Eric W. and Ruth C. Gritsch Luther's Sermon on the Ban was motivated by his pastoral concern for proper ecclesiastical practice. In a Lenten sermon preached in Wittenberg on March 17, 1518, he had already attacked the misuse of the ban.
"So far has this childish veneration and holiness gone," he complained about the use of ecclesiastical power, "that they have started this game of excommunication, and the letters are flying about like bats, all because of a trifling thing."1 According to Luther, the ban, like the letters of indulgence, was no longer used for the edification of troubled Christian consciences. Instead, it had become a means to enforce the fiscal policies of the church. Many a Christian community had been "banned" because it had not paid ecclesiastical dues in time or was unable to raise the money.2
In another sermon preached May 16, 1518, in the Town Church of Wittenberg, Luther used the text for Exaudi Sunday (John 15:26–16:4) to offer his own understanding of the ban. Published in August, 1518, with the title Sermon on the Virtue of Excommunication, 3 it caused much consternation among the ecclesiastical authorities because Luther had incited people to defy the ban in the name of a righteous cause. Later, in a letter to his friend Wenceslaus Link in Nürnberg, he complained that he had wanted a public debate on the matter but that it had been put off by his bishop because "it stirred up some officials."4
Since a public debate on the ban was not possible, Luther continued to warn the Wittenbergers about the misuse of the ban. The Sermon on the Ban, probably preached in December, 1519, but not published before 1520,5 repeated much that Luther had already said a few months earlier. It is intimately linked with his discussion of The Blessed Sacrament of the Holy and True Body of Christ, and the Brotherhoods, 6 which dealt with the question of what it means to take part in the fellowship (communicare). Here he discusses what it means "to put under the ban" (excommunicare).
The first edition of the Sermon on the Ban appeared from the press of John Grünenberg in Wittenberg, followed by other editions in Leipzig, Augsburg, and Basel between 1520 and 1523. The following translation is based on the German Grünenberg text, reprinted in WA 6, 63–75, under the title, Ein Sermon von dem Bann. There is another English translation by J. J. Schindel, available in PE 2, 33–54.
1. Since we have already heard1 that the sacrament of the holy body of Christ is a sign of the community of all saints, we must now learn what the ban is which is exercised through the power of the spiritual estate in Christendom. For its principal, real function and power is to deprive a sinful Christian of the holy sacrament and to forbid it to him. That is why the one cannot be understood without the other as long as they stand in opposition to each other. The Latin word communio means "fellowship," and this is what scholars call the holy sacrament. Its opposite is the word excommunicatio, which means "exclusion" from this fellowship, and this is what scholars call the ban.
2. Fellowship is of two kinds, just as there are two things, namely, sign and significance, in the sacrament, as I said in the sermon.2 The first kind of fellowship is inward, spiritual, and invisible, for it is in the heart. It means that through faith, hope, and love a man is incorporated into the fellowship of Christ and all the saints—as signified and given in the sacrament. This is the work and power of the sacrament.
No man, be he bishop or pope, nor any creature or even angel may either grant or take away such fellowship. Only God himself, through his Holy Spirit, must pour it into the heart of the man who believes in the sacrament, as was said in the sermon.3 Here, too, no ban is able to reach or to exist, except the unbelief or sin of man himself. Consequently, he excommunicates himself and separates himself from the grace, life, and blessedness of the community. St. Paul proves this in Romans 8[:35, 38]: "Who shall separate us from the love of God?" Can fear and distress do it? Or hunger and poverty? Or danger, persecution, and the shedding of blood? No, no! "For I am sure that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor anything else - 9 on earth will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord." And St. Peter, in I Peter 3[:13], "Now who is there to harm you if you are zealous for what is good?"
3. The second fellowship is outward, physical, and visible. It means that a man is allowed to participate in the holy sacrament, to receive it and to partake of it together with others. A bishop or pope may exclude someone from this fellowship and forbid it to him because of his sins. This is called putting someone under the ban. This ban was used frequently some time ago, and is now called the small ban. But the ban goes even further and forbids burial, buying and selling, trading, a certain kind of life and fellowship among men, and finally even (as they say) water and fire. This is called the large ban. Some people are not satisfied with this; beyond all this they use secular power against those under the ban in order to conquer them through sword, fire, and war. However, these are new inventions rather than the true meaning of Scripture. For the use of the sword belongs to the emperor, to kings, princes, and the rulers of the world and by no means to the spiritual estate,4 whose sword should be a spiritual one, namely, the word of God, as St. Paul says in Ephesians 6[:17], rather than an iron one.
4. Christ instituted this outward ban, small as well as large, according to Matthew 18[:15–17]: "If your brother sins against you, punish him between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word or dealing may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the whole congregation of the church; and if he refuses to listen to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector." Again, St. Paul, I Corinthians 5[:11], "Do not associate with anyone if he is guilty of immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or robber—do not even eat with such a one."
Again, II Thessalonians 3[:14], "If anyone refuses to obey what we say in this letter, note that man, and have nothing to do with him, that he may be ashamed." Again, John in II John [:10–11], "If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into the house or give him any greeting for he who greets him shares his wicked work."
We learn from all these sayings how the ban should be used. First, we should seek neither vengeance nor our own gain—as is now the shameful custom everywhere—but rather the improvement of our neighbor. Second, punishment should stop short of his ruin or death, for St. Paul limits the goal of the ban to improvement, that he be put to shame because no one associates with him; and he adds in II Thessalonians 3[:15], "Do not look on him as an enemy, but punish him as a brother." At the present time, the ruthless tyrants deal with people as if they wished to cast them into hell, and do not seek their improvement at all.
5. Often it may happen that a person under the ban is deprived of the holy sacrament and of burial as well. And yet he may be inwardly certain and blessed in the fellowship of Christ and all the saints, as signified by the sacrament.5 On the other hand, there are many who freely partake of the sacrament without being outwardly under the ban and yet are inwardly completely estranged from the fellowship of Christ, and thus under the ban—even though they might be buried with golden linen under a high altar with all pomp, bells, and singing. Therefore, no one is to be judged, no matter whether he is under the ban or not, especially if he has not been put under the ban because of heresy or sin but for the sake of improvement. For the use of the ban for money or for any other temporal matter is an invention of which the apostles and Christ knew nothing.
6. To put under the ban does not mean, as some people think, to deliver a soul to the devil and to deprive it of intercession and of all the good works of Christendom.6 For wherever true faith and love of God remain in the heart, there also remains a true sharing of all the possessions and intercessions of Christendom with all the fruits of the sacrament. This is so because the ban is nothing, and may never become anything, but a deprivation of the outward sacrament or of association with people. Just as, if I were put in prison, I would certainly be deprived of outward association with good friends, but I would not be deprived of their favor and friendship. In the same way, he who is put under the ban is forced to live without the common sacrament and association with men; nevertheless he is not abandoned on that account by their love, intercession, and good works.
7. It is certainly true that wherever the ban is rightly and deservedly imposed it is a sign, a warning, and a punishment. In this way he who is put under the ban should acknowledge that he himself has delivered his soul up to the devil through his own transgression and sin, and that he has deprived himself of the fellowship of all the saints with Christ. For his mother, the holy church, wants to show her dear son
- 10 this unbearable damage of sin, by way of the punishment of the ban, and thereby wants to bring him back from the devil to God again. It is just the same as when a natural physical mother threatens and punishes her son when he does evil. She does not deliver him to the hangman or to the wolves, nor does she make a knave of him, but rather she restrains him and shows him by way of this same punishment how he could end up with the hangman. And so she keeps him in his father's home. In the same way, when a spiritual authority puts someone under the ban it should keep this in mind: "Look, you have done this and that whereby you have delivered your soul up to the devil, earned God's wrath, deprived yourself of the fellowship of all Christians, and fallen under the inward, spiritual ban before God, and you neither want to stop it nor to return. Well then, I therefore put you too under the outward ban before men. In order to shame you I am depriving you of the sacrament and the fellowship of people until you come to your senses and bring back your poor soul."
8. Every bishop, provost, or official7 who has a different opinion about the ban should beware of putting himself under the ban eternally so that neither God nor any creature may save him from it. To no one is the ban more harmful and dangerous than to those who impose it—even though it is imposed rightly and solely because of transgression—because they never give this a thought, are completely without fear, and do not consider how they themselves are perhaps worthy of a hundred bans before God, just as the Gospel of Matthew 18[:23–30] says of the servant who owed ten thousand talents to his lord and still would not have patience with his own servant regarding a hundred pennies. What then is to become of the poor and miserable slave drivers who so often created such a state of affairs with their banning for the sake of money, so that Turks and pagans almost have an easier life than Christians? It is quite evident that many of them are under the ban before God, deprived of the fruits of the sacrament and of inward, spiritual fellowship. Day and night they do nothing but summon others to appear, harass them, and put them under the ban. They deprive people of the external sacrament who are inwardly a thousand times higher before God and who live in the spiritual fellowship of the sacrament. Oh, you miserable business! Oh, you terrible food of such abominable manipulation! I do not know yet whether these officials8 were wolves before, or whether they want to become wolves, but their deeds are certainly wolflike!
9. Consequently, it is true that the ban as such destroys, condemns, and makes no one worse. Rather, it seeks and finds a ruined and condemned soul to bring it back, for it is the nature and character of all punishment to correct sin. The ban is a pure and motherly punishment. That is why it makes no one either worse or more sinful. Instead, when it is justly imposed, it is instituted only to restore the inward spiritual fellowship, and when it is unjustly imposed it is to be corrected. St. Paul proves this when he says in II Corinthians 13[:10], "I should deal with you according to the power God has given me not for destroying but for improving." He also said, in I Corinthians 5[:5], when he punished the man who married his stepmother, "I, together with you, deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of his body so that his soul may be preserved on the Last Day." Thus he also said above that we should not regard him who is under the ban as an enemy, but should punish him as a brother, that he may be ashamed but not condemned.9
Indeed, Christ himself, according to his humanity, did not have the power to exclude a soul and to deliver it to the devil, as he says in John 6[:37, 39]: "I will not reject whatever comes to me, and this is the will of my Father who sent me, that I not destroy or lose anything he gives me." Again, "The Son of man came not to destroy men's souls but to save them" [Luke 9:56]. If, therefore, Christ himself and all the apostles have no other power than to help souls, and have left no other power to the church, how dare the blind tyrants boast that they have the power to curse, to condemn, and to destroy? It is even denied them by their own canon law, according to Lib. VI. IV.] De Sen. Exc. Cure Medicinalis:10 "Since the ban is a medicine rather than a poison, it only punishes for the sake of improvement and does not annihilate for the sake of destruction, insofar as he who is subjected to it does not despise it; therefore, every spiritual judge should diligently attempt to prove himself one who seeks to do nothing with the ban but to improve and to cure."
10. It is evident from this text that, when it is not despised, the ban is wholesome and harmless and not fatal to the soul as some dumb and timid consciences, frightened by blasphemous misuse on the part of a few others, imagine—although in apostolic times it had the power to deliver a body to the devil and to kill it.11 This might perhaps still occur if the judges would use the ban not with blasphemous power but with humble love and faith for the improvement of their neighbor. It further follows that the ban brings greater
- 11 danger and terror to those who impose it without being very careful to seek only the improvement and cure of him who is banned, according to the text [of canon law]. For the ban cannot be anything but a kind motherly scourge, aimed at temporal possessions and the body, so that no one is cast into hell but rather is saved from it and forced from damnation into his salvation. That is why we should not only endure it patiently, but should also receive it with joy and all honor. But [the ban] will bring terrible harm to the tyrants who seek nothing but their own power, respect, and profit in it. For they pervert the ban and its work and turn a medicine into poison, only seeking a way to become terrifying to frightened people. They never think of improvement, and they will have to pay a heavy price for this. Woe to them!
11. They have coined for themselves the proverb, "Our ban ought to be feared, be it just or unjust."
They freely comfort themselves with such a saying, boasting and puffing themselves up like adders, and they almost dare to defy heaven with it and threaten the entire world. They have propagated this bugaboo far and wide, imagining that there is much more to these words than there really is. That is why we want to point up their true nature12 and prick this bladder with its three peas which makes such a frightful clatter.13 Granted that it is true that one should fear the ban and not despise it, be it just or unjust, why do you apply this only to the ban, which is a motherly scourge, and not to all the other great punishments and adversities? How have you magnified the ban by basing it on fear? For we ought also be afraid when we are sick, poor, slandered, and despised, or when we are deprived of or refused possessions, profit, and justice or indeed if Turks and enemies plague and trouble us. In all these and other adversities, whether they occur justly or unjustly, we ought to be afraid, suffer, and surrender, and accept all things as though we deserved them, as the Lord teaches in Luke 6[:30], "Of him who takes away your goods, do not ask them again."
Why are you not also afraid, dear tyrant, when you suffer injustice, when your profit is denied, when your goods are stolen, and when justice is denied you? Why do you not think to yourself that you ought to endure it with fear, be it just or unjust? Do you think others are commanded to endure your power with fear, be it just or unjust, and that you are freed from the same commandment so that you need not endure tyranny or injustice with fear? You certainly will find that you, too, are a man and are under the same commandment with which you threaten others and with which you puff yourself up in your own folly.
12. Now look at this perversity! Spiritual authorities come along with the ban, saying that it should be feared and endured, be it just or unjust. But if they themselves are subjected to tyranny and injustice, they refuse to endure it to the extent of even a single penny. Rather, without any fear at all, they want to add up their own account and demand what is theirs. Thus they exempt themselves from God's commandment when they should be the prime example to others in obeying it. If it is true that pope, bishop, and the entire spiritual estate may fearlessly resist injustice, injury, and contempt in their own interest, then it is also true that one may resist the ban and reject it just as vigorously as they seek their own interest. For there is no distinction in God's commandment—it applies to everyone in equal measure. But God forbid! As the gospel teaches us, both are to be endured with fear, be it the ban or whatever adversity may occur. Take heed, therefore, for when someone does you an injustice, takes your profit, and you do not endure it with fear, but instead want to frighten him with the ban,14 especially when you do not seek his improvement but your own advantage or wanton will—then you are already worse than he is. For you want to pull yourself out of fear and push him into it, which you have no right to do; and he should heed the gospel you tear up!
How will you face God? So when they say, "Our ban should be feared, be it just or unjust," we reply, "This is indeed true; but it is also true that your unjust ban is harmful to no one but to yourself alone, body and soul, and the just ban is more dangerous to you than it is to me. Therefore, you too should endure your injury with fear, be it just or unjust. And when you blast me with your ban, I shall blast you because of your suffering. It is just as if a criminal took my coat and said, 'You ought to endure it with fear and humility'; I would say, 'I will, not because of your theft, which does not hurt me, but because of Christ's commandment.' Thus I do not fear your ban for its own sake; it does not hurt me; rather it hurts you more.
But I fear it because of Christ's commandment."
13. Although it is certainly true that the ban ought to be feared, be it just or unjust, the one who imposes the ban is always in greater danger than the one who is under the ban. The one who is under the ban faces no other danger than that of despising the ban and not bearing it, be it just or unjust. But the one who imposes the ban faces these dangers: (1) that he does not endure injustice with fear; (2) that he fearlessly avenges himself through the ban; and (3) that he does not seek with singleness of purpose only
- 12 the improvement of his sinning neighbor, but instead is simply attacking someone who is injuring him. All this is against the gospel. So it happens that in our own day those who impose the ban with terrible perversity are multiplying their own problems.15 They put other people under the ban outwardly and condemn themselves inwardly. Moreover, they have become so deluded that they boast that their outward ban is to be feared, and inwardly they are condemning themselves freely and fearlessly, and enjoying it like foolish and mad people. That is why I am sure that it was not the Holy Spirit who composed the arrogant saying, "Our ban ought to be feared, be it just or unjust." It is not fitting for a Christian, even less for one who belongs to the spiritual estate,16 to do injustice to others. How much less fitting it is, then, for this same man to be obstinate and to boast that his injustice is to be feared! It is appropriate for me to say,
"I ought to be afraid of your injustice;" you, on the other hand, should take care and be afraid if you do me an injustice and moreover add the threat that I should endure this with fear. Your injustice can harm me only temporally, but it can harm you eternally. We live in such evil and miserable times that furious tyrants unashamedly and publicly boast of their sin and eternal harm—something which would be horrible to hear even in the midst of Turks and pagans—so that in this world only they may defy and mock the misfortune of those who suffer. They seek not the improvement but rather the fear and false terror of people.
In short, the higher estate, in all that it does, is always in greater danger than the lower estate; and where the lower estate has to fear once, the higher estate has to fear ten times over. Therefore, those who impose the ban have no reason to be obstinate and arrogant toward those who are under the ban; they should weep about themselves instead. For God's judgment will not fall on the lowly but rather on the mighty, as the wise man says [Wisd. of Sol. 6:8].
14. It would certainly be better if Christians would teach that we should love rather than fear the ban, just as we were taught by Christ to love and not to fear punishment, pain, or even death. But these prattlers only emphasize the fear of the ban, although they teach that all other punishment and adversity should be borne with joy. In this way they disclose their blind and blasphemous intention of ruling the people of Christ by force and at the same time of making the free Christian church a captive of fear. Therefore, let us understand what is to be recognized as the most significant aspect of the ban, namely, that one should bear it without fear or impatience for two reasons: first, the power of the ban is given by Christ to the holy mother, the Christian church, that is, to the congregation of all Christians. Therefore, we should honor and endure our dear mother the church and Christ in this matter. For we should certainly accept, love, and fear in a childlike way whatever Christ and the church do. Second, the fruit and work of the ban are useful and wholesome and never harmful to him who endures them and does not despise them. To use a simple parable: when a mother punishes her dear son, whether or not he deserved it, it is quite certain that she does not do it with evil intent. It is a motherly, harmless, and wholesome punishment if the son endures it.
But if he becomes impatient, does not give in, or does not improve in the things for which he is punished, and instead revolts against his mother and despises her, then the real harm to him begins. For then he opposes God's commandment, "You shall honor your father and your mother," and transforms a small and harmless, indeed, even a meritorious punishment, into terrible guilt and sin, to his own eternal pain and punishment.
15. Thus it happens in our own time that some officials and their associates are murdered, beaten, imprisoned, or are no longer safe. No doubt this certainly would not occur, or at least would occur less often, if the common people would not have the false notion that the ban does them more harm than good.
That is why they venture everything and do such nonsensical things in their desperation. Although such things are horrible, these tyrants still deserve whatever they get through God's providence because they hide from the people the goodness and usefulness of the ban and misuse it, without intending any improvement but only to strengthen their own power. For even though every man ought to endure the ban, they ought not to despise a poor sinful or innocent man either, as Christ says in Matthew 18[:10], "See that you do not despise any one of these little ones who believes in me; for I tell you that in heaven their angels always behold the face of my Father who is in heaven." Why then should they be surprised when at times, through God's providence, they are beaten over the head because of the unjust, tyrannical ban, and when their commandment is despised because they act so arrogantly and ceaselessly against the commandment of God? True, there is wrong on both sides. But if the common people were taught about the wholesome and necessary power of the ban, and that it has been instituted and was used not for their harm but for their
- 13 good, then they [the tyrants] would face less opposition and find much greater and readier obedience and, indeed, even love, favor, and honor among all the people.
16. That is why the common people should be taught in some way such as this: "My dear people, do not be troubled about those who use and hold the power of the ban, whether they are godly or evil, or whether they do you justice or injustice. The power of the ban may not do you any harm, but should always be helpful to the soul, provided you bear and endure it rightly. Their abuse of the ban does not impede its virtue. Or, if it cannot be endured, you should humbly extricate yourself from it, but not with calculation or revenge in word or deed. Do not keep your eyes on them in this matter, but on the dear mother, the church. What do you care whether she lays her scourge or punishment upon you through a godly or through a wicked man? It is and remains your dearest mother's most wholesome scourge." Since the beginning of the world it has been true, and it remains true, that spiritual and temporal authority are more often given to the Pilates, Herods, Annases, and Caiaphases than to godly men such as Peter, Paul, and others. There are always more evil men than godly ones in the government as in all other estates.
Moreover, it cannot be supposed or hoped that we shall ever inherit a purely pious government. Indeed, if a good regiment, government, or blessed use of power is to be had at all, it must come as pure grace, or through special prayer and merit. For God punishes evil subjects with evil rulers, as he says in Isaiah 3[:4],
"I will make boys their princes, and childish people shall rule over them," and, "I will take from them every mighty, brave, wise, and able man," etc. [Isa. 3:2]. Since to have incapable or evil rulers is God's punishment, and there are so many among us who deserve such punishment, we should not be surprised when the government behaves tyrannically toward us and misuses its power over us. Indeed, we should wonder and thank God when the government is not tyrannical and does us no injustice.
17. Because of the abundance of horrible sins, the world is now overburdened with young, imprudent, and inexperienced rulers, mostly in the spiritual estate. Therefore our age is extraordinarily perilous, and we must act very wisely and see to it that we hold government and power in the highest honor, just as Christ honored the power of Pilate, of Herod, of Annas, of Caiaphas, and even of secular princes. We must not let such grave misuse and childish governing of the prelates move us to despise authority. Otherwise, we despise not only the unworthy persons who rule but their power itself. Rather, we should joyfully bear everything it imposes, or humbly and respectfully refuse to bear it. For God neither likes nor tolerates blasphemous and wanton resistance to authority, as long as it does not drive us to act against God or against his commandment—although it [authority] itself may act as much against God as it wants to, or hurt us as much as it wants to. He himself intends to judge and to condemn those who are great and powerful tyrants, as well as to help those who are oppressed sufferers. That is why we should yield to his will and let the tyrants fall under his sword and judgment. On the other hand, we should let ourselves be helped by him, as St. Paul says in Romans 12[:19], "Oh, dearest brethren, do not avenge and protect yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God; for it is written, 'Vengeance is mine alone, and I will repay everyone, says the Lord.' "
These same prelates should be humbly told—especially the preachers should rebuke them, but only in such a way that they show them with the word of God how they are acting against God, and what he expects of them. Furthermore, there should be diligent and serious intercession for them before God, just as Jeremiah wrote to the children of Israel in Babylon [Bar. 1:11; Jer. 29:7] that they should diligently pray for the king of Babylon, who had imprisoned them, destroyed them, strangled them, and done all kinds of evil things to them, as well as for his son and his kingdom.
We could do this easily if we saw that the ban and every unjust authority can do no harm to our soul if we endure them, and that they must always be useful unless they are despised. Moreover, they [the authorities] are a thousand times worse off than we. Thus they are more to be pitied than blasphemously despised. For this reason the law of Moses commands that no one should slander the authorities, whether they are good or evil, even though they might certainly give enough grounds for doing so. In short, then, we have to have evil and childish rulers. If the Turk does not do the job, then Christians have to do it. The world is much too evil to be worthy of good and godly lords. It must have princes who go to war, levy taxes, and shed blood; it must have spiritual tyrants who suck it dry and burden it with bulls, letters of indulgence,17 and laws. These and other punishments are its deserved reward. To oppose them means to oppose God's punishment. As humbly as I conduct myself when God imposes a sickness upon me, so humbly should I also conduct myself toward the evil authority that the same God now imposes upon me.
18. When we are under a just and deserved ban we should pay more attention to the matter for which we were put under the ban, either doing it or not doing it [as the case may be]. For the ban is always imposed because of sin (which is much worse than the ban). But here too, as in all other things, we wrongly tend to consider only how painful the scourge is and not why we are being punished. Where, today, do you find those who are so afraid to sin and to make God angry that they are afraid of the ban? So it comes about that we fear the wholesome punishment more than the horrible sins. But this, too, must be endured and allowed to happen because of our sensuality which does not see the spiritual harm of sin, but only feels the pain of punishment. However, the fear of the ban has become too great through the tyrannical coercions and threats of the spiritual judges who drive the common people into the fear of punishment more than into the fear of sin. But wherever the ban is unjust, we should surely beware of doing or not doing, saying or not saying, that for which we were put under the ban, unless we do it without sin or harm to our neighbor. Instead, we should prefer humbly to endure the ban and freely to die under it if it cannot be otherwise. Nor should we be in any way afraid when we do not receive the sacrament and are buried in unconsecrated ground. Why? Because truth and righteousness belong to the inward spiritual fellowship. He who discards them falls under the ban of God which is eternal. Thus they should not be abandoned for the sake of an outward fellowship which is immeasurably less important, or for the sake of the ban. Moreover, to receive the sacrament and to be buried in consecrated ground are much less important than to desert truth and righteousness because of them. So that no one may wonder about this, I will go even further and say that he who dies under a just ban is not condemned, unless he did not repent his sin and despised the ban. For repentance and sorrow make all things right, even though one were exhumed or thrown into the water.18
19. Therefore, the unjust ban is much more desirable than the just ban or the outward fellowship. It is a noble and great merit before God, and blessed is he who dies under the unjust ban. For God will eternally crown him who is put under the ban for the sake of truth. Here he should sing with Psalm 109[:28], "They cursed me, but you have blessed me!" Only let us beware of despising authority, and humbly declare our innocence. If this does not help, then we are free and excused before God. For if it is our duty to make friends with our adversary, according to the commandment of Christ in Matthew 5[:25], how much more should we make friends with the power of the Christian church, be it exercised over us justly or unjustly, through worthy or unworthy authorities! Just as an innocent child is not really harmed by an unjust scourging from his mother, even though he is undeservedly punished and in fact becomes even dearer to and more accepted by his mother, so we will become much more dear to God if we endure the undeserved punishment of our spiritual mother, the church, through its evil government. For she remains the mother as long as Christ remains, and she does not change into a stepmother because of evil government.
Nevertheless, prelates, bishops, and their officials should be temperate and should not use the ban hastily.
To use the ban often is nothing but to institute many laws and many commandments. To institute many laws means to set many traps for poor souls. Therefore, hasty and excessive use of the ban creates much scandal and gives many reasons for sinning. These things make God angry, although the ban was instituted to appease him. And even though we owe obedience to it, they have a much greater duty to direct, to change, and to institute their commandment and power according to our ability, necessity, improvement, and salvation, as was said above by St. Paul,19 [namely,] that the authority is not given to tear down but to build up [II Cor. 13:10].
20. The ban should not only be used against those who oppose faith, but also against those who sin in public, as was indicated above by St. Paul,20 who calls for the ban against slanderers, usurers, fornicators, drunkards, etc. But in our own time one leaves such sinners alone, especially when they are big shots,21 and—to the disgrace of this noble power—one puts someone under the ban because of a financial debt sometimes so small that correspondence and costs amount to much more than the original debt. To cover this up they invented something new and say they put no one under ban because of debt, but because of disobedience when the summons was not heeded. But if there were no debt they certainly would forget about disobedience. It becomes clear that they allow many other sins, including their own, to be left out of the ban. A poor man certainly must become disobedient many times when he is summoned from so many miles away, and at the cost of his work has to lose time and money to obey. It is sheer tyranny to summon a man to court such a distance across country. I praise the secular rulers22 who do not tolerate such a ban and such malpractice in their lands and among their people. What are rulers and counselors for if in their
- 15 city, community, and among their own subjects, they do not deal with and judge such temporal matters and debts? Spiritual authorities should deal with the word of God, with sins, and with the devil; they should lead souls to God, leave temporal goods alone, and judge the world, as Paul writes in I Corinthians
6[:2–3]. Indeed, as things are now, it might almost be necessary to use the ban to drive people into church rather than out of it.
21. It does not matter whether someone is justly or unjustly under the ban—no one is to drive him out of the church until the Gospel has been read or the sermon preached.23 For no one may ban someone or himself be banned from hearing the Gospel and the sermon. The word of God shall remain free, to be heard by everyone. Indeed, those who are under the just ban should hear it most so that thereby they might perhaps be moved to come to their senses and to improve themselves. Thus we read that it was ancient practice in the church to drive out those under the ban after the sermon. If an entire congregation should be under the ban, the sermon should be permitted to proceed as if there were no ban. In addition, he who is under the ban, even though he dare not stay for the real mass after the sermon and does not want to come to the sacrament either, should nevertheless not neglect to come to the sacrament spiritually; that is, he should heartily desire it and believe that he will partake of it spiritually, as was said in the sermon on the sacrament.24
A DISCUSSION ON HOW CONFESSION SHOULD BE Eric W. and Ruth C. Gritsch Luther's new understanding of penance, popularized in 1519 in a series of writings climaxing in the Most people went to confession out of fear of eternal damnation. Medieval artists pictured God sitting on a rainbow, angry and merciless in his judgment of human sins. But Luther asserted that God is merciful in Christ and ready to forgive the sins of him who believes. "This sacrament does not depend on the priest, nor on your own actions, but entirely on your faith."2 Not fear of God but loving trust should be the stance of the penitent who, through his baptism, has become a child of God.
Among those who urged Luther to apply his new understanding of penance to the practice of auricular confession was George Spalatin, since 1516 adviser and court chaplain to Elector Frederick of Saxony. A good friend of Luther, he offered his house on the Schlossberg at Lochau (now Annaberg) as a meeting place between Luther and Charles von Miltitz, papal chamberlain, after agreements had been reached between Rome and Wittenberg to hold a colloquy on the indulgence problem.3 During the colloquy, which took place on January 4 and 5, 1519, Spalatin seems to have pressed Luther for personal advice on how confession should be made. On January 14, 1519, Luther told his good friend in a letter that he was busy drafting a statement on "the form of confession" (forma confessionis).4 Ten days later, on January 24,
1519, he sent the Latin draft of the statement to Spalatin.5
Luther's statement on confession soon made its way from Spalatin to the printer Melchior Lotther in Leipzig. A German translation appeared, entitled A Brief Instruction on How Confession Should Be
Made.6 Luther heard of it through another friend, Canon Bernard Adelmann of Augsburg, who, unhappy with the copy he had read, contacted Luther and urged him to revise it. Luther agreed and demanded a copy of the original from Spalatin. "I fear," he wrote to Spalatin on January 18, 1520, "that it might be printed in its present form, as our Adelmann writes. He wants me to send him a revised and altered copy."7
A Discussion on How Confession Should Be Made represents the results of Luther's revision of Spalatin's copy. Luther completed the revision on March 25, 1520, and sent it to Spalatin. A short time later it was printed by John Grünenberg in Wittenberg. Upon Luther's request, Spalatin prepared a German translation, which appeared on May 8, 1520, with a dedication to Duke John of Saxony. A comparison of the translation of the Leipzig edition of 1519 with Spalatin's translation of the Wittenberg edition of 1520 warrants the thesis that Spalatin translated both. Moreover, he seems to have heeded