Baptism, however, which we have applied to the whole of life, will truly be a sufficient substitute for all the sacraments we might need as long as we live. And the bread is truly the sacrament of the dying; for in it we commemorate the passing of Christ out of this world, that we may imitate Him. Thus we may apportion these two sacraments as follows: baptism belongs to the beginning and the entire course of life, the bread belongs to the end and to death. And the Christian should use them both as long as he is in this poor body, until, fully baptised and strengthened, he passes out of this world and is born unto the new life of eternity, to eat with Christ in the Kingdom of His Father, as He promised at the Last Supper,--"Amen I say to you, I will not drink from henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God." [Matt. 26:29] Thus He seems clearly to have instituted the sacrament of the bread with a view to our entrance into the life to come. Then, when the meaning[197] of both sacraments is fulfilled, baptism and bread will cease.
[Sidenote: Conclusion] Herewith I conclude this prelude, and freely and gladly offer it to all pious souls who desire to know the genuine sense of the Scriptures and the proper use of the sacraments. For it is a gift of no mean importance, to know the things that are given us, as it is said in I Corinthians ii [1 Cor. 2:12], and what use we ought to make of them. Endowed with this spiritual judgment, we shall not mistakenly rely on that which does not belong here. These two things our theologians never taught us, nay, methinks they took particular pains to conceal them from us. If I have not taught them, I certainly did not conceal them, and have given occasion to others to think out something better. It has at least been my endeavor to set forth these two things. Nevertheless, not all can do all things[198]. To the godless, on the other hand, and those who in obstinate tyranny force on us their own teachings instead of God's, I confidently and freely oppose these pages, utterly indifferent to their senseless fury. Yet I wish even them a sound mind, and do not despise their efforts, but only distinguish them from such as are sound and truly Christian.
I hear a rumor of new bulls and papal maledictions sent out against me, in which I am urged to recant or be declared a heretic[199]. If that is true, I desire this book to be a portion of the recantation I shall make; so that these tyrants may not complain of having had their pains for nothing. The remainder I will publish ere long, and it will, please Christ, be such as the Roman See has hitherto neither seen nor heard. I shall give ample proof of my obedience[200]. In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.
Why doth that impious Herod fear When told that Christ the King is near? He takes not earthly realms away, Who gives the realms that ne'er decay.[201] FOOTNOTES [1] Born at Steinheim, near Paderborn, in Westphalia; a proofreader in Melchior Lotter's printing-house at Leipzig, with whose oldest son he went to Wittenberg in 1519; professor of poetry at the university; rector of the same, 1525; one of Luther's staunchest supporters; rector of the school at Lünenberg, 1532 until his death in 1540. Compare Enders, _Luther's Briewechsel_, II, 490; Tschackert, _op. cit._, 203, and literature in Clemen, I, 426.
[2] _Resolutiones disputatio num de indulgentiarum Virtute_, 1518; others think he refers to the Sermon _von Ablass und Gnade_, of the same year.
[3] Sylvester Prierias and the Dominicans. Comp. Köstlin-Kawerau, Luther, I, 189 ff.
[5] Comp. The Papacy at Rome, Vol. I, p. 392.
[6] Comp. Fr. Lepp, _Schlagworter des Ref. zeitalters_ (Leipzig, 1908), p. 62.
[7] The Franciscan Augustin Alveld. See Introduction, and compare Lemmens, _Pater Aug. v. Alveld_ (Freiburg, 1599).
[8] Isidore Isolani. See Introduction.
[9] Luther pokes fun at the use of _revocatio_ with an objective genitive.
[10] See above, p. 58, and compare Preserved Smith, _Luther's Correspondence_, Vol. I, letter no. 265.
[11] Cf. _The Papacy at Rome_, Vol. I, p. 337. The title-page of Alveld's treatise contained twenty-six lines.
[12] A satiric reference to a section in Alveld's treatise, on the name of Jesus, which he spells IHSVH and brings proofs for this form from the three languages, mentioned. See Seckendor, _Hist. Luth._, lib. I, sect. 27, § lxx, add. ii.
[13] Alveld calls himself, on his title-page, _Franciscanus regularis observantiae Sanctae Crucis_. The Observantines were Franciscan monks of the stricter rule, who separated from the Conventuals in the XV. Century. See _Prot. Realencyklopädie^3, VI, 213 ff.
[14] In the _Treatise on the Blessed Sacrament_; see above, p. 9.
[15] The universities of Cologne and Louvain had ratified Eck's "victory" over Luther at the Leipzig Disputation. See Köstlin-Kawerau, I, 266, 298.
[18] Some theologians--e. g., Cajetan and Durandus--doubted whether the Sacrament of Order was received by deacons; the Council of Trent decided against them.--_Cath. Encyclop._, IV, 650.
[19] For Luther's opinion of Aristotle see above, pp. 146 f.
[20] The Franciscans are meant. The allusion may be to the seraphic vision of St. Francis.
[21] See above, pp. 153 ff.
[22] A less lenient view was taken by Boniface Amerbach, writing to his brother Basil at Basle, October 20, 1520: "The good man (Luther) was not a little injured by the libel of a poor impostor, who, by pretending that Martin had recanted, brought back even those who had entered upon the way of truth to their former errors." See Smith, _op. cit._, I, no. 316.
[23] The present did not last very long; see below, p. 292.
[24] So called because of the withholding of the wine from the laity.
[26] The _Treatise on the Blessed Sacrament_, 1519.
[27] See page 174.
[29] _Decretal. Greg., lib. Ill, tit. xli, cap. 17_.
[32] An allusion to his opponents' doctrine of the complete freedom of the will, which Luther denied. Compare his _De servo arbitrio_ (1525). _Weimar Ed._, XVIII, 600 ff. He finds in their treatment of Scripture and of logic a practical expression of this doctrine of theirs.
[33] Luther humbly identifies himself with the erring priesthood, [34] Alveld.
[35] _The res sacramenti_. The sacrament consisted of these two parts--(1) the _sacramentum_, or external sign, and (2) the _res sacramenti_, or the thing signified, the sacramental grace. Another distinction is that between (1) _materia_, or the external sign, and (2) _forma_, or the words of institution or administration. See below, p. 223.
[39] Cf. W. Kohler, _Luther unci die Kirchengeschichte_ (Erlangen, 1900), chap. viii.
[40] On the spiritual reception of the sacrament see H. Hering, _Die Mystik Luthers_ (1879), pp. 173 f. Cf. above, p. 40.
[42] John Wyclif (†1384), the keenest of the mediæval critics of the doctrine of transubstantiation.
[43] Pierre d'Ailly (†1425), who, with his master Occam, greatly influenced Luther.
[44] The Sentences of Peter Lombard, the text-book of medieval theology.
[45] In the dogma of transubstantiation (Fourth Lateran Council, 1215) the Church taught that the substance of bread and wine was changed into the substance of Christ's body and blood, while the accidents of the former--i. e., their attributes, such as form, color, taste, etc.--remained.
[46] Aquinas.
[47] Thus the _Erlangen Ed._; the _Weimar Ed._ reads: _an accidentia ibi sint sine substantia_.
[49] i. e., the host, or wafer.
[51] See above, pp. 26 ff.
[54] Comp. Vol. I, pp. 295 ff.
[55] The Douay Version has here been followed.
[56] See Luther's own definition above, pp. 22 ff.
[57] See above, p. 181, note.
[64] On "fruits of the mass" compare Seeberg, _Dogmengesch._., III, p. 472.
[67] See above, pp. 22 f.
[68] See p. 23.
[69] See Vol. I, pp. 187 ff.
[71] That portion of the mass included between the Sanctus and the Lord's Prayer.
[76] The offertory prayers in the mass. _C. Prot. Realencyklopädie_, XII, 720, 46 ff.
[77] The private mass does not require the presence of a congregation. Besides the celebrant there need be present only a ministrant. There is no music, the mass is only read. See _Realencyklopädie_, XII, 723.
[79] Masses celebrated by special request or in honor of certain mysteries (e. g., of the Holy Trinity, of the Holy Spirit, or of angels). _Realencyklopädie_, XII, 722.
[80] Pope Gregory I. See Realencyklopädie, XII, 681 f.
[81] See above, p. 196, note, and comp. Seeberg, _Dogmengesch._, Ill, 461 f.
[82] For letters of indulgence.
[84] Factions in the monastic orders.
[85] The reference may be to Blandina, who suffered martyrdom under Marcus Aurelius.
[86] The three parts of penance; see below, p. 247.
[88] Peter Lombard, the fourth book of whose Sentences treats of the sacraments; see above, p. 188.
[90] The scholastics distinguished between the "material" and the "form" of a sacrament. In baptism, the material was the water; the form, the words, "I baptise thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."
[91] Alexander, of Hales, denied the validity of baptism "in the name of Jesus," which Peter Lombard defended. Cf. _Realencyklopädie_, XIX, 412.
[94] A point at issue between Thomists and Franciscans. The former held that the grace of the sacrament was contained in the sacramental sign and directly imparted through it; thus Aquinas. The Franciscans contended that the sign was merely a symbol, but that God, according to a _pactio_, or agreement, imparted the grace of the sacrament when the sign was being used; thus Bonaventura, and especially Duns Scotus. See Seeberg, DC, III, 455 ff., and in _Realencyklopädie_, V, 73.
[95] The conclusion of the investigation begun on p. 226.
[102] Cf. below, pp, 258 ff.
[104] The position of Thomas Aquinas, going back to Augustine, and ratified by Clement V at the Council of Vienna, 1311-12.
[106] See above, pp. 227 ff.
[107] For a full discussion of this "baptism," see Scheel, in the _Berlin Edition_ of Luther's works, _Ergänzungsband_ II, pp. 134-157.
[109] The threefold vow of the mendicant orders.
[110] _Bulla_ means both a papal bull and a bubble.
[112] An obscure allegorical reference to the Babylonian captivity of the Jews. "The people of the captivity" (comp. Ps. 64:1 and 1 Kings 24:14, Vulgate) are the better portion of the people who were carried captive, together with their possessions, to Babylon; "the people of the earth," _am haarez_, the common people, were left behind and became the nucleus of the hybrid Samaritan nation.
[115] See _Decretal. Greg., lib. Ill, tit. xxxiv, cap. 7_.
[116] Cf. Köhler, _Luther und die KG._, pp. 222 ff.
[118] This time came during Luther's sojourn at the Wartburg, when he wrote _De votis monasticis_, 1521. See Vol. IV.
[119] The XCV Theses, the _Resolutiones_, the _Sermon von Ablass und Gnade_, the _Confitendi Ratio_; the first and last of these in Vol. I.
[120] Reference to a probably spurious bull of Clement VI. In his _Grund u. Ursach aller Artikel D. Martin Luthers, so durch röm. Bulle unrechtlich verdammt sind_ (1521), Luther writes: "Thus it happened in the days of John Hus that the pope commanded the angels of heaven to conduct to heaven the souls of the Roman pilgrims who died en route. Against this dreadful blasphemy and more than devilish presumption Hus raised his voice, and though he lost his life therefor, yet forced the pope to pipe a different tune and in future to refrain from such blasphemy."--Compare Köhler, _Luther u. die Kirchengeschichte_, p. 206. See also above, p. 81.
[121] _Longe viliorem_; the _Jena Ed._, followed by Lemme and Kawerau, reads, _longe meliorem_.
[124] See above, pp. 105 f.
[128] A play on the word _observantia_, which means both observation and observance. A scriptural fling at the _Observantines_. Comp. above, p. 172, note 4.
[129] Luther quotes correctly, _confortatus_, but thinks _confirmatus_.
[133] Erasmus edited the first published Greek New Testament in March, 1516 (Basle: John Froben), the Complutensian Polyglot being the first printed edition (1514). Luther used Erasmus' work as soon as it came out, as may be seen in his lectures on Romans, 1515-16 (cf. Picker, _Luthers Vorlesung über den Romerbrie_; also Preserved Smith, _Luther's Correspondence_, etc., I, nos. 21 and 65). In an interesting letter to Luther of Feb. 14, 1519, Froben announces the second edition of Erasmus' New Testament, which Luther used in making his translation. Cf. Smith, op. cit., 00.125.
[135] Namely, for Paul.
[136] The precise meaning is not clear. The Latin is: _vel proprio spiritu vel general! sententia_.
[137] Here follows a passage that clearly breaks into the context and belongs elsewhere. See Introduction, p. 169.
"I admit that the sacrament of penance existed also in the Old Law, yea, from the beginning of the world. But the new promise of penance and the gift of the keys are peculiar to the New Law. For as we now have baptism instead of circumcision, so we have the keys instead of the sacrifices and other signs of penance. We said above that the same God at divers times gave divers promises and signs for the remission of sins and the salvation of men, but that all nevertheless received the same grace. Thus it is said in II Corinthians iv, 'Having the same spirit of faith, we also believe, or which cause we speak also'; and in i Corinthians x, 'Our fathers did all eat the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink; and they drank of the spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ.' Thus also in Hebrews xi, 'These all died, not receiving the promise; God providing some better thing or us, that they should not be perfected without us.' For Christ Himself is, yesterday and to-day and forever, the Head of His Church, from the beginning even to the end of the world. Therefore there are divers signs, but the faith of all is the same. Indeed, without faith it is impossible to please God, by which faith even Abel pleased Him (Hebrews xi)."
[138] The _Summa angelica_ of Angelus de Clavassio of Genoa (died about 1495), published 1486, one of the favorite handbooks of casuistry, in which all possible cases of conscience were treated in alphabetical order. Cf. _Zeitschrit für Kirchengesch._, XXVII, 296 ff. The _Summa angelica_ was among the papal books burned by Luther, together with the bull, December 10, 1520. Cf. Smith, _Luther's Correspondence_, I, no. 355.
[139] For a full discussion of the hindrances see article Eherecht, by Sehung, in _Prot. Realencyklopädie_, V.
[140] On this whole paragraph compare Vol. I, p. 294.
[141] It is to be borne in mind that all that follows is in the nature of advice to confessors in dealing with difficult cases of conscience, and is parallel to the closing paragraphs of the section on The Sacrament of the Bread.
[142] Namely, by officiating at the marriage ceremony.
[143] Namely, by betrothal (_sponsalia de praesenti_).
[144] Lemme pertinently reminds the reader that by "laws of men" Luther here understands the man-made laws of the Church of Rome.
[146] Relationship arising from sponsorship and legal adoption. Cf. above, p. 128.
[153] The _fides data et accepta_, which Luther finds in the _fides_ (faith) of Gal. 5:22 [154] Page 243.
[155] _Impedimentum erroris_. With fine sarcasm Luther here plays of one hindrance against another.
[158] An untranslatable pun: _non iustitia sed inscitia_.
[159] Page 244.
[161] Page 242.
[162] The following points need to be borne in mind in order to a fair evaluation of this much criticized section: (1) What is here given is in the nature of advice to confessors, and the one guiding principle is the relief of souls in peril. (2) It must not be forgotten that Luther wrote the treatise in Latin, and not for the general public. There is without doubt a certain betrayal in turning into the vernacular a passage written in the language of the learned. Yet we have done this, being unwilling to all under the charge of giving a garbled version. (3) The hindrance Luther is here discussing was one recognized and provided or by the Church of Rome, and the remedy suggested by him was prescribed by the German _Volksrecht_ in many localities. (4) Divorce was absolutely forbidden. (5) Luther's error grew out of an unhistorical interpretation of the Old Testament, and consisted in his undervaluing the importance of the public law. "To make the individual conscience the sole arbiter in matters belonging to public law, leads to dangerous consequences." (See Kawarau, _Berlin Ed._, II, 482 f., where references are given.)
[163] As he actually did in the case of Henry VIII and Philip of Hesse.
[165] Page 271.
[166] An allusion to the act that what he is writing is a "Prelude." See Introduction, p. 168.
[169] See below, pp. 451 ff.
[170] The council that condemned and burned John Hus (1414-1418).
[171] Dionysius Areopagita, the pseudonym (cf. Acts 17:54) of the unknown author (about 500, in Syria?) of the neoplatonic writings, _Of the Celestial_, and _Of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy_, etc.
[172] William Durandus the elder, died 1296.
[173] The Franciscan Bonaventura (†1274) in his _De reductione artium ad theologiara_.
[174] Donatus (ab. 350 A.D.), a famous Latin grammarian, whose _Ars minor_ was a favorite mediæval text-book. The chancellor of the University of Paris, John Gerson († 1429), published a _Donatus moralisatus seu per allegoriam traductus_--a mystical grammar, in which the noun was compared to man, the pronoun to man's sinful state, the verb to the divine command to love, the _adverb_ to the fulfilment of the divine law, etc.
[176] The so-called _character indelebilis_, the peculiar gift of ordination, so that "once a priest, always a priest." See above, p. 68, note 5.
[177] See above, pp. 178 ff.
[178] The stated daily prayers, fixed by canon, of the clergy. The seven hours are respectively: matins (including noctums and lauds), prime, tierce, sext, nones, vespers, and compline.
[179] Comp. above, p. 69. The fullest development of Luther's doctrine of the spiritual priesthood of believers is to be found in his writings against Emser, especially _Auf das überchristliche, übergeistliche und überkünstliche Buch Bock Emsers Antwort_, 1521.
[180] On the last sentence see above, pp. 251 f.
[186] Covers for the chalice.
[187] This promise was fulfilled in the Liberty of a Christian Man.
[188] Thus Erasmus: _Fieri potest ut nomen commune cum apostolo praebuerit occasionem ut haec epistola lacobo apostolo ascriberetur, cum uerit alterius cuiusdam Iacobi._--Moffatt, _Introduction to the Lit. of the N. T._, p. 472.
[196] See above, pp. 220 f.
[200] The remainder of Luther's "recantation" was the _De libertate_. In the letter to the pope, which accompanied it, he gave ample proof of his obedience.
[201] The eighth stanza of Coehus Sedulius' _Hymnus acrostichis totam vitam Christi continens_ (beginning, _A solis ortus cardine_), of the fifth century. Stanzas 8, 9, 11 and 13 were used as an Epiphany hymn, which Luther translated on December 12, 1541,--"Was fürchtst du, Feind Herodes, sehr." The above translation is taken from _Hymns Ancient and Modern_, No. 60.
A TREATISE ON CHRISTIAN LIBERTY WITH A LETTER TO POPE LEO X 1520 INTRODUCTION The Letter to the Pope, like an earlier letter dated March 3, 1519, was written at the suggestion of Carl von Miltitz. Sent to Germany to bring Luther to Rome, this German diplomat knew German conditions and to some extent sympathized with Luther's denunciation of Tetzel and the sellers of indulgences. He preferred, therefore, to try to settle the controversy and to leave Luther in Germany. Although the pope insisted that Luther must come to Rome and recant, Miltitz arranged for a hearing of the case before a German bishop. Evidently Miltitz was far too optimistic in his representations both to Luther and to the pope. The pope, in a writing dated March 29, 1519, spoke in friendly terms to Luther, and urged him to come to Rome immediately and to make his recantation there. Luther, in the letter dated March 3, 1519, writes in most humble language to the pope, but declares it impossible for him to recant what he had written in the XCV Theses. The pope's letter did not reach Luther; Luther's letter was not forwarded to the pope.
Luther had promised to keep silent if his opponents would do the same, and had devoted himself to the study of the Scriptures. John Eck, however, had no such occupation to keep him from controversy, and Luther was not averse to a debate. At the Leipzig disputation, June 27-July 15, 1519, Luther learned more of the logical implications of his position. The plan of Miltitz had failed, but he would not be discouraged.
When Miltitz went to Germany, it was under the pretence of a mission "to deliver to his elector the papal golden rose, which the latter had coveted in vain for two years."[1] Now he decided to go in person to Augsburg, where it had been deposited with the Fuggers, and present it to Frederick. This also gave an opportunity for a second meeting with Luther at Liebwierde, October 9, 1519. Luther, although placing little confidence in Miltitz, consented to argue his case before the archbishop of Treves. The plan failed, partly because there was no citation for Luther to appear, partly because the Elector would not allow Luther to go without proper safe-conduct, and partly because Miltitz had not tried to prevent Luther's opponents from challenging him.
In spite of the evident lack of confidence on both sides, and in spite of Luther's constant progress in opposition to the Roman Church, Miltitz insisted that "the case is not as black as we priests make it," even when a papal bull was issued against Luther on June 15, 1520. On August 28th Miltitz attended a meeting of the Augustinian monks in Eisleben, and obtained their promise that Luther should be requested to write a letter to the pope assuring him that he had never attacked the pope's person. On September 11th Luther reported to Spalatin what he had done, and said that, although neither he nor his fellow-monks had any confidence in the plan, he would do Miltitz the favor of writing such a letter. This promise seemed meaningless to him after the bull against him had been published. The papal bull had been obtained by Eck, whom Miltitz now considered to be substituted for himself in dealing with Luther, in spite of the authority he had received. That the bull was ignored in some places and despised in others, pleased him and gave him new courage. There might, after all, be some chance for him to make use of his diplomatic skill.
Again he invited Luther to meet him in Lichtenberg. They met in the monastery of St. Anthony on October 12th, and Luther renewed his promise to write to the pope, to send the letter within twelve days, and to date it back to September 6th, that the appearance of intimidation by the papal bull might be avoided. It was agreed that Luther should send with the letter an historical account of his difficulties with the Roman Church which would show that Eck was the chief instigator, and that Luther had been forced to take the positions he defended. In writing, however, the historical review became a part of the letter, and a treatise of far different tone was sent as a gift to the pope, and as an evidence of the kind of work Luther would prefer to do if his opponents permitted him to choose--the Treatise on Christian Liberty.
It is again a question whether the pope received this letter. It has been an interesting speculation for more than one writer, what the thoughts and feelings of Leo the Tenth might have been if he did receive and read it. Schaff traces the progress of Luther in the three letters he wrote to the pope: "In his first letter to the pope, 1518, Luther had thrown himself at his feet as an obedient son of the vicar of Christ; in his second letter, 1519, he still had addressed him as a humble subject, yet refusing to recant his conscientious convictions; in his third and last letter he addressed him as an equal, speaking to him with great respect for his personal character even beyond his deserts, but denouncing in the severest terms the Roman See, and comparing him to a lamb among wolves, and to Daniel in the den of lions."[2] If the pope ever read it, "it must have filled him with mingled feelings of indignation and disgust."
We may go even farther. Luther thinks of St. Bernard's attitude toward Pope Eugene, and Bernard was Eugene's superior in the Cistercian order and had been looked up to as "father." Luther writes as a father confessor to a friend in trouble, and might have quoted Bernard's words: "I grieve with you. I should say, I grieve with you if, indeed, you also grieve. Otherwise I should have rather said, I grieve for you; because that is not grieving with another when there is none who grieves. Therefore if you grieve, I grieve with you; if not, still I grieve, and then most of all, knowing that the member which is without feeling is the farther removed from health and that the sick man who does not feel his sickness is in the greater danger."[3] The pope was a humanist, not a spiritually minded priest; we may, therefore, believe that Charles Beard is not far wrong in his estimate of the possible effect of this letter upon him: "If Giovanni de Medici, the head of a house which had long come to consider itself princely, and the occupant of the Fisherman's chair, when it claimed to be the highest of earthly thrones, read this bold apostrophe, addressed to him by a 'peasant and a peasant's son,' he must have thought him mad with conceit and vanity. He was incapable of being touched by the moral nobleness of the appeal, and so audacious a contempt of merely social distinctions the world has rarely seen."[4] After the mighty thunder of the Address to the Christian Nobility and the Babylonian Captivity of the Church, the Treatise on the Liberty of a Christian Man is, indeed, like a still, small voice. Luther himself says: "Unless I am deceived, it is the whole of Christian living in a brief form." Perhaps we may trace here also the influence of St. Bernard's _De Consideratione_, which was written as a devotional book for the pope and was a manual of Christian living for the pope, as this is a manual of Christian living or all Christians.
It has been rather difficult for the enemies of Luther to find much fault with this book. The Catholic historians, Janssen and Hergenröther, do not mention it. Grisar characteristically devotes a little space to each of the three great writings of 1520, and considers the book on Christian Liberty as the most mischievous of them all. "It does, indeed, frequently bring its false thoughts in the form of that mystical, heart-searching style which Luther learned from older German models."[5] The French Catholic, Leon Cristiani, is far more generous in his estimate: "A truly religious spirit breathes in these pages. Provoking polemic is almost entirely avoided. Here one finds again the inspiration of the great mystics of the Middle Ages. Does not the 'Imitation' continually describe the powerlessness of man when left to himself, the infinite mercy of God, the great benefit of the redemption of Christ? Does it not preach the necessity of doing all things through love, nothing of necessity? He is not a true Christian who would venture to disapprove the passages in which Luther speaks so eloquently of the goodness of God, of the gratitude which it should inspire in us, of the spontaneity which should mark our obedience, of the desire of imitating Christ which should inspire us."[6] Protestants consider this book "perhaps the most beautiful of Luther's writings, the result of religious contemplation rather than of theological labor."[7] "It takes rank with the best books of Luther, and rises far above the angry controversies of his age, during which he composed it, in the full possession of the positive truth and peace of the religion of Christ."[8] The clear presentation of the thought of the liberty of a Christian man occurs at the close of the Tessaradecas.[9] In the Babylonian Captivity Luther had promised to publish a treatise on the subject after he had seen the effect of that treatise.[10] But the promise to send a treatise to the pope gave him an earlier opportunity, so that barely a month and a half intervened between the publication of the Captivity, October 6th, and that of the Liberty, middle of November. The German, although a translation in part and in part an abbreviation and rewriting of the Latin, appeared first, before November 16th. The publisher, seeing his opportunity, had, however, issued the Letter to the Pope in German separately before November 4th,[11] so that a new dedicatory letter, addressed to Hieronymus Mülphordt (Mühlpfort), of Zwickau, was prefixed to the German edition.
Our translation is made from the Latin, although the German has been compared wherever it is a real translation.
Two translations into English appeared in the sixteenth century: one printed by John Byddell before 1544, the translation being, according to Preserved Smith,[12] by John Tewkesbury; the other, prepared by James Bell and printed by Ralph Newbery and H. Bynneman, in 1579. Unfortunately, neither of these was accessible to the present translators. Modern translations, into English by Wace and Buchheim, and into German by Lemme, have been consulted.
W. A. LAMBERT.
South Bethlehem, PA.
FOOTNOTES [4] _Martin Luther and the Reformation in Germany_, London, 1889, p. 370.
[8] Schaff, VI, 224.
[9] Vol. I, p. 170.
[10] See above, page 284.
[11] Enders, II, p. 496, gives as the date when the letter was written, "after Oct. 13th"; Smith, _Life and Letters of Martin Luther_, p. 91, dates it Oct. 20th.
LETTER TO POPE LEO X.
JESUS.
To Leo the Tenth, Pope at Rome: Martin Luther wishes thee salvation in Christ Jesus our Lord. Amen.
[Sidenote: The Pope's Person] In the midst of the monsters of this age with whom I am now for the third year waging war, I am compelled at times to look up also to thee, Leo, most blessed Father, and to think of thee; nay, since thou art now and again regarded as the sole cause of my warfare, I cannot but think of thee always. And although the causeless raging of thy godless flatterers against me has compelled me to appeal from thy See to a future council, despite those most empty decrees of thy predecessors Pius and Julius, who with a foolish tyranny forbade such an appeal, yet I have never so estranged my mind from thy Blessedness as not with all my heart to wish thee and thy See every blessing, for which I have, as much as lay in me, besought God with earnest prayers. It is true, I have made bold almost to despise and to triumph over those who have tried to righten me with the majesty of thy name and authority. But there is one thing which I cannot despise, and that is my excuse for writing once more to thy Blessedness. I understand that I am accused of great rashness, and that this rashness is said to be my great fault, in which, they say, I have not spared even thy person.