Against the Execrable Bull of the Antichrist, by Martin Luther

Martin Luther’s Against the Execrable Bull of the Antichrist (1520) is his vehement response to Pope Leo X’s excommunication bull, Exsurge Domine. Luther accuses the bull of being the work of the Antichrist, specifically targeting the Roman Curia and the papal theologian John Eck. He believes the bull condemns his teachings without providing scriptural justification or reason, instead relying on papal authority alone.

Luther expresses disbelief that the Pope and the Church could be so irrational as to issue such a document. He mocks the bull’s reliance on vague and unsubstantiated condemnations, labeling it ignorant and cowardly. He challenges the Church’s failure to prove his heresies with sound doctrine or scripture. Throughout, Luther affirms his commitment to the truth of Christ, asserting that his articles are based on scripture and true Christian doctrine.

He passionately rejects the bull’s accusations, curses it, and declares that the true Antichrist is reigning through the Roman Church. Luther sees his own excommunication as an honor and a sign that he is defending God’s truth. He concludes by offering himself up for martyrdom rather than retracting any of his teachings and warns Christians to reject the false teachings of the Papacy, declaring that the true Antichrist is present in Rome.

Against the Execrable Bull of the Antichrist, Martin Luther, 1520 (23)

JESUS. MARTIN LUTHER wishes the Christian reader the grace of Christ for eternal salvation.

A rumor has reached me, Christian reader, that a certain bull has been issued against me and has spread almost over the entire earth before it even reached me, the one it rages against exclusively and to whom it was especially directed. Perhaps, as a daughter of the night and darkness, it feared the light of my face. Nonetheless, thanks to the help of many friends, I have finally been able to see this owl in its image. As a result, I am still uncertain whether my Papists are mocking me with some infamous and anonymous pamphlet, or whether they are seriously and truly mad at Rome.

For neither the style nor the process of this bull seems consistent with the Roman Curia. Moreover, it presses hard by attacking and condemning articles that are plainly and manifestly the most Christian, so that it seems most likely to me that this is the offspring of that monstrous John Eck, a man full of lies, simulations, errors, and heresies, now refuted and confused.

The suspicion is increased because the same Eck is said to have been the Roman apostle of this bull. For indeed, no apostle would be more worthy of such a mission. In recent days, I had heard that a certain bull was being prepared in the city against me—one that was fierce and cruel, produced by the same arch-trickster Eck, as both the style and tone suggest—but one which was supremely displeasing to all good and learned men, and thus it was postponed or even suppressed.

But whatever the case may be, I do not find it hard to believe that wherever Eck is heard and has influence, there lies the kingdom of the Antichrist, and men dare any madness. Meanwhile, I will act, so as not to believe that Leo X, the Roman bishop, along with his learned cardinals, could be the author of such madness. Not because I am eager to preserve the honor of the Roman name, but rather because I do not wish my pride to swell too much, nor do I deem myself worthy to suffer such beautiful and glorious things for the truth of God.

For if the Roman bishop were truly raging against me in such a manner, who could be happier before God than Luther, condemned for such an evident truth by so high a pinnacle? What more could I wish for than to never be absolved, reconciled, or communicated by this most ignorant, most impious, and most insane Antichrist? Oh, blessed day, blessed death, to be offered with joy and utmost gratitude to God, should it ever come to pass, and if, in this cause, I am seized and destroyed. But let others receive the honor of such a name, and let this cause seek a martyr more worthy. I, for my sins, deserve something else.

Let everyone form their own opinion about the Romans. As for me, I regard whoever was the author of this bull as the Antichrist, and I write against the Antichrist, seeking, as much as it is in me, to redeem the truth of Christ, which he attempts to extinguish.

And first, that nothing in me shall be gained from all that he intended: I protest before God and our Lord Jesus Christ, and before his holy angels and all the world, that I totally dissent with all my heart from the condemnation of this bull, which I curse and execrate as a sacrilegious enemy and blasphemy against Christ, the Son of God and our Lord. Amen.

Next, with full confidence in the spirit within me, I assert and embrace the articles condemned by this bull, and I declare to all Christians that they must be upheld under the threat of eternal damnation, and that those who agree with the bull are to be regarded as Antichrists. And by these writings, with the united spirit of all who purely know and worship Christ, I regard and shun them as pagans, according to the command of our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen. Let this be my recantation, O bull, truly a daughter of bulls.

With this confession or protestation made, and with all who read it as witnesses, before I proceed to defend and declare the articles, I wish to prelude with a few arguments to refute this bull, the first of which I shall take from the ignorance of this Antichrist.

For the apostle Peter commands that we be ready to give a reason for the faith and hope that is in us (1 Peter 3:15). And Paul instructs that a bishop should be able to exhort in sound doctrine and refute those who contradict (Titus 1:9).

These are the very things I have demanded for the past three years from Rome or those who think like Rome. We read that this was observed most diligently by the ancient fathers whenever they condemned heresies, and not even the Apostles decreed anything in their councils unless the Holy Scripture had first been cited.

Thus, when I expected that they would make grapes by teaching me with the testimony of Scripture, behold, they made wild grapes (Isaiah 5:4), condemning me with their own bare words, while I have fortified my position with so many Scriptures.

I ask you, most ignorant Antichrist, how could you have combined such supreme ignorance with such supreme rashness, presuming that all men are stupefied and that they will believe you are triumphant with your bare words against Scripture fully armed? Have you learned this method of condemning from the magistrates of Cologne and Louvain?

If this is how the Church condemns errors—by merely saying, “I do not approve, I deny, I do not want”—then who could not condemn, no matter how foolish, asinine, blind, or senseless? Will your brazen, harlot-like forehead not be ashamed to dare to oppose the thunderbolts of heavenly words with your empty and powerless utterances?

Indeed, it is a shameful and worthy condemnation for the Antichrist when so many Scriptures stand against him, and he has not even a single letter to oppose, but counters only with the phrase, “I condemn.”

Why do we not believe the Turks? Why do we not admit the Jews? Why do we not honor the heretics, who also condemn our beliefs, if merely condemning is sufficient? If only for this reason we do not yield to them, it is because they condemn us not without Scriptures and arguments. But we now, with a new custom, condemn without Scriptures or reasons.

What then do I think could be the reason for such an empty and defenseless bull, which indeed marches forth as a true bull? It must be notable ignorance, for seeing that my articles were true, and being unwilling to tolerate them, nor able to refute them, they tried to frighten me with the vain threat of a worthless document.

But Luther, accustomed to wars, is not terrified by bulls, and he has learned to distinguish between worthless paper and the omnipotent Word of God.

A further example of their ignorance is that, with their consciences troubled, they did not dare to list the articles individually or categorize them. They feared, after all, that they might declare something heretical which they could not prove to be either erroneous or scandalous. Therefore, they resorted to using the adverb “respectively” (Exsurge #10), and after listing the articles, they say that some are heretical, some erroneous, and some scandalous, respectively (Exsurge #58). This is as much as to say:

We think some of them are heretical, others erroneous, others scandalous, but we do not know which are which, or what kind, or how many. O timid ignorance, how slippery and elusive you are, how you hate the light! You twist and turn everything to avoid being caught, just like a certain Proteus, but even in this way, you will not escape; rather, you will be more entrapped and overturned in your cunning.

So, come forth, most ignorant Antichrist, teach us your wisdom. Distribute your own words, say if you yourself know what you said. Show who is the heretic, who is the erroneous one, who is the scandalous one, and of what kind each is.

It is fitting for such a magnificent condemner to know what he is condemning. It would be most disgraceful to condemn a heretical article and not even be able to name it. I do not want to be instructed “respectively,” but absolutely and certainly. For I belong to the Ockhamist faction, which despises such distinctions and treats everything as absolute, so that I may thus jest at this foolishness.

See then, my reader, the remarkable ignorance of the Antichrist, who in his miserable cunning presumed to conceal himself under the adverb “respectively.” Not only does he fail to teach the truth and the cause of condemnation, but he also does not even dare to show the error, nor does he indicate what he condemns—yet he condemns it.

Is it not the most eloquent speech to speak and not know what you are saying? Indeed, we wish a whole supply of hellebore for these foolish people of the bull. This is how all adversaries of the truth must reason and act.

But I know what pain troubles this Juno. It is that my Eck, remembering how he was humiliated in Leipzig when he, with foaming lips, shouted “heretic” three hundred times against me, vehemently in his theater, over my Hussite articles, and then could not prove it. For the condemnation at the Council of Constance, which I had brought forth to Eck’s dismay, did not designate any specific article as heretical. Like this bull, it too, in its ignorance, said that some articles were heretical, others erroneous, and others offensive (Exsurge #37).

Upon hearing this, Eck, in his shameful rashness, realized falsely and deceitfully that he had cried out “heretic” against me without cause. So he wanted to remedy this wound of his in Rome and establish the lie of his rashness (Exsurge #92f). But the deceitful sophist will not succeed, as Christ prevents it. For I still demand that they speak absolutely, not respectively; distinctly, not confusedly; certainly, not deceitfully; clearly, not obscurely; individually, not generically. Let them tell us who is, and who is not, a heretic. But when will they do this? When Christ and Belial agree, or light and darkness are united.

What then shall I do in the meantime? First, I will despise these most cowardly and ignorant Papists, apostles of the Antichrist, and mock them with Elijah, saying: “If Baal is God, let him answer. Perhaps he is drunk or on a journey—shout louder, for surely he is a god” (1 Kings 18:27).

For what else do these asinine followers of the bull deserve, who condemn what they do not know, and admit they do not know? Then, I shall rest assured that I am to be regarded as neither heretical, nor erroneous, nor scandalous until they can not only convict me but simply show, in plain terms, in which article I am such.

Indeed, I am not asking these blockhead Papists to prove it, but simply to show the error—that is, to demonstrate whether they even know what they are babbling about, or if they are even aware of their own words. For as long as they do not designate a heretical article, I am free to deny that any presented article is heretical and to assert that it is Catholic.

But who would not favor this supreme impiety and ignorance of the Antichrist? For good men distinguish heretical articles from erroneous ones, and those from offensive and scandalous ones. With this most acute distinction of the sharpest minds, we learn that what is erroneous is not heretical.

And what is not heretical, what concern is it of ecclesiastical condemners who are only supposed to condemn heresies? For what is not heretical is Catholic, as Christ said: “He who is not against you is for you” (Luke 11:23). Indeed, I wish these magnificent men would grant me an article that is erroneous in the Church, but not heretical. For if it is erroneous, it differs in no way from a heretical article, except for the obstinacy of the one asserting it. All things are either equally true or false, although feelings toward one truth or falsehood may be greater or lesser.

You see, therefore, my bull-bearers cannot show me an article that is erroneous but not heretical, and once again they babble like madmen who do not know what they are saying, condemning an error without knowing it. An error that is not heretical cannot exist, neither in word nor in fact, just as the articles are, so too is the condemnation.

It is equal madness to call something scandalous that is neither heretical nor erroneous. I beg, show me such a thing—not only in my writings but in the words and writings of any man from the beginning of the world to its end. Who then forced my Papists into these absurdities, if not their furious ignorance?

Unless perhaps they are calling something scandalous in the same way that true and Catholic things are sometimes scandalous. For nothing is more scandalous than the truth; indeed, truth alone is scandalous to the proud and foolish. As it is said of Christ in 1 Corinthians 1: “We preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles” (1 Corinthians 1:23), and in Luke 2: “This one is set for the fall and rise of many in Israel” (Luke 2:34).

Therefore, when my Papists separate scandalous things from heretical and erroneous ones, and what is neither heretical nor erroneous is Catholic and true, it follows that the articles they deem scandalous are, in their view, Catholic and true. O what a fitting condemnation for the Papists!

See, my reader, how blind impiety turns upon itself, mocking and deceiving itself. How easily it is caught in its own words, how imprudent and foolish it is in all its endeavors. Not only does it fail to prove any error or scandal, but when it tries to show something, it speaks impossible things that contradict and shamefully oppose themselves. Where now is your miserable and wretched “respectively,” miserable bull? To what did you look? To the abyss of your impiety and ignorance, of course.

The same must be said about what is “offensive,” for these offenses must neither be scandalous nor erroneous, nor heretical, as they are so distinctly categorized by the Papists. Who, then, could not marvel at the great intellects of the Papists, who could discover that something is offensive in the Church, yet neither false, nor heretical, nor scandalous, but true, Catholic, and edifying—and still condemn it?

Who would not desire to be condemned by these madmen, who, by their very condemnation, show themselves to approve what they condemn and condemn what they approve? This is to prove themselves insensible like stones and logs, publicly displaying their utmost shame.

So, go ahead, you impious and senseless Papists, and write soberly if you want to write anything, for it seems that this bull was either produced at a nocturnal gathering of prostitutes or confused in a fit of madness during the dog days of summer. For no fool would rage in this way.

Let us throw back this imprudence of the Antichrist into his own face and judge and condemn him by his own words so that he may learn, from now on, to lie more cleverly and with a better memory. For, as the proverb says, a liar must have a good memory.

If some articles are offensive, while others are heretical, and you condemn something that is not heretical, and therefore is true and Catholic, even if it is offensive six hundred times, does not your impudent mouth condemn itself? Does it not show that you are not only guilty of heresy but also of extreme impiety, blasphemy, and treason against divine truth? Does it not reveal that you truly are that man who opposes and exalts himself above everything that is called or worshiped as God? (2 Thessalonians 2:4)

Are you not that man of sin, the son of perdition, who denies God, his Creator, and rejects the love of truth to establish the operation of your error, that we may believe in unrighteousness, as Paul foretold? (2 Thessalonians 2:12)

For if an article is not heretical, it cannot be offensive or scandalous—except to heretics, Antichrists, and devils opposed to piety.

See then how beautifully this most impudent and imprudent bull, in condemning me as both heretical and offensive, openly declares its authors to be true heretics and enemies of God. There is no knowledge, no counsel against the Lord. Blind impiety is caught by its own words. Truly, as it is written: “He who rolls a stone will have it roll back on his own head.”

And what is most beautiful of all, by this impious contradiction, the thoughts of their hearts are revealed, and the wickedness that they wanted most to conceal is exposed with incredible imprudence. For it is clear that they are ready to condemn the entire truth at once. Since they claim that something is heretical without being able to show or name it, nor do they know or dare to do so, what do we understand from this except that they are wholeheartedly the enemies of Christ, prepared to condemn all truth? And yet, in their wretched hypocrisy, they pretend to condemn heresies.

Behold, O you foolish bull, learn at last what it means for Christ to be a sign of contradiction and a stumbling stone. How quickly and easily all your inner impiety and shame are laid bare by the very words with which you tried in vain to cover them.

We have, then, from this first and clear argument, that this bull is nothing but the work of Antichrist, the greatest adversary of God and piety. Let either Eck or the Pope acknowledge it if they dare, and they will know by what name and in what esteem they are regarded by us.

For in one heap, all these worst names converge: impiety, blasphemy, ignorance, imprudence, hypocrisy, falsehood. In short, Satan himself, along with his Antichrist.

This impiety also reveals itself no less clearly in what I shall now mention. For this excellent bull decrees, with the most impudent and open words, that even those of my books in which there are no errors should be burned, so that my memory may be utterly erased.

Can you, Christian reader, now doubt that the infernal dragon is speaking through this bull? It is said among the common folk that the donkey sings badly because it begins its song too high. Likewise, this bull would have sung more favorably if it had not lifted its blasphemous mouth toward heaven with impudence greater than even the devil’s, intending to condemn even the truth that has been acknowledged and proven.

For until now, Satan has oppressed the truth under the guise of truth, whenever he has oppressed it. But this man of sin, the adversary who has exalted himself above God, has now cast aside the guise and, with an open face, dares to condemn, without fear, the truth known and proven by himself and by all, even in the Church of God. What if this were happening in Turkey? Where would such a voice be worthy of residing, I ask, if not in the lowest depths of hell? And you, followers of the Antichrist, do you not fear that the very stones and wood will bleed in response to this most horrible spectacle of your impiety and blasphemy?

Where are you now, most excellent Emperor Charles? Where are you, Christian kings and princes? You gave your name to Christ in baptism, and can you tolerate these hellish voices of the Antichrist? Where are you, bishops? Where are you, teachers? Where are all those who confess Christ? Can you remain silent in the face of these horrible monstrosities of the Papists?

The Church of God has become a spectacle for Satan, a mockery, and woe to all who live in these times. The wrath of God is coming, it is coming upon the Papists, the enemies of the cross of Christ and the truth of God, as they oppose and hinder all men, preventing the truth from being preached and taught, as Paul says of the Jews.

Imagine, if you will, that I am exactly as that slanderous and cursed Bull wishes to see me: a heretic, erroneous, schismatic, offensive, scandalous, in several writings. What have these Catholic, Christian, true, edifying, and peaceful writings done to deserve condemnation? Where did you, lost Papists, learn this religion, that you would condemn and burn the holy and pure truth of God because of a wicked man?

Can you not destroy people without also destroying the truth? Will you uproot the wheat along with the weeds? Will you scatter the grain along with the chaff? Why do you embrace Origen in Catholic writings and not completely abolish him? Indeed, why do you not even partially condemn the impious Aristotle, who teaches nothing but errors? Why do you not burn the impious, barbarous, ignorant, and heretical Papal Decretals? Why, I ask, do you not do these things unless you have been placed in this sacred position for no other reason than to be the abomination foretold by Daniel, which condemns the truth and establishes falsehood and the operation of error? For nothing else befits the seat of the Antichrist.

Therefore, I address you, Leo X, and you, Lords Cardinals of Rome, and all who hold any office in Rome. I freely say to your face: if this Bull has been issued in your name and with your knowledge, and you acknowledge it as yours, I will also use the authority given to me in Baptism, by the mercy of God, to become a child of God and a co-heir with Christ, founded on the firm rock that neither the gates of hell, nor heaven, nor earth can shake. And I say, warn, and exhort you in the Lord to return to your senses and put an end to these diabolical blasphemies and impieties, which are far too audacious, and to do so quickly.

If you do not, know that I, along with all who worship Christ, consider your seat, possessed and oppressed by Satan himself, to be the condemned seat of the Antichrist, to which we will not only refuse obedience or submission but which we will detest and execrate as the chief and greatest enemy of Christ. We are prepared for this conviction of ours, not only to bear your foolish censures with joy but also to request that you never absolve us or count us among your number. Instead, we offer ourselves willingly to death in order to fulfill your bloody tyranny.

And if the Spirit of Christ and the impulse of our faith have any power, we hereby, in these writings, condemn you and, along with this Bull and all the Papal Decretals of Satan, deliver you to the destruction of the flesh, so that your spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord, together with us. In the name of Jesus Christ, our Lord, whom you persecute, Amen.

For He still lives and reigns, and in Him, I have no doubt, our Lord Jesus Christ will soon come and destroy with the breath of His mouth and the brightness of His coming this man of sin and son of perdition, just as we cannot deny.

If the Pope is the author of these monstrosities, then he is truly that final, worst, and most infamous Antichrist, overthrowing the entire world with the workings of his error, which we see fulfilled everywhere.

But where is the fervor of my faith taking me? I am not yet fully persuaded that this Bull comes from the Pope, but rather from that apostle of impiety, Eck, who, with his ravenous jaws, hastens to swallow me up, singing, “Let us swallow him alive, like the grave, and whole, like those who go down to the pit.”

To this man, in his madness, it seems a small or even profitable thing to extinguish the truth of God, as long as he can fulfill his impious desires and fratricidal ambitions. O how strong the Church is today, deserving of tears of blood. But who hears our laments? Who comforts those who weep? The fury of the Lord is inexorable upon us.

These same men, being very clever and gracious, add something ridiculous to temper their seriousness with a bit of humor. They write to me that, among all the immense efforts they have expended against me, they have also offered money and financial support for my journey to Rome (Exsurge #70).

So, Rome’s new charity, which has drained the world of its money and ravaged it with its intolerable tyranny, now offers me alone money! But I know well whose handiwork this lie is—the Cardinal Cajetan, who was born and shaped for composing lies, and having fulfilled his legation most happily, is now safely in Rome, claiming that money was offered to me on his behalf when in Augsburg he was in such sordid and infamous poverty that he thought he might starve his entire household.

But it is fitting for a bull to be a bull, empty of truth and wisdom. And it is the right of these condemners to command us to believe that they are truthful while they lie, Catholic while they teach heresy, and Christian while they establish the Antichrist, through their universal declaration: “Whatever you bind,” since, with nothing excepted, everything is permitted to them. (31)

And not rather have they been conceived by the devil, who not only lies openly but, surpassing all impudence, uses the same lie to gain popular applause and stir up envy against me, while pretending, with another lie, that they have shown me charity. If there were any truth, piety, or seriousness left in these Roman tyrants, they should have taken the utmost care to say and act in such a clear and open way that no adversary could suspect any evil. But now, even if there were no other reasons to raise doubts about this bull, this gross and absurd lie alone proves it to be frivolous, vain, and false.

Would Rome offer me money? And what of the fact that I have confirmed—that certain sums of gold, by the bankers (what they call the bank), have been allocated in Germany to assassins who would take care of Luther?

With such methods and documents, that holy Apostolic See, once the teacher of faith and the mother of churches—now long since Antichristian and repeatedly proven heretical—fights, reigns, and triumphs today. If they had fought with the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God, they would not be ignorant of it. Therefore, to avoid ever being forced to do so by danger, they rage in the Christian world with wars, slaughter, bloodshed, deaths, and devastation, destroying and ruining everything. And yet they are still “most holy fathers in the Lord” and “vicars and pastors of Christ’s sheep.”

But let us also play along. Let them still send money, for I willingly renounce the safeguard or safe conduct they might offer, so as not to burden them too heavily, as long as they provide money. I only expect enough to equip 20,000 infantry and 5,000 cavalry, so that I may safely go to Rome. By this means, I will secure enough protection for myself, and this is because of Rome, which devours its inhabitants—where no faith is kept, and none is safe—where the “most holy fathers” kill their beloved sons in the love of God and brothers destroy brothers in obedience to Christ, just as is the Roman custom and style.

Meanwhile, I will be free from the summons of this most venerable Bull. O you unfortunate fools, who are so confused by truth and conscience that you cannot even lie wisely, nor dare to speak the truth, and yet you cannot find rest in your utter disgrace.

The Bull also introduces a new Latin. For when Augustine said that he would not have believed the Gospel if the authority of the Church had not moved him, (Exsurge #60), this famous Bull promptly defines this Catholic Church as a few most reverend Cardinals, superiors of religious orders, masters of theology, and doctors of law.

The Bull glories in being born from their counsel, as though they were the new offspring of the universal Church. Certainly, this is a fortunate birth of a new and unheard-of Catholic Church, which, if Augustine, that most ardent opponent of sects, could see, he would not hesitate to call the Synagogue of Satan.

See then, the madness of the Papists! The universal Church is a few Cardinals, superiors, and doctors—perhaps scarcely twenty men—who may not even be members of a single chapel or altar. And since the Church is the communion of saints, as we pray in the Creed, it must be that all who are not among these twenty men are excluded from the communion of saints, that is, from the universal Church.

Thus, whatever these so-called holy men think, that immediately becomes the belief of the universal Church. And if they are liars, heretics, and Antichrists, then they hold only abominable beliefs.

Could anyone have believed that such madness could take hold in Rome? Is there any trace of brain or heart left in them? Augustine speaks of the Church spread throughout the world, confessing the Gospel in harmony. God did not want any other book to be approved with such concord in the world as the Holy Scriptures, as Augustine says in his Confessions, so that schisms would not arise through other books being accepted. This is what the impious Roman See has sought to undermine with its decrees for many centuries and, alas, has largely succeeded in doing.

But the universal Church has not yet agreed with Rome. There are Christians in the East, North, and South, content with the Gospel, caring nothing for Rome’s attempts to make itself the universal Church while accusing all others of schism. Rome itself is the first to have separated from the whole and has futilely attempted to draw everything to itself, becoming the prince and source of all schisms through its tyranny.

Therefore, no one should expect that the Catholic Church will ever embrace what this impious Bull proclaims, nor that what is truly Roman will immediately be Catholic. No Catholic book, as I have said, will remain beyond the sacred Scriptures.

The Roman Church has enough glory being but a small part of the universal Church, vexing itself with its own decrees. This Bull belongs rather to the Roman Curia, for such wisdom and religion befit the seat of Satan. It is that which strives to be regarded as the universal Church and arrogantly, yet vainly, imposes its foolish and impious bulls upon the entire world as Catholic dogma.

Their recklessness has grown to the point where they presume, based solely on their power, without any teaching or holiness of life, to judge all people, their words, and deeds, as if by their power alone or the height of their spirit, they are the dwelling place and Church of Christ. By this reasoning, Satan, as the prince of the world, or even the Turk, could be called the Church of Christ.

But even the governments of nations do not tolerate rulers who lack wisdom and goodness. How much less should the Church, where it is said, “The spiritual man judges all things, but he himself is judged by no one” (1 Corinthians 2:15), though this refers not only to the Pope or the Roman Curia unless they are truly spiritual.

However, I firmly oppose their entire recklessness with the invincible words of Paul in 1 Corinthians 14:30: “If a revelation is made to someone else sitting there, the first one should remain silent.” Here, it is made clear that the Pope, or anyone else greater, should remain silent if something is revealed to another, even if that other person is lower in the Church.

Relying on this authority, I, in defiance of the recklessness of the Bull, confidently undertake to defend the articles, considering no one’s mere condemnation to be of any importance, not even if it is the Pope with his entire Church, unless they teach me through Scripture.

THE FIRST ARTICLE:

“It is a heretical but common opinion that the sacraments of the new law confer grace on those who do not place an obstacle.” (Exsurge #17)

I recognize this as my article, and I ask the question. You, most esteemed judges of “respectively,” who have declared that some are heretics, others are erroneous, and others are scandalous. To what does this article relate? To heresy? To error? To scandal? Or to what did you yourselves look when condemning it? To the Holy Scriptures? To the holy fathers? To the faith? To the Church? What do you say? I do not yet ask you to prove it; I merely request that you indicate what is lacking in me, so that I may know.

Do you want me to speak plainly? Very well. This article has two references: One looks toward the Papists who condemn it, among whom I see some who are “respectively” mules, and others who are horses without understanding—those who understand absolutely nothing but condemn everything.

The other looks toward Holy Scripture, which teaches in Romans 14:23 that “everything that does not come from faith is sin.” From this, it follows that the sacraments of the new law do not confer grace on unbelievers, since unbelief is the greatest sin and the most obvious obstacle, and grace is given only to those who believe.

For faith alone does not place an obstacle; everything else is an obstacle, even if it is not the obstacle the sophists dream of, regarding the actual intention of outward sin. Therefore, I confess that this article is not mine alone but is the truth of the Catholic and (35) Christian faith. But the Bull that condemns it is twice heretical, impious, and blasphemous, along with all those who follow it, for they neglect the sin of unbelief and foolishly claim that the obstacle is removed if a person ceases to sin, even if that person does not have a single good thought in their unbelief. However, I have already proven and will further prove this more extensively in my writings if these Roman babblers ever dare to prove anything to refute me.

THE SECOND ARTICLE:

“To deny that sin remains in a child after baptism is to trample on both Paul and Christ.” (Exsurge #18)

I would demand that they prove this is rightly condemned, if my lords, blinded by their “respective” reasoning, were not too blind to see what they mean by condemning it. I do not know whether they consider it heretical or erroneous. And what’s surprising about that, since even the condemners themselves don’t know?

Therefore, I assert this article as well, based on the words of the Apostle in Romans 7:25: “I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin.” Here, the Apostle himself confesses that he sins in the flesh or serves sin. And in 1 Corinthians 1:30, Christ is made to us by God “wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption.” How does He sanctify those who are already sanctified unless, as Revelation says, “Let the one who is holy continue to be holy”? But to be sanctified means to be cleansed from sins.

But what do the Bull’s authors, with their “respective” judgments, care about Paul the Apostle? They are the whole universal Church, in whose authority Paul either stands or falls, being but a member and part of the Church. May the Lord rebuke you, Satan, and these satanic Papists of yours.

THE THIRD ARTICLE:

“Concupiscence, even if no actual sin is present, delays the soul leaving the body from entering heaven.” (Exsurge #19)

On this point, I have defined nothing so far, but I have argued it quite sufficiently and reasonably. And to this day, I am uncertain what happens to such a soul. But our papal moles, since they cannot yet see why this article is worthy of being condemned, dare to assert something that the entire universal Church does not know.

Yet, disregarding this futile and foolish condemnation, I still hold the article to be probably true. For since concupiscence is truly sin, as I have proven from Romans 7 and Galatians 5, and since sin prevents entry into heaven, as it is written, “Nothing impure will enter it,” I believe that concupiscence delays entry into heaven.

Nor do I care one bit for their fantasies, in which they minimize the sin of concupiscence and call it merely a defect or the punishment of sin, against clear Scripture, which calls it sin and teaches that it is healed by grace (which is the medicine for real, not imaginary, sin).

FOURTH ARTICLE (35)

“Imperfect charity in a dying person necessarily brings with it great fear, which by itself is enough to make punishment in purgatory necessary and to hinder entrance into the kingdom of heaven.” (Exsurge #20)

This follows from the previous article, which I have equally not asserted, although I still affirm it as probably true, even though I requested a dispensation. I do so of my own accord, disregarding the Bull, which cannot offer any other proof except this: “We are superior in the Church’s tyranny, indeed we are the Church itself; therefore, we are the most learned and the holiest, full of the Holy Spirit, incapable of error, even though we reek of every kind of filth, ignorance, and crime throughout the world, like some foul swamp.”

But these arguments make no progress with me, though they do with those who fear that if my opinion prevails, purgatory will slip from the Pope’s grasp, and the highly lucrative business of vexing (I meant to say redeeming) the souls of the dead will suffer great financial loss. Priests and religious orders will be driven to starvation. Therefore, greed must stay vigilant here, lest their frivolous but exceedingly profitable opinions be destroyed by the triumph of truth.

FIFTH ARTICLE

“The three parts of penance—contrition, confession, and satisfaction—are not based on Holy Scripture nor on the teachings of the ancient holy Christian doctors.” (Exsurge #21)

I understand quite well in what respect this article is condemned—it is with respect to greed. Therefore, I also know their respective proof, which is as follows: If this article were true, people would no longer pay for satisfaction and indulgences. Nor would we have the power to vex them further with confessions, reserved cases, restrictions, and extensions for our profit.

Thus, we would become poor, and the worship of God through vigils and Masses would be diminished. But to diminish the worship of God is impious. Therefore, Luther is a heretic—this is the conclusion derived from the Bull, with respect to the Papists and vice versa.

I beg you, in the name of the Lord Jesus, if any serious and learned reader happens to read this, please forgive me for this levity and, if I may say so, childishness. For you see, I am dealing with people who are twice children and yet boast of being heroes among men. I would perish if I did not know for certain that the greatest and most prominent leaders of the people were moved to condemn my writings by these more than sevenfold foolish and ridiculous arguments that I have recounted.

If I did not perceive the wrath of God raging against us, which has subjected us to effeminate boys and the dregs of humanity from every land due to our unworthiness, I would burst with indignation. (37)

My opinion has been and still is that the satisfaction which the keys can remove is not of divine law; if it were, it could not be removed by the keys. Whatever else the Bullators attribute to me in this article, they do so in their usual manner. After all, what difference does it make if the Antichrist lies?

SIXTH ARTICLE

“Contrition that is prepared by reflecting on, gathering, and detesting one’s sins—whereby one recalls one’s years in the bitterness of one’s soul, pondering the seriousness, multitude, and vileness of sins, the loss of eternal happiness, and the acquisition of eternal damnation—such contrition makes a hypocrite, or rather a greater sinner.” (Exsurge #22)

Oh, the incredible blindness and ignorance of these Bulls! Indeed, this is my article, and it is thoroughly Christian. I will not allow it to be wrested from me by any number of Popes and Papists. For I taught in this doctrine that penance is worthless unless it is done in faith and love, which they themselves also teach—except that they neither know nor teach what faith or love truly is. Thus, while they condemn my teaching, they also condemn their own through their imprudent contradiction.

Therefore, I say that whoever teaches penance in such a way that they give no more attention to the promised mercy of God and faith in it than to this torturous system teaches the penance of Judas Iscariot. Such a person is a plague, a devil of souls, and a butcher of consciences.

Read their sophistical books on penance, and you will see that they make no mention whatsoever of the promise or faith. They omit these living aspects of penance and harass people with nothing but dead contritions. But more on that elsewhere.

But why should I prove all the articles again, when my books are already available, where I have explained everything abundantly, and I will provide even more if my adversaries dare to bring their errors into the light. For it is foolish of them to claim that everything I have written seems to them to be condemned, when I wrote precisely to show them their own errors, by which they have thus far driven the people of God to madness. I did not expect to be condemned, since I knowingly and deliberately justified with Scripture and reasons what they had already condemned long ago.

Nor did I want them to say that they understood. For I already knew everything; the question I raised was whether they understood rightly, and I wanted to be taught that. And behold, no one dares to come forward. Therefore, I see that these donkeys not only fail to understand my points or their own but, due to their remarkable dullness, they haven’t even grasped what I sought in my writings. (38) They believe that they hold the truth in my opinion, when nothing could be further from what I suspect of them.

For I already knew that all of these things had been condemned by them, and I did not come to be condemned, but rather to expose, as already condemned by them, their impious, heretical, and blasphemous condemnation. Unless they had given a reason and shown that they understood rightly, I was prepared to publicly charge them with error and heresy. But they, like a ridiculous lyre player, constantly plucking the same string, return nothing but this: “We condemn what we have condemned.” A new kind of logic—proving the same thing by itself, condemnation through condemnation. O most inept and foolish condemners! Where is that saying of Peter: “Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have” (1 Peter 3:15)?

Therefore, since these ignorant Papists and Bullists are so confused and struck with fear before the manifest truth that they do not dare to open their mouths in defense of their position, and have barely managed to mutter this cowardly Bull, I, encouraged by the flight of my enemies, take this cowardly condemnation as the strongest possible approval and turn their condemnation back on them.

For how could they more thoroughly condemn themselves than by fearing to be found guilty of error and heresy if they were forced to give a reason? In their last and futile attempt to escape, these wretched men fall into the abyss, closing their eyes and ears, saying, “I will not, I condemn, I will not listen, I will not admit.” If I had behaved so madly, how greatly would they have gloried in triumph over me? Cowardly souls are revealed by their fear.

So, in order not to burden the reader with a lengthy speech by going through each article individually, I declare by these writings that I confess all that has been condemned by this execrable Bull to be Catholic doctrines, for which I have given reasons in my published works.

Furthermore, I want my circulating writings to be considered a public accusation against these impious sophists, the deceivers of God’s people, so that unless they convince me by reason and establish their claims, they should be regarded, as far as I am concerned, as guilty of error, heresy, and sacrilege. I urge, beg, and exhort in the Lord all who truly confess Christ to guard themselves against their perverse and impious teachings, and not to doubt that the true Antichrist reigns through them in the world.

If anyone despises this brotherly warning of mine, let them know that I am free from their blood (39), and on the Day of Judgment before Christ, I will be excused. For I have omitted nothing that Christian charity requires of me.

Furthermore, if I cannot resist these verbose and empty condemners by any other means, I will resort to the last thing I have to offer—namely, my soul and my blood. For it is better for me to be killed a thousand times than to retract a single syllable of the condemned articles. And just as they excommunicate me for their sacrilegious heresy, so I excommunicate them again for the holy truth of God. Christ the Judge will see which excommunication is valid in His sight. Amen.