Collected Works of Martin Luther

by Martin Luther

  A Lesson in Logic

  Listen to me, I will give you a better lesson in logic. I agree with you in saying: All that is typified by the high-priest in the Old Testament must be fulfilled in the New, as St. Paul says in I. Corinthians i. Thus far we agree. Now you continue: St. Peter, or the pope, was typified by Aaron. Here I say, Nay. And what can you do then? Now show your learning, and call the whole crowd of Romanists to assist you, bring just one jot or tittle from the Scriptures in defence, and I will call you a hero. On what foundation have you builded, however? On your own dreams; and yet you boast you will argue against me with the Scriptures. It was not necessary for you thus to play the fool against me, I should have had a fool to overcome at any rate.

  Aaron a Type of Christ

  Listen to me further: I say that Aaron was a type of Christ, and not of the pope. And when I say this, I do not utter my own invention, as you do; but I will prove it, so that neither you, nor the world, nor all the devils shall overthrow it. In the first place, Christ is a spiritual priest for the inner man; for He sitteth in heaven, and maketh intercession for us as a priest, teaches us inwardly in the heart, and does everything a priest should do in mediating between God and man, as St. Paul says, Romans iii, and the whole Epistle to the Hebrews. Aaron, the type, is bodily and external, but the fulfilment is spiritual and inward, and the two agree together. [Rom. 3:25]

  Secondly, in order not to bring my own thoughts, I have the passage, Psalm cx, “The Lord hath sworn and will not repent: Thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.” [Ps. 110:4] Can you also bring a passage like that about St. Peter or the pope? For I think that you will not deny that this passage refers to Christ, as St. Paul, in Hebrews v. [Heb. 5:6] and at many other places, and our Lord Christ Himself, in Matthew xxii, so explain it [Matt. 22:44]. Thus we can see how beautifully the Romanists treat the Scriptures and make out of them what they like, as if they were a nose of wax, to be pulled around at will.

  Now we have proved by the Scriptures that Christ is the High-priest of the New Testament. Clearer still is Paul’s comparison of Aaron and Christ in Hebrews ix, when he says: “Into the first tabernacle the priests went every day, to offer the sacrifices; but into the second went the high-priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself and for the sin of the people. The Holy Ghost thus signifying that the way to the true, holy tabernacle was not yet made manifest, while the first tabernacle was yet standing, which was a type or figure needful for the time then present. But Christ being come, a high-priest of spiritual possessions to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this temporal building: neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by His own blood He entered in once into the holy place, having obtained an eternal redemption.” [Heb. 9:6 ff.]

  What do you say to this, my super-learned Romanist? Paul says: The high-priest typified Christ; you say, St. Peter. Paul says, Christ entered not into a temporal building; you say, He is in the temporal building at Rome. Paul says, He entered in once, and hath obtained an eternal redemption, and makes the type to be altogether spiritual and heavenly, which you make to be earthly and external. What can you do now? My advice is this: Clench your fist, smite him on the jaw, and say he is a liar, a heretic, a poisoner, just as you do to me; and you will be like your father Zedekiah, who smote Micaiah on the cheek [1 Kings 22:24]. Do you not see, wretched blasphemer, whither your counsellors and your own madness have brought you? [John 5:43] Where are they now, those big-wigs, who interdicted my sermon on both kinds in the Sacrament?51 It served them right. They would not tolerate nor hear the Gospel, and now they shall hear instead the lies and blasphemies of the Evil Spirit, even as Christ says to the Jews, “I am come in My Father’s name, and ye receive Me not; another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.” [John 5:43]

  But you might say, St. Peter too is typified by Aaron, along with Christ; and I answer, if you must keep on, you could also say that Aaron was a type of the Turk; and who could prevent you, since you delight in such senseless chatter. But you have given promise to argue from the Scriptures; now do it, and leave your dreams at home. Moreover, where faith is concerned, one must contend not with uncertain Scripture texts, but with those that refer to the issue in a way that is certain, clear, and simple; otherwise the Evil Spirit would toss us hither and yon, until at last we should not know at all where we were; just as has happened to many with these little words, Petros and Petra52 in Matthew xvi [Matt. 16:18].

  It would have been something less of a lie and a blasphemy for you to have said that Aaron was a type of Christ and also of St. Peter. But now you just scream with all your might that Aaron was not a type of Christ, but of St. Peter, and wantonly you strike St. Paul in the face. And in order that nothing may be lacking in this perfect piece of folly, you go on to say: Moses was a type of Christ. And you say this not only without any cause or indication in the Scriptures — just as if you were more than God, and everything which you emit must be taken for Gospel — but contrary to all the Scriptures, which make Moses a type of the Law, as St. Paul does in II. Corinthians iii. [2 Cor. 3:7] It is not necessary to go into this just now, else you might strike him on the jaw again in your wantonness and insolence. Such venom you have imbibed from that man Emser’s heretical and blasphemous output,53 which I will give the answer it deserves when Sir Knight Eck comes along with his flourish.54 You cannot carry it off in that way, my dear Romanists. I cannot prevent it by force, but you shall not bring any Scripture in support of it. Praise God, I am not quite ready to bite the dust.

  Types of the Apostles

  Now it is clear, I take it, that the third argument of his Romanist is rank heresy and blasphemy, for it flatly contradicts God the Holy Ghost and makes Him a liar, and utterly demolishes St. Paul. For since Aaron is a type of Christ, he cannot be a type of St. Peter. For what the Scriptures ascribe to Christ must not be ascribed to any other, so that the Scriptures may ever have one simple, direct, indisputable meaning, on which our faith may rest without wavering [Exod. 28:17 ff.]. This I will grant, that Peter is one of the twelve precious stones in the breastplate of Aaron, whereby there may be signified that the twelve Apostles, chosen in Christ, and known from all eternity, are the highest and most precious jewels in Christendom, but I can never allow Peter to become Aaron. Again, I will admit that St. Peter is one of the twelve lions that stood beside Solomon’s great throne [1 Kings 10:19], but Christ must remain for me the one King Solomon. I will let the twelve Apostles be the twelve wells of water in the wilderness of Elim [Exod. 15:27], on this condition, however, that the bright cloud and pillar shall be nothing other than Christ himself. And just as little as the power of any one of these twelve extends over the others, so little does Peter have power over the other apostles, and the pope over other bishops and priests, by divine right.

  Wherein the Pope is Untrue to the Type of Aaron

  One thing more, my good, dear Romanists, and then I have done. I ask most graciously for a correct answer. If Aaron was a type of the pope in external authority, vestments and state, why was he not a type in all other external and bodily matters; if it holds in one thing, why not in all the others?

  It is written that the high-priest shall not take a widow or a divorced woman, but shall wed a virgin [Lev. 21:14]; why do they not give the pope a virgin to wed, so that the type may be fulfilled? Nay, why does the pope forbid matrimony to the whole priesthood, not only contrary to the Old Testament type, but also in opposition to God, and against right, reason, and nature, a thing which he has no authority, nor power, nor right to do, and over which the Church has never exercised authority, nor should it ever do so. So by his own caprice, without need, he has caused Christendom to be filled with whores, sinners, and guilty consciences, as St. Paul says of him, I. Timothy iv: “In the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils, speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their conscience seared wi
th a hot iron, forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created, etc.” [1 Tim. 4:1 ff.]

  Does Paul herein not hit the Roman laws, which forbid the priesthood to marry, and command all Christians to abstain from butter, eggs, milk, and meats on certain days, while God Himself has left it to the free choice of Christians in every estate to eat or to marry, as they desire? Where are you now, my Romanist of the observance, with all your ranting that not one detail of the Old Testament type shall be omitted, and that every iota must be fulfilled? Yea, where is the pope, the successor of St. Peter, who was married, as was St. Paul55 and all the Apostles?

  The Tonsure

  Again, the Old Testament high-priest was not permitted to have his head shorn [Lev. 21:5]. But why does the pope have a tonsure, and all the other priests, too? Wherein is the type fulfilled here to the very dot? Again, the High-priest was forbidden to own any portion of Israel’s land, but subsisted entirely on the offerings of the people. Pray, why is the occupant of the papal throne so furious to possess the whole world, and has not only stolen lands and cities, principalities and kingdoms,56 but has arrogated to himself the power to make kings and princes, seat and unseat and change them according to his pleasure, as if he were Antichrist. Wherein is there here a fulfilment of the type?

  Worldly Pretensions

  Again, the Old Testament high-priest was a subject under the rule of the kings. Why then does the pope have men kiss his feet, and aspire to be king of kings, which Christ Himself did not? Wherein is the type fulfilled here? Again, the high-priest was circumcised. And, finally, if having the external things in the New Testament identical with those of the Old be the fulfilment of types, why do we not become Jews again and keep the whole law of Moses? If we must observe it in one particular, why not in all? If not in all, why in one?

  Holy Men Not Under the High-Priest

  If it be desired to elevate the New Testament above the Old in the matter of outward splendor, would it not be the reasonable to suppose that there should be more than one high-priest in the New Testament, to make it more splendid and glorious than the Old, which did not have more than one? If reason should judge in this case and follow its own bent, what do you suppose it would do? Again, in the time of the Old Testament high-priest there were many holy men who were not under him, such as Job and his family — for he was not alone. Likewise the king of Babylon, the queen of Sheba, the widow of Zarephath, the prince Naaman of Syria, and many others in Eastern lands, together with their families, who are all commended in the Scriptures. Why does not the type hold in these instances, even to the letter? And yet the pope will let no one be a Christian except he be subject to him, and buy his seals and parchments at any price his Romanists please to charge. Or do the Romanists have power to interpret types as they please and as far as they please, without any warrant of the Scriptures?

  Do you not see, my good Romanist, how envy and hatred have blinded you and your kind? Would it not have been a more seemly thing for you to have remained in your cell praying your vigils until you had been called or urged into this case? You do not know what a type is or signifies, and yet you boast of being a teacher and master of all the Holy Scriptures.57 Yea, verily, a master in corrupting the Scriptures, and blaspheming God, and libeling truth. Come again, my dear Romanist, and I will deck you with lilies and give you for a new year’s present58 to those who have sent you.

  I, too, desire to say one thing that is not in the Scriptures. In all estates which God has appointed there are always some who are saved, and no estate is without living saints on earth, as Christ says, Luke xvii, “Two men shall be in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other left,” etc. [Luke 17:34] If the papacy were from God it would be impossible for a pope to be damned, because there is but one person at a time in that estate, and whoever became pope would thereby be assured of his salvation; which is contrary to all the Scriptures.

  The Scriptural Foundation of Papal Power

  Now let us see how these pious people treat the holy words of Christ in this case. Christ says to St. Peter, Matthew xvi: “Thou art, or art called, Peter; and on the Petram (i. e., on the rock) I will build My Church. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven.” [Matt 16:18] From these words they have claimed the keys for St. Peter alone; but the same Matthew has barred such erroneous interpretation in the xviii. chapter, where Christ says to all in common, “Verily, I say unto you, whatsoever ye shall bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven.” [Matt. 18:18] It is clear that Christ here interprets His own words, and in this xviii. chapter explains the former xvi.; namely, that the keys are given to St. Peter in the stead of the whole Church,59 and not for his own person. Thus also John, in the last chapter, “He breathed on them and said, Receive ye the Holy Ghost; whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them, and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained.” To maintain the sole authority of St. Peter, when there are two texts against one, many men have labored in vain. But the Gospel is too clear, and they have had to admit until now that in the first passage nothing special was given to St. Peter for his own person.

  Thus it was also understood by many of the ancient Church fathers. It is likewise proved by the words of Christ just before He gave the keys to St. Peter, where He asks not Peter only, but all of them: “What think ye of Me?” [Matt. 16:15] Then Peter answers for them all, “Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God.” [Matt. 16:18] Therefore the words in Matthew xvi. must be understood in accordance with the words in chapter xviii. [Matt. 18:16] and in John xx [John 20:22], and one passage must not be explained in a manner contrary to two strong ones, but the one be properly explained by the two. The proof is all the stronger where there are two instead of only one, and it is but fair that one should follow the two, and not two the one.

  Equality Among the Apostles

  It is plain, therefore, that all the apostles were equal to Peter in all matters of authority. This is shown by their acts as well as by their words, for Peter never selected an apostle, nor made, confirmed, sent out, or ruled over one; although if he had been their superior by divine appointment this would have had to be, or all of them would have been heretics. Moreover, all of the apostles together could not make St. Matthias and St. Paul apostles, but this must needs be done from heaven, as it is written in Acts i. [Acts 1:23 ff.] and xiii. [Acts 13:2] How then could St. Peter alone be lord over them all? This little nut no one has been able to crack as yet, and I trust they will be so gracious, even against their will, to leave it uncracked a while longer.

  Roman Authority never Universal

  And just as this Romanist boasts that the papal chair survives in spite of repeated assaults on its authority,60 so I, too, boast that the Roman See ofttimes, and to this very day, has striven in mad frenzy for such power, yet has never been able to attain it, and, God willing, shall never attain it. It is an utter farce when a man boasts that he has always kept what he has never had. Why does not our dear Romanist boast also that the city of Leipzig has never been taken away from him, in which he does not even have a house? It would be a boast of equal value with the other. So they chatter on incessantly; anything that comes to their tongues is blurted out. Therefore, I say, that though the Roman tyrants have striven hard against the Gospel, to take the common power of the Church and make it their own, yet the word of Christ still stands, “The powers of hell shall not prevail against it.” [Matt. 16:18] Now if this power had been given to the pope by divine right, God would not have desisted; at some time it would have been fulfilled. For he says that “not a jot or letter shall remain unfulfilled.” [Matt. 5:18] But in the extension of Roman power over all Christendom not one letter has ever been fulfilled.

  And it does not help to say, it is not the fault of the Romans, but of the heretics, that it has no
t been fulfilled. Heretic here, heretic there! God’s order and promise cannot be hindered or prevented by the gates of hell, much less by the heretics; surely He is strong enough to make true His own Word, without the help of heretics. And inasmuch as He has never done so, and leaves it unfulfilled to this day, regardless of all the zeal, diligence, toil and labor, and cunning and trickery besides, which the Romans have expended on it, I hope it is sufficiently established just what the pope’s authority is, beyond that of other bishops and priests; namely, that it is of human and not of divine right. Christ’s kingdom has been at all times in all the world, as is written in Psalms ii. [Ps. 2:8] and xix [Ps. 19:4], but never was it entirely under the pope, even for one hour, in spite of those who say otherwise.

  Two Passages versus One

  Although all this is well-established truth, we shall nevertheless proceed to demolish their idle fairy-tales still more, and say: Even if it were not valid that the two sayings in Matthew [Matt. 18:18] and John [John 20:22], which make the power of the keys a common possession, should explain the one saying of Matthew, which sounds as if the keys were given to Peter alone; yet the case cannot proceed any further than to establish a doubt, whether the one passage shall interpret the two, or the two the one, and I hold as tenaciously to the two, as they to the one. Furthermore, that doubt gives certainty to us, so that it is entirely for us to say whether we will have the pope for a head or not. For where a matter is in doubt, no one is a heretic, whether he hold to one view or to another; this they themselves admit. And thus their argument again is brought to naught, and they can produce nothing but uncertainty and doubt. Therefore they must either give up all three passages as inadequate to establish their case, since their meaning is obscure; or else they must cite others, which explicitly indicate that the two must be interpreted by the one. This they cannot do; I defy them to try it.