The Three Walls Of The Romanists
Exported from 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