↩ the History · a speech, filed

At the Diet of Worms

Martin Luther · the Diet of the Holy Roman Empire, Worms · April 18, 1521
text: The World's Famous Orations (1906), from d'Aubigné's History of the Reformation · published before 1931, in the public domain · the answer complete
colour carries the act's function; a dashed underline marks a predicted misfire; hover or focus any span for its filing

Most Serene Emperor, and You Illustrious Princes and Gracious Lords:—I this day appear before you in all humility, according to your command, and I implore your majesty and your august highnesses, by the mercies of God, to listen with favor to the defense of a cause which I am well assured is just and right. I ask pardon, if by reason of my ignorance, I am wanting in the manners that befit a court; for I have not been brought up in king's palaces, but in the seclusion of a cloister.

As to the second, I have composed writings on very different subjects. In some I have discussed Faith and Good Works, in a spirit at once so pure, clear, and Christian, that even my adversaries themselves, far from finding anything to censure, confess that these writings are profitable, and deserve to be perused by devout persons. The pope's bull, violent as it is, acknowledges this. What, then, should I be doing if I were now to retract these writings? Wretched man! I alone, of all men living, should be abandoning truths approved by the unanimous voice of friends and enemies, and opposing doctrines that the whole world glories in confessing!

I have composed, secondly, certain works against popery, wherein I have attacked such as by false doctrines, irregular lives, and scandalous examples, afflict the Christian world, and ruin the bodies and souls of men. And is not this confirmed by the grief of all who fear God? Is it not manifest that the laws and human doctrines of the popes entangle, vex, and distress the consciences of the faithful, while the crying and endless extortions of Rome engulf the property and wealth of Christendom, and more particularly of this illustrious nation?

If I were to revoke what I have written on that subject, what should I do. … but strengthen this tyranny, and open a wider door to so many and flagrant impieties? Bearing down all resistance with fresh fury, we should behold these proud men swell, foam, and rage more than ever! And not merely would the yoke which now weighs down Christians be made more grinding by my retractation—it would thereby become, so to speak, lawful,—for, by my retractation, it would receive confirmation from your most serene majesty, and all the States of the Empire. Great God! I should thus be like to an infamous cloak, used to hid and cover over every kind of malice and tyranny.

In the third and last place, I have written some books against private individuals, who had undertaken to defend the tyranny of Rome by destroying the faith. I freely confess that I may have attacked such persons with more violence than was consistent with my profession as an ecclesiastic: I do not think of myself as a saint; but neither can I retract these books, because I should, by so doing, sanction the impieties of my opponents, and they would thence take occasion to crush God's people with still more cruelty.

Yet, as I am a mere man, and not God, I will defend myself after the example of Jesus Christ, who said: "If I have spoken evil, bear witness against me" (John xviii:23). How much more should I, who am but dust and ashes, and so prone to error, desire that every one should bring forward what he can against my doctrine.

Therefore, most serene emperor, and you illustrious princes, and all, whether high or low, who hear me, I implore you by the mercies of God to prove to me by the writings of the prophets and apostles that I am in error. As soon as I shall be convinced, I will instantly retract all my errors, and will myself be the first to seize my writings, and commit them to the flames.

What I have just said I think will clearly show that I have well considered and weighed the dangers to which I am exposing myself; but far from being dismayed by them, I rejoice exceedingly to see the Gospel this day, as of old, a cause of disturbance and disagreement It is the character and destiny of God's word. "I came not to send peace unto the earth, but a sword," said Jesus Christ. God is wonderful and awful in His counsels. Let us have a care, lest in our endeavors to arrest discords, we be bound to fight against the holy word of God and bring down upon our heads a frightful deluge of inextricable dangers, present disaster, and everlasting desolations.Let us have a care lest the reign of the young and noble prince, the Emperor Charles, on whom, next to God, we build so many hopes, should not only commence, but continue and terminate its course under the most fatal auspices. I might cite examples drawn from the oracles of God. I might speak of Pharaohs, of kings of Babylon, or of Israel, who were never more contributing to their own ruin than when, by measures in appearances most prudent, they thought to establish their authority! "God removeth the mountains and they know not" (Job ix:5).

In speaking thus, I do not suppose that such noble princes have need of my poor judgment; but I wish to acquit myself of a duty that Germany has a right to expect from her children. And so commending myself to your august majesty, and your most serene highnesses, I beseech you in all humility, not to permit the hatred of my enemies to rain upon me an indignation I have not deserved.

Since your most serene majesty and your high mightinesses require of me a simple, clear and direct answer, I will give one, and it is this: I can not submit my faith either to the pope or to the council, because it is as clear as noonday that they have fallen into error and even into glaring inconsistency with themselves. If, then, I am not convinced by proof from Holy Scripture, or by cogent reasons, if I am not satisfied by the very text I have cited, and if my judgment is not in this way brought into subjection to God's word, I neither can nor will retract anything; for it can not be right for a Christian to speak against his conscience. I stand here and can say no more. God help me. Amen.

The divergences

"As to the second, I have composed writings on very different subjects" — the examiner files an Assertion, a preliminary about content offered where a yes or a no was demanded; the answer files a Frame-set that partitions the corpus, after which no single act called retracting exists to perform. They part on target: a claim about the books, or a move on the frame in which the books are one thing. The partition is what makes the rest of the answer possible, and it is also what the room could not accept, because a Diet can condemn a corpus and cannot grade one.

"it would thereby become, so to speak, lawful,—for, by my retractation, it would receive confirmation from your most serene majesty, and all the States of the Empire" — the estates file an Assertion about a consequence, one prediction among the many a defendant makes; Luther files a Frame-set in which the retraction being demanded would be their act and not his, and the demand acquires a cost for the party making it. They part on target. The Edict that followed in May supplied exactly the confirmation this sentence describes, over the Emperor's signature, without the retraction that was supposed to justify it.

"I freely confess that I may have attacked such persons with more violence than was consistent with my profession as an ecclesiastic" — the room files an Apology and hears the first move of a submission; the answer files a concession about manner that leaves the books untouched, and the same sentence goes on to refuse them. They part on scope: whether the admission runs from the tone to the matter. This is the only fault the answer concedes anywhere, which is why it was worth conceding, and the concession's ground is withdrawn one clause later by "I do not think of myself as a saint."

"If, then, I am not convinced by proof from Holy Scripture, or by cogent reasons ... I neither can nor will retract anything" — the Diet files a refusal, defiance in a conditional wrapper; Luther files a Promise, an offer to retract with the terms of acceptance stated. They part on function, and the hinge is where the condition puts the deciding authority: Scripture, cogent reasons, and his own conviction, none of which the assembly can supply on the day. An offer nobody in the room is competent to accept is indistinguishable from a refusal, and the record took it as one.

"I can not submit my faith either to the pope or to the council" — the assembly files an Assertion about one man's incapacity, a fact about a monk that a decree can dispose of; the canonists file a Frame-break that cancels the standing of the two bodies from which the proceeding draws its subject matter. They part on function. Whether this is stubbornness or a collapsed jurisdiction decides whether the answer is punishable or unanswerable, and Worms answered by punishing, which settles nothing about the filing.

"it can not be right for a Christian to speak against his conscience" — read wide it is a Frame-set, a rule binding every baptized man in the chamber, so that the princes are being told what they may not require rather than what he will not do; read narrow it is an Avowal, one man constituting himself as unable to speak against his own conscience, binding nobody else. They part on scope, and the pronoun is the whole of the evidence: the sentence says "a Christian," where every other refusal on the page says "I." As a rule it can only be answered; as an avowal it can be overruled. The Debs page, filed here from a courtroom four centuries later, carries the same shape from the other end — conscience stated to the power that is about to punish it, with the bench free to file it as a fact about the defendant and the readers free to file it as a claim on themselves.

"I stand here and can say no more" — the assembly files a Declaration: the testimony is closed, the witness has finished, and the proceeding passes back to the men who called it, which is a thing a defendant can do felicitously. The reform files an Avowal: the man is constituted in place, immovable, and the standing is the content. They part on function. The translation decides more here than the analysis does — the German the legend preserves, "ich kann nicht anders," is a claim about capacity and files as an avowal outright, and the English before us says "say," which ends a speech.