Therefore we will cleave to the Defender of our Church who says (Matt. XVI): I will build My Church, — and build it not on the length of time, nor on the multitude of men, nor on It must be so, nor on the use and sayings of the saints, not even on John the Baptist, nor on Elijah, nor on Jeremiah, nor on any of the prophets; — but upon that only and solid rock, upon Christ, the Son of God. He is the strength of our faith; in Him we are safe against the Gates of Hell. He cannot lie or deceive; but every man is a liar. And the saints, when they act and speak independently of this Rock, are but men. The most pure and only and true word of God must be the support of our faith. If any speak, let him speak as the oracles of God (I Pet. IV); and, Let every prophecy be in keeping with the faith (Rom. XIII). These are our towers of strength against which the Henrys and Thomists and Papists and their impure, foul, filthy, wicked and sacrilegious associates, are compelled to be silent, and having nothing to reply can only lie confused and prostrate before the words of that thunder. But we expect that even against these this trumpery King with all his Sophists will dare to bark. For the sentence remains fixed that faith is not due nor owed except it be to the certain word of God, as says Romans X: Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing cometh by the word of Christ. Therefore whatever is brought forward that is not in the word of God, let this be at our disposal, as though we were lords, to believe or not to believe; to condemn or to approve, as it is written: All things are yours, whether Apollos, or Cephas, or Paul, and ye are Christ’s. If we belong to Christ alone, Who is this stolid King who, by his lies, tries to make us belong to the Pope? We are not the Pope’s; but the Pope is ours; we are not to be judged by him; but he is to be judged by us. For, A spiritual man is judged by none, while he himself judges all men, — which is true. All things are yours, — even the Pope. How much more these blots and corruptions of men, these Thomists and Henrys?
Yet I also am foolish and senseless, who so many times inculcate the same thing in vain into these crazy and deplorable brains, and always sing the same song without result to these deaf and hardened heads, to wit, that the tradition of men, or their long-continued usage, has no weight whatever in matters of faith. How often have I said that, even in the opinion of Augustine, to the canonical books alone the honour should be given of firmly believing that there is no error whatever in them? But even if Augustine had not said that, Scripture requires that we believe nothing except Scripture.
In vain, I say, I have kept on singing to these deaf adders, who endlessly repeat and gabble their silly talk: Ambrose, Augustine, Jerome says so and so! Therefore Luther is a heretic, for the sayings of Augustine and Ambrose are articles of faith. Yet those holy men wished nothing less than this sacrilegious worship given to them by Henry and his fellow dunces, by whom their sayings are equated with articles of faith, desiring as they did all their sayings to be free, and placed at the disposal, or rejection, of every believer. Nay, the swinish Thomists themselves are forced to admit that holy men have often erred, and therefore the use of their words for establishing the faith, and burdening the conscience, cannot be of sufficient authority even by the judgment of common sense.
This then is my general reply to those royal Thomist principles, on which this kingly book relies throughout, to wit, the principles of length of time and numbers of men: Perhaps our subtle Henrys will yet make holy angels out of devils, since length of time from the beginning of the world is in their favour, and it is one of the Thomists’ tests of truth. Also Satan is so far superior to the succession of men, who come after him, that even by Christ he is called the prince of this world, and by Paul the god of this world, and the ruler of this darkness. Such as are Henry’s principles and articles, such are his faith and truth. Such as the faith is, such are its saints, I mean this Babylon, this abomination worthy of these last days.
Let us come now to the particulars of this our Henry, and let us see how aptly by his Thomist wisdom he fits his principles to his conclusions. But I must first ask pardon of my pious and candid reader if I become wearisome by repeating so many times the same things in refutation of the traditions and usage of men. What can I do otherwise, when the Thomist King brings forth all the time in his book nothing but the teachings and usages of men? He adduces but one solitary passage of Scripture, for the purpose of establishing holy orders as a sacrament, and adduces that wrongly, as we shall see. If it is not troublesome to read over and over again in the pages of the stolid King: It must be so; I think so; Usage has it so; The Church teaches so; Art thou alone all wise? etc.; let it not he, I beseech you, wearisome in my pages to read so many times: To think this has no value; This use proves nothing; This It must be so amounts to nothing; This Church is not Christ’s Church; It is not I that know but Christ alone knows, etc. Necessity compels me to answer the stolid King thus, since in all particulars he argues in this same way. The Kingly Defender first of all handles indulgences, which I have asserted to be nothing but impostures, invented by Roman wickedness, he defends them thus: “indulgences are impostures, then all the former Popes have been impostors; and not only they but Leo X himself, whom Luther nevertheless extravagantly praise.” O royal and Thomist wits, ye commend to us again the proverb: A man must be born either a King or a fool. If Luther has so much authority that so great a King agrees with him when he praises Leo X, why does he not agree with him when he condemns indulgences? especially when in this matter he is supported by Scripture, reason and facts, while in the other matter it was merely a question of respect due to an important personage. But the Thomist actor wishes to stick to his colours, and has decided to follow not the Scriptures, not reason, but the bare sayings of men.
And so, the Thomist King, when I condemn indulgences, answers me nothing except these words: Indulgences are not impostures because Leo X is a good man; it must be so; it cannot be otherwise. Using this royal and Thomist argument, one can say: At Rome in the council of the Pope nothing wrong is ever done, because Leo X is a good man. And so under the excellent guidance of our English King Henry, one will justify all the abominations of the Roman perdition.
This same argument Silvester used before the time of Henry; for he also was a Thomist. Now if in this connection I were to discuss that clever distinction, as their Aristotle teaches it, It is one thing to be a good man, another to be a good citizen and another to be a good leader, I should be arguing to no purpose with such stupid and dull block-heads. How much less would they understand me if I argued this matter according to the divine Scriptures? For in truth he is not a good man who cannot be a good leader. For the Spirit of Christ (by Whom alone we are good) makes man perfect, and instructed for every good work, as Paul teaches Timothy. And the Scripture narratives prove the same thing. With men the nice distinction holds that it is one thing to be a good man, that is in appearance, and another thing to he a good leader, also in appearance. But Saul, when he ceased to he a good man, at the same time ceased to he a good leader.
Therefore it argues nothing against me that I praised the person of Leo X, and condemned indulgences. There is a twofold judgment here. It is not lawful to judge a man, although he may be very bad in God’s sight, as long as outwardly he lives without crime. For his judgment belongs to Him who searcheth the heart and the reins. It is quite another thing to judge concerning indulgences. For this is a matter of doctrine, in which although both good and bad men can err (that is, those either really good or good by pretence), yea, even the elect can err in this matter, yet they do not remain in error unless they are openly wicked. To judge in this matter belongs to all, and to each one, that we may distinguish between the voice of the Shepherd and that of the strangers. Concerning Leo himself I am still today in doubt as to what he really thought, and as to whether he continued in error. For it is no secret who is the author of the latest Bull of Leo. But why do I cast these spiritual and precious pearls before these swine? What can Henry understand of these things, who does not even see how extravagantly silly is this syllogism of his: Leo is a good man; theref
ore indulgences are true?
Let us come to another of King Henry’s arguments, that concerning the Papacy, which I have shattered with most powerful Scripture passages. The Defender of the Papacy, confronted with my Scripture passages is muter than a fish; but his royal presumption leads him to think that merely at his bidding Luther will forsake the Scriptures and give in to his lies. He proves the Papacy in this way: It must be so; for I have heard that even India has submitted to the Roman Pontiff, and also Greece; and St. Jerome acknowledges the Roman Church as the mother-church of the world. What will this Luther I wonder dare to say against such famous, and such Thomist arguments?
I answer that if it then will establish the Papacy because the King of England has heard that India and Greece have submitted to it, by the same reasoning the Papacy will be disestablished, because Luther has heard, and is certain, that neither India nor Greece ever were, or ever wished to be, subject to the Roman Pontiff. Furthermore the glorious Lord King, after his manner, lies quite arrantly when he makes Jerome a defender of the papacy; for that writer does not call his own Roman church the mother-church of the world, but inveighs more bitterly than all others against her monarchical ambition. But the King has more regard for his own glory than for his cause, and so, as befits a Thomist, he omits the Scriptures, which are needed in establishing matters of faith, and in the meantime tells us what he has heard, that he may make our faith and the salvation of our souls depend on his hearing. Hitherto the merry King of England may seem to have been, as it were, an ignorant and untaught layman (if you please to call him so); but now he acts seriously and girds himself for the battle that he has undertaken in which he will defend the seven sacraments, and first of all the sacrament of the altar, in which I have censured three tyrannical propositions: firstly, because the second part of it has been taken away from Christians; secondly, because they are compelled to believe as an article of faith that there remains no more bread or wine after the consecration; thirdly, because they have made out of it a work and a sacrifice. And here I have to contend not so much with Henry’s ignorance and stupidity as with his obstinate and impatient wickedness. He not only lies like a light-headed varlet, but in these sacred matters he is now audacious, now evasive; now he alters things, now he twists things. In short, he says things or does not say things as his inclination moves him, so that he certainly equals, if he does not surpass, the most unprincipled of stage actors. Read my book on the Babylonish Captivity, my dear reader, and you will see that I there speak the truth; for I wrote a stronger book than I can now write, which this virulent and worthless Thomist felt the force of, the proof of it being that he leaves untouched my best and strongest Scripture passages as well as my argumentation, and instead warns pious readers in his most senseless book not to read what is written in my book, and in this way he uncovers his wickedness.
I confess openly that I was not a little disturbed when I discovered, on comparing my book with his, how wickedly he had passed over my strong points; and with what swelling of his cheeks he was trumpeting his Defence of the Sacraments against Luther. For this papal kingdom, engendered by lies, can do nothing else, in keeping with its character, except deceive, pretend, mock and trample upon the golden grain, and then glory in all these things and boast of them as triumphs. But come now, let us reveal this royal and rascally wickedness in the first tyrannical proposition, to wit, that there is but one part to the Sacrament of the altar. I have proved that the second part has been taken away from the people, and have proved it by seven arguments, which even then vindicated me, hut now make me verily triumphant, since the most glorious Defender of the papacy, in spite of his royal courage, passes them all by in silence.
I. The first argument I advanced was the authority of the Evangelists, who tell in one unvarying narrative that Christ instituted both kinds to be received by those who were to observe His memorial; and that He significantly added to the giving of the cup the words: Drink ye all of this. To this argument no reply is made by the Kingly Defender of the Church.
II. The second argument I advanced was that if Christ had given the Sacrament at the Supper to priests alone, it would riot be right to give any part whatsoever to the laity; for it is not lawful to change the institution and example of Christ. Here the glorious defensive King of England holds his peace.
III. The third argument I brought forward was that if one part of this sacrament can be taken from the laity, then a part of Baptism and Penance can be taken away by the same authority. Nay, whatever Christ ever instituted can be in part taken away. If this cannot be done, then neither can the second part of the Lord’s Supper be taken away. To this the glorious Defender of the sacraments makes no reply.
IV. The fourth argument I employed was that Christ says His blood is shed for the remission of our sins, and therefore to those to whom that remission of sins is given it is not possible to deny the sign of that remission, which Christ has given them. To this the Thomist English scaremonger says nothing.
V. The fifth argument I used was that if the wine can be taken away, the bread can be taken away also; and consequently the whole sacrament can be taken away, and the institution of Christ made of no effect. If the whole cannot be taken away, then neither can a part be taken away. Here the unconquerable King perchance remembered the proverb: By silence many questions are answered; and by keeping silence towards me settled his difficulties one and all.
VI. The sixth argument I brought forward was to ask by what necessity both kinds are denied to the laity, when nevertheless all men are in agreement concerning the Sacrament, so that we are taught that the Sacrament is given as much under one kind as under the other. If they are agreed in the thing which is most important, why do they deny the second sign (as they call it) of this very Sacrament? But this question raised difficulties in the mind of the illustrious Defender of the Faith.
VII. The seventh argument I advanced was that Paul shuts the mouths of all disputants, when (I Cor. XI) not alone to priests but to the church and to all the faithful he gives the whole Sacrament. This argument says to the Defender of the sacraments: Touch me not.
Have you, my kind and candid reader, seen enough of the wickedness of this Defender? You now see whether in his whole body there is a drop of royal blood, or in all his mind a single spark of goodness. Whom, I ask, should not this more than sophist malice and brazenness make indignant? Of its own will, and of set purpose, it rages against known truth so fiercely that it seems not only from its own view but also from the view of the whole world to wish it blotted out and buried. Plainly he is a chosen vessel of Satan, and a most worthy Defender of the papal Church. With the same zeal he propounds many other things throughout his blasphemous and sacrilegious book; and the pious reader should learn by this sign to beware of him as of poisonous water and to have in suspicion anything that he writes. For this is not error but sheer wickedness and hardened malice that he writes, intentionally lying and blaspheming.
But this Defender who is silent about things that are necessary, let us see how eloquent he is about his trifling things. (Open your mouth wide, O reader, that you may take in these mighty Thomist marvels!), and how royally he proceeds as though in these matters he were a King when he will prove that it is lawful for the second part of the sacrament to be taken away. The Church, he says, gives the Sacrament in the morning, which Christ gave in the evening. Also we mix water with the wine, concerning which Scripture relates nothing. Therefore if the Church has been able to do that, or to ‘institute that, it can also take away part of the Sacrament.
So this headlong and mad desire to lie against the Lord of glory must have its course and be endured! How glad I would be, if asses and swine could only talk, for them to judge between Henry and me. But I will take for judges other asses and swine, who can talk only too much. Judge therefore, ye Sophists, ye Parisians and Louvainians, ye of Cologne and of Leipsic, and all associates of yours wherever they may be: What is the cogency of this most Henry-like and most Thomist-l
ike argument? For ye also have written in the margin of Henry’s book: Here Luther lies vanquished. Thus ye have applauded your Henry. Tell me then: How is this argument in place? Where is the logic of its conclusion? If anything is done outside of Scripture, should it therefore be considered of any value against Scripture? Wine is mixed with water without the approval of Scripture; therefore the Scripture which gives a second part to the Sacrament must be condemned, must be called heretical, and must be smeared by you with more of your rabid blasphemies.
Are you not ashamed of yourself, Henry, since you are no longer a King, but a sacrilegious despoiler of the divine and sacred word of Christ? Do not you virulent Sophists yet sweat? Lo, how does Luther lie vanquished? Miserable blockheads, ye are become so reprobate in your senses that what ye affirm to be the principal strength of this kingly book the very stones cry out on as being the height of blasphemy.
Collected Works of Martin Luther Page 88
