§ 45. The Babylonian Captivity of the Church. October, 1520.
De Captivitate Babylonica Ecclesie Preludium 1). Martini Lutheri. Wittenb. 1520. Erl. ed. Opera Lat., vol. V. 13-118; German translation (Von der Babylonischen Gef angniss, etc.) by an unknown author, 1520, reprinted in WALcH, XIX. 5-153, and in O. v. GERLACH, IV. 65-199; the Lat. original again in the Weimar ed., vol. V. An English translation by BucHHEIM in First Principles of the Reformation (London, 1883), pp. 141-245,
In closing the “ Address to the Nobility,’ Luther announces: “I have another song still to sing concerning Rome. If they wish to hear it, I will sing it to them, and sing with all my might. Do you understand, my friend Rome, what I mean?”
This new song, or second war-trumpet, was the book on the “Babylonian Captivity of the Church,” published in the be-
«
214 THE GERMAN REFORMATION. A.D. 1517 To 1530.
ginning of October, 1520.’ He calls it a “ prelude,” as if the real battle were yet to come. He intended it for scholars and the clergy, and therefore wrote in Latin. It is a polemical, theological work of far-reaching consequences, cutting one of the roots of Romanism, and looking towards a new type of Christian life and worship. He attacks the sacramental system of the Roman Church, by which she accompanies and controls the life of the Christian from the cradle to the grave, and brings every important act and event under the power of the priest. This system he represents as a captivity, and Rome as the modern Babylon. Yet he was very far from undervaluing the importance and benefit of the sacrament; and as far as the doctrine of baptism and the eucharist is concerned, he agreed better with the Catholic than with the Zwinglian view. |
Luther begins by thanking his Romish 4 hee for promoting his theological education. “Two years ago,” he says, “I wrote about indulgences when 1 was still involved in superstitious respect for the tyranny of Rome; but now I have learned, by the kind aid of Prierias and the friars, that indulgences are nothing but wicked devices of the flatterers of Rome. Afterwards Eck and Emser instructed me concerning the primacy of the Pope. While I denied the divine right, I still admitted the human right; but after reading the super-subtle subtilties of those coxcombs in defense of their idol, I became convinced that the papacy is the kingdom of Babylon and the power of Nimrod the mighty hunter. Now a learned professor of Leipzig writes against me on the sacrament in both kinds, and is about to do still greater wonders.2 He says that it was neither commanded nor decreed, whether by Christ or the apostles, that both kinds should be administered to the laity.”
1 On Oct. 3, 1520, Luther wrote to Spalatin: ‘‘ Liber de captivitate Eccleδίῳ sabbato exibit, et ad te mittetur.”’ (De Wette, I. 491.)
2 He means Alveld’s Tractatus de communione sub utraque specie quantum ad laicos, 1520. He contemptuously omits his name.
§ 45. BABYLONIAN CAPTIVITY OF THE CHURCH. 215
1. Luther first discusses the sacrament of the Holy Communion, and opposes three errors as a threefold bondage ;
namely, the withdrawal of the cup from the. laity, the doc- |
trine of transubstantiation, and the sacrifice of the mass.
(a) As regards the withdrawal of the cup, he refutes the flimsy arguments of Alveld, and proves from the accounts of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Paul, that the whole sacrament was intended for the laity as well as the clergy, according to
the command, “ Drink ye all of this.” Each writer attaches \ ‘the mark of universality to the cup, not to the bread, as } if the Spirit foresaw the (Bohemian) schism. The blood of
Christ was shed for all for the remission of sins. If the laymen have the thing, why should they be refused the sign which is much less than the thing itself? The Church has no more right to take away the cup from the laity than the bread. The Romanists are the heretics and schismatics in this case, and not the Bohemians and the Greeks who take their stand on the manifest teaching of the Word of God. “T conclude, then, that to deny reception in both kinds to the laity is an act of impiety and tyranny, and one not in the power of any angel, much less of any Pope or council whatsoever.” ... “The sacrament does not belong to the priests, but to all; nor are the priests lords, but servants, whose duty it is to give both kinds to those who seek them,
as often as they seek them.” . . . “Since the Bishop of Rome |
has ceased to be a bishop, and has become a tyrant, I fear absolutely none of his decrees; for I know that neither he, nor even a general council, has authority to establish new articles of faith.”
(6) The doctrine of transubstantiation is a milder bondage, and might be held alongside with the other and more natural view of the real presence, which leaves the elements unchanged. It is well known that Luther was to the end of life a firm believer in the real presence, and oral manducation of the very body and blood of Christ by unworthy as well as
'
‘