Part 18 (2/2)

Martin Luther, Augustinian,

to his friend,

Her

willy nilly, I am compelled to become every daywith one another to io I wrote a little book on indulgences[2], which I now deeply regret having published; for at the tihty superstitious veneration for the Roether rejected, seeing they were approved by the common consent of ed single-handed in h the kindness of Sylvester and the friars[3], who so strenuously defended indulgences, I have co but an imposture of the Roman sycophants by which they play havoc with ht prevail upon the book-sellers and upon all ences and to substitute for them this proposition: INDULGENCES ARE A KNAVISH TRICK OF THE ROMAN SYCOPHANTS

Next, Eck and E the prirateful to such learned folk, I acknowledge how greatly I have profited by their labors For, while denying the divine authority of the papacy, I had yet ad the subtle subtleties of these coxcombs hich they adroitly prop their idol--for in these ether unteachable--I no of a certainty that the papacy is the kingdohty hunter[6] Once e, I beg both booksellers and readers to burn what I have published on that subject and to hold to this proposition: THE PAPACY IS THE MIGHTY HUNTING OF THE ROMAN BISHOP This follows fro lecturer[7] on the Holy Scriptures

Now they are puttinghty subjects And I ht and ues without profit A certain Italian friar of Cremona[8] has written a ”Revocation of Martin Luther to the Holy See”--that is, a revocation in which not I revoke anything (as the words declare) but he revokesto write[9] Another friar, a Ger, that same lecturer, you know, on the whole canon of the Scriptures, has written a book against , I understand, still greater and h not to set down his na perhaps the fate of Cajetan and Sylvester[10] But the Leipzig man, as becomes a fierce and valiant Gere of his name, his career, his saintliness, his scholarshi+p, his office, glory, honor, ay, alain no little information, since indeed his dedicatory epistle is addressed to the Son of God Hi are these saints with Christ Who reigns in heaven! Moreover,in this book; the first in good Latin, the second in better Greek, the third in purest Hebrew[12] What think you, my Herman, is there fore, from the Observance of the Holy Cross[13]

Fool that I was, I had hitherto thought it would be well if a general council decided that the sacrament be administered to the laity in both kinds[14] The ht, and declares that neither Christ nor the apostles commanded or commended the administration of both kinds to the laity; it was, therefore, left to the judgment of the Church what to do or not to do in this matter, and the Church must be obeyed These are his words

You will perhaps ask, what ainst who, since I have not condemned the use of one kind, but have left the decision about the use of both kinds to the judg he atteainst uainst Luther; they assert the very things they assail, for they set up a man of strahom they ians of Cologne and Louvain[15]; and if this friar had not been of the saainst Luther

Yet in one respect thisto prove that the use of both kinds is neither commanded nor cos forward passages of Scripture to prove that by the command of Christ one kind only was appointed for the laity So that it is true, according to this new interpreter of the Scriptures, that one kind was not commanded, and at the sau dialecticians Did not Emser in his earlier book[16] profess to write of me in a friendly spirit, and then, after I had convicted hie in his later book[17], written to refute uments, that he had written in both a friendly and an unfriendly spirit? A sweet fellow, forsooth, as you know

But hearken to our distinguished distinguisher of ”kinds,” for whom the will of the Church and a command of Christ, and a command of Christ and no coeniously he proves that only one kind is to be given to the laity, by the command of Christ, that is, by the will of the Church He puts it in capital letters, thus: THE INFALLIBLE FOUNDATION Thereupon he treats John vi with incredible wisdoe Christ speaks of the bread from heaven and the bread of life, which is He Himself

The learned fellow not only refers these words to the sacra bread,” [John 6:35, 41, 51] and not, ”I a cup,” he actually concludes that we have in this passage the institution of the sacrament in only one kind for the laity But there follow the words,--”My flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed,” [John 6:55] and, ”Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood” [John 6:53]; and when it dawned upon the good friar that these words speak undeniably or both kinds and against one kind--presto! how happily and learnedly he slips out of the quandary by asserting that in these words Christ means to say only that whoever receives the one kind receives under it both flesh and blood This he puts or the ”infallible foundation” of a structure orthy of the holy and heavenly Observance

Now prithee, herefrom learn with me that Christ, in John vi, enjoins the sacra itit to the will of the Church; and further, that Christ is speaking in this chapter only of the laity and not of the priests

For to the latter the living bread from heaven does not pertain, but presumably the deadly bread from hell! And how is it with the deacons and subdeacons, who are neither lay to this brilliant writer, they ought to use neither the one kind nor both kinds! You see, dear Tulich, this novel and observantScripture

But learn this, too,--that Christ is speaking in John vi of the sacrah He Himself teaches that His words refer to faith in the Word made flesh, for He says, ”This is the work of God, that ye believe on hi professor of the Scriptureshe pleases froorian, or rather an Aristotelian[19] theologian, for who and any thing So aptly does he cite Scripture proof-texts throughout the whole of his book, that if he set out to prove the presence of Christ in the sacrainneth the book of the Revelation of St John the Divine” All his quotations are as apt as this one would be, and the wiseacre i his drivel with the multitude of his quotations The rest I pass over, lest you should smother in the filth of this vile cloaca

In conclusion, he brings forward I Corinthians xi, where Paul says he received from the Lord, and delivered to the Corinthians, the use of both the bread and the cup [1 Cor 11:23] Here again our distinguisher of kinds, treating the Scriptures with his usual brilliance, teaches that Paul did not deliver, but perets his proof? Out of his own head, as he did in the case of John vi For it does not behoove this lecturer to give a reason for his assertions; he belongs to the order of those who teach and prove all things by their visions[20] Accordingly we are here taught that the Apostle, in this passage, addressed not the whole Corinthian congregation, but the laity alone--but then he ”pery, and they are deprived of the sacra to a new kind of grammar, ”I have received from the Lord” means ”It is permitted by the Lord,” and ”I have delivered it to you” means ”I have permitted it to you” I pray you, mark this well For by thisknave will be at liberty, according to this ister, to turn all the commands, institutions and ordinances of Christ and the apostles into a mere ”permission”

I perceive, therefore, that this el of Satan, and that he and his partners seek but to h me, as men orthy to cross swords with Luther But their hopes shall be dashed: I shall ignore them and not mention their names from henceforth even for ever This one reply shall suffice me for all their books If they be worthy of it, I pray Christ in Histhem to a soundsuch books, and that the enemies of the truth may never deserve to read any other It is a popular and true saying,

This I know of a truth--whenever with filth I contended, Victor or vanquished, alike, came I defiled from the fray

And, since I perceive that they have an abundance of leisure and of writing-paper, I shall see to it that theyI shall run on before, and while they are celebrating a glorious victory over one ofa new one For I too aallant leaders in battle should win to themselves many titles and decorations Therefore, while they complain that I laud corossed in this o yet one step farther and undertake to show that all those who deny communion in both kinds to the laity are wicked men And the more conveniently to do this, I will compose a prelude on the captivity of the Roreat deal more to say, when the learned papists have disposed of this book

I take this course, lest any pious reader whowith such filthyto cultivate and instruct his ht For you kno impatient my friends are because I waste my time on the sordid fictions of these ; they look for greater things froth resolved to follow their counsel and to leave to those hornets the pleasant business of wrangling and hurling invectives

Of that friar of Cre He is an unlearned man and a sies to recalldeparted, nor has any one proved it to es with showing that I ought to be moved by the vow of my order and by the act that the empire has been transferred to us Germans[21] He seems thus to have set out to write, not my ”revocation,” but rather the praises of the French people and the Roman pontiff Let him attest his loyalty in his little book; it is the best he could do He does not deserve to be harshly treated, for methinks he was not prompted by malice; nor yet to be learnedly refuted, for all his chatter is sheer ignorance and simplicity[22]

At the outset I must deny that there are seven sacraments, and hold for the present[23] to but three--baptism, penance and the bread[24]

These three have been subjected to a miserable captivity by the Roman curia, and the Church has been deprived of all her liberty To be sure, if I desired to use the terle sacrans; but of this I shall treat more fully at the proper time

THE SACRAMENT OF THE BREAD