4. THE SACRAMENT of PENANCE

4.1 We come in the third place to the sacrament of penance. On this subject I have already given no little offense by my published treatise and disputations, in which I have amply set forth my views. These I must now briefly rehearse, in order to unmask the tyranny that is rampant here no less than in the sacrament of the bread. For because these two sacraments furnish opportunity for gain and profit, the greed of the shepherds rages in them with incredible zeal against the flock of Christ; although baptism, too, has sadly declined among adults and become the servant of avarice, as we have just seen in our discussion of vows.

² TERTIO LOCO de poenitentiae sacramento dicendum, in qua re, editis iam tractatulis et disputationibus, satis multos offendi, et quid in ea sentirem abunde exposui. Nunc breuiter repetenda, pro tyrannide reuelanda, quae non parcius hic grassatur, quam in sacramento panis. ³ In his enim duobus sacramentis quia lucrum et questus locum habent, incredibili negotio insaniuit auaritia pastorum in oues Christi, quanquam, ut iam de uotis uidimus, et baptismus, ut auaritiae seruiretur, misere occubuit in adultis. 

4.2  This is the first and chief abuse of this sacrament: They have utterly abolished the sacrament itself, so that there is not a vestige of it left. For they have overthrown both the word of divine promise and our faith, in which this as well as other sacraments consists. They have applied to their tyranny the word of promise which Christ speak in Matthew 16:19, ”Whatsoever you shall bind,” etc., in Matthew 18:18, “Whatsoever ye shall bind,” etc., and in John, the last chapter, (John 20:23) “Whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted to them,” etc. In these words the faith of penitents is aroused, to the obtaining of remission of sins. But in all their writing, teaching and preaching their sole concern has been, not to teach Christians what is promised in these words, or what they ought to believe and what great comfort they might find in them, but only to extend their own tyranny far and wide through force and violence, until it has come to such a pass that some of them have begin to command the very angels in heaven and to boast in incredible mad wickedness of having in these words obtained the right to a heavenly and an earthly rule, and of possessing the power to bind even in heaven. Thus they say nothing of the saving faith of the people, but babble only of the despotic power of the pontiffs, while Christ speaks not at all of power, but only of faith.

⁴   Primum huius sacramenti et capitale malum est, quod sacramentum ipsum in totum aboleuerunt, ne uestigio quidem eius relicto. Nam cum et ipsum, sicut et alia duo, constet uerbo promissionis diuinae et fide nostra, utrunque subuerterunt. Nam uerbum promissionis, ubi Christus dicit Matt. xvi. Quodcunque ligaueris etc., Et xviii: Quodcunque ligeueritis etc., Et Iohan. ult. Quorum remiseritis peccata, remittuntur eis etc., quibus prouocatur fides poenitentium, pro remissione peccatorum impetranda, suae tyrannidi aptauerunt. 

⁵ Vniuersis enim suis libris, studiis, sermonibus, non hoc egerunt, ut docerent, quid Christianis in his uerbis promissum est, quid credere deberent, et quantum consolationis haberent, sed quam late, longe, profunde ipsi potentia et uiolentia tyrannisarent, donec quidam et angelis in coelo ceperint mandare, et iactent incredibili et furentissima impietate, se coelestis et terreni imperii iura in his accepisse, atque in coelis etiam ligandi potestatem habere. ita prorsus nihil de fide salutari populi, sed de potestate tyrannica Pontificum omnia blatterant, cum Christus nihil de potestate, sed de fide omnia agat. 

4.3  For Christ has not ordained principalities or powers or lordships, but ministries, in the Church; as we learn from the Apostle, who says.: “ Let a man so account of us as of the ministers of Christ, and the dispensers of the mysteries of God.” (1 Corinthians 4:1) Now when He said: “ He that believe and is baptised shall be saved,” (Mark 16:16) He called forth the faith of those to be baptised, so that by this word of promise a man might be certain of being saved if he believed and was baptised. In that word there is no impartation of any power whatever, but only the institution of the ministry of those who baptise. Similarly, when He says here: “Whatsoever you shall bind,” etc., (Matthew 16:19) He calls forth the faith of the penitent, so that by this word of promise he may be certain of being truly absolved in heaven, if he be absolved and believe. Here there is no mention at all of power, but of the ministry of him that absolves, it is a wonder these blind and arrogant men missed the opportunity of arrogating a despotic power to themselves from the promise of baptism. But if they do not do this in the case of baptism, why should they have presumed to do it in the case of the promise of penance? For in both there is a like ministry, a similar promise, and the same kind of sacrament. So that, if baptism does not belong to Peter alone, it is undeniably a wicked usurpation of power to claim the keys for the pope alone. Again, when Christ says: “Take, eat; this is my body, which is given for you. Take, drink; this is the chalice in my blood,” ( 1 Corinthians 11:24 f.) etc., He calls forth the faith of those who eat, so that through these words their conscience may be strengthened by faith and they may rest assured of receiving the forgiveness of sins, if they have eaten. Here, too, He says nothing of power, but only of a ministry.

⁶   Non enim imperia, non potestates, non dominationes, sed ministeria in Ecclesia sua constituit, sicut ex Apostolo didicimus, dicente: Sic non existimet homo ut ministros Christi et dispensatores mysteriorum dei. (1 Kor 4,1) 

⁷ Quare, sicut ibi, cum dicit: Quicunque crediderit et baptisatus fuerit, saluus erit, fidem prouocauit baptisandorum, ut hoc promissionis uerbo homo certus sit, si baptiseretur credens, salutem sese consecuturum, ubi nihil prorsus potestatis tributum, sed ministerium duntaxat baptisantium institutum sit, Ita hic, cum dicit: Quodcunque ligaueris etc. fidem prouocat poenitentis, ut hoc promissionis uerbo certus sit, si solueretur credens, uere solutum se esse in coelo, ubi plane nihil potestatis, sed ministerium tangitur absoluentis. 

⁸ Et satis mirum est, quid acciderit caecis illis et arrogantibus hominibus, ut (W544) ex promissione baptimali non etiam sibi tyrannidem arrogarint, aut, si hinc non arrogant, cur in poenitentiali promissione id praesumpserint, cum utrobique sit par ministerium, similis promissio, eadem sacramenti ratio, ut non possis negare, si Baptismus non soli Petro debetur, etiam claues impia tyrannide soli Papae arrogari. 

⁹   Ita cum dicit: Accipite, hoc est corpus meum, quod pro uobis tradetur, Hic est calix in sanguine meo etc. fidem prouocat manducantium, ut his uerbis per fidem firmata conscientia, certi sint, sese remissionem peccatorum accipere, si manducauerint. ¹⁰ Nec hic aliquid potestatis sonat, sed solum ministerium.

4.4 Thus the promise of baptism remains in some sort, at least to infants; the promise of bread and the cup has been destroyed and made subservient to greed, faith becoming a work and the testament a sacrifice; while the promise of penance has fallen prey to the most oppressive despotism of all and serves to establish a more than temporal rule.

Sed baptismi promissio utcunque uel infantibus permansit, panis et calicis promissio extincta, in auaritiae seruitutem migrauit, et ex fide opus, ex testamento sacrificium natum est, Poenitentiae promissio abiit in tyrannidem uiolentissimam, et imperium plus quam temporale statuendum. 

4.5 Not content with these things, this Babylon of ours has so completely extinguished faith that it insolently denies its necessity in this sacrament; no, with the wickedness of Antichrist: it calls it heresy if any one should assert its necessity. What more could this tyranny do that it has not done? (Isaiah 5:4) Verily, by the rivers of Babylon we sit and weep, when we remember you, O Zion. (Psalm 137:1, 2) We hang our harps upon the willows in the midst thereof. The Lord curse the barren willows of those streams! Amen.

¹¹  Non hoc contenta Babylonica nostra fidem quoque adeo extinxit, ut impudenti fronte eam negaret necessariam esse in sacramento isto, immo Antichristica impietate definiret haeresim esse, si fidem necessariam quis esse assereret. Quid amplius potuit tyrannis ista facere, et non fecit? Vere super flumina Babylonis sedemus et flemus, dum recordamus tui, Zion, In salicibus in medio eius suspendimus organa nostra. Maledicat dominus steriles istas salices fluminum istorum, Amen. 

4.6 Now let us see what they have put in the place of the promise and the faith which they have blotted out and overthrown. Three parts have they made of penance – contrition, confession, and satisfaction; yet so as to destroy whatever of good there might be in any of them and to establish here also their covetousness and tyranny.

¹² Obliteratis itaque ac subuersis promissione et fide, uideamus, quid substituerint in locum earum. Tres partes dederunt poenitentiae, Contritionem, confessionem, satisfactionem, sed sic, ut in singulis, si quid boni inesset, tollerent, et in eisdem quoque suam libidinem et tyrannidem constituerent. 

4.7 In the first place, they teach that contrition precedes faith in the promise; they hold it, much too cheap, making it not a work of faith, but a merit; no, they do not mention it at all. So deep are they sunk in works and in those instances of Scripture that show how many obtained grace by reason of their contrition and humility of heart; but they take no account of the faith which wrought such contrition and sorrow of heart, as it is written of the men of Nineveh in Jonah 3:5, “And the men of Nineveh believed in God: and they proclaimed a fast,” etc. Others, again, more bold and wicked, have invented a so-called “attrition,” which is, converted into contrition by virtue of the power of the keys, of which they know nothing. This attrition they grant to the wicked and unbelieving and thus abolish contrition altogether. O the intolerable wrath of God, that such things should be taught in the Church of Christ! Thus, with both faith and its work destroyed, we go on secure in the doctrines and opinions of men – yes, we go on to our destruction.

¹³  PRINCIPIO, Contritionem sic docuerunt, ut eam fide promissionis priorem facerent, et longe uiliorem, ut quae non esset fidei opus, sed meritum, immo non memorantur eam. Sic enim operibus inhaeserunt et exemplis scriptuarum, in quibus leguntur multi ueniam consecuti propter cordis contritionem et humilitatem, sed non aduertunt fidem, quae contritionem et dolorem cordis operata est, sicut de Niniuitis Ionae ii. scribitur: Et crediderunt uiri Niniuitae in domino et predicauerunt ieiunium etc. (Jon 3,5)

¹⁴ His audatiores et peiores finxerunt quandam attritionem, quae uirtute clauium (quam ignorant) fieret contritio, eam donant impiis et incredulis, ut sic uniuersa contritio aboleretur. O iram dei insustentabilem, haeccine in Ecclesia Christi doceri! Sic securi et fide et opere eius abolito, in doctrinis et opinionibus (W545) hominum incedimus, immo perimus. 

A contrite heart is a precious thing, but it is found only where there is a lively faith in the promises and the threats of God. Such faith, intent on the immutable truth of God, startles and terrifies the conscience and thus renders it contrite, and afterwards, when it is contrite, raises it up, consoles and preserves it; so that the truth of God’s threatening is the cause of contrition, and the truth of His, promise the cause of consolation, if it be believed. By such faith a man merits the forgiveness of sins. Therefore faith should be taught and aroused before all else; and when faith is obtained, contrition and consolation will follow inevitably and of themselves.

¹⁵ Magna res est cor contritum, nec nisi ardentis in promissionem et comminationem diuinam fidei, quae ueritatem dei immobilem intuita, tremefacit, exterret et sic conterit conscientiam, rursus exaltat et solatur seruatque contritam, ut ueritas comminationis sit causa contritionis, ueritas promissionis sit solacii, si credatur, et hac fide homo mereatur peccatorum remissionem. Proinde fides ante omnia docenda et prouocanda est, fide autem obtenta, contritio et consolatio ineuitabili sequela sua sponte uenient. 

4.8 Therefore, although there is something of truth in their teaching that contrition is to be attained by what they call the recollection and contemplation of sins, yet their teaching is perilous and perverse so long as they do not teach first of all the beginning and cause of contrition – the immutable truth of God’s threatening and promise, to the awakening of faith – so that men may learn to pay more heed to the truth of God, whereby they are cast down and lifted up, than to the multitude of their sins, which will rather irritate and increase the sinful desires than lead to contrition, if they be regarded apart from the truth of God.

¹⁶   Quare, et si non nihil docent, qui ex peccatorum suorum (ut uocant) collectu et conspectu contritionem parandam docent, periculose tamen et peruerse docent, dum non ante principia et causas docent contritionis, nempe, diuinae comminationis et promissionis ueritatem immobilem ad fidem prouocandam, ut intelligant, multo maiori negotio sibi ueritatem diuinam esse spectandam, unde humilientur et exaltentur, quam peccatorum suorum turbam, quae si citra ueritatem dei spectentur, potius refricabunt et augebunt peccati desyderium quam contritionem parent. 

I will say nothing now of the intolerable burden they have bound upon us with their demand that we should frame a contrition for every sin. That is impossible; we can know only the smaller part of our sins, and even our good works are found to be sins, according to Psalm 143:2, “Enter not into judgement with your servant; for in your sight shall no man living be justified.” It is enough to lament the sins which at the present moment distress our conscience, as well as those which we can readily call to mind. Whoever is in this frame of mind is without doubt ready to grieve and fear for all his sins, and will do so whenever they are brought to his knowledge in the future.

¹⁷ Taceo hic insuperabile cahos laboris, quod nobis imposuerunt, scilicet, ut omnium peccatorum formemus contritionem, cum hoc sit impossibile et minorem partem peccatorum scire possimus, denique et bona opera inueniantur esse peccata, iuxta illud psal. cxlii: Non intres in iuditium cum seruo tuo, quia non iustificabitur in conspectu tuo omnis uiuens. (Sl 143,2) Satis enim est, si ea doleamus peccata, quae praesente conscientia mordent, et facili prospectu memoriae cognoscuntur. Nam, qui sic affectus est, absque dubio paratus est de omnibus dolere et timere, dolebitque ac timebit, ubi in futurum reuelata fuerint. 

4.9 Beware, then, of putting your trust, in your own contrition and of ascribing the forgiveness of sins to your own sorrow. God does not have respect to you because of that, but because of the faith by which you have believed His threatenings and promises, and which wrought such sorrow within you. Thus we owe whatever of good there may be in our penance, not to our scrupulous enumeration of sins, but to the truth of God and to our faith. All other things are the works and fruits of this, which follow of their own accord, and do not make a man good, but are done by a man already made good through faith in the truth of God. Even so, “a smoke goeth up in His wrath, because He is angry and troubleth the mountains and kindleth them,” as it is said in Psalm 18:8. First comes the terror of His threatening, which burns; up the wicked, then faith, accepting this, sends up the cloud of contrition, etc.

¹⁸   Caue ergo in contritionem tuam confidas, aut dolori tuo tribuas remissionem peccatorum. Non respicit te propter haec deus, sed propter fidem, qua minis et promissis eius credidisti, quae operata est dolorem eiusmodi ac per hoc non diligentiae peccatorum collectrici, sed ueritati dei et fidei nostrae debetur, quicquid boni in poenitentia fuerit. 

¹⁹ Caetera omnia sunt opera et fructus, quae sua sponte sequuntur, et bonum hominem non faciunt, sed a bono iam per fidem ueritatis dei facto fiunt. Sic fumus ascendit in ira eius, quia iratus montes conturbat et succendit, ut psal. xvii. dicitur. prior est terror comminationis, qui succendit impios, hanc fides acceptans fumat contritionis nebulam etc. 

4.10 Contrition, however, is less exposed to tyranny and gain than wholly given over to wickedness and pestilent teaching. But confession and satisfaction have become the chief workshop of greed and violence.

²⁰   Contritio tamen minus tyrannidi et quaestui, sed in totum impietati et doctrinis pestilentibus patuit. Confessio uero et satisfactio, egregiae officinae factae sunt lucri et potentiae.

4.11 Let us first take up confession.

De confessione prius. (W546)

4.12 There is no doubt that confession is necessary and commanded of God. Thus we read in Matthew (Matthew 3:6) “They were baptised of John in Jordan, confessing their sins.” And in 1 John 1:9 “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins. If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.” If the saints may not deny their sin, how much more ought those who are guilty of open and great sins to make confession! But most effectively of all does Matthew 18:15 prove, the institution of confession, in which passage Christ teaches that a sinning brother should be rebuked, haled before, the Church, accused, and, if he will not hear, excommunicated. But he hears when, heeding the rebuke, he acknowledges and confesses his sin.

Non est dubium, confessionem peccatorum esse necessariam et diuinitus mandatam Matt. iii. Baptisabantur a Iohanne in Iordane confitentes peccata sua. i. Iohan. i. Si confessi fuerimus peccata nostra, fideles est et iustus, qui remittat nobis peccata nostra, Si dixerimus, quia non peccauimus, mendacem eum facimus, et uerbum eius in nobis non est. 

²¹ Si enim sanctis non licet negare peccatum suum, quanto magis publicis aut magnis peccatis obnoxios oportet confiteri. Sed omnium efficacissime Mat. xviii. instituta confessio probatur, ubi Christus docet fratrem peccantem corripiendum, prodendum, accusandum, et si non audierit, excommunicandum. Tunc enim audiet, quando agnoscet et confitebitur peccatum suum, correptioni caedens. 

4.13 Of private confession, which is now observed, I am hearty in favor, even though, it cannot be proved from the Scriptures; it is useful and necessary, nor would I have it abolished – no, I rejoice that it exists in the Church of Christ, for it is a cure without an equal for distressed consciences. For when we have laid bare our conscience to our brother and privately made known to him the evil that lurked within, we receive from our brother’s lips the word of comfort spoken by God Himself; and, if we accept it in faith, we find peace in the mercy of God speaking to us through our brother. This alone do I abominate – that this confession has been subjected to the despotism and extortion of the pontiffs. They reserve to themselves, even hidden sins, and command that they be made known to confessors named by them, only to trouble the consciences of men. They merely play the pontiff, while they utterly despise the true duties of pontiffs, which are to preach the Gospel and to care for the poor. yes, the godless despots leave the great sins to the plain priests, and reserve to themselves those sins only which are of less consequence, such as those ridiculous and fictitious things in the bull Coenadoinini. no, to make the wickedness of their error the more apparent, they not only do not reserve, but actually teach and approve, the sins, against the service of God, against faith and the chief commandments; such as their running on pilgrimages, the perverse worship of the saints, the lying saints’? legends, the various forms of trust in works and ceremonies, and the practicing of them, by all of which faith in God is extinguished and idolatry encouraged, as we see in our day. We have the same kind of priests today as Jereboam ordained of old in Dan and Beersheba,(1 Kings 12:26 ff.) ministers of the golden calves, men who are ignorant of the law of God, of faith and of whatever pertains to the feeding of Christ’s sheep, and who inculcate in the people nothing but their own inventions with terror and violence.

²²   Occulta autem confessio, quae modo celebratur, et si probari ex scriptura non possit, miro modo tamen placet, et utilis imo necessaria est, nec uellem eam non esse, immo gaudeo eam esse in Ecclesia Christi, cum sit ipsa afflictis conscientiis unicum remedium. Siquidem, detecta fratri nostro conscientia et malo, quod latebat, familiariter reuelato, uerbum solacii recipimus ex ore fratris a deo prolatum, quod fide suscipientes, pacatos nos facimus in misericordia dei per fratrem nobis loquentis. Hoc solum detestor, Esse eam confessionem in tyrannidem et exactionem pontificum redactam. 

²³ Nam et occulta sibi reseruant, deinde nominatis a se confessoribus reuelari mandant, ad uexandas scilicet hominum conscientias, solum pontificantes, officiis ueris pontificum prorsus (quae sunt Euangelisare, et pauperes curare) contemptis. Quin ea potissimum reseruant sibi impii tyranni, quae minoris sunt momenti, magna uero passim relinquunt uulgo sacerdotum, 

²⁴ Qualia sunt ridicula illa et conficta in Bulla coenae domini, immo, quo sit manifestior peruersitatis impietas, ea, quae contra cultum dei, fidem et prima praecepta sunt, non modo non reseruant, sed et docent et probant, qualia sunt discursus illi peregrinationum, cultus peruersi sanctorum, mendaces legendae sanctorum, uaria fidutia et exercitia operum et ceremoniarum, quibus omnibus fides dei extinguitur et Idolatria fouetur, sicut est dies haec, ut pontifices hodie alios non habeamus, quam quales olim Hieroboam in Dan et Bersabee constituit, (1 Kong 12,26) uitulorum aureorum ministros, ut qui legem dei, fidem et quicquid ad pascendas oues Christi pertinet, ignorantes, sua tantum inuenta populis in timore et potestate inculcant. 

4.14 Although my advice is that we bear this outrage of reserved cases, even as Christ bids us bear all the tyranny of men, and teaches us that we must obey these extortioners; nevertheless I deny that they have the right to make such reservations, nor do I believe they can bring one dot of an I or cross of a T of proof that they have it.But I am going to prove the contrary. In the first place, Christ, speaking in Matthew 18:15 of open sins, says that if our brother shall hear us when we rebuke him, we have saved the soul of our brother, and that he is to be brought before the Church only if he refuse to hear us; so that his sin may be corrected among brethren. How much more will it be true of hidden sins, that they are forgiven if one brother freely makes confession to another? So that it is not necessary to tell it to the Church, that is, as these babblers interpret it, the prelate or priest. We have another proof of this in Christ’s words in the same chapter: “Whatsoever you shall bind on earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven.” (Matthew 18:18) For this is said to each and every Christian. Again, He says in the same place:”Again I say to you, that if two of you shall consent upon earth, concerning anything whatsoever that they shall ask, it shall be done to them by my Father who is in heaven.” ( Matthew 18:19) Now, the brother who lays his hidden sins before his brother and craves pardon, certainly consents with his brother upon earth in the truth, which is Christ. Of which Christ says yet more clearly, confirming His preceding words: “Verily I say to you, where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.” (Matthew18:20)

²⁵   Ego etsi uiolentiam istam reseruatorum ferendam esse suadeo, sicut et uniuersas omnium tyrannides ferre iubet Christus, et his exactoribus parendum esse docet, tamen ius reseruandi eos habere, nego neque credo, quod nec uno (W547) apice aut iota possunt probare, ego autem contrarium probo, Primum. Si Christus Matt. xviii. de publicis peccatis dicit, nos esse lucratos animam fratris, si correptus nos audierit, nec prodendum Ecclesiae, nisi audire noluerit, et ita inter fratres peccatum emendari potest, quanto magis de occultis uerum erit, ipsum tolli, si fratri sponte confessus fuerit, ut non sit necesse, Ecclesiae, id est, praelato aut sacerdoti (ut ipsi garriunt, interpretantes) idipsum prodere? 

²⁶ In quam sententiam et aliam habemus Christi autoritatem dicentis ibidem: Quodcunque ligaueritis super terram, ligatum erit et in coelis, et quodcunque solueritis super terram, solutum erit et in coelis. Hoc enim omnibus et singulis Christianis dictum est. ubi et iterum in idem dicit: Rursum dico uobis, Si duo ex uobis consenserint super terram, de omni re, quancunque petierint, fiet illis a patre meo, qui est in coelis. At frater fratri occulta sua pandens et ueniam petens, certe cum fratre super terram consentit, in ueritate, quae Christus est. De quo adhuc clarius ibidem praedicta confirmans, dicit: Amen enim dico uobis, ubi fuerint duo aut tres in nomine meo congregati, in medio eorum sum ego. (Matt 18,18ff) 

4.15 Hence. I have no doubt but that every one is absolved from his hidden sins when he has made confession, either of his own accord or after being rebuked, has sought pardon and amended his ways, privately before any brother, however much the violence of the pontiffs may rage against it; for Christ has given to every one of His believers the power to absolve even open sins. Add yet this little point: If any reservation of hidden. sins were valid, so that one could not be saved unless they were forgiven, then a man’s salvation would be prevented most of all by those aforementioned good works and idolatries, which are nowadays taught by the popes. But if these most grievous sins do not prevent one’s salvation, how foolish it is to reserve those lighter sins! Verily, it is the foolishness and blindness of the pastors that produce these monstrous things in the Church. Therefore I would admonish these princes of Babylon and bishops of Bethaven ( Hosea 4:15; Hosea 10:5) to refrain from reserving any cases whatsoever. Let them, moreover, permit all brothers and sisters freely to hear the confession of hidden sins, so that the sinner may make his sins known to whomever he will and seek pardon and comfort, that is, the word of Christ, by the mouth of his neighbor. For with these presumptions of theirs they only ensnare the consciences of the weak without necessity, establish their wicked despotism, and fatten their avarice on the sins and ruin of their brethren. Thus they stain their hands with the blood of souls, sons are devoured by their parents, Ephraim devours Juda, and Syria Israel with open mouth, as Isaiah said. (Isaiah 9:20)

²⁷  Proinde, ego non dubito eum esse a peccatis suis occultis absolutum, quisquis siue sponte confessus, siue correptus, ueniam petierit et emendauerit, coram quouis priuatim fratre, quicquid contra haec insanierit pontificum uiolentia, quando Christus et manifesta dedit absoluere cuilibet suo fideli. 

²⁸ Adde et ratiunculam: Si occultorum ualeret reseruatio ulla, ut, nisi eis remissis, non esset salus, maxime illa impedirent salutem, quae supra memoraui, ipsa etiam bona opera et idolatriae, quas a pontificibus docemur hodie; quod si haec non impediunt grauissima, quanto minus et illa stultissima reseruantur leuiora? 

²⁹ Verum, ignorantia et caecitas pastorum, operantur haec portenta in Ecclesia. Quare, ego principes istos Babylonis et Episcopos Bethauen (Hos 4,15; 10,5) monerem, sibi temperent a reseruandis casibus quibuscunque. Deinde, de occultis audiendas confessionis facultatem permittant liberrimam omnibus fratribus et sororibus, ut peccator, cui uoluerit, suum peccatum reuelet, ueniam et solatium, id est, uerbum Christi ex ore proximi petiturus. ³⁰ Nihil enim agunt his suis temeritatibus, quam ut conscientias infirmorum sine causa illaqueent, suam tyrannidem impiam stabiliant, et e peccatis ac perditione fratrum auaritiam suam pascant. sic enim sanguine animarum contaminant manus suas, et filii deuorantur a parentibus, et Ephraim deuorant Iudam, et Syria Israelem toto ore, ut Isaias dicit. (Es 9,20) 

4.16 To these evils they have added the “circumstances,” and also the mothers, daughters, sisters, brothers-and sisters-in-law, branches and fruits of sins; since, forsooth, astute and idle men have worked out a kind of family tree of relationships and affinities even among sins so prolific is wickedness coupled with ignorance. For this conceit, whatever rogue be its author, has like many another become a public law. Thus do the shepherds keep watch over the Church of Christ; whatever new work or superstition those stupid devotees may have dreamed of, they immediately drag to the light of day, deck out with indulgences and safeguard with bulls; so far are they from suppressing it and preserving to God’s people the true faith and liberty. For what has our liberty to do with the tyranny of Babylon?

³¹   His malis adiecerunt circumstantias, item matres, filias, sorores, affines, ramos, fructus peccatorum, excogitata scilicet per acutissimos et ociosissimos (W548) homines etiam in peccatis arbore quadam consanguinitatis et affinitatis, tam foecunda est impietas et inscitia. Abiit enim ista cogitatio, cuiuscunque nebulonis fuerit, in publicam legem, sicut et multa alia. Sic enim super Ecclesiam Christi uigilant pastores, ut, quicquid uel somniauerint superstitionis aut operis noui deuotarii illi stultissimi, mox proditum ornent etiam indulgentiis, et muniant bullis, tantum abest, ut inhibeant et populo dei synceram fidem et libertatem custodiant. ³² Quid enim libertati et tyrannidi Babyloniae?

4.17 My advice would be to ignore all circumstances utterly. With Christians there is only one circumstance – that a brother has sinned. For there is no person to be compared with a Christian brother. And the observance of places, times, days, persons, and all other superstitious moonshine, only magnifies the things that are nothing, to the injury of those which are everything; as if aught could be greater or of more importance than the glory of Christian brotherhood! Thus they bind us to places, days and persons, that the name of brother may be lightly esteemed, and we may serve in bondage instead of being free – we to whom all days, places, persons, and all external things are one and the same.

At ego, quicquid est circumstantiarum, consuluerim penitus contemnere. Apud Christianos una est circumstantia, quae est, peccasse fratrem. Nulla enim persona fraternitati Christianae comparanda est, nec aliquid aliud facit obseruatio locorum, temporum, dierum, personarum, et si qua alia est inflatura superstitiosa, quam ut magnificet ea, quae nihil sunt, in iniuriam eorum, quae omnia sunt, quasi quid grauius aut maius esse possit fraternitatis Christianae gloria. ita affigunt nos locis et diebus et personis, ut uilescat fraterni nominis opinio, et pro libertate captiuitatem seruiamus, nos, quibus omnes dies, loci, personae, et quicquid externum est, aequalia sunt. 

4.18 How unworthily they have dealt with satisfaction, I have abundantly shown in the controversies concerning indulgences. They have grossly abused it, to the ruin of Christians in body and soul. To begin with, they taught it in such a manner that the people never learned what satisfaction really is, namely, the renewal of a man’s life. Then, they so continually harp on it and emphasize its necessity, that they leave no room for faith in Christ. With these scruples they torture poor consciences to death, and one runs to Rome, one to this place, another to that, this one to Chartreuse, that one to some other place, one scourges himself with rods, another ruins his body with fasts and vigils, and all cry with the same mad zeal, “Lo here is Christ! lo there!” (Luke 17:20f.) believing that the kingdom of heaven, which is within us, will come with observation. For these monstrous things we are indebted to you, O Roman See, and thy murderous laws and ceremonies, with which you hast corrupted all mankind, so that they think by works to make satisfaction for sin to God, Who can be satisfied only by the faith of a contrite heart! This faith thou not only keepest silent with this uproar of thine, but even oppressest, only so your insatiable horseleech have those to whom it may say, “Bring, bring!” and may traffic in sins. (Proverbs 30:15)

³³   Satisfactionem quam indigne tractarint, abunde dixi in causis indulgentiarum, qua egregie sunt abusi, ad perdendos Christianos in corpore et anima. Primum eam sic docuerunt, ut populus ueram satisfactionem non intelligeret unquam, quae est innouatio uitae. 

³⁴ Deinde, sic instant, et necessariam faciunt, ut fidei in Christum non relinquant locum, miserrime excarnificatis eo scrupulo conscientiis, alio currente ad Romam, alio hic, alio illuc, illo in Carthusiam, illo in alium locum, alio virgis se flagellante, alio corpus suum uigiliis et ieiuniis occidente, omnibus uno furore dicentibus: Ecce hic et hic est Christus, et regnum dei, quod intra nos est, cum obseruantione uenturum putantibus. 

³⁵ Quae monstra tibi debemus, Romana sedes, et tuis homicidis legibus et ritibus, quibus mundum totum eo perdidisti, ut arbitrentur sese posse deo per opera pro peccatis satisfacere, cui sola fide cordis contriti satisfit, quam tu his tumultibus non solum taceri facis, sed opprimis etiam, tantum ut habeat sanguisuga tua insatiabilis, quibus dicat: affer, affer, et peccata uendat. (Ordsp 30,15) 

4.19 Some have gone even farther and have constructed those instruments for driving souls to despair – their decrees that the penitent must rehearse all sins anew for which he neglected to make the imposed satisfaction. Yes, what would not they venture to do, who were born for the sole purpose of carrying all things into a tenfold captivity? Moreover, how many are possessed with the notion that they are in a saved state and are making satisfaction for their sins, if they but mumble over, word for word, the prayers the priest has imposed, even though they give never a thought meanwhile to amending their life! They believe that their life is changed in the one moment of contrition and confession, and it remains only to make satisfaction for their past sins. How should they know better, when they are not taught otherwise? No thought is given here to the mortifying of the flesh, no value is attached to the example of Christ, Who absolved the woman taken in adultery and said to her, “Go, and sin no more!” (John 8:11) thereby laying upon her the cross – the mortifying of her flesh. This perverse error is greatly encouraged by our absolving sinners before the satisfaction has been completed, so that they are more concerned about completing the satisfaction which lies before them, than they are about contrition, which they suppose to be past and over when they have made confession. Absolution ought rather to follow on the completion of satisfaction, as it did in the ancient Church, with the result that, after completing the work, penitents gave themselves with greater diligence to faith and the living of a new life.

³⁶  Processerunt ex his quidam ad eas desperationis machinas animabus parandas, ut statuerent, omnia peccata denuo esse repetenda confitenti, pro quibus iniuncta satisfactio esset neglecta. Et quid non auderent, qui in hoc nati fuerunt, ut nihil non decies captiuarent? Porro, quanta quaeso pars (W549) ea est imbuta opinione, se esse in statu salutis, et pro peccatis satisfacere, si preculas a sacerdote impositas uocetenus murmurauerit? etiam si interim ne cogitet quidem uitae rationem emendare. 

³⁷ Vno enim momento contritionis et confessionis mutatem esse uitam credunt, superesse uero tantum, ut satisfaciant pro praeteritis peccatis. Quomodo aliter saperent, qui aliud non docentur? Nihil hic de mortificatione carnis cogitatur, nihil ualet exemplum Christi, qui adulteram absoluens dixit: Vade et amplius noli peccare, (Joh 8,11) crucem scilicet carnis mortificandae ei imponens. 

³⁸ Huic peruersitati dedit occasionem non modicam, quod peccantes absoluimus ante satisfactionem impletam, qua fit, ut magis solliciti sint de implenda satisfactione, quae durat, quam de contritione, quam transisse inter confitendum credunt, cum econtra Absolutionem oporteat esse, sicut erat in primitiua Ecclesia, posteriorem, satisfactione impleta, quo fiebat, ut opere cessante, postea magis in fide et nouitate uitae exercerentur. 

4.20 But this must suffice in repetition of what I have more fully said on indulgences, and in general this must suffice for the present concerning the three sacraments, which have been treated, and yet not treated, in so many harmful books, theological as well as juristic. It remains to attempt some discussion of the other sacraments also, lest I seem to have rejected them without cause.

³⁹ Verum, de iis satis repetitum esto, quae super indulgentiis latius dixi, atque haec in totum de tribus istis sacramentis interim retulisse satis sit, quae tam multis et noxiis libris, sententiariis et iuridicis, tractantur et non tractantur. superest, de reliquis quoque sacramentis aliquid tentare, ne sine causa uidear ea reiecisse. 

5. CONFIRMATION

⁴⁰ DE CONFIRMATIONE.

5.1 I wonder what could have possessed them to make a sacrament of confirmation out of the laying on of hands, (Mark 16:18; Acts 6:6, Acts 8:17, Acts 19:6) which Christ employed when He blessed young children, (Mark 10:16) and the apostles when they imparted the Holy Spirit, ordained elders and cured the sick, as the Apostle writes to Timothy, “Lay hands suddenly on no man.” (1 Timothy 5:22) Why have they not also turned the sacrament of the bread into confirmation? For it is written in Acts 9:19,”And when he had taken meat he was strengthened,” and in Psalm 104:15, “And that bread may cheer man’s heart.” Confirmation would thus include three sacraments – the bread, ordination, and confirmation itself. But if everything the apostles did is a sacrament, why have they not rather made preaching a sacrament?

   Mirum est, quid in mentem illis uenerit, ut sacramentum confirmationis facerent ex impositione manuum, qua legimus Christum paruulos tetigisse, Apostolos dedisse spiritum sanctum, ordinasse presbyteros, et infirmos curasse, ut ad Timot. scribit Apostolus: Nemini manus cito imposueris. (1 Tim 5,22) Cur non ex sacramento panis etiam Confirmationem fecerunt, quando scriptum est act. ix: Et cum accepisset cibum confortatus est, (Apg 9,19) Et psal. ciii: Et panis cor hominis confirmet, ut sic confirmatio tria complectatur sacramenta, panem, ordinem et ipsam confirmationem? Si autem sacramentum est, quicquid Apostoli fecerunt, cur non magis praedicationem fecerunt sacramentum? 

5.2 I do not say this because I condemn the seven sacraments, but because I deny that they can be proved from the Scriptures. Would to God we had in the Church such a laying on of hands as there was in apostolic times, whether we called it confirmation or healing! But there is nothing left of it now but what we ourselves have invented to adorn the office of the bishops, that they may have at least something to do in the Church. For after they relinquished to their inferiors those arduous sacraments together with the Word, as being too common for themselves – since, forsooth, whatever the divine Majesty has instituted has to be despised of men –  it was no more than right that we should discover something easy and not too burdensome for such delicate and great heroes to do, and should by no means entrust it to the lower clergy as something common – for whatever human wisdom has decreed has to be held in honor among men! Therefore, as are the priests, so let their ministry and duty be. For a bishop who does not preach the Gospel or care for souls, what is he but an idol in the world, having but the name and appearance of a bishop? (1 Corinthians 8:4) But we seek, instead of this, sacraments that have been divinely instituted, among which we see no reason for numbering confirmation. For, in order that there be a sacrament, there is required above all things a word of divine promise, whereby faith, may be trained. But we read nowhere that Christ ever gave a promise concerning confirmation, although He laid hands on many and included the laying on of hands among the signs in Mark 16:18 ”They shall lay their hands on the sick, and they shall recover.” Yet no one referred this to a sacrament, nor can this be done.

⁴¹   Non haec dico, quod damnem sacramenta septem, sed quod e scripturis ea probari negem. Atque utinam esset in Ecclesia talis manuum impositio, qualis erat Apostolorum tempore, siue eam confirmationem siue curationem appellare uellemus. At nunc nihil eius relictum est, nisi quantum ipsi excogitauimus, pro ornandis officiis Episcoporum, ne penitus sint sine opere in Ecclesia. ⁴² Postquam enim sacramenta illa negotiosa una cum uerbo aliis inferioribus, ut uiliora, reliquerunt (nempe, quod, quicquid diuina instituit (W550) maiestas, hominibus oporteat esse contemptum), iustum fuit, ut facile aliquod, quod tam delicatis et magnis heroibus non esset molestum, inueniremus et nequaquam ceu uile inferioribus committeremus. Nam quod humana statuit sapientia, oportet ut hominibus sit honoratum. Ita, quales sunt sacerdotes, tale habeant ministerium et offitium. 

⁴³ Nam episcopus non euangelisans, nec animas curans, quid est, nisi Idolum in mundo, habens nomen et figuram Episcopi? Nos autem pro hac uice sacramenta diuinitus instituta quaerimus, inter quae ut Confirmationem numeremus, nullam inuenimus causam. Ad sacramenti enim constitutionem ante omnia requiritur uerbum diuinae promissionis, quo fides exerceatur. At nihil legimus Christum uspiam de confirmatione promisisse, licet ipse multis imposuerit manus, et Marci ult. inter signa ponat: Manus egris imponent, et bene habebunt. (Mark 16,18) at haec nemo sacramento, sicut nec potest, aptauit. 

5.3 Hence it is sufficient to regard confirmation as a certain churchly rite or sacramental ceremony, similar to other ceremonies, such as the blessing of holy water and the like. For if every other creature is sanctified by the word and by prayer, (1 Timothy 4:4 f.) why should not much rather man be sanctified by the same means? Still, these things cannot be called sacraments of faith, because there is no divine promise connected with them, neither do they save; but sacraments do save those who believe the divine promise.

⁴⁴ Quare satis est, pro ritu quodam Ecclesiastico seu cerimonia sacramentali confirmationem habere, similem caeteris cerimoniis consecrandae aquae, aliarumque rerum. Nam si omnis alia creatura sanctificatur per uerbum et orationem, cur non multo magis hominem liceat sanctificari eisdem, quae tamen, quia promissionem diuinam non habent, sacramenta fidei dici non possunt. Neque enim salutem operantur At sacramenta seruant credentes promissioni diuinae. 

MARRIAGE

⁴⁵ DE MATRIMONIO. 

6.1 Not only is marriage regarded as a sacrament without the least warrant of Scripture, but the very traditions which extol it as a sacrament have turned it into a farce. Let me explain.

Matrimonium non solum sine ulla scriptura pro sacramento censetur, uerum eisdem traditionibus, quibus sacramentum esse iactatur, merum ludebrium factum est, de quo aliquid uideamus.

6.2 We said that there is in every sacrament a word of divine promise, to be believed by whoever receives the sign, and that the sign alone cannot be a sacrament. Now we read nowhere that the man who marries a wife receives any grace of God. no, there is not even a divinely instituted sign in marriage, or nowhere do we read that marriage was instituted by God to be a sign of anything. To be sure, whatever takes place in a visible manner may be regarded as a type or figure of something invisible; but types and figures are not sacraments in the sense in which we use this term.

 Diximus, in omni sacramento haberi uerbum promissionis diuinae, cui credi oporteat ab eo, qui signum suscipit, nec solum signum posse sacramentum esse. Nusquam autem legitur, aliquid gratiae dei accepturum, quisquis uxorem duxerit. 

⁴⁶ Quin nec signum est diuinitus institutum in Matrimonio. Nec enim uspiam legitur a deo institutum, ut aliquid significaret, licet omnia, quae uisibiliter geruntur, possint intelligi figurae et allegoriae rerum inuisibilium. At figura aut allegoria non sunt sacramenta, ut nos de sacramentis loquimur. 

6.3 Furthermore, since marriage existed from the beginning of the world and is still found among unbelievers, it cannot possibly be called a sacrament of the New Law and the exclusive possession of the Church. The marriages of the ancients were no less sacred than are ours, nor are those of unbelievers less true marriages than those of believers, and yet they are not regarded, as sacraments. Besides, there are even among believers married folk who are wicked and worse than any heathen; why should marriage be called a sacrament in their case and not among the heathen? Or are we going to rant so foolishly of baptism and the Church as to hold that marriage is a sacrament only in the Church, just as some make the mad claim that temporal power exists only in the Church? That is childish and foolish talk, by which we expose our ignorance and our arrogance to the ridicule of unbelievers.

⁴⁷  Deinde, cum matrimonium fuerit ab initio mundi, et apud infideles adhuc permaneat, nullae subsunt rationes, ut sacramentum nouae legis et solius Ecclesiae possit dici. Non minus enim erant Matrimonia patrum sancta quam nostra, nec minus uera infidelium quam fidelium, nec tamen in eis ponunt sacramentum. 

⁴⁸ Ad haec sunt apud fideles quoque impii coniuges, (W551) quibusuis gentibus peiores, cur hic sacramentum dici debet, et non apud gentiles? An de baptismo et Ecclesia sic nugabimur, ut, sicut quidam delyrant, Imperium temporale non esse nisi in Ecclesia, ita matrimonium non esse sacramentum nisi in Ecclesia dicamus? puerilia sunt haec et ridicula, per quae nostrum inscitiam et temeritatem infidelibus risui exponimus. 

6.4 But they will say: The Apostle writes in Ephesians 5:31, ”They shall be two in one flesh. This is a great sacrament.” Surely you are not going to contradict so plain a statement of the Apostle! I reply: This argument, like the others, betrays great shallowness and a negligent and thoughtless reading of Scripture. Nowhere in Holy Scripture is this word sacrament employed in the meaning to which we are accustomed; it has an entirely different meaning. For wherever it occurs it signifies not the sign of a sacred thing, but a sacred, secret, hidden thing. Thus Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 4:1, “Let a man so account of us as the ministers of Christ, and dispensers of the mysteries – i.e., sacraments – of God.” Where we have the word sacrament the Greek text reads mystery, which word our version sometimes translates and sometimes retains in its Greek form. Thus our verse reads in the Greek: “They Shall be two in one flesh; this is a great mystery.” (Ephesians 5:31 f.) This explains how they came to find a sacrament of the New Law here – a thing they would never have done if they had read the word “mystery”, as it is in the Greek.

⁴⁹  At dicent: Apostolus dicit, Ephe. v: Erunt duo in carne una, Sacramentum hoc magnum est, Tu ne ergo tam euidenti Apostoli uerbo contradices? Respondeo, et hoc argumentum esse magnae oscitantiae et indiligentis inconsultaeque lectionis. Non enim habet uniuersa scriptura sancta hoc nomen sacramentum in ea significatione, qua noster usus, sed in contraria. Vbique enim significat non signum rei sacrae, sed rem sacram, secretam et absconditam. 

⁵⁰ Sic Paulus .ii. Corint. iiii: Sic noc existimet homo ut ministros Christi et dispensatores mysteriorum dei, id est, sacramentorum. Vbi enim nos habemus sacramentum, in graeco mysterium ponitur, quod aliquando transfert interpres, aliquando dimittet graecam uocem, unde et hic in graeco dicitur: Erunt duo in carne una, mysterium hoc magnum est. Quae res fuit occasio, ut sacramentum nouae legis intelligerent, longe aliud facturi, si mysterium legissent, ut in graeco est. 

6.5 Thus Christ Himself is called a sacrament in 1 Timothy 3:16, ”And evidently great is the sacrament – i.e., mystery – of godliness, which was manifested in the flesh, was justified in the spirit, appeared to angels, has been preached to the Gentiles, is believed, by the world, is taken up in glory.” Why have they not drawn out of this passage an eighth sacrament of the New Law, since they have the clear authority of Paul? But if they restrained themselves here, where they had a most excellent opportunity to unearth a new sacrament, why are they so wanton in the former passage? It was their ignorance, forsooth, of both words and things; they clung to the mere sound of the words, no, to their own fancies. For, having once arbitrarily taken the word sacrament to mean a sign, they immediately, without thought or scruple, made a sign of it every time they came upon it in the Sacred Scriptures. Such new meanings of words and such human customs they have also elsewhere dragged into Holy Writ, and conformed it to their dreams, making anything out of any passage whatsoever. Thus they continually chatter nonsense about the terms: good and evil works, sin, grace, righteousness, virtue, and well-nigh every one of the fundamental words and things. For they employ them all after their own arbitrary judgment, learned from the writings of men, to the detriment both of the truth of God and of our salvation.

⁵¹   Sic .i. Timot. iii. Christum ipsum uocat sacramentum dicens: Et manifeste magnum sacramentum (id est, mysterium) est, quod manifestum est in carne, iustificatum est in spiritu, apparuit angelis, praedicatum est gentibus, creditum est mundo, assumptum est in gloria. Cur non et hinc octauum nouae legis hauserunt sacramentum, cum tam claram haberent autoritatem Pauli? Aut si hic se continuerunt, ubi oportunissime potuerunt copiosi esse in sacramentis inueniendis, cur illic ita luxuriant? scilicet ignorantia tam rerum quam uerborum eos fefellit, qui in solo uerborum sono, immo opinionibus suis haeserunt. 

⁵² Cum enim semel sacramentum pro signo accepissent humano arbitrio, mox sine omni iuditio et scrupulo signum ex eo fecerunt, ubicunque in sacris literis legerunt. Quales uerborum significationes et humanas consuetudines et alias in literas sacras inuexerunt, easque in sua somnia transformauerunt, quodlibet ex quolibet facientes. Sic perpetuo desipiunt in uerbis illis: opus bonum, opus malum, peccatum, gratia, iustitia, uirtus, et fere quicquid est capitalium rerum et uerborum. omnibus enim his utuntur suo arbitrio, ex hominum scriptis assumpto, in perniciem et ueritatis dei et salutis nostrae. 

6.6 Therefore, sacrament, or mystery, in Paul’s writings, is that wisdom of the Spirit, hidden in a mystery, as he says in 1 Corinthians 2, which is Christ, Who is for this very reason not known to the princes of this world, wherefore they also crucified Him, and Who still is to them foolishness, an offense, a stone of stumbling, and a sign which is spoken against. (1 Corinthians 1:23; Romans 9:33; Luke 2:34; 1 Corinthians 1:23 f., 1 Corinthians 4:1) The preachers he calls dispensers of these mysteries because they preach Christ, the power and the wisdom of God, yet so that one cannot receive this unless one believe. Therefore, a sacrament is a mystery, or secret thing, which is set forth in words and is received by the faith of the heart. Such a sacrament is spoken of in the verse before us – “They shall be two in one flesh. This is a great sacrament”  (Ephesians 5:31 f.) – which they understand as spoken of marriage, while Paul wrote these words of Christ and the Church, and clearly explained his meaning by adding, “But I speak in Christ and in the Church.” Yes, how well they agree with Paul! He declares he is setting forth a great sacrament in Christ and the Church, but they set it forth in a man and a woman! If such wantonness be permitted in the Sacred Scriptures, it is small wonder if one find there anything one please, even a hundred sacraments.

⁵³   Igitur sacramentum et mysterium apud Paulum est ipsa sapientia spiritus abscondita in mysterio, ut .i. Corint. ii. dicit, quae est Christus, qui (W552) ob id ipsum etiam non cognoscitur principibus huius mundi, unde et eum crucifixerunt, et adhuc manet eis stultitia, scandalum, lapis offensionis, et signum cui contradicitur. (1 Kor 1,23; Rom 9,33) 

⁵⁴ Horum mysteriorum dispensatores uocat praedicatores, quia praedicant Christum, uirtutem et sapientiam dei, sed ita, ut, nisi credas, non comprehendas. ideo sacramentum mysterium secretaque res est, quae uerbis indicatur, sed fide cordis capitur. Tale est, quod praesente loco dicitur: Erunt duo in carne una, Sacramentum hoc magnum est, quod illi de matrimonio dictum putant, cum ipse Paulus ea uerba de Christo et Ecclesia induxerit, et seipsum clare exposuerit dicens: Ego autem dico in Christo et Ecclesia. (Ef 5,32). 

⁵⁵ Ecce quam concordant Paulus et illi, Paulus sacramentum magnum in Christo et Ecclesia se praedicare dicit, illi uero in masculo et femina praedicant. Si sic licet in sacris literis libidinari, quid mirum, si quodlibet in ea uel centum sacramenta licet inuenire? 

6.7 Christ and the Church are, therefore, a mystery, that is, a great and secret thing, which it was possible and proper to represent by marriage as by a certain outward allegory, but that was no reason for their calling marriage a sacrament. The heavens are a type of the apostles, as Psalm 19:1 declares; the sun is a type of Christ; the waters, of the peoples; but that does not make those things sacraments, for in every case there are lacking both the divine institution and the divine promise, which constitute a sacrament.

⁵⁶   Christus itaque et Ecclesia mysterium, id est, res secreta est et magna, quae figurari quidem per matrimonium ceu reali quadam allegoria potuit et debuit, sed Matrimonium non hinc sacramentum dici debuit. Coeli sunt figura Apostolorum, ut psal. xviii. dicitur, Et sol Christi, aquae populorum, sed non ideo sacramenta sunt. 

6.8 Hence Paul, in Ephesians 5, following his own mind, applies to Christ these words in Genesis 2 about marriage, or else, following the general view, he teaches that the spiritual marriage of Christ is also contained therein, saying: “As Christ cherisheth the Church: because we are members, of his body, of his flesh and of his bones. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they shall be two in one flesh. This is a great sacrament; I speak in Christ and in the Church.” You see, he would have the whole passage apply to Christ, and is at pains to admonish the reader to find the sacrament in Christ and the Church, and not in marriage.

⁵⁷ Vbique enim deest et institutio et promissio diuina, quae integrant sacramentum. unde Paulus Ephe. v. uerba illa de matrimonio Gen. ii. dicta uel proprio spiritu ad Christum trahit, uel generali sententia etiam spirituale matrimonium Christi in eo traditum docet dicens: Sicut Christus fouet Ecclesiam, quia membra sumus corporis eius, de carne eius et de ossibus eius, propter hoc relinquet homo patrem et matrem suam, et adherebit uxori suae, et erunt duo in carne una, Sacramentum hoc magnum est, Ego dico in Christo et Ecclesia. (Ef 5,29-32) Vides ut hunc totum textum de Christo uelit a se dictum, et de industria lectorem monet, ut sacramentum in Christo et Ecclesia intelligat, non in matrimonie. 

⁵⁸   Fateor quidem et in ueteri lege fuisse sacramentum poenitentiae, immo ab initio mundi. Verum promissio noua poenitentiae, et donatio clauium nouae legis propria est. Sicut enim circuncisione baptismum, ita pro sacrificiis aut aliis signis poenitentiae nunc claues habemus. Diximus enim superius, Eundem deum pro diuersis temporibus diuersas promissiones, diuersaque signa dedisse, pro remittendis peccatis, et saluandis hominibus, eandem tamen gratiam omnes accepisse. 

⁵⁹ Sicut .ii. Corint. iiii. dicit: Habentes eundem spiritum fidei, et nos credimus, propter quod et loquimur. Et .i. Corint. x. (W553) patres nostri omnes manducauerunt eandem escam spiritalem, et eundem potum spiritalem biberunt. Biberunt autem de spiritali consequente eos petra, petra autem erat Christus. Ita Heb. xi. Omnes hi defuncti sunt, non acceptis promissionibus, deo melius aliquid pro nobis prouidente, ne sine nobis consummarentur. Christus enim heri et hodie et in saecula, ipse caput Ecclesiae suae ab initio ad finem usque mundi. Diuersa igitur signa, sed eadem omnium fides. Siquidem sine fide impossibile est placere deo, qua et Abel placuit, Heb. xi. 

6.9 Therefore we grant that marriage is a type of Christ and the Church, and a sacrament, yet not divinely instituted but invented by men in the Church, carried away by their ignorance both of the word and of the thing. Which ignorance, since it does not conflict with the faith, is to be charitably borne with, just as many other practices of human weakness and ignorance are borne with in the Church, so long as they do not conflict with the faith and with the Word of God. But we are now dealing with the certainty and purity of the faith and the Scriptures; so that our faith be not exposed to ridicule, when after affirming that a certain thing is contained in the Sacred Scriptures and in the articles of our faith, we are refuted and shown that it is not contained therein, and, being found ignorant of our own affairs, become a stumbling block to our opponents and to the weak; no, that we destroy not the authority of the Holy Scriptures. For those things which have been delivered to us by God in the Sacred Scriptures must be sharply distinguished from those that have been invented by men in the Church, it matters not how eminent they be for saintliness and scholarship.

⁶⁰   Sit ergo Matrimonium figura Christi et Ecclesiae, sacramentum autem non diuinitus institutum, sed ab hominibus in Ecclesia inuentum, ignorantia tam rei quam uerbi abductis. Quae cum fidei nihil obsit, ferenda in Charitate est, sicut et multa alia humana studia infirmitatis et ignorantiae in Ecclesia tolerantur, donec fidei et diuinis literis non obsunt. ⁶¹ Verum pro firmitate et syncaeritate fidei et scripturae nunc agimus, Ne, si quid in sacris literis et fidei nostrae articulis contineri affirmauerimus, et postea conuicti, non contineri, ludibrio nostram fidem exponamus, et ignorantes rerum propriarum inuenti, scandalo simus aduersariis et infirmis, immo, ne scripturae sanctae autoritatem eleuemus. 

6.10 Thus far concerning marriage itself.

⁶²   Hactenus de ipso matrimonio.

6.11 But what shall we say of the wicked laws of men by which this divinely ordained manner of life is ensnared and tossed back and forth? Good God! it is dreadful, to contemplate the audacity of the Roman despots, who want only tear marriages asunder and again force them together. I ask you, is mankind given over to the wantonness of these men, for them to mock and in every way abuse and make of them whatever they please, for filthy lucre’s sake?

Quid autem dicemus de impiis legibus hominum, quibus hoc uitae genus, diuinitus institutum, est irrititum, sursum ac deorsum iactatum? Deus bone, horror est intendere in temeritatem Romanensium tyrannorum, adeo pro libidine sua dirimentum, rursum cogentium Matrimonia. Obsecro, an datum est eorum libidini hominum genus non nisi ad illudendum et quoquo modo abutendum et pro pecuniis funestis quodlibet ex eo faciendum? 

6.12 There is circulating far and wide and enjoying a great reputation, a book whose contents have been poured together out of the cesspool of all human traditions, and whose title is, “The Angelic Sum,” though it ought rather to be “The More than Devilish Sum.” Among endless other monstrosities, which are supposed to instruct the confessors, while they most mischievously confuse them, there are enumerated in this book eighteen hindrances to marriage. you will examine these with the just and unprejudiced eye of faith, you will see that they belong to those things which the Apostle foretold: “There shall be those that give heed to spirits of devils, speaking lies in hypocrisy, forbidding to marry.” ( 1 Timothy 4:1 ff.) What is forbidding to marry if it is not this –  to invent all those hindrances and set those snares, in order to prevent men from marrying or, if they be married, to annul their marriage? Who gave this power to men? Granted that they were holy men and impelled by godly zeal, why should another’s holiness disturb my liberty? why should another’s zeal take me captive? Let whoever will, be a saint and a zealot, and to his heart’s content; only let him not bring harm upon another, and let him not rob me of my liberty!

⁶³  Vagatur passim non paruae opinionis liber ex colluuie omnium humanarum traditionum ceu sentina quadam collectus et confusus, qui summa Angelica inscribitur, cum uerius sit summa plus quam diabolica, in quo inter infinita portenta, quibus confessores instrui putantur, dum perniciosissime confunduntur, decem et octo matrimonii impedimenta numerantur, quae si aequo et libero fidei oculo inspexeris, uidebis esse de numero eorum, de (W554) quibus Apostolus praedixit: Erunt attendentes spiritibus daemoniorum, in hypocrisi loquentium mendacium, prohibencium nubere. (1 Tim 4,1f) 

⁶⁴ Quid est prohibere nuptias, si hoc non est prohibere, tot impedimenta fingere et laqueos ponere, ne coeant, aut si coierint, dissoluere matrimonia? Quis dedit hominibus hanc potestatem? Esto, fuerint sancti et pio zelo ducti, quid meam libertatem uexat aliena sanctitas? quid me captiuat alienus zelus? Sit sanctus et zelotes, quisquis uolet, et quantum uolet, modo alteri non noceat, et libertatem mihi non rapiat. 

6.13 Yet I am glad that those shameful laws have at length attained to their full measure of glory, which is this: the Romanists of our day have through them becomemerchants. What is it they sell? The shame of men and women – merchandise, forsooth, most worthy of such merchants grown altogether filthy and obscene through greed and godlessness. For there is nowadays no hindrance that may not be legalised upon the intercession of mammon, so that these laws of men seem to have sprung into existence for the sole purpose of serving those grasping and robbing Nimrods as snares for taking money and as nets for catching souls, and in order that that “abomination” might stand “in the holy place,” (Matthew 24:15) the Church of God, and openly sell to men the shame of either sex, or as the Scriptures say, “shame and nakedness,” (Leviticus 18:6) of which they had previously robbed them by means of their laws. O worthy trade for our pontiffs to ply, instead of the ministry of the Gospel, which in their greed and pride they despise, being delivered up to a reprobate sense with utter shame and infamy. (Romans 1:28)

⁶⁵   Verum gaudeo istis dedecorosis legibus suam tandem contigisse gloriam. Nempe, earum beneficio, hodie Romanenses factun sunt nundinatores. Quid enim uendunt? uuluas et ueretra. Merx scilicet dignissima mercatoribus istis, prae auaritia et impietate plusquam sordidissimis et obscoenissimis. 

⁶⁶ Nihil enim est impedimentorum hodie, quod intercedente mammona non fiat legitimum, ut leges istae hominum non alia causa uideantur natae, nisi ut aliquando essent auaris hominibus rapacibusque Nimbrotis rhetia pecuniarum et laquei animarum, staretque in Ecclesia dei loco sancto Abominatio ista, (Matt 24,15) quae uenderet hominibus publice utriusque sexus pudibanda, seu (ut scriptura uocat) ignominias et turpitudines, (3 Mos 18,6ff) (n66) quas tamen antea per uim legum suarum rapuissent. O digna pontificibus nostris negotiatio, quam pro Euangelii ministerio, quod prae auaritia et ambitione contemnunt, summo cum dedecore et turpitudine in sensum reprobum dati, exercerent. (Rom 1,28) 

6.14 But what shall I say or do? If I enter into details, the treatise will grow to inordinate length, for everything is in such dire confusion one does not know where to begin, whither to go on, or where to leave off. I know that no state is well governed by means of laws. If the magistrate be wise, he will rule more prosperously by natural bent than by laws. If he be not wise, he will but further the evil by means of laws; for he will not know what use to make of the laws nor how to adapt them to the individual case. More stress ought, therefore, to be laid, in civil affairs, on putting good and wise men in office than on making laws; for such men will themselves be the very best laws, and will judge every variety of case with lively justice. And if there be knowledge of the divine law combined with natural wisdom, then written laws will be entirely superfluous and harmful. Above all, love needs no laws whatever.

⁶⁷   Sed quid dicam aut faciam? Si singula persequar, immodicus erit sermo. Confussissima enim sunt omnia, ut nescias unde exordiaris, quo producas, et ubi consistas. Hoc scio, nullam rem publicam legibus foeliciter administrari. Si enim prudens fuerit Magistratus, ductu naturae omnia foelicius administrabit quam legibus. 

⁶⁸ si prudens non fuerit, legibus nihil promouebit nisi malum, cum nesciat eis uti, nec eas pro tempore moderare. ideo in rebus publicis magis curandum est, ut boni et prudentes uiri praesint, quam ut leges ferantur, ipsi enim erunt optimae leges, omnem uarietatem casuum uiuaci aequitate iudicaturi. Quod si assit eruditio diuinae legis, cum prudentia naturali, plane superfluum et noxium est scriptas leges habere. Super omnia autem Charitas nullis prorsus legibus indiget. 

6.15 Nevertheless I will say and do what I can. I admonish and pray all priests and brethren, when they encounter any hindrance from which the pope can grant dispensation and which is not expressly contained in the Scriptures, by all means to confirm any marriage that may have been contracted in any way contrary to the ecclesiastical or pontifical laws. But let them arm themselves with the divine law, which says, “What God has joined together, let no man put asunder.” (Matthew 19:6) For the joining together of a man and a woman is of divine law and is binding, however it may conflict with the laws of men; the laws of men must give way before it without hesitation. For if a man leaves father and mother and cleaves to his wife, how much more will he tread underfoot the silly and wicked laws of men, in order to cleave to his wife! And if pope, bishop or official annul any marriage because it was contracted contrary to the laws of men, he is antichrist, he does violence to nature, and is guilty of lese-majesty toward God, because this word stands – “What God has joined together, let no man put asunder.” (Matthew 19:6)

⁶⁹ Dico tamen, et quod in me est facio, Monens et rogans omnes sacerdotes et fratres, si uiderint aliquod impedimentum, in quo Papa potest dispensare, (W555) et quod non est in scriptura expressum, ut prorsus ea omnia matrimonia confirment, quae contra Ecclesiasticas uel pontificias leges quoquo modo fuerint contracta. 

⁷⁰ Arment autem se lege diuina dicente: Quod deus coniunxit, homo non separet. Coniunctio enim uiri et mulieris est iuris diuini, quae tenet, quocunque modo contra leges hominum contigerit, debentque leges hominum ei cedere, sine ullo scrupulo. 

⁷¹ Si enim homo relinquit patrem et matrem, et adhaeret uxori suae, quanto magis conculcabit friuolas et iniquas leges hominum, ut adhereat uxori suae? Et Papa, uel Episcopus, uel officialis, si dissoluerit aliquod matrimonium, contra legem humanam contractum, Antichristus est, et uiolator naturae, et reus lesae maiestatis diuinae, quia stat sententia: Quod deus coniuxit, homo non separet. 

6.16 Besides this, no man had the right to frame such laws, and Christ has granted to Christians a liberty which is above all laws of men, especially where a law of God conflicts with them. Thus it is said in Mark 2, “The Son of man is lord also of the Sabbath,” and, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.” (Mark 2:27)Moreover, such laws were condemned beforehand by Paul, when he foretold that there would be men forbidding to marry. (1 Timothy 4:3) Here, therefore, those cruel hindrances arising from affinity, spiritual or legal relationship, and consanguinity must give way, so far as the Scriptures permit, in which the second degree of consanguinity alone is prohibited. Thus it is written in Leviticus 18, in which chapter there are twelve persons a man is prohibited from marrying; namely, his mother, his mother-in-law, his full sister, his half-sister by either parent, his granddaughter, his father’s or mother’s sister, his daughter-in-law, his brother’s wife, his wife’s sister, his stepdaughter, and his uncle’s wife. Here only the first degree of affinity and the second degree of consanguinity are forbidden; yet not without exception, as will appear on closer examination, for the brother’s or sister’s daughter, or the niece, is not included in the prohibition, although she is in the second degree. Therefore, if a marriage has been contracted outside of these degrees, it should by no means be annulled on account of the laws of men, since it is nowhere written in the Bible that any other degrees were prohibited by God. Marriage itself, as of divine institution, is incomparably superior to any laws; so that marriage should not. be annulled for the sake of the laws, rather should the laws be broken for the sake of marriage.

⁷²  Adde his, quod homo non habuit ius leges tales condendi, et Christianis per Christum libertas donata est super omnes leges hominum, maxime ubi lex diuina intercedit, Sicut dicit Marci. .ii. Dominus est filius hominis, etiam sabbati, Et non homo propter sabbatum, sed sabbatum propter hominem factum est. Deinde, quod tales leges praedamnatae sunt per Paulum, ubi prohibentes nubere futuros esse praedixit. (1 Tim 4,3) Quare hic cedere debet rigor ille impedimentorum ex affinitate, spirituali aut legali cognatione, et consanguinitate, quantum permittunt literae sacrae, in quibus tantum secundus gradus consanguinitatis prohibitus est, ut scribitur Leuiciti .xviii. ubi duodecim personae prohibentur, quae sunt, Mater, Nouerca, Soror naturalis, soror legitima ex utro parente, Neptis, Amita, Matertera, Nurus, uxor fratris, Soror uxoris, priuigna, uxor patrui. 

⁷³ In quibus non nisi primus gradus affinitatis et secundus consanguinitatis prohibetur, non tamen uniuersaliter, ut clarum est intuenti, nam fratris aut sororis filia uel neptis non numeratur prohibita, cum tamen sit in gradu secundo. Quare, si quando matrimonium extra hoc gradus contractum fuerit, cum nulli alii legantur a deo usquam prohibiti, nullo modo debet dissolui propter leges hominum, cum matrimonium ipsum diuinitus institutum sit incomparabiliter legibus superius, ita ut non ipsum propter leges, sed leges propter ipsum debeant merito dirumpi. 

6.17 That nonsense about conpaternities, conmaternities, confraternities, consororities, and confilieties must therefore be altogether abolished, when a marriage has been contracted. What was it but the superstition of men that invented those spiritual relationships? If one may not marry the person one has baptised or stood sponsor for, what right has any Christian to marry any other Christian? Is the relationship that grows out of the external rite, or the sign, of the sacrament more intimate that that which grows out of the blessing of the sacrament itself? Is not a Christian man brother to a Christian woman, and is not she his sister? Is not a baptised man the spiritual brother of a baptised woman? How foolish we are! If a man instruct his wife in the Gospel and in faith in Christ and thus become truly her father in Christ, would it not be right for her to remain his wife? Would not Paul have had the right to marry a maiden out of the Corinthian congregation, of whom he boasts that he has begotten them all in Christ? (1 Corinthians 4:15) See, thus has Christian liberty been suppressed through the blindness of human superstition.

⁷⁴   Ita debent istae nugae compaternitatum, commaternitatum, confraternitatum, consororitatum, et confilietatum prorsus extingui contracto matrimonio. Quis enim istam cognationem spiritualem inuenit, nisi superstitio humana? Si non licet baptisanti aut leuanti baptismatam aut leuatam ducere, cur licet Christiano Christanam ducere? An est maior cognatio ista ex ceremoniis (W556) seu signo sacramenti contracta, quam quae ex re ipsa sacramenti? 

⁷⁵ An non baptisatus baptisatae spiritualis frater? Quid insanimus? Quid, siquis uxorem suam erudiat Euangelio et fide Christi, factus hoc ipso uere pater eius in Christo, an non liceat uxorem eius manere? An Paulo non licuisset puellam ex Corinthiis ducere, quos omnes in Christo genuisse se iactat? Vide itaque, quam sit libertas Christiana per caecitatem humanae superstitionis oppressa. 

6.18 There is even less in the legal relationship, and yet they have set it above the divine right of marriage. Nor would I recognize that hindrance which they term “disparity of religion,” and which forbids one to marry any unbaptised person, even on condition that she become converted to the faith. Who made this prohibition? God or man?Who gave to men the power to prohibit such a marriage? The spirits, forsooth, that speak lies in hypocrisy, as Paul says. (1 Timothy 4:1) Of them it must be said: “The wicked have told me fables; but not as your law.” (Psalm 119:85) The heathen Patricius married the Christian Monica, the mother of St. Augustine; why should not the same be permitted nowadays? The same stupid, no, wicked cruelty is seen in “the hindrance of crime,” – as when a man has married a woman with whom he had lived in adultery, or when he plotted to bring about the death of a woman’s husband in order to be able to wed the widow. I pray you, from this comes this cruelty of man toward man, which even God never demanded? Do they pretend not to know that Bathsheba, the wife of Uriah, was wed by David, a most saintly man, after the double crime of adultery and murder? If the divine law did this, what do these despotic men to their fellowservants?

⁷⁶  Iam multo uanior est cognatio legalis, et tamen hanc etiam super ius diuinum matrimonii extulerunt. Nec huic impedimento consenserim, quod uocant religionis disparilitatem, ut nec simpliciter, nec sub conditione conuertendi ad fidem liceat ducere non baptisatam. Quis hoc prohibuit? deus an homo? Quis hominibus potestatem fecit prohibendi sic nubere? Spiritus scilicet mendatium in hypocrisi loquentes, ut Paulus dicit. De quibus illud dicere oportet: Narrauerunt mihi iniqui fabulationes, sed non ut lex tua. (Sl 119,85) 

⁷⁷ Duxit Patritius gentilis Monicam matrem sancti Augustini Christianam, Cur non hodie liceat idem? Idem rigor stultitiae, immo impietatis est Impedimentum criminis, scilicet, ubi quis duxerit prius pollutam adulterio, aut machinatus fuerit in mortem alterius coniugis, quo cum superstite contrahere possit. Obsecro, unde iste rigor hominum in homines, qualem nec deus unquam exigit? An ignorare se simulant, Batschab uxorem Vriae utroque crimine impleto, id est, praepollutam adulterio et occiso uiro, tamen ductam a Dauid sanctissimo uiro? Si lex diuina haec fecit, quid faciunt homines tyranni in suos conseruos? 

6.19 Another hindrance is that which they call “the hindrance of a tie,” – when a man is bound by being befaithfulnessed to another woman. Here they decide that, if he has had carnal knowledge of the second, the betrothal with the first becomes null and void. This I do not understand at all I hold that he who has befaithfulnessed himself to one woman belongs no longer to himself, and because of this fact, by the prohibition of the divine law, he belongs to the first, though he has not known her, even if he has known the second. For it was not in his power to give the latter what was no longer his own; he deceived her and actually committed adultery. But they regard the matter differently because they pay more heed to the carnal union than to the divine command, according to which the man, having pledged his faithfulness to the first, is bound to keep it for ever. For whoever would give anything must give of that which is his own. And God forbids a man to overreach or circumvent his brother in any matter. (1 Thessalonians 4:6) This prohibition must be kept, over and above all the traditions of all men. Therefore, the man in the above case cannot with a good conscience live in marriage with the second woman, and this hindrance should be completely overthrown. For if a monastic vow make a man to be no longer his own, why does not a promise, of betrothal given and received do the same? – since this is one of the precepts and fruits of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22), (Ephesians 5:9) while a monastic vow is of human invention. And if a wife may claim her husband despite the fact that he has taken a monastic vow, why may not a bride claim her betrothed, even though he has known another? But we said above that he who has pledged his faithfulness to a maiden ought not to take a monastic vow, but is in duty bound to keep faith with her, which faith he cannot break for any tradition of men, because it is commanded by God. Much more should the man here keep faith with his first bride, since he could not pledge his faithfulness to a second save with a lying heart, and therefore did not really pledge it, but deceived her, his neighbor, against God’s command. Therefore, the “hindrance of error” enters in here, by which his marriage to the second woman is rendered null and void.

⁷⁸   Censetur et impedimentum, quod uocant ligaminis, hoc est, si quis alteri sit alligatus per sponsalia. Hic concludunt, si posteriorem quis cognouerit, prioris cessare sponsalia. Quod plane non capio. Ego arbitror, eum esse iam non sui iuris, qui uni sese addixerit, ac per hoc prohibente iure diuino debere priori non cognitae, etiam si posteriorem cognouerit; dare enim non potuit, quod non habuit, sed fefellit eam, commisitque uerum adulterium. 

⁷⁹ Quod autem aliud illis uisum est, fecit, quod copulam carnis plus attenderunt, quam diuinum mandatum, quo priori fidem pollicitus debet semper seruare. Qui enim dare uult, de suo dare debet. Et deus prohibet, ne quis fratrem suum circumueniat in ullo negotio, quod seruandum est ultra et supra omnes omnium hominum traditiones. Ita credo, non posse talem salua conscientia cum secunda cohabitare, et hoc impedimentum esse omnino conuertendum. 

⁸⁰ Si enim uotum religionis facit alienum, cur non etiam fides data et accepta, (W557) cum haec sit praecepti et fructus spiritus Gal. v, illud autem arbitrii humani? Et si licet uxori uirum repetere, uoto facto religionis non obstante, cur non liceat sponsae repetere sponsum suum, etiam secuta copula cum altera? Sed et superius diximus, non licere uouere religionem ei, qui fidem dedit puellae, sed est debitor ducendae, quia debitor est fidei seruandae, quam nulla traditione hominum licet deserere, quia praecepta est a deo. ⁸¹ Multo magis hic ita fiet, ut fidem priori seruet, cum posteriori non nisi mendaci corde dare potuerit, ac per hoc non dederit, sed fefellerit proximam suam contra deum. Quare erroris impedimentum hoc locum habet, qui facit, ut posterioris nuptiae nihil sint. 

6.20 The “hindrance of ordination” also is a lying invention of men, especially since they rant that even a contracted marriage is annulled by it. Thus they constantly exalt their traditions above the commands of God. I do not indeed sit in judgment on the present state of the priestly order, but I observe that Paul charges a bishop to be the husband of one wife; (1 Timothy 3:2) hence no marriage of deacon, priest, bishop or any other order can be annulled – although it is true that Paul knew nothing of this species of priests, and of the orders that we have today. Perish those cursed human traditions, which have crept into the Church only to multiply perils, sins and evils! There exists, therefore, between a priest and his wife a true and indissoluble marriage, approved by the divine commandment. But what if wicked men in sheer despotism prohibit or annul it? So be it! Let it be wrong among men; it is nevertheless right before God, Whose command has to take precedence if it conficts with the commands of men.

⁸²  Impedimentum ordinis quoque merum est hominum commentum, praesertim cum garriant, eo dirimi etiam contractum, semper suas traditiones super dei mandata exaltantes. Ego quidem de sacerdoti ordine non iudico, qualis hodie est, sed uideo Paulum iubere, Episcopum unius uxoris uirum esse, (1 Tim 3,2) ideo non posse dirimi matrimonium diaconi, sacerdotis, Episcopi, seu cuiuscunque ordinis. quanquam hoc genus sacerdotum et eos ordines non nouerit Paulus, quos hodie habemus. 

⁸³ Pereant itaque maledictae iste hominum traditiones, quae non nisi ad multiplicanda pericula, peccata, mala, in Ecclesia introierunt. Est ergo inter sacerdotem et uxorem uerum et inseparabile matrimonium, mandatis diuinis probatum. Quid, si impii homines illud prohibeant aut dirimant, mera tyrannide sua? Esto, sit illicitum apud homines, licitum tamen est apud deum, cuius mandatum, si contra hominum pugnet mandata, est praeferendum. 

6.21 An equally lying invention is that “hindrance of public decency,” by which contracted marriages are annulled. I am incensed at that barefaced wickedness which is so ready to put asunder what God has joined together that one may well scent antichrist in it, for it opposes all that Christ has done and taught. What earthly reason is there for holding that no relative of a deceased husband, even to the fourth degree, may marry the latter’s widow? That is not a judgment of public decency, but ignorance of public decency. Why was not this judgment of public decency found among the people of Israel, who were endowed with the best laws, the laws of God? (Deuteronomy 25:5) On the contrary, the next of kin was even compelled by the law of God to marry the widow of his relative. Must the people of Christian liberty be burdened with severer laws than the people of legal bondage? But, to make an end of these figments, rather than hindrances – thus far there seem to me to be no hindrances that may justly annul a contracted marriage save these: impotence of the husband, ignorance of a previously contracted marriage, and a vow of chastity. Still, concerning the last, I am to this. dayso far from certain that I do not know at what age such a vow is to be regarded as binding; as I also said above in discussing the sacrament of baptism. Thus you may learn, from this one question of marriage, how wretchedly and desperately all the activities of the Church have been confused, hindered, ensnared, and subjected to danger through the pestilent, ignorant and wicked traditions of men, so that there is no hope of betterment unless, we abolish at one stroke all the laws of all men, restore the Gospel of liberty, and by it judge and rule all things. Amen.

⁸⁴  Aeque commentum est impedimentum illud publicae honestatis, quo dirimuntur contracta. Vrit me audax ista impietas tam prompta ad separandum, quod deus coniunxit, ut Antichristum in ea cognoscas, quae aduersatur omnibus, quae Christus fecit et docuit. Quae rogo est causa, ut sponsi praemortui nullus consanguineus usque ad quartum gradum possit ducere sponsam? Non est hoc publicae honestatis iustitia, sed inscitia. 

⁸⁵ Cur non in populo Israel, optimis ac diuinis legibus instituto, erat ista publicae honestatis iustitia? sed etiam praecepto dei proximus cogebatur, uxorem proximi relictam ducere. An oportet populum libertatis Christianae rigidioribus legibus onerare, quam populum seruitutis legalis? Et ut finem faciam istorum figmentorum magis quam impedimentorum, Dico, mihi adhuc nullum apparere impedimentum, quod contractum iure dirimat, nisi impotentiam cognoscendae coniugis, ignorantiam iam contracti, et uotum castitatis. 

⁸⁶ De uoto (W558) tamen ita sum incertus usque hodie, ut ignorem, quo tempore sit censendum ualere, sicut et supra dixi in baptismi sacramento. Disce ergo in hoc uno matrimonio, quam infoeliciter et perdite omnia sint confusa, impedita, irretita, et periculis subiecta, per pestilentes, indoctas, impiasque traditiones hominum, quaecunque in Ecclesia geruntur, ut nulla remedii spes sit, nisi reuocato libertatis Euangelico, secundum ipsum, extinctis semel omnibus omnium hominum legibus, omnia iudicemus et regamus. Amen. 

6.22 We have to speak, then, of sexual impotence, that we may the more readily advise the souls that are in peril. But first I wish to state that what I have said of hindrances is intended to apply after a marriage has been contracted; no marriage should be annulled by any such hindrance. But as to marriages which are to be contracted, I would briefly repeat what I said above. Under the stress of youthful passion or of any other necessity for which the pope grants dispensation, any brother may grant a dispensation to another or even to himself, and following that counsel snatch his wife out of the power of the tyrannical laws as best he can. For with what right am I deprived of my liberty by another’s superstition and ignorance? If the pope grants a dispensation, for money, why should not I, for my soul’s salvation, grant a dispensation to myself or to my brother? Does the pope set up laws? Let him set them up for himself, and keep hands off my liberty; else I will take it by stealth!

⁸⁷   De impotentia itaque sexus dicendum, quo possit facilius consuli animabus periculo laborantibus, Hoc tamen praemisso, quod ea, quae de impedimentis dixi, dicta uolo post matrimonium contractum, ne talibus ullum dirimatur. Caeterum de contrahendo breuiter dixerim, quod supra dixi: Quod si urgeat amor iuuentutis, et quaeuis alia necessitas, propter quam dispensat Papa, dispenset etiam quilibet frater cum fratre, aut ipse cum seipso, rapta per hoc consilium uxore de manu tyrannicarum legum, utcunque poterit. 

⁸⁸ Vtquid enim mea libertas tollitur aliena superstitione et ignorantia? Aut si pro pecunia Papa dispensat, cur non ipse pro meae salutis comoditate mecum aut cum fratre dispensem? Statuit leges Papa? sibi statuat, mea salua libertate, uel occulte surrepta.

6.23 Now let us discuss the matter of impotence.

Videamus itaque de impotentia. 

6.24 Take the following case. A woman, wed to an impotent man, is unable to prove her husband’s impotence before court, or perhaps she is unwilling to do so with the mass of evidence and all the notoriety which the law demands; yet she is desirous of having children or is unable to remain continent. Now suppose I had counseled her to demand a divorce from her husband in order to marry another, satisfied that her own and her husband’s conscience and their experience were ample testimony of his impotence; but the husband refused his consent to this. Then suppose I should further counsel her, with the consent of the man (who is not really her husband, but merely a dweller under the same roof with her), to give herself to another, say her husband’s brother, but to keep this marriage secret and to ascribe the children to the so-called putative father. The question is: Is such a woman in a saved state? I answer, Certainly. Because in this case the error and ignorance of the man’s impotence are a hindrance to the marriage; the tyranny of the laws permits no divorce; the woman is free through the divine law, and cannot be compelled to remain, continent. Therefore the man ought to yield her this right, and let another man have her as wife whom he has only in outward appearance.

⁸⁹  Quareo casum eiusmodo: Si mulier impotenti nupta uiro nec possit, nec uelit forte, tot testimoniis et strepitibus, quot iura exigunt, iudicialiter impotentiam uiri probare, uelit tamen prolem habere, aut non possit continere, Et ego consuluissem, ut diuortium a uiro impetret, ad nubendum alteri, contenta, quod ipsius aut mariti conscientia et experientia abunde testes sunt impotentiae illius, Vir autem nolit, Tum ego ultra consulam, ut cum consensu uiri (cum iam non sit maritus, sed simplex et solutus cohabitator) misceatur alteri uel fratri mariti, occulto tamen matrimonio, et proles imputetur putatiuo (ut dicunt) patri. 

⁹⁰ An haec mulier salua sit et in statu salutis? Respondeo ego, quod sic, Quia error et ignorantia uirilis impotentiae hic impedit matrimonium, et tyrannis legum non admittit diuortium, et mulier libera est per legem diuinam, nec cogi potest ad continentiam. Quare uir debet concedere eius iuri, et alteri permittere uxorem, quam specietenus habet. 

6.25 Moreover, if the man will not give his consent, or agree to this division – rather than allow the woman to burn or to commit adultery, I should counsel her to contract a marriage with another and flee to distant parts unknown. What other counsel could be given to one constantly in danger from lust? Now I know that some are troubled by the fact that then the children of this secret marriage are not the rightful heirs of their putative father. But if it was done with the consent of the husband, then the children will be the rightful heirs. If, however, it was done without his knowledge or against his will, then let unbiased Christian reason, no, let Christian charity, decide which of the two has done the greater injury to the other. The wife alienates the inheritance, but the husband has deceived his wife and is completely defrauding her of her body and her life. Is not the sin of the man who wastes his wife’s body and life a greater sin than that of the woman who merely alienates the temporal goods of her husband? Let him, therefore, agree to a divorce, or else be satisfied with strange heirs; for by his own fault he deceived the innocence of a maiden and defrauded her of the proper use of her body, besides giving her a wellnigh irresistible opportunity to commit adultery. Let both be weighed in the same scales. Certainly, by every right, deceit should fall back on the deceiver, and whoever has done an injury must make it good. What is the difference between such a husband and the man who holds another’s wife captive together with her husband? Is not such a tyrant compelled to support wife and children and husband, or else to set them free? Why should not the same hold here? Therefore I maintain that the man should be compelled either to submit to a divorce or to support the other man’s child as his heir. Doubtless this would be the judgment of charity. In that case, the impotent man, who is not really the husband, should support the heirs of his wife in the same spirit in which he would at great cost wait on his wife if she fell sick or suffered some other ill; for it is by his fault and not by his wife’s that she suffers this ill. This have I set forth to the best of my ability, for the strengthening of anxious consciences, being desirous to bring my afflicted brethren in this captivity what little comfort I can.

 ⁹¹ Vlterius, si uir nollet consentire, nec diuidi uellet, antequam permitterem eam uri aut adulterari, consulerem, ut contracto cum alio matrimonio aufugeret in locum ignotum et remotum. Quid enim aliud possit consuli laboranti assiduo libidinis periculo? Scio autem quosdam mouere, quod proles huius occulti matrimonii iniquus haeres sit putatiui patris. Sed si (W559) consensu mariti fiat, iniquus non erit. 

 ⁹² Si autem ignorante aut nolente fiat, iudicet hic Christiana et libera ratio, immo charitas, uter utri maius damnum inferat. Vxor haereditatem alienat, at maritus fefellit uxorem eamque toto suo corpore totaque uita fraudat; an non maius peccet uir, corpus et uitam uxori perdens, quam mulier, res tantum temporales uiri alienans? Patiatur ergo uel diuortium, aut ferat aliens haeredes, qui sua culpa innocentem puellam fefellit, et uita pariter ac corporis usu toto fraudauit, insuper occasionem pene intolerabilem adulterandi dedit, ponatur utrunque in aequa lance.  ⁹³ Certe omni iure fraus in fraudantem recidere debet, et damnum recompensare tenetur, qui dedit. Quid enim differt talis maritus ab eo, qui uxorem alicuius captiuam tenet cum marito? Nonne talis tyrannus uxorem et filios et maritum alere cogitur, aut liberos dimittere? Cur ergo et hic non ita fiat? Ita ego arbitror, uirum debere cogi, aut ad diuortium, aut ad alienum haeredem alendum, Sic charitas iudicabit sine dubio.  ⁹⁴ In quo casu uxoris haeredem non alio affectu alet impotens iam et non maritus, quam si uxorem aegrotantem aut alio incomodo affectam totis et grauibus expensis foueret. sua enim, non uxoris culpa, eo incomodo laborat uxor. Haec pro mea uirili, ad informandas conscientias scrupulosas retulerim, cupiens afflictis meis fratribus in ista captiuitate qualicunque solation succurrere. 

6.26 As to divorce, it is still a moot question whether it be allowable. For my part I so greatly detest divorce that I should prefer bigamy to it, but whether it be allowable, I do not venture to decide. Christ Himself, the Chief Pastor, says in Matthew 5:32, ”Whosoever shall put away his wife, Matthew excepting for the cause of fornication, maketh her commit adultery; and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery.” Christ, then, permits divorce, but for the cause of fornication only. The pope must, therefore, be in error whenever he grants a divorce for any other cause, and no one should feel safe who has obtained a dispensation by this temerity (not authority) of the pope. Yet it is a still greater wonder to me, why they compel a man to remain, unmarried after bring separated from his wife, and why they will not permit him to remarry. For if Christ pennies divorce for the cause, of fornication and compels no one to remain unmarried, and if Paul would rather have one marry than burn, (1 Corinthians 7:9) then He certainly seems to permit a man to marry another woman in the stead of the one who has been put away. Would to God this matter were thoroughly threshed out and derided, so that counsel might be given in the infinite perils of those who, without any fault of their own, are nowadays compelled to remain unmarried, that is, of those whose wives or husbands have run away and deserted them, to come back perhaps after ten years, perhaps never. This matter troubles and distresses me; I meet cases of it every day, whether it happen by the special malice of Satan or because of our neglect of the word of God.

 ⁹⁵   De diuortio etiam uersatur quaestio, an licitum sit. Ego quidem ita detestor diuortium, ut digamiam malim quam diuortium, sed an liceat, ipse non audeo definire. Christus ipse princeps pastorum Mat. v. dicit: Siquis dimiserit uxorem suam, excepta fornicationis causa, facit eam adulterari, Et qui dimissam duxerit, adulterat. (Matt 5,32) Concedit ergo Christus diuortium, in causa fornicationis duntaxat. Quare errare Papam necesse est, quoties diuortium facit aliis causis, nec statim se tutum arbitrari debet ullus, qui pontificia illa temeritate uerius quam potestate dispensationem obtinuerit.  ⁹⁶ Sed hoc admiror magis, cur caelibem esse cogant hominem, qui diuortio separatus est a coniuge sua, nec aliam ducere permittant. Si enim Christus diuortium concedit in causa fornicationis, et neminem cogit esse celibem, et Paulus magis uelit, nos nubere quam uri, uidetur omnino admittere, ut in locum repudiatae aliam ducat. Quae res utinam plane discussa et certa esset, ut posset consuli infinitis periculis eorum, qui sine culpa sua hodie celibes esse coguntur, Hoc est, quorum uxores uel mariti auffugiunt, et coniugem relinquunt, decennio vel nunquam reuersuri. Vrget me et male habet hic casus, quottidianis (W560) exemplis, siue id singulari nequitia Satanae, siue neglectu uerbi dei contingit. 

6.27 I, indeed, who, alone against all, can decide nothing in this matter, would yet greatly desire at least the passage in 1 Corinthians 7 to be applied here – “But if the unbeliever depart, let him depart. For a brother or sister is not under servitude in such cases.” Here the Apostle gives permission to put away the unbeliever who departs and to set the believing spouse free to marry again. Why should not the same hold true when a believer – that is, a believer in name, but in truth as much an unbeliever as the one Paul speaks of – deserts his wife, especially if he never intends to return? I certainly can see no difference between the two. But I believe that if in the Apostle’s day an unbelieving deserter had returned and had become a believer or had promised to live again with his believing wife, he would not have been taken back, but he too would have been given the right to marry again. Nevertheless, in these matters I decide nothing, as I have said, although there is nothing I would rather see decided, since nothing at present more grievously perplexes me and many more with me. I would have nothing decided here on the mere authority of the pope or the bishops; but if two learned and pious men agreed in the name of Christ (Matthew 18:19 f.) and published their opinion in the spirit of Christ, I should prefer their judgment even to such councils as are nowadays assembled, famous only for numbers and authority, not for scholarship and saintliness. Herewith I hang up my harp, until another and a better man shall take up this matter with me. (Psalm 137:2).

 ⁹⁷ Ego sane, qui solus contra omnes statuere in hac re nihil possum, uehementer optarem, saltem illud .i. Corint. vii. huc aptari: Quod si infideles discedit, discedat; Non enim seruituti subiectus est frater aut soror in eiusmodi. Hic Apostolus discendentem infidelem concedit dimitti, et fideli liberum facit alterum accipere. Cur non idem ualeat, si fidelis, hoc est, nomine fidelis, re ipsa aeque infidelis, coniugem deserat, praesertim nunquam reuersurus? 

 ⁹⁸ Ego sane nihil discriminis utrinque deprehendere possum. Credo autem, si Apostoli tempore discessor infidelis reuersus denuo aut fidelis factus aut fideli cohabitare pollicitus fuisset, admissus non fuisset, sed et ipsi alteram ducendi potestas facta fuisset. Tamen in iis nihil definio (ut dixi) quanquam nihil magis optem esse definitum, cum nihil magis me et multos mecum uexet hodie. 

 ⁹⁹ Sola autoritate Papae aut Episcoporum hic diffiniri nihil uolo, sed, si duo eruditi et boni uiri in nomine Christi consentirent, et in spiritu Christi pronunciarent, eorum ego iuditium praeferrem etiam Conciliis, qualia nunc solent cogi, tantum numero et autoritate citra eruditionem et sanctimoniam iactata. Suspendo ergo hic organum meum, donec conferat mecum alius melior. 

7. ORDINATION

¹⁰⁰ DE ORDINE.

7.1 Of this sacrament the Church of Christ knows nothing; it is an invention of the pope’s church. Not only is there nowhere any promise of grace attached to it, but there is not the least mention of it in the whole New Testament. Now it is ridiculous to put forth as a sacrament of God that which cannot be proved to have been instituted by God. I do not hold that this rite, which has been observed for so many centuries, should be condemned; but in sacred things I am opposed to the invention of human fictions, nor is it right to give out as divinely instituted what was not divinely instituted, lest we become a laughing-stock to our opponents. We ought to see to it that every article of faith of which we boast be certain, pure, and based on clear passages of Scripture. But that we are utterly unable to do in the case of the sacrament under consideration.

  Hoc sacramentum Ecclesia Christi ignorat, inuentumque est ab Ecclesia Papae. non enim solum nullam habet promissionem gratiae, ullibi positam, sed ne uerbo quidem eius meminit totum nouum testamentum. Ridiculum autem est asserere pro sacramento dei, quod a deo institutum nusquam potest monstrari. 

 ¹⁰¹ Non quod damnandum censeam eum ritum per tanta saecula celebratum, sed quod in rebus sacris nolim humana commenta fingi, nec liceat astruere aliquod diuinitus ordinatum, quod diuinitus ordinatum non est, ne rediculi simus aduersario, conandumque sit, ut certa et pura nobis sint omnia, clarisque scripturis firmata, quae pro articulis fidei iactamus, id quod in praesenti sacramento praestare ne tantillum quidem possumus. 

7.2 The Church has no power to make new divine promises, as some rant, who hold that what is decreed by the Church is of no less authority than what is decreed by God, since the Church is under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. But the Church owes its life to the word of promise through faith, and is nourished and preserved by this same word. That is to say, the promises of God make the Church, not the Church the promise of God. For the Word of God is incomparably superior to the Church, and in this Word the Church, being a creature, has nothing to decree, ordain or make, but only to be decreed, ordained and made. For who begets his own parent? Who first brings forth his own maker? This one thing indeed the Church can do – it can distinguish the Word of God from the words of men; as Augustine confesses that he believed the Gospel, moved thereto by the authority of the Church, which proclaimed, this is the Gospel.

 ¹⁰²  Nec habet Ecclesia potestatem, nouas promissiones gratiae diuinas statuere, sicut quidam garriunt, quod non minoris sit autoritas, quicquid ab Ecclesia, quam quod a deo statuitur, cum regatur spiritu sancto. Ecclesia enim nascitur uerbo promissionis per fidem, eodemque alitur et seruatur. hoc est, ipsa per promissiones dei constituitur, non promissio dei per ipsam. 

 ¹⁰³ Verbum dei enim supra Ecclesiam est incomparabiliter, (W561) in quo nihil statuere, ordinare, facere, sed tantum statui, ordinari, fieri habet, tanquam creatura. Quis enim suum parentem gignit? quis suum autorem prior constituit? Hoc sane habet Ecclesia, quod potest discernere uerbum dei a uerbis hominum, sicut Augustinus confitetur se Euangelio credidisse, motum autoritate Ecclesiae, quae hoc esse Euangelium praedicabat, non quod ideo sit super Euangelium,

7.3 Not that the Church is, therefore, above the Gospel; if that were true, she would also be above God, in whom we believe because she proclaims that He is God. But, as Augustine elsewhere says, the truth itself lays hold on the soul and thus renders it able to judge most certainly of all things; but the truth it cannot judge, but is forced to say with unerring certainty that it is the truth. For example, our reason declares with unerring certainty that three and seven are ten, and yet it cannot give a reason why this is true, although it cannot deny that it is true; it is taken captive by the truth and does not so much judge the truth as it is judged by the truth. Thus it is also with the mind of the Church, when under the enlightenment of the Spirit she judges and approves doctrines; she is unable to prove it, and yet is most certain of having it. (1 Corinthians 2:16) For as in philosophy no one judges general conceptions, but all are judged by them, so it is in the Church with the mind of the Spirit, that judges all things and is judged by none, as the Apostle says. (1 Corinthians 2:15) But of this another time.

Alioquin esset et super deum, cui creditur, quia Ecclesia hunc esse deum praedicat, Sed, sicut alibi dicit Aug., Veritate ipsa sic capitur anima, ut per eam de omnibus certissime iudicare possit, sed ueritatem iudicare non possit, dicere autem cogatur infallibili certitudine, hanc esse ueritatem.  ¹⁰⁴ Exempli gratia, Mens infallibili certitudine pronunciat .iii. et .vii. esse decem, et tamen rationem reddere non potest, cur id uerum sit, cum negare non possit uerum esse, capta scilicet ipsa et iudice veritate iudicata magis quam iudicans. Talis est et in Ecclesia sensus, illustrante spiritu, in iudicantis et approbandis doctrinis, quam demonstrare non potest, et tamen certissimum habet. Sicut enim apud philosophos de communibus conceptionibus nemo iudicat, sed omnes per eas iudicantur, ita apud nos de sensu spiritus est, qui iudicat omnes, et a nemine iudicatur, ut Apostolus ait. (1 Kor 2,15) 

7.3 Let this then stand fast – the Church can give no promises of grace; that is the work of God alone. Therefore she cannot institute a sacrament. But even if she could, it yet would not follow that ordination is a sacrament. For who knows which is the Church that has the Spirit? since when such decisions are made there are usually only a few bishops or scholars present; it is possible that these may not be really of the Church, and that all may err, as councils have repeatedly erred, particularly the Council of Constance, which fell into the most wicked error of all. Only that which has the approval of the Church universal, and not of the Roman church alone, rests on a trustworthy foundation. I therefore admit that ordination is a certain churchly rite, on a par with many others introduced by the Church Fathers, such as the blessing of vases, houses, vestments, water, salt, candles, herbs, wine, and the like. No one calls any of these a sacrament, nor is there in them any promise. In the same manner, to anoint a man’s hands with oil, or to shave his head, and the like, is not to administer a sacrament, since there is no promise given to those things; he is simply prepared, like a vessel or an instrument, for a certain work.

 ¹⁰⁵ Verum haec alias. Sit itaque certum, Ecclesiam non posse promittere gratiam, quod solius dei est, quare nec instituere sacramentum. Quod si quam maxime posset, non tamen statim sequeretur, ordinem esse sacramentum. Quis enim scit, quae sit Ecclesia habens spiritum, cum in statuendis hos soli et pauci Episcopi aut docti adesse soleant? quos possibile est non esse de Ecclesia, et omnes errare, sicut saepius errauerunt Concilia, praesertim Constantiense, quod omnium impiissime errauit. 

 ¹⁰⁶ Id enim solum est fideliter probatum, quod ab uniuersali Ecclesia, non tantum Romana, approbatur. Quare permitto, ordinem esse quendam ritum Ecclesiasticum, quales multi alii quoque per Ecclesiasticos patres sunt introducti, ut consecratio uasorum, domorum, uestium, aquae, salis, candelarum, herbarum, uini et similium, in quibus omnibus nemo ponit sacramentum esse, nec ulla in eis promissio; ita ungere manus uiri, radi uerticem, et id genus alia fieri, non est sacramentum dari, cum nihil eis promittatur, sed tantum ad officia quaedam, ceu uasa et instrumenta, parentur. 

7.4 But you will reply: “What do you say to Dionysius, who in his Ecclesiastical Hierarchy enumerates six sacraments, among which he also includes orders?” I answer: I am well aware that this is the one writer of antiquity who is cited in support of the seven sacraments, although he omits marriage and thus has only six. We read simply nothing about these “sacraments” in the other Fathers, nor do they ever refer to them as sacraments; for the invention of sacraments is of recent date. Indeed, to speak more boldly, the setting so great store by this Dionysius, whoever he may have been, greatly displeases me, for there is scarce a line of sound scholarship in him. I ask you, by what authority and with what reasons does he establish his assortment of arguments about the angels, in his Celestial Hierarchy? – a book over which many curious and superstitious spirits have cudgeled their brains. If one were to read and judge fairly, is not all Shaken out of his sleeve and very like a dream? But in his Mystic Theology, which certain most ignorant theologians greatly puff, he is downright dangerous, being more of a Platonist than a Christian; so that, if I had my way, no believing mind would give the least attention to these books. So far from learning Christ in them, you will lose even what you know of Him. I know whereof I speak. Let us rather hear Paul, that we may learn Jesus Christ and Him crucified. (1 Corinthians 2:2) He is the way, the life and the truth; He is the ladder by which we come to the Father, as He said: “No man cometh to the Father but by me.” (John 14:6)

 ¹⁰⁷   At dices: Quid ad Dionysium dices, qui sex enumerat sacramenta, inter quae et ordinem ponit, in Ecclesiastica Hierarchia? Respondeo: Scio hunc solum autorem haberi ex antiquis pro septenario sacramentorum, licet matrimonio omisso, senarium tantum dederit. Nihil enim prorsus in reliquis (W562) patribus de istis sacramentis legimus, Nec sacramenti nomine censuerunt, quoties de iis rebus loquuti sunt. 

 ¹⁰⁸ Recens enim est inuentio sacramentorum, Atque mihi (ut magis temerarius sim) in totum displicet, tantum tribui, quisquis fuerit, Dionysio illi, cum ferme nihil in eo sit solidae eruditionis. Nam ea, quae in coelesti hierarchia de angelis comminiscitur, in quo libro sic sudarunt curiosa et superstitiosa ingenia, qua rogo autoritate aut ratione probat? Nonne omnia sunt illius meditata, ac prope somniis simillima, si libere legas et iudices? 

 ¹⁰⁹ In Theologia uero mystica, quam sic inflant ignorantissimi quidam Theologistae, etiam pernitiosissimus est, plus platonisans quam Christianisans, ita ut nollem, fidelem animum his libris operam dare uel minimam. Christum ibi adeo non disces, ut, si etiam scias, amittas. Expertus loquor. Paulum potius audiamus, ut Iesum Christum, et hunc crucifixum, discamus. Haec est enim uia, uita et ueritas, haec scala, per quam uenitur ad patrem. Sicut dicit: Nemo uenit ad patrem nisi per me. (Joh 14,6) 

7.5 And in the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, what does this Dionysius do but describe certain churchly rites and play round them with his allegories without proving them? justas among us the author of the book entitled Rationale divinorum. Such allegorical studies are the work of idle men. do you think I should find it difficult to play with allegories round anything in creation? Did not Bonaventure by allegory draw the liberal arts into theology? And Gerson even converted the smaller Donatus into a mystic theologian. It would not be a difficult task for me to compose a better hierarchy than that of Dionysius, for he knew nothing of pope, cardinals and archbishops, and put the bishop at the top. no, who has so weak a mind as not to be able to launch into allegories? I would not have a theologian give himself to allegorizing until he has perfected himself in the grammatical and literal interpretation of the Scriptures; otherwise his theology will bring him into danger, as Origen discovered.

 ¹¹⁰ Ita in Ecclesiastica hierarchia, quid facit, nisi quod ritus quosdam Ecclesiasticos describit, ludens allegoriis suis, quas non probat? quale apud nos fecit, qui librum edidit, qui rationale diuinorum dicitur. ociosorum hominum sunt ista studia allegoriarum. An putas mihi difficile esse in qualibet re creata allegoriis ludere? Nonne Bonauentura artes liberales allegorice duxit ad Theologiam? Denique, Gerson Donatum minorem fecit mysticum Theologum. 

 ¹¹¹ Mihi non fuerit operosum meliorum hierarchiam scribere, quam Dionisii sit, cum ille Papam, Cardinales, Archiepiscopos ignorarit, et Episcopum fecerit supremum. Et quis tam tenuis ingenii, qui allegoriis non queat periclitari? Nollem ego Theologum allegoriis operam dare, donec consumatus legitimo scripturae simplicique sensu fuerit, alioquin, sicut Origeni contigit, non citra periculum theologissabit. 

7.6 Therefore a thing does not need to be a sacrament simply because Dionysius describes it. Otherwise, why not also make a sacrament of the processions, which he describes in his book, and which continue to this day? There will then be as many sacraments as there have been rites and ceremonies multiplied in the Church. Standing on so unsteady a foundation, they have nevertheless invented “characters” which they attribute to this sacrament of theirs and which are indelibly impressed on those who are ordained. from this do such ideas come? By what authority, with what reasons, are they established? We do not object to their being free to invent, say and give out whatever they please; but we also insist on our liberty and demand that they shall not arrogate to themselves the right to turn their ideas into articles of faith, as they have hitherto presumed to do. It is enough that we accommodate ourselves to their rites and ceremonies for the sake of peace; but we refuse to be bound by such things as though they were necessary to salvation, when they are not. Let them put by their despotic demands, and we shall yield free obedience to their opinions, and thus live at peace with them. It is a shameful and wicked slavery for a Christian man, who is free, to be subject to any but heavenly and divine traditions.

 ¹¹² Non ergo continuo sacramentum esse debet, quia Dionysius aliquid describit. alioqui, cur non etiam sacramentum faciunt, quam ibidem describit processionem, quae usque hodie perseueret? Quin tot erunt illorum sacramenta, quot aucti sunt in Ecclesia ritus et cerimoniae. Huic tamen tam debili fundamento nixi, Caracteres effinxerunt, quos huic suo sacramento tribuerent, qui imprimerentur ordinatis indelebiles. Vnde quaeso tales cogitationes? qua autoritate? qua ratione stabiliuntur? 

 ¹¹³  Non, quod nolimus eos (W563) esse liberos ad fingendum, dicendum, asserendum, quicquid uel libuerit, sed nostram quoque libertatem asserimus, ne ius sibi ipsis arrogent, ex cogitationibus suis articulos fidei faciendi, sicut hactenus praesumpserunt. Satis est, nos pro concordia eorum ritibus et studiis attemperare, sed cogi tanquam necessariis ad salutem, quae necessaria non sunt, nolumus. dimittant ipsi tyrannidis sua exactionem, et nos exhibebimus liberum eorum sensui obsequium, ut sic in pace mutua inuicem agamus. Turpe enim est et iniquiter seruile, Christianum hominem, qui liber est, aliis quam coelestibus ac diuinis subiectum esse traditionibus. 

7.7 We come now to their strongest argument. It is this: Christ said at the Last Supper: “Do this in remembrance of me.” (1 Corinthians 11:24) Here, they say, Christ ordained the apostles to the priesthood. From this passage they also concluded, among other things, that both kinds are to be administered to the priests alone. In fine, they have drawn out of this passage whatever they pleased, as men who might arrogate to themselves the free will to prove anything whatever from any words of Christ, no matter where found. But is that interpreting the words of God? Pray, answer me! Christ gives us no promise here, but only commands that this be done in remembrance of Him. Why do they not conclude that He also ordained priests when He laid upon them the office of the Word and of baptism, saying, “Go ye into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every creature, baptising them in the name,” etc.? (Mark 16:15) (Matthew 28:19) For it is the proper duty of priests to preach and to baptise. Or, since it is nowadays the chief and, as they say, indispensable duty of priests to read the canonical hours, why have they not discovered the sacrament of ordination in those passages in which Christ, in many places and particularly in the garden, commanded them to pray that they might not enter into temptation? (Matthew 26:41) But perhaps they will evade this argument by saying that it is not commanded to pray; it is enough to read the canonical hours. Then it follows that this priestly work can be proved nowhere in the Scriptures, and thus their praying priesthood is not of God, as, indeed, it is not.

 ¹¹⁴ Post hoc apprehendunt extremum roboris sui. Nempe quod Christus in coena dixit: Hoc facite in meam commemorationem. Ecce hic inquiunt: Christus eos ordinauit in sacerdotes. Hinc inter caetera et hoc duxerunt, solis sacerdotibus utranque speciem esse dandam. Denique, quiduis hinc suxerunt, ut qui liberum arbitrium sibi arrogarint, e uerbis Christi ubilibet dictis quodlibet asserere. Sed est hoc uerba dei interpretari? Responde quaeso! Christus hic nihil promittit, sed tantum praecepit, fieri istud in sui memoriam. 

 ¹¹⁵ Cur non concludunt, et ibi esse ordinatos sacerdotes, ubi imponens offitium uerbi et baptismatis dixit: Ite in orbem uniuersum, et praedicate Euangelium omni creaturae, Baptisantes eos in nomine etc. (Mark 16,15; Marr 29,19) cum sacerdotum sit proprium praedicare et baptisare? Deinde, cum hodie sacerdotis uel primarium opus sit, et (ut dicunt) indispensabile, legere horas Canonicas, cur non ibi ordinis sacramentum conceperunt, ubi Christus orare praecepit, ut aliis locis multis, ita praecipue in orto, ne intrarent in tentationem? Nisi hic elabantur, quod non sit praeceptum orare, sufficit enim legere horas Canonicas, ut sic sacerdotale illud opus nusquam e scripturis probetur, ac per hoc istud sacerdotium orationale non sit ex deo, sicut uere non est. 

7.8 But which of the ancient Fathers claimed that in this passage priests were ordained? from this comes this novel interpretation? I will tell you. They have sought by this device to set up a nursery of implacable discord, whereby clerics and laymen should be separated from each other farther than heaven from earth, to the incredible injury of the grace of baptism and the confusion of our fellowship in the Gospel. Here, indeed, are the roots of that detestable tyranny of the clergy over the laity; trusting in the external anointing by which their hands are consecrated, in the tonsure and in vestments, they not only exalt themselves above lay Christians, who are only anointed with the Holy Spirit, but regard them almost as dogs and unworthy to be included with them in the Church. Hence they are bold to demand, to exact, to threaten, to urge, to oppress, as much as they please. In short, the sacrament of ordination has been and is a most approved device for the establishing of all the horrible things that have been wrought hitherto and will yet be wrought in the Church. Here Christian brotherhood has perished, here shepherds have been turned into wolves, servants into tyrants, churchmen into worse than worldlings.

 ¹¹⁶  Quis uero patrum antiquorum asseruit, his uerbis ordinatos esse sacerdotes? Vnde ergo ista intelligentia noua? scilicet, quod hac arte quesitum est, ut seminarium discordiae implacabilis haberetur, quo clerici et laici plus discernerentur quam coelum et terra, ad incredibilem baptismalis gratiae iniuriam, et Euangelicae communionis confusionem. Siquidem, hinc cepit tyrannis ista detestabilis clericorum in laicos, qua fiducia corporalis unctionis, quo manus eorum consecrantur, deinde rasurae et uestium, non modo caeteris laicis Christianis, qui spiritu sancto uncti sunt, sese praeferunt, sed ferme ut canes indignos, qui cum eis in Ecclesia numerantur, habeant. 

 ¹¹⁷ Hinc quiduis (W564) mandare, exigere, minari, urgere, premere audent. Summa, sacramentum ordinis pulcherrima machina fuit et est, ad stabilienda uniuersa portenta, quae hactenus facta sunt, et adhuc fiunt in Ecclesia. Hic periit fraternitas Christiana, hic ex pastoribus lupi, ex seruis tyranni, ex Ecclesiasticis plus quam mundani, facti sunt. 

7.9  If they were forced to grant that as many of us as have been baptised are all priests without distinction, as indeed we are, and that to them was committed the ministry only, yet with our consent, they would presently learn that they have no right to rule over us except in so far as we freely concede it. For thus it is written in 1 Peter 2:9, “Ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, and a priestly kingdom.” Therefore we are all priests, as many of us as are Christians. But the priests, as we call them, are ministers chosen from among us, who do all that they do in our name. And the priesthood is nothing but a ministry, as we learn from 1 Corinthians 4:1, “Let a man so account of us as of the ministers of Christ, and the dispensers of the mysteries of God.”

 ¹¹⁸ Qui si cogerentur admittere, nos omnes esse aequaliter sacerdotes, quotquot baptisati sumus, sicut reuera sumus, illisque solum ministerium nostro tamen consensu commissum, scirent simul, nullum eis esse super nos ius imperii, nisi quantum nos sponte nostra admitteremus. Sic enim .i. Pet. ii. dicitur: Vos estis genus electum, regale sacerdotium, et sacerdotale regnum. Quare omnes sumus sacerdotes, quotquot Christiani sumus. Sacerdotes uero quos uocamus, ministri sunt ex nobis electi, qui nostro nomine omnia faciant. Et sacerdotium aliud nihil est, quam ministerium. Sic .ii. Corint. iiii.: Sic nos existimet homo sicut ministros Christi, et dispensatores mysteriorum dei. 

7.10 It follows from this that whoever does not preach the Word, called by the Church to this very thing, is no priest at all. And further, that the sacrament of ordination can be nothing else than a certain rite of choosing preachers in the Church. For thus is a priest defined in Malachi 2:7, “The lips of the priest shall keep knowledge, and they shall seek the law at his mouth: because he is the angel of the Lord of hosts” You may be certain, then, that whoever is not an angel of the Lord of hosts, or whoever is called to anything else than such angelic service – if I may so term it – is never a priest; as Hosea says, “Because you hast rejected knowledge, I will reject you, that you shall not do the office of priesthood to me.” (Hosea 4:6) They are also called pastors because they are to pasture, that is, to teach. Therefore, they who are ordained only to read the canonical hours and to offer masses are indeed papist, but not Christian, priests, because they not only do not preach, but are not called to preach; no, it comes to this, that such a priesthood is a different estate altogether from the office of preaching. Thus they are hour-priests and mass-priests, that is, a sort of living idol, having the name of priest, while they are in reality such priests as Jeroboam ordained, in Bethaven, of the off-scouring of the people, and not of the tribe of Levi. (1 Kings 12:31)

 ¹¹⁹  Ex quibus fit, ut is, qui non praedicat uerbum, ad hoc ipsum per Ecclesiam uocatus, nequaquam sit sacerdos, Et sacramentum ordinis aliud esse non possit, quam ritus quidam eligendi Concionatoris in Ecclesia. Sic enim per Malachiam .ii. definit sacerdotem: Labia sacerdotis custodiunt scientiam, et legem ex ore eius requirent, quia angelus domini exercituum est. Certus ergo sis, qui non est angelus domini exercituum, aut ad aliud quam ad angelatum (ut sic dixerum) uocatur, sacerdos prorsus non sit, Sicut Oseae .iiii. dicit: Quia tu repulisti scientiam, repellam te et ego, ne sacerdotio fungaris mihi. ¹²⁰ Inde enim et pastores dicuntur, quod pascere, id est, docere debeant. Quare, eos, qui tantum ad horas Canonicas legendas, et Missas offerendas ordinantur, esse quidem papisticos, sed non Christianos sacerdotes, quia non modo non praedicant, sed nec uocantur ad praedicandum; immo, hoc ipsum agitur, ut sit sacerdotium eiusmodi alius quidam status ab offitio praedicandi. Itaque, horales et Missales sunt sacerdotes, id est, Idola quaedam uiua, nomen sacerdotii habentia, cum sint nihil minus, quales sacerdotes Hieroboam in Bethauen ordinauit de infirma fece plebis, non de gene Leuitico. 

7.11 See, whither has the glory of the Church departed! The whole earth is filled with priests, bishops, cardinals and clerics, and yet not one of them preaches by virtue of his office, unless he be called to do so by another and a different call besides his sacramental ordination. Every one thinks he is doing full justice to his sacrament by mumbling the vain repetitions of his prescribed prayers and by celebrating masses; moreover, by never really praying those hours, or if he does pray them, by praying them for himself, and by offering his masses as a sacrifice – which is the height of perversity! – while the mass consists in the use of the sacrament. It is clear, therefore, that the ordination which, as a sacrament, makes clerics of this sort of men, is in truth nothing but a mere fiction, devised by men who understand nothing about the Church, the priesthood, the ministry of the Word, or the sacraments. And as is the sacrament, so are the priests it makes. To such errors and such blindness has come a still worse captivity; in order to separate themselves still farther from other Christians, whom they deem profane, they have unmanned themselves, like the priests of Cybele, and taken upon them the burden of a pretended celibacy.

 ¹²¹   Vide igitur, quorsum migrarit gloria Ecclesiae: repleta est omnis terra sacerdotibus, Episcopis, Cardinalibus et Clero, quorum tamen (quantum ad (W565) ad offitium spectat) nullus praedicat, nisi denuo alia uocatione, ultra ordinem sacramentalem uocetur, sed abunde suo sacramento se satisfacere putat, si battologiam legendarum precum emurmuret et missas celebret, Deinde eas ipsas horas numquam oret, aut si oret, pro se oret, Atque missas suas (quae summa est peruersitas) ceu sacrifitium offerat (cum missa sit usus sacramenti), ut perspicuum sit, ordinem, qui uelut sacramentum, hoc hominum genus in clericos ordinat, esse uere, mere omninoque figmentum ex hominibus natum, nihil de re Ecclesiastica, de sacerdotio, de ministerio uerbi, de sacramentis intelligentibus, ut, quale est sacramentum, tales et habeas sacerdotes. Quibus erroribus et caecitatibus id accessit maioris captiuitatis: quo se latius a caeteris Christianis, tanquam prophanis, secernerent, se ipsos, sicut Galli, Cybelis sacerdotes, castrauerunt, et celibatu onerarunt simulatissimo. 

7.12 It was not enough for this hypocrisy and error to forbid bigamy, viz., the having of two wives at the same time, as it was forbidden in the law, and as is the accepted meaning of the term; but they have called it bigamy if a man married two virgins, one after the other, or if he married a widow. no, so holly is the holiness of this most holy sacrament, that no married man can become a priest as long as his wife lives. And – here we reach the very summit of holiness – even, he is prevented from entering the priesthood, who without his knowledge or by an unfortunate chance married a fallen woman. But if one have defiled a thousand harlots, or ravished countless matrons and virgins, or even kept numerous Ganymedes, that would be no hindrance to his becoming bishop or cardinal or pope. Moreover, the Apostle’s word, “the husband of one wife,” (1 Timothy 3:2) must be interpreted to mean, “the prelate of one church,” and this has given rise to the incompatible benefices.” At the same time the pope, that munificent dispenser, may join to one man three, twenty, one hundred wives – I should say churches – if he be bribed with money or power – I should say, moved by godly charity and constrained by the care of the churches.

 ¹²²  Nec satis erat hypocrisi et operationi erroris huius, digamiam prohibere, hoc est, ne quis duas uxores haberet simul, ut in lege fiebat, (id enim digamiam significare scimus) sed digamiam interpretati sunt, si quis duas successiue uirgines duxisset, aut semel uiduam. immo, sanctissima ista sanctitas huius sacrosacratissimi sacramenti tantum ualet, ut nec sacerdotari possit, qui uirginem duxerit, uiuente eadem uxore. ac ut summum fastigium sanctitatis attingat, etiam is arcetur a sacerdotio, qui ignorans, et meare infoelicitatis casu corruptam uirginem duxerit.  ¹²³ At si sexcentas meretrices polluerit, aut matronas ac uirgines quaslibet constuprarit, aut etiam Ganymedes multos aluerit, nihil impedimenti fuerit, uel Episcopum, uel Cardinalem, uel Papam eum fieri. Tum illud Apostoli: unius uxoris uir, sic interpretari oportet, id est: unius Ecclesiae praelatus. inde incompatibilia manarunt benefitia, nisi Papa, dispensator magnificus, uni tres, uiginti, centum uxores, id est Ecclesias copulare uoluerit, pecunia uel gratia corruptus, hoc est, pia charitate motus, et Ecclesiarum sollicitudine districtus. 

7.13 O pontiffs worthy of this holy sacrament of ordination! O princes, not of the catholic churches, but of the synagogues, no, the black dens, of Satan! (Revelation 2:9) I would cry out with Isaiah: (Isaiah 28:14) “Ye scornful men, who rule over my people that is in Jerusalem”; and with Amos: (Amos 6:1) “Woe to you that are wealthy in Sion, and to you that have confidence in the mountain of Samaria: ye great men, heads of the people, that go in with state into the house of Israel.” O the reproach that such monstrous priests bring upon the Church of God! Where are there any bishops or priests who know the Gospel, not to speak of preaching it? Why then do they boast of being priests? Why do they desire to be regarded as holier and better and mightier than other Christians, who are merely laymen? To read the hours – what unlearned men, or, as the Apostle says, what men speaking with tongues, cannot do that? (1 Corinthians 14:23) But to pray the hours – that belongs to monks, hermits, and men in private life, all of them laymen. he duty of the priest is to preach, and if he does not preach he is as much a priest as a painted man is a man. Does ordaining such babbling priests make one a bishop? Or blessing churches and bells? Or confirming boys? Certainly not. Any> deacon or layman could do as much. The ministry of the Word makes the priest and the bishop.

 ¹²⁴ O dignos Pontifices hoc uenerabili sacramento ordinis! O principes, non catholicarum Ecclesiarum, sed Satanicarum synagogarum, immo tenebrarum! Libet hic cum Isaia clamare: O uiri illusores, qui dominamini super populum meum, qui est in Hierusalem. Et illud Amos .vi.: Ve uobis, qui opulenti estis in Zion, et confiditis in monte Samariae, optimates, capita populorum, ingredientes pompatice domum Israel etc. 

 ¹²⁵  O ignominiam Ecclesiae dei, quam ex his monstris sacerdotalibus contrahit! Vbi sunt Episcopi aut (W566) sacerdotes, qui sciant Euangelium, nedum praedicent? utquid ergo sese iactant sacerdotes? cur aliis Christianis, tanquam laicis sanctiores et meliores et potentiores haberi uolunt? horas legere, ad quos idiotas non pertinet? seu (ut Apostolus ait) ad lingua loquentes? 

 ¹²⁶ Horas autem orare, ad monachos, Eremitas, priuatosque homines, et eos laicos, pertinet. Sacerdotis munus est praedicare, quod nisi fecerit, sic est sacerdos, sicut homo pictus est homo. An Episcopum faciat, ordinare tales sacerdotes battologos? An Ecclesias et campanas consecrare? An pueros confirmare? Non. Haec uel diaconus uel laicus quilibet faceret. Ministerium uerbi facit sacerdotem et Episcopum. 

7.14 Therefore my advice is: Flee, all ye that would live in safety; begone, young men, and do not enter upon this holy estate, unless you are determined to preach the Gospel, and are able to believe that you are not made one whit better than the laity through this sacrament of ordination! For to read the hours is nothing, and to offer mass is to receive the sacrament. What then is there left to you that every layman does not have? Tonsure and vestments? A sorry priest, forsooth, who consists of tonsure and vestment! Or the oil poured on your fingers? But every Christian is anointed and sanctified with the oil of the Holy Spirit, both in body and soul, and in ancient times touched the sacrament with his hands no less than the priests do now. But today our superstition counts it a great crime if the laity touch either the bare chalice or the corporale; not even a nun who is a pure virgin would be permitted to wash the palls and sacred linens of the altar. O God! how the sacrosanct sanctity of this sacrament of ordination has grown and grown. I anticipate that ere long the laity will not be permitted to touch the altar except when they offer their money. I can scarce, contain myself when I contemplate the wicked tyrannies of these desperate men, who with their farcical and childish fancies mock and overthrow the liberty and the glory of the Christian religion.

 ¹²⁷ Fugite ergo, meo consilio, quicunque tuto uiuere uultis, fugite, iuuenes, nec istis sacris initiamini, nisi aut Euangelisare uolueritis, aut nisi uos hoc ordinis sacramento nihilo laicis meliores factos credere potestis. Non enim horas legere aliquid est. Quid ergo in uobis manet, quod non in quouis laico maneat? Rasura et uestis? Miserum sacerdotem, qui rasura et ueste constat! An oleum digitis uestris infusum?  At Christianus quilibet oleo sancti spiritus unctus et sanctificatus est corpore et anima, et olim sacramentum manibus tractabat, non minus quam nunc sacerdotes faciunt, licet nostra superstitio laicis nunc magnum reatum iniiciat, si uel calicem nudum ac corporale tetigerit. Nec Moniali quidem sanctae uirgini liceat lauare pallas alteris et lintheamina sacra. 

 ¹²⁸ Vide per deum, sacrosanctam ordinis huius sanctitatem, quantum profecerit. futurum spero, ut nec altare liceat attingere laicis, nisi dum nummos obtulerint. Ego pene dirumpor, cogitans has impiissimas hominum temeratissimorum tyrannides, tam nugacibus et puerilibus nugis libertatem et gloriam Christianae religionis illudentium et pessundantium. 

7.15 Let every one, therefore, who knows himself to be a Christian be assured of this, and apply it to himself – that we are all priests, and there is no difference between, us; that is to say, we have the same power in respect to the Word and all the sacraments. (Ordination, the Rite of Choosing Preachers) However, no one may make use of this power except by the consent of the community or by the call of a superior. For what is the common property of all, no individual may arrogate to himself, unless he be called. And therefore this sacrament of ordination, if it have any meaning at all, is nothing else than a certain rite whereby one is called to the ministry of the Church. Furthermore, the priesthood is property nothing but the ministry of the Word, mark you, of the Word – not of the law, but of the> Gospel. And the diaconate is not the ministry of reading the Gospel or the Epistle, as is the present practice, but the ministry of distributing the Church’s alms to the poor, so that the priests may be relieved of the burden of temporal matters and may give themselves more freely to prayer and the Word. For this was the purpose of the institution of the diaconate, as we read in Acts 6:4. Whoever, therefore, does not know or preach the Gospel, is not only not a priest or bishop, but he is a plague of the Church, who under the false title of priest or bishop – in sheep’s clothing, forsooth – oppresses the Gospel and plays the wolf in the Church.

 ¹²⁹ Esto itaque certus, et sese agnoscat, quicunque se Christianum esse cognouerit, omnes nos aequaliter esse sacerdotes, hoc est, eandem in uerbo et sacramento quocunque habere potestatem. Verum, non licere quenquam hac ipsa uti, nisi consensu communitatis, aut uocatione maioris. Quod enim omnium est communiter, nullus singulatiter potest sibi arrogare, donec uocetur. 

 ¹³⁰ Ac per hoc ordinis sacramentum, si quicquam est, esse nihil aliud, quam ritum quendam uocandi alicuius in ministerium Ecclesiasticum. Deinde, sacerdotium proprie esse non nisi ministerium uerbi, uerbi inquam, non legis, sed Euangelii. Diaconiam uero esse ministerium, non legendi Euangelii aut Epistolae, ut hodie usus habet, sed opes Ecclesiae distribuendi pauperibus, ut sacerdotes leuentur onere rerum temporalium, et orationi ac uerbo liberius instent. (W567) 

 ¹³¹ Hoc enim consilio legimus Act. v. Diaconos institutos. atque ita eum, qui uel ignorat, uel non praedicat Euangelium, non modo non esse sacerdotem uel Episcopum, sed pestem quandam Ecclesiae, qui sub titulo falso sacerdotis et Episcopi, ceu sub pelle ouina, Euangelium opprimat, et lupum in Ecclesia agat. 

7.16 Therefore, unless those priests and bishops with whom the Church is now filled work out their salvation, in some other way, that is, realize that they are not priests or bishops and bemoan the fact that they bear the name of an office whose duties they either do not know or cannot fulfil, and thus with prayers and tears lament their wretched hypocritical life – unless they do this, they are truly the people of eternal perdition, and the words of Isaiah are fulfilled in them: Isaiah 5 “Therefore is my people led away captive, because they had not knowledge, and their nobles have perished with famine, and their multitude were dried up with thirst. Therefore has hell enlarged her soul and opened her mouth without any bounds, and their strong ones, and their people, and their high and generous ones shall go down into it.” What a dreadful word for our age, in which Christians are sucked down into so deep an abyss!

 ¹³² Quare, ii sacerdotes et Episcopi, quibus hodie referta est Ecclesia, nisi alia ratione salutem suam operentur, hoc est, nisi agnoscant, sese nec sacerdotes nec Episcopos esse, doleantque se nomen gerere, cuius opus aut nesciunt, aut non possunt implere, sicque orationibus et lachrymis suae hypocrisis miseram sortem deplorent, uere sunt populus perditionis aeternae, ac de eis illud Isaiae v. uerificabitur: Captiuus ductus est populus meus, eo quod non habuerit scientiam, et nobiles eius interierunt fame, et multitudo eius siti exaruit, propterea dilatauit infernus animam suam, et aperuit os suum absque ullo termino. Et descendent fortes eius, et populus eius, et sublimes eius, et gloriosi eius in eum. O uerbum horrendum nostro seculo, quo tanta uoragine absorbentur Christiani. 

7.17 Since, therefore, what we call the priesthood is a ministry, so far as we can learn from the Scriptures, I cannot understand why one who has been made a priest cannot again become a layman; for the sole difference between him and a layman is his ministry. But to depose a man from the ministry is so far from impossible that it is even now the usual penalty imposed upon guilty priests; they are either suspended for a season or permanently deprived of their office. For that lying “indelible character” has long since become a laughing-stock. I admit that the pope imparts this character, but Christ knows nothing of it; and a priest who is consecrated with it becomes thereby the life-long servant and captive, not of Christ, but of the pope; as it is in our day. Moreover, unless I am greatly mistaken, if this sacrament and this lie fall, the papacy itself with its characters will scarcely survive; our joyous liberty will be restored to us; we shall realize that we are all equal by every right, and having cast off the yoke of tyranny, shall know that he who is a Christian has Christ, and that he who has Christ has all things that are Christ’s and is able to do all things. (Philippians 4:13) Of this I will write more, and more tellingly, as soon as I perceive that the above has displeased my friends the papists.

 ¹³³   Quantum ergo e scripturis docemur, cum ministerium sit id, quod nos sacerdotium uocamus, Prorsus non uideo, qua ratione rursus nequeat laicus fieri, semel sacerdos factus, cum a laico nihil differat, nisi ministerio, A ministerio autem deponi adeo non sit impossibile, ut passim ea etiam nunc celebretur uindicta in culpabiles sacerdotes, dum aut suspenduntur temporaliter, aut perpetuo priuantur officio suo. ¹³⁴ Nam commentum illud Caracteris indelebilis iam olim irrisum est. Concedo, ut Caracterem hunc Papa imprimat, ignorante Christo, sitque hoc ipso sacerdos eo consecratus non tam Christi quam Papae perpetuus seruus et captiuus, sicut est dies haec. 

 ¹³⁵ Caeterum, nisi fallor, si ruat hoc sacramentum et commentum aliquando, uix subsistet ipse Papatus cum suis characteribus, redibitque ad nos laeta libertas, et excusso tyrannidis iugo, sciemus, quod, qui Christianus est, Christum habet, qui Christum habet, omnia, quae Christi sunt, habet, omnia potens, de quo plura et robustius, ubi ista amicis meis papistis disciplicere sensero. 

8. THE SACRAMENT of EXTREME UNCTION

¹³⁶ DE SACRAMENTO EXTREMAE VNCTIONIS.

8.1 To the rite of anointing the sick our theologians have made two additions which are worthy of them; first, they call it a sacrament, and secondly, they make it the last sacrament. So that it is now the sacrament of extreme unction, which may be administered only to such as are at the point of death. Being such subtle dialecticians, perchance they have done this in order to relate it to the first unction of baptism and the two succeeding unctions of confirmation and ordination. But here they are able to cast in my teeth, that in the case of this sacrament there are, on the authority of James the Apostle, both promise and sign, which, as I have all along maintained, constitute a sacrament. For does not James say: (James 5:14 f.) “Is any man sick among you? Let him bring in the priests of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer of faith shall raise him up: and if he be in sins, they shall be forgiven him.” There, say they, you have the promise of the forgiveness of sins, and the sign of the oil.

 
   Huic ungendorum infirmorum ritui duas additiones sese dignas addiderunt Theologi nostri. Vnam, quod sacramentum appellant. Alteram, quod extremam faciunt, sitque nunc sacramentum extremae unctionis, quae, nisi in extremo uitae agentibus periculo, dari non debeat. forte (ut sunt arguti Dialectici) relatiuam fecerunt ad unctionem primam baptismi, et sequentes (W568) duas confirmationes et ordinis. 

 ¹³⁷ Verum habent hic, quod in os mihi retundant. Nempe, quod autoritate Iacobi Apostoli hoc promissio et signum sit, quibus ego sacramentum constitui hactenus dixi. Dicit enim: Si infirmatur quis in uobis, inducat presbyteros Ecclesiae, et orent super eum, ungentes eum oleo in nomine domini, Et oratio fidei saluabit infirmum, et alleuiabit eum dominus, et, si in peccatis sit, remittentur ei. (Jak 5,14f) Ecce, inquiunt, promissio remissionis peccatorum, et signum olei. 

8.2 But I reply: If ever there was a mad conceit, here is one indeed. I will say nothing of the fact that many assert with much probability that this Epistle is not by James the Apostle, nor worthy of an apostolic spirit, although, whoever be its author, it has come to be esteemed as authoritative. But even if the Apostle James did write it, I yet should say, no Apostle has the right on his own authority to institute a sacrament, that is, to give a divine promise with a sign attached; for this belongs to Christ alone. Thus Paul says that he received from the Lord the sacrament of the Eucharist, (1 Corinthians 11:23) and that he was not sent to baptise but to preach the Gospel. (1 Corinthians 1:17) And we read nowhere in the Gospel of this sacrament of extreme unction. But let us also waive that point. Let us examine the words of the Apostle, or whoever was the author of the Epistle, and we shall at once see how little heed these multipliers of sacraments have given to them.

 ¹³⁸   Ego autem dico: si uspiam delyratum est, hoc loco praecipue delyratum est. Omitto enim, quod hanc Epistolam non esse Apostoli Iacobi nec apostolico spiritu dignam multi ualde probabiliter asserant, licet consuetudine autoritatem, cuiuscunque sit, obtinuerit. Tamen, si etiam esset Apostoli Iacobi, dicerem, non licere Apostolum sua autoritate sacramentum instituere, id est, diuinam promissionem cum adiuncto signo dare. 

 ¹³⁹ Hoc enim ad Christum solum pertinebat. Sic Paulus sese accepisse a domino dicit sacramentum Eucharistiae (1 Kor 11,23), et missum non ut baptisset, sed ut Euangelisset. (1 Kor 1,17) Nusquam autem legitur in Euangelio unctionis istius extremae sacramentum. Sed missa faciamus et ista. Apostoli, siue quisquis fuerit Epistolae autor, ipsa uideamus uerba, et simul uidebimus, quam nihil ea obseruarint ii, qui sacramenta auxerunt. 

8.3 In the first place, then, if they believe the Apostle’s words to be true and binding, by what right do they change and contradict them? Why do they make an extreme and a particular kind of unction of that which the Apostle wished to be general? For he did not desire it to be an extreme unction or administered only to the dying; but he says quite generally: “If any man be sick” – not, “If any man be dying.” I care not what learned discussions Dionysius has on this point in his Ecclesiastical Hierarchy; the Apostle’s words are clear enough, on which words he as well as they rely, without, however, following them. It is evident, therefore, that they have arbitrarily and without any authority made a sacrament and an extreme unction out of the misunderstood words of the Apostle, to the detriment of all other sick persons, whom they have deprived of the benefit of the unction which the Apostle enjoined.

 ¹⁴⁰  Primum, Si uerum putant et seruandum, quod Apostolus dicit, qua autoritate mutant et resistunt? Cur faciunt ipsi extremam et singularem unctionem ex ea, quam Apostolus uoluit esse generalem? Neque enim Apostolus Extremam esse voluit et solum morituris dandam. Sed absolute dicit: Si quis infirmatur, non dicit: Si quis moritur. 

 ¹⁴¹ Neque enim curo, quid Dionysii Ecclesiastica hierarchia hic sapiat, ipsa Apostoli uerba aperta sunt, quibus et ille et isti pariter nituntur, et tamen non sequuntur, ut appareat, eos non autoritate ulla, sed suo arbitrio, ex uerbis Apostoli male intellectis, sacramentum et unctionem extremam fecisse, cum iniuria caeterorum infirmorum, quibus ui propria abstulerunt ungendi beneficium ab Apostolo statutum. 

8.4 But what follows is still better. The Apostle’s promise expressly declares that the prayer of faith shall save the sick man, and the Lord shall raise him up. The Apostle commands us to anoint the sick man and to pray, in order that he may be healed and raised up; that is, that he may not die, and that it may not be an extreme unction. This is proved also by the prayers which are said, during the anointing, for the recovery of the one who is sick. But they say, on the contrary, that the unction must be administered to none but the dying; that is, that they may not be healed and raised up. If it were not so serious a matter, who could help laughing at this beautiful, apt and sound exposition of the Apostle’s words? Is not the folly of the sophists, here shown in its true colors? As here, so in many other places, they affirm what the Scriptures deny, and deny what they affirm. Why should we not give thanks to these excellent magisters of ours? I therefore spoke truth when I said they never conceived a crazier notion than this?

 ¹⁴²  Sed illius pulchrius, Quod promissio Apostoli expresse dicit: Oratio fidei saluabit infirmum, et alleuiabit eum dominus etc. Vide, Apostolus in hoc ungi et orari praecipit, ut infirmus sanetur et alleuietur, hoc est, non moriatur, nec sit extrema unctio, quod et usque hodie probant preces inter ungendum dictae, quae infirmum restitui petunt. 

 ¹⁴³ Illi contra dicunt, non esse dandam unctionem, nisi discessuris, hoc est, ut non sanentur et alleuientur. Nisi res ista esset seria, quis risum queat tenere, super tam bellis, aptis et sanis Apostolicorum uerborum glossis? Nonne hic aperte deprehenditur (W569) insipientia Sophistica, quae, ut hoc loco, ita multis aliis hoc affirmat, quod negat scriptura, hoc negat, quod illa affirmat? Quin igitur gratias agimus tam eximiis magistris nostris? Recte igitur dixi, nusquam insignius esse delyratum ab illis, quam hoc loco. 

8.5 Furthermore, if this unction is a sacrament it must necessarily be, as they say, an effective sign of that which it signifies and promises. Now it promises health and recovery to the sick, as the words plainly say: “The prayer of faith shall save the sick man, and the Lord shall raise him up.” But who does not see that this promise is seldom if ever fulfilled? Scarce one in a thousand is restored to health, and when one is restored nobody believes that it came about through the sacrament, but through the working of nature or the medicine; for to the sacrament they ascribe the opposite power. What shall we say then? Either the Apostle lies in making this promise or else this unction is no sacrament. For the sacramental promise is certain; but this promise deceives in the majority of cases. Indeed – and here again we recognize the shrewdness and foresight of these theologians – for this very reason they would have it to be extreme unction, that the promise should not stand; in other words, that the sacrament should be no sacrament. For if it is extreme unction, it does not heal, but gives way to the disease; but if it heals, it cannot be extreme unction. Thus, by the interpretation of these magisters, James is shown to have contradicted himself, and to have instituted a sacrament in order not to institute one; for they must have an extreme unction just to make untrue what the Apostle intends, namely, the healing of the sick. If that is not madness, pray what is?

 ¹⁴⁴ Vlterius, si unctio ista sacramentum est, debet sine dubio esse (ut dicunt) efficax signum eius quod signat et promittit. At sanitatem et restitutionem infirmi promittit, ut stant aperta uerba. Oratio fidei saluabit infirmum, et alliuiabit eum dominus. Quis autem non uidet hanc promissionem in paucis, immo nullis impleri? Inter mille enim uix unus restituitur, idque nemo sacramento, sed naturae uel medicinae benefitio fieri putat, nam sacramento contrariam uim tribuunt. Quid ergo dicemus? Aut Apostolus hac promissione mentitur, aut unctio ista sacramentum non erit. 

 ¹⁴⁵ Promissio enim sacramentalis certa est, At haec in maiori parte fallit. Quin, ut iterum Theologorum istorum prudentiam et uigilantiam cognoscamus, ideo extremam esse uolunt unctionem, ne stet ista promissio, hoc est, ne sacramentum sie sacramentum. Si enim extrema est, non sanat, sed cedit infirmitati, Si autem sanat, extrema esse non debet. Ita fit, horum Magistrorum interpretatione, ut Iacobus intelligatur sibi ipsi contradixisse, et, ne sacramentum institueret, sacramentum instituisse, dum ideo extremam uolunt unctionem, ut non sit uerum, Sanari per eam infirmum, quod ille statuit. Si hoc non est insanire, rogo quid est insanire? 

8.6 These people exemplify the word of the Apostle in 1 Timothy 1:7, “Desiring to be teachers of the law, understanding neither the things they say, nor whereof they affirm.” Thus they read and follow all things without judgment. With the same thoughtlessness they have also found auricular confession in our Apostle’s words – “Confess your sins one to another.” (James 5:16) But they do not observe the command of the Apostle, that the priests of the church be called, and prayer be made for the sick. Scarce a single priestling is sent nowadays, although the Apostle would have many present, not because of the unction but of the prayer. Wherefore he says: “The prayer of faith shall save the sick man,” etc. I have my doubts, however, whether he would have us understand priests when he says presbyters, that is, elders. For one who is an elder is not therefore a priest or minister; so that the suspicion is justified that the Apostle desired the older and graver men in the Church to visit the sick; these should perform a work of mercy and pray in faith and thus heal him. Still it cannot be denied that the ancient churches were ruled by elders, chosen for this purpose, without these ordinations and consecrations, solely on account of their age and their long experience.

 ¹⁴⁶  Contingit his illud Apostoli .i. Timot. i.: Volentes esse legis doctores, cum ignorent quid loquantur, aut de quibus affirment. Sic omnia citra iudicium legunt et sequuntur. Eadem enim oscitantia, et confessionem auricularem ex hoc Apostolo hauserunt, dicente: Confitemini alterutrum peccata uestra. (Jak 5,16) Sed nec hoc seruant isti, quod Apostolus iubet presbyteros Ecclesiae induci, et super infirmum orari. 

 ¹⁴⁷ Vix unus sacerdotulus nunc mittitur, cum Apostolus uelit multos adesse, non propter unctionem, sed propter orationem. unde dicit: Oratio fidei saluabit infirmum etc. quanquam incertum est mihi, an sacerdotes uelit intelligi, cum dicat 'presbyteros', id est, seniores. Neque enim continuo sacerdos aut minister est, qui senior est, quo suspicari possis, Apostolum uoluisse, ut seniores et grauiores in Ecclesia uisitarent infirmum, qui opus misericordiae facientes, et in fide orantes eum sanarent. quanquam negari non possit, Ecclesias olim a senioribus fuisse rectas, absque istis ordinationibus et consecrationibus, propter aetatem, et longum rerum usum, in hoc electis. 

8.7 Therefore, I take it, this unction is the same as that which the Apostles practiced, in Mark 6:13, ”They anointed with oil many that were sick, and healed them.” It was a ceremony of the early Church, by which they wrought miracles on the sick, and which has long since ceased; even as Christ, in the last chapter of Mark, gave them that believe the power to take up serpents, to lay hands on the sick, etc. (Mark 16:17) It is a wonder that they have not made sacraments also of these things; for they have the same power and promise as the words of James. Therefore, this extreme – that is, this fictitious – unction is not a sacrament, but a counsel of James, which whoever will may use, and it is derived from Mark 6, as I have shown. I do not believe it was a counsel given to all sick persons, (Romans 5:3) for the Church’s infirmity is her glory and death is gain; (Philippians 1:21) but it was given only to such as might bear their sickness impatiently and with little faith. These the Lord allowed to remain in the Church, in order that miracles and the power of faith might be manifest in them.

 ¹⁴⁸  Quare, hanc unctionem eandem esse arbitror, quae Marci .vi. de Apostolis scribitur: Et ungebant oleo multos aegrotos et sanabant, (Mark 6,13) ritum (W570) quendam primitiuae Ecclesiae, quo miracula faciebant super infirmis, qui iam dudum defecit, quemadmodum et Marci ultimo: Christus donat credentibus, ut serpentes tollant, et super aegros manus ponant etc. (Mark 16,17) Ex quibus uerbis, mirum est, quod non etiam sacramenta fecerint, cum sint similis uirtutis et promissionis, cum uerbis his Iacobi. ¹⁴⁹ Non ergo sacramentum est Extrema ista, id est, ficta unctio, sed consilium Iacobi, quo possit, qui uelit, uti, sumptum ac relictum ex Euangelio Marci .vi. ut dixi. Neque enim credo, datum infirmis quibusuis, cum Ecclesiae gloria sit infirmitas, et mors lucrum, (Fil 1,21) Sed his tantum, qui impatientius et rudi fide infirmitatem ferrent. Quos ideo reliquit dominus, ut in eis miracula et uirtus fidei eminerent. 

8.8 For this very contingency James provided with care and foresight by attaching the promise of healing and the forgiveness of sins not to the unction, but to the prayer of faith. For he says: “And the prayer of faith shall save the sick man, and the Lord shall raise him up: and if he be in sins, they shall be forgiven him.” A sacrament does not demand prayer or faith on the part of the minister, since even a wicked person may baptise and consecrate without prayer; a, sacrament depends solely on the promise and institution of God, and requires faith on the part of him who receives it. But where is the prayer of faith in our present use of extreme unction? Who prays over the sick one in such faith as not to doubt that he will recover? Such a prayer of faith James here describes, of which he said in the beginning of his Epistle: (James 1:6) “But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering.” And Christ says of it: “Whatsoever you ask, believe that you shall receive and it shall be done to you.” (Mark 11:24)

 ¹⁵⁰   Et hoc ipsum caute ac de industria Iacobus prouidit, dum promissionem sanitatis et remissionis peccatorum non tribuit unctioni, sed orationi fidei. Sic enim dicit: Et oratio fidei saluabit infirmum, et alleuiabit eum dominus, et, si in peccatis fuerit, remittentur ei. Sacramentum enim non exigit orationem aut fidem ministri, cum impius etiam baptiset et consecret, absque oratione, Sed nititur in sola promissione et institutione dei, exigens fidem suscipientis. In nostrae autem extremas unctionis hodiernae usu, ubi est oratio fidei? Quis ea fide orat super infirmum, ut non haesitet eum restitui? Nam talem orationem fidei Iacobus hic describit, de qua et in principio dixerat: Postulet autem in fide nihil haesitans. (Jak 1,6) Et Christus: Quaecunque petieritis, credite, quia accepietis, et fiet uobis. (Mark 11,24) 

8.9 If such prayer were made, even today, over a sick man – that is, prayer made in full faith by older, grave and saintly men – it is beyond all doubt that we could heal as many sick as we would. For what could not faith do? But we neglect, this faith, which the authority of the Apostle demands above all else. By presbyters – that is, men preeminent by reason of their age and their faith – we understand the common herd of priests. Moreover, we turn the daily or voluntary unction into an extreme unction, and finally, we not only do not effect the result promised by the Apostle, namely, the healing of the sick, but we make it of none effect by striving after the very opposite. And yet we boast that our sacrament, no, our figment, is established and proved by this saying of the Apostle, which is diametrically opposed to it. What theologians we are!

 ¹⁵¹  Prorsus non est dubium, si hodie quoque talis oratio fieret, super infirmum, id est, a senioribus, grauioribus, et sanctis uiris, plena fide, sanari quotquot uellemus. Fides enim quid non posset? At nos, fide hac neglecta (quam maxime exigit haec Apostoli autoritas), deinde quoduis sacerdotum uulgus per presbyteros, uiros scilicet aetate et fide praestantes, intelligimus. 

 ¹⁵² Deinde Extremam e quotidiana aut libera unctione facimus, tandem effectum promissae ab Apostolo sanitatis non solum non impetramus, sed etiam contrario effectu euacuamus.  Nihilo tamen minus iactamus, nostrum sacramentum, immo figmentum, hac Apostoli sententia, plusquam per bis diapason repugnante, fundari et probari. O Theologos! 

8.10 Now I do not condemn this our sacrament of extreme unction, but I firmly deny that it is what the Apostle James prescribes; for his unction agrees with ours neither in form, use, power nor purpose. Nevertheless; we shall number it among those sacraments which we have instituted, such as the blessing and sprinkling of salt and holy water. For we cannot deny that every creature is sanctified by the word and by prayer, (1 Timothy 4:4 f.) as the Apostle Paul teaches us. We do not deny, therefore, that forgiveness of sins and peace are granted through extreme unction; not because it is a sacrament divinely instituted, but because he who receives it believes that these blessings are granted to him. For the faith of the recipient does not err, however much the minister may err. For one who baptises or absolves in jest, that is, does not absolve so far as the minister is concerned, does yet truly absolve and baptise if the person he baptises or absolves believe. How much more will one who administers extreme unction confer peace, even though he does not really confer peace, so far as his ministry is concerned, since there is no sacrament there. The faith of the one anointed receives even that which the minister either could not or did not intend to give; it is sufficient for him to hear and believe the Word. For whatever we believe we shall receive, that we do really receive, it >matters not what the minister may do or not do, or whether he dissemble or jest. The saying of Christ stands fast – “All things are possible to him that believe,” (Mark 9:23) and, “Be it to you even as you hast believed.” (Matthew 8:13) But in treating the sacraments our sophists say nothing at all of this faith, but only babble with all their might of the virtues of the sacraments themselves – “ever learning, and never attaining to the knowledge of the truth.” (2 Timothy 3:7)

 ¹⁵³  Igitur hoc unctionis extremae nostrum sacramentum non damno, sed hoc esse, quod ab Apostolo Iacobo praescribitur, constanter nego, cum nec forma, nec usus, nec uirtus, nec finis eius cum nostro consentiat. Numerabimus tamen ipsum inter ea sacramenta, quae nos constituimus, ut sunt salis et aquae consecratio et aspersio. Neque enim negare possumus, Creaturam quamlibet per uerbum et orationem sanctificari, (1 Tim 4,4f) quod Apostolus Paulus nos docet, ita non negamus per extremam unctionem dari remissionem et pacem. (W571) 

 ¹⁵⁴ non, quia sacramentum sit diuinitus institutum, sed quia suscipiens ita credit sibi fieri. Fides enim suscipientes non errat, quantumlibet minister erret. Si enim ioco baptisandus aut absoluens, hoc est, non absoluens (quantum ad ministrum pertinet) reuera absoluit et baptisat, si credat baptisandus et absoluendus, (n154) quanto magis ungens extrema unctione pacificat, etiam si reuera non pacificet, si ministerium spectes, cum nullum sit ibi sacramentum. fides enim uncti etiam hoc accipit, quod conferens, aut non potuit, aut non uoluit dare. 

 ¹⁵⁵ Sufficit enim uncto uerbum audire et credere. quicquid enim credimus nos accepturos esse, id reuera accipimus, quicquid agat, non agat, simulet aud iocetur minister. Stat enim Christi sententia: Credenti omnia possibilia sunt. Et iterum: Fiat tibi sicut credidisti. Verum Sophistae nostri de hac fide nihil in sacramentis tractant, sed in uirtutibus ipsis sacramentorum totis studiis nugantur, semper discentes et nunquam ad scientiam veritatis peruenientes. (2 Tim 3,7) 

8.11 Still it was a good thing that this unction was made extreme unction, for, thanks to that, it has been disturbed and subjected least of all the sacraments by tyranny and greed. This one last mercy, forsooth, has been left to the dying – they may freely be anointed, even without confession and communion. If it had remained a practice of daily occurrence, especially if it had conferred health on the sick, even without taking away sins, how many worlds would not the pontiffs have under their control today? For through the one sacrament of penance and through the power of the keys, as well as through the sacrament of ordination, they have become such mighty emperors and princes. But now it is a fortunate thing that they despise the prayer of faith, and therefore do not heal any sick, and that they have made for themselves, out of an ancient ceremony, a brand-new sacrament.

 ¹⁵⁶  Profuit tamen, hanc unctionem factam esse extremam, quia hoc benefitio minime omnium uexata ac subiecta est tyrannidi et quaestui, relicta scilicet hac una misericordia morituris, ut libere possint inungi, etiam non confessi nec communicati. Quae si permansisset quotidiana, praesertim, si et infirmos sanasset, etiam si peccata non tulisset, quos putas orbes terrarum non haberent hodie Pontifices, qui unius poenitentiae sacramento et clauibus, ac ordinis sacramento, tanti euaserunt Imperatores et principes? At nunc foeliciter habet, quod, sicut orationem fidei contemnunt, ita nullum infirmum sanant, et e uetere ritu nouum sibi finxerunt sacramentum. 

9.1 Let this suffice now for these four sacraments. I know how it will displease those who believe that the number and use of the sacraments are to be learned not from the sacred Scriptures, but from the Roman See. As though the Roman See had given those sacraments and had not rather got them from the lecture halls of the universities, to which it is unquestionably indebted for whatever it has. The papal despotism would not have attained its present position, had it not taken over so many things from the universities. For there was scarce another of the celebrated bishoprics that had so few learned pontiffs; only in violence, intrigue, and superstition has it hitherto surpassed the rest. For the men who occupied the Roman See a thousand years ago differ so vastly from those who have since come into power, that one is compelled to refuse the name of Roman pontiff either to the former or to the latter.

 ¹⁵⁷  Haec de quattuor istis sacramentis nunc satis fuerint, quae scio, quam sint displicitura eis, qui numerum et usum sacramentorum non e scripturis sacris, sed e Romana sede putant petendos esse. Quasi Romana sedes sacramenta ista dederit, ac non potius acceperit e scholis uniuersitatum, quibus et omnia, quae habet, sine controuersia debet. ¹⁵⁸ Neque enim staret tyrannis papistica tanta, nisi tantum accepisset ab uniuersitatibus, cum uix fuerit inter celebres Episcopatus alius quispiam, qui minus habuerit eruditorum Pontificum. Vi, dolo ac superstitione tantum caeteris hactenus praevaluit. Qui enim ante mille annos in ea sede sederunt, tanto interuallo ab iis, qui interim creuerunt, distant, ut, aut illos, aut hos cogaris negare Romanos pontifices. 

9.2 There are yet a few other things it might seem possible to regard as sacraments; namely, all those to which a divine promise has been given, such as prayer, the Word, and the cross. Christ promised, in many places, that those who pray should be heard; especially in Luke 11, where He invites us in many parables to pray. Of the Word He says: “Blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it.” (Luke 11.28) And who will tell how often He promises aid and glory to such as are afflicted, suffer, and are cast down? no, who will recount all the promises of God? The whole Scripture is concerned with provoking us to faith; now driving us with precepts and threats, now drawing us with promises and consolations. Indeed, whatever things are written are either precepts or promises; the precepts humble the proud with their demands, the promises exalt the humble with. their forgiveness.

 ¹⁵⁹ Sunt praeteria nonnulla alia, quae inter sacramenta uideantur censeri posse. Nempe omnia illa, quibus facta est promissio diuina. (W572) Qualia sunt Oratio, Verbum, Crux. Nam Christus orantibus promisit exauditionem in multis locis, praesertim Luce .xi. ubi parabolis multis ad orandum nos inuitat. Et de uerbo: Beati qui audiunt uerbum dei et custodiunt illud. (Luk 11,28) Quis autem percenseat, quoties tribulatis, patientibus, humiliatis promittat adiutorium et gloriam? immo quis enumeret omnes dei promissiones? cum tota scriptura hoc agat, ut nos ad fidem prouocet, hinc praeceptis et minis urgens, illinc promissionibus et consolationibus inuitans. Siquidem omnia, quae scripta sunt, aut praecepta, aut promissa sunt, praecepta humiliant superbos exactionibus, promissa exaltant humiliatos remissionibus suis. 

9.3 Nevertheless, it has seemed best to restrict the name of sacrament to such promises as have signs attached to them. The remainder, not being bound to signs, are bare promises. Hence there are, strictly speaking, but two sacraments in the Church of God – baptism and bread; for only in these two do we find both the divinely instituted sign and the promise of forgiveness of sins. The sacrament of penance, which I added to these two, lacks the divinely instituted visible sign, and is, as I have said, nothing but a return to baptism. Nor can the scholastics say that their definition fits penance, for they too ascribe to the sacrament a visible sign, which is to impress upon the senses the form of that which it effects invisibly. But penance, or absolution, has no such sign; wherefore they are constrained by their own definition, either to admit that penance is not a sacrament, and thus to reduce the number of sacraments, or else to bring forward another definition.

 ¹⁶⁰  Proprie tamen ea sacramenta uocari uisum est, quae annexis signis promissa sunt. Caetera, quia signis alligata non sunt, nuda promissa sunt. Quo fit, ut, si rigide loqui uolumus, tantum duo sunt in Ecclesia dei sacramenta, Baptismus et panis, cum in his solis et institutum diuinitus signum et promissionem remissionis peccatorum uideamus. Nam poenitentiae sacramentum, quod ego his duobus accensui, signo uisibili et diuinitus instituto caret, et aliud non esse dixi, quam uiam ac reditum ad baptismum.  ¹⁶¹ Sed nec scholastici dicere possunt, suam diffinitionem posse conuenire poenitentiae, qui et ipsi sacramento signum uisibile asscribunt, quod formam ingerat sensibus eius rei, quam inuisibiliter operatur. At poenitentia seu absolutio tale signum nullum habet, quare et ipsi cogentur propria diffinitione, aut negare poenitentiam esse sacramentum, et sic numerum eorum imminuere, aut aliam sacramentorum afferre definitionem. 

9.4 Baptism, however, which we have applied to the whole of life, will truly be a sufficient substitute for all the sacraments we might need as long as we live. And the bread is truly the sacrament of the dying; for in it we commemorate the passing of Christ out of this world, that we may imitate Him. Thus we may apportion these two sacraments as follows: baptism belongs to the beginning and the entire course of life, the bread belongs to the end and to death. And the Christian should use them both as long as he is in this poor body, until, fully baptised and strengthened, he passes out of this world and is born to the new life of eternity, to eat with Christ in the Kingdom of His Father, as He promised at the Last Supper – “Amen I say to you, I will not drink from henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.” (Matthew 26:29) Thus He seems clearly to have instituted the sacrament of the bread with a view to our entrance into the life to come. Then, when the meaning of both sacraments is fulfilled, baptism and bread will cease.

 ¹⁶²  Baptismus autem, quem toti uitae tribuimus, Recte pro omnibus sacramentis satis erit, quibus in uita uti debeamus. Panis autem uere morientium et excedentium sacramentum, Siquidem in eo transitum Christi ex hoc mundo memoramur, ut ipsum imitemur. et sic distribuamus haec duo sacramenta, ut baptismus initio et totius uitae cursui, panis autem termino et morti deputetur, 

 ¹⁶³ Atque Christianus utroque exerceatur in hoc corpusculo, donec plene baptisatus et roboratus, transeat ex hoc mundo, natus in aeternam nouam uitam, manducaturus cum Christo in regno patris sui, sicut in coena promisit dicens: Amen dico uobis, Amodo non bibam de hoc genimine uitis, donec impleatur in regno dei. (Matt 26,29) ut aperte uideatur sacramentum panis ad futuram uitam acceptandam instituisse. Tunc enim re utriusque sacramenti impleta, cessabit baptismus et panis. 

9.5 Herewith I conclude this prelude, and freely and gladly offer it to all pious souls who desire to know the genuine sense of the Scriptures and the proper use of the sacraments. For it is a gift of no mean importance, to know the things that are given us, as it is said in 1 Corinthians 2, and what use we ought to make of them. Endowed with this spiritual judgment, we shall not mistakenly rely on that which does not belong here. These two things our theologians never taught us, no, I think they took particular pains to conceal them from us. If I have not taught them, I certainly did not conceal them, and have given occasion to others to think out something better. It has at least been my endeavor to set forth these two things. Nevertheless, not all can do all things. To the godless, on the other hand, and those who in obstinate tyranny force on us their own teachings inas God’s representative’s, I confidently and freely oppose these pages, utterly indifferent to their senseless fury. Yet I wish even them a sound mind, and do not despise their efforts, but only distinguish them from such as are sound and truly Christian.

 ¹⁶⁴  Finem hic faciam huius praeludii, quod piis omnibus, qui synceram scripturae intelligentiam germanumque sacramentorum usum desyderant (W573) nosse, libens et gaudens offero. Est enim non parui momenti donum, nosse ea quae nobis data sunt, ut .i. Corint. ii. dicitur, et qua ratione donatis uti oporteat. Hoc enim spiritus iudicio instructi, non fallaciter innitemur iis, quae secus habent. 

 ¹⁶⁵ Has duas res, cum nobis Theologi nostri nusquam dederint, quin uelut data opera obscurarint, ego, si non dedi, certe id effeci, ne obscurarem, et aliis occasionem prebui, meliora cogitandi. Conatus meus saltem fuit, ut exhiberem utrunque. Non tamen omnia possumus omnes. Impiis uero, et qui pro diuinis sua nobis pertinaci tyrannide inculcant, fidens et liber ista obtrudo, nihil moratus indoctam ferociam, quanquam et ipsis optem sanum sensum, et eorum studia non contemnam, sed tantum a legitimis ac uere Christianis discernam. 

9.6 I hear a rumor of new bulls and papal curses sent out against me, in which I am urged to recant or be declared a heretic. If that is true, I desire this book to be a portion of the recantation I shall make; so that these tyrants may not complain of having had their pains for nothing. The remainder I will publish ere long, and it will, please Christ, be such as the Roman See has hitherto neither seen nor heard. I shall give ample proof of my obedience. In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.

 ¹⁶⁶   Auditum enim audio, paratas esse denuo in me Bullas, et diras Papisticas, quibus ad reuocationem urgear, aut haereticus declarer. Quae si uera sunt, hunc libellum uolo partem esse reuocationis meae futurae, ne suam tyrannidem frustra inflatam querantur; reliquam partem propediem editurus sum talem, Christo propitio, qualem hactenus non uiderit, nec audierit Romana sedes, obedientiam meam abunde testaturus, In nomine domini nostri Iesu Christi, Amen. 

9.7 Why doth that impious Herod fear

 ¹⁶⁷ Hostis Herodes impie 

When told that Christ the King is near?

Christum uenire quid times? 

He takes not earthly realms away,

Non arripit mortalia, 

Who gives the realms that ne’er decay.

Qui regna dat coelestia.