# The Three Walls Of The Romanists

*Exported from [Holy-Writings.com](https://www.holy-writings.com/) on 2026-06-18 — 1 clipping.*

---

> The Three Walls Of The Romanists
> Martin Luther Index  Previous: Introduction  Next: Of The Matters To Be Considered In The Councils  
> 
> The Three Walls Of The Romanists
> 
>      The Romanists have, with great adroitness, drawn three walls round
> themselves, with which they have hitherto protected themselves, so that no one
> could reform them, whereby all Christendom has fallen terribly.
> 
>      Firstly, if pressed by the temporal power, they have affirmed and
> maintained that the temporal power has no jurisdiction over them, but, on the
> contrary, that the spiritual power is above the temporal.
> 
>      Secondly, if it were proposed to admonish them with the Scriptures, they
> objected that no one may interpret the Scriptures but the Pope.
> 
>      Thirdly, if they are threatened with a council, they pretend that no one
> may call a council but the Pope.
> 
>      Thus they have secretly stolen our three rods, so that they may be
> unpunished, and intrenched themselves behind these three walls, to act with
> all the wickedness and malice, which we now witness. And whenever they have
> been compelled to call a council, they have made it of no avail by binding the
> princes beforehand with an oath to leave them as they were, and to give
> moreover to the Pope full power over the procedure of the council, so that it
> is all one whether we have many councils or no councils, in addition to which
> they deceive us with false pretences and tricks. So grievously do they tremble
> for their skin before a true, free council; and thus they have overawed kings
> and princes, that these believe they would be offending God, if they were not
> to obey them in all such knavish, deceitful artifices.
> 
>      Now may God help us, and give us one of those trumpets that overthrew the
> walls of Jericho, so that we may blow down these walls of straw and paper, and
> that we may set free our Christian rods for the chastisement of sin, and
> expose the craft and deceit of the devil, so that we may amend ourselves by
> punishment and again obtain God's favour.
> 
> (a) The First Wall
> 
> That the Temporal Power has no Jurisdiction over the Spirituality
> 
>      Let us, in the first place, attack the first wall.
> 
>      It has been devised that the Pope, bishops, priests, and monks are called
> the spiritual estate, princes, lords, artificers, and peasants are the
> temporal estate. This is an artful lie and hypocritical device, but let no one
> be made afraid by it, and that for this reason: that all Christians are truly
> of the spiritual estate, and there is no difference among them, save of office
> alone. As St. Paul says (1 Cor. xii.), we are all one body, though each member
> does its own work, to serve the others. This is because we have one baptism,
> one Gospel, one faith, and are all Christians alike; for baptism, Gospel, and
> faith, these alone make spiritual and Christian people.
> 
>      As for the unction by a pope or a bishop, tonsure, ordination,
> consecration, and clothes differing from those of laymen-all this may make a
> hypocrite or an anointed puppet, but never a Christian or a spiritual man.
> Thus we are all consecrated as priests by baptism, as St. Peter says: "Ye are
> a royal priesthood, a holy nation" (1 Peter ii. 9); and in the book of
> Revelations: "and hast made us unto our God (by Thy blood) kings and priests"
> (Rev. v. 10). For, if we had not a higher consecration in us than pope or
> bishop can give, no priest could ever be made by the consecration of pope or
> bishop, nor could he say the mass, or preach, or absolve. Therefore the
> bishop's consecration is just as if in the name of the whole congregation he
> took one person out of the community, each member of which has equal power,
> and commanded him to exercise this power for the rest; in the same way as if
> ten brothers, co-heirs as king's sons, were to choose one from among them to
> rule over their inheritance, they would all of them still remain kings and
> have equal power, although one is ordered to govern.
> 
>      And to put the matter even more plainly, if a little company of pious
> Christian laymen were taken prisoners and carried away to a desert, and had
> not among them a priest consecrated by a bishop, and were there to agree to
> elect one of them, born in wedlock or not, and were to order him to baptise,
> to celebrate the mass, to absolve, and to preach, this man would as truly be a
> priest, as if all the bishops and all the Popes had consecrated him. That is
> why in cases of necessity every man can baptise and absolve, which would not
> be possible if we were not all priests. This great grace and virtue of baptism
> and of the Christian estate they have quite destroyed and made us forget by
> their ecclesiastical law. In this way the Christians used to choose their
> bishops and priests out of the community; these being afterwards confirmed by
> other bishops, without the pomp that now prevails. So was it that St.
> Augustine, Ambrose, Cyprian, were bishops.
> 
>      Since, then, the temporal power is baptised as we are, and has the same
> faith and Gospel, we must allow it to be priest and bishop, and account its
> office an office that is proper and useful to the Christian community. For
> whatever issues from baptism may boast that it has been consecrated priest,
> bishop, and pope, although it does not beseem every one to exercise these
> offices. For, since we are all priests alike, no man may put himself forward
> or take upon himself, without our consent and election, to do that which we
> have all alike power to do. For, if a thing is common to all, no man may take
> it to himself without the wish and command of the community. And if it should
> happen that a man were appointed to one of these offices and deposed for
> abuses, he would be just what he was before. Therefore a priest should be
> nothing in Christendom but a functionary; as long as he holds his office, he
> has precedence of others; if he is deprived of it, he is a peasant or a
> citizen like the rest. Therefore a priest is verily no longer a priest after
> deposition. But now they have invented characteres indelebiles, [2] and pretend
> that a priest after deprivation still differs from a simple layman. They even
> imagine that a priest can never be anything but a priest-that is, that he can
> never become a layman. All this is nothing but mere talk and ordinance of
> human invention.
> 
> [2: In accordance with a doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church, the
> act of ordination impresses upon the priest an indelible character; so that he
> immutably retains the sacred dignity of priesthood.]
> 
>      It follows, then, that between laymen and priests, princes and bishops,
> or, as they call it, between spiritual and temporal persons, the only real
> difference is one of office and function, and not of estate; for they are all
> of the same spiritual estate, true priests, bishops, and popes, though their
> functions are not the same-just as among priests and monks every man has not
> the same functions. And this, as I said above, St. Paul says (Rom. xii.; 1
> Cor. xii.), and St. Peter (1 Peter ii.): "We, being many, are one body in
> Christ, and severally members one of another." Christ's body is not double or
> twofold, one temporal, the other spiritual. He is one Head, and He has one
> body.
> 
>      We see, then, that just as those that we call spiritual, or priests,
> bishops, or popes, do not differ from other Christians in any other or higher
> degree but in that they are to be concerned with the word of God and the
> sacraments-that being their work and office-in the same way the temporal
> authorities hold the sword and the rod in their hands to punish the wicked and
> to protect the good. A cobbler, a smith, a peasant, every man, has the office
> and function of his calling, and yet all alike are consecrated priests and
> bishops, and every man should by his office or function be useful and
> beneficial to the rest, so that various kinds of work may all be united for
> the furtherance of body and soul, just as the members of the body all serve
> one another.
> 
>      Now see what a Christian doctrine is this: that the temporal authority is
> not above the clergy, and may not punish it. This is as if one were to say the
> hand may not help, though the eye is in grievous suffering. Is it not
> unnatural, not to say unchristian, that one member may not help another, or
> guard it against harm? Nay, the nobler the member, the more the rest are bound
> to help it. Therefore I say, Forasmuch as the temporal power has been ordained
> by God for the punishment of the bad and the protection of the good, therefore
> we must let it do its duty throughout the whole Christian body, without
> respect of persons, whether it strikes popes, bishops, priests, monks, nuns,
> or whoever it may be. If it were sufficient reason for fettering the temporal
> power that it is inferior among the offices of Christianity to the offices of
> priest or confessor, or to the spiritual estate-if this were so, then we ought
> to restrain tailors, cobblers, masons, carpenters, cooks, cellarmen, peasants,
> and all secular workmen, from providing the Pope or bishops, priests and
> monks, with shoes, clothes, houses or victuals, or from paying them tithes.
> But if these laymen are allowed to do their work without restraint, what do
> the Romanist scribes mean by their laws? They mean that they withdraw
> themselves from the operation of temporal Christian power, simply in order
> that they may be free to do evil, and thus fulfil what St. Peter said: "There
> shall be false teachers among you, . . . and in covetousness shall they with
> feigned words make merchandise of you" (2 Peter ii. 1, etc.).
> 
>      Therefore the temporal Christian power must exercise its office without
> let or hindrance, without considering whom it may strike, whether pope, or
> bishop, or priest: whoever is guilty, let him suffer for it.
> 
>      Whatever the ecclesiastical law has said in opposition to this is merely
> the invention of Romanist arrogance. For this is what St. Paul says to all
> Christians: "Let every soul" (I presume including the popes) "be subject unto
> the higher powers; for they bear not the sword in vain: they serve the Lord
> therewith, for vengeance on evildoers and for praise to them that do well"
> (Rom. xiii. 1-4). Also St. Peter: "Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man
> for the Lord's sake, . . . for so is the will of God" (1 Peter ii. 13, 15). He
> has also foretold that men would come who should despise government (2 Peter
> ii.), as has come to pass through ecclesiastical law.
> 
>      Now, I imagine, the first paper wall is overthrown, inasmuch as the
> temporal power has become a member of the Christian body; although its work
> relates to the body, yet does it belong to the spiritual estate. Therefore, it
> must do its duty without let or hindrance upon all members of the whole body,
> to punish or urge, as guilt may deserve, or need may require, without respect
> of pope, bishops, or priests, let them threaten or excommunicate as they will.
> That is why a guilty priest is deprived of his priesthood before being given
> over to the secular arm; whereas this would not be right, if the secular sword
> had not authority over him already by Divine ordinance.
> 
>      It is, indeed, past bearing that the spiritual law should esteem so
> highly the liberty, life, and property of the clergy, as if laymen were not as
> good spiritual Christians, or not equally members of the Church. Why should
> your body, life, goods, and honour be free, and not mine, seeing that we are
> equal as Christians, and have received alike baptism, faith, spirit, and all
> things? If a priest is killed, the country is laid under an interdict [3]: why
> not also if a peasant is killed? Whence comes this great difference among
> equal Christians? Simply from human laws and inventions.
> 
> [3: By the Interdict, or general excommunication, whole countries,
> districts, or towns, or their respective rulers, were deprived of all the
> spiritual benefits of the Church, such as Divine service, the administering of
> the sacraments, etc.]
> 
>      It can have been no good spirit, either, that devised these evasions and
> made sin to go unpunished. For if, as Christ and the Apostles bid us, it is
> our duty to oppose the evil one and all his works and words, and to drive him
> away as well as may be, how then should we remain quiet and be silent when the
> Pope and his followers are guilty of devilish works and words? Are we for the
> sake of men to allow the commandments and the truth of God to be defeated,
> which at our baptism we vowed to support with body and soul? Truly we should
> have to answer for all souls that would thus be abandoned and led astray.
> 
>      Therefore it must have been the arch-devil himself who said, as we read
> in the ecclesiastical law, If the Pope were so perniciously wicked, as to be
> dragging souls in crowds to the devil, yet he could not be deposed. This is
> the accursed and devilish foundation on which they build at Rome, and think
> that the whole world is to be allowed to go to the devil rather than they
> should be opposed in their knavery. If a man were to escape punishment simply
> because he is above the rest, then no Christian might punish another, since
> Christ has commanded each of us to esteem himself the lowest and the humblest
> (Matt. xviii. 4; Luke ix. 48).
> 
>      Where there is sin, there remains no avoiding the punishment, as St.
> Gregory says, We are all equal, but guilt makes one subject to another. Now
> let us see how they deal with Christendom. They arrogate to themselves
> immunities without any warrant from the Scriptures, out of their own
> wickedness, whereas God and the Apostles made them subject to the secular
> sword; so that we must fear that it is the work of antichrist, or a sign of
> his near approach.
> 
> (b) The Second Wall
> 
> That no one may interpret the Scriptures but the Pope
> 
>      The second wall is even more tottering and weak: that they alone pretend
> to be considered masters of the Scriptures; although they learn nothing of
> them all their life. They assume authority, and juggle before us with
> impudent words, saying that the Pope cannot err in matters of faith, whether
> he be evil or good, albeit they cannot prove it by a single letter. That is
> why the canon law contains so many heretical and unchristian, nay unnatural,
> laws; but of these we need not speak now. For whereas they imagine the Holy
> Ghost never leaves them, however unlearned and wicked they may be, they grow
> bold enough to decree whatever they like. But were this true, where were the
> need and use of the Holy Scriptures? Let us burn them, and content ourselves
> with the unlearned gentlemen at Rome, in whom the Holy Ghost dwells, who,
> however, can dwell in pious souls only. If I had not read it, I could never
> have believed that the devil should have put forth such follies at Rome and
> find a following.
> 
>      But not to fight them with our own words, we will quote the Scriptures.
> St. Paul says, "If anything be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the
> first hold his peace" (1 Cor. xiv. 30). What would be the use of this
> commandment, if we were to believe him alone that teaches or has the highest
> seat? Christ Himself says, "And they shall be all taught of God." (St. John
> vi. 45). Thus it may come to pass that the Pope and his followers are wicked
> and not true Christians, and not being taught by God, have no true
> understanding, whereas a common man may have true understanding. Why should
> we then not follow him? Has not the Pope often erred? Who could help
> Christianity, in case the Pope errs, if we do not rather believe another who
> has the Scriptures for him?
> 
>      Therefore it is a wickedly devised fable-and they cannot quote a single
> letter to confirm it-that it is for the Pope alone to interpret the Scriptures
> or to confirm the interpretation of them. They have assumed the authority of
> their own selves. And though they say that this authority was given to St.
> Peter when the keys were given to him, it is plain enough that the keys were
> not given to St. Peter alone, but to the whole community. Besides, the keys
> were not ordained for doctrine or authority, but for sin, to bind or loose,
> and what they claim besides this from the keys is mere invention. But what
> Christ said to St. Peter: "I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not"
> (St. Luke xxii. 32), cannot relate to the Pope, inasmuch as the greater part
> of the Popes have been without faith, as they are themselves forced to
> acknowledge; nor did Christ pray for Peter alone, but for all the Apostles
> and all Christians, as He says, "Neither pray I for these alone, but for them
> also which shall believe on Me through their word" (St. John xvii.). Is not
> this plain enough?
> 
>      Only consider the matter. They must needs acknowledge that there are
> pious Christians among us that have the true faith, spirit, understanding,
> word, and mind of Christ: why then should we reject their word and
> understanding, and follow a pope who has neither understanding nor spirit?
> Surely this were to deny our whole faith and the Christian Church. Moreover,
> if the article of our faith is right, "I believe in the holy Christian
> Church," the Pope cannot alone be right; else we must say, "I believe in the
> Pope of Rome," and reduce the Christian Church to one man, which is a devilish
> and damnable heresy. Besides that, we are all priests, as I have said, and
> have all one faith, one Gospel, one Sacrament; how then should we not have
> the power of discerning and judging what is right or wrong in matters of
> faith? What becomes of St. Paul's words, "But he that is spiritual judgeth
> all things, yet he himself is judged of no man" (1 Cor. ii. 15), and also,
> "we having the same spirit of faith"? (2 Cor. iv. 13). Why then should we
> not perceive as well as an unbelieving pope what agrees or disagrees with our
> faith?
> 
>      By these and many other texts we should gain courage and freedom, and
> should not let the spirit of liberty (as St. Paul has it) be frightened away
> by the inventions of the popes; we should boldly judge what they do and what
> they leave undone by our own believing understanding of the Scriptures, and
> force them to follow the better understanding, and not their own. Did not
> Abraham in old days have to obey his Sarah, who was in stricter bondage to
> him than we are to any one on earth? Thus, too, Balaam's ass was wiser than
> the prophet. If God spoke by an ass against a prophet, why should He not
> speak by a pious man against the Pope? Besides, St. Paul withstood St. Peter
> as being in error (Gal. ii.). Therefore it behoves every Christian to aid the
> faith by understanding and defending it and by condemning all errors.
> 
> (c) The Third Wall
> 
> That no one may call a council but the Pope
> 
>      The third wall falls of itself, as soon as the first two have fallen; for
> if the Pope acts contrary to the Scriptures, we are bound to stand by the
> Scriptures, to punish and to constrain him, according to Christ's commandment,
> "Moreover, if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his
> fault between thee and him alone; if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy
> brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more,
> that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
> And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the Church; but if he
> neglect to hear the Church, let him be unto thee as a heathen man and a
> publican" (St. Matt. xviii. 15-17). Here each member is commanded to take care
> for the other; much more then should we do this, if it is a ruling member of
> the community that does evil, which by its evil-doing causes great harm and
> offence to the others. If then I am to accuse him before the Church, I must
> collect the Church together. Moreover, they can show nothing in the Scriptures
> giving the Pope sole power to call and confirm councils; they have nothing but
> their own laws; but these hold good only so long as they are not injurious to
> Christianity and the laws of God. Therefore, if the Pope deserves punishment,
> these laws cease to bind us, since Christendom would suffer, if he were not
> punished by a council. Thus we read (Acts xv.) that the council of the
> Apostles was not called by St. Peter, but by all the Apostles and the elders.
> But if the right to call it had lain with St. Peter alone, it would not have
> been a Christian council, but a heretical conciliabulum. Moreover, the most
> celebrated council of all-that of Nicaea-was neither called nor confirmed
> by the Bishop of Rome, but by the Emperor Constantine; and after him many
> other emperors have done the same, and yet the councils called by them were
> accounted most Christian. But if the Pope alone had the power, they must all
> have been heretical. Moreover, if I consider the councils that the Pope has
> called, I do not find that they produced any notable results.
> 
>      Therefore when need requires, and the Pope is a cause of offence to
> Christendom, in these cases whoever can best do so, as a faithful member of
> the whole body, must do what he can to procure a true free council. This no
> one can do so well as the temporal authorities, especially since they are
> fellow-Christians, fellow-priests, sharing one spirit and one power in all
> things, and since they should exercise the office that they have received
> from God without hindrance, whenever it is necessary and useful that it
> should be exercised. Would it not be most unnatural, if a fire were to break
> out in a city, and every one were to keep still and let it burn on and on,
> whatever might be burnt, simply because they had not the mayor's authority,
> or because the fire perchance broke out at the mayor's house? Is not every
> citizen bound in this case to rouse and call in the rest? How much more should
> this be done in the spiritual city of Christ, if a fire of offence breaks out,
> either at the Pope's government or wherever it may! The like happens if an
> enemy attacks a town. The first to rouse up the rest earns glory and thanks.
> Why then should not he earn glory that descries the coming of our enemies from
> hell and rouses and summons all Christians?
> 
>      But as for their boasts of their authority, that no one must oppose it,
> this is idle talk. No one in Christendom has any authority to do harm, or to
> forbid others to prevent harm being done. There is no authority in the Church
> but for reformation. Therefore if the Pope wished to use his power to prevent
> the calling of a free council, so as to prevent the reformation of the Church,
> we must not respect him or his power; and if he should begin to excommunicate
> and fulminate, we must despise this as the doings of a madman, and, trusting
> in God, excommunicate and repel him as best we may. For this his usurped
> power is nothing; he does not possess it, and he is at once overthrown by a
> text from the Scriptures. For St. Paul says to the Corinthians "that God has
> given us authority for edification, and not for destruction (2 Cor. x. 8).
> Who will set this text at nought? It is the power of the devil and of
> antichrist that prevents what would serve for the reformation of Christendom.
> Therefore we must not follow it, but oppose it with our body, our goods, and
> all that we have. And even if a miracle were to happen in favour of the Pope
> against the temporal power, or if some were to be stricken by a plague, as
> they sometimes boast has happened, all this is to be held as having been done
> by the devil in order to injure our faith in God, as was foretold by Christ:
> "There shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall show great
> sings and wonders, insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the
> very elect" (Matt. xxiv. 23); and St. Paul tells the Thessalonians that the
> coming of antichrist shall be "after the working of Satan with all power and
> signs and lying wonders" (2 Thess. ii. 9).
> 
>      Therefore let us hold fast to this: that Christian power can do nothing
> against Christ, as St. Paul says, "For we can do nothing against Christ, but
> for Christ" (2 Cor. xiii. 8). But, if it does anything against Christ, it is
> the power of antichrist and the devil, even if it rained and hailed wonders
> and plagues. Wonders and plagues prove nothing, especially in these latter
> evil days, of which false wonders are foretold in all the Scriptures.
> Therefore we must hold fast to the words of God with an assured faith; then
> the devil will soon cease his wonders.
> 
>      And now I hope the false, lying spectre will be laid with which the
> Romanists have long terrified and stupefied our consciences. And it will be
> seen that, like all the rest of us, they are subject to the temporal sword;
> that they have no authority to interpret the Scriptures by force without
> skill; and that they have no power to prevent a council, or to pledge it in
> accordance with their pleasure, or to bind it beforehand, and deprive it of
> its freedom; and that if they do this, they are verily of the fellowship of
> antichrist and the devil, and having nothing of Christ but the name.
>
> — *The Three Walls Of The Romanists*