not say, "Paul, My Apostle, is My chosen vessel, as Luke writes, <440915>Acts 9:15: why then have you not ascribed greater authority to his word than to that of the pope and the fathers, of whom you do not know whose vessels they are?" How will they stand before Him?

Next, we ask them whether butter, eggs, meat, milk and all the food which they avoid on fast-days and in the orders, have not been created by God, and are not God's good creatures? Then it is certain that they are the men of whom Paul here says that they forbid the food which God has created and has given to believers to use. And they also forbid marriage, so that they cannot escape: this passage fits them and is spoken of them. Let us see what Paul thinks of them and how he reproves them.

1. They have departed from the faith; for they could not have introduced such doctrines and works if they had not thought the doctrines and works would make them pious and save them. But such an opinion is of itself a sure sign that they have fallen away from the faith, since it is the work of faith alone to do that which they expect works to do, as has frequently been said.

2. They give heed to seducing spirits. He does not say, "to seducing men," but "to seducing spirits"; and these are they who pretend to be spiritual and bear the name spiritual, and claim to be of the Spirit and in the Spirit. But since they are without faith it is impossible for them not to err in spiritual matters. Hence this is a fitting succession: they depart from the faith and follow after error in the spirit.

3. Their doctrines he calls "doctrines of devils." This also must follow where faith and the true Spirit are wanting: the devil gives them the seducing spirit and leads them on with beautifully varnished doctrines and works, so that they think they are altogether spiritual. But since the doctrine does not originate in the Scriptures, it can be the doctrine of no one but the devil.

4. They are speakers of lies. For they at times quote even the Scriptures and the sayings of the fathers and wrest them to support their doctrines, as we see them do daily. But this is all false and a lie, since the Scriptures are altogether against them.

5. It is sheer hypocrisy. This is true and needs no comment. For all that they do is only appearance and show, concerned with external matters of food and clothes.

6. They have their conscience seared with a hot iron; that is, they have an unnatural conscience. For where there is no sin nor matter of conscience, they make sin and a matter of conscience, as was said above. Just as a scar caused by searing is an unnatural mark on the body.

7. They forbid to marry, by creating an estate in which there shall be no marriage, as we see in the case of both priests and monks. Wherefore, behold the judgment of God upon such doctrines and estates: that they are doctrines of devils, seducing doctrines, false doctrines, faithless doctrines, hypocritical doctrines. God help us! Who would remain in them when God

Himself passes such judgment? What would it help you, if you had made a thousand vows and oaths on such doctrines? Nay, the stricter the vow, the more reason to break it, because it was made after the devil's doctrines and against God.

But see how cleverly they worm themselves out and ward off this text from themselves, saying that it does not apply to them, but to the Tatianists, FB77 the heretics who condemned marriage altogether. Paul, however, does not speak here of those who condemn marriage, but of those who forbid it for the sake of appearing spiritual. Let us grant, however, that Paul speaks against the Tatianists. Then, if the pope does what the Tatianists did, why does it not apply to him as well? Be they Tatianists or the pope, this text speaks of those who forbid marriage. The words of Paul condemn the work, and make no distinction about the person who does it. He who forbids marriage is the devil's disciple and apostle, as the words dearly say.

And since the pope does this, he must be the devil's disciple, as must all his followers; otherwise, St. Paul must be a liar.

8. They forbid the food which God has created. Here, again, you see that the doctrines of man are ascribed to the devil by God Himself through the mouth of Paul. What greater and more terrible thing would you wish to hear concerning the doctrines of men, than that they are a falling away from the faith, seducing, false, devilish, hypocritical? What will satisfy those whom this text does not satisfy? But if the doctrine that forbids certain kinds of food is devilish and unchristian, that which concerns clothes, tonsures, places and everything external will be just as devilish and unchristian.

But here again they worm themselves out, and say that St. Paul is speaking of the Manicheans.FB78 We are not asking about that. St. Paul speaks of the forbidding of meats, and, be they Manicheans or Tatianists, the pope and his followers forbid meats. Paul speaks of the work which we see that the pope does. Therefore we cannot save him from this text. If some other man arose today or tomorrow and forbade meats, would it not apply to him, even if he were no Manichean? If that way of interpreting Scripture were true, we might boldly do what Paul here forbids, and say, It does not apply to us, but to the ancient Manicheans. But that is not the way. Whether the pope with his monks and priests be not a Manichean, I do not discuss; but I do say, that in his teaching and works he contradicts the teaching of St.

Paul more than any Manichean.

9. They are unthankful. For God has created meats, says St. Paul, to be received with thanksgiving. And they refuse to receive them, that they may have no occasion to be thankful for God's goodness. The reason for which is, that they have no faith and do not know the truth. For Paul says, I Tim.

4:3, "To them which believe and to them which know the truth, they are given to be used with thanksgiving." But if they are unbelieving and do not know the truth, as St. Paul here says they are, they are beyond question heathen, non-Christians, blind and foolish. And this, I suppose, they regard as praise of the pope, priests and monks!

10. Paul rebukes them as wicked, harmful preachers; for he says that Timothy shall be a good preacher, nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine, if he will put the brethren in remembrance of these things. It follows that they who teach the contrary must be wicked preachers and be nourished with words of unbelief and of wicked doctrines.

11. He calls such doctrines profane and old wives' fables. Is not that foolish talk? He says that the great doctors busy themselves with fables such as old wives chatter about behind the stove, and calls them profane, unchristian and unholy idle talk, although the doctors claim that they are the very essence of holiness!

Who has ever heard the doctrines of men so terribly decried in every way? that they are apostate, unbelieving, unchristian, heathen, seducing, devilish, false, hypocritical, searing the conscience, unthankful, that they dishonor

God and His creature and are harmful fables and old wives' chatter. Let him who can, flee from beneath this judgment of God.

St. Paul in <510216>Colossians 2:16 and the following verses says: "Let no man burden you in meat or in drink or in respect of certain days which are holy days, or days of the new moon or sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come, but the body is in Christ. Let no one seduce you who follows his own will in the humility and religion of angels, of whom he has never seen even one, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind, and does not hold fast the Head, from which all the body, by joints and bands, is supplied with nourishment and is knit together, and so groweth unto a stature given of God. If then you be dead with Christ from the elements of this world, why do you burden yourselves with ordinances as if you were alive? Ordinances which say, This thou shalt not touch, this thou shalt not eat or drink, this thou shalt not put on (which all perish in the using), according to the commandments and doctrines of men, who have a show of wisdom because of their self-chosen spirituality and humility, and because they do not spare the body and do not supply its needs."

Is St. Paul here also speaking of the Manicheans or Tatianists? Or can we find excuse here for the papists? He speaks against those who take captive the consciences of men with the doctrines of men and make matters of conscience of food, drink, clothes, days and everything that is external.

And it cannot be denied that the pope, the chapters and monasteries with their rules and statutes do this when they forbid the eating of meat, eggs and butter, and the wearing of ordinary clothes such as other people wear.

And here stands St. Paul, and says:

1. "Let no man burden your consciences, or judge or condemn you in respect of food, drink, clothes or days." What does this mean if not this:

Be not priests nor monks, nor in any way keep the pope's laws; and believe him not when he says that a certain thing is sin or a matter of conscience.

See, here God through Paul commands us to despise the laws of the pope and of the monasteries, and to keep them free, so that they do not take captive the conscience. That is as much as to say, Do not become monks or priests, and let him who has become monk or priest turn back, or else retain his position as a matter of freedom without constraint of conscience.

And although Paul wrote this of the Jews, who did such things according to the Law (for he says in <510217>Colossians 2:17, that they have the shadow and type of things to come, but that the body itself is in Christ), yet it holds much more against the decrees of the pope and of the monks. For if that which God has decreed comes to an end and shall no longer bind the consciences of men, how much more shall men neither decree nor keep anything that would bind the conscience? And farther on more will be said of the laws of mere men, for 2. He says, "Let no one seduce you or lead you toward the prize in bypaths." What does this mean but to lead men to works and away from faith, which alone is the one right road by which to gain the prize of salvation, to strive toward heaven by other ways, and to claim that this is the way to gain the prize? And this is what the orders and the pope's doctrines do. And what are the ways they propose? Listen:

3. He says, "In selfwilled humility and the religion of angels." What words could better fit the orders? Is it not true that the pope and all of them prattle much of their obedience, which is said to be the noblest virtue, that is, the precious spiritual humility of the papists? But who has commanded this humility? They themselves have invented it and sought it out that they might seduce themselves. For with it they have withdrawn themselves from the common humility and obedience which God has commanded, namely, that every one shall humble himself and be subject to his neighbor. But they are subject to no man on earth, and have withdrawn themselves entirely; they have made an obedience and a humility of their own after their statutes. Yet they claim that their obedience is superhuman, perfect and, as it were, angelic, although there are no more disobedient and less humble people on earth than they are.

In the same way they also have their vows of chastity and poverty. They do not work like other people but, like the angels in heaven, they praise and worship God day and night; in short, their life is heavenly, although nowhere on earth can you find more horrible unchastity, greater wealth, less devotional hearts, or more hardened people than in the spiritual estate, as every one knows. Yet they seduce all the world from the true way to the by-path with their self-willed, beautiful, spiritual and angelic life. All this, it seems to me, is not spoken of the Jews nor of the Manicheans, but of the papists; the works prove it.

4. He says, "He walks in such religion and in that which he has never seen." This is the very worst feature of the doctrines of men and the life built upon them, that they are without foundation and without warrant in the Scriptures, and that men cannot know whether what they do is good or wicked. For all their life is an uncertain venture. If you ask them whether they are certain that what they are and do is pleasing to God, they say, they do not know, they must take the chances: "the end will show us." And this is all they can say, for they have no faith, and faith alone makes us certain that all that we are is well-pleasing to God, not because of our merit, but because of His mercy. Thus all their humility, obedience and all of their religion is, at the very best, uncertain and in vain.

5. "Vainly they puff themselves up," that is, they have no reason to do so.

For although their practices are uncertain, unbelieving and altogether damnable, yet they make bold to puff themselves up and to claim that they have the best and the only true way, so that in comparison with theirs every other manner of living stinks and is nothing at all. But this puffed-up carnal mind of theirs they neither see nor feel, so great is their angelic humility and obedience! O, the fruit of the doctrines of men!

6. "They do not hold fast the Head," which is Christ. For the doctrines of men and Christ cannot agree; one must destroy the other. If the conscience finds comfort in Christ, the comfort derived from works and doctrines must fall; if it finds comfort in works, Christ must fall. The heart cannot build upon a twofold foundation; one must be forsaken. Now we see that all the comfort of the papists rests upon their practices; for if it did not rest upon them, they would not esteem them and would give them up, or else they would use them as matters of freedom, how and when they pleased.

If there were no other misfortune connected with the doctrines of men, this were of itself all too great — that for their sake Christ must be forsaken, the Head must be lost, and the heart must build on such an abomination.

For this reason St. Peter calls the orders abominable and damnable heresies, which deny Christ, when he says, in <610201>2 Peter 2:1, "There shall arise among you false teachers, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, and deny the Lord that bought them."

7. It is clear enough that he means our spiritual estate when he says, "If ye be dead with Christ, why do ye burden your consciences with ordinances, such as: This thou shalt not touch, this thou shalt not eat, this thou shalt not wear, etc." Who can here deny that God through St. Paul forbids us to teach and to hear all doctrines of men, in so far as they constrain the conscience? Who then can with a good conscience be a monk or a priest, or be subject to the pope? They must confess that their consciences are taken captive with such laws. Thus thou seest what a mighty saying this is against all doctrines of men. It is dreadful to hear that they forsake Christ the Head, deny the faith and so must needs become heathen, and yet think their holiness upholds the world.

Paul, in <480108>Galatians 1:8f., says: "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. FB79 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed."

In these words you hear a judgment of God against the pope and all doctrines of men, which says that they are under the ban. And this ban is not like the pope's ban; it is eternal and separates a man from God, from Christ, from all salvation and from everything that is good, and makes him the companion of devils. O what a terrible judgment is this! Look now, whether the pope, priests and monks do not proclaim another and a different doctrine than that taught by Christ and His Apostles. We said above that Christ teaches, "What goeth into the mouth doth not defile a man." Contrary to this and beyond it the pope, priests and monks say,

"Thou liest, Christ, in so saying; for the eating of meat defiles a Carthusian and condemns him; and the same is true of the other orders." Is not this striking Christ on the mouth, calling Him a liar and blaspheming Him, and teaching other doctrines than He taught? Therefore it is a just judgment, that they in their great holiness are condemned like blasphemers of God with an eternal ban.

Paul, in <560114>Titus 1:14, says: "Teach them not to give heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn them from the truth."

This is a strong command, that we are not at all to regard the commandments of men. Is not this clear enough? And Paul gives his reason: they turn men from the truth, he says. For as has been said above, the heart cannot trust in Christ and at the same time in the doctrines or the works of men. Therefore, as soon as a man turns to the doctrines of men he turns away from the truth, and does not regard it. On the other hand, he who finds his comfort in Christ cannot regard the commandments and the works of men. Look now, whose ban you should fear most! The pope and his followers cast you far beyond hell if you do not heed their commandments, and Christ commands you not to heed them on pain of His ban. Consider whom you wish to obey.

<610201>2 Peter 2:1-3: "There shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of, and through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you."

So then, the orders and monastic houses are damnable heresies. Why?

Because they deny Christ, and blaspheme the way of faith. How? Christ says, there is no sin and no righteousness in eating, drinking, clothes, places and works of men; this they condemn, and teach and live the opposite, namely, that sin and righteousness are in these things. Hence

Christ must be a liar, He must be denied and blasphemed together with His teaching and faith. And they make use of feigned words, and make much of their obedience, chastity and worship; but only through covetousness, that they may make merchandise of us, until they have brought all the wealth of the world into their possession, on the ground that they are the people who by their worship would help every man to heaven. For this reason they are and remain damnable and blasphemous heresies.

Christ says, in <402423>Matthew 24:23 ff.: "Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not. For there shall arise false Christ's and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. Behold, I have told you before, Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not."

Tell me, how can a monk be saved? He binds his salvation to a place and says, "Here I find Christ; if I did not remain here, I should be lost." But Christ says, "No, I am not here." Who will reconcile these two? Therefore, it is clear from this word of Christ that all doctrines which bind the conscience to places are contrary to Christ. And if He does not allow the conscience to be bound to places, neither does He allow it to be bound to meats, clothes, postures or anything that is external. There is no doubt then that this passage speaks of the pope and his clergy, and that Christ Himself releases and sets free all priests and monks, in that He condemns all orders and monasteries and says, "Believe not, go not out," etc.

He says the same thing also in <421720>Luke 17:20 f.: "The kingdom of God cometh not with observation, and men shall not say, Lo here! or, Lo there!

For, behold, the kingdom of God is within you."

Is not this also clear enough? The doctrines of men can command nothing but external things; and since the kingdom of God is not external, both teachers and disciples must needs miss the kingdom and go astray. Nor will it help them to say that the holy fathers instituted the orders. For Christ has already destroyed this argument, since He says, that the very elect might be misled, that is, they will err, but not remain in their error. How else would it be an exceeding great error, if the elect were not misled? Let the teaching and the practice of the saints be what it will, the words of Christ are certain and clear. Him we must follow, and not the saints, whose teaching and works are uncertain. What He says stands firm, "The kingdom of God is among FB80 you, and not at a distance, either here or there."

Solomon, in <203005>Proverbs 30:5 f., says: "Every word of God is purified: and is a shield unto all them that put their trust in it. Add thou not unto His words, lest He reprove thee, and thou be found a liar."

With this I will end for the present; for there is much more in the prophets, especially in Jeremiah, of which I have written in the treatise on Confession. Here then Solomon concludes that he is a liar who adds aught to the words of God; for the Word of God alone is to teach us, as Christ says, <402308>Matthew 23:8, "Be ye not called masters. One Master is in you, even Christ." Amen.

A REPLY TO TEXTS QUOTED IN DEFENCE OF THE The first is <421016>Luke 10:16, where Christ says, "He that heareth you, heareth Me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth Me." He spoke similar words in <401040>Matthew 10:40, and in <431320>John 13:20. Here, they claim,

Christ demands of us that we accept their man-made laws.

I reply: That is not true. For immediately before speaking these words, Christ says, "Go and say, the kingdom of God is at hand." (<421009>Luke 10:9

<401007>Matthew 10:7) With these words Christ stops the mouths of all the teachers of the doctrines of men, and commands the apostles what they are to teach, and Himself puts the words in their mouth, saying that they shall preach the kingdom of God. Now he who does not preach the kingdom of God is not sent by Christ, and him these words do not concern. Much rather do these words demand of us that we hear not the doctrines of men.

Now to preach of the kingdom of God is nothing else than to preach the Gospel, in which the faith of Christ is taught, by which alone God dwells and rules in us. But the doctrines of men do not preach about faith, but about eating, clothing, times, places, persons and about purely external things which do not profit the soul.

Behold how honestly the pious shepherds and faithful teachers have dealt with the poor common people. This text, "Who hears you, hears me," they have in a masterly fashion torn out of its context and have terrified us with it, until they have made us subject to themselves. But what precedes,

"Preach the kingdom of God," they have taken good care not to mention, and have bravely leaped over it, that they might by no means be compelled to preach nothing but the Gospel. The noble, and most excellent teachers!

We ought to thank them for it!

In Mark, the last chapter, we read that He sent out the disciples to preach.

(<411615>Mark 16:15) Let us hear what command He gives them, and how He sets a limit to their teaching and bridles their tongues, saying, "Go ye into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every creature. He that believeth, shall be saved," etc., <411615>Mark 16:15. He does not say, Go and preach what you will, or what you think to be good; but He puts His own word into their mouth, and bids them preach the Gospel.

In Matthew, the last chapter, He says, "Go and make disciples of all nations, baptise them in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost; and teach them to observe all things which I have commanded you." (<402819>Matthew 28:19) Here, again, He does not say, Teach them to observe what you devise, but what I have commanded you. Therefore the pope and his bishops and teachers must be wolves and the apostles of the devil; it cannot be otherwise, for they teach not the commands of Christ, but their own words.

So also in <402515>Matthew 25:15, in the parable of the three servants, the Lord points out that the householder bade the servants trade not with their own property, but with his, and gave the first five talents, the second two and the third one. Our second text is <402302>Matthew 23:2 f., where the Lord says,

"The scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do."

Here, here, they say, we have authority to teach what we think to be right.

I answer: If that is what Christ means, then we are in a sorry plight. Every pope might then create more new laws, until the world could no longer contain all the laws. But they quote this text as they quote the first. What do the words "sit in Moses' seat" mean? Let us ask, what did Moses teach?

And if he still sat in his seat today, what would he teach? Beyond a doubt, nothing but what he taught of old, namely, the commandments and the word of God. He never yet spoke the doctrines of men, but what God commanded him to speak, as almost every chapter of his shows. It follows, then, that he who teaches something else than Moses teaches, does not sit in Moses' seat. For the Lord calls it Moses' seat, because from it the doctrines of Moses should be read and taught. The same meaning is contained in the words which follow, in which the Lord says, "But do not ye after their works, for they say, and do not; for they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers." (<402303>Matthew

See, here He reproves their works, because they add many laws to the doctrines of Moses and lay them on the people, but themselves do not touch them. And afterward He says, in verse 13, "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! which say, Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple, he is a debtor! Ye fools and blind; for whether is greater? the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold?" (<402313>Matthew 23:13,16f.) Is it not clear that Christ here condemns their doctrines of men? He can, therefore, not have confirmed them by speaking of sitting in Moses' seat; else He would have contradicted Himself. Therefore Moses' seat must mean no more than the Law of Moses, and the sitting in it no more than the preaching of the This is what Moses himself said of his seat and doctrine, <050402>Deuteronomy

4:2, "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you." And in <051232>Deuteronomy 12:32, "What thing soever I command you, observe to do it; thou shalt not add thereto nor diminish from it." These doctrines they were required to teach in Moses' seat; therefore Moses' seat cannot endure any doctrines of men.

St. Augustine is quoted as having written in the Book against the Letter of the Manichean, FB81 "I would not believe the Gospel if I did not believe the Here you see, they say, we are to believe the Church more than the Gospel.

I answer: Even if Augustine had used those words, who gave him authority, that we must believe what he says? What Scripture does he quote to prove the statement? What if he erred here, as we know that he frequently did, as did all the fathers? Should one single sentence of Augustine be so mighty as to refute all the texts quoted above? That is not what God wills; St. Augustine must yield to them.

Further, if that were St. Augustine's meaning, he would contradict himself; for in very many places he exalts the Holy Scriptures above the opinions of all teachers, above the decrees of all councils and churches, and will have men judge of him and of the teachings of all men according to the Scriptures. Why then do the faithful shepherds pass by those sayings of St.

Augustine, plain and clear as they are, and light on this lonely one, which is so obscure and sounds so unlike Augustine as we know him from all his writings? It can only be because they want to bolster up their tyranny with idle, empty words.

Furthermore, they are deceivers, in that they not only ascribe to St.

Augustine an opinion he did not hold, but they also falsify and pervert his words. For St. Augustine's words really are, "I would not have believed the Gospel if the authority of the whole Church had not moved me."

Augustine speaks of the whole Church, and says that throughout the world it with one consent preaches the Gospel and not the Letter of the Manicheans; and this unanimous authority of the Church moves him to consider it the true Gospel. But our tyrants apply this name of the Church to themselves, as if the laymen and the common people were not also

Christians. And what they teach they want men to consider as the teaching of the Christian Church, although, they are a minority, and we, who are universal Christendom, should also be consulted about what is to be taught in the name of universal Christendom. See, so cleverly do they quote the words of St. Augustine: what he says of the Church throughout all the world, they would have us understand of the Roman See.

But how does it follow from this saying that the doctrines of men are also to be observed? What doctrine of men has ever been devised that has been accepted and preached by all of the universal Church throughout the world? Not one; the Gospel alone is accepted by all Christians everywhere.

But then we must not understand St. Augustine to say that he would not believe the Gospel unless he were moved thereto by the authority of the whole Church. For that were false and unchristian. Every man must believe only because it is God's Word, and because he is convinced in his heart that it is true, although an angel from heaven and all the world preached the contrary. His meaning is rather, as he himself says, that he finds the Gospel nowhere except in the Church, and that this external proof can be given heretics that their doctrine is not right, but that that is right which all the world has with one accord accepted. For the eunuch in <440837>Acts 8:37, believed on the Gospel as preached by Philip, although he did not know whether many or few believed on it. So also Abraham believed the promise of God all by himself, when no man knew of it, <450418>Romans 4:18. And Mary, <420138>Luke 1:38, believed the message of Gabriel by herself, and there was no one on earth who believed with her. In this way Augustine also had to believe, and all the saints, and we too, every one for himself alone.

For this reason St. Augustine's words cannot bear the interpretation they put upon them; but they must be understood of the external proof of faith, by which heretics are refuted and the weak strengthened in faith, when they see that all the world preaches and regards as Gospel that which they believe. And if this meaning cannot be found in St. Augustine's words, it is better to reject the words; for they are contrary to the Scriptures and to all experience if they have that other meaning.

Finally, when they are refuted with Scripture so that they cannot escape, they begin to blaspheme God and say, "But St. Matthew, Paul and Peter also were men; therefore what they teach is also the doctrine of men. And if their doctrine is to be observed, let the pope's doctrine be observed as well!" Such blasphemy is now being uttered even by some princes and bishops, who count themselves wise. When you hear such utterly hardened and blinded blasphemers, turn away from them or stop your ears; they are not worthy that one should talk with them. If that argument were to hold, then Moses also was a man, and all the prophets were men. Then let us go our way, and believe nothing at all, but regard everything as the doctrine of men, and follow our fancy.

But if you will talk with them, do so, and say, Well, let St. Paul or Matthew be the doctrine of men; then we ask, Whence comes their authority? How will they prove that they have authority to teach and to be bishops? Or how shall we know where the Church is? If they say that St.

Matthew has so asserted in <401619>Matthew 16:19, or St. Paul in some place or other, do you say, But that does not hold: they are the doctrines of men, as you say; you must have God's Word to confirm you. And then you will find that these hardened blasphemers put themselves to shame and confusion with their own folly. They cannot even distinguish between a man who speaks for himself and one through whom God speaks. The words of the Apostles were commanded them by God, and confirmed and proved by great miracles, such as were never done for the doctrines of men. And if they are certain in themselves, and will prove it to us, that God has commanded them to teach as they do, we will believe them as we believe the Apostles. If it is uncertain whether the words of the Apostles are of God, who will give us certainty that their doctrines of men are of God? O furor et amentia his saeculis digna! FB82

But we do not condemn the doctrines of men because they are the doctrines of men, for we would gladly endure them, but because they are contrary to the Gospel and to the Scriptures. The Scriptures set the consciences of men free, and forbid that they be taken captive with the doctrines of men. The doctrines of men take captive the conscience. This conflict between the Scriptures and the doctrines of men we cannot reconcile. Hence, because these two forms of doctrine contradict one another, we allow even young children to judge here whether we are to give up the Scriptures, in which the one Word of God is taught from the beginning of the world, or the doctrines of men which were newly devised yesterday and change daily? And we hope that every one will agree in the decision that the doctrines of men must be forsaken and the Scriptures retained. For they cannot be reconciled, but are by nature opposed to one another, like fire and water, like heaven and earth; As <235508>Isaiah 55:8 f. says: "As the heavens are exalted above the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways." Now he who walks on the earth cannot at the same time walk in heaven, and he who walks in heaven cannot walk on the earth.

Therefore we request the papists that they first reconcile their doctrines with the Scriptures. If they accomplish that, we will observe their doctrines. But that they will not do before the Holy Spirit has become a liar. Therefore we say again, The doctrines of men we censure not because they are spoken by men, but because they are lies and blasphemies against the Scriptures. And the Scriptures, although they also were written by men, are not of men nor from men, but from God. Now since Scriptures and the doctrines of men are contrary the one to the other, one must lie and the other be true. Let us see to which of the two they themselves will ascribe the lie. Let this suffice.

FT1 See CLEMEN, I, p. 175.

FT2 ENDERS, II, no. 254. SMITH, Luther's Correspondence, I, no. 206.

FT3 GESS, Akten und Briefe zur Kirchenpolitik Herzog Georgs von Sachsen, Leipzig, 1905.

FT5 In this edition, Vol. I.

FT7 Treatise on the New Testament, Vol. I, pp. 297 ff.

FT8 See KOSTLIN, Luthers Theologie, I, 292 f.; also HERING, Die Mytikluthers, Leipzig, 1879, pp. 171-174 FT11 See Treatise concerning the Ban.

FT12 See Treatise on Baptism, Vol. I, pp. s6ff.

FT13 Note the advance in The Babylonian Captivity, below, pp. 178ff.

FT14 Cf. Babylonian Captivity.

FT15 Cf. Ser mo, 112, cap.(Mining, 38, 615).

FT17 E.g., the danger of spilling the wine.

FT19 Used here and above in the New Testament sense of true Christians, living or dead, cf. 1 Corinthians 1:2.

FT22 The Virgin Mary.

FT23 Cf. Enarratio in Psalm 21 (MIGNE, 36, 178).

FT24 Penitential works.

FT25 Cf. <440246>Acts 2:46 f.

FT27 In the Vulgate the Greek word "mystery" is translated by sacramentum. See below, p. aS8.

FT28 Luther still adheres to the doctrine of transubstantiation.

FT31 See Luther's explanation of the First Commandment in the Catechisms.

Also the answer to the last question in Part V, Small Catechism.

FT32 Treatise on Penance (Weimer Ed., II, 721), where Luther exhorts the troubled conscience to pray with the father of the lunatic boy, "Lord, I believe, help Thou mine unbelief," and with the Apostles, "Lord, increase our faith."

FT35 A transubstantiation in the communicant.

FT36 A work that is done without reference to the doer of it.

FT37 A work considered with reference to the doer of it.

FT38 An opus operatum.

FT39 An opus operantis.

FT40 Cf. <461130>1 Corinthians 11:30.

FT41 Sodalities; see Introduction.

FT42 On festival days of the order and on saints' days.

FT43 The Carmelites are supposed to have been the first to organize sodalities, having organized in the fourteenth century the Sodality of Our Lady of Carmel. St. Anne was the mother of the Holy Virgin. Her sodalities were, as Kolde says, epidemic in 1520. Luther's appeal to St.

Anne in the thunderstorm is well known (Comp. Kostlin-Kawerau, I, 55). There was a sodality of St. Anne, besides one of St. Augustine and one of St. Catherine, in the monastery at Erfurt in Luther's day. St.

Sebastian was a martyr of the fourteenth century. His day is January 20. Comp. Arts. Anna, Sebastian and Bruderschaften in Prot.

Realencyk., I, 552 ff; II, 534 ff.

FT44 A trades' guild brotherhood.

FT45 Douay Version, based on Vulgate, from which Luther quotes.

FT47 I.e., in marriage.

FT51 See ENDERS, I, No. 84. SMITH. Luther's Correspondence, I, No. 69.

FT52 See ENDERS, I, No. 90. SMITH, Luther's Correspondence, I, No. 77.

FT53 In the preceding treatise on the Blessed Sacrament.

FT56 I.e., the necessaries of life.

FT57 E.g. the crusades against heretics, and the inquisition of the thirteenth century.Luther's statement that to burn heretics is contrary to the will of the Holy Spirit was condemned in the Bull Exurg Domine, of July

FT61 The officials were officers of the bishops' courts.

FT62 In Vito, lib. 5, tit. 11, c.i, Cum medicinalis.

FT63 According to Luther's interpretation of <460505>1 Corinthians 5:5. Cf. also FT64 The passage quoted from the canon law.

FT65 For instances see the Gravamina of the German Nation (1521),WREDE, Deutsche Reichstagsakten, II, 685.

FT66 THIELE, Luthers Sprichwortersammlung, No. 276.

FT68 This statement also was condemned in the papal bull.

FT69 The "officials" were the administrators of this discipline.

FT70 A very important limitation for Luther's position.

FT71 See Open Letter to the Nobility.

FT72 Again an important limitation.

FT74 The ashes of Hus were cast into the Rhine (1415), and the body of Wyclif was exhumed and cremated and the ashes cast into the water

FT76 In 1518 both George and Frederick of Saxony took the position that spiritual jurisdiction should be limited to spiritual matters. GESS,

AktenundBrief zur Kirchen politik Georgs 1,44.

FT77 Luther puts a peculiar construction upon this passage.

FT78 The ancient service was divided into the service of the Word (missacatechuinenorum) and the celebration of the sacrament (missa fidelium); before the second, those under the ban as well as the catechumens were required to withdraw.

FT79 The "great ban" excluded from all services.

FT80 According to Roman Catholic usage there is a distinction between hearing mass and receiving the sacrament.

FT81 Compare Treatise Concerning the Blessed Sacrament.

FTA2 ENDERS, II, 414; SMITH, L.'s Correspondence, I, No. 266.

FTA3 ENDERS, II, 424.

FTA5 See letter of June 7th to John Hess, ENDERS, II, 411; SMITH, I, No.

FTA6 Published at Rome 1519; printed with Luther's preface and notes, Weimar Ed., VI, 328 ff.; Erl. Ed., op. var. arg., II, 79 ff.

FTA7 Weimar Ed., VI, 329.

FTA8 See ENDERS, II, 415, 443; SMITH, Nos. 269, 279, and documents in St. Lo u i s Ed., XV, 1630 ff.

FTA9 See Kostlin-Kawerau, Martin Luther, I, 308 ff., and Weimar Ed., VI, FTA10 See Luther's letters to Lang and Staupitz, who wished to have the publication withheld (ENDERS, II, 461, 463).

FTA11 Clemen, I, 362.

FTA13 See Weimar Ed., VI, 397.

FTA14 See title B, ibid., 398.

FTA15 Printed as an appendix in Clemen, I, 421-425.

FTA16 So it was called by Johann Lang (ENDERS, II, 461).

FTA17 Unserm furnehmen nach. See Introduction, p.57

FTA18 An ironical comparison of the monks' cowl and tonsure with the headgear of the jester.

FTA19 i:e., Which one tums out to be the real fool.

FTA20 The proverb ran, Monachus semper praesens, "a monk is always there." See WANDER, Deutsches Sprichworterlexicon, under Monch;

FTA21 Evidently a reference to the Gravamina of the German Nation; see GEBHART, Die Grav. der Deutschen Nation, Breslau, 1895.

FTA22 Councils of the Church, especially those of Constance (1414-18), and of Basel (1431-39).

FTA23 Charles V. was elected Emperor in 1519, when but twenty years of age. Hutten expresses his "hopes of good" from Charles in Vadiscus

FTA24 Frederick Barbarossa (1152-1190).

FTA25 Frederick II (1212-1250), grandson of Barbarossa and last of the great Hohenstaufen Emperors. He died under excommunication.

FTA26 Pope Julius II (1503-1513). Notorious among the popes for his unscrupulous pursuit of political power, he was continually involved in war with one and another of the European powers over the possession of territories in Italy.

FTA27 Luther's recollection of the figures was faulty.

FTA28 The term "Romanist" is applied by Luther to the champions of the extreme form of papal supremacy. Cf. Vol. 1.

FTA29 i:e., The three rods for the punishment of an evil pope.

FTA30 Spuknisse, literally "ghosts." The gist of the sentence is, "the Romanists have frightened the world with ghost-stories."

FTA31 Oelgotze — "an image anointed with holy oil to make it sacred"; in modern German, "a blockhead."

FTA32 Lay-baptism in view of imminent death is a practice as old as the Christian Church. The right of the laity to administer baptism in such cases was expressly recognized by the Council of Elvira, in the year

306, and the decree of that Council became a part of the law of the Church. The right of the laity to give absolution in such cases rests on the principle that in the absence of the appointed official of the Church any Christian can do for any other Christian the things that are absolutely necessary for salvation, for "necessity knows no law." Cf.

Vol. I, p. 30, note 2.

FTA33 The canon law, called by Luther throughout this treatise and elsewhere, the "spiritual law," is a general name for the decrees of councils ("canons" in the strict sense) and decisions of the popes

("decretals," "constitutions," etc.), promulgated by authority of the popes, and collected in the so-called Corpus juris canonici. It comprised the whole body of Church law, and embodied in legal forms the mediaeval theory of papal absolutism, which accounts for the bitterness with which Luther speaks of it, especially in this treatise. The Corpus includes the following collections of canons and decretals: The Decretum of Gratian (1142), the Liber Extra (1234), the Liber Sextus

(1298), the Constitutiones Clementinae (1318 or 1317), and the two books of Extravagantes, — the Extravagantes of John XXII, and the Extravagantes communes. The last pope whose decrees are included is

Sixtus IV (died 1484). See Catholic Encyclop., IV, pp. 391 ff.

FTA34 Augustine, the master-theologian of the Ancient Church, bishop of Hippo in Africa from 395-430.

FTA35 Ambrose, bishop of Milan from 374-397, had not yet been baptised at the time of his election to the episcopate, which was forced upon him by the unanimous voice of the people of the city.

FTA36 Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, 247-258, is said to have consented to accept the office only when the congregation surrounded his house and besought him to yield to their entreaties.

FTA37 Was ausz der Tauff krochen ist.

FTA38 The character indelebilis, or "indelible mark," received authoritative statement in the bull Exultate Deo (1439). Eugenius IV, summing up the Decrees of the Council of Florence, says: "Among these sacraments there are three — baptism, confirmation, and orders — which indelibly impress upon the soul a character, i.e., a certain spiritual mark which distinguishes them from the rest" (MIRBT, Quellen, 2d ed., No. 150).

The Council of Trent in its XXIII Session, July 15, 1563 (MIRBT, No.

312), defined the correct Roman teaching as follows: "Since in the sacrament of orders, as in baptism and confirmation, a character is impressed which cannot be destroyed or taken away, the Holy Synod justly condemns the opinion of those who assert that the priests of the New Testament have only temporary power, and that those once rightly ordained can again be made laymen, if they do not exercise the ministry of the Word of God."

FTA39 i.e., They are all Christians, among whom there can be no essential difference.

FTA40 The sharp distinction which the Roman Church drew between clergy and laity found practical application in the contention that the clergy should be exempt from the jurisdiction of the civil courts, This is the so-called privilegium fori, "benefit of clergy." It was further claimed that the government of the clergy and the administration of Church property must be entirely in the hands of the Church authorities, and that no lay rulers might either make or enforce laws which in any way affected the Church. See LEA, Studies in Church History, 169-219 and Prot. Realencyk., VI, 594.

FTA41 It was the contention of the Church authorities that priests charged with infraction of the laws of the state should first be tried in the ecclesiastical courts. If found guilty, they were degraded from the priesthood and handed over to the state authorities for punishment.

Formula for degradation in the canon law, c. 2 in VI, de poen.(V, 9).

See Prot. Realencyk., VI, 589.

FTA42 The interdict is the prohibition of the administration of the sacraments and of the other rites of the Church within the territory upon which the interdict is laid (Realencyk., IX, 208 f.). Its use was not uncommon in the Middle Ages, and during the time that the power of the popes was at its height it proved an effective means of bringing refractory rulers to terms. A famous instance is the interdict laid upon the Kingdom of England by Innocent III in 1208. Interdicts of more limited local extent were quite frequent. The use of the interdict as punishment for trifling infractions of church law was a subject of complaint at the diets of Worms (1521) and Nurnberg (1524). See A. WREDE, Deutsche

Reichstagsakten unter Kaiser Karl V., II, pp. 685 f, III, 665.

FTA43 The statement of which Luther here complains is found in the Decretum of Gratian, Dist. XL, c. 6, Si papa. In his Epitome (see

Introduction, p. 58), Prierias had quoted this canon against Luther, as follows: "A Pontifex indubitatus (i.e., a pope who is not accused of heresy or schism) cannot lawfully be deposed or judged either by a council or by the whole world, even if he is so scandalous as to lead people with him by crowds into the possession of hell." Luther's comment is: "Be astonished, O heaven; shudder, O earth! Behold, O

Christians, what Rome is!" (Weimar Ed., VI, 336).

FTA44 Gregory the Great, pope 590-604. The passage is found in MIGNE, LXXVI, 203; LXXVII, 34.

FTA45 Antichrist, the incarnation of all that is hostile to Christ and His Kingdom. His appearance is prophesied in <530203>2 Thessalonians 2:3-10

(the "man of sin, sitting in the temple of God"); <620218>1 John 2:18, 22; <620408>1 John 4:3, and <661301>Revelation 13. In the early Church the Fathers sometimes thought the prophecies fulfilled in the person of some especially pestilent heretic. Wyclif applied the term to the pope, — "the pope would seem to be not the vicar of Christ, but the vicar of Antichrist" (see LOOFS, Dogmengeschichte, 4th ed., p. 649). On Dec.

11, 1518, Luther wrote to Link: "You can see whether my suspicion is correct that at the Roman court the true Antichrist rules of whom St.

Paul speaks"; and March 13, 1519, he wrote to Spalatin: "I am not sure but that the pope is Antichrist or his apostle." It was the worldly pretensions of the papacy which suggested the idea both to Wyclif and to Luther. By the year 1520 Luther had come to the definite conclusion that the pope was the "man of sin, sitting in the temple of God," and this opinion he never surrendered.

FTA47 According to academic usage, the holder of a Master's degree was authorised to expound the subject named in the degree.

FTA48 The doctrine of papal infallibility was never officially sanctioned in the Middle Ages, but the claim of infallibility was repeatedly made by the champions of the more extreme view of papal power, e.g., Augustinus

Triumphus (died 1328) in his Summa de potestate Papae. In his attack upon the XCV Theses (Dialogus de porestate Papae, Dec., 1517)

Prierias had asserted, "The supreme pontiff (i.e., the pope) cannot err when giving a decision as pontiff, i.e., speaking officially (ex officio), and doing what in him lies to learn the truth"; and again, "Whoever does not rest upon the teaching of the Roman Church and the supreme pontiff as an infallible rule of faith, from which even Holy Scripture draws its vigor and authority, is a heretic" (Erl. Ed., op. var. arg., I,

348). In the Epitome he had said: "Even though the pope as an individual (singularis ersona) can do wrong and hold a wrong faith, nevertheless as pope he cannot give a wrong decision" (Weimar Ed.,

FTA49 Most recently in Prierias's Epitome. See preceding note.

FTA50 Luther had discussed the whole subject of the power of the keys in a Latin treatise, Resolutio super propositione xiii, de potestate papae, of 1519 (Weimar Ed., II, pp. 185 ff., and in the German treatise The Papacy at Rome (Vol. I, pp. 337-394).

FTA52 Another contention of Prierias. In 1518 (Nov. 28th) Luther had appealed his cause from the decision of the pope, which he foresaw would be adverse, to the decision of a council to be held at some future time. In the Epitome Priedas discusses this appeal, asserting, among other things, that "when there is one undisputed pontiff, it belongs to him alone to call a council," and that "the decrees of councils neither bind nor hold (nullum ligant vel astringunt) unless they are confirmed by authority of the Roman pontiff" (Weimar Ed., VI, 335).

FTA53 1.e., A mere gathering of people.

FTA54 The Council of Nicaea, the first of the great councils of the Church, assembled in 325 for the settlement of the Arian controversy. Luther's statement that it was called by the Emperor Constantine, and that its decisions did not derive their validity from any papal confirmation, is historically correct. On Luther's statements about this council, see

SCHAFER, Luther als Kirchenhistoriker, pp. 291 ff.; KOHLER, Luther und die Kg., pp. 148ff.

FTA55 Luther is here referring to the earlier so-called "ecumenical" councils.

FTA56 i.e., A council which will not be subject to the pope. Cf. Erl. Ed., xxvi, 112.

FTA57 i.e., They belong to the "spiritual estate".

FTA58 Der Haufe, 1:e. Christians considered en masse, without regard to official position in the Church.

FTA59 The papal crown dates from the XI Century; the triple crown, or tiara, from the beginning of the XIV. It was intended to signify that very superiority of the pope to the rulers of this world, of which Luther here complains. See Realencyk., X, 532, and literature there cited.

FTA60A statement made by Augustinus Triumphus.

FTA61 The Cardinal della Rovere, afterwards Pope Julius II, held at one time the archbishopric of Avignon, the bishoprics of Bologna, Lausanne,

Coutances, Viviers, Mende, Ostia and Velletri, and the abbacies of Nonantola and Grottaferrata. This is but one illustration of the scandalous pluralism practiced by the cardinals. Cf. Lea, in Cambridge

Mod. Hist., I, pp. 659f.

FTA62 The complaint that the cardinals were provided with incomes by appointment to German benefices goes back to the Council of Constance (1415). Cf. Benrath, p. 87, note 17.

FTA63 The creation of new cardinals was a lucrative proceeding for the popes. On July 31, 1517, Leo X created thirty-one cardinals, and is said to have received from the new appointees about 300,000 ducats.

Needless to say, the cardinals expected to make up the fees out of the income of their livings. See Weimar Ed., VI, 417, note I, and PASTOR, Gesch. der Papste IV, I, 137. Cf. Hutten's Vadiscus

FTA64 The famous Benedictine monastery just outside the city of Bamberg.

FTA65 The proposal made at Constance was more generous. It suggested a salary of three to four thousand gulden.

FTA66 As early as the XIV Century both England and France had enacted laws prohibiting the very practices of which Luther here complains. It should be noted, however, that these laws were enforced only occasionally, and never very strictly.

FTA67 The papal court or curia consisted of all the officials of various sorts who were employed in the transaction of papal business, including those who were in immediate attendance upon the person of the pope, the so-called "papal family." On the number of such officials in the XVI Century, see BENRATH, p. 88, note 18, where reference is made to 949 offices, exclusive of those which had to do with the administration of the city of Rome and of the States of the Church, and not including the members of the pope's "family." The Gravamina of 1521 complain that the increase of these offices in recent years has added greatly to the financial burdens of the German Church (WREDE, Deutsche

Reichstagsakten unter Kaiser Karl V, II, 675).

FTA68 On the annates, see Vol. 1. Early in their history, which dates from the beginning of the XIV. Century, the annates (f ructus medii temporis) had become a fixed tax on all Church offices which fell vacant, and the complaint of extortion in their appraisement and collection was frequently raised. The Council of Constance restricted the obligation to bishoprics and abbacies, and such other benefices as had a yearly income of more than 24 gulden. The Council of Basel

(1439) resolved to abolish them entirely, but the resolution of the Council was inoperative, and in the Concordat of Vienna (1448) the German nation agreed to abide by the decision of Constance. On the use of the term "annates" to include other payments to the curia, especially the servitia, see Catholic Encyclopedia, I, pp. 537 f.

Luther here alleges that the annates are not applied to their ostensible purpose, viz., the Crusade. This charge is repeated in the Gravamina of the German Nation presented to the Diet of Worms (1521), with the additional allegation that the amount demanded in the way of annates has materially increased (A. WREDE, Deutsche Reichstagsakten unter

Kaiser Karl V., II, pp. 675 f.). Similar complaints had been made at the Diet of Augsburg (1518), and were repeated at the Diet of Nurnberg

(WREDE, op. cit., III, 660). Hutten calls the annates" a good fat robbery" (Ed. BOCKING, IV, 207). In England the annates were abolished by Act of Parliament (April 10, 1532)

FTA69 On the crusading-indulgences.

FTA70 i.e., As was done by the Council of Basel.

FTA71 The canons are the clergy attached to a cathedral church who constituted the "chapter" of that cathedral, and to whom the right to elect the bishop normally belonged.

FTA72 This whole section deals with the abuse of the "right of reservation," i.e., the alleged right of the pope to appoint directly to vacant church positions. According to papal theory the right of appointment belonged absolutely to the pope, who graciously yielded the right to others under certain circumstances, reserving it to himself in other cases. The practice of reserving the appointments seems to date from the XII Century, and was originally an arbitrary exercise of papal authority.

The rules which came to govern the reservation of appointments were regarded as limitations upon the authority of the pope, The rule of the "papal months," as it obtained in Germany in Luther's time, is found in the Concordat of Vienna of 1448 (MIRBT, Quellen, 2d ed., No. 261, pp. 167 f.). It provides that livings, with the exception of the higher dignities in the cathedrals and the chief posts in the monasteries, which fall vacant in the months of February, April, June, August, October and December, shall be filled by the ordinary methods — election, presentation, appointment by the bishop, etc. — but that vacancies occurring in the other months shall be filled by appointment of the pope.

FTA73 i.e., Church offices which carried with them certain rights of jurisdiction and gave their possessors a certain honorary precedence over other officials of the Church.

See MEYER in Realencyk., IV, 658.

FTA74 Charles V, though elected emperor, was not crowned until October FTA75 1:e., A living which has not hitherto been filled by papal appointment.

FTA76 This rule, like that of the "papal months," is found in the Concordat of Vienna. Luther's complaint is reiterated in the Gravamina of 1521.

(WREDE, Deutsche Reichstagsakten, etc., II, 673.) FTA77 Des Papstes und der Cardinale Gesinde, i.e., all those who were counted members of the "family" or "household" (called

Dienstverwandte in the Gravamina of 1521) of the pope or of any of the cardinals. The term included those who were in immediate attendance upon the pope or the cardinals, and all those to whom, by virtue of any special connection with the curia, the name "papal servant" could be made to apply. These are the "courtesans" to whom

Luther afterwards refers.

FTA78 In 1513 Albrecht of Brandenburg was made Archbishop of Magdeburg and later in the same year Administrator of Halberstadt; in 1514 he became Archbishop of Mainz as well. In 1518 he was made cardinal.

FTA79 This rule, like the others mentioned above, is contained in the FTA80 Cf. The Gravamina of 1521, No. 20, Von anfechtung der cordissanen where the name cordissei is applied to the practice of attacking titles to benefices. (WREDE, op. cit., II, pp. 677 f.)

FTA81 The pallium is a woolen shoulder-cape which is the emblem of the archbishop's office, and which must be secured from Rome. The bestowal of the pallium by the pope is a very ancient custom. Gregory I (590-604) mentions it as prisca consuetudo (Dist., C.c. 3). The canon law prescribes (Dist. C. c. I) that the archbishop-elect must secure the pallium from Rome within three months of his election; otherwise he is forbidden to discharge any of the duties of his office. It is regarded as the necessary complement of his election and consecration, conferring the "plenitude of the pontifical office," and the name of archbishop.

Luther's charge that it had to be purchased "with a great sum of money" is substantiated by similar complaints from the XII Century on, though the language of the canon law makes it evident that Luther's other contention is also correct, viz., that the pallium was originally bestowed gratis. The sum required from the different archbishops varied with the wealth of their sees, and was a fixed sum in each case.

The Gravamina of 1521 complain that the price has been raised:

"Although according to ancient ordinance the bishoprics of Mainz, Cologne, Salzburg, etc., were bound to pay for the pallium about 10,000 gulden and no more, they can now scarcely get a pallium from Rome for 20 or 24 thousand gulden." (WREDE, op. cit., II, 675.)

FTA82 The oath of allegiance to the pope was required before the pallium could be bestowed (Dist. C, c. I). The canon law describes this oath as one "of allegiance, obedience and unity" (X, I, 6, c. 4).

FTA84 cf. Luther to Spalatin, June 25, 1520 (ENDERS, II, 424; SMITH, FTA85 i:e., The benefices are treated as though they were vacant.

FTA86 In the case of certain endowed benefices the right to nominate the incumbent was vested in individuals, usually of the nobility, and was hereditary in their family. This is the so-called jus patronum, or "right of patronage." The complaint that this right is disregarded is frequent in the Gravamina of 1521.

FTA87 Commendation was one of the practices by which the pope evaded the provision of the canon law which prescribed that the same man should not hold two livings with the cure of souls. The man who received an office in commendam was not required to fulfill the duties attached to the position and when a living or an abbacy was granted in this way during the incumbency of another, the recipient received its entire income during a subsequent vacancy. The practice was most common in the case of abbacies. At the Diet of Worms (1521), Duke

George of Saxony, an outspoken opponent of Luther, was as emphatic in his protest against this practice as Luther himself (WREDE, op. cit.,

II, 665); his protest was incorporated in the Gravamina (ibid., 672), and reappears in the Appendix (ibid., 708).

FTA88 A monk who deserted his monastery was known as an "apostate."

FTA89 i.e., Offices which cannot be united in the hands of one man.

FTA90 A gloss is a note explanatory of a word or passage of doubtful meaning. The glosses are the earliest form of commentary on the Bible.

The glosses of the canon law are the more or less authoritative comments of the teachers, and date from the time when the study of the canon law became a part of the theological curriculum. Their aim is chiefly to show how the law applies to practical cases which may arise.

The so-called glossa ordinaria had in Luther's time an authority almost equal to that of the corpus juris itself. Cf. Cath. Encyc.,VI, pp.588 f.

FTA91 The thing which was bought was, of course, the dispensation, or permission to avail oneself of the gloss.

FTA92 Dataria is the name for that department of the curia which had to deal with the granting of dispensations and the disposal of benefices.

Datarius is the title of the official who presided over this department.

FTA93 For a catalogue of papal appointments bestowed upon two "courtesans," Johannes Zink und Johannes Ingenwinkel, see SCHULTE, Die Fugger in Rom, I, pp. 282 ff, 291 ff. Between 1513 and 1521, Zink received 56 appointments, and Ingenwinkel received, between 1496 and 1521, no fewer than 106.

FTA95 So Albrecht of Mainz bore the title of "administrator" of Halberstadt.

FTA96 The name of this practice was "regression" (regressus).

FTA97 The complaint was made at Worms (1521) that it was impossible for a German to secure a clear title to a benefice at Rome unless he applied for it in the name of an Italian, to whom he was obliged to pay a percentage of the income, a yearly pension, or a fixed sum of money for the use of his name (WREDE, op. cit., II, 712).

FTA98 Simony — the sin of Simon Magus (<440818>Acts 8:18-20) — the sin committed by the sale or the purchase of an office or position which is formally conferred by a ritual act of the Church. In the ancient and earlier medieval Church the use of money to secure preferment was held to invalidate the title of the guilty party to the position thus secured, and the acceptance of money for such a purpose was an offense punishable by deposition and degradation. The "heresy of Simon" was conceived to be the greatest of all heresies. The traffic in Church offices, which became a flagrant abuse from the time of John

XXII (1316-1334), would have been regarded in earlier days as the most atrocious simony.

FTA99 The reservatio mentalis or in pectore is the natural consequence of the papal theory that the right of appointment to all Church offices of every grade belongs to the pope. According to the theory of the canonists

(LANCELOTTI, Institutiones juris canonici, Lib. I, Tit. XXVII) this right is exercised either per petitione malterius, i.e., by confirmation of the election, appointment, etc., of others, or proprio motu, i.e., "on his own motion." In ordinary cases the exercise of the appointing power was limited by rules, which though bitterly complained of (see above, pp. 86 ff, and notes), were generally understood, but the theory allowed any given case to be made an exception to the rules. Of such a case it was said that it was "reserved in the heart of the Pope," and the appointment was then made "on his own motion." Hutten says of this reservatio in pectore that "it is an easy, agile and slippery thing, and bears no comparison to any other form of cheating" (Ed. BOCKING,

FTA100 For a similar instance quoted at Worms (1521), see WREDE, op.

FTA101 The three chief centers of foreign commerce in the XV and the early XVI Century. The annual fairs (Jahrmarkt), held at stated times in various cities, brought great numbers of merchants together from widely distant points, and were the times when the greater part of the wholesale business for the year was done.

FTA102 Built by Innocent VIII (1484-1490).

FTA104 The Church law forbade the taking of interest on loans of money.

FTA105 During the Middle Ages all questions touching marriage and divorce, including, therefore, the question of the legitimacy of children, were governed by the laws of the Church, on the theory that marriage was a sacrament.

FTA106 i.e., By buying dispensations.

FTA107 The sums paid for special dispensations were so called.

FTA108 The toll which the "robber-barons" of the Rhine levied upon merchants passing through their domains.

FTA109 Ja wend das blat umb szo findistu es — The translators have adopted the interpretation of O. CLEMEN, L' s. Werke, I, 383.

FTA110 The Fuggers of Augsburg were the greatest of the German capitalists in the XVI Century. They were international bankers, "the Rothschilds of the XVI Century." Their control of large capital enabled them to advance large sums of money to the territorial rulers, who were in a chronic state of need. In return for these favors they received monopolistic concessions by which their capital was further increased.

The spiritual, as well as the temporal lords, availed themselves regularly of the services of this accommodating firm. They were the pope's financial representatives in Germany. On their connection with the indulgence against which Luther protested, see Vol. 1; on their relations with the papacy, see SCHULTE, Die Fugger in Rom, 2 Vols.,

Leipzig, 1904. Vol. II — 7 FTA111 Certificates entitling the holder to choose his own confessor and authorizing the confessor to absolve him from certain classes of "reserved" sins; referred to in the XCV Theses as confessionalia. Cf.

FTA112 Certificates granting their possessor permission to eat milk, eggs, butter and cheese on fast days.

FTA113 The word is used here in the broad sense, and means dispensations of all sorts, including those just mentioned, relating to penance.

FTA114 Equivalent to "carrying coals to Newcastle."

FTA115 The Campo di Fiore, a Roman market-place, restored and adorned at great expense by Eugenius IV (1431-1447), and his successors.

FTA116 A part of the Vatican palace notorious as the banqueting-hall of Alexander VI (1492-1503), turned by Julius II (1503-1513) into a museum for the housing of his wonderful and expensive collection of ancient works of art. Luther is hinting that the indulgence money has been spent on these objects rather than on the maintenance of the Church. Cf. CLEMEN, I, 384, note 15.

FTA117 i.e., The offices and positions in Rome which were for sale. See FTA119 The passage is chapter 31, Filiis vel nepotibus. It provides that in case the income of endowments bequeathed to the Church is misused, and appeals to the bishop and archbishop fail to correct the misuse, the heirs of the testator may appeal to the royal courts. Luther wishes this principle applied to the annates.

FTA123 i.e., Promises to bestow on certain persons livings not yet vacant.

Complaint of the evils arising out of the practice was continually heard from the year 1416. For the complaints made at Worms (1521), see

WREDE., op. Cit., II, 710.

FTA128 Rules for the transaction of papal business, including such matters as appointments and the like. At Worms (1521) the Estates complain that these rules are made to the advantage of the "courtesans" and the disadvantage of the Germans. (WREDE, op. cit., II, pp. 675 f.)

FTA129 The local Church authorities, here equivalent to "the bishops." On use of term see Realencyk., XIV, 424.

FTA130 The sign of the episcopal office; as regards archbishops, the pallium.

FTA132 The first of the ecumenical councils (A. D. 325). The decree to which Luther here refers is canon IV of that Council. Cf. KOHLER, L. und die Kg., pp, 139 ff.

FTA133 The primate is the ranking archbishop of a country.

FTA134 "Exemption" was the practice by which monastic houses were withdrawn from the jurisdiction of the bishops and made directly subject to the pope. The practice seems to have originated in the X Century with the famous monastery of Cluny (918), but it was almost universal in the case of the houses of the mendicant orders. The bishops made it a constant subject of complaint, and the Lateran Council (Dec.

19, 1516) passed a decree abolishing all monastic exemptions, though the decree does not seem to have been effective. See CREIGHTON,

History of the Papacy, V, 266.

FTA135 i.e., Antichrist.

FTA136 The papal interference in the conduct of the local Church courts was as flagrant as in the appointments, of which Luther has heretofore spoken. At Worms (1521) it was complained that cases were cited to Rome as a court of first instance, and the demand was made that a regular course of appeals should be re-established. WREDE, op. cit., II,

FTA137 The reference is Canon V of the Council of Sardica (A. D. 343), incorporated in the canon law as a canon of Nicaea (Pt. II, qu. 6, c. 5).

See KOHLER, L. und die Kg., 151.

FTA138 i.e., Appealed to Rome for decision. This is the subject of the first of the 102 Gravamina of 1521 (WREDE, op. cit., II, 672).

FTA139 The judges in the bishops' courts. The complaint is that they interfere with the administration of justice by citing into their courts cases which properly belong in the lay courts, and enforce their verdicts (usually fines) by means of ecclesiastical censures. The charges against these courts are specified in the Gravamina of 1521, Nos. 73-100 (WREDE., op. cit., II, 694-703).

FTA140 The signatura gratiae and the signatura justitiae were the bureaus through which the pope regulated those matters of administration which belonged to his own special prerogative.

FTA144 i.e., The cases in which a priest was forbidden to give absolution.

The reference here is to cases in which only the pope could absolve. Cf.

The XCV Theses, Vol. I, p. 30.

FTA145 A papal bull published annually at Rome on Holy Thursday. It was directed against heretics, but to the condemnation of the heretics and their heresies was added a list of offences which could receive absolution only from the pope, or by his authorisation. In 1522 Luther translated this bull into German as a New Year present for the pope

(Weimar Ed., VIII, 691). On Luther's earlier utterances concerning it, see KOHLER, L. u. d i e Kg., pp. 59 ff.

FTA146 The breve is a papal decree, of equal authority with the bull, but differing from it in form, and usually dealing with matters of smaller importance.

FTA147 Cf. Luther's earlier statement to the same effect in A Discussion of Confession, Vol. I, pp. 96 f.

FTA149 The Fifth Lateran Council (1512-17).

FTA151 In the canon law, Decretal. Greg. lib. I, tit. 6, cap. 4. The decretal forbids the bestowing of the pallium(see above, p. 89, note 3) on an archbishop elect, until he shall first have sworn allegiance to the Holy

FTA152 The induction of Church officials into office. The term was used particularly of the greater offices — those of bishop and abbot. These offices carried with them the enjoyment of certain incomes, and the possession of certain temporal powers. For this reason the right of investiture was a bone of contention between popes and emperors during the Middle Ages.

FTA153 Especially in the time of the Emperors Henry IV and V (1056 — FTA154 The German Empire was regarded during the Middle Ages as a continuation of the Roman Empire. (See below, p. 153.) The right to crown an emperor was held to be the prerogative of the pope; until the pope bestowed the imperial crown, the emperor bore the title, "King of the Romans."

FTA155 In the canon law, Decretal. Greg. lib. l, tit. 33, cap. 6.

FTA156 In the treatise, Resolutio Lutheriana super propositione XIII, de potestate papae (1520). Weimar Ed.,II, pp. 217 ff.; Erl. Ed., op. vat. arg., III, pp. 293 ff.

FTA158 Cf. The Papacy at Rome, Vol. I, pp. 357 f.

FTA159 A decree of Pope Clement V of 1313, incorporated subsequently in the canon law, Clement. lib. ii, tit. II, cap. 2.

FTA160 A forged document of the VIII Century, professing to come from the hand of the Emperor Constantine (306-337). The Donation conveyed to the pope title to the city of Rome (the capital had been removed to Constantinople), certain lands in Italy and "the islands of the sea." It was used by the popes of the Middle Ages to support their claims to worldly power, and its genuineness was not disputed. In 1440, however, Laurentius Valla, an Italian humanist, published a work in which he proved that the Donation was a forgery. This work was republished in Germany by Ulrich von Hutten in 1517, and seems to have come to Luther's attention in the early part of 1520, just before the composition of the present treatise (Cf. ENDERS II, 332). Luther subsequently (1537) issued an annotated translation of the text of the Donation (Erl. Ed., XXV, pp. 176 ff.).

FTA161 The papal claim to temporal sovereignty over this little kingdom, which comprised the island of Sicily and certain territories in Southern

Italy, goes back to the XI Century, and was steadily asserted during the whole of the later Middle Ages. It was one of the questions at issue in the conflict between the Emperor Frederick II (1200-1260) and the popes, and played an important part in the history of the stormy times which followed the fall of the Hohenstaufen. The popes claimed the right to award the kingdom to a ruler who would swear allegiance to the Holy See. The right to the kingdom was at this time contested between the royal houses of France and of Spain, of which latter house the Emperor Charles V was the head.

FTA162 The popes claimed temporal sovereignty over a strip of territory in Italy, beginning at Rome and stretching in a northeasterly direction across the peninsula to a point on the Adriatic south of Venice, including the cities and lands which Luther mentions. This formed the so-called "States of the Church." The attempt to consolidate the States and make the papal sovereignty effective involved Popes Alexander VI (1492-1503) and Julius II (1503-1513) in war and entangled them in political alliances with the European powers and petty Italian states. It resulted at last in actual war between Pope Clement VII and the Emperor Charles V (1526-1527). See Cambridge Modern History, I,

104-143; 219 — 252, and literature cited pp. 706-713; 727 f.

FTA163 A free translation of the Vulgate, Nemo militans Deo.

FTA164 The kissing of the pope's feet was a part of the "adoration" which he claimed as his right.

FTA165 The three paragraphs enclosed in brackets were added by Luther to the 2d edition; see Introduction.

FTA166 The holy places of Rome had long been favorite objects of pilgrimage, and the practice had been zealously fostered by the popes through the institution of the "golden" or "jubilee years." Cf. Vol. 1.

FTA167 Cf. the Italian proverb, "God is everywhere except at Rome; there FTA168 Cf. Hutten's saying in Vadiscus : "Three things there are which those who go to Rome usually bring home with them, a bad conscience, a ruined stomach and an empty purse." (Ed. BOCKING, IV, p. 169.)

FTA169 The "golden" or "jubilee years" were the years when special rewards were attached to worship at the shrines of Rome. The custom was instituted by Boniface VIII in 1300, and it was the intention to make every hundredth year a jubilee. In 1343 the interval between jubilees was fixed at fifty, in 1389 at thirty-three, in 1473 at twenty-five years.

FTA170 Cf. the statements in the Treatise on Baptism and the Discussion of Confession, Vol. I, pp. 68 ff, 98.

FTA171 The houses, or monasteries, of the mendicant or "begging" orders — the "friars." The members of these orders were sworn to support themselves on the alms of the faithful.

FTA172 The three leading mendicant orders were the Franciscan (the Minorites, or "little brothers"), founded by St. Francis of Assisi (died

1226), the Dominican (the "preaching brothers"), founded by St.

Dominic (died 1221), and the Augustinian Hermits, to which Luther himself belonged, and which claimed foundation by St. Augustine (died

FTA173 The interference of the friars in the duties of the parish clergy was a continual subject of complaint through this period.

FTA174 By the middle of the XV Century there were eight distinct sects within the Franciscan order alone (See Realencyk., VI, pp. 212 if.), and Luther had himself taken part in a vigorous dispute between two parties in the Augustinian order.

FTA175 St. Agnes the Martyr, put to death in the beginning of the IV Century, one of the favorite saints of the Middle Ages. See SCHAFER,

L. als Kirchenhistoriker, p. 235.

FTA176 One of the most famous of the German convents, founded in 936.

FTA177 The celebrated Church Father (died 420). The passages referred to are in Migne, XXII, 656, and XXVI, 562.

FTA178 Or "community" (Gemeine). Cf. The Papacy at Rome, Vol. I, p. 345, note 4. See also Dass eine christl, Gemeine Recht und Macht habe, etc.

Weimar Ed. XI, pp. 408ff.

FTA179 Or "congregation."

FTA180 i.e., At a time later than that of the Apostles.

FTA181 The first absolute prohibition of marriage to the clergy is contained in a decree of Pope Siricius and dated 385. See H. C. LEA, History of Sacerdotal Celibacy, 3d ed. (1907), I, pp. 59 ff.

FTA182 The priests of the Greek Church are required to marry, and the controversy over celibacy was involved in the division between the Greek and Roman Churches.

FTA183 Cf. Hutten's Vadiscus (BOCKING, IV, 199).

FTA184 i.e., Lie in Roman appointment.

FTA185 i.e., The ministry in the congregation.

FTA186 Quantum fragilitas humana permittit. A qualification of the vow.

FTA187 i.e., Celibacy. Non promitto castitatem.

FTA188 Fragilitas humana non permittit caste vivere.

FTA189 Angelica fortitudo et coelestis virtus.

FTA190 The court-jester was allowed unusual freedom of speech. See Prefatory Letter above.

FTA191 The laws governing marriage were entirely the laws of the Church.

The canon law prohibited marriage of blood-relatives as far as the seventh degree of consanguinity. In 1204 the prohibition was restricted to the first four degrees; lawful marriage within these degrees was possible only by dispensation, which was not all too difficult to secure, especially by those who were willing to pay for it (see above, p. 96).

The relation of god-parents to god-children was also held to establish a "spiritual consanguinity" which might serve as a bar to lawful marriage.

See BENRATH, p. 103, note 74, and in the Babylonian Captivity.

FTA192 This Luther actually did. When he burned the papal bull of excommunication (Dec. 10, 1520) a copy of the canon law was also given to the flames.

FTA193 i.e., The marriage of the clergy.

FTA194 On this sort of reserved cases see Discussion of Confession, Vol. 1

FTA195 "Irregularity" is the condition of any member of a monastic order who has violated the prescriptions of the order and been deprived, in consequence, of the benefits enjoyed by those who live under the regula, viz., the rule of the order.

FTA196 The three kinds of masses are really but one thing, viz., masses for the dead, celebrated on certain fixed days in each year, in consideration of the enjoyment of certain incomes, received either out of bequeathed endowments or from the heirs of the supposed beneficiaries.

FTA197 i.e., Even when the mass is decently said.

FTA200 Das geistliche Unrecht.

FTA201 The Treatise concerning the Ban.

FTA202 i.e., To those who teach and enforce the canon law.

FTA203 Luther means the saint's-days and minor religious holidays. See also the Discourse on Good Works, Vol. 1.

FTA204 Or "congregation."

FTA205 i.e., City-council.

FTA206 Kirchweihen, i.e., the anniversary celebration of the consecration of a church. These days had become feast days for the parish, and were observed in anything but a spiritual fashion.

FTA207 i:e., Occasions for drunkenness, gain and gambling.

FTA210 Letters entitling their holder to the benefits of the masses founded by the sodalities or confraternities. See BENRATH, p. 103.

FTA212 The pun is untranslatable, — Netz, Gesetz solt ich sagen.

FTA213 What the pope sold was release from the "snares" and "nets," viz., dispensation.

FTA214 i.e., Even into the law of the church.

FTA215 Die wilden Kapellen und Feldkirchen, i.e., churches which are built in the country, where there are no congregations.

FTA216 A little town in East Prussia, where was displayed a sacramental wafer, said to have been miraculously preserved from a fire which destroyed the church in 1383. It was alleged that at certain times this wafer exuded drops of blood, reverenced as the blood of Christ, and many miracles were said to have been performed by it. Wilsnack early became a favorite resort for pilgrims. In 1412 the archbishop of Prague, at the instigation of John Hus, forbade the Bohemians to go there. Despite the protests of the Universities of Leipzig and Erfurt,

Pope Eugenius IV in 1446 granted special indulgences for this pilgrimage, and the popularity of the shrine was undiminished until the time of the Reformation. Cf. Realencyk, xxi, pp. 347 ff.

FTA217 In Mecklenburg, where another relic of "the Holy Blood" was displayed after 1491. Cf. BENRATH, pp. 104 f. Vol. II — 9

FTA218 The "Holy Coat of Trier" was believed by the credulous to be the seamless coat of Christ, which the soldiers did not rend. It was first exhibited in 1512, but was said to have been presented to the cathedral church of Trier by the Empress Helena, mother of Constantine the FTA219 Pilgrimage to the Grimmenthal in Meiningen began in 1499. An image of the Virgin, declared to have been miraculously created, was displayed there, and was alleged to work wonderful cures, especially of syphilis.

FTA220 The "Fair Virgin (die schone Maria) of Regensburg" was an image of the Virgin similar to that exhibited in the Grimmenthal. The shrine was opened March 25, 1519, and within a month 50,000 pilgrims are said to have worshiped there. (Weimar Ed., VI, 447, note I). For another explanation see BENRATH, p. 105.

FTA221 The pilgrimages were a source of large revenue, derived from the sale of medals which were worn as amulets, the fees for masses at the shrines, and the free-will offerings of the pilgrims. A large part of this revenue accrued to the bishop of the diocese, though the popes never overlooked the profits which the sale of indulgences for worship at these shrines could produce. In the Gravamina of 1521 complaint is made that the bishops demand at least 25 to 33 per cent. of the offerings made at shrines of pilgrimage (WREDE, op. cit., II, 687).

FTA222 i.e., Every bishop.

FTA223 The possession of a saint gave a church a certain reputation and distinction, which was sufficiently coveted to make local Church authorities willing to pay roundly for the canonisation of a departed bishop or other local dignitary. Cf. Hutten's Vadiscus (BOCKING, IV,

FTA224 Archbishop of Florence (died 1459). He was canonised, May 31, 1523, by Pope Hadrian VI. When Luther wrote this the process of cannonisation had already begun.

FTA225 Indulta, i.e., grants of special privilege.

FTA226 "Lead," the leaden seal attached to the bull; "hide", the parchment on which it is written; "the string," the ribbon or silken cord from which the seals depend; "wax," the seal holding the card to the parchment.

FTA227 Franciscans, Dominicans, Augustinians, Camelites and Servites.

FTA228 Botschaften, interpreted by Benrath (p. 105), Clemen (I, 406, note) and Weimar Ed. (VI, 406, note 1) as a reference to the stationarii. They were wandering beggars who, for an alms, would enroll the contributor in the list of beneficiaries of their patron saint, an alleged insurance against disease, accident, etc. They were classified according to the names of their patron saints, St. Anthony, St. Hubert, St. Valentine, etc. Protests against their operations were raised at the Diets of Worms

(1521) and Nurnberg (1523). Included in these protests are the terminarii, i.e., the collectors of alms sent out by the mendicant orders.

See WREDE, op. cit., II, 678, 688, III, 651, and BENRATH, loc. cit.

FTA229 Wallbruder, the professional pilgrims who spent their lives in wandering from one place of pilgrimage to another and subsisted on the alms of the faithful.

FTA230 i:e., If the plan above proposed were adopted.

FTA232 See Treatise on the New Testament, Vol. 1.

FTA233 In the Babylonian Captivity Luther definitely excludes penance from the number of sacraments.

FTA234 The sodalities (" fraternities," "confraternities"), still an important institution in the Roman Church, flourished especially in the XVI Century. They are associations for devotional purposes. The members of the sodalities are obligated to the recitation of certain prayers and the attendance upon certain masses at stipulated times. By virtue of membership in the association each member is believed to participate in the benefits accruing from these "good works" of all the members. In the case of most of the sodalities membership entitled the member to the enjoyment of certain indulgences. In 1520 Wittenberg boasted of 20 such fraternities, Cologne of 80, Hamburg of more than 100

(Realencyk., 3, 437). In 1519 Degenhard Peffinger, of Wittenberg, was a member of 8 such fraternities in his home city, and of 27 in other places. For Luther's view of the sodalities see above, pp. 8, 26 ff. On the whole subject see BENRATH, pp. 106 f.; KOLDE in Realencyk.,

3, pp. 434 ff.; LEA, Hist. of Conf. and Indulg, 3, pp. 470 ff.

FTA237 The excesses committed at the feasts of the religious societies were often a public scandal. See LEA, Hist. of Conf. and Indulg, III, pp. 437 ff.

FTA238 "Faculties" were extraordinary powers, usually for the granting of indulgences and of absolution in "reserved cases" (see above, p. 105, note 3). They were bestowed by the pope and could be revoked by him at any time. Sometimes they were given to local Church officials, but were usually held by the legates or commissaries sent from Rome.

Complaints were made at the Diets of Worms (1520) and Nurnberg (1523) that the papal commissaries and legates interfered with the ordinary methods of ecclesiastical jurisdiction and appointment. See

WREDE, op. cit., II, 673, III, 653.

FTA239 Wladislav I forced the Sultan to sue for peace in 1443. At the instigation of the papal legate, Cardinal Caesarini, who represented that the treaty had not been approved by the pope, and absolved the king from the fulfillment of its conditions, he renewed the war in 1444. At the battle of Varna, Nov. 10th, 1444, the Hungarians were derisively defeated, and Wladislav and Caesarini both killed. See CREIGHTON,

Hist. of the Papacy, III, 67.

FTA240 John Hus and Jerome of Prague were convicted of heresy by the Council of Constance and burned at the stake, the former July 6th,

1415, the latter May 30th, 1416. Hus had come to Constance under the safe-conduct of the Emperor Sigismund. Luther is in error when he assumes that Jerome had a similar safe-conduct. In September, 1415, the Council passed a decree which asserted that "neither by natural, divine or human law was any promise to be observed to the prejudice of the catholic faith." On the whole matter of the safe-conduct and its violation see LEA, Hist. of the Inquisition in the M.A., II, pp. 453ff.

FTA241 The League of Cambray, negotiated in 1508 for war against Venice.

In 1510 Venice made terms with the pope and detached him from the alliance, and the result was war between the pope and the King of France. See Cambridge Modern History, I, pp. 130 ff., and literature there cited.

FTA242 i.e., The Hussites. After the martyrdom of Hus his followers maintained for a time a strong organisation in Bohemia, and resisted with arms all attempts to force them into conformity with the Roman

Church. The Council of Basel succeeded (1434) in reconciling the more moderate party among the Bohemians (the Calixtines) by allowing the administration of the cup to the laity. The more extreme party, however, refused to subscribe the Compactata of Basel. Though they soon ceased to be a factor in the political situation, they remained outside the Church and perpetuated the teachings of Hus in sectarian organisations. The most important of these, the so-called Bohemian

Brethren, had extended into Poland and Prussia before Luther's time.

See Realencyk., III, 465-467.

FTA244 See Kohler, L. und die Kirchengesch., 139, 151.

FTA245 The Archbishop of Prague was primate of the Church in Bohemia.

FTA246 The dioceses of these bishops were contiguous to that of the Archbishop of Prague.

FTA247 Bishop of Carthage, 249-258 A.D.

FTA248 Lass man ihn ein gut jar haben, literally,"Bid him good-day."

FTA249 One of the chief points of controversy between the Roman Church and the Hussites. The Roman Church administered to the laity only the bread, the Hus-sites used both elements.

FTA250 Luther had not yet reached the conviction that the administration of the cup to the laity was a necessity, but see the argument in t h e

Babylonian Captivity.

FTA251 The Bohemian Brethren, who are here distinguished from the Hussites, Cf. Realencyk., III, 452, 49.

FTA252 St. Thomas Aquinas, the great Dominican theologian of the XIII.

Century (1225-74), whose influence is still dominant in Roman theology.

FTA253 The view of the sacramental presence adopted by William of Occam.

For Luther's own view at this time.

FTA254 i.e., If they did not believe in the real presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Lord's Supper. Vol. II. — 10

FTA255 Places for training youths in Greek glory.

FTA256 The philosophy of Aristotle dominated the mediaeval universities. It not only provided the forms in which theological and religious truth came to expression, but it was the basis of all scientific study in every department. The man who did not know Aristotle was an ignoramus.

FTA257 Or, "I have read him." Luther's lesen allows of either interpretation.

FTA258 Duns Scotus, died 1308. In the XV and XVI Centuries he was regarded as the rival of Thomas Aquinas for first place among the theological teachers of the Church,

FTA259 i.e., In the universities.

FTA261 i.e., "The chamber of his heart." Boniface VIII (1294-1303) had decreed, Romanus pontifex jura omnia in scrinio pectoris sui censetur habere, "the Roman pontiff has all laws in the chamber of his heart."

This decree was received into the canon law (c. I, de cons t. in VIto (I, FTA262 Doctores decretorum, "Doctor of Decrees," an academic degree occasionally given to professors of Canon Law; doctor scrinii papalis,

"Doctor of the Papal Heart."

FTA263 The introduction of Roman law into Germany, as the accepted law of the empire, had begun in the XII Century. With the decay of the feudal system and the increasing desire of the rulers to provide their government with some effective legal system, its application became more widespread, until by the end of the XV Century it was the accepted system of the empire. The attempt to apply this ancient law to conditions utterly different from those of the time when it was formulated, and the continual conflict between the Roman law, the feudal customs and the remnants of Germanic legal ideas, naturally gave rise to a state of affairs which Luther could justly speak of as "a wilderness."

FTA264 "Sentences" (Sententiae, libri sententiarum) was the title of the textbooks in theology. Theological instruction was largely by way of comment on the most famous hook of Sentences, that of Peter

FTA266 i.e., Doctors.

FTA267 The head-dress of the doctors.

FTA269 i.e., The monasteries and nunneries.

FTA270 i.e.: The name of Christian.

FTA271 This section did not appear in the first edition; see Introduction.

FTA272 Charles the Great, King of the Franks, was crowned Roman Emperor by Pope Leo III in the year 800 A.D. He was a German, but regarded himself successor to the line of emperors who had ruled at Rome. The fiction was fostered by the popes, and the German kings, after receiving the papal coronation, were called Roman Emperors. From this came the name of the German Empire of the Middle Ages, "the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation." The popes of the later

Middle Ages claimed that the bestowal of the imperial dignity lay in the power of the pope, and Pope Clement V (1313) even claimed that in the event of a vacancy the pope was the possessor of the imperial power (cf. above, p. 109). On the whole subject see BRYCE, Holy

Roman Empire, 2d ed. (1904), and literature there cited.

FTA273 The city of Rome was sacked by the Visigoths in 410.

FTA274 Luther is characteristically careless about his chronology. By the "Turkish Empire" he means the Mohammedan power.

FTA275 So sol man die Deutschen teuschen und mit teuschen teuschenn, i.e., made Germans (Deutsche) by cheating (teuschen) them.

FTA276 See Cambridge Mediaeval History, I (1911), pp. 244 f.

FTA277 Such a law as Luther here suggests was proposed to the Diet of Worms (1521). Text in WREDE, Reischstagsakten, II, 335-341.

FTA278 Cf. Luther's Sermon von Kaufbandlung und Wucher, of 1524.

(Weim. Ed. XV, pp. 293 ff) FTA279 Spices were one of the chief articles of foreign commerce in the XVI Century. The discovery of the cape-route to India had given the Portuguese a practical monopoly of this trade. A comparative statement of the cost of spices for a period of years was reported to the Diet of Nurnberg (1523). See WREDE, op. cit.., III, 576.

FTA280 The Zinskauf or Rentenkauf was a means for evading the prohibition of usury. The buyer purchased an annuity, but the purchase price was not regarded as a loan, for it could not be recalled, and the annual payments could not therefore be called interest.

FTA281 The practice was legalised by the Lateran Council, 1512.

FTA282 The XVI Century was the hey-day of the great trading-companies, among which the Fuggers of Augsburg easily took first place. The effort of these companies was directed toward securing monopolies in the staple articles of commerce, and their ability to finance large enterprises made it possible for them to gain practical control of the home markets. The sharp rise in the cost of living which took place on the first half of the XVI Century was laid at their door. The Diet of Cologne (1512) had passed a stringent law against monopolies which had, however, failed to suppress them. The Diet of Worms (1521) debated the subject (WREDE, Reichstagsakten II, pp. 355 ft.) "in somewhat heated language" (ibid., 842), but failed to agree upon methods of suppression. The subject was discussed again at the Diet of Nurnberg (1523) and various remedies were proposed (ibid., III, 556FTA283 The profits of the trading-companies were enormous. The 9 per cent.

Annually of the Weiser (EHRENBERG, Zeitalter der Fugger, I, 195), pales into insignificance beside the 1634 per cent. by which the fortune of the Fuggers grew in twenty-one years (SCHULE, Die Fugger in Rom, 1, 3). In 1511 a certain Bartholomew Rem invested 900 gulden in the Hochstetter company of Augsburg; by 1517 he claimed 33,000 gulden profit. The company was willing to settle at 26,000, and the resulting litigation caused the figures to become public (WREDE, op. cit.:, II, 842, note 4; III, pp. 574 f.). On Luther's view of capitalism see

ECK, Introduction to the Sermon von Kaufshand-lung und Wucher, in Berl. Ed., VII, 494-513.

FTA284 The Diets of Augsburg (1500) and Cologne (1512) had passed edicts against drunkenness. A committee of the Diet of Worms (1521) recommended that these earlier edicts be reaffirmed (WREDE., op. cit.,

II, pp. 343 f.), but the Diet adjourned without acting on the recommendation (ibid., 737).

FTA285 Sie wollen ausbuben, so sich's vielmehr hineinbubt.

FTA286 Cf. MULLER, Luther's theol. Quellen, 1912, ch. 1.

FTA287 In the Confitendi Ratio Luther had set the age for men at eighteen to twenty, for women at fifteen to sixteen years. See Vol. 1.

FTA288 Translated in this edition, Vol. 1.

FTA289 These sentences did not appear in the first edition.

FTA290 See Letter to Staupitz, Vol. 1.

FTA291 This " little song " is the Prelude on the Babylonian Captivity of the FTA292 Born at Steinheim, near Paderborn, in Westphalia; a proofreader in Melchior Lotter's printing-house at Leipzig, with whose oldest son he went to Wittenberg in 1519; professor of poetry at the university; rector of the same, 1525; one of Luther's staunchest supporters; rector of the school at Luneberg, 1532 until his death in 1540. Compare

ENDERS, Luther's Briefwechsel, II, 490; TSCHACKERT, op. cit., 203, and literature in CLEMEN, I, 426.

FTA293 Resolutiones disputationum de indulgentiarum virtute, 1518; others think he refers to the Sermon von Ablass und Gnade, of the same year.

FTA294 Sylvester Prierias and the Dominicans. Comp. KÖSTLIN-KAWERAU, FTA295 Resolutiones super prop. xiii., 1519.

FTA296 Comp. The Papacy at Rome, Vol. 1.

FTA297 Comp. FR. LEPP, Schlagwörter des Ref. zeitalters (Leipzig, 1908).

FTA298 The Franciscan Augustin Alveld. See Introduction, and compare LEMMENS, Pater Aug. 5:Alveld (Freiburg, 1899).

FTA299 Isidoro Isolani. See Introduction.

FTA300 Luther pokes fun at the use of revocatio with an objective genitive.

FTA301 See above and compare PRESERVED SMITH, Luther's Correspondence, Vol. 1, letter no. 265.

FTA302 Cf. The Papacy at Rome, Vol. 1. The title-page of Alveld's treatise contained twenty-six lines.

FTA303 A satiric reference to a section in Alveld's treatise, on the name of Jesus, which he spells IHSVH and brings proofs for this form from the three languages mentioned. See SECKENDORF, Hist. Luth., lib. I, sect.

FTA304 Alveld calls himself, on his title-page, Fra nciscanus regularis observantiae Sanctae Crucis. The Observantines were Franciscan monks of the stricter rule, who separated from the Conventuals in the XV. Century. See Prot. Realencyklopadie8,3 VI, 213 ff.

FTA305 In the Treatise on the Blessed Sacrament.

FTA306 The universities of Cologne and Louvain had ratified Eck's "victory" over Luther at the Leipzig Disputation. See KÖSTLIN-KAWERAU, I,

FTA307 De disputatione Lipsicensi, 1519.

FTA307a A venatione Luteriana Aegocerotis assertio, 1519.

FTA308 Some theologians — e.g., Cajetan and Durandus - doubted whether the Sacrament of Order was received by deacons; the Council of Trent decided against them. — Cath. Encyclop., IV, 550.

FTA309 For Luther's opinion of Aristotle see above.

FTA310 The Franciscans are meant. The allusion may be to the seraphic vision of St. Francis.

FTA312 A less lenient view was taken by Boniface Amerbach, writing to his brother Basil at Basle, October 20, 1520: "The good man (Luther) was not a little injured by the libel of a poor impostor, who, by pretending that Martin had recanted, brought back even those who had entered upon the way of truth to their former errors." See SMITH, op. cit., I, no. 316.

FTA313 The present did not last very long.

FTA314 So called because of the withholding of the wine from the laity.

FTA315 Cf. <540316>1 Timothy 3:16. See KÖSTLIN, Theology of Luther (E. Tr.),I, FTA316 TheTreatise on the Blessed Sacrament, 1510.

FTA319 Decretal. Greg., lib. III, tit. xli, cap. 17.

FTA320 Migne, XLIV, 699 f.

FTA321 Verklärung etlicher Artikel, 1520. Weimar Ed., VI, 80, II ff.

FTA322 An allusion to his opponents' doctrine of the complete freedom of the will, which Luther denied. Compare his De servo arbitrio (1525).

Weimar Ed., XVIII, 6oo ff. He finds in their treatment of Scripture and of logic a practical expression of this doctrine of theirs.

FTA323 Luther humbly identifies himself with the erring priesthood.

FTA325 The res sacramenti. The sacrament consisted of these two parts- (I) the sacramentum, or external sign, and (2) the res sacramenti, or the thing signified, the sacramental grace. Another distinction is that between (I) materia, or the external sign, and (2) forma, or the words of institution or administration.

FTA326 Cf. Weimar Ed., VI, 505, note 1.

FTA327 Cf. Vol. I, p. 325, and Realencyklopädie, X, 289, pp. 2 ff.

FTA328 Cf. Weimar Ed., VI, 506, note 2.

FTA329 Cf. W. KÖHLER, Luther und die Kirchengeschichte (Erlangen,1900), chap. viii.

FTA330 On the spiritual reception of the sacrament see H. HERING, Die Mystik Luthers (1879.

1384), the keenest of the mediaeval critics of the doctrine of transubstantiation.

FTA333 Pierre d'Ailly (t1425), who, with his master Occam, greatly influenced Luther.

FTA334 The Sentences of Peter Lombard, the text-book of mediaeval theology.

FTA335 In the dogma of transubstantiation (Fourth Lateran Council, 1215) the Church taught that the substance of bread and wine was changed into the substance of Christ's body and blood, while the accidents of the former — i.e., their attributes, such as form, color, taste, etc. — remained.

FTA337 Thus the Erlangen Ed.; the Weimar Ed. reads: an accidentia ibi sint sine substantia.

FTA339 i.e., the host, or wafer.

FTA340 Decretal. Greg. lib. I, tit. i, cap. 1, §3.

FTA344 The Douay Version has here been followed.

FTA345 See Luther's own definition above.

FTA353 On "fruits of the mass" compare SEEBERG, Dogmengesch., III.

FTA360 That portion of the mass included between the Sanctus and the FTA361 See Vol. 1, and Prot. Realencyklop., XIV, 679, 41 ff.

FTA365 The offertory prayers in the mass. Cf, Prot, Rea1encyk1opädie, XII, FTA366 The private mass does not require the presence of a congregation.

Besides the celebrant there need be present only a ministrant, There is no music, the mass is only read. SeeRealencyklopädie, XII, 723.

FTA367 The res sacramenti.

FTA368 Masses celebrated by special request or in honor of certain mysteries (e.g., of the Holy Trinity, of the Holy Spirit, or of angels).

Rea1encyklopädie, XII, 722.

FTA369 Pope Gregory I. See Realencyklopädie, XII, 681 f.

FTA370 SEEBERG, Dogmengesch., III, 461 f.

FTA371 For letters of indulgence.

FTA372 Ep. 130, 9 (MIGNE, XXII, 1115).

FTA373 Factions in the monastic orders.

FTA374 The reference may be to Blandina, who suffered martyrdom under FTA375 The three parts of penance.

FTA377 Peter Lombard, the fourth book of whose Sentences treats of the sacraments.

FTA379 The scholastics distinguished between the "material" and the "form" of a sacrament. In baptism, the material was the water; the form, the words, "I baptise thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."

FTA380 Alexander, of Hales, denied the validity of baptism "in the name of Jesus," which Peter Lombard defended. Cf. Realencyklopadie, XIX,

FTA381 Cf. Weimar Ed., I, 544, and Erlangen Ed., XLIV, 114ff.

FTA383 A point at issue between Thomists and Franciscans. The former held that the grace of the sacrament was contained in the sacramental sign and directly imparted through it; thus Aquinas. The Franciscans contended that the sign was merely a symbol, but that God, according to a pactio, or agreement, imparted the grace of the sacrament when the sign was being used; thus Bonaventura, and especially Duns

Scotus. See SEEBERG, DG., III, 455 ff., and in Realencyklopadie, V, FTA393 The position of Thomas Aquinas, going back to Augustine, and ratified by Clement V at the Council of Vienna, 1311-12.

FTA396 For a full discussion of this "baptism," see SCHEEL, in the Ber1in Edition of Luther's works, Erganzungsband II, pp. 134-157.

FTA398 The threefold vow of the mendicant orders.

FTA399 Bu1la means both a papal bull and a bubble.

FTA401 An obscure allegorical reference to the Babylonian captivity of the Jews. "The people of the captivity" (comp. <196401>Psalm 64:1, Vulgate) are the better portion of the people who were carried captive, together with their possessions, to Babylon; "the people of the earth," am haarez, the common people, were left behind and became the nucleus of the hybrid Samaritan nation.

FTA404 See Decretal. Greg., lib. III, tit. xxxiv, cap. 7.

FTA405 Cf. Kohler, Luther und die KG., pp. 222 ff.

FTA407 This time came during Luther's sojourn at the Wartburg, when he wrote Devotis monasticis, 1521 See Vol. IV.

FTA408 The XCV Theses, the Resolutiones, the Sermon von Ablass uud Gnade, the Confitendi Ratio; the first and last of these in Vol. I.

FTA409 Reference to a probably spurious bull of Clement VI. In his Grund u.

Ursach aller Artikel D. Martin Luthers, so durch rom. Bulle unrechtlich verdammt sind (1521), Luther writes: "Thus it happened in the days of John Hus that the pope commanded the angels of heaven to conduct to heaven the souls of the Roman pilgrims who died en route. Against this dreadful blasphemy and more than devilish presumption Hus raised his voice, and though he lost his life therefor, yet forced the pope to pipe a different tune and in future to refrain from such blasphemy." Compare

KOHLER, Luther u.die Kirchengeschichte, p. 206.

FTA410 longe viliorem; the Jena Ed., followed by Lemme and Kawerau, reads, longe meliorem.

FTA417 A play on the word observantia, which means both observation and observance. A scriptural fling at the Observantines.

FTA418 Luther quotes correctly, confortatus, but thinks confirmatus.

FTA419 Vulgate: confirmet.

FTA421 Vulgate: sacramenta.

FTA422 Erasmus edited the first published Greek New Testament in March, 1516 (Basle: John Froben), the Complutensian Polyglot being the first printed edition (1514). Luther used Erasmus' work as soon as it came out, as may be seen in his lectures on Romans, 1515-16 (cf. FICKER,

Luthers Vorlesung uber den Romerbrief; also PRESERVED SMITH Luther's Correspondence, etc., I, nos. 21 and 65). In an interesting letter to Luther of Feb. 14, 1519, Froben announces the second edition of Erasmus' New Testament, which Luther used in making his translation. Cf. SMITH, op. cit., no. 125.

FTA424 Namely, for Paul.

FTA425 The precise meaning is not clear. The Latin is: vel proprio spiritu vel generali sententia.

FTA426 Here follows a passage that clearly breaks into the context and belongs elsewhere. See Introduction.

"I admit that the sacrament of penance existed also in the Old Law, yea, from the beginning of the world. But the new promise of penance and the gift of the keys are peculiar to the New Law. For as we now have baptism instead of circumcision, so we have the keys instead of the sacrifices and other signs of penance. We said above that the same

God at divers times gave divers promises and signs for the remission of sins and the salvation of men, but that all nevertheless received the same grace. Thus it is said in <470401>2 Corinthians 4, 'Having the same spirit of faith, we also believe, for which cause we speak also'; and in <461001>1 Corinthians 10, 'Our fathers did all eat the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink.; and they drank of the spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ.' Thus also in <581101>Hebrews 11, 'These all died, not receiving the promise; God providing some better thing for us, that they should not be perfected without us.' For Christ Himself is, yesterday, and today and forever, the Head of His Church, from the beginning even to the end of the world. Therefore there are divers signs, but the faith of all is the same.

Indeed, without faith it is impossible to please God, by which faith even Abel pleased Him (<581101>Hebrews 11)."

FTA427 The Summa angelica of Angelus de Clavassio of Genoa (died about 1495), published 1486, one of the favorite handbooks of casuistry, in which all possible cases of conscience were treated in alphabetical order. Cf. Zeitchrift fur Kirchengesch., XXVII, 296 ff. The Summa angelica was among the papal books burned by Luther, together with the bull, December 10, 1520. Cf. SMITH, Luther's Correspondence, I, no. 355.

FTA428 For a full discussion of the hindrances see article Eherecht, by SEHLING, in Prot. Realencyklopadie, V.

FTA429 On this whole paragraph compare Vol. I.

FTA430 It is to be borne in mind that all that follows is in the nature of advice to confessors in dealing with difficult cases of conscience, and is parallel to the closing paragraphs of the section on The Sacrament of the Bread..

FTA431 Namely, by officiating at the marriage ceremony.

FTA432 Namely, by betrothal (sponsalia de praesenti).

FTA433 Lemme pertinently reminds the reader that by "laws of men" Luther here understands the man-made laws of the Church of Rome.

FTA435 Relationship arising from sponsorship and legal adoption.

FTA436 Cognatio spiritualis.

FTA437 The res sacramenti.

FTA438 Cognatio legalis.

FTA439 Disparilitas religionis.

FTA440 Impedimentum criminis.

FTA441 Impedimentum ligaminis.

FTA442 The fides data et accepta, which Luther finds in the fides (faith) of <480522>Galatians 5:22

FTA444 Impedimentum erroris. With fine sarcasm Luther here plays off one hindrance against another.

FTA445 Impedimentum ordinis.

FTA446 Impedimentum publicae honestatis.

FTA447 An untranslatable pun: non iustitia sed inscitia.

FTA451 The following points need to be borne in mind in order to a fair evaluation of this much criticized section: (1) What is here given is in the nature of advice to confessors, and the one guiding principle is the relief of souls in peril. (2) It must not be forgotten that Luther wrote the treatise in Latin, and not for the general public. There is without doubt a certain betrayal in turning into the vernacular a passage written in the language of the learned. Yet we have done this, being unwilling to fall under the charge of giving a garbled version. (3) The hindrance

Luther is here discussing was one recognized and provided for by the Church of Rome, and the remedy suggested by him was prescribed by the German Volksrecht in many localities. (4) Divorce was absolutely forbidden. (5) Luther's error grew out of an unhistorical interpretation of the Old Testament, and consisted in his undervaluing the importance of the public law. "To make the individual conscience the sole arbiter in matters belonging to public law, leads to dangerous consequences."

(See KAWARAU, Berlin Ed., II, 482 f., where references are given.) FTA452 As he actually did in the case of Henry VIII and Philip of Hesse.

FTA455 An allusion to the fact that what he is writing is a "Prelude." See FTA456 Contra epistolam Manichaei, 5, 6 (MIGNE XLII, 176).

FTA457 De trinitate, 9, 6, 10 (MIGNE, VIII, 966).

FTA459 The council that condemned and burned John Hus (1414-1418).

FTA460 Dionysius Areopagita, the pseudonym (cf. <441705>Acts 17:54) of the unknown author (about 500, in Syria?) of the neoplatonic writings, Of t h e Celestial, and Of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, etc.

FTA461 William Durandus the elder, died 1296.

FTA462 The Franciscan Bonaventura (†1274) in his De reductione artium ad theologiam.

FTA463 Donatus (ab. 350 A.D.), a famous Latin grammarian, whose Ars minor was a favorite mediaeval text-book. The chancellor of the University of Paris, John Gerson (1429), published a Donatus moralisatus seu per allegoriam traductus — a mystical grammar, in which the noun was compared to man, the pronoun to man's sinful state, the verb to the divine command to love, the adverb to the fulfillment of the divine law, etc.

FTA465 The so-called character indelebilis, the peculiar gift of ordination, so that "once a priest, always a priest." See above, p. 68, note 5.

FTA467 The stated daily prayers, fixed by canon, of the clergy. The seven hours are respectively: matins (including nocturns and lauds), prime, tierce, sext, nones, vespers, and compline.

FTA468 The fullest development of Luther's doctrine of the spiritual priesthood of believers is to be found in his writings against Emser, especially Auf das uberchristliche, ubergeistliche und uberkunstliche

Buch Bock Emsers Antwort, 1521.

FTA475 Covers for the chalice.

FTA476 This promise was fulfilled in the Liberty of a Christian Man.

FTA477 Thus Erasmus: Fieri potest ut nomen commune cum apostolo praebuerit occasionem ut haec epistola Iacobo apostolo ascriberetur, cum fuerit alterius cuiusdam Iacobi. — MOFFATT, Introduction to the Lit. of the N. T., p. 472.

FTA486 The res sacramenti.

FTA487 Vergil's Eclogues, VIII, 63.

FTA489 The remainder of Luther's "recantation" was the De libertate. In the letter to the pope, which accompanied it, he gave ample proof of his obedience.

FTA490 The eighth stanza of Coelius Seclulius' Hymnus acrostichis totam vitam Christi continens (beginning, A solis ortus cardine), of the fifth century. Stanzas 8, 9, 11 and 13 were used as an Epiphany hymn, which Luther translated on December 12, 1541, — "Was furchtst du,

Feind Heredes, sehr." The above translation is taken from Hymns Ancient and Modern, No. 6o.

FTA491 Catholic Encyclopedia, x, 318.

FTA492 Church History, vi, 224f, FTA493 De consideratione, i, I.

FTA494 Martin Luther and the Reformation in Germany. London, 1589, p.

FTA495 Luther, I, 351.

FTA496 Du Lutheranisme au Protestantisrne, 1511, p. 199.

FTA497 KOLDE, Luther, I, 274.

FTA498 SCHAFF, VI, 224.

FTA501 Enders, ii, p. 496, gives as the date when the letter was written, "after Oct. 13th"; Smith, Life and Letters of Martin Luther, p. 91, dates it Oct. 20th.

FTA502 Nation, May 29, 1913.

FTA504 Sylvester Prierias.

FTA505 Preface to Prierias' Epitome, Weimar E d., VI, 329.

FTA506 Virgil, Georgics, I, 514.

FTA507 Pope Eugene III, 1145-1153, for whom Bernard of Clairvaux wrote a devotional book, De conideratione, in which he rehearsed the duties and the dangers of the pope. See Realencyklopadie II, 632; KOHLER,

Luther u. die Kirchengeschichte, 311 f. Cf. Resolutiones disput. de indulg, virtute, 1518, CLEMENS, I, 113.

FTA508 John Maier, born in Eck an der Gunz, and generally known as John Eck; an ambitious theologian, who first attacked his professor in Freiburg, then Erasmus' Annotations to the New Testament, and next wrote against Luther's XCV Theses (see Vol. I, 10, 176, etc.). He was the opponent of Luther and Carlstadt at the Leipzig Disputation

(1519), to which Luther here refers.

FTA509 Jacopo de Vio, born in Gaeta, Italy, in 1469, died in 1534. The name Cajetan he derived from his birthplace, the Latin name of which is

Cajeta. In the Dominican Order he was known as Thomas, so that his writings are published under the title, Thomae de Vio Cajetani opera.

He was made cardinal presbyter with the title of S. Sisto in 1517, and in the following year was sent as papal legate to the Diet of Augsburg.

Here he met and examined Luther, but accomplished nothing because he insisted that Luther must recant. See KOLDE in Realencyklopadie

FTA510 Carl von Miltitz was educated at Cologne, was prebendary at Mainz, Trier and Meissen, and later went to Rome, where he acted as agent for Frederick, Elector of Saxony, and Duke George the Bearded. "After the endeavors of Cardinal Cajetan to silence Luther had failed, Miltitz appeared to be the person most suited to bring the negotiations to a successful ending." (Catholic Encyclopedia, X, 318, where, however, the statement that Miltitz was educated at Mainz, Trier and Meissen is evidently a slip.) It seems that Miltitz returned to Rome for a time, but in 1522 again came to Germany, where he was drowned in the Main,

November 20, 1529. See FLATHE, Art. Miltitz, in Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie, 21, 759f.

FTA511 The German reads: "Thus I always did what was required of me, and neglected nothing which it was my duty to do."

FTA512 This was the usual title of the pope, with which the bull of excommunication opened: Leo Episcopus Servus Servorum Dei.

FTA513 Compare the letters of Miltitz to the elector Frederick in Smith, Luther's Correspondence, I, pp. 367 f.

FTA514 Here the German is more accurate: "Every Christian man."

FTA515 German: Wie man sein brauchen und niessen soil, "how we are to benefit by and enjoy what He is for us."

FTA516 German: der heubt gerechtigkteit.

FTA517 Possibly a reminiscence of the Leviathan serpentem tortuosum in <232701>Isaiah 27:1. Cf. Erl. Ed., lxiv, 73; xxvii, 323 f; xviii, 91. Lemme translates Teufelswahn.

FTA518 German: die fasten und gepett etlichen heyligen sonderlich gethah.

FTB1 COHRS, Evang. Katechismusversuche, I, 4.

FTB2 von Zezschwitz, Katechetik, II, 176, 265 ff.

FTB3 Weimar Ed., X', 475.

FTB4 Weimar Ed., IX, 122 ff. The same series was republished by Luther himself, ibid., IV, 74 ff.

FTB5 Weimar Ed., I, 248 ff.

FTB6 Weimar Ed., VI, 9 ff.

FTB7 Weimar Ed., VI, 20 ff.

FTB10 Weimar Ed., II, 47 ff.

FTB11 On the exact date, see Weimar Ed., vii, 195; Clemen, II, 38.

FTB12 See COHRS, 4, 326 ff.

FTB13 For this information I am indebted to the Revelation J. F. Bornhold, of Mount Holly, N.J. The fact was discovered almost simultaneously by Prof. M. Reu, of Dubuque, Iowa.

FTB14 For this translation see Vol. I.

FTB15 The law that we have outside of divine revelation. Cf. Romans FTB16 The possessor of these letters (Himmels-und Teufelsbriefe) was thought to be under the special protection of the spirits.

FTB17 Magical formulas.

FTB18 Practices popularly ascribed to the witches.

FTB20 Luther believed, with the mediaeval Church, that the lending of money at interest was a sin. Weimar Ed., 25, 293 ff

FTB21 i.e., In the confession made to the priest. See Vol. I, p. 285, and FTB22 Cf. Vol. I, pp. 58, 285.

FTB23 In the manuals for confession with which Luther was familiar sins were divided into the various classes mentioned here. Cf. Vol. I, pp. 90 ff.; Geffcken, Der Bilderkatechismus des XV Jhs., and especially

5:ZEZSCHWITZ, II, 197 ff.

FTB24 Serm., 96, 2; Migne,27, 585.

FTB25 Cf. Vol. I, p. 187.

FTB27 Luther has here departed from the customary Roman division of the Creed into twelve articles.

FTB30 Christenheit, cf. Vol. I, p. 358.

FTB32 In the catechisms of 1529 Luther abandons this interpretation of the bread.

FTB33 i.e. The sacrament of the Lord's Supper.

FTB34 1 The consequent closing of the churches except for preaching services leads Muller (Luther und Karlstadt, p. 52) to see in this the origin of the Protestant custom of closing churches on weekdays.

FTB35 August I, 1521. ENDERS, Luthers Briefwechsel, in, 208.

FTB36 December 20, 1521. ENDERS, in, 257.

FTB37 Date of both, November, 1521. Both in Weimar Ed., viii, and in Erl.

Ed., Op. var. arg., VI. The latter also in German (Vom Misbrauch der Messe), Erl. Ed., 28.

FTB38 24 Theses (July 1521). BARGE, Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt, I, 291. Repeated in De celebratione missae (October), ibid., 487.

FTB39 De scandalo et missa (Oct. or Nov.), ibid., 491.

FTB40 De cantu gregoriano disputatio (1520), ibid., 492.

FTB41 Von Abthuung der Bilder (January, 1522), ibid., 387.

FTB42 See KOSTLIN-KAWERAU, Martin Luther, I, 484.

FTB43 Published by H. LIETZMANN in Kleine Texte, no. 21; also in RICHER, Kirchenordnumgen, II 484.

FTB44 Weimar Ed., 8, 670 ff. Erl. Ed., 22, 43 ff.

FTB45 Luther's letter to the elector on March 7th. DE WETTE, 2, 138; Weimar Ed., Xc, Introd., xlvii f.

FTB46 ENDERS, in, 484.

FTB47 Kessler, Sabbata, St. Gallen, 1902. Quoted at length in Weimar Ed., X, Introduction, lii.

FTB48 Letter of Albert Burer, Briefwechsel des Beatus Rhenanus, 303. See also Introd., lift, in Weimar Ed., Xc.

FTB49 Weimer Ed., Xb; Erl. Ed., 28.

FTB50 See KAWERAU, Luthers Ruckkehr von der Wartburg, 67. Fragment in full in Weimar Ed., X c, Introduction, lv ff., where see also a recently discovered short Latin fragment, which served a similar purpose.

FTB51 Cp. his experiences at the Wartburg. See KOSTLIN-KAWERAU, I, 439 ff.

FTB52 Carlstadt, without authority, preached, administered the sacrament and brought about the upheaval in the parish church — Luther's own.

He was archdeacon and preacher at the castle church. See Muller, Luther und Karlstart, 69 and passim.

FTB53 In the Open Letter to the Christian Nobility and the Babylonian FTB54 Right to speak.

FTB58 Justus Jonas, probost at the castle church.

FTB59 Gabriel Zwilling, an Augustinian, who, next to Carlstadt, was the leader in forcing the reforms which Luther is here discussing. See

FTB60 Was Luther led by the name of Gabriel to add a last touch by the mention of the other archangel, in the thought of St. Paul, that even an angel from heaven cannot change the Gospel, <480108>Galatians 1:8. See note in Weimar Ed., Xc, 438. See also a similar outburst in a letter to Johann Lang in 1516, six years previous, where Gabriel Biel's name furnished the incitement. ENDERS, I, 54; SMITH, I, 42.

FTB61 Namely, of the monasteries.

FTB62 A monastic order, founded 1084, noted for the strictness of its rule.

FTB63 The Iconoclastic controversy in the Eastern church, which called forth the Seventh Ecumenical Council at Nice in 787, whose decrees were favorable to images in the churches. The controversy, which raged for over a century, was finally settled in 843. Since the promulgation of this decree the First Sunday in Lent has been celebrated annually as the "Feat of Orthodoxy." See Realencyk., III 222 ff.

FTB65 1:e., Castor and Pollux.

FTB66 Luther's great objection to the mass was its turning of the Sacrament into a sacrifice. This view of the mass was for him an utter perversion of the gospel, and, therefore, comes under the category of essentials.

FTB69 ln the canon law, C. 12, X, de poenitentiis.

FTB71 On this title, See Introduction.

FTB72 "Let there be iudgment and righteousness." To keep judgment is to accuse and condemn ourselves; 'but to do righteousness is to trust in the mercy of God.

FTB73 The treatise Von der Beichte, ob die der Papst Macht habe zu gebieten, written during the sojourn on the Wartburg. See Weimar Ed.,

VIII, 129; Erl. Ed., XXVII, 318.

FTB75 Goldfasts are the ember-fasts, on the three ember-days of each of the four seasons of the year; possibly called "goldfasts" because on these days rents were collected. See Realencyklopladie, 5:780, 9.

FTB76 The fasts enjoined upon a people by a public edict or ban. The term "ban" as here used does not denote the Church's excommunication, but an authoritative proclamation.

FTB77 The Tatianists, followers of Tatian, who lived in Syria in the middle of the second century. Tatian, apparently basing his view of marriage upon <460705>1 Corinthians 7:5, ascribes the institution of marriage and the whole Old Testament Law to the devil. Eusebius held that Tatian was the founder of a sect known as the Encratites, or Abstainers. Modern historians see in the Encratites a groups of ascetic Christians found frequently in the early Church, somewhat similar to the later monks and nuns, so that Harnack can write that Tatian "joined the Encratites."

Dogmengeschichte3, I, 227n. See Realencyklopadie2,19, 386-394 on Tatian; 5, 392 f. on the Encratites.

FTB78 The Manicheans, strictly speaking not a Christian sect, but a rival religious community, which made inroads upon the Christian Church.

Founded by the Babylonian Mani, who was born in the third century, they taught the inherent evil of all matter, and consequently had many fasts, averaging seven days in each month, while the "perfect" among them abstained from meat, wine and marriage. See Realencyklopadie3,

12, 193-228; VON ORELLI, Religionsgesehichte, 279-291.

FTB79 The Greek a n anathema Luther here translates ein Bann, "let him be a ban." This explains the reference to the ban below.

FTB80 Stehet unter euch, whereas above Luther writes ist inwendig in euch.

FTB81 1 Contra Epistolam Manichaei, vi, Paris Ed., 1839, 28:185: Ego vero Evangelio non crederem, nisi me ecclesiae catholicae commoveret anctoritas. On the preceding page Augustine had written: "If the claim of truth be shown to be so evident that it cannot be called into question, it is to be preferred before all those things by which I am held in the Catholic faith."

FTB82 O raging madness, worthy of our age!

CONTACTING AGES SOFTWARE For more information regarding the AGES Digital Library, whether it be about pricing structure, trades for labor or books, current listings, policies — or if you wish to offer suggestions — please write us at…

AGES SOFTWARE • PO BOX 1926 • ALBANY OR 97321-0509 WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THE DIGITAL LIBRARY?

The Library consists of books and other literature of enduring value to the Christian community. Our goal since the beginning has been to "make the words of the wise available to all —inexpensively." We have had in mind the student, teacher, pastor, missionary, evangelist and church worker who needs a high quality reference library, one that is portable, practical and low in cost.

ON WHAT BASIS WERE THEY SELECTED?

Volumes in the Library have been added based on several criteria: usefulness, user request, breadth of content or reputation. This has meant that the collection is eclectic and may include works that contain positions with which we at AGES Software do not agree. This paradox is consistent with our design, however: any useful library consists of books on a wide variety of subjects and sometimes includes information for reference purposes only. The AGES Digital Library hopefully will reflect — as its components are released — the necessary breadth and depth for a solid personal library.

HOW WERE THESE VOLUMES PREPARED?

Most of the books and documents have been scanned or typed from works that have entered the public domain. Some have been reproduced by special arrangement with the current publisher or holder of the copyright. They have been put in a format that can be readily used by computer users everywhere.

ARE THESE EXACT COPIES OF THE ORIGINAL WORKS?

Usually not. In the process of preparing the Library, we at AGES Software have taken the liberty to make certain edits to the text. As we discovered errors in spelling, certain archaic forms, typographical mistakes or omissions in the original we have done our best to correct them. Our intention has been to remove anything that might obscure the meaning or otherwise detract from the usefulness of a book for the modern reader. We have, however, attempted to retain the essential content and thoughts of the original — even when we found ourselves in disagreement.

WHY IS THE DIGITAL LIBRARY COPYRIGHTED?

While much of the content is in the public domain, the transcription, form and edits of these works took many people many hours to accomplish.

We ask each purchaser to respect this labor and refrain from giving away copies of this or any volume of the Library without written permission from AGES Software. Our policy, however, is to work with each individual or organization to see that the price of Digital Library volumes not be a hindrance in their reaching the hands of those who need them. If price is an obstacle, please contact us at the address above and present your situation.