The Babylonian Captivity of the Church

A prelude 1520

¹De captivitate Babylonica Ecclesiae Praeludium Martini Lutheri. 
6. Oct 1520. WA vol 6, pp 497 ff.

Jesus.

Martin Luther, Augustinian, to his friend, Herman Tulich, Greeting

 Martinus Lutherus Augustianus Hermanno Tulichio suo Salutem.

1.1 Like it or not, I am compelled to learn more every day, with so many and such able masters vying with one another to improve my mind. Some two years ago I wrote a little book on indulgences, which I now deeply regret having published. For at the time I still clung to the Roman tyranny with great superstition and held that indulgences should not be altogether rejected, seeing they were approved by the common consent of men.

²Velim, nolim, cogor indies eruditior fieri, tot tantisque magistris certatim me urgentibus et exercentibus. De indulgentiis ante duos annos scripsi, sed sic, ut me nunc mirum in modum poeniteat editi libelli. Haerebam enim id temporis magna quadam superstitione Romanae tyrannidis, unde et indulgentias non penitus reiiciendas esse censebam, quas tanto hominum consensu cernebam comprobari.

Nor was this to be wondered at, for I was then engaged single-handed in my Sisyphean task. Since then, however, through the kindness of Sylvester and the friars, who so strenuously defended indulgences, I have come to see that they are nothing but an fraud of the Roman flaterers by which they rob people of their faith and fortunes

³ Nec mirum, quia solus tum uoluebam hoc saxum. At postea, beneficio Syluestri et fratrum adiutus, qui strenue illas tutati sunt, intellexi, eas aliud non esse quam meras adulatorum Romanorum imposturas, quibus et fidem dei et pecunias hominum perderent.

. I wish I could convince the booksellers and all my readers to burn up the whole of my writings on indulgences and to substitute for them this proposition:

⁴Atque utinam a Bibliopolis queam impetrare, et omnibus, qui legerunt, persuadere, ut uniuersos libellos meos de indulgentiis exurant, et pro omnibus, quae de eis scripsi, hanc propositionem apprehendant:

1. INDULGENCES

⁵Indulgentiae

are a Swindler’s Trick of the Roman flaterers.

sunt adulatorum Romanorum nequiciae.

1.3 Next, Eck and Emser, with their fellows, undertook to instruct me concerning the primacy of the pope. Here too, not to be ungrateful to such learned folk, I acknowledge how greatly I have profited by their labors. For, while denying the divine authority of the papacy, I still admitted its human authority. But after hearing and reading the subtle subtleties of these pretentious and conceited men, with which they skilfully prop their idol – for in these matters my mind is not altogether unreachable – I now know of a certainty that the papacy is the kingdom of Babylon and the power of Nimrod the mighty hunter. Once more, therefore, that all may fall out to my friends’ advantage, I beg both booksellers and readers to burn what I have published on that subject and to hold to this proposition:

⁶Post haec, Eccius et Emser cum coniuratis suis de primatu Papae me erudire coeperunt, Atque hic etiam, ne hominibus tam doctis ingratus sim, (W498) confiteor me ualde promouisse eorum opera. Nempe, cum Papatum negassem diuini, admisi esse humani juris. 

⁷Sed ut audiui et legi subtilissimas subtilitates istorum Trossulorum, quibus suum Idolum fabre statuunt (est enim mihi ingenium in his rebus non usquequaque indocile), scio nunc et certus sum, Papatum esse regnum Babylonis, et potentiam Nimroth robusti uenatoris. Proinde et hic, ut amicis meis omnia prosperrime cedant, oro librarios, oro lectores, ut iis, quae super hac re edidi, exustis hans propositionem teneant:

1.4 THE PAPACY IS THE MIGHTY prey of the Roman Bishop.

⁸Papatus est robusta uenatio Romani Episcopo.

This follows from the arguments of Eck, Emser and the Leipzig lecturer on the Holy Scriptures.

⁹Probatur ex rationibus Eccianis, Emseranis et Lipsensis Lectoris Biblici.

1.5 Now they send me back to school again to teach me about communion in both kinds and other weighty subjects. And I must begin to study with all my strength, so as not to hear my teachers without profit. A certain Italian friar of Cremona has written a Revocation of Martin Luther to the Holy See – that is, a revocation in which I do not revoke anything (as the words declare) but he revokes me. That is the kind of Latin the Italians are now beginning to write. Another friar, a German of Leipzig, that same lecturer, you know, on the whole canon of the Scriptures, has written a book against me concerning the sacrament in both kinds, and is planning, I understand, still greater and more marvelous things. The Italian was canny enough not to set down his name, fearing perhaps the fate of Cajetan and Sylvester. But the Leipzig man, as becomes a fierce and valiant German, boasts on his ample title page of his name, his career, his saintliness, his scholarship, his office, glory, honour, yes, almost of his very shoes. Doubtless I shall gain here a lot of information, since indeed his dedicatory epistle is addressed to the Son of God Himself. On so familiar a footing are these saints with Christ Who reigns in heaven! Moreover, I think I hear three magpies chattering in this book: the first in good Latin, the second in better Greek, the third in purest Hebrew. What do you think, my Herman, what is there for me to do but to prick up my ears? The thing emanates from Leipzig, from the Order of the Observance of the Holy Cross.

¹⁰Nunc de utriusque speciei communione mihi schola luditur, et de nonnullis aliis maximis rebus; hic labor est, ne et hos frustra Cratippos meos audiam. Scripsit quidam frater Cremonensis Italus reuocationem Martini Lutheri ad sanctam sedem, Hoc est, qua non ego (ut uerba sonant) sed qua ipse me reuocat (sic enim Itali hodie incipiunt latinisare).

¹¹Scripsit in me de utraque specie sacramenti frater alius Lipsensis Germanus, lector ille, ut nosti, totius Canonis Biblici, facturus (ut audio) adhuc maiora et mira mirabilia. Italus sane cautus nomen suum obticuit, forte exemplum Caietani et Syluestri ueritus. Lipsensis contra, sicut decet strenuum et ferocem Germanum, multis tituli uersibus nomen suum, uitam suam, sanctitatem suam, scientiam suam, officium suum, gloriam suam, honorem suum, pene et Calopodia sua celebrauit.

¹²Hic procul dubio non mediocria discam, quandoquidem ad ipsum filium dei scribitur nuncupatoria Epistola. tam familiares sunt hi sancti Christo regnanti in coelis. Deinde tres mihi picae hic uidentur loqui, una, bene latina, altera, melius graeca, tertia, optime Haebraica. Quid hic mihi, Hermanne mi, agendum putas aliud, quam, ut aures arrigam? Res Lipsiae agitur per obseruantiam sanctae Crucis.

1.6 Fool that I was, I used to think it would be good if a general council decided that the sacrament be administered to the laity in both kinds. The more than learned friar wants to correct my opinion, and declares that neither Christ nor the apostles commanded or commended the administration of both kinds to the laity. It was, therefore, left to the judgment of the Church what to do or not to do in this matter, and the Church must be obeyed. These are his words.

¹³Hactenus ego stultus sensi, pulchrum fore, si pro laicis utraque species sacramenti porrigenda statueretur Concilio generali. Hanc sententiam frater plus quam doctissimus correcturus dicit, Neque praeceptum esse, neque consultum, siue a Christo, siue Apostolis, ut utraque species porrigatur laicis, Ideoque Ecclesiae relictum iuditio, quid hic faciendum omittendumue sit, cui necesse sit obedire. Haec ille.

1.7 You will perhaps ask, what madness has entered into the man, or against whom he is writing, since I have not condemned the use of one kind, but have left the decision about the use of both kinds to the judgment of the Church – the very thing he attempts to assert and which he turns against me. My answer is, that this sort of argument is common to all those who write against Luther. They assert the very things they assail, or they set up a man of straw whom they may attack. Thus Sylvester, Eck and Emser! Thus the theologians of Cologne and Louvain! If this friar had not been of the same type, he would never have written against Luther.

¹⁴(W499) Rogas forte, quae intemperiae hominem agitent, aut contra quem scribat, cum ego non damnarim unius speciei usum, et Ecclesiae iudicio reliquerim, utriusque usum statuendum. Id quod et ipse conatur asserere, eo ipso contra me pugnaturus. ¹⁵Respondeo, id genus disputandi omnibus familiare esse, qui contra Lutherum scribunt, ut hoc asserant quod impugnant, aut fingant quod impugnent. Sic Syluester, Sic Eccius, sic Emser, sic Colonienses quoque et Louanienses, a quorum ingenio si hic frater recessisset, contra Lutherum non scripsisset.

1.8 Yet in one respect this man luckier than his fellows. For in undertaking to prove that the use of both kinds is neither commanded nor commended, but left to the will of the Church, he brings forward passages of Scripture to prove that by the command of Christ one kind only was appointed for the laity. So that it is true, according to this new interpreter of the Scriptures, that one kind was not commanded, and at the same time was commanded by Christ! This novel sort of argument is, as you know, the particular forte of the Leipzig dialecticians. Did not Emser in his earlier book profess to write of me in a friendly spirit, and then, after I had convicted him of filthy envy and foul lying, did he not openly acknowledge in his later book, written to refute my arguments, that he had written in both a friendly and an unfriendly spirit? A sweet fellow, certainly, as you know.

¹⁶Sed accidit huic homini aliquid prae caeteris foelicius. Cum enim esse probaturus, neque praeceptum, neque consultum, sed arbitrio Ecclesiae relictum utriusque speciei usum, inducit scripturas, quibus probet, praecepto Christi esse unam pro laicis statutam speciem. 

¹⁷Vt sic uerum sit, nouo hoc scripturae Interprete, unam speciem non praeceptam, et simul praeceptam esse a Christo. Huius genere disputationis nouae, scis, ut Lipsenses isti Dialectici peculiariter utantur. Nonne et Emser, cum priore suo libello profeteretur, sese candide de me loqui, et a me conuictus de teterrima inuidia foedisque mendaciis, in posteriore me confutaturus, utrunque plane confitetur, et nigro et candido animo sese scripsisse? Bonus scilicet uir, ut nosti.

1.9 But listen to our distinguished distinguisher of “kinds,” for whom the will of the Church and a command of Christ, and a command of Christ and no command of Christ, are all one and the same! How ingeniously he proves that only one kind is to be given to the laity, by the command of Christ, that is, by the will of the Church. He puts it in capital letters, thus: THE INFALLIBLE FOUNDATION. Thereupon he treats John 6 with incredible wisdom, in which passage Christ speaks of the bread from heaven and the bread of life, which is He Himself. The learned fellow not only refers these words to the Sacrament of the Altar, but because Christ says: “I am the living bread” and not, “I am the living cup” he actually concludes that we have in this passage the institution of the sacrament in only one kind for the laity. But here follow the words: “For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed,” and, “ Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood.” When it dawned upon the good friar that these words speak undeniably for both kinds and against one kind – Poof! – how happily and learnedly he slips out of the quandary by asserting that in these words Christ means to say only that whoever receives the one kind receives under it both flesh and blood. This he puts for the “infallible foundation” of a structure well worthy of the holy and heavenly Observance.

¹⁸Sed audi nostrum speciosum speciatorem, apud quem idem est, arbitrium Ecclesiae, et praeceptum Christi, Rursus, idem praeceptum Christi, et non praeceptum Christi, qua dexteritate probet, unam tantum speciem laicis, praecepto Christi, id est, arbitrio Ecclesiae, dandam.

¹⁹Literis enim maiusculis signat in hunc modum: FVNDAMENTVM INFALLIBILE. Deinde, tractat c. vi. Iohan. incredibili sapientia, ubi Christus de pane coeli et pane uitae, qui est ipse, loquitur. quae uerba, homo doctissimus, non modo ad sacramentum altaris trahit, uerum et hoc facit, ut, quia Christus dixerat: Ego sum panis uiuus, et non: Ego sum calix uiuus, concludat, non nisi unam speciem sacramenti pro laicis eo loco institutam. ²⁰Quod uero sequitur: Caro mea uere est cibus, et sanguis meus vere est potus, Item: Nisi manducaueritis carnem filii hominis, et biberitis eius sanguinem, cum pro utraque specie uideretur fraterno cerebro inuicte contra unam pugnare, Hui quam foeliciter et docte eludit, in hunc modum, Quod Christus his uerbis aliud non uoluit, quam, qui unam speciem acciperet, sub eadem utrunque, carnem et sanguinem, acciperet. Haec ille, pro fundamento suo infallibili tam digne sancta coelestique obseruantia structurae.

1.10 Now, I beg you, learn with me from this passage that Christ, in John 6, enjoins the sacrament in one kind, yet in such a way that His commanding it means leaving it to the will of the Church. Further, that Christ is speaking in this chapter only of the laity and not of the priests. For to the latter the living bread from heaven does not pertain, but presumably the deadly bread from hell! And how is it with the deacons and subdeacons, who are neither laymen nor priests? According to this brilliant writer, they ought to use neither the one kind nor both kinds! You see, dear Tulich, this novel and observant method of treating Scripture.

²¹(W500) Ex isto nunc disce et tu queso mecum, Christum c. vi. Iohan. praecipere unam speciem, sic tamen, ut hoc ipsum praecipere sit id, quod relinqui arbitrio Ecclesiae. Ad hec, Christum in eodem capitulo loqui duntaxat de laicis, non de presbyteris. 

²²Nam ad hos non pertinet panis uiuus de celo, id est, una species sacramenti, sed forte panis mortis de inferno. Iam, quid de diaconibus et hypodiaconibus fiet? qui neque laici sunt, neque sacerdotes. hos oportet, hoc eximio autore, neque una, neque utraque specie uti.

1.11 But learn this, too – that Christ is speaking in John 6 of the Sacrament of the Altar – although He Himself teaches that His words refer to faith in the Word made flesh, for He says, “This is the work of God that you believe on him whom he has sent.” But our Leipzig professor of the Scriptures must be permitted to prove anything he pleases from any Scripture passage whatsoever. For he is an Anaxagorian, or rather an Aristotelian theologian, for whom nouns and verbs, interchanged, mean the same thing and any thing.

²³Intelligis, mi Tulichi, morem tractandae scripturae obseruanticum et nouum. Sed et hoc disces, Christum Iohan. vi. de sacramento eucharistiae loqui, cum ipse doceat, se loqui de fide incarnati uerbi, dicens: Hoc est opus dei, ut credatis in eum quem ille misit.

²⁴Verum huic Lipsensi Bibliorum professori hoc donandum est, ut e quolibet scripturae loco probet quodlibet. Est enim Theologus Anaxagoricus, immo Aristotelicus, cui nomina et uerba transposita eadem et omnia significant. 

So aptly does he cite Scripture proof-texts throughout the whole of his book, that if he set out to prove the presence of Christ in the sacrament, he would not hesitate to commence thus: “Here begins the book of the Revelation of St. John the Divine.” All his quotations are as apt as this one would be, and the “wise man” imagines he is adorning his drivel with the multitude of his quotations.

²⁵ Sic enim aptat scripturae testimonia, per totum librum, ut, si uelit probare, Christum esse in sacramento, ausit incipere: Lectio libri Apocapypsis beati Iohannis Apostoli; quam enim hoc uerbum apte diceretur, tam sua dicuntur omnia, et existimat homo prudens copia allegatorum se hanc suam maniam ornaturum.

1.12 The rest I pass over, lest you should smother in the filth of this vile toilet. In conclusion, he brings forward: 1 Corinthians 11:23, where Paul says he received from the Lord, and delivered to the Corinthians, the use of both the bread and the cup. Here again our distinguisher of kinds, treating the Scriptures with his usual brilliance, teaches that Paul did not deliver, but permitted both kinds. Do you ask where he gets his proof? Out of his own head, as he did in the case of John 6: For it does not behoove this lecturer to give a reason for his assertions. He belongs to the order of those who teach and prove all things by their visions. Accordingly we are here taught that the Apostle, in this passage, addressed not the whole Corinthian congregation, but the laity alone – but then he “permitted” nothing at all to the clergy, and they are deprived of the sacrament altogether! – and further, that, according to a new kind of grammar, “I have received from the Lord” means “It is permitted by the Lord,” and “I have delivered it to you” means “I have permitted it to you.” I beg you, mark this well. For by this method, not only the Church, but every passing swindler will be at liberty, according to this master, to turn all the commands, institutions and ordinances of Christ and the apostles into a mere “permission.”

²⁶Praetereo caetera, ne te enecem sentina huius graueolentissimae cloacae. In fine Paulum .i. Corint. xi. adducit, qui accepisse a domino se et tradidisse Corinthiis et panis et calicis usum dicit. Hic iterum noster speciator, sicut ubique scripturas egregie tractans, docet, Paulum ibidem permisisse utranque speciem, non tradidisse.

²⁷Quaeris, unde probet? E capite suo, sicut et illud Johan. vi. Nam hunc lectorem non decet rationem reddere eorum quae dicit, cum sit de professione eorum, qui uisionibus suis omnia probant et docent. Docemur ergo et hic, Apostolum eo loci non ad uniuersos Corinthios scripsisse, sed ad laicos tantum, ideo sacerdotibus illic nihil permisisse, sed priuatos esse uniuerso sacramento.

²⁸Deinde, quod noua grammatica 'Accepi a domino' idem sit, quod: permissum est a domino. Et 'tradidi uobis' id est: permisi uobis. Hoc rogo insigniter nota. Nam, hinc non modo Ecclesiae, sed cuilibet passim nebuloni licebit, hoc magistro, permissionem facere ex uniuersis praeceptis, institutis, ordinationibus Christi et Apostolorum.

1.13 I perceive, therefore, that this man is driven by an angel of Satan, and that he and his partners seek but to make a name for themselves through me, as men who were worthy to cross swords with Luther. But their hopes shall be dashed. I shall ignore them and not mention their names from now on – not ever. This one reply shall suffice me for all their books. If they be worthy of it, I pray Christ in His mercy to bring them to a sound mind. If not, I pray that they may never leave off writing such books and that the enemies of the truth may never deserve to read any other. It is a popular and true saying:

²⁹   Video itaque, hominem hunc, angelo Satanae agitatum, et eos qui colludunt, hoc quaerere, ut per me nomen aucupentur in mundo, quasi digni fuerint cum Luthero congredi. sed frustrabitur eos spes sua, et contempti non nominabuntur a me imperpetuum. Vna hac contentus ero responsione ad uniuersos eorum libros.

³⁰Quod si digni sunt, quos Christus ad sanam (W501) mentem reducat, oro, ut id faciat misericordia sua. si digni non sunt, precor, ut non cessent scribere tales libros, et hostes ueritatis, ut non alios mereantur legere. Vulgo et uere dicitur:

1.14 This I know is true – whenever I fought with feces, whether I was a Victor or was vanquished, I came away from the fight defiled.

Hoc scio pro certo, quod, si cum stercore certo, Vinco uel uincor, semper ego maculor. 

1.15 And, since I perceive that they have an abundance of leisure and of writing paper, I shall see to it that they may have ample opportunity for writing. I shall run on before, and while they are celebrating a glorious victory over one of my so-called heresies, I shall be meanwhile devising a new one. For I too am desirous that these gallant leaders in battle should win to themselves many titles and decorations. Therefore, while they complain that I laud communion in both kinds, and are happily engrossed in this most important and worthy matter, I will go yet one step farther and undertake to show that all those who deny communion in both kinds to the laity are wicked men. And the more conveniently to do this, I will compose a prelude on the captivity of the Roman Church. In due time I shall have a great deal more to say, when the learned papists have disposed of this book.

³¹Deinde, quia uideo, illis otium et chartas abundare, dabo operam, ut negotium scribenti habeant copiosum. Praecurram enim, ut, dum gloriosissimi uictores de una aliqua mea haeresi (ut eis uidetur) triumphant, ego interim nouam moliar.

³²Cupio enim et ego hos insignes bellorum duces multis titulis ornari. Itaque, dum illi murmurant, a me laudari utriusque speciei communionem, et in maxima ista seque dignissima re foelicissime occupantur, Ego procedam, et iam conabor ostendere, omnes esse impios, qui utriusque speciei communionem laicis denegant. Quod ut commodius faciam, praeludam de captiuitate Ecclesiae Romanae, suo tempore daturus plurima, ubi Papistae doctissimi hunc librum superauerint.

1.16 I take this course, lest any pious reader who may chance upon this book, should be offended at my dealing with such filthy matters, and should justly complain of finding in it nothing to cultivate and instruct his mind or even to furnish food for learned thought. For you know how impatient my friends are because I waste my time on the sordid fictions of these men, which, they say, are amply refuted in the reading. They look for greater things from me, which Satan seeks in this way to hinder. I have at length resolved to follow their counsel and to leave to those hornets the pleasant business of wrangling and hurling violent accusations.

³³Hoc autem facio, ne, si pius aliquis lector mihi fuerit obuius, offendatur stercoribus istis a me tractatis, et iuste queratur, sese nihil legere, quod aut ingenium colat et erudiat, aut saltem occasionem det eruditis cogitationibus. Scis enim, quam iniquo animo ferant amici, me occupari istorum hominum sordidis strophis, quas ipsa lectione dicunt abunde confutari, a me uero meliora expectari, quae Satan per eos tentet impedire. Horum consilia tandem statutum est sequi, et rixandi inuehendique negotium crabronibus istis relinquere.

1.17 Of that friar of Cremona I will say nothing. He is an unlearned man and a simpleton, who attempts with a few rhetorical passages to recall me to the Holy See, from which I am not as yet aware of having departed, nor has any one proved it to me. He is chiefly concerned in those silly passages with showing that I ought to be moved by the vow of my order and by the fact that the empire has been transferred to us Germans. He seems thus to have set out to write, not my “revocation,” but rather the praises of the French people and the Roman Pontiff. Let him attest his loyalty in his little book. It is the best he could do. He does not deserve to be harshly treated, for I think he was not prompted by malice. Nor should he be learnedly refuted, for all his chatter is sheer ignorance and simplicity.

³⁴De illo Italo, fratre Cremonensi, nihil dicam, Quod homo simplex et Idiota aliquot locis rhetoricis me conatur ad sanctam sedem reuocare, a qua nondum me recessisse mihi conscius sum, nec ullus commonstrauit. Agit enim potissimum locis illis ridiculis, quod gratia professionis meae et Imperii ad Germanos translati, debeam commoueri. Videturque omnino non tam mei reuocationem, quam laudes Gallorum et Romani Pontificis scribere uoluisse. cui permittendum est, ut hoc qualicunque opusculo obsequium suum testetur. nec meretur dure tractari, cum nulla malitia uideatur agi, nec erudite confutari, cum mera inscitia et imperitia nugetur omnia.

1.18 AT THE OUTSET I must deny that there are seven sacraments, and hold for the present to but three – baptism, penance and the bread. These three have been subjected to a miserable captivity by the Roman curia, and the Church has been deprived of all her liberty. To be sure, if I desired to use the term in its scriptural sense, I should allow but a single sacrament, with three sacramental signs. But of this I shall treat more fully at the proper time.

³⁵PRINCIPIO, neganda mihi sunt septem sacramenta, et tantum tria pro tempore ponenda, Baptismus, Poenitentia, Panis, et haec omnia esse per Romanam curiam nobis in miserabilem captiuitatem ducta, Ecclesiamque sua tota libertate spoliatam. Quanquam, si usu scripturae loqui uelim, non nisi unum sacramentum habeam, et tria signa sacramentalia, de quo latius suo tempore.

THE SACRAMENT of the BREAD

2.1 Now, about the Sacrament of the Bread, the most important of all sacraments:

(W502) Nunc de sacramento panis, omnium primo.

2.2 Let me tell you what progress I have made in my studies on the administration of this sacrament. For when I published my treatise on the Eucharist, I clung to the common usage, being in no way concerned with the question whether the papacy was right or wrong. But now, challenged and attacked, no, forcibly thrust into the arena, I shall freely speak my mind, let all the papists laugh or weep together.

³⁶Dicam itaque, quid et in hoc sacramenti ministerio meditatus promouerim. Nam, quo tempore semonem de Eucharistia edebam, in usu communi haerebam, nihil de Papae siue iure siue iniuria sollicitus. At nunc, prouocatus et exercitatus, immo, per uim raptus in hanc harenam, dabo libere, quae sentio. Rideant siue plorent Papistae, uel uniuersi in usum.

2.3 IN THE FIRST PLACE, John 6 is to be entirely excluded from this discussion, since it does not refer in a single syllable to the sacrament. For not only was the sacrament not yet instituted, but the whole context plainly shows that Christ is speaking of faith in the Word made flesh, as I have said above. For He says, “ My words are spirit, and they are life,” which shows that He is speaking of a spiritual eating, whereby whoever eats has life, while the Jews understood Him to be speaking of bodily eating and therefore disputed with Him. But no eating can give life save the eating which is by faith, for that is the truly spiritual and living eating. As Augustine also says: “Why make ready teeth and stomach? Believe, and you have eaten.” For the sacramental eating does not give life, since many eat unworthily. Therefore, He cannot be understood as speaking of the sacrament in this passage.

³⁷PRIMVM, c. vi Iohannis in totum est seponendum, ut quod nec syllaba quidem de sacramento loquitur, non modo, quod sacramentum nondum esset institutum, sed multo magis, quod ipsa sermonis et sententiarum consequentia de fide (ut dixi) incarnati uerbi Christum loqui clare ostendunt. ³⁸Dicit enim: uerba mea spiritus et uita sunt, ostendens se de manducatione spirituali loqui, qua qui comedit, uiuit, cum Iudaei de carnali eum intelligerent, ideoque litigarent. At nulla manducatio uiuificat, nisi fidei. haec enim est uere spiritualis et uiua manducatio. Sicut et Augustinus dicit: ut quid paras uentrem et dentem? crede, et manducasti. Sacramentalis enim non uiuificat, cum multi manducent indigne ut non possit de sacramento intelligi hoc loco locutus.

2.4 These words have indeed been wrongly applied to the sacrament, as in the decretal Dudum and often elsewhere. But it is one thing to misapply the Scriptures, it is quite another to understand them in their proper meaning. But if Christ in this passage enjoined the sacramental eating, then by saying, “ Except you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you have no life in you,” He would condemn all infants, invalids and those absent or in any way hindered from the sacramental eating, however strong their faith might be. Thus Augustine, in the second book of his Contra Julianum, proves from Innocent that even infants eat the flesh and drink the blood of Christ, without the sacrament, that is, they partake of them through the faith of the Church. Let this then be accepted as proved – John 6 does not belong here. For this reason I have elsewhere written that the Bohemians have no right to rely on this passage in support of their use of the sacrament in both kinds.

³⁹Sunt sane quidam his uerbis ad sacramentum docendum abusi, ut et Decretali dudum, et multi alii. Sed aliud est, abusiue scripturas, aliud legitime intelligere, alioquin, cum dicit: Nisi manducaueritis carnem meam, et biberitis sanguinem meum, non habebitis uitam, omnes infantes, omnes infirmos, omnes absentes, aut quoquo modo impeditos, a sacramentali manducatione damnaret, quacunque fide praestaret, si sacramentalem manducationem ibi praecepisset.⁴⁰Sic Augustinus li. ii. contra Iulianum ex Innocentio probat, etiam infantes, citra sacramentum, manducare carnem, et bibere sanguinem Christi, id est, eadem fide Ecclesiae communicare. Sit ergo rata haec sententia, c. vi. Iohannis nihil ad rem facere. Vnde et alias scripsi, Boemos non posse pro utraque specie tuenda huic loco fideliter inniti.

2.5 Now there are two passages that do clearly bear upon this matter – the Gospel narratives of the institution of the Lord’s Supper, and Paul in 1 Corinthians 11. Let us examine these. Matthew, Mark and Luke agree that Christ gave the whole sacrament to all the disciples, and it is certain that Paul delivered both kinds. No one has ever had the temerity to assert the contrary. Further, Matthew reports that Christ did not say of the bread, “All of you, eat of it,” but of the cup, “ Drink of it all of you.” Mark likewise does not say, “They all ate from it,” but, “ They all drank from it.”

⁴¹Duo itaque sunt loci, qui de hac re clarissime tractant, Scriptura Euangelica in caena domini, Et Paulus .i. Corint. xi. Quos uideamus. Consonant enim sibi Mattheus, Marcus, et Lucas, Christum dedisse discipulis omnibus totum sacramentum, Et Paulum utranque tradidisse partem certum est, ita, ut nullus tam impudentis frontis unquam fuerit, qui aliud diceret. ⁴²His adde quod Mattheus refert, non de pane Christum dixisse: manducate ex hoc omnes, sed de calice: bibite ex hoc omnes.

Both Matthew and Mark attach the note of universality to the cup, not to the bread, as though the Spirit saw this schism coming, by which some would be forbidden to partake of the cup, which Christ desired should be common to all. How furiously, do you think, would they rave against us, if they had found the word “all” attached to the bread instead of the cup! They would not leave us a loophole to escape, they would cry out against us and set us down as heretics, they would damn us for schismatics. But now, since it stands on our side and against them, they will not be bound by any force of logic – these men of the most free will, who change and change again even the things that are God’s, and throw everything into confusion.

Et Marcus item non dicit: manduauerunt omnes, sed biberunt ex eo omnes, uterque uniuersitas notam (W503) ad calicem, non ad panem ponens, quasi spiritus futurum hoc schisma praeuiderit, quod calicis communionem prohiberet aliquibus, quem Christus omnibus uoluerit esse communem. ⁴³Quanta putas furia in nos insanirent, si uocabulum 'omnes' ad panem, et non ad calicem positum inuenissent, nullum nobis prorsus effugium relinquerent, clamarent, haereticos decernerent, schismaticos damnarent. At cum a nostra parte stet contra ipsos, nullo sinunt sese claudi syllogismo, homines liberrimi arbitrii, etiam in iis, quae dei sunt, mutandis, remutandis, et omnibus confundentis.

2.6 But imagine me standing over against them and interrogating my lords the papists. In the Lord’s Supper, I say, the whole sacrament, or communion in both kinds, is given only to the priests or else it is given also to the laity. If it is given only to the priests, as they would have it, then it is not right to give it to the laity in either kind. It must not be rashly given to any to whom Christ did not give it when He instituted it. For if we permit one institution of Christ to be changed, we make all of His laws invalid, and every one will boldly claim that he is not bound by any law or institution of His. For a single exception, especially in the Scriptures, invalidates the whole. But if it is given also to the laity, then it inevitably follows that it ought not to be withheld from them in either form. And if any do withhold it from them when they desire it, they act impiously and contrary to the work, example and institution of Christ.

⁴⁴Sed finge me ex aduerso stare, et dominos meos papistas interrogare. Totum sacramentum, seu utraque species, in coena domini, aut datum est solis presbyteris aut simul laicis. Si solis presbyteris (id enim uolunt), iam nullo modo licet ullam speciem dari laicis: non enim temere dandum est, cui Christus prima institutione non dedit. 

⁴⁵Alioquin, si unam Christi institutionem permittimus mutari, iam uniuersas eius legis fecimus irritas, et quilibet audebit dicere, se non ligari ulla eius lege aut institutione. Vna enim indiuidua tollit in scriptura maxime uniuersalem. Si simul et laicis, iam ineuitabiliter sequitur, laicis non debere negari utranque species. Quod si denegetur dari petentibus, impie et contra Christi factum exemplum et institutionem agitur.

2.7 I confess that I am conquered by this, to me, unanswerable argument, and that I have neither read nor heard nor found anything to advance against it. For here the word and example of Christ stand firm, when He says, not by way of permission but of command, “All of you, drink from it.” For if all are to drink, and the words cannot be understood as addressed to the priests alone, then it is certainly an impious act to withhold the cup from laymen who desire it, even though an angel from heaven were to do it. For when they say that the distribution of both kinds was left to the judgment of the Church, they make this assertion without giving any reason for it and put it forth without any authority. It is ignored just as readily as it is proved, and does not stand up against an opponent who confronts us with the word and work of Christ. such a one must be refuted with a word of Christ, but this we do not possess.

⁴⁶Ego fateor, ista me ratione, mihi inuicta, superactum nec legisse, nec audiuisse, nec inuenisse, quod contra dicam, Cum hic Christi uerbum et exemplum stet firmissime, ubi non permittendo, sed praecipiendo dicit: Bibite ex eo omnes. Si enim omnibus bibendum est, et illud non possit solis presbyteris dictum intelligi, certe impium est, laicos petentes ab eo arceri, etiam si angelus de coelo hoc faceret.

⁴⁷Nam, quod dicunt, Ecclesiae arbitrio relictum esse, distribuendam utram speciem, sine ratione dicitur, sine autoritate producitur, et eadem facilitate contemnitur, qua probatur. nec contra aduersarium aliquid facit, qui uerbum et factum Christi nobis opponit, quare uerbo Christi est referiendus, at hoc non habemus.

2.8 But if one kind may be withheld from the laity, then with equal right and reason a portion of baptism and penance might also be taken from them by this same authority of the Church. Therefore, just as baptism and absolution must be administered in their entirety, so the Sacrament of the Bread must be given in its entirety to all laymen, if they desire it. I am amazed to find them asserting that the priests may never receive only the one kind, in the mass, on pain of committing a mortal sin – that for no other reason, as they unanimously say, than that both kinds constitute the one complete sacrament, which may not be divided. I beg them to tell me why it may be divided in the case of the laity, and why to them alone the whole sacrament may not be given. Do they not acknowledge, by their own testimony, either that both kinds are to be given to the laity, or that it is not a valid sacrament when only one kind is given to them? How can the one kind be a complete sacrament for the laity and not a complete sacrament for the priests? Why do they flaunt the authority of the Church and the power of the pope in my face? These do not make void the Word of God and the testimony of the truth.

⁴⁸Si autem utra species potest negari laicis, poterit eis et pars baptismi et poenitentiae tolli, eodem arbitrio Ecclesiae, cum ubique sit par ratio et potestas. Quare, sicut totus baptismus, totaque absolutio, ita totum sacramentum panis est omnibus laicis dandum, si petant. ⁴⁹Satis autem miror, eos asserere, presbyteris nullo modo licere, in missa unam speciem accipere, sub peccato mortali, nulla alia causa, nisi quod (ut omnes unanimiter dicunt) utraque species sit unum plenum sacramentum, quod non debeat diuidi. 

⁵⁰Dicant ergo mihi quaeso, cur laicis licet diuidi, et solis eis non dari integrum sacramentum? Nonne suomet testimonio confitentur, aut laicis dandam utranque speciem, aut una specie non dari eis legittimum sacramentum? (W504) Quomodo in presbyteris non est sacramentum plenum una species, et in laicis est plenum? Quid mihi arbitrium Ecclesiae et potestas Papae hic iactatur? Non per haec soluuntur uerba dei, et testimonia ueritatis.

2.9 But further, if the Church can withhold the wine from the laity, it can also withhold the bread from them. It could, therefore, withhold the entire Sacrament of the Altar from the laity and completely annul Christ’s institution so far as they are concerned. I ask, by what authority? But if the Church cannot withhold the bread, or both kinds, neither can it withhold the wine. This cannot possibly be contradicted. For the Church’s power must be the same over either kind as over both kinds, and if she has no power over both kinds, she has none over either kind. I am curious to hear what the Roman flaterers will have to say to this.

⁵¹Vltra sequitur, si uini speciem potest Ecclesia tollere laicis, potest et panis speciem tollere, ergo poterit totum sacramentum altaris laicis tollere, et Christi institutionem penitus in eis euacuare. Sed qua rogo autoritate? Si autem non potest panem aut utrunque tollere, nec uinum potest nec potest haberi, quod hic dici potest aduersatio, cum eandem in utra, quae in utraque specie, potestatem esse oporteat, si non in utraque, nec in utra. Opto audire, quid hic adulatores Romani uelint dicere.

2.10 What carries most weight with me, however, and quite decides the matter for me is this. Christ says: “This is my blood, which is shed for you and for many for the remission of sins.” Here we see very plainly that the blood is given to all those for whose sins it was shed. But who will dare to say it was not shed for the laity? Do you not see whom He addresses when He gives the cup? Doesn’t He give it to all? Doesn’t He say that it is shed for all? “For you,” He says – Well, we will let these be the priests– “and for many” – these cannot be priests. Yet He says, “All of you, drink of it.” I too could easily trifle here and with my words make a mockery of Christ’s words, as my dear trifler does. But they who rely on the Scriptures in opposing us, must be refuted by the Scriptures.

⁵²Sed quod maxime omnium urget, penitusque me concludit, Christus dicit: Hic est sanguis meus, quo pro uobis, et pro multis effundetur, in remissionem peccatorum. Hic clarissime uides, sanguinem dari omnibus, pro quorum peccatis fusus est. Quis uero audeat dicere, pro laicis non esse fusum?

⁵³An non uides, quos alloquitur dans calicem? Nonne omnibus dat? Nonne pro omnibus fusum dicit? pro uobis (inquit), esto sint ii sacerdotes, et pro multis, ii non possunt esse sacerdotes, et tamen dicit: Bibite ex eo omnes. Vellem et ego hic nugari facile, et uerbis meis illudere uerba Christi, ut meus nugator facit. 

2.11 This is what has prevented me from condemning the Bohemians, who, whether they are wicked men or good, certainly have the word and act of Christ on their side, while we have neither, but only that hollow device of men – “the Church has appointed it.” It was not the Church that appointed these things, but the tyrants of the churches, without the consent of the Church, which is the people of God.

⁵⁴Sed scripturis redarguendi sunt, qui scripturis nituntur contra nos. Haec sunt, quae me prohibuerunt Boemos damnare, qui, siue mali siue boni, certe uerbum et factum Christi habent pro se, nos autem neutrum, sed tantum inane illud hominum commentum: Ecclesia sic ordinauit, cum non Ecclesia, sed tyranni Ecclesiarum, citra consensum Ecclesiae (id est, populi dei), ista ordinarint.

2.12 But where in all the world is the necessity, where the religious duty, where the practical use, of denying both kinds, i.e., the visible sign, to the laity, when every one concedes to them the grace of the sacrament without the sign? If they concede the grace, which is the greater, why not the sign, which is the lesser? For in every sacrament the sign as such is of far less importance than the thing signified. What then is to prevent them from conceding the lesser, when they concede the greater? I can see but one reason. It has come about by the permission of an angry God in order to give occasion for a schism in the Church. It is to bring home to us how, having long ago lost the grace of the sacrament, we contend for the sign, which is the lesser, against that which is the most important and the chief thing, just as some men for the sake of ceremonies contend against love. No, this monstrous perversion seems to date from the time when we began for the sake of the riches of this world to rage against Christian love. Thus God would show us, by this terrible sign, how we esteem signs more than the things they signify. How preposterous would it be to admit that the faith of baptism is granted the candidate for baptism, and yet to deny him the sign of this faith, namely, the water!

⁵⁵Obsecro autem, quae est necessitas? quae religio? quae utilitas? laicis negare utranque speciem, id est, signum uisibile, quando omnes concedunt eis rem sacramenti, sine signo? si rem concedunt, quae maior est, cur signum, quod minus est, non concedunt? In omni enim sacramento signum, inquantum signum, incomparabiliter minus est quam res ipsa. ⁵⁶Quid ergo prohibet, inquam, minus dari, quando maius datur, nisi quod mihi hac permissione irati dei uidetur contigisse, ut esset occasio schismatis in Ecclesia, qua significaretur, nos re sacramenti iam dudum amissa, propter signum, et id quod minus est, contra rem maximam et solam pugnare, sicuti quidam pro ceremoniis pugnant contra charitatem.

⁵⁷immo, ceptum uidetur hoc monstrum eo tempore, quo pro diuitiis mundi cepimus contra Christianam charitatem insanire, ut deus ostenderet hoc terrifico signo, nos signa maioris ducere, quam res ipsa. Quae peruersitas, si baptisando concedas fidem dari baptismi, neges autem signum fidei eiusdem, id est, aquam?

2.13 Finally, Paul stands invincible and stops every mouth, when he says in 1 Corinthians 11, “I have received from the Lord what I also delivered to you.” He does not say, “I permitted to you,” as that friar lyingly asserts. Nor is it true that Paul delivered both kinds on account of the contention in the Corinthian congregation. For, first, the text shows that their contention was not about both kinds, but about the contempt and envy among rich and poor, as it is clearly stated: “One is hungry, and another is drunken, and you put to shame those that have nothing.” Again, Paul is not speaking of the time when he first delivered the sacrament to them, for he does not say, “I receive from the Lord and give to you,” but, “ I received and delivered” – namely, when he first began to preach among them, a long while before this contention. This shows that he delivered both kinds to them. “Delivered” means the same as “commanded,” for elsewhere he uses the word in this sense. Consequently there is nothing in the friar’s fuming about permission. It is an assortment of arguments without Scripture, reason or sense. His opponents do not ask what he has dreamed, but what the Scriptures decree in this matter. Out of the Scriptures he cannot adduce one dot of an I or cross of a T in support of his dreams, while they can bring forward mighty thunderbolts in support of their faith.

⁵⁸Vltimo, stat inuictus Paulus, omnium obstruens ora .i. Corint. ii: Ego accepi a domino, quod et tradidi uobis. Non dicit, ut e suo cerebro frater mentitur; permisi uobis. Nec est uerum, propter contentionem illorum utranque speciem donasse. Primo, quod textus ipse indicat, non de utraque specie fuisse contentionem, sed de contemptu et inuidia abundantium et egentium, ut clarus est textus, dicans: Alter esurit, alter ebrius est, et confunditis eos quo non habent.

⁵⁹Deinde, quod non loquimur de prima sua traditione. non enim dicit: accipio a domino et do uobis, sed: accepi et tradidi, scilicet in initio praedicationis, longe ante hanc contentionem, significans utranque speciem eis tradidisse, quod tradidisse est praecepisse, sicut alibi utitur eodem uerbo.

⁶⁰Nihil ergo sunt, quae frateralis fumus hic permissione, sine scripturis, sine ratione, sine causa conglomerat. Aduersarii non querunt, quod ipse somniet, sed quid scriptura in his iudicet, ex qua nec apicem potest producere pro suo somnio, cum illi tanta fulmina pro sua fide proferant.

2.14 Come here then, popish flatterers, one and all! Fall in line and defend yourselves against the charge of godlessness, tyranny, treason against the Gospel, and the crime of slandering your brethren. You decry as heretics those who will not be wise after the vaporings of your own brains, in the face of such patent and potent words of Scripture. If any are to be called heretics and schismatics, it is not the Bohemians nor the Greeks, for they take their stand upon the Gospel. But you Romans are the heretics and godless schismatics, for you presume upon your own fictions and fly in the face of the clear Scriptures of God. Parry that stroke, if you can!

⁶¹Surgite ergo hic uniuersi adulatores Papae in unum, satagite, defendite uos ab impietate, tyrannide, laesa maiestate Euangelii, iniuria fraterni opprobrii, qui haereticos iactatis eos, qui non secundum merum capitis uestri somnium, contra tam patentes et potentes scripturas sapiunt. 

⁶²Si utri sunt haeretici et schismatici nominandi, non Boemi, non Graeci (quia Euangeliis nituntur), sed uos Romani estis haeretici, et impii schismatici, qui solo uestro figmento praesumitis, contra euidentes dei scripturas. Eluite haec uiri.

2.15 But what could be more ridiculous, and more worthy of this friar’s brain, than his saying that the Apostle wrote these words and gave this permission, not to the Church universal, but to a particular church, that is, the Corinthian? Where does he get his proof? Out of his one storehouse, his own impious head. If the Church universal receives, reads and follows this epistle in all points as written for itself, why should it not do the same with this portion of it? If we admit that any epistle, or any part of any epistle, of Paul does not apply to the Church universal, then the whole authority of Paul falls to the ground. Then the Corinthians will say that what he teaches about faith in the epistle to the Romans does not apply to them. What greater blasphemy and madness can be imagined than this! God forbid that there should be one dot of an I or cross of a T in all of Paul which the whole Church universal is not bound to follow and keep! Not so did the Fathers hold, down to these perilous times, in which Paul foretold there should be blasphemers and blind and foolish men, of whom this friar is one, no, the chief of them.

⁶³Quid vero magis ridiculum, et fraterno isto capite dignius dici potuit, quam Apostolum particulari Ecclesiae, scilicet Corinthiorum, ista scripsisse et permisisse, non autem uniuersali? unde haec probat? Ex solito penu, nempe, proprio et impio capite. 

⁶⁴cum uniuersalis Ecclesia Epistolam hanc pro se acceptat, legit, sequitur in omnibus, cur non etiam in hac parte? Quod si demus unam Epistolam aliquam Pauli, aut unum alicuius locum, non ad uniuersalem Ecclesiam pertinere, iam euacuata est tota Pauli autoritas.

⁶⁵Corinthii enim dicent, ea quae de fide ad Romanos docet, non ad se pertinere. Quid blasphemius et insanius hac insania fingi possit? Absit, (W506) absit, ut ullus apex in toto Paulo sit, quem non debeat imitari et seruare tota uniuersalis Ecclesia. Non sic senserunt patres usque in haec tempora periculosa, in quibus praedixit Paulus futuros esse blasphemos et caecos et insensatos. Quorum unus hic frater, uel primus est.

2.16 However, suppose we grant the truth of this intolerable madness. If Paul gave his permission to a particular church, then, even from your own point of view, the Greeks and Bohemians are in the right, for they are particular churches. Hence it is sufficient that they do not act contrary to Paul, who at least gave permission. Moreover, Paul could not permit anything contrary to Christ’s institution. Therefore I throw in your face, O Rome, and in the face of all you flaterers, these sayings of Christ and Paul, on behalf of the Greeks and the Bohemians. You cannot prove that you have received any authority to change them, much less to accuse others of heresy for disregarding your arrogance. Rather you deserve to be charged with the crime of godlessness and despotism.

⁶⁶Sed demus insaniam hanc intolerabilem, Si particulari Ecclesiae permisit Paulus, recte ergo Graeci, recte Boemi faciunt, etiam te autore, sunt enim particulares Ecclesiae. quare satis est eos non agere contra Paulum, saltem permittentem. Porro, Paulus permittere non potuit aliquid contra Christi institutum.

⁶⁷Oppono igitur, Roma, tibi et omnibus tuis adulatoribus hos Christi et Pauli sermones, pro Graecis et Boemis, nec poteris uno pilo monstrare, potestatem tibi esse datam haec mutandi, multo minus alios propter tuam praesumptionem neglectam haereticos criminandi. sed tu digna es, impietatis et tyrannidis crimine accusari.

2.17 Furthermore, Cyprian, who alone is strong enough to hold all the Romanists at bay, bears witness, in the fifth book of his treatise On the Lapsed, that it was a wide-spread custom in his church to administer both kinds to the laity, and even to children, yes, to give the body of the Lord into their hands, of which he cites many instances.He condemns, for example, certain members of the congregation as follows: “The sacrilegious man is angered at the priests because he does not receive the body of the Lord right away with unclean hands, or drink the blood of the Lord with defiled lips.” He is speaking, as you see, of laymen, and irreverent laymen, who desired to receive the body and the blood from the priests. Do you find anything to snarl at here, wretched flatterer? Say that even this holy martyr, a Church Father preeminent for his apostolic spirit, was a heretic and used that permission in a particular church.

⁶⁸Ad haec legimus in Cypriano, qui unus contra omnes Romanistas satis potens est, qui lib. v. sermone de lapsis testatur, multis in Ecclesia illa usum fuisse laicis, etiam pueris, utranque speciem, immo corpus domini in manu dari, ut per multa exempla docet.

⁶⁹Inter caetera e uulgo quosdam sic increpat: Et quod non statim domini corpus inquinatis manibus accipiat, aut ore polluto domini sanguinem bibat, sacerdotibus sacrilegus irascitur.

⁷⁰Vides, hic de laicis eum loqui, sacrilegis, qui a sacerdotibus corpus et sanguinem accipere uoluerunt. Habes hic, adulator miser, quod gannias? dic et hunc sanctum martyrem, unum in Ecclesia apostolica spiritu doctorem, esse haereticum, et in particulari Ecclesia permissione usum.

2.18 In the same place, Cyprian narrates an incident that came under his own observation. He describes at length how a deacon was administering the cup to a little girl, who drew away from him, whereupon he poured the blood of the Lord into her mouth. We read the same of St. Donatus, whose broken chalice this wretched flatterer so lightly disposes of. “I read of a broken chalice,” he says, “but I do not read that the blood was given.” It is no wonder! He who finds what he pleases in the Scriptures will also read what he pleases in histories. But will the authority of the Church be established, or will heretics be refuted, in this way?

⁷¹Recenset ibidem historiam, se teste ac presente factam, ubi diaconum calicem infanti puellae dedisse, immo reluctanti eidem infudisse sanguinem domini apertissime scribit. Idem de sancto Donato legitur, cuius calicem fractum, O miser adulator, quam frigide eludit: fractum (inquit) calicem lego, sanguinem datum non lego.

⁷²Quid mirum? qui in sacris scripturis intelligit, quod uult, etiam in historiis legat, quod uult. Sed nunquid per hoc stabilitur arbitrium Ecclesiae, aut confutantur haeretici?

2.19 Enough of this! I did not undertake this work to reply to him who is not worth replying to, but to bring the truth of the matter to light.

Verum haec abunde satis; non enim, ut illi responderem, haec coepi, qui dignus non est responsione, sed, ut rei ueritatem aperirem.

2.20 I conclude, then, that it is wicked and despotic to deny both kinds to the laity, and that this is not in the power of any angel, much less of any pope or council. Nor does the Council of Constance give me pause, for if its authority carries weight, why does not that of the Council of Basel also carry weight? For the latter council decided, on the contrary, after much disputing, that the Bohemians might use both kinds, as the extant records and documents of the council prove. And to that council this ignorant flatterer refers in support of his dream. In such wisdom does his whole treatise abound.

⁷³Concludo itaque, Negare utranque speciem laicis, esse impium et tyrannicum, nec in manu ullius angeli, nedum Papae et Concilii cuiuscunque. nec (W507) moror Concilium Constantiense, cuius autoritas, si valet, cur non valet et Basiliense, quod contra statuit, Boemis licere utranque speciem suscipere, quod multa disputatione illic obtentum est, ut extantes annales, et literae Concilii probant. quod Adulator iste ignorans adducit pro suo somnio, adeo prudenter omnia tractat.

2.21 The first captivity of this sacrament, therefore, concerns its substance or completeness, of which we have been deprived by the despotism of Rome. Not that they sin against Christ, who use the one kind, for Christ did not command the use of either kind, but left it to every one’s free will, when He said: “As often as you do this, do it in remembrance of me.” But they sin who forbid the giving of both kinds to such as desire to exercise this free will. The fault lies not with the laity, but with the priests. The sacrament does not belong to the priests, but to all, and the priests are not lords but ministers, in duty bound to administer both kinds to those who desire them, and as often as they desire them. If they wrest this right from the laity and forcibly withhold it, they are tyrants. But the laity are without fault, whether they lack one kind or both kinds. They must meanwhile be sustained by their faith and by their desire for the complete sacrament. The priests, being ministers, are bound to administer baptism and absolution to whoever seeks them, because he has a right to them. But if they do not administer them, he that seeks them has at least the full merit of his faith, while they will be accused before Christ as wicked servants. In like manner the holy Fathers of old who dwelt in the desert did not receive the sacrament in any form for many years together.

⁷⁴Prima ergo captiuitas huius sacramenti est, quo ad eius substantiam, seu integritatem, quam nobis abstulit Romana tyrannis, Non quod peccent in Christum, qui una specie utuntur, cum Christus non preceperit ulla uti, sed arbitrio cuiuslibet reliquit dicens: Quotiescunque haec feceritis, in mei memoriam facietis, Sed quod illi peccant, qui hoc arbitrio uolentibus uti prohibent utranque dari. ⁷⁵culpa non est in laicis, sed in sacerdotibus. Sacramentum non est sacerdotum, sed omnium, nec domini sunt sacerdotes, sed ministri, debentes reddere utranque speciem petentibus, quotiescunque petierunt. Quod si hoc ius rapuerint laicis et ui negauerint, tyranni sunt, laici sine culpa, uel una uel utraque carent, fide interim seruandi, et desyderio integri sacramenti.

⁷⁶Sicut baptismum et absolutionem debent petenti, tanquam ius habenti, ipsi ministri; quod si non dederint, petens plenum habet fidei suae meritum, ipsi coram Christo serui nequam accusabuntur. Sicut olim in Eremo sancti patres in multis annis non communicauerunt ulla specie sacramenti.

2.22 Therefore I do not urge that both kinds be seized by force, as though we were bound to this form by a rigorous command. But I instruct men’s consciences that they may endure the Roman tyranny, knowing well they have been deprived of their rightful share in the sacrament because of their own sin. This only do I desire – that no one justify the tyranny of Rome, as though it did well to forbid one of the two kinds to the laity. We ought rather to abhor it, withhold our consent, and endure it just as we should do if we were held captive by the Turk and not permitted to use either kind. That is what I meant by saying it seemed well to me that this captivity should be ended by the decree of a general council, our Christian liberty restored to us out of the hands of the Roman tyrant, and every one left free to seek and receive this sacrament, just as he is free to receive baptism and penance. But now they compel us, by the same tyranny, to receive the one kind year after year. So utterly lost is the liberty which Christ has given us. This is but the due reward of our godless ingratitude.

⁷⁷Itaque non hoc ago, ut ui rapiatur utraque species, quasi necessitate praecepti ad eam cogamur, Sed conscientiam instruo, ut patiatur quisque tyrannidem Romanam, sciens sibi raptum per uim ius suum in sacramento, propter peccatum suum.

⁷⁸tantum hoc uolo, ne quis Romanam tyrannidem iustificet, quasi recte fecerit, unam speciem laicis prohibens, sed detestemur eam, nec consentiamus ei, tamen feramus eam, non aliter, ac si apud Turcam essemus captiui, ubi neutra specie liceret uti.

⁷⁹Hoc est, quod dixi mihi pulchrum uideri, si generalis Concilii statuto ista captiuitas solueretur, et nobis Christiana illa libertas e manibus Romani tyranni restitueretur, et cuique suum arbitrium petendi utendique relinqueretur, sicut in baptismo et poenitentia relinquitur. At nunc cogit singulis annis unam speciem accipi eadem tyrannide, adeo extincta est libertas nobis a Christo donata, sic meruit impia nostra ingratitudo.

2.23 The second captivity of this sacrament is less grievous so far as the conscience is concerned, yet the very gravest danger threatens the man who would attack it, to say nothing of condemning it. Here I shall be called a Wycliffite and a heretic a thousand times over. But what of that? Since the Roman bishop has ceased to be a bishop and become a tyrant, I fear none of his decrees, for I know that it is not in his power, nor even in that of a general council, to make new articles of faith. Years ago, when I was delving into scholastic theology, the Cardinal of Cambrai gave me food for thought, in his comments on the fourth Book of the Sentences, where he argues with great acumen that to hold that real bread and real wine, and not their accidents only, are present on the altar, is much more probable and requires fewer unnecessary miracles – if only the Church had not decreed otherwise. When I learned later what church it was that had decreed this – namely, the Church of Thomas, i.e., of Aristotle – I waxed bolder, and after floating in a sea of doubt, at last found rest for my conscience in the above view – namely, that it is real bread and real wine, in which Christ’s real flesh and blood are present, not otherwise and not less really than they assume to be the case under their accidents.

⁸⁰ (W508) Altera captiuitas eiusdem sacramenti mitior est, quod ad conscientiam spectat, sed quam multo omnium periculosissimum sit tangere, nedum damnare. Hic Viglephista, et sexcentis nominibus haereticus ero. Quid tum? postquam Romanus Episcopus Episcopus esse desiit, et tyrannus factus est, non formido eius uniuersa decreta, cuius scio non esse potestatem articulos nouos fidei condendi, nec Concilii quidem generalis.

⁸¹Dedit mihi quondam, cum Theologiam scholasticam haurirem, occasionem cogitandi D. Card. Camera. libro sententiarum quarto, acutissime disputans, multo probabilius esse, et minus superfluorum miraculorum poni, si in altari uerus panis, uerumque uinum, non autem sola accidentia esse astruentur, nisi Ecclesia determinasset contrarium.

⁸²Postea uidens, quae esset Ecclesia, quae hoc determinasset, nempe Thomistica, hoc est, Aristotelica, audacior factus sum, et qui inter saxum et sacrum haerebam, tandem stabiliui conscientiam meam sententia priore, Esse uidelicet uerum panen uerumque uinum, in quibus Christi uera caro uerusque sanguis non aliter nec minus sit, quam illi sub accidentibus suis ponunt.

I reached this conclusion because I saw that the opinions of the Thomists, though approved by pope and council, remain but opinions and do not become articles of faith, even though an angel from heaven were to decree otherwise. For what is asserted without Scripture or an approved revelation, may be held as an opinion, but need not be believed. But this opinion of Thomas hangs so completely in the air, devoid of Scripture and reason, that he seems here to have forgotten both his philosophy and his logic. For Aristotle writes about subject and accidents so very differently from St. Thomas, that I think this great man is to be pitied, not only for drawing his opinions in matters of faith from Aristotle, but for attempting to base them on him without understanding his meaning – an unfortunate superstructure upon an unfortunate foundation.

⁸³quod feci, quia uidi, Thomistarum opiniones, siue probentur a Papa, siue a Concilio, manere opiniones, nec fieri articulos fidei, etiam si angelus de coelo aliud statueret. Nam, quod sine scripturis asseritur, aut reuelatione probata, opinari licet, credi non est necesse. Haec autem opinio Thomae adeo sine scripturis et ratione fluctuat, ut nec philosophiam, nec dialectiam suam nouisse mihi uideatur. 

⁸⁴Longe enim aliter Aristoteles de accidentibus et subiecto, quam sanctus Thomas loquitur, ut mihi dolendum uideatur pro tanto uiro, qui opiniones in rebus fidei non modo ex Aristotele tradere, sed et super eum, quem non intellexit, conatus est stabilire, infoelicissimi fundamenti infoelicissima structura!

2.24 I therefore permit every man to hold either of these views, as he chooses. My one concern at present is to remove all scruples of conscience, so that no one may fear to become guilty of heresy if he should believe in the presence of real bread and real wine on the altar, and that every one may feel at liberty to ponder, hold and believe either one view or the other, without endangering his salvation. However, I shall now more fully set forth my own view. In the first place, I do not intend to listen or attach the least importance to those who will cry out that this teaching of mine is Wycliffite, Hussite, heretical, and contrary to the decision of the Church, for they are the very persons whom I have convicted of manifold heresies in the matter of indulgences, the freedom of the will and the grace of God, good works and sin, etc. If Wycliffe was once a heretic, they are heretics ten times over, and it is a pleasure to be suspected and accused by such heretics and perverse sophists, whom to please is the height of godlessness. Besides, the only way in which they can prove their opinions and disprove those of others, is by saying, “That is Wycliffite, Hussite, heretical!” They have this feeble retort always on their tongue, and they have nothing else. If you demand a Scripture passage, they say, “This is our opinion, and the decision of the Church – that is, of ourselves!” Thus these men, “reprobate concerning the faith” and untrustworthy, have the audacity to set their own fancies before us in the name of the Church as articles of faith.

⁸⁵Permitto itaque, qui uolet utranque opinionem tenere, hoc solum nunc ago, ut scrupulos conscientiarum de medio tollam, ne quis se reum haereseos metuat, si in altari uerum panem, uerumque uinum esse crediderit. Sed liberum esse sibi sciat, citra periculum salutis, alterutrum imaginari, opinari et credere, cum sit hic nulla necessitas fidei.

⁸⁶Ego tamen meam nunc prosequor sententiam. Primum, nolo eos audire, nec tantilli facere, qui clamaturi sunt, hoc esse Viglephisticum, Hussiticum, haereticum, et contra Ecclesiae determinationem, cum hoc non faciant nisi ii, quos multis modis haereticos esse conuici in re indulgentiarum, lib. arb. et gratia dei, operibus bonis et peccatis etc., ut, si Viglephus semel fuit haereticus, ipsi decies haeretici sunt, et pulchrum sit ab haereticis et peruersis sophistis culpari et criminari, (W509) quibus placuisse summa impietas est.

⁸⁷Praeterea, quod suas sententias non alia re probare, nec contrarias alia ratione improbare possunt, quam dicendo: hoc est Viglephisticum, Hussiticum, haereticum. Hoc enim elumbe in summa semper natat saliua, atque aliud nihil, ubi, si petas scripturam, dicunt: Nos sic sentimus, et Ecclesia (id est, nos ipsi) sic determinauit; adeo homines reprobi circa fidem et incredibiles nobis sua phantasmata, autoritate ecclesiae, pro articulis fidei audent proponere.

2.25 But there are good grounds for my view, and this above all – no violence is to be done to the words of God, whether by man or angel. But they are to be retained in their simplest meaning wherever possible, and to be understood in their grammatical and literal sense unless the context plainly forbids, lest we give our adversaries occasion to make a mockery of all the Scriptures. Thus Origen was repudiated, in ancient times, because he despised the grammatical sense and turned the trees, and all things else written concerning Paradise, into allegories. For it might be concluded from this that God did not create trees. Even so here, when the Evangelists plainly write that Christ took bread and broke it, and the book of Acts and Paul, in their turn, call it bread, we have to think of real bread and real wine, just as we do of a real cup. For even they do not maintain that the cup is transubstantiated. But since it is not necessary to assume a transubstantiation wrought by Divine power, it is to be regarded as a figment of the human mind, for it rests neither on Scripture nor on reason, as we shall see.

⁸⁸Est autem meae sententiae ratio magna, imprimis illa, quod uerbis diuinis non est ulla facienda uis, neque per hominem, neque per angelum, sed, quantum fieri potest, in simplicissima significatione seruanda sunt, et nisi manifesta circumstantia cogat extra grammaticam et propriam accipienda non sunt, ne detur aduersariis occasio, uniuersam scripturam eluendi.

⁸⁹Quo consilio recte Origenes olim repudiatus est, quod ligna et omnia, quae de paradiso scribuntur, grammatica locutione contempta, in allegorias uerterit, cum hinc possit duci, ligna non esse creata a deo. Ita et hic, cum Euangelistae clare scribant, Christum accepisse panem ac benedixisse, et actuum liber et Paulus Apostolus panem deinceps appellent, uerum oportet intelligi panem, uerumque uinum, sicut uerum calicem.

⁹⁰non enim calicem transsubstantiari etiam ipsi dicunt. Transsubstantiationem uero, potestate diuina factam, cum non sit necesse poni, pro figmento humanae opinionis haberi, quia nulla scriptura, nulla ratione nititur, ut uidebimus.

2.26 Therefore it is an absurd and unheard-of juggling with words, to understand “bread” to mean “the form, or accidents of bread,” and “wine” to mean “the form, or accidents of wine.” Why do they not also understand all other things to mean their forms, or accidents? Even if this might be done with all other things, it would yet not be right thus to emasculate the words of God and arbitrarily to empty them of their meaning.

⁹¹Absurda est ergo et noua uerborum impositio, panem pro specie uel accidentibus panis, uinum pro specie uel accidentibus uini accipi. Cur non et omnia alia pro speciebus et accidentibus accipiunt? Quod si caetera omnia constarent, non tamen liceret, uerba dei sic eleuare, et cum tanta iniuria suis significationibus exinaniri.

2.27 Moreover, the Church had the true faith for more than twelve hundred years, during which time the holy Fathers never once mentioned this transubstantiation – certainly, a monstrous word for a monstrous idea – until the pseudo-philosophy of Aristotle became rampant in the Church these last three hundred years. During these centuries many other things have been wrongly defined, for example, that the Divine essence neither is begotten nor begets, that the soul is the substantial form of the human body, and the like assertions, which are made without reason or sense, as the Cardinal of Cambray himself admits.

⁹²Sed et Ecclesia ultra mille ducentos annos recte credidit, nec usquam nec unquam de ista transsubstantiatione (portentoso scilicet uocabulo et somnio) meminerunt sancti patres, donec cepit Aristotelis simulata philosophia in Ecclesia grassari, in istis trecentis nouissimis annis, in quibus et alia multa perperam sunt determinata. 

⁹³quale est, Essentiam diuinam nec generari nec generare, Animam esse formam substantialem corporis humani, et iis similia, quae nullis prorsus asseruntur rationibus aut causis, ut ipsemet confitetur Card. Camera.

2.28 Perhaps they will say that the danger of idolatry demands that bread and wine be not really present. How ridiculous! The laymen have never become familiar with their subtle philosophy of substance and accidents, and could not grasp it if it were taught them. Besides, there is the same danger in the case of the accidents which remain and which they see, as in the case of the substance which they do not see. For if they do not adore the accidents, but Christ hidden under them, why should they adore the bread, which they do not see?

⁹⁴Dicent fortassis, periculum Idolatriae cogere, ut non sit panis et uinum uere. Ridiculum hoc ualde, cum subtilem philosophiam de substantia et accidentibus laici nunquam cognouerint, nec, si docerentur, capere possint, et (W510) idem sit periculum, saluis accidentibus, quae uident, quod in substantia, quam non uident. Si enim accidentia non adorant, sed latentem ibi Christum, cur adorarent panem, quem non uident?

2.29 But why could not Christ include His body in the substance of the bread just as well as in the accidents? The two substances of fire and iron are so mingled in the heated iron that every part is both iron and fire. Why could not much rather Christ’s body be thus contained in every part of the substance of the bread?

⁹⁵Cur autem non possit Christus corpus suum intra substantiam panis continere, sicut in accidentibus? Ecce ignis et ferrum, duae substantiae, sic miscentur in ferro ignito, ut quaelibet pars sit ferrum et ignis. Cur non multo magis corpus gloriosum Christi sic in omni parte substantiae panis esse possit?

2.30 What will they say? We believe that in His birth Christ came forth out of the unopened womb of His mother. Let them say here too that the flesh of the Virgin was meanwhile annihilated, or as they would more aptly say, transubstantiated, so that Christ, after being enfolded in its accidents, finally came forth through the accidents! The same thing will have to be said of the shut door and of the closed opening of the tomb, through which He went in and out without disturbing them. Hence has risen that Babylonian philosophy of constant quantity distinct from the substance, until it has come to such a pass that they themselves no longer know what are accidents and what is substance. For who has ever proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that heat, colour, cold, light, weight or shape are mere accidents? Finally, they have been driven to the fancy that a new substance is created by God for their accidents on the altar – all on account of Aristotle, who says, “It is the essence of an accident to be in something,” and endless other monstrosities, all of which they would be rid if they simply permitted real bread to be present. And I rejoice greatly that the simple faith of this sacrament is still to be found at least among the common people. They do not understand, so they do not dispute, whether accidents are present or substance, but believe with a simple faith that Christ’s body and blood are truly contained in whatever is there, and leave to those who have nothing else to do the business of disputing about that which contains them.

⁹⁶Quid facient? Christus ex utero matris natus creditur illeso. Dicant et hic, carnem illam uirginis interim fuisse annihilatam, seu, ut aptius dici uolunt, transsubstantiatam, ut Christus, in accidentibus eius inuolutus, tandem per accidentia prodiret. 

⁹⁷Idem dicendum erit de ianua clausa et ostio monumenti clauso, per quae illesa intrauit et exiuit. Sed hinc nata est Babylonia illa philosophiae istius de quantitate continua distincta a substantia, donec eo uentum sit, ut ignorent et ipsi, quae sint accidentia, et quae substantia.

⁹⁸Nam quis certo monstauit unquam, calorem, colorem, frigus, lucem, pondus, figuras, esse accidentia? Denique accidentibus illis in altari coacti sunt fingere nouum esse ac creari a deo, propter Aristotelem, qui dicit, Accidentis esse est inesse. ⁹⁹Et infinita monstra, quibus omnibus essent liberi, si simpliciter panem ibi esse uerum sinerent. Et plane gaudeo, saltem apud uulgum relictam esse simplicem fidem sacramenti huius. Nam, ut non capiunt, ita nec disputant, an accidentia ibi sint sine substantia, sed simplici fide Christi corpus et sanguinem ueraciter ibi contineri credunt, dato ociosis illis negotio, de eo, quod continet, disputandi.

2.31 But perhaps they will say: From Aristotle we learn that in an affirmative proposition subject and predicate must be identical, or, to set down the beast’s own words, in the sixth book of his Metaphysics: “An affirmative proposition demands the agreement of subject and predicate,” which they interpret as above. Hence, when it is said, “This is my body,” the subject cannot be identical with the bread, but must be identical with the body of Christ.

¹⁰⁰An dicent forte, Ex Aristoteles doceri, subiectum et praedicatum propositionis affirmatiue debere pro eodem supponere, seu (ut bestiae ipsius uerba ponam ex vi. metaphysicorum): Ad affirmatium requiritur extremorum compositio, quam illi exponunt pro eodem suppositionem. Quare, dum dico: hoc est corpus meum, subiectum non posse pro pane supponere, sed pro corpore Christi.

2.32 What shall we say when Aristotle and the doctrines of men are made to be the arbiters of these lofty and divine matters? Why do we not put aside such curiosity, and cling simply to the word of Christ, willing to remain in ignorance of what here takes place, and content with this, that the real body of Christ is present by virtue of the words? Or is it necessary to comprehend the manner of the divine working in every detail?

¹⁰¹Quid hic dicemus? quando Aristotelem et humanas doctrinas facimus tam sublimium et diuinarum rerum censores? Cur non explosa ista curiositate, in uerbis Christi simpliciter haeremus, parati ignorare, quicquid ibi fiat, contentique uerum corpus Christi uirtute uerborum illic adesse? An est necesse, modos operationis diuinae omnino comprehendere?

2.33 But what do they say to Aristotle’s assigning a subject to whatever is predicated of the attributes, although he holds that the substance is the chief subject? Hence for him, “this white,” “this large,” etc., are subjects of which something is predicated. If that is correct, I ask: If a transubstantiation must be assumed in order that Christ’s body is not predicated of the bread, why not also a transaccidentation in order that it be not predicated of the accidents? For the same danger remains if one understands the subject to be “this white” or “this round” is my body, and for the same reason that a transubstantiation is assumed, a transaccidentation must also be assumed, because of this identity of subject and predicate.

¹⁰²Verum, quid ad Aristotelem dicunt? Qui subiectum omnibus praedicamentis accidentium tribuit, licet substantiam uelit esse primum subiectum. Vnde apud eum hoc album, hoc magnum, hoc aliquid sunt subiecta, de (W511) quibus aliquid praedicatur. Quae si uera sunt, Quaero: si ideo est transsubstantiatio ponenda, ne corpus Christi de pane uerificetur, cur non etiam ponitur transaccidentatio, ne corpus Christi de accidente affirmetur? ¹⁰³Nam, idem periculum manet, si per subiectum intelligat quis: non album, uel hoc rotundum est corpus meum, et qua ratione transsubstantiatio ponitur, ponenda est et transaccidentatio, propter suppositionem istam extremorum pro eodem.

2.34 [Si autem, intellectu excedens, eximis accidens, ut non velis subjectum pro eo supponere, cum dicis, “Hoc est corpus meum,” Cur non eadem facilitate transcendis substantiam panis, ut et illam velis non accipi per subiectum, ut non minus in substantia quam accidente sit, “hoc corpus meum?” Praesertim, cum divinum illud sit opus, virtutis omnipotentis, quae tantum et taliter in substantia, quantum et qualiter in accidente potest operari.]

¹⁰⁴Si autem, intellectu excedens, eximis accidens, ut non uelis subiectum pro eo supponere, cum dicis: Hoc est corpus meum, cur non eadem facilitate transcendis substantiam panis? ut et illam uelis non accipi per subiectum, ut non minus in substantia quam accidente sit 'hoc corpus meum', praesertim, cum diuinum illud sit opus uirtutis omnipotentis, quae tantum et taliter in substantia, quantum et qualiter in accidente potest operari?

2.35 Let us not, however, dabble too much in philosophy. Does not Christ appear to have admirably anticipated such curiosity by saying of the wine, not, “Hoc est sanguis meus,” but “ Hic est sanguis meus”? And yet more clearly, by bringing in the word “cup,” when He said, “This cup is the new testament in my blood.” Does it not seem as though He desired to keep us in a simple faith, so that we might but believe His blood to be in the cup? For my part, if I cannot fathom how the bread is the body of Christ, I will take my reason captive to the obedience of Christ, and clinging simply to His word, firmly believe not only that the body of Christ is in the bread, but that the bread is the body of Christ. For this is proved by the words, “ He took bread, and giving thanks, He broke it and said, Take, eat; this [i.e., this bread which He took and broke] is my body.” And Paul says: “ The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?” He says not, in the bread, but the bread itself, is the communion of the body of Christ. What does it matter if philosophy cannot fathom this? The Holy Spirit is greater than Aristotle. Does philosophy fathom their transubstantiation, of which they themselves admit that here all philosophy breaks down? But the agreement of the pronoun “this” with “body,” in Greek and Latin, is owing to the fact that in these languages the two words are of the same gender. But in the Hebrew language, which has no neuter gender, “this” agrees with “bread,” so that it would be proper to say, “Hic est corpus meum.” This is proved also by the use of language and by common sense. The subject, certainly, points to the bread, not to the body, when He says, “Hoc est corpus meum,” “Das ist mein Leib,” – i.e., This bread is my body.

¹⁰⁵Sed ne nimium philosophemur, Nonne Christus uidetur huic curiositati pulchre occurrisse, cum non de uino dixerit: hoc est sanguis meus, sed: hic est sanguis meus? Et multo clarius, cum calicis miscet nomen, dicens: Hic calix noui testamenti, in meo sanguine. Nonne uidetur nos uoluisse in simplici fide continere, tantum ut crederemus sanguinem suum esse in calice? ¹⁰⁶Ego sane, si non possum consequi, quo modo panis sit corpus Christi, captiuabo tamen intellectum meum in obsequium Christi, et uerbis eius simpliciter inhaerens, credo firmiter, non modo corpus Christi esse in pane, sed panem esse corpus Christi.

¹⁰⁷Sic enim me seruabunt uerba, ubi dicit: Accepit panem, gratias agens, fregit et dixit: Accipite, manducate, hoc (id est, hic panis, quem acceperet et fregerat) est corpus meum. Et Paulus: Nonne panis quem frangimus participatio corporis Christi est? Non dicit: in pane est, sed: ipse panis est participatio corporis Christi. ¹⁰⁸Quid, si Philosophia haec non capit? Maior est spiritus sanctus quam Aristoteles. Nunquid capit transsubstantiationem illorum, cum et ipsi fateantur, hic uniuersam philosophiam ruere? Quod autem in graeco et latino pronomen 'hoc' ad corpus refertur, facit similitudo generis, sed in hebraeo, ubi neutrum genus non est, refertur ad panem, ut sic liceat dicere: Hic est corpus meum, quod et ipse usus loquendi et sensus communis probat, subiectum scilicet esse monstratiuum panis, et non corporis, dum dicit: Hoc est corpus meum, das ist meyn leyp, id est, iste panis est corpus meum.

2.36 Therefore it is with the sacrament even as it is with Christ. In order that divinity may dwell in Him, it is not necessary that the human nature be transubstantiated and divinity be contained under its accidents. But both natures are there in their entirety, and it is truly said, “This man is God,” and “This God is man.” Even though philosophy cannot grasp this, faith grasps it, and the authority of God’s Word is greater than the grasp of our intellect. Even so, in order that the real body and the real blood of Christ may be present in the sacrament, it is not necessary that the bread and wine be transubstantiated and Christ be contained under their accidents. But both remain there together, and it is truly said, “This bread is my body, this wine is my blood,” and vice versa. Thus I will for now understand it, for the honour of the holy words of God, which I will not allow any petty human argument to override or give to them meanings foreign to them. At the same time, I permit other men to follow the other opinion, which is laid down in the decree Firmiter. Only let them not press us to accept their opinions as articles of faith, as I said above.

¹⁰⁹Sicut ergo in Christo res se habet, ita et in sacramento. Non enim ad corporalem inhabitationem diuinitatis necesse est transsubstanciari humanam naturam, ut diuinitas sub accidentibus humanae naturae teneatur. 

¹¹⁰Sed integra utraque natura uere dicitur: Hic homo est deus, hic deus est homo. Quod et si philosophia non capit, fides tamen capit. Et maior est uerbi dei autoritas, quam nostri ingenii capacitas. ita in sacramento, ut uerum corpus, uerusque sanguis sit, non est necesse, panem et uinum transsubstantiari, ut Christus sub accidentibus teneatur. sed utroque simul manente, (W512) uere dicitur: hic panis est corpus meum, hoc uinum est sanguis meus, et econtra.

¹¹¹Sic interim sapiam, pro honore sanctorum uerborum dei, quibus per humanas ratiunculas non patiar uim fieri, et ea in alienas significationes torqueri. permitto tamen aliis opinionem alteram sequi, quae in decretali firmiter statuitur Modo non urgeant, suas opiniones (ut dixi) pro articulis fidei a nobis acceptari.

2.37 The third captivity of this sacrament is that most wicked abuse of all, in consequence of which there is today no more generally accepted and firmly believed opinion in the Church than this – that the mass is a good work and a sacrifice. This abuse has brought an endless host of others in its wake, so that the faith of this sacrament has become utterly extinct and the holy sacrament has truly been turned into a fair, tavern, and place of merchandise. Hence participations, brotherhoods, intercessions, merits, anniversaries, memorial days, and the like wares are bought and sold, traded and bartered in the Church, and from this priests and monks derive their whole living.

¹¹²Tertia captiuitas eiusdem sacramenti Est longe impiissimus ille abusus, quo factum est, ut fere nihil sit hodie in Ecclesia receptius ac magis persuasum, quam Missam esse opus bonum et sacrificium. Qui abusus deinde inundauit infinitos alios abusus, donec fide sacramenti penitus extincta meras nundinas, cauponationes, et quaestuarios quosdam contractus, e diuino sacramento fecerint.

¹¹³Hinc participationes, fraternitates, suffragia, merita, anniuersaria, memoriae, et id genus negotiorum in Ecclesia uenduntur, emuntur, paciscuntur, componuntur, pendetque in his uniuersa alimonia sacerdotum et monachorum.

2.38 I am attacking a difficult matter, and one perhaps impossible to abate, since it has become so firmly entrenched through century-long custom and the common consent of men that it would be necessary to abolish most of the books now in vogue, to alter almost the whole external form of the churches, and to introduce, or rather re-introduce, a totally different kind of ceremony. But my Christ lives, and we must be careful to give more heed to the Word of God than to all the thoughts of men and of angels. I will perform the duties of my office, and uncover the facts in the case. I will give the truth as I have received it, freely and without malice. For the rest let every man look to his own salvation. I will faithfully do my part that none may cast on me the blame for his lack of faith and knowledge of the truth, when we appear before the judgment seat of Christ.

¹¹⁴Rem arduam, et quam forte sit impossibile conuelli, aggredior, ut quae tanto saeculorum usu firmata, omniumque consensu probata, sic insederit, ut necesse sit maiorem partem librorum, qui hodie regnant, et pene uniuersam Ecclesiarum faciem tolli et mutari, penitusque aliud genus ceremoniarum induci, seu potius reduci.

¹¹⁵Sed Christus meus uiuit, et maiori cura uerbum dei oportet obseruare, quam omnium hominum et angelorum intelligentias. Ego mea uice fungar, rem ipsam in lucem producturus, gratisque, sicut accepi, ueritatem, sineque inuidia communicaturus. caeterum quisque suae salutis rationem habeat; incredulitatis suae et ignorantiae ueritatis culpam in me ne ullus torquere possit, coram iudice Christo, fideliter operam dabo.

2.39 IN THE FIRST PLACE, in order to grasp safely and fortunately a true and unbiased knowledge of this sacrament, we must above all else be careful to put aside whatever has been added by the zeal and devotion of men to the original, simple institution of this sacrament – such things as vestments, ornaments, chants, prayers, organs, candles, and the whole pageantry of outward things. We must turn our eyes and hearts simply to the institution of Christ and to this alone, and put nothing before us but the very word of Christ by which He instituted this sacrament, made it perfect, and committed it to us. For in that word, and in that word alone, reside the power, the nature, and the whole substance of the mass. All else is the work of man, added to the word of Christ. And the mass can be held and remain a mass just as well without it. Now the words of Christ, in which He instituted this sacrament, are these:

¹¹⁶PRINCIPIO, ut ad ueram liberamque huius sacramenti scientiam tuto et foeliciter perueniamus, curandum est ante omnia, ut omnibus iis sepositis, quae ad institutionem huius sacramenti primitiuam et simplicem humanis studiis et feruoribus sunt addita, Qualia sunt, uestes, ornamenta, cantus, preces, organa, lucernae, et uniuersa illa uisibilium rerum pompa, ad ipsam solam et puram Christi institutionem oculos et animum uertamus, nec nobis aliud proponamus, quam ipsum uerbum Christi, quo instituit et perfecit ac nobis commendauit sacramentum.

 ¹¹⁷Nam in eo uerbo et prorsus nullo alio sita est uis, natura, et tota substantia Missae. Caerera omnia sunt humana studia, uerbo Christi accessoria, sine quibus missa optime habero et subsistere. Verba autem Christi, quibus sacramentum hoc instituit, sunt haec:

2.40 “And while they were at supper, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke it: and gave to His disciples, and said: Take it and eat. This is my body, which shall be given for you. And taking the chalice, He gave thanks, and gave to them, saying: All of you, drink of this. This is the chalice, the new testament in my blood, which shall be shed for you and for many the remission of sins. This do to commemorate me.”

¹¹⁸ Caenantibus autem eis, accepit Ihesus panem et benedixit ac fregit, deditque discipulis suis et ait: Accipite et manducate, (W513) hoc est corpus meum, quod pro uobis tradetur. Et accipiens calicem gratias egit et dedit illis dicens: Bibite ex hoc omnes, Hic est calix nouum testamentum in meo sanguine, qui pro uobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum. Hoc facite in meam commemorationem.

2.41 These words the Apostle also delivers and more fully expounds in 1 Corinthians 11. On them we must lean and build as on a firm foundation, if we would not be carried about with every wind of doctrine, even as we have until now been carried about by the wicked doctrines of men, who turn aside the truth. For in these words nothing is omitted that concerns the completeness, the use and the blessing of this sacrament and nothing is included that is superfluous and not necessary for us to know. Whoever sets them aside and meditates or teaches concerning the mass, will teach monstrous and wicked doctrines, as they have done who made of the sacrament an opus operatum and a sacrifice.

 ¹¹⁹Quae uerba et Apostolus .i. Corint. xi. tradit et latius explicat, quibus nos oportet niti, et super ea aedificari, ceu supra firmam petram, si non uolumus omni uento doctrinae circumferri, sicut hactenus circunlati sumus, per impias doctrinas hominum auersantium ueritatem.

¹²⁰Nihil enim in his omissum, quod ad integritatem, usum, et fructum huius sacramenti pertinet, nihilque positum, quod superfluum, et non necessarium sit nobis nosse. Qui enim omissis his uerbis, de Missa uel meditatur uel docet, monstra impietatis docebit, ut factum est per eos, qui opus operatum et sacrificium ex eo fecerunt.

2.42 Therefore let this stand at the outset as our infallibly certain proposition – the mass, or Sacrament of the Altar, is Christ’s testament which He left behind Him at His death, to be distributed among His believers. For that is the meaning of His word – “This is the chalice, the new testament in my blood.” Let this truth stand, I say, as the immovable foundation on which we shall base all that we have to say, for we are going to overthrow, as you will see, all the godless opinions of men imported into this most precious sacrament. Christ, who is the Truth, said truly that this is the new testament in His blood, which is shed for us. Not without reason do I dwell on this sentence. The matter is not at all trivial, and must be most deeply impressed upon us.

¹²¹Stet ergo primum et infallibiliter, Missam seu sacramentum altaris, esse testamentum Christi, quod moriens post se reliquit, distribuendum suis fidelibus. Sic enim habent eius uerba: Hic calix nouum testamentum, in meo sanguine.

 ¹²² Stet inquam ista ueritas, ut fundamentum immobile, super quod omnia struemus, quae dicenda sunt. hoc enim uidebis, ut subuertemus omnes hominum impietates, in hoc dulcissimum sacramentum inuectas. Verax ergo Christus uere dicit, Hoc esse nouum testamentum in sanguine suo, pro nobis fuso. Non frustra haec inculco, res est non parua, et imis sensibus reponenda.

2.43 Let us inquire, therefore, what a testament is, and we shall learn at the same time what the mass is, what its use is, what its blessing is, and what its abuse is.

¹²³Quaeramus ergo, quid sit testamentum, et simul habebimus, quid sit missa, quis usus, quis fructus, quis abusus eius.

2.44 A testament, as every one knows, is a promise made by one about to die, in which he designates his bequest and appoints his heirs. Therefore a testament involves, first, the death of the testator, and secondly, the promise of the bequest and the naming of the heir. Thus St. Paul discusses at length the nature of a testament in Romans 4, Galatians 3 and 4, and Hebrews 9. The same thing is also clearly seen in these words of Christ. Christ testifies concerning His death when He says: “This is my body, which shall be given; this is my blood, which shall be shed.” He designates the bequest when He says: “For remission of sins.” And He appoints the heirs when He says: “For you, and for many” – i.e., for such as accept and believe the promise of the testator. For here it is faith that makes men heirs, as we shall see.

 Testamentum absque dubio Est promissio morituri, qua nuncupat haereditatem suam, et instituit haeredes. Involuit itaque testamentum primo mortem testatoris, deinde haereditatis promissionem, et haeredis nuncupationem.

 ¹²⁴ Sic enim Paulus Ro. iiii. et Gal. .iiii. et Heb. ix. diffuse testamentum tractat. Quod et in uerbis istis Christi clare uidemus. Mortem suam Christus testatur, dum dicit: Hoc est corpus meum, quod tradetur, Hic sanguis meus, qui effundetur. 

 ¹²⁵ Haereditatem nuncupat et designat, cum dicit: In remissionem peccatorum. Haeredes autem instituit, cum dicit: pro uobis et pro multis, id est, qui acceptant et credunt promissioni testatoris. fides enim hic haeredes facit, ut uidebimus. 

2.45 You see, therefore, that what we call the mass is the promise of remission of sins made to us by God – the kind of promise that has been confirmed by the death of the Son of God. For the one difference between a promise and a testament is that a testament is a promise which implies the death of him who makes it. A testator is a man who is about to die making a promise. While he that makes a promise is, if I may so put it, a testator who is not about to die. This testament of Christ was forshadowed in all the promises of God from the beginning of the world. Yes, whatever value those ancient promises possessed was altogether derived from this new promise that was to come in Christ. This is why the words “covenant” and “testament of the Lord” occur so frequently in the Scriptures, which words signified that God would one day die. For where there is a testament, the death of the testator must follow (Hebrews 9). Now God made a testament. Therefore it was necessary that He should die. But God could not die unless He became man. Thus both the incarnation and the death of Christ are briefly understood in this one word “testament.”

¹²⁶Vides ergo, quod Missa (quam uocamus) sit promissio remissionis peccatorum, a deo nobis facta, et talis promissio, quae per mortem filii dei firmata sit. Nam promissio et testamentum non differunt alio, quam quod testamentum simul inuoluit mortem promissoris. Et testator idem est, quod moriturus (W514) promissor, promissor autem uicturus (ut sic dicam) testator.

 ¹²⁷Hoc testamentum Christi praefiguratum est in omnibus promissionibus dei, ab initio mundi. immo, omnes promissiones antiquae in ista noua futura in Christo promissione ualuerunt, quicquid ualuerunt, in eaque pependerunt. Inde usitatissima sunt illa in scripturis uerba, pactum, foedus, testamentum domini. Quibus significabatur deus olim moriturus. Nam, ubi testamentum est, mors testatoris intercedat necesse est. Heb. .x. Deus autem testatus est, ideo necesse fuit eum mori. mori autem non potuit, nisi esset homo. ita in eodem testamenti uocabulo compendiossissime et incarnatio et mors Christi comprehensa est.

2.46 From the above it will at once be seen what is the right and what is the wrong use of the mass, what is the worthy and what is the unworthy preparation for it. If the mass is a promise, as has been said, it is to be approached, not with any work, strength or merit, but with faith alone. For where there is the word of God Who makes the promise, there must be the faith of man who takes it. It is plain, therefore, that the first step in our salvation is faith, which clings to the word of the promise made by God, Who without any effort on our part, in free and unmerited mercy makes a beginning and offers us the word of His promise. For He sent His Word, and by it healed them. He did not accept our work and thus heal us. God’s Word is the beginning of all. Faith follows it, and love follows faith. Then love works every good work, for it does cause harm, no, it is the fulfilling of the law. In no other way can man come to God and deal with Him than through faith. That is, not man, by any work of his, but God, by His promise, is the author of salvation, so that all things depend on the word of His power, and are upheld and preserved by it, with which word He conceived us, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of His creatures.

 ¹²⁸ Ex quibus iam sua sponte patet, quis sit usus et abusus Missae, quae digna uel indigna praeparatio. Si enim promissio est, ut dictum est, nullis operibus, nullis uiribus, nullis meritis ad eam acceditur, sed sola fide. Vbi enim est uerbum promittentis dei, ibi necessaria est fides acceptantis hominis, ut clarum sit, initium salutis nostrae esse fidem, quae pendeat in uerbo promittentis dei, qui citra omne nostrum studium, gratuita et immerita misericordia nos praeuenit, et offert promissionis suae uerbum.

 ¹²⁹ Misit enim uerbum suum et sic sanauit eos. Non autem accepit opus nostrum et sic saluauit nos. Verbum dei omnium primum est, quod sequitur fides, fidem charitas, Charitas deinde facit omne bonum opus, quia non operatur malum, immo est plenitudo legis.

 ¹³⁰Nec alia uia potest homo cum deo, aut conuenire, aut agere, quam per fidem. id est, ut non homo suis operibus ullis, sed deus sua promissione sit autor salutis. ut omnia pendeant, portentur, seruenturque in uerbo uirtutis suae, quo genuit nos, ut essemus initium aliquod creaturae eius.

2.47 Thus, in order to raise up Adam after the fall, God gave him this promise, addressing the serpent: “I will put hostility between you and the woman, and you seed and her seed. She shall crush your head, and you will lie in wait for her heel.” In this word of promise Adam, with his descendants, was carried as it were in God’s arms, and by faith in it he was preserved, patiently waiting for the woman who should crush the serpent’s head, as God had promised. And in that faith and expectation he died, not knowing when or in what form she would come, yet never doubting that she would come. For such a promise, being the truth of God, preserves, even in hell, those who believe it and wait for it. After this came another promise, made to Noah – to last until the time of Abraham – when a rainbow was set as a sign in the clouds, by faith in which Noah and his descendants found a gracious God. After that He promised Abraham that all nations should be blessed in his seed. This is Abraham’s arms, in which his posterity was carried. Then to Moses and the children of Israel, and especially to David, He gave the plain promise of Christ, thereby at last making clear what was meant by the ancient promise to them.

 ¹³¹ Sic Adae post lapsum erigendo dedit hanc promissionem, dicens ad serpentem: Inimicitias ponam inter te et mulierem, inter semen tuum et semen illius, Ipsa conteret caput tuum, et tu insidiabereis calcaneo illius. 

 ¹³²In hoc promissionis uerbo Adam cum suis tanquam in gremio dei portatus est, et fide illius seruatus, expectans longanimiter mulierem, quae conteret caput serpentis, sicut deus promisit. Et in hac fide et expectatione etiam mortuus est, ignarus, quando et qualis esset futura, futuram tamen non differens. Nam talis promissio, cum sit ueritas dei, etiam in inferno seruat credentes, et expectantes eam.

 ¹³³Post hanc secuta est promissio alia facta Noe, usque ad Abraham, dato pro signo foederis arcu nubium, cuius fide ipse et posteri eius propitium deum inuenerunt. Post hunc, Abrahae promisit benedictionem (W515) omnium gentium, in semine eius. Et hic est sinus Abrahae, in quem recepti sunt posteri eius. Deinde, Mosi et filiis Israel, praecipue Dauid, apertissimam de Christo promissionem dedit, quo reuelauit tandem, quae fuerit priscis facta promissio.

2.48 So it came finally to the most complete promise of the new testament, in which with plain words life and salvation are freely promised, and granted to such as believe the promise. He distinguished this testament by a particular mark from the old, calling it the “new testament.” For the old testament, which He gave by Moses, was a promise not of remission of sins or of eternal things, but of temporal things – namely, the land of Canaan – by which no man was renewed in his spirit, to lay hold of the heavenly inheritance. Therefore it was also necessary that irrational beasts should be slain, as types of Christ, that by their blood the testament might be confirmed. So the testament was like the blood, and the promise like the sacrifice. But here He says: “The new testament in my blood” – not in another’s, but in His own. By this blood grace is promised, through the Spirit, for the remission of sins, that we may obtain the inheritance.

 ¹³⁴Sic uentum est ad promissionem omnium perfectissimam noui testamenti, in qua apertis uerbis uita et salus gratuito promittuntur, et credentibus promissioni donantur. Et insigni nota discernit hoc testamentum a ueteri, dum dicit: Nouum testamentum. 

 ¹³⁵Vetus enim testamentum, per Mosen datum, erat promissio, non remissionis peccatorum, seu aeternarum rerum, sed temporalium, nempe, terrae Canaan, per quam nemo renouabatur spiritu, ad haereditatem coelestem capessendam.

 ¹³⁶ unde et irrationalem pecudem in figura Christi oportebat occidi, in cuius sanguine idem testamentum confirmabatur, ut, qualis sanguis, tale testamentum, qualis hostia, talis promissio. At hic dicit: Testamentum nouum in meo, non alieno, sed proprio sanguine, quo gratia per spiritum, in remissionem peccatorum, ad haereditatem capiendam promittitur.

2.49 The mass, according to its substance, is, therefore, nothing else than the words of Christ mentioned above – “Take and eat.” It is as if He said: “Behold, condemned, sinful man, in the pure and unmerited love with which I love you, and by the will of the Father of all mercies, I promise you in these words, even though you do not desire or deserve them, the forgiveness of all your sins and life everlasting. And, so that you may be most certainly assured of this my irrevocable promise, I give my body and shed my blood, thus by my very death confirming this promise, and leaving my body and blood to you as a sign and memorial of this same promise. As often, therefore, as you partake of them, remember me, and praise, magnify, and give thanks for my love and bounty for you.”

 ¹³⁷ Est itaque Missa, secundum substantiam suam, proprie nihil aliud, quam uerba Christi praedicta: Accipite et manducate etc. ac si dicat: Ecce o homo peccator et damnatus, ex mera gratuitaque charitate, qua diligo te, sic uolente misericordiarum patre, his uerbis promitto tibi, ante omne meritum et uotum tuum, remissionem omnium peccatorum tuorum, et uitam aeternam.

 ¹³⁸ Et ut certissimus de hac mea promissione irreuocabili sis, corpus meum tradam, et sanguinem fundam, morte ipsa hanc promissionem confirmaturus, et utrunque tibi in signum et memoriale eiusdem promissionis relicturus. Quod cum frequentaueris, mei memor sis, hanc meam in te charitatem et largitatem praedices et laudes, et gratias agas.

2.50 From this you will see that nothing else is needed to have a worthy mass than a faith that confidently relies on this promise, believes these words of Christ are true, and does not doubt that these infinite blessings have been bestowed upon it. Following closely behind this faith there follows, by itself, a most sweet stirring of the heart, by which the spirit of man is enlarged and grows fat – that is love, given by the Holy Spirit through faith in Christ – so that he is drawn to Christ, that gracious and good Testator, and made quite another and a new man. Who would not shed tears of gladness, no, nearly faint for the joy he has for Christ, if he believed with unshaken faith that this inestimable promise of Christ belonged to him! How could one help loving so great a Benefactor, who offers, promises and grants, all unasked, such great riches, and this eternal inheritance, to someone unworthy and deserving of something far different?

 ¹³⁹ Ex quibus uides, ad Missam digne habendam, aliud non requiri quam fidem, quae huic promissioni fideliter nitatur, Christum in his suis uerbis ueracem credat, et sibi haec immensa bona esse donata, non dubitet. ¹⁴⁰ Ad hanc fidem mox sequetur sua sponte dulcissimus affectus cordis, quo dilatatur et impinguatur spiritus hominis (haec est charitas, per spiritum sanctum in fide Christi donata), ut in Christum, tam largum et benignum testatorem, rapiatur, fiatque penitus alius et nouus homo.

 ¹⁴¹Quis enim non dulciter lachrymetur, immo prae gaudio in Christum pene exanimetur, si credat fide indubitata, hanc Christi promissionem inaestimabilem ad se pertinere? Quomodo (W516) non diligit tantum benefactorem, qui indigno et longe alia merito tantas diuitias et haereditatem hanc aeternam praeueniens offert, promittit, et donat?

2.51 Therefore, it is our one misfortune, that we have many masses in the world, and yet none or but the fewest of us recognize, consider and receive these promises and riches that are offered, although truly we should do nothing else in the mass with greater zeal (yes, it demands all our zeal) than set before our eyes, meditate, and ponder these words, these promises of Christ, which truly are the mass itself, in order to exercise, nourish, increase, and strengthen our faith by such daily remembrance. For this is what He commands, saying, ”This do in remembrance of me.” This should be done by the preachers of the Gospel, in order that this promise might be faithfully impressed upon the people and commended to them, to the awakening of faith in the same.

 ¹⁴²Quo circa una et sola miseria nostra, quod multas Missas in orbe habemus, et nulli uel pauci has promissiones et diuitias propositas agnoscimus, consyderamus, et apprehendimus, Cum reuera in missa aliud agi non oporteat maiori, immo unico studio, quam ut haec uerba, has promissiones Christi, quae uere sunt ipsa Missa, ante oculos uersaremus, meditaremur, et ruminaremus, quod fidem in ea exerceremus, nutriremus, augeremus, et roboraremus, hac quottidiana commemoratione.  ¹⁴³hoc est enim quod praecipit, dicens: Hoc facite in meam commemorationem, hoc ipsum agere deberet Euangelista, ut promissionem istam populo fideliter inculcaret, et commendaret ad prouocandam fidem eorum in eandem.

2.52 But how many are there now who know that the mass is the promise of Christ? I will say nothing of those godless preachers of fables, who teach human traditions instead of this promise. And even if they teach these words of Christ, they do not teach them as a promise or testament, and, therefore, not to the awakening of faith.

 ¹⁴⁴At nunc, quota pars nouit missam esse promissionem Christi? (ut taceam impios fabulatores, qui humanas traditiones uice tantae promissionis docent) Quod si etiam haec uerba Christi docent, non tamen nomine promissionis aut testamenti, ac per hoc non ad obtinendam fidem, docent.

2.53 O the pity of it! Under this captivity, they take every precaution that no layman should hear these words of Christ, as if they were too sacred to be delivered to the common people. So mad are we priests that we arrogantly claim that the so-called words of consecration may be said by ourselves alone, as secret words, yet so that they do not profit even us, for we too fail to regard them as promises or as a testament, for the strengthening of faith. Instead of believing them, we reverence them with I know not what superstitious and godless fancies. This misery of ours, what is it but a device of Satan to remove every trace of the mass out of the Church? although he is meanwhile at work filling every nook and corner on earth with masses, that is, abuses and mockeries of God’s testament, and burdening the world more and more heavily with grievous sins of idolatry, to its deeper condemnation. For what worse idolatry can there be than to abuse God’s promises with perverse opinions and to neglect or extinguish faith in them?

 ¹⁴⁵Quin, quod deploramus, in hac captiuitate, omni studio cauetur hodie, ne uerba illa Christi ullus laicus audiat, quasi sacratiora, quam ut uulgo tradi debeant. Sic enim insanimus, et uerba consecrationis (ut uocant) nobis sacerdotibus solis arrogamus occulte dicenda, sic tamen, ut ne nobis quidem prosint, cum nec ipsi ea ut promissiones seu testamentum habeamus ad fidem nutriendam, sed nescio qua superstitione et impia opinione ea reueremur potius, quam eis credimus. ¹⁴⁶Qua miseria nostra quid alius Satan in nobis operatur, quam ut nihil de missa in Ecclesia reliquum faciat, curet tamen interim omnes angulos orbis missis plenos esse, hoc est, abusionibus et irrisionibus testamenti dei, grauissimisque idolatriae peccatis mundum assidue magis ac magis onerari ad damnationem maiorem augendam. Quod enim idolatriae peccatum grauius esse potest, quam promissionibus dei peruersa opinione abuti, et fidem in easdem, uel negligere, uel extinguere?

2.54 For God does not deal, nor has He ever dealt, with man otherwise than through a word of promise, as I have said. Again, we cannot deal with God otherwise than through faith in the word of His promise. He does not desire works, nor has He need of them. We deal with men and with ourselves on the basis of works. But He has need of this – that we deem Him true to His promises, wait patiently for Him, and thus worship Him with faith, hope and love. Thus He obtains His glory among us, since it is not of ourselves who run, but of God who shows mercy, promises and gives, that we have and hold every blessing. That is the true worship and service of God which we must perform in the mass. But if the words of promise are not proclaimed, what exercise of faith can there be? And without faith, who can have hope or love? Without faith, hope and love, what service can there be? There is no doubt, therefore, that in our day all priests and monks, together with all their bishops and superiors, are idolaters and in a most perilous state, by reason of this ignorance, abuse and mockery of the mass, or sacrament, or testament of God.

 ¹⁴⁷Neque enim deus (ut dixi) aliter cum hominibus unquam egit aut agit quam uerbo promissionis. Rursus, nec nos cum deo unquam agere aliter possumus, quam fide in uerbum promissionis eius. Opera illi nihil curat, nec eis indiget, quibus potius erga homines et cum hominibus et nobisipsis agimus. 

 ¹⁴⁸Indiget autem, ut uerax in suis promissis a nobis habeatur, talisque longanimiter sustineatur, ac sic fide, spe et charitate colatur. Quo fit, ut gloriam suam in nobis obtineat, dum non nobis currentibus, sed ipso miserente, promittente, donante, omnia bona accipimus et habeamus. 

 ¹⁴⁹Ecce hic est (W517) uerus cultus dei et latria, quam in missa debemus persoluere. Sed quum promissionis uerba non traduntur, quae fidei exercitatio haberi potest? At sine fide quis sperat? quis amat? sine fide, spe, et charitate, quae latria? 

2.55 For any one can easily see that these two – the promise and faith – must go together. For without the promise there is nothing to believe, while without faith the promise remains without effect, for it is established and fulfilled through faith. From this every one will readily gather that the mass, which is nothing else than the promise, is approached and observed only in this faith, without which whatever prayers, preparations, works, signs of the cross, or genuflections are brought to it, are incitements to impiety rather than exercises of piety. For they who come thus prepared are likely to imagine themselves on that account justly entitled to approach the altar, when in reality they are less prepared than at any other time and in any other work, by reason of the unbelief which they bring with them. How many priests will you find every day offering the sacrifice of the mass, who accuse themselves of a horrible crime if they – wretched men! – commit a trifling blunder – such as putting on the wrong robe or forgetting to wash their hands or stumbling over their prayers – but that they neither regard nor believe the mass itself, namely, the divine promise. This causes them not the slightest qualms of conscience. O worthless religion of this our age, the most godless and thankless of all ages!

 ¹⁵⁰Non est itaque dubium, uniuersos hodie sacerdotes et monachos cum Episcopis et omnibus suis maioribus esse idolatras, in statu periculosissimo agentes, ob hanc missae seu sacramenti, seu promissionis dei ignorantiam, abusionem, irrisionem.

¹⁵¹(W517) Quilibet enim facile intelligit, quod haec duo sunt simul necessaria, promissio et fides. sine promissione enim credi nihil potest, sine fide autem promissio inutilis est, cum per fidem stabiliatur et impleatur. Ex quibus itidem facile quiuis colligit, Missam, cum sit aliud nihil quam promissio, hac fide sola adiri et frequentari.

¹⁵²sine qua, quicquid precularum, praeparatoriotum, operum, signorum, gestuum affertur, irritabula sunt impietatis magis quam officia pietatis, cum fere fiat, ut his paratis existiment sese legitime altaria accedere, et reuera non fuerint ullo tempore uel opere magis inepti, propter infidelitatem quam secum afferunt. ¹⁵³Quantos passim uideas et quotidie sacrificulos, qui, si uel inepti uestiti, uel illotis manibus, uel inter precandum titubantes quid leuiuscule errauerint, ingenti sese miseri crimine reos faciunt.

¹⁵⁴At, quod missam ipsam, id est, diuinam promissionem, neque obseruant, neque credunt, prorsus ne tantillum quidem habent conscientiae. O indigna religio nostro saeculo, omnium impiissimo et ingratissimo!

2.56 Hence the only worthy preparation and proper use of the mass is faith in the mass, that is to say, in the divine promise. Whoever, therefore, is minded to approach the altar and to receive the sacrament, let him beware of appearing empty before the Lord God. But he will appear empty unless he has faith in the mass, or this new testament. What godless work that he could commit would be a more grievous crime against the truth of God, than this unbelief of his, by which, as much as in him lies, he convicts God of being a liar and a maker of empty promises? The safest course, therefore, will be to go to mass in the same spirit in which you would go to hear any other promise of God, that is, not to be ready to perform and bring many works, but to believe and receive all that is there promised, or proclaimed by the priest as having been promised to you. If you do not go in this spirit, beware of going at all. You will surely go to your condemnation.

 ¹⁵⁵Praeparatio itaque digna et usus legitime non est, nisi fides, qua creditur Missae, id est, diuinae promissioni. Quocirca, accessurus ad altare, siue sacramentum accepturus, caueat, ne uacuus appareat in conspectu domini dei. (n155) 

 ¹⁵⁶Vacuus autem erit, si fidem non habuerit in Missam seu testamentum hoc nouum. Qua impietate quid posset grauius committere in diuinam ueritatem? quam hac incredulitate sua, quantum est in se, mendacem arguit, et uane promittentem. 

 ¹⁵⁷ Tutissimum itaque fuerit, ad Missam non alio animo accedere, quam si ad audiendam quamlibet aliam promissionem dei uelis accedere. hoc est, ut paratus sis, non multa operari et afferre, sed omnia credere et accipere, quae tibi illic promittuntur, seu promissa pronunciatur, per ministerium sacerdotis. Hoc animo si non ueneris, caue accesseris, in iudicium, sine dubio, accedes.

2.57 I was right, then, in saying that the whole power of the mass consists in the words of Christ, in which He testifies that the remission of sins is bestowed on all those who believe that His body is given and His blood shed for them. For this reason nothing is more important for those who go to hear mass than diligently and in full faith to ponder these words. Unless they do this, all else that they do is in vain. But while the mass is the word of Christ, it is also true that God usually adds to nearly every one of His promises a certain sign as a mark or memorial of His promise, so that we may thereby the more faithfully hold to His promise and be the more forcibly admonished by it. Thus, to his promise to Noah that He would not again destroy the world by a flood, He added His rainbow in the clouds, to show that He would be mindful of His covenant. And after promising Abraham the inheritance in his seed, He gave him the sign of circumcision as the seal of his righteousness by faith. Thus, to Gideon He granted the sign of the dry and the wet fleece, to confirm His promise of victory over the Midianites. And to Ahaz He offered a sign through Isaiah concerning his victory over the kings of Syria and Samaria, to strengthen his faith in the promise. And many such signs of the promises of God do we find in the Scriptures.

 ¹⁵⁸Recte itaque dixi, totam uirtutem Missae consistere in uerbis Christi, quibus testatur, remissionem peccatorum donari omnibus, qui credunt, corpus eius tradi, et sanguinem eius fundi, pro se. Atque ob hanc rem, nulla re magis opus esse audituris Missam, quam ut ipsa uerba sedulo et plena fide meditentur. 

 ¹⁵⁹quod nisi fecerint, frustra omnia alia fecerint. Hoc sane uerum est, in omni promissione sua deus fere solitus est adiicere signum aliquod, (W518) ceu monumentum, ceu memoriale promissionis suae, quo fidelius seruaretur, et efficatius moneret.

 ¹⁶⁰Sic in promissione Noe data, de non perdenda terra alio diluuio, dedit arcum suum in nubibus, quo dixit, sese recordaturum foederis sui. Et Abrahae, post promissionem haereditatis in semine suo, dedit circumcisionem in signaculum iustitiae fidei.

 ¹⁶¹Sic Gedeoni dedit uellus aridum et roridum, ad firmandam promissionem suam super uincendis Madianitis. Sic Achas per Esaiam obtulit signum, pro uincendo rege Syriae et Samariae, quo promissioni suae fidem in eo firmaret. Talia multa legimus signa promissionum dei in scripturis.

2.58 Thus also to the mass, that crown of all His promises, He adds His body and blood in the bread and wine, as a memorial sign of this great promise, as He says, “This do in remembrance of me.” Even so in baptism He adds to the words of the promise, the sign of immersion in water. We learn from this that in every promise of God two things are presented to us – the word and the sign – so that we are to understand the word to be the testament, but the sign to be the sacrament. Thus, in the mass, the word of Christ is the testament, and the bread and wine are the sacrament. And as there is greater power in the word than in the sign, so there is greater power in the testament than in the sacrament. For a man can have and use the word, or testament, apart from the sign, or sacrament. “Believe,” says Augustine, “and you have eaten.” But what does one believe save the word of promise? Therefore I can hold mass every day, yes, every hour, for I can set the words of Christ before me, and with them refresh and strengthen my faith, as often as I choose. That is a truly spiritual eating and drinking.

 ¹⁶²Sic et in Missa, hac omnium principe promissione, adiecit signum memoriale tantae promissionis, suum ipsius corpus et suum ipsius sanguinem, in pane et uino, sicut dicit: Hoc facite in meam commemorationem.

 ¹⁶³Sic in Baptismo, uerbis promissionis adiicit signum mersionis in aquam. Ex quibus intelligimus, in qualibet promissione dei duo proponi, uerbum et signum, ut uerbum intelligamus esse testamentum, signum uero esse sacramentum. ut in Missa, uerbum Christi est testamentum, panis et uinum sunt sacramentum.

 ¹⁶⁴Atque ut maior uis sita in uerbo quam signo, ita maior in testamento quam sacramento. Quia potest homo uerbum seu testamentum habere et eo uti, absque signo seu sacramento. Crede, inquit Aug., et manducasti. Sed cui creditur, nisi uerbo promittentis? 

 ¹⁶⁵Ita possum quotidie, immo omni hora, Missam habere, dum, quoties uoluero, possum uerba Christi mihi proponere, et fidem meam in illis alere et roborare. hoc est reuera, spiritualiter manducare et bibere.

2.59 Here you may see what great things our theologians of the Sentences have produced. That which is the principal and chief thing, namely, the testament and word of promise, is not treated by one of them. Thus they have obliterated faith and the whole power of the mass. But the second part of the mass – the sign, or sacrament – this alone do they discuss, yet in such a manner that here too they teach not faith but their preparations and opera operata, participations and fruits, as though these were the mass, until they have fallen to babbling of transubstantiation and endless other metaphysical quibbles, and have destroyed the proper understanding and use of both sacrament and testament, altogether abolished faith, and caused Christ’s people to forget their God, as the prophet says, days without number. Let the others count the manifold fruits of hearing mass. Focus your attention on this: say and believe with the prophet, that God prepares a table before you in the presence of your enemies, at which your soul may eat and grow fat. But your faith is fed only with the word of divine promise, for “not by bread alone does man live, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.” Hence, in the mass you must above all things pay closest heed to the word of promise, as to your rich banquet, green pasture, and sacred refreshment. You must esteem this word higher than all else, trust in it above all things, and cling firmly to it even through the midst of death and all sins. By thus doing you will attain not merely to those tiny drops and crumbs of “fruits of the mass,” which some have superstitiously imagined, but to the very fountainhead of life, which is faith in the word, from which every blessing flows. As it is said in John 4: “He who believes in me, out of his heart will flow rivers of living water” and again: “ He who will drink of the water that I will give him, it shall become in him a fountain of living water, springing up to life everlasting.”

 ¹⁶⁶Hic uides, quid et quantum Theologi sententiarii in hac re praestiterunt. Primum, id quod summum et capitale est, nempe, testamentum et uerbum promissionis, nullus eorum tractat, atque ita fidem et totam missae uirtutem nobis obliterarunt.

 ¹⁶⁷Deinde, alteram eius partem, scilicet signum seu sacramentum, solum uersant, sed ita, ut nec in hac fidem doceant, sed suas praeparationes, et opera operata, participationes et fructus, missam, donec in profundum uenerint, et de transsubstantiatione, aliisque infinitis metaphysicis nugis, nugarentur, et scientiam uerumque usum, tam testamenti quam sacramenti, cum uniuersa fide abolerent facerentque, ut populus Christi (ut propheta dicit) obliuisceretur dei sui diebus innumeris.

 ¹⁶⁸Tu uero, sine alios percensere uarios fructus auditae missae, et animum tuum huc intende, ut cum Propheta dicas et credas, hic tibi a deo paratam esse mensam coram te, aduersus omnes qui tribulant te, in qua pascatur et pinguescat fides tua.

 ¹⁶⁹Non autem pascitur fides tua, nisi promissionis diuinae uerbo. Homo enim non in solo pane uiuit, sed in omni uerbo quod procedit de ore dei. Quare, in missa ante omnia uerbi promissionis te obseruatorem esse curiosissimum (W519) oportet, tanquam opulentissimi conuiuii, omnimodae pascuae et sanctae refectionis tuae, ut hoc prae omnibus maximi facias, plurimum in id confidas, et firmissime in eo haereas, etiam per mortem et omnia peccata. ¹⁷⁰Quod si feceris, non solum stillas istas, et minutias fructuum missae, quas quidem etiam superstitiose finxerunt, sed ipsum fontem principalem uitae, obtinebis, fidem scilicet uerbi, ex qua omne bonum fluit, sicut Iohan. iiii. dicit: Qui in me credit, de uentre eius fluent aquae uiuae. Item: Qui biberit ex aqua, quam ego dabo, fiet in eo fons aquae uiuae, salientis in uitam aeternam.

2.60 Now there are two roadblocks that commonly prevent us from gathering the fruits of the mass. First, the fact that we are sinners and unworthy of such great things because of our exceeding vileness. Secondly, the fact that, even if we were worthy, these things are so high that our faint-hearted nature dare not aspire to them or ever hope to attain to them. For to have God for our Father, to be His sons and heirs of all His goods – these are the great blessings that come to us through the forgiveness of sins and life everlasting. If you see these things clearly, aren’t you more likely to stand in awe before them than to desire to possess them? Against this twofold faintness of ours we must lay hold on the word of Christ and fix our gaze on it much more firmly than on those thoughts of our weakness. For “great are the works of the Lord; all who enjoy them study them,” “who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think.” If they did not surpass our worthiness, our grasp and all our thoughts, they would not be divine. Thus Christ also encourages us when He says: “Fear not, little flock, for your Father is pleased to give you a kingdom.” For it is just this overflowing goodness of the incomprehensible God, lavished upon us through Christ, that moves us to love Him again with our whole heart above all things, to be drawn to Him with all confidence, to despise all things else, and be ready to suffer all things for Him. For this reason, this sacrament is correctly called “a fount of love.”

 ¹⁷¹Iam duo sunt, quae solent nos tentare, ne fructus missae percipiamus. Alterum est, nos esse peccatores et indignos prae nimia uilitate rebus tantis. Alterum, etiam si digni essemus, magnitudo tamen rerum tanta est, ut natura pusillanimis non audeat ea petere aut sperare.

 ¹⁷²Nam, remissionem peccatorum et aeternam uitam, quis non stupescat potius quam optet, si digne pensetur magnitudo bonorum, quae per ea ueniunt? habere scilicet deum patrem, esse filium, haeredem omnium bonorum dei.

 ¹⁷³Aduersus hanc geminam pusillanimitatem oportet, ut uerbum Christi apprehendas, ipsumque multo fortius intuearis, quam has cogitationes infirmitatis tuae. Magna enim sunt opera domini, exquisita in omnes uoluntates eius, qui potens est dare, supra quam petimus aut intelligimus.

 ¹⁷⁴Nisi enim superarent nostram dignitatem, nostram capacitatem, nostrum denique omnem sensum, diuina non essent. Sic et Christus nos animat dicens: Nolite timere, pusillus grex, placuit enim patri uestro, dare uobis regnum. ¹⁷⁵Haec ipsa enim exuberantia inconprehensibilis dei, in nos per Christum effusa, facit, ut eum rursus super omnia ardentissime diligamus, summa fidutia in eum feramus, omnia contemnamus, prompti simus omnia pro eo pati. unde et recte fons dilectionis hoc sacramentum est appellatum.

2.61 Let us take an illustration of this from human experience. If a thousand gold coins were bequeathed by a rich lord to a beggar or an unworthy and wicked servant, it is certain that he would boldly claim and take them regardless of his unworthiness and the greatness of the bequest. And if any one should seek to oppose him by pointing out his unworthiness and the large amount of the legacy, what do you suppose he would say? Certainly, he would say: “What is that to you? What I accept, I accept not on my merits or by any right that I may personally have to it. I know that I am unworthy and receive more than I have deserved, no, I have deserved the very opposite. But I claim it because it is so written in the will, and on the account of another’s goodness. If it was not an unworthy thing for him to bequeath so great a sum to an unworthy person, why should I refuse to accept this other man’s gracious gift?” With such thoughts we need to fortify the consciences of men against all qualms and scruples, that they may lay hold of the promise of Christ with unwavering faith, and take the greatest care to approach the sacrament, not trusting in their confession, prayer and preparation, but rather despairing of these and with a proud confidence in Christ Who gives the promise. For, as we have said again and again, the word of promise must here reign supreme in a pure and unalloyed faith, and such faith is the one and all-sufficient preparation.

 ¹⁷⁶In hac re, exemplum tibi sume ex hominibus. Si enim cuiquam mendico, aut etiam indigno et malo seruo, legaret ditissimus dominus mille aureos, certe cum fidutia eos postularet et acciperet, nec indignitatis suae, nec magnitudinis testamenti habita ratione.

 ¹⁷⁷Quod si quis ei resistens obiiceret indignitatem suam, et magnitudinem testamenti, quid putas dicturus est? scilicet: 'quid ad te? non ego merito meo, nec iure ullo proprio accipio quod accipio; Scio me indignum, et maiora accipere, quam merear, immo, contraria merui, sed iure testamenti et aliena bonitatis, peto quod peto; si illi non fuit indignum tanta tam indigno legare, cur ego propter indignitatem meam contemnam acceptare? quin hac ipsa causa magis amplector gratuitam et alienam gratiam, qua ego sum indignior'.

 ¹⁷⁸Eadem cogitatione armari oportet et (W520) cuiusque conscientiam, aduersus omnes scrupulos et morsus suos, ad hanc Christi promissionem indubitata fide obtinendam, summopere cauendo, ne fidutia confessionis, orationis, praeparationis quisquam accedat, sed his omnibus desparatis, in superba fidutia promittentis Christi. Quia, ut dictum est satis, uerbum promissionis hoc solum regnare debet, in fide pura, quae est unica et sola sufficiens praeparatio.

2.62 Hence we see how angry God is with us, in that he has permitted godless teachers to conceal the words of this testament from us, and thereby, as much as in them lay, to extinguish faith. And the inevitable result of this extinguishing of faith is even now plainly to be seen – namely, the most godless superstition of works. For when faith dies and the word of faith is silent, works and the traditions of works immediately crowd into their place. By them we have been carried away out of our own land, as in a Babylonian captivity, and despoiled of all our precious possessions. This has been the fate of the mass. It has been converted by the teaching of godless men into a good work, which they themselves call an opus operatum and by which they presumptuously imagine themselves all-powerful with God. Thereupon they proceeded to the very height of madness, and having invented the lie that the mass works ex opere operato, they asserted further that it is none the less profitable to others, even if it be harmful to the wicked priest celebrating it. On such a foundation of sand they base their applications, participations, sodalities, anniversaries and numberless other money-making schemes.

 ¹⁷⁹Videmus ex his, quam grandi ira dei factum sit, ut uerba testamenti huius non caelarint impii doctores, atque per hoc ipsum fidem extinxerunt, quantum in eis fuit. Iam pronum est uidere, quid ad fidem extinctam sequi fuit necesse.

 ¹⁸⁰Nempe, superstitiones operum impiissimas. Vbi enim fides occidit, et uerbum fidei obmutescit, ibi mox surgunt opera in locum eius, et traditiones operum. Quibus ceu captiuitate Babylonica translati sumus de terra nostra, captis omnibus desyderabilibus nostris.

 ¹⁸¹Ita de missa contigit, quae impiorum hominum doctrina mutata est in opus bonum, quod ipsi uocant opus operatum, quo apud deum sese omnia praesumunt posse.

 ¹⁸²Inde processum est ad extremum insaniae, ut, quia Missam ex ui operis operati ualere mentiti sunt, adiecerunt, eam non minus utilem esse caeteris, etiam si ipsi impio sacrifico noxia sit atque in hanc harenam fundauerunt suas applicationes, participationes, et fraternitates, anniuersaria, et id genus infinita lucri et quaestus negotia.

2.63 These lures are so powerful, widespread and firmly entrenched that you will scarcely be able to prevail against them unless you keep before you with unremitting care the real meaning of the mass, and bear well in mind what has been said above. We have seen that the mass is nothing else than the divine promise or testament of Christ, sealed with the sacrament of His body and blood. If that is true, you will understand that it cannot possibly be a work, and that there is nothing to do in it, nor can it be dealt within any other way than by faith alone. And faith is not a work, but the mistress and the life of all works. Where in all the world is there a man so foolish as to regard a promise made to him, or a testament given to him, as a good work which by his acceptance of it he renders to the testator? What heir will imagine he is doing his departed father a kindness by accepting the terms of the will and the inheritance bequeathed to him? What godless audacity is it, therefore, when we who are to receive the testament of God come as those who would perform a good work for Him! This ignorance of the testament, this captivity of the sacrament – are they not too sad for tears? When we ought to be grateful for benefits received, we come in our pride to give that which we ought to take, mocking with unheard-of perversity the mercy of the Giver by giving as a work the thing we receive as a gift. So the testator, instead of being the dispenser of His own goods, becomes the recipient of ours. What sacrilege!

 ¹⁸³Contra has laruas, quia ualidae sunt et multae penitusque insederunt, nisi constantissima cura obseruaueris, quid sit Missa, et praecedentium fortiter memineris, uix subistes. 

 ¹⁸⁴Audisti enim, Missam aliud non esse, quam promissionem diuinam seu testamentum Christi, sacramento corporis et sanguinis sui commendatum. quod si uerum est, intelligis, Non posse ipsum esse opus ullo modo, nec quicquam in ipso fieri, nec alio studio a quoquam tractari, quam sola fide; fides enim non est opus, sed magistra et uita operum.

 ¹⁸⁵Quis enim est uspiam tam insanus, ut promissionem acceptam, aut testamentum donatum, uocet opus bonum, quod suo testatori faciat accipiens? Quis est haeres, qui patri suo testatori existimet benefacere, dum instrumenta testamenti cum haereditate testata accipit?

 ¹⁸⁶Quae est ergo impia temeritas nostra, ut diuinum testamentum accepturi ueniamus, ut bonum opus ei facturi? Est ne ista ignorantia testamenti et captiuitas tanti sacramenti omnibus lachrymis superior?

 ¹⁸⁷ubi de acceptis grati esse debemus, uenimus superbi daturi accipienda, irridentes, inaudita peruersitate, donatoris misericordiam, dum hoc donamus ut opus, quod accipimus ut donum, ut testator iam non suorum largitor bonorum, sed nostrorum sit acceptor. Ve impietate isti.

2.64 Who has ever been so mad as to regard baptism as a good work, or to believe that by being baptised he was performing a work which he might offer to God for himself and communicate to others? If, therefore, there is no good work that can be communicated to others in this one sacrament or testament, neither will there be any in the mass, since it too is nothing else than a testament and sacrament. Hence it is a manifest and wicked error to offer or apply masses for sins, for satisfactions, for the dead, or for any necessity whatsoever of one’s own or of others. You will readily see the obvious truth of this if you but hold firmly that the mass is a divine promise, which can profit no one, be applied to no one, intercede for no one, and be communicated to no one, save him alone who believes with a faith of his own. Who can receive or apply, in behalf of another, the promise of God, which demands the personal faith of every individual? Can I give to another what God has promised, even if he does not believe? Can I believe for another, or cause another to believe? But this is what I must do if I am able to apply and communicate the mass to others. For there are but two things in the mass – the promise of God, and the faith of man which takes that which the promise offers. But if it is true that I can do this, then I can also hear and believe the Gospel for others, I can be baptised for another, I can be absolved from sins for another, I can also partake of the Sacrament of the Altar for another, and – to run the gamut of their sacraments also – I can marry a wife for another, be ordained for another, receive confirmation and extreme unction for another!

 ¹⁸⁸Quis uero unquam fuit tam demens, ut baptismum duceret esse bonum opus? aut baptisandus crederet, sese opus facere, quod pro se et aliis deo (W521) offeret et communicaret? Si ergo in uno aliquo sacramento et testamento nullum est opus bonum communicabile aliis, nec in Missa erit, cum et ipsa non sit nisi testamentum et sacramentum.

 ¹⁸⁹Vnde manifestus et impius error est, Missam pro peccatis, pro satisfactionibus, pro defunctis, aut quibuscunque neccessitatibus suis aut aliorum offere seu applicare.

 ¹⁹⁰Quod facillime intelligis esse euidentissime uerum, si firmiter teneas, Missam esse promissionem diuinam, quae nulli prodesse, nulli applicari, nulli suffragari, nulli communicari potest, nisi ipsi credenti soli propria fide.

 ¹⁹¹Quis enim promissionem dei, quae uniuscuiusque singulatim exigit fidem, potest pro alio acceptare aut applicare?  ¹⁹²Nunquid possum alteri promissionem dei dare, etiam non credenti? aut possum pro alio credere? aut possum facere, ut alius credat? At haec fieri oportet, si Missam possum aliis applicare et communicare, cum in Missa non sint nisi ista duo, promissio diuina, et fides humana, quae accipiat, quod illa promittit.

 ¹⁹³Quod si uerum est, potero etiam pro aliis audire Euangelium et credere, potero pro alio baptisari, potero pro alio absolui a peccatis, potero et pro alio communicare de altaris sacramento, potero, ut et illorum sacramenta percenseam, pro alio ducere uxorem, pro alio fieri sacerdos, pro alio confirmari, pro alio inungi.

2.65 So, then, why didn’t Abraham believe for all the Jews? Why was faith in the promise made to Abraham demanded of every individual Jew? Therefore, let this irrefutable truth stand fast. Where there is a divine promise every one must stand upon his own feet, every one’s personal faith is demanded, every one will give an account for himself and will bear his own burden, as it is said in the last chapter of Mark: “He that believes and is baptised, shall be saved. But he that does not believe, shall be damned.” Even so everyone may derive a blessing from the mass for himself alone and only by his own faith, and no one can commune for any other. Just as the priest cannot administer the sacrament to any one in another’s place, but administers the same sacrament to each individual by himself. For in consecrating and administering, the priests are our ministers, through whom we do not offer a good work or commune (in the active), but receive the promises and the sign and are communed (in the passive). That has remained to this day the custom among the laity, for they are not said to do good, but to receive it. But the priests have departed into godless ways. Out of the sacrament and testament of God, the source of blessings to be received, they have made a good work which they may communicate and offer to others.

 ¹⁹⁴Denique, cur Abraham non pro omnibus Iudaeis credidit? cur exigitur a Iudaeis singulis fides, in eandem promissionem Abrahae creditam? Stet ergo insuperabilis ueritas: ubi promissio diuina est, ibi unusquisque pro se stat, sua fides exigitur, quisque pro se rationem reddet, et suum onus portabit, sicut dicit Marci ult.: Qui crediderit et baptisatus fuerit, saluus erit, qui autem non crediderit, condemnabitur.

 ¹⁹⁵Ita et Missam unusquisque tantum sibi potest utilem facere, fide propria, et pro nullis prorsus communicare. Sicut sacerdos nulli pro alio potest sacramentum ministrare, sed cuilibet seorsum idem sacramentum ministrat.

 ¹⁹⁶Sunt enim sacerdotes consecrando et ministrando ministri nostri, per quos non offerimus bonum opus, aut communicamus actiue, sed per eos promissiones et signum accipimus, et communicamur passiue, id quod in laicis hactenus permansit.  ¹⁹⁷Nam hi non dicuntur bonum facere, sed accipere. Sacerdotes uero abierunt in impietates suas, facto sibi bono opere, quod communicent et offerant ex sacramento et testamento dei, quo bonum acceptum oportuit.

2.66 But you will say: “How is this? Will you not overturn the practice and teaching of all the churches and monasteries, by virtue of which they have flourished these many centuries? For the mass is the foundation of their anniversaries, intercessions, applications, communications, etc. – that is to say, of their fat income.” I answer: This is the very thing that has constrained me to write of the captivity of the Church, for in this manner the adorable testament of God has been subjected to the bondage of a godless traffic, through the opinions and traditions of wicked men, who, passing over the Word of God, have put forth the thoughts of their own hearts and misled the whole world. What do I care for the number and influence of those who are in this error? The truth is mightier than they all. If you are able to refute Christ, according to Whom the mass is a testament and sacrament, then I will admit that they are right. Or if you can bring yourself to say that you are doing a good work, when you receive the benefit of the testament, or when you use this sacrament of promise in order to receive it, then I will gladly condemn my teachings. But since you can do neither, why do you hesitate to turn your back on the multitude who go after evil, and to give God the glory and confess His truth? Which is, indeed, that all priests today are perversely mistaken, who regard the mass as a work whereby they may relieve their own necessities and those of others, dead or alive. I am uttering unheard-of and startling things. But if you will consider the meaning of the mass, you will realize that I have spoken the truth. The fault lies with our false sense of security, in which we have become blind to the wrath of God that is raging against us.

 ¹⁹⁸Sed dicis: Quid? Nunquid subuertes omnium Ecclesiarum et Monasteriorum usum et sensum, quibus per tot saecula inualuerunt, fundatis super Missam anniuersariis, suffragiis, applicationibus, communicationibus etc. hoc est, pinguissimis redditibus? ²⁰⁰Quid mihi de multitudine et magnitudine errantium? Fortior omnium est ueritas. Si potes Christum negare, qui docet, Missam esse testamentum et sacramentum, uolo illos iustificare.

 ²⁰¹Deinde, si potes dicere, eum facere opus bonum, qui recipit beneficium testamenti, aut utitur in hoc ipsum sacramento promissionis, uolo mea libens damnare. cum autem neutrum possis, quid dubitas, contempta turba ad malum eunte, dare gloriam deo, et ueritatem eius confiteri?

 ²⁰²Esse scilicet hodie sacerdotes omnes in sententia peruersa, quicunque Missam pro opere ducunt, quo succurrant suis aut aliorum, siue mortuorum, siue uiuorum, necessitatibus. Inaudita et stupenda dico, Sed Missam si intuearis, quid sit, uera me esse locutum cognosces. Hoc fecit illa nimia securitas, qua iram dei in nos grassantem non intelleximus.

2.67 I am ready, however, to admit that the prayers which we pour out before God when we are gathered together to partake of the mass, are good works or benefits, which we impart, apply and communicate to one another, and which we offer for one another. As James teaches us to pray for one another that we may be saved, and as Paul, in 1 Timothy 2, commands that supplications, prayers and intercessions be made for all men, for kings, and for all that are in high station. These are not the mass, but works of the mass – if the prayers of heart and lips may be called works – for they flow from the faith that is kindled or increased in the sacrament. For the mass, being the promise of God, is not fulfilled by praying, but only by believing. But when we believe, we shall also pray and perform every good work. But what priest offers the sacrifice of the mass in this sense and believes that he is offering up nothing but the prayers? They all imagine themselves to be offering up Christ Himself, as all-sufficient sacrifice, to God the Father, and to be performing a good work for all whom they have the intention to benefit. For they put their trust in the work which the mass accomplishes, and they do not ascribe this work to prayer. Thus, gradually, the error has grown, until they have come to ascribe to the sacrament what belongs to the prayers, and to offer to God what should be received as a benefit.

 ²⁰³Hoc autem facile admitto, Orationes, quas ad missam percipiendam congregati coram deo effundimus, esse bona opera, seu beneficia, quae nobis mutuo impartimus, applicamus et communicamus, et pro inuicem offerimus, Sicut Iacobus nos docet, orare pro inuicem, ut saluemur. ²⁰⁴Et Paulus .i. Timot. ii. praecipit fieri obsecrationes, orationes, postulationes, pro omnibus hominibus, pro regibus et omnibus, qui in sublimitate sunt constituti. Haec enim non sunt missa, sed opera missae, si tamen opera uocari debent, orationes cordis et oris, quia fiunt ex fide in sacramento percepta uel acta.

 ²⁰⁵Non enim Missa uel promissio dei impletur orando, sed solum credendo. Credentes autem oramus et quodlibet opus bonum facimus. Sed quis sacerdotum hoc nomine sacrificat, ut solas orationes arbitretur sese offerre?

 ²⁰⁶Omnes imaginantur sese offerre ipsum Christum deo patri, tanquam hostiam sufficientissimam, et bonum opus facere omnibus, quibus proponunt prodesse, quia confidunt in opere operati, quod orationi non tribuunt. Sic paulatim errore crescente, id quod orationum est, tribuerunt sacramento, Et quod recipere beneficium debent, id obtulerunt deo.

2.68 It is necessary, therefore, to make a sharp distinction between the testament or sacrament itself and the prayers which are there offered. And it is no less necessary to bear in mind that the prayers avail nothing, either for him who offers them or for those for whom they are offered, unless the sacrament be first received in faith, so that it is faith that offers the prayers, for it alone is heard, as James teaches in his first chapter. So great is the difference between prayer and the mass. The prayer may be extended to as many persons as one desires. But the mass is received by none but the person who believes for himself, and only in proportion to his faith. It cannot be given either to God or to men, but God alone gives it, by the ministration of the priest, to such men as receive it by faith alone, without any works or merits. For no one would dare to make the mad assertion that a ragged beggar does a good work when he comes to receive a gift from a rich man. But the mass is, as has been said, the gift and promise of God, offered to all men by the hand of the priest.

 ²⁰⁷Quare acute discernendum est, inter testamentum sacramentumque ipsum, et inter orationes, quas simul oramus, Nec id solum, sed scire quoque oportet, orationes prorsus nihil ualere, nec oranti ipsi, nec iis pro quibus orantur, nisi primum testamentum fide perceptum sit, ut fides oret, quae sola exauditur, sicut Iacobus .i. c. docet. ²⁰⁸ adeo longe aliud est oratio quam Missa. orationem possum extendere in quotquot uoluero, Missam nemo accipit, nisi qui per seipsum credit, et tantum quantum credit, nec potest dari, siue deo siue hominibus, Sed solus deus per ministerium sacerdotis dat eam hominibus, (W523) qui accipiunt eam fide sola, sine ullis operibus aut meritis.

 ²⁰⁹ Neque enim ullus audeat tantum insanire, ut dicat bonum opus facere eum, qui pauper et indigens uenit, accepturus de manu diuitis beneficium. At missa (ut dixi) beneficium est promissionis diuinae, per manum sacerdotum omnibus hominibus exhibitum.

2.69 It is certain, therefore, that the mass is not a work which may be communicated to others, but it is the object, as it is called, of faith, for the strengthening and nourishing of the personal faith of each individual. But there is yet another stumbling-block that must be removed, and this is much greater and the most dangerous of all. It is the common belief that the mass is a sacrifice, which is offered to God. Even the words of the canon tend in this direction, when they speak of “these gifts,” “these offerings,” “this holy sacrifice,” and farther on, of “this offering.” Prayer also is made, in so many words, “that the sacrifice may be accepted even as the sacrifice of Abel,” etc., and hence Christ is termed the “Sacrifice of the altar.” In addition to this there are the sayings of the holy Fathers, the great number of examples, and the constant usage and custom of all the world.

 ²¹⁰ Est ergo certum, Missam non esse opus aliis communicabile, sed obiectum (ut dicitur) fidei, propriae cuiusque alendae et roborandae.

 ²¹¹ Iam et alterum scandalum amouendum est, quod multo grandius est et speciosissimum. Id est, quod Missa creditur passim esse sacrificium, quod offertur deo. In quam opinionem et uerba Canonis sonare uidentur, ubi dicitur: haec dona, haec munera, haec sancta sacrificia, Et infra: hanc oblationem.

 ²¹² Item, clarissime postulatur, ut acceptum sit sacrificium, sicut sacrificium Abel etc. Inde Christus hostia altaris dicitur. Accedunt his dicta sanctorum patrum, tot exempla, tantusque usus per orbem constanter obseruatus.

2.70 We must resolutely oppose all of this, firmly entrenched as it is, with the words and example of Christ. For unless we hold fast to the truth, that the mass is the promise or testament of Christ, as the words clearly say, we shall lose the whole Gospel and all our comfort. Let us permit nothing to prevail against these words, even though an angel from heaven should teach otherwise. For there is nothing said in them of a work or a sacrifice. Moreover, we have also the example of Christ on our side. For at the Last Supper, when He instituted this sacrament and established this testament, Christ did not offer Himself to God the Father, nor did He perform a good work on behalf of others, but He set this testament before each of them that sat at table with Him and offered him the sign. Now, the more closely our mass resembles that first mass of all, which Christ performed at the Last Supper, the more Christian will it be. But Christ’s mass was most simple, without the pageantry of vestments, genuflections, chants and other ceremonies. Indeed, if it were necessary to offer the mass as a sacrifice, then Christ’s institution of it was not complete.

 ²¹³ His omnibus, quia pertinacissime insederunt, oportet constantissime opponere uerba et exemplum Christi. Nisi enim Missam obtinuerimus esse promissionem Christi, seu testamentum, ut uerba clare sonant, totum Euangelium et uniuersum solatium amittimus.

 ²¹⁴ Nihil contra haec uerba permittamus praeualere, etiam si angelus de coelo aliud docuerit, Nihil enim de opere uel sacrificio in illis continetur. Deinde et exemplum Christi pro nobis stat, Non enim Christus in caena nouissima, cum institueret hoc sacramentum et conderet testamentum, ipsum obtulit deo patri, aut ut opus bonum pro aliis perfecit, sed in mensa sedens, singulis idem testamentum proposuit, et signum exhibuit.

 ²¹⁵ Iam Missa, quanto uicinior et similior primae omnium Missae, quam Christus in caena fecit, tanto Christianior. At Missa Christi fuit simplicissima, sine ulla uestium, gestuum, cantuum, aliarumque cerimonarium pompa, ubi si necesse fuisset eam offerri ut sacrifitium, non plene eam instituisset.

2.71 Not that any one should condemn the Church universal for embellishing and amplifying the mass with many additional rites and ceremonies. But this is what we contend for: no one should be deceived by the glamour of the ceremonies and entangled in the multitude of pompous forms, and thus lose the simplicity of the mass itself, and indeed practice a sort of transubstantiation – losing sight of the simple substance of the mass and clinging to the manifold accidents of outward pomp. For whatever has been added to the word and example of Christ, is an accident of the mass, and ought to be regarded just as we regard the so-called monstrances and corporal cloths in which the host itself is contained. Therefore, as distributing a testament, or accepting a promise, differs diametrically from offering a sacrifice, so it is a contradiction in terms to call the mass a sacrifice. The former is something that we receive, while the latter is something that we offer. The same thing cannot be received and offered at the same time, nor can it be both given and taken by the same person. Just as little as our prayer can be the same as that which our prayer obtains, or the act of praying the same as the act of receiving the answer to our prayer.

 ²¹⁶ Non quod calumniari debeat ullus uniuersam Ecclesiam, quae multis alii ritibis et cerimoniis Missam ornauit et ampliauit, sed hoc uolumus, ne quis cerimoniarum specie falsus, ac multitudine pompae impeditus, simplicitatem Missae amittat, et reuera transsubstantiationem quandam colat, si amissa substantia simplici Missae in accidentibus multiplicibus pompae haereat.

 ²¹⁷ Nam, quicquid ultra uerbum et exemplum Christi accessit, accidens Missae est, quorum quodlibet non alio loco ducere debemus, quam quo loco nunc ducimus Monstrantias (quas uocant) et pallia altaris, quibus ipsa hostia continetur.

 ²¹⁸ Quare, sicut repugnat, testamentum distribui, seu promissionem accipere, et sacrificare sacrificium, Ita repugnat Missae esse sacrificium, cum (W524) illam recipiamus, hoc uero demus. idem autem simul recipi et offerri non potest, nec ab eodem simul dari et acceptari. Non magis certe, quam oratio et impetrata res queunt idem esse, nec idem sit orare et orata accipere.

2.72 What shall we say, then, about the canon of the mass and the sayings of the Fathers? First of all, if there were nothing at all to be said against them, it would yet be the safer course to reject them all rather than admit that the mass is a work or a sacrifice, lest we deny the word of Christ and overthrow faith together with the mass. Nevertheless, not to reject altogether the canons and the Fathers, we shall say the following: The Apostle instructs us in 1 Corinthians 11 that it was customary for Christ’s believers, when they came together to mass, to bring with them meat and drink, which they called “collections” and distributed among all who were in need, after the example of the apostles in Acts 4. From this store was taken the portion of bread and wine that was consecrated for use in the sacrament. And since all this store of meat and drink was sanctified by the word and by prayer, being “lifted up” according to the Hebrew rite of which we read in Moses, the words and the rite of this lifting up, or offering, have come down to us, although the custom of collecting that which was offered, or lifted up, has fallen long since into disuse. Thus, in Isaiah 37, Hezekiah commanded Isaiah to lift up his prayer in the sight of God for the remnant. The Psalmist sings: ”Lift up your hands to the holy places” and “To you will I lift up my hands.”And in 1 Timothy 2 we read: “Lifting up pure hands in every place.” For this reason the words “sacrifice” and “offering” must be taken to refer, not to the sacrament and testament, but to these collections, from this also the word “collect” has come down to us, as meaning the prayers said in the mass.

 ²¹⁹ Quid ergo dicemus ad Canonem et autoritates patrum? Primum respondeo: Si nihil habetur, quod dicatur, tutius est, omnia negare, quam Missam concedere opus aut sacrificium esse, ne uerbum Christi negemus, fidem simul cum Missa pessundantes.

 ²²⁰ Tamen, quo seruemus et eos, Dicemus, ex Apostolo .i. Corint. xi. nos doceri, solitos fuisse fideles Christi ad Missam congregatos secum afferre cibum et potum, quas collectas uocabant, quae distribuerentur in omnes egentes, exemplo Apostolorum act. iiii. e quibus sumebatur id, quod consecrabatur panis et uini, pro sacramento.

 ²²¹ Et quia haec omnia sanctificabantur per uerbum in orationem ritu hebraico, quo leuabantur sursum, ut in Mose legimus, relicta sunt uerba et ritus leuandi seu offerendi, abolito iam dudum usu conferendi et colligendi ea quae offerrentur seu leuarentur.

  ²²² Sic Ezechias Esa. xxxvii. Iubet Esaiam leuare orationem in conspectu dei pro reliquiis. Et psal.: Extollite manus uestras in sancta. Item: Ad to leuabo manus meas. i. Timot. ii.: Leuantes puras manus in omni loco. Quare uocabula sacrificii seu oblationis referri debent non ad sacramentum et testamentum, sed ad collectas ipsas. Vnde et reliquum est uocabulum collectae pro precibus in Missa dictis.

2.73 The same thing is indicated when the priest elevates the bread and the chalice immediately after the consecration, whereby he shows that he is not offering anything to God, for he does not say a single word here about a victim or an offering. But this elevation is either a survival of that Hebrew rite of lifting up what was received with thanksgiving and returned to God, or else it is an admonition to us, to provoke us to faith in this testament which the priest has set forth and exhibited in the words of Christ, so that now he shows us also the sign of the testament. Thus the offering of the bread properly accompanies the demonstrative this in the words, “This is my body,” by which sign the priest addresses us gathered about him. In like manner the offering of the chalice accompanies the demonstrative this in the words, “This chalice is the new testament, etc.” For it is faith that the priest ought to awaken in us by this act of elevation. I wish that, as he elevates the sign, or sacrament, openly before our eyes, he might also sound in our ears the words of the testament with a loud, clear voice, and in the language of the people, whatever it may be, in order that faith may be the more effectively awakened. For why may mass be said in Greek and Latin and Hebrew, and not also in German or in any other language?

 ²²³ Idem facit, quod sacerdos mox consecrato pane et calice eleuat eundem, quo non sese offerre aliquid deo ostendit, cum nullo uerbo tum meminerit hostiae seu oblationis.

 ²²⁴ Sed est et idipsum uel reliquum ritus hebraici, quo leuabantur, quae cum gratiarum actionibus accepta deo referebantur, Vel admonitio nostri, quo prouocemur ad fidem testamenti huius, quod tum uerbis Christi protulit et exhibuit, ut simul et signum eiusdem ostendat, et oblatio panis proprie respondeat huic demonstratiuo: Hoc est corpus meum, nosque circumstantes ceu alloquatur hoc ipsi signo, Sic oblatio calicis proprie respondeat huic demonstratiuo: Hic calix noui testamenti etc.  ²²⁵ Fidem enim in nobis sacerdos excitare debet, ipso eleuandi ritu. Atque utinam, ut in oculis nostris manifeste eleuat signum seu sacramentum, ita simul auribus nostris aperta altaqua uoce pronunciaret et uerbum seu testamentum, idqud in qualibet populorum lingua, quo fides exercitaretur efficatius. Cur enim liceat Graece et latine et hebraice Missam perficere, et non etiam Alemanice aut alia quacunque lingua?

2.74 Let the priests, therefore, who in these corrupt and perilous times offer the sacrifice of the mass, take heed, first, that the words of the greater and the lesser canon together with the collects, which smack too strongly of sacrifice, be not referred by them to the sacrament, but to the bread and wine which they consecrate, or to the prayers which they say. For the bread and wine are offered at the first, in order that they may be blessed and thus sanctified by the Word and by prayer. But after they have been blessed and consecrated, they are no longer offered, but received as a gift from God. And let the priest bear in mind that the Gospel is to be set above all canons and collects devised by men. The Gospel does not sanction the calling of the mass a sacrifice, as has been shown.

 ²²⁶ Quocirca, obseruent sese sacerdotes, hoc perdito periculosissimoque saeculo, qui sacrificant: Primum, ut uerba Canonis maioris et minoris cum collectis, quae aperte nimis sacrificium sonant, dirigant non ad sacramentum, sed uel ad ipsum panem et uinum consecrandum, uel ad orationes suas. (W525)

 ²²⁷ Panis enim et uinum antea offeruntur ad benedicendum, ut per uerbum et orationem sanctificentur. Postquam autem benedictus et consecratus est, iam non offertur, sed accipitur dono a deo. Et in hoc negotio cogitet, Euangelium esse praeferendum omnibus Canonibus et collectis, per homines compositis, Euangelium autem non sinit Missam esse sacrificium, ut audisti.

2.75 Further, when a priest celebrates a public mass, he should determine to do nothing else through the mass than to commune himself and others. Yet he may at the same time offer prayers for himself and for others, but he must beware lest he presume to offer the mass. But let him determine to commune himself, if he holds a private mass. The private mass does not differ in the least from the ordinary communion which any layman receives at the hand of the priest, and has no greater effect, apart from the special prayers and the fact that the priest consecrates the elements for himself and administers them to himself. So far as the blessing of the mass and sacrament is concerned, we are all of us on an equal footing, whether we be priests or laymen.

 ²²⁸ Deinde, publice Missam perficiens, praestituat sibi non aliud facere, quam se et alios communicare per Missam, simul tamen orationes suas pro se et aliis offerre, cauens, ne Missam offerre praesumat. 

 ²²⁹ Qui uero priuatim missas parat, praestituat sibi, ut seipsum communicet. Prorsus, nihil differt nec plus facit missa priuata, quam simplex cuiusque laici de manu sacerdotis sumpta communio, exceptis orationibus, et quod sibiipsi consecrat et ministrat. Re ipsa missae et sacramenti omnes sumus aequales, sacerdotes et laici.

2.76 If a priest be requested by others to celebrate so-called “votive” masses, let him beware of accepting a reward for the mass, or of presuming to offer a votive sacrifice. He should be careful to refer all to the prayers which he offers for the dead or the living, saying within himself, “I will go and partake of the sacrament for myself alone, and while partaking I will say a prayer for this one and that.” Thus he will take his reward – to buy him food and clothing – not for the mass, but for the prayers. And let him not be disturbed because all the world holds and practices the contrary. You have the most sure Gospel, and relying on this you may well despise the opinions of men. But if you despise me and insist upon offering the mass and not the prayers alone, know that I have faithfully warned you and will be without blame on the day of judgment. You will have to bear your sin alone. I have said what I was bound to say as brother to brother for his soul’s salvation. Yours will be the gain if you observe it, yours the loss if you neglect it. And if some should even condemn what I have said, I reply in the words of Paul: “ But evil men and seducers shall grow worse and worse: erring and driving into error.”

 ²³⁰ Quod si postulatur ab aliis uotiuas (quas uocant) celebrare, caueat, ne mercedem accipiat pro missa aut praesumat ullam uotiuam sacrificare, sed studeat hoc totum ad orationes referre, quas siue pro defunctis, siue uiuentibus offerat, sic cogitans: 

 ²³¹ 'Ecce ibo et mihi soli sacramentum suscipiam, sed inter suscipiendum pro illo et ollo orabo', sic, ut orationis, non Missae mercedem pro victu et amictu recipiat. Nec moueat, quod totus orbis contrarium et sensum et usum habeat.

 ²³² Euangelium certissimum habes, quo fretus facile contemnes hominum sensus et opiniones. Quod si, me contemnens, pergas Missam offerre, non solas orationes, scito me fuisse monitorem tibi fidelem, et in die iudicii excusatum, tuum portabis ipse peccatum.

 ²³³ Dixi, quae tibi dicere tenebar frater fratri in salutem, tibi proderunt seruata, tibi nocebunt neglecta. Quod si aliqui etiam damnarint haec, illud Pauli respondeo: Mali uero homines et seductores proficient in peius, errantes, et in errorem mittentes.

2.77 From the above every one will readily understand what there is in that often quoted saying of Gregory’s: “A mass celebrated by a wicked priest is not to be considered of less effect than one celebrated by any godly priest. St. Peter’s mass would not have been better than Judas the traitor’s, if they had offered the sacrifice of the mass.” This saying has served many as a cloak to cover their godless doings, and because of it they have invented the distinction between opus operati and opus operantis, so as to be free to lead wicked lives themselves and yet to benefit other men. Gregory speaks truth, but they misunderstand and pervert his words. For it is true beyond a question, that the testament or sacrament is given and received through the ministration of wicked priests no less completely than through the ministration of the most saintly. For who has any doubt that the Gospel is preached by the ungodly? Now the mass is part of the Gospel, no, its sum and substance. For what is the whole Gospel but the good tidings of the forgiveness of sins? But whatever can be said of the forgiveness of sins and the mercy of God, is all briefly comprehended in the word of this testament. So popular sermons ought to be nothing else than expositions of the mass, that is, a setting forth of the divine promise of this testament. Doing this teaches faith and truly edifies the Church. But in our day the expounders of the mass play with the allegories of human rites and make it a joke to people.

 ²³⁴ Ex isto nunc facile illud quiuis intelligit, quod usitatissimum ex Grego. dicitur, Missam mali sacerdotis non minoris ducendam, quam boni cuiuscunque, Nec sancti Petri meliorem fuisse, quam Iudae traditoris, si sacrificassent.

 ²³⁵  Hoc enim operculo suas impietates quidam uelant, et hinc distinctionem operis operati, et operis operantis, inuenerunt, quo secure ipsi male uiuere, et aliis tamen benefacere praesumerent.

 ²³⁶ Verum, Gregorius recte dicit, at illi peruerse eum intelligunt. Verissimum est enim, per impios sacerdotes non minus de testamento et sacramento dari et accipi, quam per quosque sanctissimos.

 ²³⁷ Quis enim dubitat, Euangelium praedicari per impios? At missa est pars Euangelii, immo summa et compendium Euangelii. Quid est enim uniuersum Euangelium, quam bonum nuntium remissionis peccatorum?

 ²³⁸ At quicquid de remissione peccatorum et misericordia dei latissime et copiossisime dici potest, breuiter est in uerbo testamenti comprehensum. (W526) 

 ²³⁹ Vnde et conciones populares aliud esse non deberent, quam expositiones Missae, id est, declarationes promissionis diuinae huius testamenti, hoc enim esset fidem docere, et uere Ecclesiam aedificare. At, qui nunc missam exponunt, in allegoriis humanarum cerimoniarum ludunt et illudunt.

2.78 Therefore, just as a wicked priest may baptise, that is, apply the word of promise and the sign of the water to a candidate for baptism, so he may also set forth the promise of this sacrament and administer it to those who partake, and even himself partake, like Judas the traitor, at the Lord’s Supper. It still remains always the same sacrament and testament, which works in the believer its own work, in the unbeliever a “strange work.” But when it comes to offering a sacrifice the case is quite different. For not the mass but the prayers are offered to God, and therefore it is as plain as day that the offerings of a wicked priest avail nothing, but, as Gregory says again, when an unworthy intercessor is chosen, the heart of the judge is moved to greater displeasure. We must, therefore, not confound these two – the mass and the prayers, the sacrament and the work, the testament and the sacrifice. For the one comes from God to us, through the ministration of the priest, and demands our faith, the other proceeds from our faith to God, through the priest, and demands His answer. The former descends, the latter ascends. Therefore the former does not necessarily require a worthy and godly minister, but the latter does indeed require such a priest, because “God does not hear sinners.” He knows how to send down blessings through evildoers, but He does not accept the work of any evildoer, as He showed in the case of Cain, and as it is said in Proverbs 15, “The victims of the wicked are abominable to the Lord” and in Romans 14, “All that is not of faith is sin.”

 ²⁴⁰ Igitur, sicut impius potest baptisare, id est, uerbum promissionis et signum aquae super baptisandum ferre, ita potest et promissionem huius sacramenti proferre et ministrare uescentibus, et simul ipse uesci, sicut Iudas traditor in coena domini, manet tamen semper idem sacramentum et testamentum, quod in credente operatur suum opus, in incredulo operatur alienum opus.

 ²⁴¹ Verum in offerendo longe aliud agitur. Cum enim non Missa, sed orationes offerantur deo, clarum est, oblationes impii sacerdotis nihil ualere. Sed (ut idem Grego. ait) cum is, qui indignus est, ad deprecandum mittitur, animus iudicis ad deterius prouocatur.

 ²⁴² Non ergo sunt confundenda illa duo, Missa et oratio, sacramentum et opus, testamentum et sacrificium, quia alterum uenit a deo ad nos per ministerium sacerdotis, et exigit fidem, Alterum procedit a fide nostra ad deum per sacerdotem, et exigit exauditionem.

 ²⁴³ Illud descendit, hoc ascendit. ideo, illud non requirit necessario dignum et pium ministrum, hoc uero requirit, quia deus peccatores non exaudit, qui nouit per malos benefacere, sed nullius mali acceptat opus, sicut monstrauit in Cayn, et Prouer. xv. dicitur: Victimae impiorum abominabiles domino. Roma. xiiii. Omne, quod non est ex fide, peccatum est.

2.79 But in order to make an end of this first part, we must take up one remaining point against which an opponent might arise. From all that has been said we conclude that the mass was provided only for such as have a sad, afflicted, disturbed, perplexed and erring conscience, and that they alone commune worthily. For, since the word of divine promise in this sacrament sets forth the remission of sins, that man may fearlessly draw near, whoever he be, whose sins distress him, either with remorse for past or with temptation to future wrongdoing. For this testament of Christ is the one remedy against sins, past, present and future, if you but cling to it with unwavering faith and believe that what the words of the testament declare is freely granted to you. But if you do not believe this, you will never, nowhere, and by no works or efforts of your own, find peace of conscience. For faith alone sets the conscience at peace, and unbelief alone keeps the conscience troubled.

 ²⁴⁴ Vt autem finem huius primae partis faciamus, reliqua producturi, ubi impugnator insurrexerit, Concludimus ex omnibus his, quibus nam Missa sit parata, et qui digne communicent. Nempe, soli ii, qui tristes, afflictas, perturbatas, confusas et erroneas habent conscientias.

 ²⁴⁵ Nam, uerbum diuinae promissionis huius sacramenti cum exhibeat peccatorum remissionem, secure accedit, quicunque peccatorum suorum uexatur siue morsu, siue titillatione. 

 ²⁴⁶ Est enim testamentum hoc Christi medicina unica praeteritorum, praesentium, et futurorum peccatorum. modo indubitata fide ei adhaeseris, et credideris tibi gratuito dare id, quod uerba testamenti sonant. Quod si non credideris, nusquam, nunquam, nullis operibus, nullis studiis, conscientiam poteris pacare. Fides enim sola est pax conscientiae, infidelitas autem sola turbatio conscientiae.

3. THE SACRAMENT of BAPTISM

^1(W526) DE SACRAMENTO BAPTISMI.

3.1 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Who according to the riches of His mercy has preserved in His Church this sacrament at least, untouched and untainted by the ordinances of men, and has made it free to all nations and every estate of mankind, nor suffered it to be oppressed by the filthy and godless monsters of greed and superstition. For He desired that by it little children, incapable of greed and superstition, might be initiated and sanctified in the simple faith of His Word. Even today baptism’s chief blessing is for them. But if this sacrament were to be given to adults and older people, I think it could not possibly have retained its power and its glory against the tyranny of greed and superstition which has everywhere laid waste to divine things. Doubtless the wisdom of the flesh would here too have devised its preparations and worthinesses, its reservations, restrictions, and I know not what other snares for taking money, until water fetched as high a price as parchment does now.

²Benedictus deus et pater domini nostri Iesu Christi, qui secundum diuitias misericordiae suae saltem hoc unicum sacramentum seruauit in Ecclesia sua, illibatum et incontaminatum a constitutionibus hominum, liberumque fecit omnibus gentibus, omniumque hominum ordinibus. ³nec passus est, et ipsum teterrimis quaestus et impiissimus superstitionum portentis opprimi, eo scilicet consilio usus, quod paruulos, qui auaritiae et superstitionis (W527) capaces non sunt, eo uoluit initiari, et simplicissima fide uerbi sui sanctificari, quibus et potissimum hodie prodest baptismus. ⁴Nam, si adultis et maioribus donandum esset hoc sacramentum, non uidetur potuisse et eius perseuerari uirtus et gloria, prae tyrannide Auaritiae et superstitionis, quo omnia diuina nobis supplantauit. ⁵Inuenisset sine dubio et hic prudentia carnis suas praeparationes et dignitates, deinde reseruationes, restrictiones, et si qua sunt similia rhetia pecuniarum, quibus aqua non uilior, quam nunc membranae, uenderetur.

3.2  But Satan, though he could not quench the power of baptism in little children, nevertheless succeeded in quenching it in all adults, so that scarcely anyone calls to mind their baptism and still fewer glory in it. So many other ways have they discovered of ridding themselves of their sins and of reaching heaven. The source of these false opinions is that dangerous saying of St. Jerome’s – either unhappily phrased or wrongly interpreted – which he terms penance “the second plank” after the shipwreck, as if baptism were not penance. Accordingly, when men fall into sin, they despair of “the first plank,” which is the ship, as though it had gone under, and fasten all their faith on the second plank, that is, penance. This has produced those endless burdens of vows, religious works, satisfactions, pilgrimages, indulgences, and sects, from this has arisen that flood of books, questions, opinions and human traditions, which the world cannot contain. So that this tyranny plays worse havoc with the Church of God than any tyrant ever did with the Jewish people or with any other nation under heaven.

⁶Verum, ubi uirtutem Baptismi in paruulis non potuit Satan extinguere, praeualuit tamen, ut in omnibus adultis extingueret, ut tam fere nemo sit, qui sese baptisatum recordetur, nedum glorietur, tot repertis aliis uiis remittendorum peccatorum, et in coelum ueniendi.

⁷prebuit his opinionibus occasionem uerbum illud periculosum diui Hieronymi, siue male positum, siue male intellectum, quo poenitentiam appellat secundam post naufragium tabulam, quasi baptismam non sit poenitentia.

⁸Hinc enim, ubi in peccatum lapsi fuerint, de prima tabula seu naue desperantes uelut amissa, secundae tantum incipiunt niti et fidere tabulae, id est, poenitentiae.

⁹Hinc nata sunt uotorum, religionum, operum, satisfactionum, peregrinationum, indulgentiarum, sectarum infinita illa onera, et de iis, maria illa librorum, quaestionum, opinionum, traditionum humanarum, quas totus mundus iam non capit, ut incomparabiliter peius habet Ecclesiam dei ea tyrannis, quam unquam habuit synagogam aut ullam nationem sub coelo.

3.3 It was the duty of the pontiffs to abate this evil, and with all diligence to lead Christians to the true understanding of baptism, so that they might know what manner of men they are and how Christians ought to live. But instead of this, their work is now to lead the people as far astray as possible from their baptism, to immerse all men in the flood of their oppression, and to cause the people of Christ, as the prophet says, to forget Him days without number. ( Jeremiah 2:32) How unfortunate are all who bear the name of pope today! Not only do they not know or do what popes should do, but they are ignorant of what they ought to know and do. They fulfill the saying in Isaiah 56: “His watchmen are all blind, they are all ignorant. The shepherds themselves knew no understanding. All have declined into their own way, every one after his owngain.”

¹⁰At pontificum erat, haec omnia tollere, et Christianos omni cura ad synceritatem baptismi reuocare, quo intelligerent, quid essent, et quid facere Christianos oporteat. Verum unum est hodie eorum offitium, populos quam longissime abducere a baptismo, et diluuio tyrannidis suae omnes immergere, et facere, ut populus Christi (sicut Propheta ait) obliuiscatur eius imperpetuum.

¹¹O infoelices omnes, qui hodie pontificum nomine censentur, qui non modo nihil sciunt nec faciunt, quod Pontifices decet, sed ignorant quoque, quid scire et facere eos oporteat. Et implent illud Esaie. lvi. Speculatores eius caeci omnes, nescierunt uniuersi, ipsi pastores ignorauerunt intelligentiam, omnes decliauerunt in uiam suam, unusquisqus ad auaritiam suam etc.

3.4 Now, the first thing in baptism to be considered is the divine promise, which says: “He that believes and is baptised shall be saved.” This promise must be set far above all the glitter of works, vows, religious orders, and whatever man has added to it. For on it all our salvation depends. We must consider this promise, exercise our faith in it and never doubt that we are saved when we are baptised. For unless this faith be present or be conferred in baptism, we gain nothing from baptism. No, it becomes a hindrance to us, not only in the moment of its reception, but all the days of our life. For such lack of faith calls God’s promise a lie, and this is the blackest of all sins. When we try to exercise this faith, we shall at once perceive how difficult it is to believe this promise of God. For our human weakness, conscious of its sins, finds nothing more difficult to believe than that it is saved or will be saved. Yet unless it does believe this, it cannot be saved, because it does not believe the truth of God that promises salvation.

¹²Primum itaque in Baptismo obseruanda est diuina promissio, quae dicit: Qui crediderit et baptisatus fuerit, saluus erit, Quae promissio praeferenda est incomparabiliter uniuersis pompis operum, uotorum, religionum, et quicquid humanitus est introductum, Nam in hac pendet uniuersa salus nostra, sic autem est obseruanda, ut fidem exerceamus in ea, prorsus non dubitantes, nos esse saluos, postquam sumus baptisati.

¹³Nam, nisi haec assit aut paretur fides, nihil prodest baptismus, immo obest, non solum tum, cum (W528) suscipitur, sed toto post tempore uitae. incredulitas enim eiusmodi mendacem arguit promissionem diuinam, quod est summum omnium peccatorum.

¹⁴Hoc exercitium fidei si apprehenderimus, statim intelligemus, quam arduum sit credere promissioni huic diuinae. Humanae enim imbecillitas, peccatorum suorum sibi conscia, difficillime omnium credit se esse saluam aut saluandam, et tamen, nisi id credat, saluari non poterit, quia non credit ueritati diuinae promittenti salutem.

3.5 This message should have been persistently impressed upon the people and this promise diligently repeated to them. Their baptism should have been called again and again to their mind, and faith constantly awakened and nourished. Just as the truth of this divine promise, once pronounced over us, continues to death, so our faith in the same ought never to cease, but to be nourished and strengthened until death, by the continual remembrance of this promise made to us in baptism. Therefore, when we rise from sins, or repent, we are only returning to the power and the faith of baptism from this we fell, and find our way back to the promise then made to us, from which we departed when we sinned. For the truth of the promise once made remains steadfast, ever ready to receive us back with open arms when we return. This, if I am not mistaken, is the real meaning of the obscure saying, that baptism is the beginning and foundation of all the sacraments, without which none of the others may be received.

¹⁵Haec erat praedicatio sedulo inculcanda populo, assidue recantanda ista promissio, semper repetendus baptismus, iugiter excitanda, fouendaque fides. Sicut enim, semel super nos lata diuina haec promissione, usque ad mortem ueritas eius perseuerat, ita fides in eandem nunquam debet intermitti, sed usque ad mortem ali et roborari perpetua memoria promissionis eiusdem in baptismo nobis factae.

¹⁶Quare, dum a peccatis resurgimus siue poenitemus, non faciamus aliud, quam quod ad baptismi uirtutem et fidem, unde cecideramus, reuertimur, et ad promissionem tunc factam redimus, quam per peccatum deserueramus.

¹⁷Semper enim manet ueritas promissionis semel factae, nos extenta manu susceptura reuersos. Atque id, ni fallor, uolunt, qui obscure dicunt, Baptismum esse primum et fundamentum omnium sacramentorum, sine quo nullum queat aliorum obtineri.

3.6 Therefore a penitent will gain much by laying hold of the memory of his baptism above all else, confidently calling to mind the promise of God, which he has forsaken. He should plead it with His Lord, rejoicing that he is baptised and therefore is yet within the fortress of salvation. He should detest his wicked ingratitude in falling away from its faith and truth. His soul will find wondrous comfort, and will be encouraged to hope for mercy, when he considers that the divine promise which God made to him and which cannot possibly lie, still stands unbroken and unchanged, yes, unchangeable by any sins, as Paul says in 2 Timothy 2. “If we do not believe, He continues to be faithful, He cannot deny Himself.” Yes, this truth of God will sustain him, so that if all else should sink in ruins, this truth, if he believes it, will not fail him. For in it he has a shield against all assaults of the enemy, an answer to the sins that disturb his conscience, an antidote for the dread of death and judgment, and a comfort in every temptation – namely, this one truth – he can say, “ God is faithful that promised, Whose sign I have received in my baptism. If God be for me, who is against me?”

¹⁸Proinde non parum profuerit, si poenitens primo omnium baptismi sui memoriam apprehendat, et promissionis diuinae, quam deseruit, cum fidutia recordatus, eandem confiteatur domino, gaudens se tantum adhuc in praesidio habere salutis, quod baptisatus sit, detestansque suam impiam ingratitudinem, quod a fide et ueritate eiusdem defecerit.

¹⁹ Mire enim cor eius confortabitur, et ad spem misericordiae animabitur, si consyderet, diuinam promissionem sibi factum, quam impossibile est mentiri, adhuc integram et non mutatam, nec mutabilem ullis peccatis esse, sicut Paulus dicit .ii. Timot. ii.: si non credimus, ille fidelis permanet, seipsum negare non potest. 

²⁰Haec, inquam, ueritas dei eum seruabit, ita ut, si caetera omnia ruant, haec tamen eum credita non derelinquet. Habet enim per hanc, quod insultanti aduersario opponat, habet, quod turbantibus peccatis conscientuam obiiciat, habet, quod horrori mortis et iudicii respondeat.

²¹Habet denique, quod uniuersis tentationibus solatium sit. Nempe, hanc unam ueritatem, dicens: Deus est uerax in promissionibus suis, cuius signum in baptismo suscepi, Si deus pro me, quis contra me?

3.7 The children of Israel, whenever they repented of their sins, turned their thoughts first of all to the exodus from Egypt, and, remembering this, returned to God Who had brought them out. This memory and this refuge were many times impressed upon them by Moses, and afterward repeated by David. How much rather ought we to call to mind our exodus from Egypt, and, remembering, turn back again to Him Who led us forth through the washing of regeneration, which we are bidden remember for this very purpose. And this we can do most fittingly in the sacrament of bread and wine. Indeed, in ancient times these three sacraments –penance, baptism and the bread – were all celebrated at the same service, and one supplemented and assisted the other. We read also of a certain holy virgin who in every time of temptation made baptism her sole defense, saying simply, “I am a Christian.” Immediately the adversary fled from her, for he knew the power of her baptism and of her faith which clung to the truth of God’s promise.

²²Si enim filii Israel, ad poenitentiam reuersuri, primo omnium exitum de Aegypto memorabant, et hac memoria ad deum, qui eduxerat eos, reuertebantur, quae memoria et hoc ipsum praesidium eis toties a Mose inculcatur, (W529) et a Dauid repetitur, quanto magis nos nostrum de Aegypto nostra exitum debemus memorare, et eius memoria redire ad eum, qui nos eduxit, per lauacrum regenerationis nouae, cuius memoria in hoc ipsum nobis commendata est?

²³Id quod omnium comodissime fieri in sacramento panis et uini potest. Sic enim olim tria ista sacramenta, poenitentia, baptismus, panis, simul eodem offitio frequentabantur, et alterum alterum iuuabat.

²⁴Ita legitur de quadam sancta uirgine, quae, quoties tentabatur, non nisi Baptismo suo repugnabat, dicens breuissime: Christiana sum, Intellexit enim hostis statim uirtutem baptismi et fidei, quae in ueritate dei promittentis pendebat, et fugit ab ea.

3.8 See, how rich therefore is a Christian, the one who is baptised! Even if he wants to, he cannot lose his salvation, however much he sin, unless he will not believe. For no sin can condemn him save unbelief alone. All other sins – so long as the faith in God’s promise made in baptism returns or remains –all other sins, I say, are immediately blotted out through that same faith, or rather through the truth of God, because He cannot deny Himself. If only you confess Him and cling believing to Him that promises. But as for contrition, confession of sins, and satisfaction – along with all those carefully thought out exercises of men – if you turn your attention to them and neglect this truth of God, they will suddenly fail you and leave you more wretched than before. For whatever is done without faith in the truth of God, is vanity of vanities and vexation of spirit.

²⁵Ita uides, quam diues sit homo Christianus siue baptisatus, qui etiam uolens non potest perdere salutem suam quantiscunque peccatis, nisi nolit credere. 

²⁶ Nulla enim peccata eum possunt damnare, nisi sola incredulitas. caetera omnia, si redeat uel stet fides in promissionem diuinam baptisato factam, in momento absorbentur, per eandem fidem, immo ueritatem dei, quia seipsum negare non potest, si tu eum confessus fueris, et promittenti fideliter adhaeseris. (se celle 19)

²⁷Contritio autem et peccatorum confessio, deinde et satisfactio, et omnia illa hominum excogitata studia, subito te deserent, et infoeliciorem reddent, si oblitus ueritatis huius diuinae, in ipsis tete destenderis. Vanitas enim uanitatum et afflictio spiritus est, quicquid extra fidem ueritatis dei laboratur.

3.9 Again, how perilous, no, how false it is to suppose that penance is the second plank after the shipwreck! How harmful an error it is to believe that the power of baptism is broken, and the ship has foundered, because we have sinned! No! That one, solid and unsinkable ship remains, and is never broken up into floating timbers. It carries all those who are brought to the harbor of salvation. It is the truth of God giving us its promise in the sacraments. Many, indeed, rashly leap overboard and perish in the waves. These are they who depart from faith in the promise and plunge into sin. But the ship herself remains intact and holds her steady course. If one be able somehow to return to the ship, it is not on any plank but in the good ship herself that he is carried to life. Such a one is he who through faith returns to the sure promise of God that lasts forever. Therefore Peter, in 1 Peter 1, rebukes those who sin, because they have forgotten that they were purged from their old sins, in which words he doubtless chides their ingratitude for the baptism they had received and their wicked unbelief.

²⁸Simul uides, quam periculosum immo falsum sit, opinari, poenitentiam esse secundam tabulam post naufragium, et quam perniciosus sit error, putare, per peccatum excidisse uim baptismi, et nauem hanc esse illisam.

²⁹Manet illa una, solida, in inuicta nauis, nec unquam dissoluitur in ullas tabulas, in qua omnes uehuntur, qui ad portum salutis uehuntur, quae est ueritas dei in sacramentis promittens.

³⁰ Hoc sane fit, ut multi e naue temere in mare prosiliant et pereant; hi sunt, qui deserta promissionis fide, in peccatum sese praecipitant.

³¹ Verum, nauis ipsa permanet et transit integra cursu suo, quod si qua gratia ad nauem reuerti potest, nulla tabula, sed solida ipsa naue feretur ad uitam; hic est, qui ad promissionem dei stabilem et manentem per fidem reuertitur.

³² Vnde Petrus .i. Pet. i. arguit eos qui peccant, quod obliuionem accipiant purgationis ueterum delictorum suorum, sine dubio ingratitudinem accepti baptismi, et impietatem infidelitatis eorum taxans.

3.10 What is the good, then, of writing much on baptism and yet not teaching this faith in the promise? All the sacraments were instituted for the purpose of nourishing faith, but these godless men so completely pass over this faith that they even assert a man dare not be certain of the forgiveness of sins, that is, of the grace of the sacraments. With such wicked teachings they delude the world, and not only take captive but altogether destroy the sacrament of baptism, in which the chief glory of our conscience consists. Meanwhile they madly rage against the miserable souls of men with their contritions, anxious confessions, circumstances, satisfactions, works and endless other absurdities. Read, therefore, with great caution the Master of the Sentences in his fourth book, or, better yet, despise him together with all his commentators, who at their best write only of the material and form of the sacraments, that is, they discuss the dead and death-dealing letter of the sacraments, but pass over in utter silence the spirit, life and use, that is, the truth of the divine promise and our faith.

³³ Quid ergo prodest, de baptismo tam multa scribere, et hanc fidem promissionis non docere? omnia sacramenta ad fidem alendam sunt instituta, et hanc ipsam adeo non tangunt, ut etiam asserant, impii homines, non debere (W530) hominem esse certum de remissione peccatorum, seu gratia sacramentorum, qua impietate orbem totum dementant, et sacramentum baptismi, in quo stat prima gloria conscientiae nostrae, funditus extinguunt nedum captiuant, interim insanientes in miseras animas suis contritionibus, anxiis confessionibus, circunstantiis, satisfactionibus, operibus, et id genus infinitiis nugis.

³⁴ Esto ergo prudens lector, immo contemptor Magistri sententiarum libro quarto, cum omnibus suis scribentibus, qui tantum de materia et forma sacramentorum scribunt, dum optime scribunt, id est, mortuam et occidentem literam sacramentorum tractant. Caeterum, spiritum, uitam et usum, id est, promissionis diuinae ueritatem et nostram fidem, prorsus intactas relinquunt.

3.11 So be careful, that the external pomp of works and the deceits of human traditions mislead you, so that you may not wrong the divine truth and your faith. If you would be saved, you must begin with the faith of the sacraments, without any works whatever. But on faith the works will follow. Only do not think lightly of faith, which is a work, and of all works the most excellent and the most difficult to do. Through it alone you will be saved, even if you should be compelled to do without any other works. For it is a work of God, not of man, as Paul teaches. The other works He works through us and with our help, but this one He works in us and without our help.

³⁵ Vide itaque, ne te fallant operum pompae, et humanarum traditionum fallatiae, ut ueritati diuinae et fidei tuae non facias iniuriam. A fide sacramentorum tibi incipiendum est, sine ullis operibus, si saluus fieri uoles, fidem autem ipsa sequentur opera, tantum ne uilem habeas fidem, quae opus est omnium operum excellentissimum et arduissimum, quo solo, etiam si caeteris omnibus carere cogereris, seruaberis.

³⁶ Est enim opus dei, non hominis, sicut Paulus docet. Caetera nobiscum et per nos operatur, hoc unicum in nobis, et sine nobis operatur.

3.12 From this we can clearly see the difference, in baptism, between man the minister and God the Doer. For man baptises and does not baptise. He baptises, for he performs the work, immersing the person to be baptised. He does not baptise, for in that act he officiates not by his own authority, but as God’s representative. Hence, we ought to receive baptism at the hands of a man just as if Christ Himself, no, God Himself, were baptising us with His own hands. For it is not man’s baptism, but Christ’s and God’s baptism, which we receive by the hand of a man, just as every other created thing that we make use of by the hand of another, is God’s alone. Therefore beware of dividing baptism in such a way as to ascribe the outward part to man and the inward part to God. Ascribe both to God alone, and look upon the person administering it as the instrument in God’s hands, by which the Lord sitting in heaven thrusts you under the water with His own hands, and speaking by the mouth of His minister promises you, on earth with a human voice, the forgiveness of your sins.

³⁷ Ex his perspicue discernere possumus, quid inter ministrum hominem, et autorem deum intersit, in baptisando. Homo enim baptisat et non baptisat, Baptisat, quia perficit opus, dum mergit baptisandum; Non baptisat, quia non fungitur in eo opere sua autoritate, sed uice dei.

³⁸ Vnde oportet nos baptismum de manu hominis non aliter suscipere, quam si ipse Christus, immo ipse deus, nos suis propriis manibus baptisaret. Non enim hominis est, sed Christi et dei baptismus, quem recipimus, per manum hominis.

³⁹ Sicut quelibet alia creatura, qua utimur per manum alterius, non est nisi dei. Caue ergo sic discernas baptismum, ut externum homini, internum deo tribuas, utrunque soli deo tribue, nec conferentis personam aliam, quam instrumentum uicarium dei accipe, per quod dominus in coelo sedens, te in aquam suis manibus propriis mergit. et remissionem peccatorum promittit in terris, uoce hominis tibi loquens per os ministri sui.

3.13 This the words themselves indicate, when the priest says: “I baptise you in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen,” and not: “I baptise you in my own name.” It is as though he said: “What I do, I do not by my own authority, but in the name and as God’s representative, so that you should regard it just as if our Lord Himself had done it in a visible manner. The Doer and the minister are different persons, but the work of both is the same work, or, rather, it is the work of the Doer alone, through my ministry.” For I hold that “in the name of” refers to the person of the Doer, so that the name of the Lord is not only to be uttered and invoked while the work is being done, but the work itself is to be done not as one’s own work, but in the name and as another’s representative. In this sense, in Matthew 24, Christ says, “Many shall come in my name,” and in Romans 1 it is said, “By whom we have received grace and apostleship for obedience to the faith, in all nations, for His name.”

⁴⁰ Hoc est uerba tibi dicunt, cum dicit: Ego baptiso te in nomine patris et filii et spiritus sancti Amen. Non dicit: Ego baptiso te in nomine meo, quasi dicat: id quod facio, non mea autoritate, sed uice et nomine dei facio, ut non aliter habeas, quam si ipse dominus uisibiliter fecisset.

⁴¹ autor et minister diuersi sunt, sed opus idem utriusque, immo solius autoris, per (W531) ministerium meum. Sic enim ego arbitror, 'In nomine' referre personam autoris, ut non tantum sit, nomen domini praetendere et inuocare in opere, sed ipsum opus tanquam alienum alterius nomine et uice implere. ⁴² Quo tropo Matt. xxiiii. Christus dicit: Multi uenient in nomine meo, Et Ro. i.: per quem accepimus gratiam et Apostolatum ad obediendum fidei in omnibus gentibus pro nomine eius.

3.14 This view I freely endorse. It is very comforting and greatly aids faith to know that one has been baptised not by man, but by the Triune God Himself through a man acting among us in His name. This will dispose of that fruitless quarrel about the “form” of baptism, as these words are called. The Greeks say: “May the servant of Christ be baptised,” while the Latins say: “I baptise.” Others again, pedantic triflers, condemn the use of the words, “I baptise you in the name of Jesus Christ” – although it is certain that the Apostles used this formula in baptising, as we read in the Acts of the Apostles – they would allow no other form to be valid than this: “ I baptise you in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” But their contention is in vain, for they bring no proof, but merely assert their own dreams. Baptism truly saves in whatever way it is administered, as long as it is not administered in the name of man but in the name of God. No, I have no doubt that if one received baptism in the name of the Lord, even though the wicked minister should not give it in the name of the Lord, he would yet be truly baptised in the name of the Lord. For the effect of baptism depends not so much on the faith or practice of him that confers it as on the faith or practice of the one who receives it – of which we have an illustration in the case of the play-actor who was baptised as a joke. Such anxious disputings and questionings are aroused in us by those who ascribe nothing to faith and everything to works and forms, while we owe everything to faith alone and nothing to forms, and faith makes us free in spirit from all those scruples and fancies.

⁴⁴ Quo cessat illa ociosa contentio, qua de forma baptismi (quam appellant ipsa uerba) litigant, Graecis dicentibus: Baptisetur seruus Christi, Latinis: Ego baptiso. 

⁴⁵ Item, alii rigidissime nugantes, damnant sic dici: Ego baptiso te in nomine Iesu Christi, quo ritu certum est Apostolos baptisasse, ut in actis apostolicis legimus, uoluntque nullam aliam deinceps ualere quam istam: Ego baptiso te in nomine patris et filii et spiritus sancti Amen.

⁴⁶ Sed frustra contendunt, nihil enim probant, sua somnia duntaxat asserunt. Quocunque modo tradatur baptismus, modo non in nomine hominis, sed in nomine domini tradatur, uere saluum facit, immo non dubitem, si quis in nomine domini suscipiat, etiam si impius minister non det in nomine domini, uere baptisatum esse in nomini domini.

⁴⁷ Non enim in conferentis tantum, quantum in suscipientis fide uel usu, sita est uirtus baptismi. Sicut legitur exemplum de quodam Mimo, per iocum baptisato.

⁴⁸ Istas et similes disputationum et quaestionum angustias fecerunt nobis ii, qui fidei nihil, operibus autem ritibusque omnia tribuerunt, cum soli fidei omnia et nihil ritibus debeamus, quae nos facit liberos spiritu, ab omnibus istis scrupulis et opinionibus.

3.15 The second part of baptism is the sign, or sacrament, which is that immersion into water from this also it derives its name. For the Greek baptize means ”I immerse,” and baptisma means “immersion.” For, as has been said, signs are added to the divine promises to represent that which the words signify, or, as they now say, that which the sacrament “effectively signifies.” We shall see how much of truth there is in this.

⁴⁹ Alterum, quod ad baptismum pertinet, est signum seu sacramentum, quod est ipsa mersio in aquam, unde et nomen habet. Nam baptiso graece, mergo latine, et baptisma mersio est.

⁵⁰  Dictum est enim, iuxta promissiones diuinas dari et signa, quae id figurent, quod uerba significant, seu, ut recentiores dicunt, sacramentum efficaciter significat, quod quale sit uidebimus.

3.16 The great majority have supposed that there is some hidden spiritual power in the word or in the water, which works the grace of God in the soul of the recipient. Others deny this and hold that there is no power in the sacraments, but that grace is given by God alone, Who according to His covenant aids the sacraments He has instituted. Yet all are agreed that the sacraments are effective signs of grace, and they reach this conclusion by this one argument: If the sacraments of the New Law merely “signified,” it would not be apparent in what respect they surpassed the sacraments of the Old Law. Hence they have been driven to attribute such great power to the sacraments of the New Law that in their opinion they benefit even such men as are in mortal sins, and that they do not require faith or grace. It is sufficient not to oppose a “bar,” that is, an actual intention to sin again.

⁵¹Arbitrari sunt quam plurimi, esse aliquam uirtutem occultam spiritualem, in uerbo et aqua, quae operetur in anima recipientis gratiam dei. His alii contradicentes statuunt, nihil esse uirtutis in sacramentis, sed gratiam a solo deo dari, qui assistit ex pacto sacramentis a se institutis.

⁵²Omnes tamen in hoc concedunt, sacramenta esse efficatia signa gratiae, ad quod hoc unico mouentur argumento, Non uideri alioqui, qua ratione nouae legis sacramenta praestarent uetustis, si solum significarent. ⁵³Et hinc impulsi sunt tantum tribuere sacramentis nouae legis, ut prodesse ea statuerent etiam iis, qui in (W532) peccatis mortalibus sunt, nec requiri fidem aut gratiam, sed sufficere, non posuisse obicem, hoc est, actuale propositum denuo peccandi.

3.17 But these views must be carefully avoided and shunned, because they are godless and faithless, being contrary to faith and to the nature of the sacraments. For it is an error to hold that the sacraments of the New Law differ from those of the Old Law in the effectiveness of their “signifying.” The “signifying” of both is equally effective. The same God Who now saves me by baptism saved Abel by his sacrifice, Noah by the rainbow, Abraham by circumcision, and all the others by their respective signs. So far as the “signifying” is concerned, there is no difference between a sacrament of the Old Law and one of the New – provided that by the Old Law you mean that which God did among the patriarchs and other fathers in the days of the law. But those signs which were given to the patriarchs and fathers must be sharply distinguished from the legal types which Moses instituted in his law, such as the priestly rites concerning robes, vessels, meats, dwellings, and the like. Between these and the sacraments of the New Law there is a vast difference, but no less between them and those signs that God from time to time gave to the fathers living under the law, such as the sign of Gideon’s fleece, Manoah’s sacrifice, or the sign which Isaiah offered to Ahaz, in Isaiah 7. for to these signs God attached a certain promise which required faith in Him.

⁵⁴Haec autem, quia sunt impia et infidelia, contra fidem et naturam sacramentorum pugnantia, diligenter sunt cauenda et fugienda. Error enim est, sacramenta nouae legis differri a sacramentis ueteris legis, penes efficatiam significationis, utraque aequaliter significabant.

⁵⁵ Idem enim deus, qui nos nunc per baptismum et panem saluat, sauauit Abel per sacrifitium, Noe per arcum, Abraham per circumcisionem, et alios omnes per sua signa. Nihil itaque differt sacramentum ueteris et nouae legis, quo ad significationem, modo ueterem legem appelles, quicquid in patriarchis et aliis patribus tempore legis operatus est deus.

⁵⁶ Nam ea signa, quae in patriarchis et patribus facta sunt, longe sunt discernenda a figuris legalibus, quas Moses in lege sua instituit, quales sunt ritus sacerdotales, in uestibus, uasis, cibis, domibus et similibus, ab his enim non modo longissime differunt nouae legis sacramenta, sed et ipsa signa, quae pro tempore deus patribus dedit in lege uiuentibus, quale fuit Gedeonis in uellere, Manue in sacrifitio, quale et Isaias obtulit Achas, Isa. vii. in iis enim simul promittebatur aliquid, quo fides in deum exigebatur.

3.18 This, then, is the difference between the legal types and the new and old signs is that the types do not have attached to them any word of promise requiring faith. Hence they are not signs of justification, for they are not sacraments of the faith that alone justifies, but only sacraments of works. Their whole power and nature consisted in works, not in faith, and he that observed them fulfilled them, even if he did it without faith. But our signs, or sacraments, as well as those of the fathers, have attached to them a word of promise, which requires faith, and they cannot be fulfilled by any other work. Hence they are signs or sacraments of justification, for they are the sacraments of justifying faith and not of works. Their whole efficacy, therefore, consists in faith itself, not in the doing of a work. For whoever believes them fulfils them, even if he should not do a single work. From this has arisen the saying, “Not the sacrament but the faith of the sacrament justifies.” Thus circumcision did not justify Abraham and his seed, and yet the Apostle calls it the seal of the righteousness of faith, because faith in the promise, to which circumcision was added, justified him and fulfilled that which circumcision signified. For faith was the spiritual circumcision of the foreskin of the heart, which was symbolised by the literal circumcision of the flesh. And in the same manner it was obviously not Abel’s sacrifice that justified him, but it was his faith, by which he offered himself wholly to God and which was symbolised by the outward sacrifice.

⁵⁷ In hoc ergo differunt legales figurae a signis nouis et uetustis, quod legales figurae non habent annexum uerbum promissionis, quod fidem exigat, unde non sunt signa iustificationis, quia non sunt sacramenta fidei, quae sola iustificant, sed sunt sacramenta operis tantum. ⁵⁸ Tota enim eorum uis et natura erat opus, non fides. Qui enim ea faciebat, implebat ea, etiam sine fide operans. At nostra et patrum signa seu sacramenta habent annexum uerbum promissionis, quid fidem exigit, et nullo opere alio impleri potest, ideo sunt signa seu sacramenta iustificationis, quia sunt sacramenta iustificantis fidei et non operis, unde et tota eorum efficatia est ipsa fides, non operatio.

⁵⁹ Qui enim eis credit, is implet ea, etiam si nihil operetur. Inde prouerbium illud: Non sacramentum, sed fides sacramenti iustificat.

⁶⁰ Sic circuncisio non iustificauit Abraham et semen eius, et tamen Apostolus eam appellat signaculum iustitiae fidei, Quia fides in promissionem, cui iuncta fuit circuncisio, iustificabat et implebat id, quod circuncisio significabat. 

⁶¹ Fides enim fuit circuncisio prepucii cordis in spiritu, quam figurabat circuncisio carnis in litera. Sic sacrificium Abel plane non eum justificabat, sed fides, qua se deo totum obtulit, quam sacrificium externum figurabat.

3.19 Even so it is not baptism that justifies or benefits anyone, but it is faith in the word of promise, to which baptism is added. This faith justifies, and fulfils that which baptism signifies. For faith is the submersion of the old man and the emerging of the new. Therefore it cannot be that the new sacraments differ from the old, for both have the divine promise and the same spirit of faith. But they do differ vastly from the ancient types on account of the word of promise, which is the one decisive point of difference. Even so, today, the outward show of vestments, holy places, meats and of all the endless ceremonies has doubtless a fine symbolical meaning, which is to be spiritually fulfilled. Yet because there is no word of divine promise attached to these things, they can never be compared with the signs of baptism and of the bread, nor do they in any way justify or benefit one, since they are fulfilled in the very observance, apart from faith. For while they are taking place or are being performed, they are being fulfilled. The Apostle says of them, in Colossians 2,”Which are all to perish with the using, after the commandments and doctrines of men.” The sacraments, on the contrary, are not fulfilled when they are observed, but when they are believed.

⁶³ Quare fieri non potest, ut sacramenta noua differant ab antiquis sacramentis, Habent enim aeque promissiones diuinas et eundem spiritum fidei, licet a figuris antiquis incomparabiliter differant, propter uerbum promissionis, quo est medium unicum et efficacissimum differentiae.

⁶⁴ Sicut et nunc pompa uestium, locorum, ciborum et infinitarum ceremoniarum sine dubio figurat egregia in spiritu implenda, et tamen, quia nullum adest eis uerbum diuinae promissionis, nulla ratione cum signis baptismi et panis conferri possunt, nec iustificant aut prosunt ullo modo, cum impletio eorum sit ipse usus seu opus eorum sine fide; 

⁶⁵ dum enim fiunt, seu aguntur, implentur. Sicut et Apostolus Colos. ii. de eis dicit: quae omnia ipso pereunt usu, iuxta praecepta et doctrinas hominum etc. At sacramenta non implentur dum fiunt, sed dum creduntur.

3.20 It cannot be true, therefore, that there is in the sacraments a power efficacious for justification, or that they are effective signs of grace. All such assertions tend to destroy faith, and arise from ignorance of the divine promise. Unless you should call them effective in the sense that they certainly and efficaciously impart grace, where faith is unmistakably present. But it is not in this sense that efficacy is now ascribed to them. Witness the fact that they are said to benefit all men, even the godless and unbelieving, provided they do not put an “obstacle” in the path of grace – as if such unbelief were not in itself the most obstinate and hostile of all obstacles to grace. That is how firmly they are bent on turning the sacrament into a command, and faith into a work. For if the sacrament confers grace on me because I receive it, then indeed I obtain grace by virtue of my work and not of faith. I lay hold not on the promise in the sacrament, but on the sign instituted and commanded by God. Do you not see, then, how completely the sacraments have been misunderstood by our theologians of the Sentences? They do not account for either faith or the promise, in their discussions on the sacraments. They only cling to the sign and the use of the sign, and draw us away from faith to the work, from the word to the sign. Thus they have not only carried the sacraments captive (as I have said), but have completely destroyed them, as far as they were able.

⁶⁶ Ita nec uerum esse potest, sacramentis inesse uim efficacem iustificationis, seu esse ea signa efficatia gratiae. Haec enim omnia dicuntur in iacturam fidei, ex ignorantia promissionis diuinae, nisi hoc modo efficatia dixeris, quod, si assit fides indubitata, certissime et efficacissime gratiam conferant.⁶⁷ At non hoc modo efficatiam illis tribui, probat, quod ea prodesse dicunt omnibus etiam impiis et incredulis, modo non ponant obicem, quasi ipsa incredulitas non sit omnium obstinatissimus et hostilissimus obex gratiae, adeo ex sacramento praeceptum, ex fide opus facere moliti sunt.

⁶⁸ Nam, si dat gratiam mihi sacramentum, quia suscipio, iam uere ex opere meo, non ex fide gratiam obtineo, nec promissionem in sacramento apprehendo, sed solum signum institutum et praeceptum a deo.

⁶⁹ ita clare uides, quam nihil sacramenta intellecta sunt sententionariis Theologis, quod nec fidei nec promissionis ullam in sacramentis rationem habuerint, tantum in signo et usu signi herentes, et ex fide in opus, ex uerbo in signum nos rapientes, qua re (ut dixi) sacramenta non modo captiuauerunt, sed penitus, quod in eis fuit, aboleuerunt.

3.21 Therefore, let us open our eyes and learn to give more heed to the word than to the sign, and to faith than to the work, or the use of the sign, remembering that wherever there is a divine promise there faith is required, and that these two are so necessary to each other that neither can be efficacious apart from the other. For it is not possible to believe unless there be a promise, and the promise is not established unless it be believed. But where these two meet, they give a real and most certain efficacy to the sacraments. Hence, to seek the efficacy of the sacrament apart from the promise and apart from faith, is to labor in vain and to find damnation. Thus Christ says: “He that believe and is baptised, shall be saved. He that does not believe shall be damned.” He shows us in this word that faith is so necessary a part of the sacrament that it can save even without the sacrament. For which reason He did not see fit to say: “He that does not believe, and is not baptised...”

⁷⁰ Nos ergo aperientes oculum discamus, magis uerbum quam signum, magis fidem quam opus seu usum signi obseruare, Scientes, ubicunque est promissio diuina, ibi requiri fidem, Esseque utrunque tam necessarium, ut neutrum sine utro efficax esse possit. ⁷¹ Neque enim credi potest, nisi assit promissio, nec promissio stabilitur, nisi credatur, ambae uero, si mutuae sint, faciunt ueram et certissimam efficatiam sacramentis.

⁷² Quare efficatiam sacramenti citra promissionem et fidem querere, est frustra niti et damnationem inuenire. Sic Christus: qui crediderit et baptisatus fuerit, saluus erit, qui non crediderit, condemnabitur. Quo monstrat, fidem in sacramento adeo (W534) necessariam, ut etiam sine sacramento seruare possit, ideo noluit adiicere: Qui non crediderit et non baptisatus fuerit.

3.22 Baptism, then, signifies two things –death and resurrection – that is, full and complete justification. When the minister immerses the child in the water, baptism signifies death. When he draws the child forth again, baptism signifies life. Thus Paul expounds on this in Romans 6, “We are buried together with Christ by baptism into death. As Christ is risen from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we also may walk in newness of life.” This death and resurrection we call the new creation, regeneration, and the spiritual birth. And this must not be understood only in a figurative sense, of the death of sin and the life of grace, as many understand it, but of actual death and resurrection. The significance of baptism is not an imaginary significance, and sin does not completely die, nor does grace completely rise, until the body of sin that we carry about in this life is destroyed. This the Apostle teaches in the same chapter. For as long as we are in the flesh, the desires of the flesh stir and are stirred. When we begin to believe, we also begin to die to this world and to live to God in the life to come. Faith is truly a death and a resurrection, that is, it is that spiritual baptism in which we are submerged and from which we rise.

⁷³ Significat itaque baptismus duo, mortem et resurrectionem, hoc est, plenariam consumatamque iustificationem. Quod enim minister puerum immergit in aquam, mortem significat, quod autem rursum educit, uitam significat.

⁷⁴ Ita Paulus Ro. vi. exponit: Consepulti enim sumus Christo per baptismum in mortem, ut, quemadmodum Christus resurrexit ex mortuis, per gloriam patris, ita et nos in nouitate uitae ambulemus.

⁷⁵ Hanc mortem et ressurrectionem appellamus nouam creaturam, regenerationem, et spiritualem natiuitatem, quam non oportet allegorice tantum intelligi, de morte peccati et uita gratiae, sicut multi solent, sed de uera morte et resurrectione. ⁷⁶ Non enim baptismus significatio ficta est, Neque peccatum moritur, neque gratia surgit plene, donec corpus peccati, quod gerimus in hac uita, destruatur, ut ibidem Apostolus dicit. ⁷⁷ Nam donec in carne sumus, desyderia carnis mouent et mouentur. Quare, dum incipimus credere, simul incipimus mori huic mundo, et uiuere deo in futura uita, ut fides uere sit mors et resurrectio, hoc est spiritualis ille baptismus, quo immergimur et emergimus.

3.23 Hence it is indeed correct to say that baptism washes sins away, but that expression is too weak and mild to bring out the full significance of baptism, which is rather a symbol of death and resurrection. For this reason I would have the candidates for baptism completely immersed in the water, as the word says and as the sacrament signifies. Not that I deem this necessary, but it would be well to give to so perfect and complete a thing a perfect and complete sign. Thus it was also doubtless instituted by Christ. The sinner does not so much need to be washed as he needs to die, in order to be wholly renewed and made another creature, and to be conformed to the death and resurrection of Christ, with Whom, through baptism, he dies and rises again. Although you may properly say that Christ was washed clean of mortality when He died and rose again, yet that is a weaker way of putting it than if you said He was completely changed and renewed. In the same way it is far more forceful to say that baptism signifies that we die completely and rising to eternal life, than to say that it signifies merely our being washed clean from sins.

⁷⁸ Quod autem baptismo tribuitur ablutio a peccatis, uere quidem tribuitur, sed lentior et mollior est significatio, quam ut baptismum exprimat, qui potius mortis et ressurrectionis symbolum est.

⁷⁹ Hac ratione motus uellem baptisandos penitus in aquam immergi, sicut sonat uocabulum et signat mysterium, non quod necessarium arbitrer, sed quod pulchrum foret, rei tam perfectae et plenae signum quoque plenum et perfectum dari, sicut et institutem est sine dubio a Christo.

⁸⁰ Peccator enim non tam ablui quam mori debet, ut totus renouetur in aliam creaturam, et ut morti ac resurrectioni Christi respondeat, cui per baptismum commoritur et corresurgit.

⁸¹ Licet enim possis Christum dicere ablutum a mortalitate, dum mortuus est er resurrexit, segnius tamen dixeris, quam si in totum mutatum et renouatum dixeris; ita ardentius est, per baptismum nos significari omnibus modis mori et resurgere in aeternam uitam, quam ablui a peccatis.

3.24 Here, again, you see that the sacrament of baptism, even in respect to its sign, does not last only for a moment, but continues on forever. Although its administration is soon over, yet the thing it signifies continues until we die, no, until we rise at the last day. For as long as we live we are continually doing that which our baptism signifies, that is, we die and rise again. We die, that is, not only spiritually and in our affections, by renouncing the sins and vanities of this world, but in reality we die. We begin to leave this bodily life and to lay hold on the life to come. So there is, as they say, a real and even a bodily leaving of this world to go to the Father.

⁸² Hic iterum uides, Baptismi sacramentum, etiam quo ad signum, non esse momentaneum aliquod negotium, sed perpetuum. 

⁸³ Licet enim usus eius subito transeat, tamen res ipsa significata duret usque ad mortem, immo resurrectionem in nouissimo die. 

⁸⁴ Quam diu enim uiuimus, semper id agimus, quod baptismus significat, id est, morimur et resurgimus, Morimur inquam non tantum affectu et spiritualiter, quo peccatis et uanitatibus mundi renunciamus, sed reuera, uitam hanc corporalem incipimus relinquere, et futuram uitam apprehendere, ut sit realis (quod dicunt) et corporalis quoque transitus ex hoc mundo ad patrem.

3.25 We must, therefore, beware of those who have reduced the power of baptism, making it something thin and small. While they do say that baptism indeed pours the grace of God into us, but afterwards sin pours it out again. So, they say, one must reach heaven by another way. As if baptism had then become entirely useless! Do not hold such a viewpoint, but know that baptism signifies that you die and live again. Therefore, whether it is by penance or by any other way, you can only return to the power of your baptism, and once again do what you were baptised to do and what your baptism signified. Never does baptism lose its power, unless you despair and refuse to return to its salvation. You may, indeed, for a time wander away from the sign, but that does not mean that the sign is powerless. You have, thus, been baptised once in the sacrament, but you must be constantly baptised again through faith, you must constantly die, you must constantly live again. Baptisms absorbs your whole body, and gives it back again. Even so that which baptism signifies should absorb your whole life in body and soul, and give it back again at the last day, clothed in robes of glory and immortality. We are, therefore, never without the sign of baptism nor yet without the thing it signifies. No, we must be baptised ever more and more completely, until we perfectly fulfill the sign, at the last day.

⁸⁵ (W535) Quare nobis cauendum est ab iis, qui baptismi uim eo redegerunt tenuitatis et paruitatis, ut gratiam in eo dicant quidem infundi, sed postea per peccatum effundi, tum alia uia, ac iam quasi baptismo penitus irrito facto, ad coelum eundum.

⁸⁶ Non sic tu arbitrabere, sed intelliges eam esse baptismi significationem, qua moriatis et uiuas; ideo non posse te siue per poenitentiam, siue per quancunque aliam uiam redire, nisi ad uim baptismi, ac denuo illud facere, quod baptisatus es ut faceres, quodque baptismus tuus significabat.

⁸⁷ Nunquam fit baptismus irritus, donec desperans redire ad salutem nolueris. aberrare quidem poteris ad tempus a signo, sed non irritum est signum. Ita semel es baptisatus sacramentaliter, sed semper baptisandus fide, semper moriendum, semperque uiuendum.

⁸⁸ Baptismus totum corpus absorbuit, et rursus edidit; ita res baptismi totam uitam tuam cum corpore et anima absorbere debet, et reddere in nouissimo die, indutam stola claritatis et immortalitatis. itaque nunquam sine baptismi tam signo quam re ipsa sumus, immo semper sumus baptisandi magis ac magis, donec signum perfecte impleamus in nouissimo die.

3.26 Therefore, whatever we do in this life that promotes the mortifying of the flesh and the giving life to the spirit, belongs to baptism. The sooner we depart this life the sooner we fulfill our baptism. The greater our sufferings the more closely do we conform to our baptism. Hence those were the Church’s happiest days, when the martyrs were being killed everyday and accounted as sheep for the slaughter. For then the power of baptism reigned supreme in the Church, which power we have today lost sight of in the midst of the multitude of works and doctrines of men. For all our life should be baptism, and the fulfilling of the sign, or sacrament, of baptism. We have been set free from all else and wholly given over to baptism alone, that is, to death and resurrection.

⁸⁹ Intelligis ergo, quicquid in hac uita gerimus, quod ad mortificationem carnis et uiuificationem spiritus ualet, ad baptismum pertinere, et quo breuius a uita absoluimur, eo citius baptismum nostrum impleamus, et quo atrociora patimur, eo foelicius baptismo respondeamus, ideoque Ecclesiam tunc fuisse foelicissimam, quando martyres mortificabantur omni die, et aestimabantur sicut oues occisiones;

⁹⁰ tunc enim regnabat in Ecclesia uirtus baptismi, pleno imperio, quam hodie ignoramus etiam, prae multitudine operum et doctrinarum humanarum. ⁹¹ Quicquid enim uiuimus, Baptismus esse debet, et signum seu sacramentum baptismi implere, cum a caeteris omnibus liberati uni tantum baptismo simus addicti, id est, morti et resurrectioni.

3.27 This glorious liberty of ours, and this understanding of baptism have been carried captive in our day. And whom have we to thank for this but the Roman pontiff with his despotism? More than all others, it was his first duty, as chief shepherd, to preach and defend this liberty and this knowledge, as Paul says in 1 Corinthians 4 “Let a man so account of us as of the ministers of Christ, and the dispensers of the mysteries, or sacraments, of God.” Instead of this, he seeks only to oppress us with his decrees and his laws, and to enslave and ensnare us in the tyranny of his power. By what right, in God’s name, does the pope impose his laws upon us – to say nothing of his wicked and damnable neglect to teach these mysteries? Who gave him power to despoil us of this liberty, granted us in baptism? One thing only (as I have said) has been enjoined upon us all the days of our life – be baptised – That is, to be put to death and to live again, through faith in Christ. This faith alone should have been taught, especially by the chief shepherd. But now there is not a word said about faith, and the Church is laid waste with endless laws concerning works and ceremonies So the power and right understanding of baptism are put aside, and faith in Christ is prevented.

⁹² Hanc gloriam libertatis nostrae, et hanc scientiam baptismi esse hodie captiuam, cui possumus referre acceptum, quam uni tyrannidi Romani pontifices?

⁹³ qui, ut pastorem primum decet, unus omnium maxime debuit esse praedicator et assertor huius libertatis et scientiae, sicut Paulus .ii. Corint. iiii. dicit: Sic nos existimet homo, sicut ministros Christi et dispensatores mysteriorum seu sacramentorum dei, ipse solum id agit, ut suis decretis et iuribus opprimat, et in potestatis suae tyrannidem captiuos illaqueet.

⁹⁴ Obsecro, quo iure (ut non dicam, quam impie et damnabiliter haec mysteria omittat docere) Papa super nos constituit leges? Quis dedit ei potestatem, (W536) captiuandae huius nostrae libertatis, per baptismum nobis donatae?

⁹⁵ Vnum (ut dixi) nobis in tota uita agendum est propositum, ut baptisemur, id est, mortificemur, et uiuamus per fidem Christi, quam et unice doctam oportuit, maxime a summo pastore. At nunc, tacita fide, infinitis legibus operum et ceremoniarum extincta est Ecclesia, ablata uirtus et scientia baptismi, impedita fides Christi.

3.28 Therefore I say: neither the pope nor a bishop nor any other man has the right to impose a single syllable of law upon a Christian man without his consent. If he does, it is done in the spirit of tyranny. Therefore the prayers, fasts, donations, and whatever else the pope decrees and demands in all of his decretals, as numerous as they are evil, he demands and decrees without any right whatever. He sins against the liberty of the Church whenever he attempts any such thing. In fact, today’s churchmen are indeed such vigorous defenders of the liberty of the Church, that is, of wood and stone, of land and rents – for “churchly” is nowadays the same as “spiritual” – yet with such fictions they not only take captive but utterly destroy the true liberty of the Church, and deal with us far worse than the Turk, in opposition to the word of the Apostle, “Do not be enslaved by men.” Yes, to be subjected to their statutes and tyrannical laws is to be enslaved by men.

⁹⁶ Dico itaque: neque Papa, neque Episcopus, neque ullus hominum, habet ius unius syllabae constituendae super Christianum hominem, nisi id fiat eiusdem consensu. 

⁹⁷ Quicquid aliter fit, tyrannico spiritu fit. ideo orationes, ieiunia, donationes, et quaecunque tandem Papa in uniuersis suis decretis tam multis quam iniquis statuit et exigit, Prorsus nullo iure exigit et statuit, peccatque in libertatem Ecclesiae, toties quoties aliquid horum attentauerit.

⁹⁸ Hinc factum est, ut Ecclesiastici hodierni strenui quidem sint tutores libertatis Ecclesiasticae, id est, lapidum, lignorum, agrorum et censuum (sic enim hodie Ecclesiastica sunt idem quod spiritualia), sed eisdem fictis uerbis ueram Ecclesiae libertatem non modo captiuent, sed pessundent penitus, etiam plus quam Turca, contra Apostolum, qui dicit: Nolite fieri serui hominum. Hoc enim uere est hominum seruos fieri, statutis et tyrannicis eorum legibus subiici.

3.29 This impious and sinful tyranny is fostered by the pope’s disciples, who here drag in and pervert that saying of Christ, “He that hears you hears me.” With puffed cheeks they blow up this saying to a great size in support of their traditions. Though Christ said this to the apostles when they went forth to preach the Gospel, and though it applies solely to the Gospel, they pass over the Gospel and apply it only to their fables. He says in John 10 “My sheep hear my voice, but the voice of a stranger they do not hear.” To this end He left us the Gospel, that His voice might be uttered by the pontiffs. But they utter their own voice, and themselves desire to be heard. Moreover, the Apostle says that he was not sent to baptise but to preach the Gospel. Therefore, no one is bound to the traditions of the pope, nor does he need to give ear to him unless he teaches the Gospel and Christ, and the pope should teach nothing but faith without any restrictions. But since Christ says, “He that hears you hears me,” and does not say to Peter only, “He that hears you,” why doesn’t the pope also hear others? Finally, where there is true faith, there must also be the word of faith. Why then does not an unbelieving pope now and then hear a believing servant of his, who has the word of faith? It is blindness, sheer blindness, that holds the popes in their power.

⁹⁹ Adiuuant hanc impiam et perditam tyrannidem discipuli Papae, huc torquentes et deprauantes illud Christi: Qui uos audit, me audit. 

¹⁰⁰ Magnis enim buccis hoc inflant uerbum pro suis traditionibus; cum Christus hoc dixerit Apostolis euntibus praedicare Euangelium, et ad Euangelium tantum referri debeat, ipsi omisso Euangelio suis tantum fabulis id aptant.

¹⁰¹ Dicit enim Iohan. x. Oues meae uocem meam audiunt, alienorum autem uocem non audiunt. ideo et relictum est Euangelium, ut uocem Christi sonarent Pontifices, at ipsi suas uoces sonant, audiri denique uolunt.

¹⁰² Apostolus quoque dicit sese missum esse, non baptisare, sed Euangelisare, itaque nemo est obnoxius pontificis traditionibus, nec oportet eum audiri, nisi dum Euangelium et Christum docet, nec aliud ipse docere debet quam fidem liberrimam.

¹⁰³ cum autem Christus dicat: Qui uos audit, me audit, Cur non Papa quoque audit alios? non enim soli Petro dicit: qui te audit. Denique, ubi est uera fides, ibi et uerbum fidei esse necessarium est. 

¹⁰⁴ Cur ergo Papa infidelis non audit quandoque seruum suum fidelem habentem uerbum fidei? Caecitas, Caecitas in Pontificibus regnat.

3.30 But others, more shameless still, arrogantly ascribe to the pope the power to make laws, on the basis of Matthew 16, “Whatever you shall bind,” etc., though Christ treats in this passage of binding and loosing sins, not of taking the whole Church captive and oppressing it with laws. So this tyranny treats everything with its own lying words and violently wrests and perverts the words of God. I admit indeed that Christians ought to bear this accursed tyranny just as they would bear any other violence of this world, according to Christ’s word: “If someone strikes you on your right cheek, turn to him also the other cheek.” But this is my complaint –നat the godless pontiffs boastfully claim the right to do this, that they pretend to be seeking the Church’s welfare with this Babylon of theirs, and that they foist this fiction upon all mankind. For if they did these things, and we suffered their violence, well knowing, both of us, that it was godlessness and tyranny, then we might number it among the things that contribute to the mortifying of this life and the fulfilling of our baptism, and might with a good conscience rejoice in the inflicted injury. But now they seek to deprive us of this consciousness of our liberty, and would have us believe that what they do is well done, and must not be censured or complained of as wrongdoing. Since they wolves, they want to look like shepherds. Since they are antichrists, they want to be honored as Christ.

¹⁰⁵ Alii uero multo impudentiores ex illo Matt. xvi. Papae arrogant potestatem legum condendarum: Quodcunque ligaueris etc. cum ibi Christus de peccatis ligandis et remittendis agat, non de Ecclesia tota captiuanda et legibus opprimenda.

¹⁰⁶ ita omnia agit ista tyrannis fictis suis uerbis, tortis per uim ac deprauatis uerbis dei. Hoc sane confiteor, Esse tyrannidem istam maledictam ferendam Christianis, sicut quamlibet aliam uiolentiam huius mundi, iuxta illud Christi: Qui te percusserit in maxillam dexteram, prebe ei et alteram, sed hoc quaeror, quod impii pontifices se id iure posse et facere iactant, et rei Christianae sese consulere hac Babylone sua praesumunt, hanc ipsam opinionem omnibus persuadentes.

¹⁰⁷ Si enim conscientia impietatis et tyrannidis ea facerent, aut nos pateremur uim eorum, inter ea securi numeraremus, quae ad mortificandam uitam hanc, et implendum baptismum ualent, integra nobis relicta conscientiam glorianda de iniuria illata.

¹⁰⁸ At nunc uolunt sic conscientiam libertatis nostrae illaqueari, ut credamus bene a se geri, quae gerunt, nec licere ea reprehendi aut inique gesta quaerulari, et cum sint lupi, uideri uolunt pastores, cum sint Antichristi, uolunt honorari pro Christo. pro hac duntaxat clamo libertate et conscientia, clamoque fidenter:

3.31 I only lift my voice to defend this freedom of conscience. I confidently cry out: No one – not men – not angels – may justly impose laws upon Christians without their consent, for we are free from all things. If any laws are laid on us, we must bear them in such a way as to preserve the consciousness of our liberty. We must know and strongly affirm that the making of such laws is unjust, that we will bear and rejoice in this injustice. We will be careful neither to justify the tyrant nor complain against his tyranny. “For who is he,” says Peter, “that will harm you, if you are followers of that which is good?” “All things work together for good to the elect.” Nevertheless, since few know this glory of baptism and the blessedness of Christian liberty, and cannot know them because of the tyranny of the pope, I for one will walk away from it all and redeem my conscience by bringing this charge against the pope and all his papists: Unless they will abolish their laws and traditions, and restore to Christ’s churches their liberty and have it taught among them, they are guilty of all the souls that perish under this miserable captivity, and the papacy is truly the kingdom of Babylon, yes, the kingdom of the real Antichrist! For who is “the man of sin” and “the son of perdition” but he that with his doctrines and his laws increases sins and the perdition of souls in the Church, while he sits in the Church as if he were God? All this the papal tyranny has fulfilled, and more than fulfilled, these many centuries. It has extinguished faith, obscured the sacraments and oppressed the Gospel. But its own laws, which are not only impious and sacrilegious, but even barbarous and foolish, it has enjoined and multiplied world without end.

¹⁰⁹ Christianis nihil ullo iure posse imponi legum, siue ab hominibus siue ab angelis, nisi quantum uolunt, liberi enim sumus ab omnibus.

¹¹⁰ Quod si quae imponuntur, sic ferenda sunt, ut libertatis conscientia salua sit, quae sciat et certo affirmet, iniuriam sibi fieri, quam cum gloria ferat, ita cauens, ne iustificet tyrannum, ut ne murmuret contra tyrannidem.

¹¹¹ Quis enim est (ait Petrus), qui uobis noceat, si bonum emulati fueritis? omnia cooperantur electis in bonum. 

¹¹² Attamen quia hanc baptismi gloriam et libertatis Christianae foelicitatem pauci nouerunt, nec prae tyrannide Papae nosse possunt, ipse me hic expedio, et conscientiam meam redimo, compellans Papam et omnes papistas, Quod nisi sua iura et traditiones sustulerint, et ecclesiis Christi libertatem suam restituerint, eamque doceri fecerint, reos esse eos omnium animarum, quae hac misera captiuitate pereunt, Esseque papatum aliud reuera nihil, quam regnum Babylonis et ueri Antichristi.

¹¹³ Quis enim est homo peccati et filius perditionis, quam is, qui suis doctrinis ac statutis peccata et perditionem animarum auget in Ecclesia, sedens tamen in Ecclesia sicut deus? ¹¹⁴ At hoc totum abunde impleuit tyrannis papalis, iam a multis saeculis, quae fidem extinxit, sacramenta obscurauit, Euangelium oppressit, suas autem non modo impias et sacrilegas, uerum etiam barbaras et indoctissimas leges imperauit, et sine fine multiplicauit.

3.32 Behold, then, our miserable captivity. How empty is the city that was full of people! The mistress of the Gentiles has become like a widow. The princess of provinces has been made a client nation! There is none to comfort her. All her friends despise her. There are so many orders, so many rites, so many sects, so many vows, exertions and works, in which Christians are engaged, that they lose sight of their baptism. This swarm of locusts, cankerworms and caterpillars – not one of them is able to remember that he is baptised or what blessings his baptism brought him. Are engaged in no efforts and no works, but are free in every way, secure and saved only through the glory of their baptism. For we are indeed little children, continually baptised anew in Christ.

¹¹⁵ Vide ergo miseram captiuitatis nostrae: Quomodo sedeat sola ciuitas plena populo, et facta sit uidua domina gentium, princeps prouintiarum sub tributo. Non est qui consoletur eam, etiam amici eius spreuerunt eam etc. 

¹¹⁶ Tot ordines, tot ritus, tot sectae, tot professiones, tot studia, tot opera sunt, quibus hodie Christiani occupantur, ut obliuiscantur baptismi sui, et nemo prae harum locustarum, erucarum, bruchorum multitudine meminisse possit, sese esse baptisatum aut quid in baptismo consecutus sit. ¹¹⁷ Decebat enim (W538) nos esse, sicut paruuli baptisati, qui nullis studiis, nullisque operibus occupati, in omnia sunt liberi, solius gloria baptismi sui securi et salui. Sumus enim et ipsi paruuli, in Christo assidue baptisati.

3.33 Perhaps someone will oppose what I have said by pointing to the baptism of infants. Infants do not understand God’s promise and cannot have baptismal faith. So either faith is not necessary or else infant baptism is useless. Here I say what everyone says: the faith of others, namely, the faith of those who bring them to baptism aids infants. For the Word of God is powerful, when it is uttered. It can change even a godless heart, which is no less unresponsive and helpless than any infant. Even so the infant is changed, cleansed and renewed by faith poured into it, through the prayer of the Church that presents it for baptism and believes. All things are possible for this prayer. Nor should I doubt that even a godless adult might be changed, in any of the sacraments, if the same Church prayed and presented him. We read in the Gospel of the paralytic, who was healed through the faith of others. I should be ready to admit that in this sense the sacraments of the New Law confer grace effectively, not only to those who do not resist, but even to those who do resist it very obstinately. Is there any obstacle that the faith of the Church and the prayer of faith cannot remove? We believe that Stephen by this powerful means converted Paul the Apostle, don’t we? But then the sacraments accomplish what they do not by their own power, but by the power of faith, without which they accomplish nothing at all, as has been said.

¹¹⁸ Opponetur forsitan iis, quae dicta sunt, baptismus paruulorum, qui promissionem dei non capiant, nec fidem baptismi habere possunt, ideoque aut non requiri fidem, aut paruulos frustra baptisari.

¹¹⁹ Hic dico, quod omnes dicunt, fide aliena paruulis succurri, illorum, qui offerunt eos. Sicut enim uerbum dei potens est, dum sonat, etiam impii cor immutare, quod non minus est surdum et incapax, quam ullus paruulus, ita per orationem Ecclesiae offerentis et credentis, cui omnia possibilia sunt, et paruulus fide infusa mutatur, mundatur, et renouatur.

¹²⁰ Nec dubitarem, etiam adultum impium, eadem Ecclesia orante et offerente, posse in quouis sacramento mutari, sicut de paralytico Euangelico legimus, aliena fide sanato.

¹²¹Atque hac ratione libens admitterem, sacramenta nouae legis esse efficatia ad dandam gratiam, non modo non ponentibus, sed etiam obstinatissime ponentibus obicem. Quid enim fides Ecclesiae et oratio fidei non tolleret, cum Paulum Apostolum Stephanus hac ui conuertisse credatur? At tunc sacramenta non sua, sed fidei uirtute faciunt quod faciunt, sine qua nihil prorsus faciunt, ut dixi.

3.34 The question remains, whether it is proper to baptise an infant not yet born, with only a hand or a foot outside the womb. Here I will decide nothing hastily, and confess my ignorance. I am not sure whether the reason given by some is sufficient – that the soul resides in its entirety in every part of the body. After all, it is not the soul but the body that is externally baptised with water. Nor do I share the view of others that he who is not yet born cannot be born again, even though it has considerable force. I leave these matters to the teaching of the Spirit. For the moment I permit every one to be convinced by his own opinion.

¹²² Queritur etiam adhuc, an paruulus nondum natus possit, porrecta ex utero manu uel pede, baptisari. Hic nihil temere iudico, meamque ignorantiam confiteor. Nec scio, an id satis sit, quod pro fundamento habent, Esse uidelicet animam in qualibet parte corporis totam. 

¹²³ Non enim anima, sed corpus baptisatur aqua externe. Sed nec hoc iudico, quod dicunt, renasci eum non posse, qui natus nondum sit, et si uehementer urgeat. ideo magisterio spiritus haec relinquo, interim sinens quenque suo sensu abundare.

3.35 One thing I will add – and I wish I could persuade everyone to do it! – namely, to completely abolish or avoid all the making of vows, whether they are vows to enter religious orders, to make pilgrimages or to do any works whatsoever. Then we could remain in the freedom of our baptism, which is the most religious, rich in works, state of all. It is impossible to say how greatly that widespread delusion of vows weakens baptism and obscures the knowledge of Christian liberty. This is to say nothing now of the unspeakable and infinite peril to souls which that mania for making vows and that ill-advised rashness daily increase. Godless pontiffs and unhappy pastors! You slumber on without heeding, and indulge your evil lusts, without pity for this “affliction of Joseph,” so dreadful and fraught with peril!

¹²⁴ Vnum hic addo, quod utinam cunctis queam persuadere, id est, ut uota prorsus omnia tollerentur aut uitarentur, siue sint religionum, siue perigrinationum, siue quoruncunque operum, maneremusque in libertate religiosissima et operosissima baptismi.

¹²⁵ Dici non potest, quantum detrahat baptismo et obscuret scientiam libertatis Christianae opinio illa uotorum plus nimio celebris, ut interim taceam infanda etiam eaque infinita pericula animarum, quae uouendi ista libido, inconsultaque temeritas quotidie auget. ¹²⁶ O impiissimi pontifices et infoelicissimi pastores, qui secure stertitis, et in uestris cupiditatibus lasciuitis, et nihil compatimini super ista contritione Ioseph pessima et periculosissima.

3.36 Vows should be abolished by a general edict, especially life-long vows, and all men diligently recalled to the vows of baptism. If this is not possible, everyone should be warned not to take a vow rashly. No one should be encouraged to do so. Permission to make vows should be given only with difficulty and reluctance. For we have vowed enough in baptism – more than we can ever fulfill. If we devote ourselves to the keeping of this one vow, we shall have all we can do. But now we travel over earth and sea to make many converts. We fill the world with priests, monks and nuns, and imprison them all in life-long vows. You will find those who argue and decree that a work done in fulfilment of a vow ranks higher than one done without a vow. They claim such works are rewarded with I know not what great rewards in heaven. Blind and godless Pharisees, who measure righteousness and holiness by the greatness, number or other quality of the works! But God measures them by faith alone, and with Him there is no difference between works except in the faith which performs them.

¹²⁷ Oportuit hic generali edicto, uel tollere uota, illa praesertim perpetua, et ad baptismi uota cunctos reuocare, uel diligenter monere, ne quis temere (W539) uoueret, nullum inuitare, immo difficiles tardosque esse ad uota permittenda. Abunde enim uouimus in baptismo, et plus quam possimus implere, sat negocii habituri, si huic uni intenderimus.

¹²⁸ At nunc mare et aridam circuimus, ut multos proselytas faciamus, mundum sacerdotibus, monachis, monialibus implemus, et hos omnes perpetuis uotis incarceramus. Hic inuenias, qui disputent et statuant, opus intra uotum esse prestancius opere extra et citra uotum, et nescio quantis premiis in coelo aliis praeferendum, Pharisei caeci et impii, qui ex operum magnitudine et multitudine aliaue qualitate metiuntur iustitiam et sanctitatem, quae ex sola fide apud deum mensuratur, apud quem nulla est differentia operum, nisi quanta est fidei differentia.

3.37 These wicked men inflate with bombast their own opinions and human works. They do this to lure the unthinking populace, who are almost always led by the glitter of works to make shipwreck of their faith, to forget their baptism and to harm their Christian liberty. For a vow is a kind of law or requirement. Therefore, when vows are multiplied, laws and works are necessarily multiplied. When this is done, faith is extinguished and the liberty of baptism taken captive. Others, not content with these wicked allurements, go on to say that entrance into a religious order is like a new baptism which may be repeated later and as often as the commitment to live the religious life is renewed. Thus these “votaries” have taken for themselves alone all righteousness, salvation and glory, and left to those who are merely baptised nothing to compare with them. No, the Pope of Rome, that fountain and source of all superstitions, confirms, approves and adorns this mode of life with high-sounding bulls and dispensations, while no one deems baptism worthy of even a thought. And with such glittering pomp (as we have said) they drive the easily led people of Christ into certain disaster, so that lose their gratitude for baptism and presume to achieve greater things by their works than others achieve by their faith.

¹²⁹ Faciunt hac bucca sua homines impii suis inuentionibus opinionem, et opera hominum inflant, ad alliciendum stolidum uulgus, quod specie operum fere ducitur, in magnam iacturam fidei, obliuitionem baptismi, iniuriam libertatis Christianae.

¹³⁰ cum enim uotum sit lex quaedam et exactio, necessario, multiplicatis uotis, leges et opera multiplicantur, quibus multiplicatis fides extinguitur, et baptismi libertas captiuatur.

¹³¹ Hiis blandiciis impiis non contenti, addunt alii, Ingressum religionis esse uelut nouum baptisma, quod deinceps licet tocies renouari, quoties ab integro propositum religionis renouatur.

¹³² ita uotarii isti sibi solis iustitiam, salutem, gloriam tribuerunt, Baptisatis prorsus nihil relinquerunt, quo possint eis conferri. 

¹³³ Iam Romanus pontifex, superstitionum omnium fons et autor, magnificis bullis et indultis has uiuendi rationes confirmat, approbat, ornat, Baptismum uero nemo uel memoria dignatur.

¹³⁴ Atque iis pompis speciosis (ut dixi) sequacem populum Christi in quascunque uolent symplegadas pellunt, ut, ingrati suo baptismo, praesumant meliora suis operibus prestare, quam alii sua fide.

3.38 Therefore, God again shows Himself perverse to the perverse. He repays the makers of vows for their ingratitude and pride, causes them to break their vows or to keep them only with prodigious labor. He compels them to remain sunk in these vows, never coming to the knowledge of the grace of faith and baptism. He makes them continue in their hypocrisy to the end – since God does not approve their spirit –and that at last makes them a laughing-stock to the whole world, always persuing righteousness, yet never achieving righteousness. God ordains all this so that they fulfill the word of Isaiah: “The land is full of idols.”

¹³⁵ Quare et deus rursus cum peruersis peruersus, ulturus ingratitudinem et superbiam uotariorum, facit, ut uota sua non seruent, aut cum ingenti labore seruent, maneantque in eis immersi, nunquam fidei et baptismi gratiam cognoscentes, et, cum non sit creditus cum deo spiritus eorum, perseuerent in hypocrisi sua inperpetuum, et tandem ludibrio sint toti mundo, semper iustitiam sectando, et ad Iustitiam nunquam perueniendo, ut impleant illud Isaie .ii: Et terra repleta est Idolis.

3.39 I am indeed far from forbidding or discouraging any one who may desire to take a vow privately and of his own free choice; for I would not altogether despise and condemn vows. But I would most strongly advise against setting up and sanctioning the making of vows as a public mode of life. It is enough that every one should have the private right to take a vow at his peril; but to commend the vowing of vows as a public mode of life – this I hold to be most harmful to the Church and to simple souls. And I hold this, first, because it runs directly counter to the Christian life; for a vow is a certain ceremonial law and a human tradition or presumption, and from these the Christian has been set free through baptism. For a Christian is subject to no laws but the law of God. Again, there is no instance in Scripture of such a vow, especially of life-long chastity, obedience and poverty. But whatever is without warrant of Scripture is hazardous and should by no means be commended to any one, much less established as a common and public mode of life, although whoever will must be permitted to make the venture at his own peril. For certain works are wrought by the Spirit in a few men, but they must not be made an example or a mode of life for all.

¹³⁶ Ego sane non prohibuerim nec repugnauerim, si quis priuatim arbitrio suo quippiam uelit uouere, ne uota penitus contemnam aut damnem, sed publicum uitae genus hinc statui et confirmari, omnino dissuaserim.

¹³⁷ Sufficit cuique uouendi priuata licentia periculo suo, publicam uero commendari rationem uiuendi in uotis uouendis, arbitror perniciosum esse Ecclesiae et (W540) animabus simplicibus. 

¹³⁸ Primum, Quod non parum Christianae uitae repugnet, in hoc, quod uotum est lex quaedam cerimonialis et humana traditio seu presumptio, a qua Ecclesia per baptismum liberata est. Christianus enim nulli legi addictus est, nisi diuinae. ¹³⁹  Deinde, quod non habeat exemplum in scripturis, praecipue castitatis, obedientiae, paupertatis perpetuae uotum. Quod autem e scripturis exemplum non habet, periculosum est, nulli prorsus suadendum, multo minus pro uulgari et publico uiuendi genere statuendum, et si cuilibet audere suo periculo, quod uoluerit, sit permittendum. Opera enim quaedam spiritus in paucis operatur, quae in exemplum aut uiuendi modum nequaquam sunt uocanda.

3.40 Moreover, I greatly fear that these modes of life of the religious orders belong to those things which the Apostle foretold: “They shall teach a lie in hypocrisy, forbidding to marry, to abstain from meats, which God has created to be received with thanksgiving.” Let no one retort by pointing to Sts. Bernard, Francis, Dominic and others, who founded or fostered monastic orders. Terrible and marvelous is God in His counsels toward the sons of men. He could keep Daniel, Ananias, Azarias and Misael holy at the court of the king of Babylon, that is, in the midst of godlessness; why could He not sanctify those men also in their perilous mode of living or guide them by the special operation of His Spirit, yet without desiring it to be an example to others? Besides, it is certain that none of them was saved through his vows and his “religious” life; they were saved through faith alone, by which all men are saved, and with which that splendid slavery of vows is more than anything else in conflict.

¹⁴⁰ Sed et uehementer metuo, ne uotiuae istae uiuendi rationes religiosorum sint de numero earum, de quibus Apostolus praedixit: Erunt docentes in hypocrisi mendatium, prohibentes nubere et abstinere a cibis, quos deus creauit ad percipiendum cum gratiarum actione.

¹⁴¹ Nec mihi quisquam obiecerit sanctum Bern., Franciscum, Dominicum et similes religionum uel autores, uel auctores. Terribilis et mirabilis est deus in consiliis suis super filios hominum.

¹⁴² potuit Danielem, Ananiam Azariam, Misael in Babylonici regni (id est, in media impietate) administratione seruare sanctos, cur non potuisset et hos in periculoso uitae genere sanctificare, aut singulari opere spiritus gubernare, quod tamen exemplum aliis fieri nollet. ¹⁴³ Et certum est, nullum illorum, per uota sua et religionem fuisse saluatum, sed per fidem solam, in qua omnes saluantur, contra quam maxime omnium pugnant speciosae illae seruitutes uotorum.

3.41 But every one may hold to his own view of this. I will return to my argument. Speaking now in behalf of the Church’s liberty and the glory of baptism, I feel myself in duty bound publicly to set forth the counsel I have learned under the Spirit’s guidance. I therefore counsel the magnates of the churches, first of all, to abolish all those vows, or at least not to approve and extol them. If they will not do this, then I counsel all men who would be assured of their salvation, to abstain from all vows, above all from the great and life-long vows; I give this counsel especially to all growing boys and youths. This I do, first, because this manner of life has no witness or warrant in the Scriptures, as I have said, but is puffed up solely by the bulls (and they truly are “bulls”) of human popes. And, secondly, because it greatly tends to hypocrisy, by reason ofits outward show and its unusual character, which engender conceit and a contempt of the common Christian life. And if there were no other reason for abolishing these vows, this one were reason enough, namely, that through them faith and baptism are slighted and works are exalted, which cannot be done without harmful results. For in the religious orders there is scarce one in many thousands, who is not more concerned about works than about faith, and on the basis of this madness they have even made distinctions among themselves, such as “the more strict” and “the more lax,” as they call them.

¹⁴⁴ Sed abundet hic sensu quisque suo, Ego quod cepi prosequar; cum pro libertate Ecclesiae et gloria baptismi nunc loquar, in medium consulere debeo, quod spiritu magistro intellexero.

¹⁴⁵Quare consulo, Primum magnatibus Ecclesiarum, ut omnia ista uota seu uitas uotariorum tollant, uel non probent et extollant, Aut, si hoc non fecerint, suadeo omnibus, qui uolunt securius salui fieri, ut sibi ab omnibus uotis, praesertim magnis et perpetuis, temperent, maxime adolescentes et iuuenes.

¹⁴⁶Hoc consulo primum ideo, quod hoc uitae genus, ut dixi, nullum habet in scripturis testimonium et exemplum, sed solis hominum pontificum bullis, et uere bullis est inflatum.

¹⁴⁷Deinde, quod procliue sit in hypocrisim, propter suam speciem et singularitatem, unde nascitur superbia et contemptus communis Christianae uitae. 

¹⁴⁸ Atque si nulla alia esset causa eadem uota tollendi, haec una satis haberet ponderis, Quod per ipsa fidei et baptismo detrahitur, et opera magnificantur, quae sine pernicie magnificari non possunt. Nam, inter multa milia uix est unus, qui non magis opera in religionibus suscipiat quam fidem, qua insania et sese mutuo praeferunt, tanquam strictiores et laxiores, ut uocant.

3.42 Therefore I advise no one to enter any religious order or the priesthood – no, I dissuade everyone – unless he be forearmed with this knowledge and understand that the works of monks and priests, be they never so holy and arduous, differ no whit in the sight of God from the works of the rustic toiling in the field or the woman going about her household tasks, but that all works are measured before Him by faith alone; as Jeremiah says: “ O Lord, thine eyes are upon faith”; and Ecclesiasticus: “ In every work of thine regard your soul in faith: for this is the keeping of the commandments.” no, he should know that the menial housework of a maidservant or manservant is ofttimes more acceptable to God than all the fastings and other works of a monk or a priest, because the latter lacks faith. Since, therefore, vows seem to tend nowadays only to the glorification of works and to pride, it is to be feared that there is nowhere less of faith and of the Church than among the priests, monks and bishops, and that these men are in truth heathen or hypocrites, who imagine themselves to be the Church or the heart of the Church, and “spiritual,” and the Church’s leaders, when they are everything else but that. And it is to be feared that this is indeed “the people of the captivity,” among whom all things freely given us in baptism are held captive, while “the people of the earth” are left behind in poverty and in small numbers, and, as is the lot of married folk, appear vile in their eyes.

¹⁴⁹ (W541) Quare ego nulli suadeo, immo omnibus dissuadeo ingressum cuiuscunque religionis aut sacerdocii, nisi sit ea scientia praemunitus, ut intelligat, opera quantumlibet sacra et ardua religiosorum et sacerdotum in oculis dei prorsus nihil distare ab operibus rustici in agro laborantis, aut mulieris in domo sua curantis, sed sola fide omnia apud eum mensurari, sicut Hiere. v. dicit: Domine, oculi tui respiciunt fidem, Ecclesi. xxxii: In omni opere tuo crede ex fide animae tuae, haec enim est conseruatio mandataorum dei, immo frequentius contingere, ut gratius sit ancillae aut serui domesticum et uile opus, quam omnia ieiunia et opera religiosi et sacerdotis, ob fidei defectum.

¹⁵⁰ Cum ergo probabile sit, uota hodie non nisi ad operum ualere iactantiam et praesumptionem, metuendum est, nusquam minus de fide et Ecclesia esse, quam in sacerdotibus, monachis, et Episcopis, et eos ipsos esse reuera gentiles seu hypocritas, qui se Ecclesiam, aut cor Ecclesiae, item spirituales et rectores Ecclesiae arbitrantur, cum sint nihil minus, Et hunc esse uere populum transmigrationis, in quibus captiua sunt omnia, quae nobis in baptismo libera donata sunt, relicto populo terrae paupere et modico, qui, uelut coniugatis contingit, uiles in oculis illorum apparent.

3.43 From what has been said we learn that the Roman pontiff is guilty of two glaring errors.

¹⁵¹ Ex his duos insignes errores Romani pontificis cognoscimus.

3.44 In the first place, he grants dispensations from vows, and does it as though he alone of all Christians possessed this authority; such is the temerity and audacity of wicked men. If it be possible to grant a dispensation from a vow, then any brother may grant one to his neighbour or even to himself. But if one’s neighbour cannot grant a dispensation, neither can the pope by any right. For from this has he his authority? From the power of the keys? But the keys belong to all, and avail only for sins (Matthew 18:15). Now they themselves claim that vows are “of divine right.” Why then does the pope deceive and destroy the poor souls of men by granting dispensations in matters of divine right, in which no dispensations can be granted? He babbles indeed, in the section “Of vows and their redemption,” of having the power to change vows, just as in the law the firstborn of an ass was changed for a sheep (Exodus 13:13) – if the firstborn of an ass, and the vow he commands to be everywhere and always offered, were one and the same thing, or as if when God decrees in His law that a sheep shall be changed for an ass, the pope, a mere man, may immediately claim the same power, not in his own law but in God’s! It was not a pope, but an ass changed for a pope, that made this decretal; so egregiously senseless and godless is it.

Prior, quod dispensat in uotis, facitque id, quasi solus prae omnibus Christianis habeat autoritatem, tanta est hominum impiorum temeritas et audacia. ¹⁵² Si enim uotum dispensari potest, quilibet frater cum proximo et ipse secum dispensare potest; sin dispensare proximus non potest, nullo iure Papa potest.

¹⁵³ Vnde enim habet hanc autoritatem? Ex clauibus? At heae omnibus communes sunt, et super peccata duntaxat ualent, Matt. xviii. Cum autem et ipsi fateantur, uota esse iuris diuini, quid miseras fallit et perdit animas dispensans in iure diuino, quod est indispensabile?

¹⁵⁴ Blatterat quidem tit. de uot. et uoti redem. se posse mutare uota, sicut olim in lege primogenitum asini mutabatur oue, quasi idem sit primogenitum asini et uotum, quod tam constanter ubique exigit reddi, aut, si dominus in lege sua ouem pro asino statuat mutari, mox etiam homo Papa, in lege non sua, sed eiusdem dei, eandem habeat potestatem. Non Papa hanc decretalem fecit, sed asinus pro Papa mutatus, sic insigniter et delyrus et impius est.

3.45 The other error is this. The pope decrees, on the other hand, that marriage is dissolved if one party enter a monastery even without the consent of the other, provided the marriage be not yet consummated. Grammercy, what devil puts such monstrous things into the pope’s mind! God commands men to keep faith and not break their word to one another, and again, to do good with that which is their own; for He hates “robbery in a holocaust,” as he says by the mouth of Isaiah. (Isaiah 61:8) But one spouse is bound by the marriage contract to keep faith with the other, and he is not his own. He cannot break his faith by any right, and whatever he does with himself is robbery if it be without the other’s consent. Why does not one who is burdened with debts follow this same rule and obtain admission to an order, so as to be released from his debts and be free to break his word? O more than blind! Which is greater; the faith commanded by God or a vow devised and chosen by man? you art a shepherd of souls, O pope? And ye that teach such things are doctors of sacred theology? Why then do ye teach them? Because, forsooth, ye have decked out your vow as a better work than marriage, and do not exalt faith, which alone exalts all things, but ye exalt works, which are nothing in the sight of God, or which are all alike so far as any merit is concerned.

¹⁵⁵ Posterior, quod rursus decernit, matrimonium dirimi, si alter, altero etiam inuito, monasterium ingrediatur, nondum consumato matrimonio. Obsecro, Quis satan haec inspirat Papae portenta?

¹⁵⁶ deus praecipit homini seruari fidem, et ueritatem inuicem custodire. deinde, de suo quenque facere (W542) bonum. odit enim rapinam in holocaustum, ut per Isaiam dicit.

¹⁵⁷ At coniunx alter alteri per pactum fidem debet, nec suus est, quam nullo iure potest dissoluere, et quicquid de se facit, de rapina facit, altero inuito.

¹⁵⁸Aut quare non etiam hac regula, qui aere alieno premitur, religionem intrat et suscipitur, ut a debitis liberetur, ut fidem liceat negare?

¹⁵⁹ Caeci, caeci! Quid est maius? fides a deo praecepta, an uotum per hominem excogitatum et electum? Tu es pastor animarum, Papa? et uos estis doctores sacrae Theologiae, qui haec docetis? Qua enim causa sic docetis? Nempe, quod uotum meliore opere quam coniugium ornastis, sed non fidem, quae sola magnificat omnia, sed opera magnificatis, quae nihil sunt coram deo, aut omnia aequalia, quantum ad meritum attinet.

3.46 I have no doubt, therefore, that neither men nor angels can grant a dispensation from vows, if they be proper vows. But I am not fully clear in my own mind whether all the things that men nowadays vow come under the head of vows. For instance, it is simply foolish and stupid for parents to dedicate their children, before birth or in early infancy , to “the religious life,” or to perpetual chastity; no, it is certain that this can by no means be termed a vow. It seems a mockery of God to vow things which it is not at all in one’s power to keep. As to the triple vow of the monastic orders, the longer I consider it, the less I comprehend it, and I marvel from this the custom of exacting this vow has arisen. Still less do I understand at what age vows may be taken in order to be legal and valid. I am pleased to find them unanimously agreed that vows taken before the age of puberty are not valid. Nevertheless, they deceive many young children who are ignorant both of their age and of what they are vowing; they do not observe the age of puberty in receiving such children, who after making their profession are held captive and devoured by a troubled conscience, as though they had afterward given their consent. As if a vow which was invalid could afterward become valid with the lapse of time.

¹⁶⁰ Ego itaque non dubito, in uotis, si recta sunt, neque homines neque angelos posse dispensare. Sed hic non sum plane mihi ipsi persuasus, an ea sub uoto cadant omnia, quae hodie uouentur.

¹⁶¹Quale est illud mire ridiculum et stultum, quod parentes uouent prolem uel nondum natam uel infantem ad religionem seu perpetuam castitatem, immo hoc sub nullo uoto cadere certum est, et uidetur esse quaedam irrisio dei, dum ea uouent, quae nullo modo in sua sunt potestate.

¹⁶² Ad religiosos uenio, quorum tria uota, quo magis consydero, eo minus intelligo, mirorque, unde inoleuerit ista uotorum exactio. iam hoc multo minus intelligo, quo aetatis anno uoueri possunt, ut legitima sint et ualeant.

¹⁶³ In hoc placet conuenisse omnes, ante annos pubertatis nihil ualere uota eorum, licet magnam partem puerorum hic fallant, ignaram tam suae aetatis, quam rei quam uouent, non enim obseruant in suscipiendis annos pubertatis, tum professos dira conscientia, quasi consensu postea secuto, captiuos tenent et deuorant, quasi uotum, quod irritum fuit, tandem ratum fiat succedentibus annis.

3.47 It seems absurd to me that the terms of a legal vow should be prescribed to others by those who cannot prescribe them for themselves. Nor do I see why a vow taken at eighteen years of age should be valid, and not one taken at ten or twelve years. It will not do to say that at eighteen a man feels his carnal desires. How is it when he scarcely feels them at twenty or thirty, or when he feels them more keenly at thirty than at twenty? Why do they not also set a certain age-limit for the vows of poverty and obedience? But at what age will you say a man should feel his greed and pride? Even the most spiritual hardly become aware of these emotions. Therefore, no vow will ever become binding and valid until we have become spiritual, and no longer have any need of vows. You see, these are uncertain and perilous matters, and it would therefore be a wholesome counsel to leave such lofty modes of living, unhampered by vows, to the Spirit alone, as they were of old, and by no means to change them into a rule binding for life.

¹⁶⁵ Nec satisfacit, quod decimo octauo sentit homo carnem suam. Quid, si vix uicesimo aut tricesimo senciat? aut fortius tricesimo quam uicesimo senciat? Aut cur non diffinitur aeque terminus paupertati et obedientiae?

¹⁶⁶ Sed quod tempus dabis, quo se auarum et superbum sentiat, cum etiam spiritualissimi hos affectus uix deprehendant? Ergo nunquam erit ullum uotum certum et legitimum, nisi donec spirituales facti fuerimus, et uotis iam non eguerimus. ¹⁶⁷ Vides itaque res istas incertas et periculosissimas esse, unde salutare consilium foret, has sublimes uiuendi rationes, uotis liberas, soli spiritui relinquere, sicut olim fuerunt, et nequaquam in genus quoddam perpetuae uitae mutandas esse. (W543)

3.48 But let this suffice for the present concerning baptism and its liberty; in due time I may discuss the vows at greater length. Of a truth they stand sorely in need of it.

Verum haec interim de Baptismo et libertate eius satis. Suo forte uenient tempore uota latius tractanda, ut sunt tractatu uehementer necessaria.