On the Papacy in Rome

to make a public statement "that it had nothing in common with his writings"15 since he had so obviously disregarded the canons of scholarship. Alveld had no ear for them, and wrote a reply to Luther's treatise in the form of a sermon in December, 1520.16 Another friar, John Fritzehans, had already retorted to John

Bernhardi's earlier defense of Luther in the form of a public letter of exhortation (Epistola exhortaria) to Alveld.17 Luther remained silent, obviously unconcerned about the continuing "prattling" of the Leipzig friars.

The following translation is based on the first German edition of Luther's treatise, as printed in WA 6, 285–324, entitled Von dem Bapstum zu Rome: widder den hochberumpten Romanisten zu Leiptzck. We have occasionally consulted the English translation of Augustus Steimle in PE 1, 327–394. A revision by Theodore G. Tappert of the Steimle translation is available in SW 1, 197–249.

ON THE PAPACY IN ROME AGAINST THE MOST CELEBRATED ROMANIST IN After years of abundant rain and much new growth, something new has appeared on the field. Previously many people struck out at me with slander and glorious lies, without much success. Now, the very latest to distinguish themselves are the brave heroes in the marketplace of Leipzig. They not only want to be noticed, they also want to fight everyone. They are so well armed that I have never seen the likes of it before. They have put the helmet on their feet, the sword on their head, the shield and breastplate hang on their back, they hold their spears by the blade, and this whole armor, worn in this new knightly fashion, becomes them very well.1 They want to prove that they have not wasted their time on dream books (as I have accused them), never learning anything; in fact, they want to win a prize as people who were conceived, born, nursed, cradled, fondled, educated, and matured in Holy Scripture. It would only be fair if anyone who could, would be afraid of them, so that their effort and good intention might not be in vain.

If Leipzig can produce such giants, it must indeed have rich soil.

But just so you understand what I mean, listen to this: Sylvester,2 Cajetan,3 Eck,4 Emser,5 and now also Cologne and Louvain6 truly proved their knightly prowess against me. They have received the honor and glory they deserve. They have so defended the cause of the pope and of indulgences against me that they wished they had done better. In the end, some of them thought it best to attack me as the Pharisees attacked Christ [Matt. 22:35]. They put up somebody, thinking, "If he wins, we have all won; but if he loses, he alone is defeated." And this hyperlearned and cautious block-head7 thinks I will not notice. Well then, I shall pretend not to understand their game at all, so that not everything goes wrong for them. I ask them in return not to notice that when I hit the pack I was aiming at the mule. And if they refuse to grant me this request, I shall stipulate that whenever I say anything against the new Roman heretics and slanderers of Scripture, it does not pertain just to the poor immature scribe in the cloister of the barefoot friars8 at Leipzig, but also to the magnanimous flag-bearers who are not allowed to reveal themselves even though they would like to win a victory under someone else's name.

I ask every devout Christian to understand that my words, though they are perhaps mocking and cutting, come from a heart which must break with great sorrow and turn seriousness into mockery, in view of the fact that this blasphemer publicly speaks and writes in Leipzig, where there are indeed devout people who would save Scripture and the word of God at the cost of their body and soul. This blasphemer values and treats the holy words of God no better than if they had been invented by some fool or jester to use as stories during Shrovetide. Therefore, since my Lord Christ and his holy word, which he dearly purchased with his precious blood, are considered a mockery and foolish talk, I have to drop my own seriousness and see whether I, too, have learned to play the fool and to mock. You, my Lord Jesus Christ, know how my heart feels about these arch-blasphemers—that is what I am relying on. Let justice be done in your name, Amen. They will indeed [have to] let you be Lord. Amen.

I notice that these poor people seek no more than to make a name for themselves at my expense. They cling to me like dirt to a wheel. They would rather have a disgraceful uproar than stay at home. The evil spirit uses the schemes of such people only to prevent me from doing better things. But I welcome this as an opportunity to teach laymen something about Christendom9 and to combat these alluring masters. That is why I also intend to devote myself more to the matter itself than to answering their idle talk and to - 27 mentioning their names. Consequently, they will be unable to gain what they seek or to become arrogant, as though they were worthy of arguing with me about Scripture.

The Argument and the Matter in Question We are arguing about a matter which, taken by itself, is unnecessary, for one would certainly remain a Christian without investigating it. But our loafers, who trample on all the main articles of the Christian faith itself, must take up this matter and plague other people, so as not to live on earth in vain. This, then, is the matter in question: Whether the papacy in Rome, possessing the actual power over all of Christendom, as they say, is derived from divine or from human order;10 and, if so, whether it would be a Christian statement to say that all other Christians in the whole world are heretics and schismatics—even though they adhere to the same baptism, sacrament, gospel, and all articles of faith in harmony with us—if they do not have their priests and bishops confirmed by Rome or, as is the case now, buy them with money and let themselves be aped and mocked like the Germans. The Muscovites,11 the white Russians, the Greeks, the Bohemians, and many other great nations in the world are some examples—all of them believe like us, baptize like us, preach like us, live like us, and also honor the pope without spending money for the confirmation of their bishops and priests. Moreover, they do not let themselves be plagued and shamed with indulgences, bulls, seals, parchments, and whatever more there is in the Roman stock, as do the drunken and obese Germans. They too are prepared to hear the gospel from the pope, or from the pope's ambassadors; and yet, nothing happens to them. Now the question is whether all of them (for of such alone and of no others do I speak and write) should be branded heretics by us Christians, or whether we are not the real heretics and schismatics when we brand such Christians heretics and schismatics for the sake of money alone. For when the pope does not send the gospel or the proclamation of it to those who would like to have it and receive it, it is as clear as day that he only seeks useless power and money through the confirmation of bishops and priests. They do not agree to this and are therefore branded heretics and schismatics.

I have held and still hold that they are neither heretics nor schismatics; perhaps they are better Christians than we are—although not all of them are, just as not all of us are good Christians. The fine, barefoot booklet from Leipzig attacks this [judgment] too, after others have done so; it marches along in wooden shoes, indeed on stilts, and thinks that among all the others it alone does not step into the dirt. It might even like to dance if someone would buy it a flute. I must have a try at it.

First of all, I say that no one should be so foolish as to believe it is the serious opinion of the pope or of all his Romanists and flatterers that his powerful authority is derived from divine order. This is clearly shown by the fact that everything derived from divine order is disobeyed in Rome down to the last iota.

Indeed, it is mocked as foolishness if anyone thinks of it at all. This is as clear as day. Moreover, they allow the gospel and the Christian faith to collapse everywhere in the world, and do not intend to lose a hair over it. In addition, all evil examples of spiritual and worldly knavery flow out of Rome, as from a sea of malice, into all the world. In Rome they just laugh about it, and whoever is sad about it is [considered] a "simple Christian,"12 that is, a fool. If they were seriously concerned about the order of God, they would have to do many thousand more necessary things, especially those things they now laugh at and mock.

Since St. James says, "Whoever keeps the whole law13 but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it"

[Jas. 2:10], who wants to be so foolish as to believe that they seek God's order in one point when they mock all the others? It is impossible for anyone to take one point of God's order to heart and not be at least affected by all the others. But there are many, many people who take papal power very seriously, yet not one of them dares to say a word in order that even one [part] of this other much greater and more necessary order should not be so blasphemously mocked and despised in Rome.

Furthermore, if all of Germany were to fall on its knees and pray to the pope and the Romans to keep this same power but to confirm our bishops and priests free of charge, as the Gospel says, "You received without pay, give without pay" [Matt. 10:8]; and to provide all our churches with good preachers, since they are abundantly rich and have so much that they might as well give [rather than take] money; and if they were strongly reminded that this is their duty according to divine order, then you may be sure that all of them would discover even stronger [arguments] than ever before that it is not divine order to make such a great effort without being paid. They would soon find a little gloss to help them wriggle out of it, just as they now discover them to push their way in. No begging would ever drive them to do these things. Since money is at stake, whatever they consider to be divine order must be divine order.

- 28 Within the memory of men, the bishopric of Mainz has bought eight episcopal capes14 from Rome, each of which cost about thirty thousand gulden. I am not even mentioning the innumerable other bishoprics, prelacies, and benefices. Thus one blows the noses of us German fools and says afterward that it is divine order to have no bishop without Roman power. I am surprised that Germany, which indeed is half, if not more, under spiritual rule,15 still has a penny left for these unspeakable, innumerable, and unbearable Roman thieves, knaves, and robbers.

It is said that the Antichrist shall find the treasures of the earth. I think the Romanists have found them, to the point of hurting us in life and limb. If the German princes and the nobles do not do something about it soon, and with decisive courage, Germany will be desolated or forced to devour itself. This would really please the Romanists, who regard us as nothing but beasts and who have coined a proverb about us in Rome, saying, "One should lure the gold from the German fools in any way possible." The pope does not prevent this blasphemous knavery. They all wink at it; indeed, they consider this chief knave higher than the holy gospel of God. They claim it to be divine order—as though we were fools unto death—that the pope has his hand in every dirty concoction and does with everyone as he pleases, as though he were a god on earth, although he should serve everyone freely (if he wanted to be, or were, the greatest). But before they do that they would rather drop this power and call it no more a divine order than any other order.

If you say, "Why do they fight you so hard on this matter?" I answer, I have attacked them on a few higher matters pertaining to faith and the word of God. This they could not knock down. Moreover, they saw that Rome does not care about such good things at all, so they dropped them too and attacked me on the matter of indulgences and papal power. Thus they hoped to win the prize here for they knew very well that where money is concerned the principal school of knaves in Rome would be on their side and would not remain silent. But Dr. Luther is a bit arrogant and does not care much about the Romanists' grunting and squealing, and this almost breaks their heart. My Lord Christ does not care about that, and neither does Dr. Luther; we think that the gospel must and should go on. Then let a layman ask these Romanists, and let them answer, why they desolate and mock all divine order, and why they rage so fiercely because of this [papal power] without being able to show why it is useful, good, or necessary. For since the time it became established, nothing but sheer corruption has arisen from it for Christendom, and no one can show anything good or useful coming from it. I shall speak more on this if this Romanist shows up again, and,

God willing, I shall expose the holy see of Rome as it deserves.

I have said this, not because I have thus provided sufficient arguments to dispute papal power, but rather to show up the perverted opinion of those who fight gnats but let elephants go, who see the speck in their neighbor's eye but do not notice the log in their own [Matt. 7:3; 23:24]. For with any unnecessary matters they kill others if they can, or brand them as heretics and freely slander them if they cannot. This delicate pious Romanist in Leipzig is one of them. Let us now have a look at him.

I find three strong arguments with which the fruitful and noble booklet16 of the Romanist in Leipzig attacks me.

The first, and by far the strongest, is that he brands me a heretic, a senseless, blind fool, a madman, a snake, a poisoned worm, and many other things—not only once, but on almost every page of the entire booklet.17 These invectives, insults, and slanders count as nothing in other books. But if a book is produced in the cloister of the barefoot friars in Leipzig by a Romanist of the high and holy observance of St. Francis,18 such words are not only an example of moderation, but also a strong reason to defend the power of the pope, indulgences, Scripture, faith, and Christendom. Moreover, it is unnecessary to prove any of them with Scripture or reason. It suffices that they are simply put down by a Romanist and holy observant of St. Francis. Since this Romanist also writes that the Jews used these reasons19 to overcome

Christ himself on the cross, I too must surrender and confess that, as far as so much slander, cursing, reviling, and blaspheming are concerned, the Romanist certainly has overcome Dr. Luther. I must really let him win on this score.20

The second argument, to put it briefly, is natural reason and goes like this:

A. Every community on earth, if it is not to disintegrate, must have a physical head under Christ the true head.

B. Since all of Christendom is a single community on earth, it must have a single head who is the pope.21 For the sake of clarity, I have designated this argument with the letters A and B. I also want to indicate that this Romanist knows the alphabet all the way down to B.

- 29 My answer to this argument is: Since the matter in question is whether the power of the pope exists because of divine order, is it not a bit ridiculous to refer to reason drawn from experience in temporal things and compare it with divine law, especially since this poor, presumptuous man promises to argue against me with divine law?22 For whatever worldly order and reason disclose is very far below divine law. Indeed, Scripture forbids one to follow reason. Deuteronomy 12[:8]: "You shall not do what is right in your own eyes." Reason always resists God's laws, according to Genesis 6[:5], "All of the human heart and mind always desire the greatest evil." Therefore, the attempt to guard or to base God's order upon reason, unless previously it has been grounded in and illumined by faith, is the same as if I wanted to illumine the sun with a dark lantern or use a reed as the foundation for a rock. For Isaiah 7[:9] puts reason under faith, saying, "If you will not believe you shall have neither understanding nor reason."23 He does not say, "If you have no reason, you shall have no faith." That is why this scribe should have left his perverted reason at home, or first grounded it in passages of Scripture, so as not to claim, in such a ridiculous and perverted manner, to prove faith and divine law with mere reasoning. For if this reasoning concludes that a physical community must have a physical lord or disintegrate, it should conclude further that, just as a physical community cannot continue to exist without women, so Christendom must also be given a physical, common woman so as not to perish. Indeed, she would have to be a real whore. And again, a physical community does not exist without a common, physical city, a house and a country; thus

Christendom must be given a common city, a house and a country. Where is it to be found? In Rome, to be sure, they are always eager to acquire one, for they have made almost the entire world their own.

Again, Christendom must have common, physical property—servants, maids, cattle, fodder, and the like —for no community can continue to exist without such things. You can see how gracefully this reasoning walks on its stilts.

A teacher24 should first have considered such clumsy things and proven divine work or order with Scripture rather than with temporal analogies and worldly reasoning. For it is written that divine commandments are justified in and by themselves [Ps. 19:9], not by other external help. Again, the wise man says about God's wisdom, "Wisdom has overcome the proud with its own power" [Prov. 11:2].25 It is quite disgraceful that we should want to defend the word of God with our reason; for we should use God's word to defend ourselves against all enemies, as St. Paul teaches [Eph. 6:17]. In a fight would not he who wanted to protect his breastplate and sword with his bare hand and head be a great fool? The same applies when we want to protect God's law, which is our armor, with our reason.

From this I hope it becomes clear that this blabbermouth's rotten argument is defeated and found to be without foundation, along with everything he has built on it. But to make him understand his own mummery fully, we will see that, even if I were to admit that reason could exist solidly without Scripture, neither of these points, either the first A or the second B, holds true.

First, A says that every community on earth must have a single, physical head under Christ. This is simply not true. How many principalities, castles, cities, and families can be found where two brothers or lords rule with equal power? Even the Roman Empire and many other empires in the world for a long time governed themselves very well without a single head! How do the Swiss govern themselves in our own time? Again, there is no single overlord in worldly regiment since we are all one human race and have come from one father, Adam. The kingdom of France has its king; Hungary, Poland, Denmark each have their own. But they all are still one people of the worldly estate within Christendom, even though they do not have a single head; nor does this cause these kingdoms to disintegrate. Even if no government were without its one ruler, what would prevent a community from electing for itself many overlords with equal power, rather than a single one? That is why it is a bad pretense to measure anything in God's order on the basis of such a worldly and inconstant analogy, for it does not even hold true in the human order. If, once again, I were to admit that this dreamer's dream is true, that no community could exist without a single, physical head, why would it have to follow that it has to be so in Christendom? I see very well that the poor dreamer thinks, according to his own understanding, that the Christian community is equal to any other worldly community. Thus he publicly discloses that he has never learned what "Christendom" or "Christian community" means. I would never have believed that such crude, fat, and stubborn error and ignorance could ever exist in any man, much less in a Leipzig saint. That is why I first have to explain to this crude mind and to others who have been seduced by him what Christendom and head of Christendom

- 30 mean. But I have to speak bluntly and use the same words they have employed in their own wild reasoning.

Scripture speaks about Christendom very simply and in only one way; they have brought two more ways into general usage.

The first way, according to Scripture, is that Christendom means an assembly of all the people on earth who believe in Christ, as we pray in the Creed, "I believe in the Holy Spirit, the communion of saints."

This community or assembly means all those who live in true faith, hope, and love. Thus the essence, life, and nature of Christendom is not a physical assembly, but an assembly of hearts in one faith, as St. Paul says in Ephesians 4[:5], "One baptism, one faith, one Lord." Accordingly, regardless of whether a thousand miles separates them physically, they are still called one assembly in spirit, as long as each one preaches, believes, hopes, loves, and lives like the other. So we sing about the Holy Spirit, "You have brought many tongues together into the unity of faith."26 This is what spiritual unity really means, on the basis of which men are called a "communion of saints." This unity alone is sufficient to create

Christendom, and without it, no unity—be it that of city, time, persons, work, or whatever else it may be —can create Christendom.

In this connection we have to listen to Christ's word before Pilate, when he answered the question concerning his kingdom, "My kingdom is not of this world" [John 18:36]. This is indeed a clear saying which distinguishes Christendom from all worldly communities as being nonphysical. But this blind

Romanist makes it a physical community just like any other community. He [Christ] says even more clearly in Luke 17[:20–21], "The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed; nor will anyone say, 'Lo, here it is!' 'There!' for behold, the kingdom of God is within you." I am surprised that these Romanists regard such a clear and strong saying of Christ as nothing but a carnival mask. Everyone can clearly understand from it that the kingdom of God (for this is what he calls his Christendom) is not in Rome, is not bound to Rome, and is neither here nor there. Rather, it is where there is inward faith, whether the man be in Rome, or wherever he may be. Therefore, it is a stinking lie27 and opposes Christ as though he were a liar to say that Christendom is in Rome, or is bound to Rome, much less that its head and power are there because of divine order.

In addition, he [Christ] prophesied the deception now ruling under the name of the Roman church in Matthew 24[:24–26], saying, "Many false Christs and prophets will arise in my name, say that they are

Christ, and seduce many with signs and wonders, so as to lead astray even the elect. Lo, I have told you beforehand, so if they say, 'Lo, he is in the wilderness,' do not go out; if they say, 'Lo, he is in the inner rooms,' do not believe it." Would it not be a horrible error for these preachers of dreams to count the unity of the Christian community—separated by Christ himself from all physical and external places and locations and given a spiritual place—as a physical community, which is of necessity bound to a place and a location? How is it possible, and what mind may grasp it, that spiritual unity and physical unity are one and the same thing? There are many Christians who are in the physical assembly and unity but through their sins they exclude themselves from the inward spiritual unity.

Therefore, he who says that an external assembly or unity creates Christendom speaks his mind arbitrarily. And whoever uses Scripture to support this brings divine truth down to the level of his lies and makes God a false witness, which is what this miserable Romanist does when he brings everything that is written about Christendom to the level of the external pomp of Roman power. But he cannot deny that the majority of this mob, particularly in Rome itself, is not in the spiritual unity, that is, in true Christendom, because of their unbelief and evil life.28 For if the fact that one is in the external Roman unity created true

Christians, there would not be a sinner among them. They would need neither faith nor the grace of God to become Christians. Instead, this external unity would be enough.

From this it follows, and must follow, that, just as being under the Roman unity does not create Christians, so also being outside this unity does not make either heretics or non-Christians. I would like to hear someone dissolve this [logic]! For whatever is necessary to being a true Christian must make one. If it does not make a true Christian then it must not be necessary, just as I am not made a true Christian by being in Wittenberg or in Leipzig. Now if it is clear that the external unity of the Roman assembly does not make Christians, then being outside of it certainly does not make heretics or schismatics either. That is why it cannot be true to say that being under the Roman community is divine order. For whoever obeys one part of divine order obeys all of it; one part may not be obeyed without the others [Jas. 2:10]. Thus it

- 31 must be an open, blasphemous lie against the Holy Spirit to say that the external unity of Roman power is the fulfilment of one divine order; for there are many people in it who neither respect nor fulfil any part of the divine order. That is why being either here or there does not make heretics; rather, not having true faith makes heretics. It is clear then that being in the Roman assembly does not mean to be in faith, and being outside it does not mean to be in unbelief. Otherwise, all those who are in it would be believers and saved, since no one article of faith is believed without all the other articles.

Therefore, all those who make the Christian unity or community physical and external, equal to other communities, are true Jews. For they, too, wait for their messiah to establish an external kingdom at a particular external place, namely, Jerusalem. Thus they drop the only faith that makes Christ's kingdom spiritual and internal.

Again, if every physical community derives its name from its head, just as we say, "This city is electoral, that one is ducal, this one is Franconian," then all of Christendom should by rights be called

"Roman" or "Petrine," or "papal." Why then is it called "Christendom" and why are we called "Christians?" Because of our head—even though we are still on earth. This indicates that all of Christendom has no other head than Christ, even on earth, because it has no other name than the one derived from Christ. That is why St. Luke writes in Acts [11:26] that the disciples were first called

"Antiochians," but this was soon changed and they were called "Christians."29

It follows further that, although man consists of two natures, body and soul, he is not counted as a member of Christendom according to his body, but according to his soul, indeed, according to his faith.

Otherwise, it might be said that a man is a more noble Christian than a woman, since the physical nature of man is better than that of woman; or that a man is a greater Christian than a child, a healthy man a stronger Christian than a sick one, a lord, a lady, a rich man, or a mighty man a better Christian than a servant, a maid, a poor man, or a slave. St. Paul contradicts this in Galatians 5[:6; 3:28], "In Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female." Rather, as far as the physical person is concerned, everyone is equal. But whoever believes, hopes, and loves more is a better Christian. Thus it is plain that Christendom is a spiritual community which is to be numbered with the worldly community just as little as minds with bodies and faith with temporal goods.

It is certainly true that just as the body is a figure30 or image of the soul, so is the physical community a model of the Christian spiritual community which has a spiritual head just as the physical community has a physical head. But who could be so senseless as to say that the soul must have a physical head? This would be like my saying that a living animal must have a painted head on its body. If this scribbler31

("book writer," I should say) had understood what Christianity is, he would undoubtedly have been ashamed of thinking of such a book. Is it any wonder that not light but only black darkness emerges from such a dark and confused mind? St. Paul says in Colossians 3[:3] that our life is not on earth but is hidden with Christ in God. For if Christendom were a physical assembly, one could tell by looking at every single body whether or not it is a Christian, a Turk, or a Jew, just as I can tell by looking at someone's body whether it is a man, a woman, or a child, black or white. Again, with regard to a worldly assembly, I can tell whether a person has assembled together with others at Leipzig or at Wittenberg, or wherever. But I cannot tell at all whether or not he believes. Therefore, whoever does not want to err should remember clearly that Christianity is a spiritual assembly of souls in one faith, and that no one is regarded as a Christian because of his body. Thus he should know that the natural, real, true, and essential Christendom exists in the Spirit and not in any external thing, no matter what it may be called. For any non-Christian can have all these other things, but they will never make him a Christian; true faith alone makes

Christians. Thus we are called "believers in Christ," and on the day of Pentecost we sing, "Now let us pray to the Holy Ghost above all for true faith."32

This is the way Holy Scripture speaks of the holy church and of Christendom. It cannot speak about it in any other way.

Beyond that, there is a second way of speaking about Christendom. According to this, Christendom is called an assembly in a house, or in a parish, a bishopric, an archbishopric, or a papacy. To this assembly belong external forms such as singing, reading, and the vestments of the mass. Here, above all, bishops, priests, and members of religious orders are called the "spiritual estate"—not because of faith, which they might not have, but because they are blessed with external anointing, wear crowns and special vestments, say special prayers, do special works, hold mass, stand in the choir, and seem to perform all such external

- 32 worship. Although the little words "spiritual" or "church" are violated here when they are applied to such externals, since they refer only to the faith which makes true priests and Christians in the soul, this manner of speech has spread everywhere—to the not unimportant seduction and error of many souls who think such external glitter is the spiritual and true estate of Christendom or of the church.

There is not a single letter in Holy Scripture saying that such a church, where it is by itself, is instituted by God. And I here defy all those people and their followers who have made or want to protect this blasphemous, damned, heretical booklet, even if all the universities were on their side. If they can show me that a single letter of Scripture speaks of it, I will recant all my words. I know that they will not do me that favor. Canon and human laws do call such externals "church" or "Christendom." But that is not the point right now. Therefore, for the sake of better understanding and brevity, we shall call the two churches by two distinct names. The first, which is natural, basic, essential, and true, we shall call

"spiritual, internal Christendom." The second, which is man-made and external, we shall call "physical, external Christendom." Not that we want to separate them from each other; rather, it is just as if I were talking about a man and called him "spiritual" according to his soul, and "physical" according to his body, or as the Apostle is accustomed to speak of an "internal" and "external" man [Rom. 7:22–23]. So, too, the Christian assembly is a community united in one faith according to the soul, although, according to the body, it cannot be assembled in one place since every group of people is assembled in its own place.

This Christendom is ruled by canon law and by prelates within Christendom. Included in it are all popes, cardinals, bishops, prelates, priests, monks, nuns, and all those who are regarded as Christians according to externals, no matter whether they are true and real Christians or not. For, although such a community does not make a true Christian—all the estates mentioned may continue to exist without faith

—it never really exists without some people who are also true Christians, just as the body does not keep the soul alive, but the soul does exist in the body as well as without the body. But those who are in the second community without faith and outside the first community, are dead before God; they are hypocrites and are merely like images of true Christendom. Israel has therefore been a figure of the spiritual people assembled in faith.

According to the third way of speaking, it is not Christendom that is called the church, but rather the houses that are built for worship. The little word "spiritual" is then further applied to temporal goods—not those which are truly spiritual through faith but those which belong to the second, physical Christendom.

They are called its "spiritual" or "ecclesiastical" goods.33 On the other hand, the goods of laymen are called "worldly," even though the laymen who belong to the first and spiritual Christendom are much better and are truly spiritual. This is the way almost all works and government in Christendom are now heading. The term "spiritual goods" has even been applied to worldly goods, so that today no one understands anything else by it, to the point that one respects neither the spiritual nor the physical church any longer. They fight and quarrel over temporal goods like pagans, saying that they do it for the sake of the church and spiritual goods. Canon law and human law brought about this perverted use of language and things, to the unspeakable ruin of Christendom.

Now let us consider the head of Christendom.

From all this it follows that the first Christendom, which alone is the true church, may not and cannot have an earthly head. It may be ruled by no one on earth, neither bishop nor pope. Here only Christ in heaven is the head and he rules alone.

This is proven, first of all, in this way. How can a man rule something he neither knows nor recognizes? But who can know who truly believes or does not believe? Indeed, if papal power were to extend this far it could take faith away from Christian people and could guide, multiply, and change it as it pleases, just as Christ can.

Second, it is proven by the manner and nature of the head. For it is the nature of every head that is joined to a body to infuse all life, mind, and activity into its members. This can also be proven in worldly heads. For the prince of a land infuses his subjects with everything he wants and has on his mind, thus making all his subjects receive the same mind and will and do what he wills. This is then truly called work that is instilled in the subjects by their prince, because without him they would not have done it. But no one is able to instill either into another man or into his own soul the faith, mind, will, and activity of Christ except Christ alone. Neither pope nor bishop can cause faith and whatever else a Christian member should have to spring up in a human heart. What a Christian must have is the mind, sense, and will that Christ in - 33 heaven has, as the Apostle says in I Corinthians 3 [2:16]. Furthermore, it can happen that a Christian member has the faith neither pope nor bishops have. How could he [i.e., the pope or bishop] then be the head of such a Christian? Since he is unable to give himself the life of the spiritual church, how is he to instill it in someone else? Indeed, who has ever seen a live animal with a dead head? The head must instill life. That is why it is clear that on earth there is no head of spiritual Christendom other than Christ alone.

Even if a man were the head here, Christendom would have to fall as often as a pope died, for the body cannot live when its head is dead.

It follows further that Christ cannot have a vicar in this church. That is why neither pope nor bishop can ever be, or be allowed to become, Christ's vicar or regent in this church. This is proven in this way: if he is obedient to his lord, a regent works, pursues, and instills in the lord's subjects precisely the same work the lord himself instills; we see this take place in the worldly regiment, where the lord, the regent, and the subjects are of one will and opinion. But the pope is unable to instill or produce the work of Christ his Lord (that is, faith, hope, and love, and all grace with virtue) in a single Christian man. He could not do it even if he were holier than St. Peter.

And even if such an analogy and proof could not hold up, although they are grounded in Scripture, there are the strong and immovable words of St. Paul in Ephesians 4[:15–16], where he attributes only one head to Christendom, saying, "We are to grow up in every way (that is, to be not external but solid, true

Christians) into him who is the head, into Christ, from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by every joint supplying it when each part is working properly, grows bodily and builds itself up in love."

Here the Apostle clearly says that the improvement and growth of Christendom, which is a body of Christ, comes from Christ alone, who is its head. Where then could another head be found on earth to whom such a nature could be attributed, especially since these heads quite frequently have nothing, neither love nor faith, themselves? Moreover, he said these words to himself, to St. Peter, and to everyone else. If another head were necessary he would have been disloyal to remain silent about it.

I certainly know some people who, in regard to this and similar sayings, dare to say that Paul was silent and therefore did not deny that St. Peter is a head, too; rather, he was giving milk to the babes in Christ [I Cor. 3:1–2]. Look out there! They want to make it necessary for salvation to have Peter as the head, and they are so arrogant that they dare to say Paul was silent regarding these things that are necessary for salvation. Thus these senseless bucks must first slander Paul and God's word before they allow their error to be defeated. They call preaching Christ milk and preaching St. Peter solid food, just as though Peter were something higher, greater, and more difficult to understand than Christ himself. This is called interpreting Scripture and defeating Dr. Luther. This is the way to run out of the rain and fall into the trough. How would these blabbermouths fare if we were to have a debate with the Bohemians34 and the heretics? Indeed, no better than if we all became laughingstocks and gave them reason to think that all of us are senseless and out of our minds. Through our folly they would only hold on to their faith even more.

But if you ask, "If the prelates are neither heads nor regents over this spiritual church, what are they then?" let laymen give you the answer. They say, "St. Peter is one of the 'twelve messengers,'35 and other apostles are also members of the twelve. Why is the pope ashamed to be a messenger, if Peter is no more than that?" But, you laymen, beware of having the hyperlearned Romanists burn you as heretics, since you want to make the pope a messenger and letter-carrier. Nevertheless, you certainly have good reason to do so, for "apostle" in Greek means "messenger" in German, and this is what the entire gospel calls them.

If they are all messengers of the one Lord Christ, who will be so foolish as to say that such a great Lord, who has such a great cause for the entire world, has only one messenger, and that this same messenger should then produce other messengers of his own? In that case St. Peter should not be called

"one of the twelve messengers" but rather "the only messenger," and none of the others would be "one of the twelve messengers." Instead they would be "one of the eleven messengers" of St. Peter. What is the custom at the courts of the nobility? Is it not true that one lord has many messengers? Indeed, how often are many messengers sent with one message to one place, as there are now priests, bishops, archbishops, and the pope ruling over one city, not to mention some tyrants who rule in between? Christ sent all the apostles into the whole world with equal, full authority and with his word and message, as St. Paul says [II Cor. 5:20], "We are ambassadors for Christ," and in I Corinthians 3[:5], "What then is Peter? What is

Paul? Servants through whom you believed." This message means tending sheep, ruling, being bishop, - 34 and the like. But when the pope subjects all of God's messengers to himself, it is the same as if one of a prince's messengers stopped all the others and sent them wherever he pleased while he himself ran nowhere. Would this please the prince, if he found out?

If you should say, "Well, one messenger may indeed be above the others," I say, "One may be better and more skilled than the other, just as St. Paul was, when compared with Peter, but since they all deliver the same message, none of them, for the sake of the office, can be above the others." Why then is St. Peter not one of the twelve messengers but lord over the eleven messengers and a special one? What is the advantage of one over the others, since they all have one and the same message and vocation from the one

Therefore, since according to divine order all bishops are equal and occupy the place of the apostles, I can certainly confess that according to human order one is above the other in the external church. For here the pope instills what he has in his mind, for example, his canon law and human work, so that Christendom is ruled with external pomp. But, as was said, this does not make Christians.36 Moreover, those who are not under these same laws and this pomp, or under human order, are not heretics. Many countries have many customs. All this is confirmed by the article, "I believe in the Holy Spirit, one holy

Christian church, the communion of saints." No one says, "I believe in the Holy Spirit, one holy Roman church, the communion of Romans." So it is clear that the holy church is not bound to Rome; rather, it extends to the end of the earth, assembled in one faith, a spiritual and not a physical assembly. For what is believed is neither physical nor visible. All of us see the external Roman church. That is why it cannot be the true church, which is believed and which is a community or assembly of the saints in faith. But no one can see who is holy or who believes.

Not Rome or this or that place, but baptism, the sacrament,37 and the gospel are the signs by which the existence of the church in the world can be noticed externally. Wherever there is baptism and the gospel no one should doubt the presence of saints—even if they were only children in the cradle. But Rome or papal power are not signs of Christendom, for this kind of power does not make a Christian, as baptism and the gospel do. That is why it does not belong to true Christendom either and is a human order.

I therefore advise this Romanist to go to school for one more year to learn what Christendom and head of Christendom really mean, before he drives the poor heretics away with such high, deep, wide, and long writings. It hurts my heart to have to permit such mad saints so arrogantly, so freely, and so unashamedly to tear up and slander Holy Scripture and to dare to deal with Scripture at all when they are not even fit to tend pigs. Until now I was of the opinion that whenever something is to be proven by Scripture, Scripture itself should serve the point in question. But now I learn that it suffices to throw many passages together helterskelter whether they fit or not. If this is the way to do it, I certainly shall prove, with Scripture, that Rastrum beer38 is better than Malmsey wine.39

He uses the same method when he writes in Latin and in German that Christ is head of the Turks, of the heathen, of Christians, of heretics, of robbers, of whores and knaves.40 It would not be surprising if all the stones and wood in the monastery were to stare this unfortunate wretch to death and scream at him because of his horrible blasphemy. What shall I say? Has Christ become a keeper of whores, the head of all murderers, heretics, and rogues? Woe to you, you unfortunate wretch for holding up your Lord to slander in this way before the whole world! This poor man wants to write about the head of Christendom, and in his great insanity thinks that head and lord are one and the same thing. Christ certainly is a lord of all things, of those who are godly and those who are evil, of angels and of devils, of virgins and of whores.

But he is the head only of the godly, faithful Christians assembled in the Spirit. For a head must be joined to the body, as I have proven with St. Paul, Ephesians 4[:15–16],41 and the members must derive from the head and have their activity and life from it. That is why Christ cannot be the head of some evil community, although it is certainly subject to him as to a lord; just as his kingdom, Christendom, is not a physical community or kingdom, yet everything is subject to him, both spiritual and physical, hellish and heavenly.

So we have seen that this blasphemous scribe has vilified and slandered me in the first argument. But in the second argument he has vilified Christ much more than me. For although he thinks highly of his own holy prayer and fasting in comparison with that of a poor sinner like me, still he did not make me a keeper of whores and an arch-knave as he did Christ.

- 35 Now comes the third argument, in which the high majesty of God has to suffer and the Holy Spirit has to become a liar and heretic so that only the Romanists can remain true.

The third argument is taken from Scripture, just as the second was taken from reason and the first from unreason, so that everything is truly put in order. It goes like this: "The Old Testament was a figure42 of the New Testament. Since the former had a physical high priest, the New Testament must also have one.

How else could the figure be fulfilled, since Christ himself has said [Matt. 5:18], 'Not an iota, not a jot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished'?" This is his argument.43

I have never encountered a more foolish, a sillier, or a blinder book than this one. Someone else has already published the same argument against me.44 It was so crude and so foolish that I had to hold it in contempt. But since they have not yet sharpened their wits, I shall have to talk crudely to such crude heads. I can certainly see that the ass does not know how to use the lyre; I have to offer him thistles.

First, it is evident that the figure and the fulfilment of the figure correspond to each other as a physical thing [corresponds] to a spiritual one, or an external thing to an internal one. Everything seen with physical eyes in the figure must in its fulfilment be seen by faith alone. Otherwise it is not fulfilment. I must prove this with an illustration: the Jewish people physically came out of the physical land of Egypt through many miracles, as is written in Exodus. This figure does not mean that we, too, should physically go out of Egypt. Rather, our souls should leave the sins and spiritual power of the devil through true faith.

Thus the physical assembly of the Jewish people means the spiritual, internal assembly of the Christian people in faith. Accordingly, whereas they drank water from a physical rock [I Cor. 10:3–4] and ate physical bread from heaven, so do we drink and eat with the heart's mouth from the spiritual rock, the Lord Christ, if we believe in him. Again, Moses set a serpent on a pole and whoever looked at it was restored to health [Num. 21:6–9]; this [figure] signifies Christ on the cross, and whoever believes in him shall be saved. And so on throughout the Old Testament: whatever references it makes to physical, visible things mean in the New Testament spiritual and invisible things which cannot be seen but which are possessed in faith alone. This is also the way St. Augustine understood figures; for he said concerning

John 3[:14], "The difference between a figure and its fulfilment is such that the figure granted temporal goods and life, whereas its fulfilment grants spiritual and eternal life."45 Now the external pomp of Roman power can grant neither temporal nor eternal life. That is why it is not only no fulfilment of the figure; it is less than the figure of Aaron, which was of divine order. For if the papacy were to grant temporal or eternal life, all the popes would be saved and alive. But whoever has Christ and the spiritual church is truly saved and possesses the fulfilment of the figure, although only in faith. As long as the pope's external glory and unity can be seen with eyes, and we all see it, it is impossible for him to be the fulfilment of any figure. For the fulfilment of figures must be believed and not seen.

Just look at these fine experts! They make the Old Testament high priest a figure for the pope—yet the latter lives in more physical glory than did the former. Thus something physical is to fulfil a physical figure. This means nothing else than that the figure and its fulfilment are identical. But if the figure is to hold up, then the new high priest has to be spiritual, and his ornamentation and finery must be spiritual.

The prophets saw this too when they said about us in Psalm 132[:9], "Let thy priests be clothed with faith or righteousness, and let thy saints be ornamented with joy"; it is as if they were to say, "Our priests are figures, they are clothed externally in silk and purple, but your priests will be clothed internally with grace." Therefore, this miserable Romanist falls down with his figure, and his jumbling together of so much Scripture is in vain. The pope is an external priest, and they think of him in terms of external power and splendor. That is why Aaron may not, and cannot, have been his figure. We must have someone else.

Second—so that they may understand how far away they are from the truth—even if they had been wise enough to grant a spiritual fulfilment of the figure, it still would not hold up unless they had a clear passage of Scripture to bring together figure and spiritual fulfilment. Otherwise, everyone could do with it whatever he pleased. For example, John 3[:14] teaches me that the serpent which Moses hung on a pole means Christ. If this were not the case, my reason would invent rather strange and wild things on the basis of this same figure. Again, I have to learn from St. Paul in Romans 5[:14–15], rather than from myself, that Adam was a figure for Christ. Again, Paul, rather than reason, says in I Corinthians 10[:4] that the rock in the desert means Christ. Therefore, no one but the Holy Spirit himself, who instituted the figure and created its fulfilment, can interpret the figure, so that word and work, figure and fulfilment, and the interpretation of both are God's own and not man's. Consequently, our faith is founded on divine, not - 36 human, works and words. What else leads the Jews astray but the fact that they interpreted the figures according to their own reason, without Scripture? What else led many heretics astray but their interpretation of figures without Scripture? Even if the pope were something spiritual, it is not valid to make Aaron his figure, unless there were a text which clearly states, "Look here! Aaron has been a figure for the pope." Otherwise, who could prevent me from holding the opinion, for example, that the bishop of Prague is prefigured in Aaron? St. Augustine has said figures are invalid in a dispute unless accompanied by Scripture.46

This poor blabbermouth, then, lacks both: he has neither a spiritual, internal high priest, nor a passage from Scripture. He stumbles blindly out of his own dream and takes as a premise that Aaron was a figure of St. Peter—which would take the greatest power to establish and to prove. He prattles with many words that the law must be fulfilled and not one iota omitted.

My dear Romanist, whoever doubted that the old law and its figures must be fulfilled in the new? Your expertness is certainly not needed to establish that. You should prove your great mastery here and show that this same fulfilment comes through Peter or through the pope. But when there is a real need to speak you are silent as a stick, and you prattle when there is no need to speak. Did you not learn your logic any better than that? You try the major clauses no one debates, take for granted the minor clauses everyone debates, and draw any conclusion you please.

Listen to me: I will give you a better lesson in logic. I agree with you in saying, "Everything prefigured in the old high priest must be fulfilled in the new," as St. Paul says in I Corinthians 10[:6].

Thus far we agree. Now you go on to say, "St. Peter or the pope is prefigured in Aaron." Here I say no.

What do you want to do now? Be very scholarly, get help from all the Romanists together, and add one letter or iota from Scripture to it—and I will call you a hero. On what foundation did you build? On your own dream! But you boast you want to attack me with Scripture. It would not have been necessary to play the fool with me, for I would have had to defeat a fool in any case.

Listen to me further: I say that Aaron was a figure of Christ and not of the pope. I do not say this on my own, as you do. Rather, I shall truly prove both, so that not you, nor all the world, nor all the devils will overthrow it. First, Christ is a spiritual, internal priest. He is seated in heaven and intercedes for us as a priest; he teaches us internally, in the heart, and does what a priest is supposed to do between God and us, as St. Paul says in Romans 3[:25], and in all of Hebrews. Therefore, the figure of Aaron is physical and external, whereas the fulfilment is spiritual and internal, and the two correspond to each other. Second, [to show] that I do not bring these two together in my own mind, I quote the passage in Psalm 110[:4], "God has sworn and will not change his mind, 'You are a priest for ever according to the order of Melchizedek.'

" Why do you not cite such a passage about St. Peter or about the pope? For I think you will not deny that this passage is said about Christ, since St. Paul cites it in Hebrews 5[:6] and in many other places, and the Lord Christ applies it to himself in Matthew 22[:44].

Thus we see how excellently the Romanists deal with Scripture, making whatever they want out of it, as if it were a wax nose to be pulled to and fro. We have confirmed, with passages in the New Testament, that Christ is the high priest. In addition, in Hebrews 9[:6–12] Paul compares Aaron and Christ even more clearly, saying, "The priests went every day into the outer tabernacle, performing their ritual duties; but into the second only the high priest went once a year, and not without taking blood which he offered for his own and the people's sins. The Holy Spirit indicates thereby that the way into the true, holy tabernacle is not opened as long as the outer tabernacle is still standing—an image or figure necessary at the time.

But Christ has come as a high priest of future spiritual goods. And he entered once and for all into a greater and much wider tabernacle (not made by hand, that is, not a temporal building), without the blood of goats or oxen but with his own blood. Thus he secured eternal redemption." What do you say to this, you hyperlearned Romanist? Paul says that Christ is symbolized through the high priest, whereas you say it is St. Peter. Paul says that Christ did not enter a temporal building, whereas you say he is in a temporal building in Rome. Paul says that he entered once and for all and secured eternal redemption. He makes the figure completely spiritual and heavenly, whereas you make it earthly and physical. What do you want to do now? Let me give you this advice: take your fist, strike him in the mouth, and say he lied, that he is a heretic and a poisoner, as you have done to me. Then you will be like your father Zedekiah who also struck Micaiah in the mouth [I Kings 22:24]. Do you see now, you miserable blasphemer, where your mad mind and your advice got you? Where now are the big shots47 who suppressed my sermon on the two

- 37 kinds [in the eucharist]?48 It served them right, because they wanted neither to hear nor to endure the gospel. Now they shall hear instead the lies and blasphemies of the evil spirit, as Christ tells the Jews in John 5[:43], "I have come in my Father's name, and you have not received me; if another comes in his own name, him you will receive."

But if you should say that besides Christ, St. Peter was also prefigured in Aaron, I say, if you won't give up, that you might as well say that the Turks are prefigured in Aaron. Who can prevent it, since you enjoy useless prattling? But you have promised to fight with texts. Then do so, and leave your dream at home! Furthermore, if one fights for the sake of faith, one should not fight with uncertain texts but with those referring to the point in question, in a sure, simple, and clear way. Otherwise, the evil spirit tosses us to and fro so that in the end we do not know where we are—as happened to many people regarding the little words "Peter" and petra, Matthew 16[:18].49 It would have been less of a lie and blasphemy if you had said that Aaron was the figure of Christ, and, in addition, also of Peter. But then you scream with all your might, saying that Aaron was not Christ's but Peter's figure. You strike St. Paul in the face with arrogant words and, to make your foolishness complete, you say that Moses was a figure of Christ. You argue this not only without Scripture, reason, or proof—just as though you were more than God, so that everything you spit out is to be regarded as gospel—but also against all of Scripture, which makes Moses a figure of the law, as St. Paul does in II Corinthians 3[:7–11]. It is unnecessary to speak about this any further now. Perhaps you would strike him in the mouth again, arrogant and malicious as you are. You have sucked such poison from Emser and from his heretical and blasphemous booklet!50 I shall give it the answer it deserves, God willing, when Knight Eck arrives with his particular manure.51 You cannot pull it off this way, dear Romanists! If I cannot prevent it by force, at least you shall not bring any Scripture to support you. Praise God, I am not yet ready to bite the dust.

I think it is clear that the third argument of this Romanist is heretical and blasphemous, since he flatly contradicts God the Holy Spirit, calls him a liar, and completely destroys St. Paul. For since Christ is symbolized by Aaron, St. Peter cannot be symbolized by him. For what Scripture attributes to Christ should not be attributed to anyone else, so that Scripture always retains a sure, simple, and unequivocal meaning upon which our faith may build without wavering. I will grant that Peter is one of the twelve jewels Aaron carried on his chest [Exod. 28:17–21]. This might symbolize that the twelve apostles, surely elected in Christ and recognized from eternity, are the greatest and dearest portion of Christendom. But in no way do I allow him to become Aaron. Again, I grant that St. Peter is one of the twelve lions standing beside Solomon's throne [I Kings 10:19–20]. But for me, Christ alone must remain the one King

Solomon. I grant that the twelve apostles are the twelve fountains in the desert Elim [Exod. 15:27], but in such a manner that the bright cloud and the pillar of fire are nothing but Christ himself. Just as little power as one of the twelve apostles had over any of the others, so little power does St. Peter have over the other apostles, or does the pope, by divine order, have over other bishops and pastors.

One more thing, dear Romanists, and then I shall finish. I beg from you a gracious and correct answer [to this question]: If Aaron was a figure of the pope in his physical authority, vestments, and city, why was he not also a figure in all the other physical things? If one physical thing counts, why not all the others?

It is written that the high priest shall not marry a widow or one who is divorced, but only a virgin [Lev.

21:14]. Why then is not the pope also given a virgin in marriage, so that the figure is fulfilled? Indeed, why does the pope prohibit marriage to the entire priesthood? This not only contradicts the figure but God, law, reason, and nature as well, and he has neither authority, power, nor right to do that. Moreover, the church has never commanded this, and could not command it. He arbitrarily and without any need or reason crowds Christendom with whores, sinners, and miserable consciences—as St. Paul says of him in I Timothy 4[:1–3], "In the last days some will depart from the faith and cling to the teachings of demons with deceit and false, invented words. Their consciences are seared, who prohibit marriage and command abstinence from foods God created," etc. Did not St. Paul here strike at the Roman spiritual laws in which the priesthood is forbidden marriage and all Christians are commanded not to eat butter, eggs, milk, or meat on certain days—although God himself left it completely up to all Christians to eat or to marry as they please? Where are you now, you Romanist of the observance, with your noisy prattling that not a single letter of the figure is to be omitted and everything must be fulfilled? Indeed, where is the pope, the successor of St. Peter, who, together with St. Paul and all apostles, had a wife?52

- 38 Furthermore, the old [i.e., Old Testament] high priest was not allowed to cut his hair [Lev. 21:5]. Why does the pope allow himself and all other priests to have a tonsure? Where is the figure fulfilled to the very letter here?

Again, the old high priest was not allowed to own any part of the land of Israel, but instead lived just from the contributions of the people of Israel. Why then does the Roman see so furiously desire the whole world? Why did it steal and rob country, city, indeed, principalities and kingdoms, and now dares to produce, ordain, dismiss, and change as it pleases all kings and princes, as if it were the Antichrist? Where is the figure fulfilled here?

Again, the old high priest was a subject ruled by kings. Why then does the pope allow his feet to be kissed, and why does he want to be king of all kings—something even Christ himself did not do? Where is the figure fulfilled here?

Again, the high priest was circumcised, and—to come to an end—if fulfilling the figure means that things in the New Testament should be as physical as in the old, why do we not become Jews again and obey the whole law of Moses? If we have to obey one part of it, why not all of it? And if not all, why one part? Indeed, if the New Testament is to be considered higher in temporal splendor than the Old

Testament, would it not be reasonable to suppose that there should be more than one high priest in the New Testament, so that it should be more glorious and more magnificent than the Old Testament, which had only one? If reason were to judge here and to follow its own rules, what do you think it would do?

Again, at the time of the old high priest, there were many holy men who were not subject to him, as for example Job and his family. Indeed, he was not alone. There were also the king of Babylon, the queen of Sheba, the widow of Zarephath, the prince Naaman of Syria, and many others in the Orient who, together with their families, were all praised in Scripture. Why is the figure not valid in every letter here?

And why does the pope not allow anyone to be a Christian unless he be subject to him and purchase seals and letters from him at any price his Romanists please? Or do the Romanists have the power to interpret the figures however and how often they please, without any Scripture at all? Do you not see yet, dear

Romanist, how completely envy and hate have blinded you and your kind? Would it not have been better for you to have stayed in your monastery and to have prayed your vigils until you had been called or driven into this matter? You do not know what "figure" means or signifies. But you boast of being a "public expert on Scripture."53 An expert indeed—but in corrupting it, in blaspheming God, and in slandering all truth. Come again some other time, dear Romanist, and I shall deck you out with lilies and present you as a New Year's gift to those who have sent you!54

I, too, want to say one thing not contained in Scripture. In all the estates God has instituted, there are always some who become holy and are saved. There is no estate on earth without living saints, according to Christ's statement in Luke 17[:34], "There will be two men in one bed; one will be taken and the other left," etc. If the papal estate were of God, it would be impossible for a pope to be condemned; for there is always only one person in that estate, and whoever became pope would therefore be certain of his salvation—which is contrary to all Scripture.

Now let us see how these pious people deal with Christ's holy words in this matter.

Christ says to St. Peter in Matthew 16[:18–19], "You are Peter and on this petra (that is, on this rock) I will build my church. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

On the basis of these words they have attributed the keys to St. Peter alone. But the same St. Matthew, in Matthew 18[:18], has barred such an erroneous interpretation, for Christ says to all of them in general,

"Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." Here it is clear that Christ is interpreting himself, explaining chapter

16[:18] in this chapter 18[:18], that the keys are given to St. Peter in place of the entire community, and not to his person alone. Thus also John, in the last chapter [John 20:22–23]: "He breathed on them, and said to them, 'Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; but if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.' " Many people have tried to reconcile the sole authority of St. Peter with these two passages which are opposed by only the one [Matt. 16:18–19]. But the gospel is only too clear. Up to now they have had to concede that nothing particular is given to St. Peter as a person in the first passage. Many of the ancient holy fathers also understood it this way. This is also proven by Christ's words when he asked not only Peter, but all of them together, before he gave St. Peter the keys, "But who - 39 do you say that I am?" Peter replied for them all, saying, "You are the Christ, the son of the living God"

[Matt. 16:15–16]. That is why the words of Christ in chapter 16 are to be understood according to the words in chapter 18 and in the last chapter of John; the one passage is not to be considered stronger than the other two. Instead, the one is to be properly explained through the other two. Two [passages] are stronger proof than one, and it is only proper that the one should follow or give way to the two, and not vice versa.

Therefore, it is as clear as day here that all the apostles are equal in all power to Peter; aside from the words, this is also proved by their actions. For St. Peter never selected, made, confirmed, sent, or ruled over an apostle—although this would necessarily have been the case had he been their superior on the basis of divine order. Otherwise, they would all have been heretics. Furthermore, all the apostles together could not make St. Matthias and St. Paul apostles; rather, these two had to be made apostles by heaven, as is written in Acts 1[:23–26] and 13[:2]. How then could St. Peter alone be lord over them all? No one has cracked this little nut yet, and I trust that against their will they will be gracious enough to me to let it remain uncracked for a while longer. Just as this Romanist boasts that the Roman see maintained its power in spite of frequent attacks on it,55 I, in turn, boast that the Roman see has many times desired and been madly pursuing such power, and still does, but it has never been able to attain it and, God willing, never will attain it. It is real Shrovetide boasting to say that something has always been retained which has never been possessed. Why does not this dear Romanist boast that the city of Leipzig, where he does not possess a single house, has never been taken away from him? It would certainly be the same boasting. Thus the prattling goes on; whatever he hears he has to repeat.56 That is why I say that although the Roman tyrants have fought against the gospel and tried to transform the general power into a power of their own, the word which Christ spoke has remained in force, "The powers of hell shall not prevail against it" [Matt.

16:18]. If it [Roman power] had been of divine order, God would not have abandoned it; it would have been fulfilled sometime. For he says that neither an iota nor a letter will pass away; it must be fulfilled

[Matt. 5:18]. But not a single letter of Roman power has been fulfilled throughout all of Christendom.

Moreover, it does not help to say it is not the fault of the Romans but of the heretics that there is no fulfilment. Heretics here, heretics there! The gates of hell (not to mention heretics) can neither prevent nor hinder what is divine order and promise. He [God] is so strong that he can and will fulfil it in spite of the heretics. But since he has never done so and allows it to remain unfulfilled, regardless of the great seriousness, diligence, effort, labor, cunning, and trickery employed by the Romans, it is, I trust, conclusively demonstrated that, whatever the pope's power over other bishops and priests, it is of human and not of divine order. The kingdom of Christ has always existed throughout the entire world, as it is written in Psalm 2[:8] and Psalm 19[:4]. But not even for one hour has it ever been completely under the pope, despite those who say otherwise.

Even though all this is quite true, we shall nevertheless go on and destroy their useless fairy tales, saying: Even if it were invalid to have the two passages in Matthew [18:18] and John [20:22–23], which make the power of the keys a common possession, interpret the one passage in Matthew [16:18], which reads as though the keys were given to Peter alone, it does not advance the matter. For it is doubtful that the one passage should follow the other two, or vice versa. Moreover, I defy them with two passages as strongly as they [defy me] with one. But we have assurance in this doubt, and it is up to us whether or not we want to have the pope as a head. For no one is a heretic where something hangs in the balance of doubt, no matter whether he holds this opinion or that one, as they all say themselves. And so once again their argument has broken down and they cannot come up with anything but an uncertain doubt like this one. That is why they must either drop all three of these passages as useless for the confirmation of their cause, since they are doubtful, or cite other passages clearly showing us that the two should follow the one. This they have to grant me. I dare them to try it.

But I shall cite passages to prove that the one passage is to follow the other two. For thus says the law and Christ quotes it, that each case should be established through the mouth of two or three witnesses

[Matt. 18:16], and, "No one shall die on the evidence of one witness alone [Deut. 17:6]. Since I have two witnesses against one, my case must take precedence, and the one passage must follow the other two, namely, that Peter received the keys not as Peter, but in place of the community, as Matthew 18[:18] and John 20[:22–23] clearly say—and not as Peter alone, as Matthew 16[:18–19] seems to say.

- 40 Furthermore, I am very surprised at their great arrogance when they want to make a power to rule out of the power of the keys. This goes together like summer and winter, because the power to rule is far greater than the power of the keys. The power of the keys extends only to the sacrament of penance, to loosing and binding sins, as is clearly written in Matthew 18[:18] and in the last chapter of John [20:22–

23]. But the power to rule also extends to those who are pious and do not have anything needing to be bound or loosed. It extends to preaching, admonishing, consoling, celebrating the mass, offering the sacraments, and the like. That is why none of the three passages fits the power of the pope over all of Christendom, unless one made him just a confessor, a penitentiary, an anathematizer, so that he ruled only those people who are evil and are sinners—but this they do not want to do.

Moreover, if these words are to confirm papal power over all Christians, I would very much like to know who could absolve the pope when he sins. If these words make everyone subject to the pope, as they say, then he himself certainly has to remain in a state of sin. It would not even help if he were to give his power to someone else to exercise over him. For this would make him a heretic acting against divine order.

Of course, some people have invented the fiction that in the pope person and office are two different things,57 as though the person could subject himself and the office could not. This glitters for a moment, but then it becomes like the usual glittering merchandise. For with great noise and pomp they themselves have in their laws forbidden any lower bishop to confirm a pope, although this [confirmation] is not the institution of the office but the induction of the person into the office. If the person is not subject to anyone in this case, he certainly is not subject to anyone in absolving either. But they have a fraudulent spirit in all their affairs, glosses, and interpretations, so that they say now this and now that. While they try to subjugate God's words, they lose the correct understanding of them, so that they do not know where they are and go completely astray; and yet they want to rule the whole world.

Therefore, every Christian should hold the view that neither St. Peter nor the apostles have in these passages been given power to rule or be on top. What then is in these passages? I shall tell you.

The words of Christ are nothing but gracious promises to the whole community, given to all of Christendom, as was said,58 so that the poor sinful consciences are consoled when they are "loosed" or absolved by a man. Thus the words apply only to the sinful, stubborn, and troubled consciences which, if they but believe, will be strengthened thereby. Now if these comforting words of Christ, given for the benefit of all poor consciences in the whole community, are used to strengthen and to justify papal power,

I will tell you what it reminds me of. It reminds me of a rich and mild prince who opens up his rich treasure and gives all the poor and needy the freedom to get what they need. If there were a scoundrel among these needy people who used this freedom only for himself and did not admit anyone else [to the treasure] unless one let oneself be captured in accordance to his will, and if he rushed in and interpreted the words of the prince to mean that he alone had this freedom—can you imagine what the mild prince would think of this scoundrel? If you cannot imagine it, then hear what St. Matthew, Matthew 24[:48–51], says of this servant: "But if that wicked servant says in his heart, 'Hah! My lord is long delayed,' and begins to beat his fellow servants, and eats and drinks with the drunken, the master of that servant will come one day when he does not expect him and at an hour when he does not know, and will give him what he deserves and put him with the hypocrites; and there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."

Now look, just as this servant interprets his master's opinion so also do the Romanists interpret the word of God; and yet this is the very best interpretation they can achieve. For whenever they go really insane, they act as though this same servant had not only sold his master's kindness for his own profit, but as though he had exchanged the goods, giving chaff and stubble for wheat, copper for gold, lead for silver, and poison for wine. Therefore, it is still a favor that they grant the keys to the pope so that we may at least buy them with money and everything else we have. But all evil takes over when they preach their laws, their power, their ban, their indulgences, and the like, instead of the gospel. This is what the Lord calls the beating of the fellow servants by the evil servant when he should be feeding them instead.

I shall offer a crude illustration so that everyone can distinguish correctly between the true and the false interpretation of these words of Christ: the Old Testament high priest had, by divine order, a particular garment to use for his office [Exod. 28:2–43]. When King Herod elevated himself over the people of Israel, he took the same garment for himself and, although he himself did not need it, he usurped the power to use it; and the people had to buy their God-given right from him. This is also true today. The - 41 keys are given to the whole community, as was proven above.59 But now the Romanists come along and, although they themselves never need them, nor exercise the office, they still usurp the use of the keys; thus we have to buy with money what is our own, given by Christ. As if this were not enough, they apply the words of Christ used about the keys neither to the keys nor to their use but to their own usurped might and power over the keys. Consequently, the power of the keys, freely given by Christ, is now imprisoned in the power of the Romanists, and both powers are to be understood by the one word of Christ. This is as though Herod had said that Moses spoke of his own power when he spoke of the garment of the high priest.

Thus a tyrant, for example, could seize a last testament and interpret the words by which the property was allotted to the heir as though the power over this testament were given to him and [he could decide] whether he would let the heir have it for nothing or sell it to him instead. It is exactly the same when the power of the keys and the authority of the pope are understood as synonymous even though they are two things. Not only are they different, but the authority [of the pope] is greater than the power of the keys; yet they make of it one and the same thing.

I have many times refuted60 their statement that the physical authority of the pope is instituted by the words of Christ, "On this rock I will build my church" [Matt. 16:18], "the rock" being understood to mean

St. Peter and his authority. Now I will say only this: First, they have to prove that the rock means authority. They do not do this, and cannot do it. Thus they prattle their own ideas, and their drivel is supposed to mean divine order. Second, the rock can mean neither St. Peter nor his authority, because of Christ's subsequent word, "And the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Now it is clear as day that no one is edified in the church, or prevails against the gates of hell, by being under the external authority of the pope. For the majority of those who strongly believe in the authority of the pope and rely upon it are possessed with all the power of hell and are filled with sin and malice. Furthermore, some popes have themselves been heretics, have instituted heretical laws, and have nevertheless remained in authority. That is why the rock cannot mean an authority which is unable to prevail against the gates of hell; it can only mean Christ alone and the faith against which no power can do anything.

The fact that this authority continues to exist even though some fight against it61 does not mean it prevails against the gates of hell. For the Greek church, too, has continued to exist, as well as all the other

Christians in the world; so have the Muscovites and Bohemians. Indeed, even the kingdom of Persia has continued to exist more than two thousand years, and the Turks almost a thousand years now, although they have been fought in many ways. And to tell you even more—which should certainly surprise a hyperlearned Romanist like you—the world, in its evil, has prevailed from the very beginning and continues to exist until the Last Day and eternally, even though God himself, with all holy angels and men, continually preaches, writes, and works against it. If you wish, dear Romanist, then defy God and all the angels, and the continued existence of the world, against all their words and deeds.

Should not you, you miserable and blind Romanist, first learn what "to prevail against the gates of hell" means before writing something? If every "prevailing" means as much as prevailing against the gates of hell, then the kingdom of the devil prevails with a greater following than the kingdom of God. But "to prevail against the gates of hell" does not mean to continue existing physically in the external community, power, authority, or assembly, as you prattle regarding the Roman community and unity. Instead it means to be built, in strong and true faith, upon Christ the rock, so that no power of the devil can suppress this rock, even though it has a greater following and uses innumerable quarrels and cunning and power against it. Now a majority of the Roman community, and even some of the popes themselves, have intentionally and without a struggle left the faith and live under the tyranny of the devil, as is evident. Moreover, the papacy has frequently been subjected to the gates of hell. And to speak bluntly, this same Roman authority

—ever since it dared to rise above all of Christendom—not only missed its purpose, but also caused almost all the schisms, heresy, disunity, sects, unbelief, and misery existing in Christendom; and it has never freed itself from the gates of hell.

If there were no other passage proving that the Roman authority is of human and not divine order this passage alone would certainly be sufficient, when Christ says that the gates of hell shall not prevail against his building on the rock [Matt. 16:18]. The gates of hell have frequently contained the papacy; the pope has not been godly, and his office more than once has existed without faith, grace, or good works. God would never have permitted this to happen if, in Christ's words, the rock meant this same papacy. For then

- 42 his promise would not be true, and he would not fulfil his own words. That is why the rock and Christ's building upon it must be something quite different from the papacy and its external church.

Accordingly, I say furthermore that frequently the Roman bishop has been deposed or appointed by other bishops. Now if his authority came by God's order and promise, then God would not have permitted this. For it would be against his word and promise, and if God were ever found inconstant in a single word, faith, truth, Scripture, and God himself would perish. Since, then, God's words are constant, they have to prove to me that the pope has not once been subject either to the devil or to men. Here I would like to hear what my dear Romanists can say in contradiction. I hope that they are struck with their own sword, like Goliath [I Sam. 17:51]. For I can prove that the papacy was not only subject to the devil, but also to bishops, and indeed to worldly power, namely, to emperors. Where did the rock prevail here against the gates of hell? I shall leave them the free choice: either the papacy is defeated in these words, or God is a liar. Let us see which they will choose.

Furthermore, it is not enough to extricate yourself with words, saying that even though the papacy has been subject to the devil from time to time, devout Christians have certainly always continued to exist under it. I reply that Christians continue to exist even under the Turks, and in all the world as well, as they have previously existed under Nero62 and other tyrants. What good does that do? The papacy and the pope himself must never be subject to the devil if Christ's word is to be said about them, namely, that it is a rock against the gates of hell. See, this is the way our Romanists cite Scripture, according to their insane masks. Whatever means faith must mean authority to them; whatever means spiritual building must mean external pomp to them. They do not want to be heretics, they want to make heretics of everyone else.

They, on their part, cite still one more passage, namely, the Lord saying to Peter three times, "Tend my sheep" [John 21:15–17]. Here they are really true experts, saying that since Christ says to Peter in particular, "Tend my sheep," he gave him authority above all others.

We shall see here to what trouble, effort, and labor they are put to maintain this. First, we must know what they mean by "tending." "Fending" in Romanist language means to burden Christendom with many human, injurious laws; to sell for the highest price the vestments of bishops; to tear annates63 from every benefice; to annex all religious foundations, to make servants of all bishops by means of horrible oaths; to sell indulgences, to tax the whole world with letters, bulls, seals, and wax; to prohibit the preaching of the gospel; to garrison the entire world with knaves from Rome; to make themselves the arbiters of all quarrels; to increase quarrels and disputes—in short, not to let anyone come freely to the truth or have peace.

But if they say that by "tending" they mean authority in itself, not this abuse of authority, it is not true.

This I can prove by the fact that whenever, with due respect to authority, one only grumbles a little against such abuse, they rave and threaten with thunder and lightning; they scream that it is heresy and spoken against authority and that one wants to tear apart the seamless robe of Christ. They want to burn heretics, revolutionaries, schismatics, and the whole world. Thus it becomes clear that they mean nothing else by "tending" than this "wolfing" and extortion! Meanwhile, we prefer to think that tending does not mean wolfing; let us see what it really is.

They have a keen, high, and subtle speech (as they imagine) when they say that person and office are not one and the same thing, and that the office still continues to exist and is good, even if the person is evil.64 From this they draw the conclusion, and it must follow, that Christ's little word, "Tend my sheep," means an office and external power which an evil man may, of course, hold. The office makes no one holy. Well, we welcome this, and we want to pose a question to the Romanists.

He who keeps and fulfils Christ's words is certainly obedient and godly, and will be saved because his [Christ's] words are Spirit and life [John 6:63]. Since tending therefore means to sit at the head and to have an office, even though one is a knave, it follows that he who sits at the head and is pope is tending.

He who tends is obedient to Christ; he who is obedient in one thing is obedient in all things and is holy.

Thus it must be true that he who is pope and sits at the head is obedient to Christ and is holy, be he a knave, a scoundrel, or whatever he pleases. Thank you, dear Romanists! Now I really begin to see why the pope is called "most holy." This is the way Christ's words are to be interpreted, making knaves and scoundrels into holy and obedient servants of Christ—just as you have made Christ into an arch-knave and a keeper of whores above.65

- 43 Furthermore, if tending means to sit at the head, then in turn being tended must mean to be subject.

Likewise, just as tending means to rule externally, so being tended means to be ruled and, as they say, to live in the Roman unity. Thus it must certainly also be true that all those who are in the Roman unity, whether they are evil or good, must be real saints because they are obedient to Christ and let themselves be tended. For no one can be obedient to Christ in one thing unless he be obedient in all things, as St.

James says [Jas. 2:10]. Is this not a fine church under Roman power, in which there are no sinners, only saints? What then will become of the poor indulgences if no one needs them any longer in the Roman unity? What will become of father confessors? How is the world to be taxed if penance disappears?

Indeed, what will become of the keys if they are no longer needed? But if there are still sinners around, it means that they are not tended and are disobedient to Christ. What do you want to say now, dear

Romanists? Let us hear your pipes! Do you not see that "tending" must mean something different from having authority, and that "being tended" must be something different from being externally subject to Roman power? Do you not see how foolishly the saying of Christ, "Tend my sheep," is applied to Roman authority to substantiate external unity or assembly?

Christ also says in John 14[:23–24], "Whoever loves me keeps my words, whoever does not love me does not keep my words." Prick up your ears, dear Romanists! You, of course, boast that Christ's word

"Tend my sheep" is a commandment and word of Christ. We ask you, where are those who keep it? You say that even knaves and scoundrels keep it. Christ says that no one keeps it unless he loves and is godly.

Come to some understanding with Christ so that we may know whether you or he are to be charged with lying! Therefore, the pope who neither loves nor is godly does not tend or keep Christ's word.

Consequently, he is no pope either; he has neither power nor anything which is contained in the little word "tending," whatever it may be. For Christ stands fast here, saying, "He who does not love me does not keep my word." Accordingly, he does not tend either, that is, he is no pope as they interpret it. Thus it happens that precisely those passages cited in support of the papacy are against it. This serves the people right who treat the word of God according to their own insane minds, as if it were fool's talk. They want to make what they please out of it.

However, if you said, "If someone who is subject to worldly authority can be obedient even though this authority is not godly, why should not someone be obedient to the authority of the pope? That is why

'tending' and 'being tended' need not necessarily include obedience," I answer: Scripture does not call worldly authority "tending." Moreover, in the New Testament no one is told by a clear word of God to rule in a worldly way, although no power rises without his [God's] own hidden order. That is why St.

Peter calls such authorities human orders [I Pet. 2:13], because they rule without the word of God, but not without God's providence. Accordingly, they need not be godly. But since there is a word of God here, namely, "Tend my sheep," neither the shepherd nor the sheep can do justice to this word unless they are obedient to God and are godly. Therefore, I let bishop, pope, and priest be what they please; if they do not love Christ and are not godly, they have nothing to do with the word "tending." Moreover, they are something different from the shepherds and "tenders" who are referred to in this word. Accordingly, it is not proper to apply these words of Christ to external power which itself may be either obedient or disobedient. Tending can only mean to be obedient.

Christ intended this too. For when he said to Peter three times, "Tend my sheep," he had previously asked him three times whether he really loved him; and Peter answered three times that he loved him. So it is clear that where there is no love there is no tending. For this reason the papacy must be love or it is not tending [the sheep]. And wherever the little word, "Tend my sheep," institutes the papal see, it follows that there there are as many popes as there are people who love Christ and tend the sheep. This is true, for in former times all bishops were called popes, [a title] now applied only to the bishop of Rome.

But look what our Romanists are doing here: they cannot overcome these words of Christ and must admit, with great reluctance, that no one can tend the sheep unless he loves Christ—as the written words of Christ here clearly express. Oh, how they would like to charge him with lying, or to deny him! But listen to what they say when they have knocked their heads against a wall so hard their heads swim; they say that Christ certainly demands love from the office of the pope, but not the high love they call

"meritorious to eternal life"; instead, ordinary love is enough, the same as a servant loving his master.66

Now look! They make these babbling comments about love out of their own head and without Scripture; and yet, they still insist on showing off as the ones who argue with me about Scripture. Tell me,

- 44 dear Romanists, all of you melted together into one mass, where is there a single letter in Scripture about the love you dream up? If the Rastrum beer67 of Leipzig could talk, it would easily overwhelm such swimming heads and speak better about love.

But let us look further. If there must always be some love in the papacy, where is it if a pope does not love Christ at all and seeks only his own profit and honor in the papacy—as many of them, indeed almost all, have done since the time it began? You have not escaped me yet! You must confess that the papacy has not always existed, but fell many times due to the lack of love. If it had been instituted by divine order in these words of Christ, it would not have fallen. You may turn where you will—these words do not produce a papacy. Or must the papacy cease to exist in Christendom whenever there is no love in the pope? Now you yourself have said that although the person may be evil, the office can remain. Here again you confess, and have to confess, that the office is nothing when the person is evil. Otherwise, you have to let "tending" be something other than papacy. This is true. See what you can do against that!

But let everyone beware of the poisonous tongues and devilish glosses which invent such a love.

Christ speaks of the highest, strongest, and best love that can ever be. He does not want to be loved with a false love and a half-love. Here one must either love completely and as much as possible, or not at all.

Christ's intention is to instruct all preachers in the person of St. Peter as to what their mission should be. It is just as though he said, "Look Peter, if you should preach my word and thus tend my sheep, then hell, the devil, the world, and everything in the world will rise against you. You will have to risk body, life, possessions, honor, friends, and everything you have. You will not do this unless you love me and steadfastly cling to me. Now if you should start to preach, and if the sheep were being tended, and if the wolves were to break in on you and you wanted to flee like a hireling, not risk your life, and leave the sheep to the wolves without tending them, you would have done much better never to have started to preach and to tend sheep." For if he who preaches the word falls, when he should be standing at the head, everyone is offended, the word of God is completely disgraced, and more evil is done to the herd than if they had had no shepherd. Christ seriously cares about the tending of the sheep. But it makes no difference to him how many crowns the pope wears and how he elevates himself in all splendor over all the kings of the world.

Let anyone say, if he can, whether the papacy has such love, or whether Christ, with such words, instituted a superfluous authority like the papacy. No doubt whoever preaches with such love is a pope.

But where are such [popes]? I know no saying which troubles me more in my preaching than this one, "I feel little love, but I am overburdened with preaching." They accuse me of being snappish and vengeful. I am afraid I have done too little to them! I should have pulled even more [at the sheep's] clothing of these raving wolves, who do not cease to tear up Scripture, to poison it, and to pervert it, to the great injury of the miserable and poor sheep of Christ. If I loved them enough I should really have behaved differently toward the pope and his Romanists who, with their laws and prattling, their indulgence letters and much other tomfoolery, destroy for us the word of God and faith. They impose laws on us as they please so that they can capture us and afterward sell us these same laws for money. They could weave ropes of money with their mouths, and yet they boast of being shepherds and "tenders," while in reality they are wolves, thieves, and murderers, as the Lord says in John 10[:8, 12].

I know very well that the little word "love" deadens, tires, and weakens the pope and his Romanists.

Nor do they like it if one really insists on it, for it knocks down the papacy. It also made Dr. Eck weak at Leipzig.68 Who would not be weakened by it, when Christ so directly orders Peter not to tend sheep at all unless there is love? He wants love, otherwise tending amounts to nothing. I certainly want to wait a little longer and see how they plan to heal this particular stab wound. If they stab me with "tend," I stab them even harder with "love." Let us see which penetrates morel This is the reason why some popes are so skilfully silent about the word "love" in their canon laws and blow up the word "tend" so much, thinking that they have thus preached to the drunken Germans who would not notice how the hot mush burns their mouth. This is also why pope and Romanists cannot tolerate questioning and research into the foundation of papal power, and whoever investigates this foundation, not satisfied with their miserable words, must be acting offensively, blasphemously, and heretically. But if one questions whether God is God and investigates all his mystery with unbearable sacrilege, it pleases them and does not concern them. Where does this perverted game come from? From the fact that, as Christ says in John 3[:20], "Everyone who does evil fears the light." Which thief or robber likes to be thoroughly investigated? Thus no evil

- 45 conscience can stand the light, but truth loves the light and hates the darkness, as Christ also says, "He who does what is true comes to light" [John 3:21].

Now we see that Christ's two sayings addressed to Peter, on which they build the papacy, oppose the papacy more strongly than any other. Furthermore, the Romanists cannot come up with anything which does not put them to shame. I shall let the matter rest here and will ignore the other things the miserable

Romanist spits out in his booklet, since I and a few others69 have strongly knocked them down many times before in Latin. I find nothing in it except that he uselessly vents his spleen against Holy Scripture, just like a sniveling child. Nowhere is he master of his words, nor does he understand himself.

This then is my opinion about the papacy: Since we see that the pope has full authority over all our bishops, and he has not arrived at this power without God's providence—although I think he arrived at it not by the gracious but more by the angry providence of God which permits men to elevate themselves and to suppress others as a punishment of the world—I do not want anyone to oppose the pope. Rather, everyone should fear divine providence, honor such power, and endure it with all patience, just as though the Turks ruled over us; in that case it is harmless. I fight for only two things: First, I will not tolerate it that men establish new articles of faith and scold, slander, and judge as heretics, schismatics, and unbelievers all other Christians in the whole world only because they are not under the pope. It suffices that we let the pope be pope. It is not necessary for his sake to slander God and his saints on earth. Second,

I shall accept whatever the pope establishes and does, on condition that I judge it first on the basis of Holy Scripture. For my part he must remain under Christ and let himself be judged by Holy Scripture. But the Roman knaves come along and put him above Christ, make his a judge over Scripture, and say that he cannot err. They want to make everything he dreams about in Rome, and indeed everything they might ever think of, into articles of faith for us. As if this were not enough, they want to establish a new way of faith, namely, that we should believe in those things that we can see with our eyes, although by its nature faith consists of things which no one either sees or feels, as St. Paul says in Hebrews 11[:1]. The Roman authority and community is indeed physical, as everyone can see. If the pope ever came to that—may God forbid!—I would freely say that he is the true Antichrist of which all Scripture speaks. If these two things are granted, I will let the pope be; indeed, I will help to elevate him as high as they please. If they are not granted, then to me he shall be neither pope nor Christian. Whoever cannot do otherwise may make an idol of him. But I will not worship him.

Moreover, I would certainly let kings, princes, and all the nobles try to keep the knaves of Rome from their streets and to keep episcopal capes70 and benefices out oftheir land. How could Roman avarice get the idea of annexing all the religious foundations, bishoprics, and benefices of our fathers? Who has ever heard of or read about such unspeakable robbery? Do we not also have people who need them, instead of having to make ass-drivers and stableboys, and indeed the whores and knaves of Rome, rich from our poverty—especially when they regard us as nothing but arrant fools and also slander us in the worst possible way? It is known everywhere that the Russians wanted to come into the Roman assembly.71 But the holy shepherds in Rome tended these sheep in such a way that they refused to receive them unless they first committed themselves to pay an eternal tax of I do not know how many hundred thousand ducats.

They [the Russians] could not eat "grass" like this, and so they stayed as they were, saying that if they had to buy Christ they would save their money until they came to Christ himself in heaven. That is the way you act, you scarlet whore of Babylon, as St. John calls you [Rev. 17:4]. You put our faith to shame before the whole world, and yet want to be known as someone who makes everyone a Christian. It is a pity that kings and princes have so little respect for Christ and are so little moved by his honor that they let such a horrible disgrace of Christendom gain the upper hand. Yet they see that the people in Rome think of nothing but becoming more and more senseless and increasing all misery, so that there is no more hope on earth except with worldly power. I shall say more about this if the Romanist comes again. Let this be enough for a start. God help us finally to open our eyes. Amen.

I shall spare my dear Romanist an answer to the slanders and malicious words with which my person is being attacked, although they are numerous. They do not affect me. I have never meant to take revenge on those who slander my person, my life, my work, or my nature. I myself know very well that I am not worthy of praise. But that I am more cutting and passionate when defending Scripture than some can stand

—no one can deny me that, nor do I intend to stop. Let anyone who pleases slander, curse, and judge my person and my life—it is already forgiven him. But let no one expect grace or patience from me when he