The _Captivity_ marks Luther's final and irreparable break with the Church of Rome, and it is not without a peculiar significance that in the same letter to Spalatin, of October 3d, in which he mentions the arrival in Leipzig of Eck armed with the papal bull, he announces the publication of his book on the _Babylonian Captivity of the Church_ for the following Saturday--October 6th. (Enders, II, no. 350; Smith, I, no. 303.) While the _Nobility_, addressed to the German nation as such, was written in the language of the people, the _Captivity_, as becomes a theological treatise, is composed in Latin, just as later the Liberty, affecting the religious life of the individual, whether layman or theologian, is sent out in both German and Latin. A translation into German appeared in the following year--the work of the Franciscan, Thomas Murner (on whom see Theod. v. Liebenau, _Der Franziskaner Thomas Murner_, Freiburg, 1913). Luther calls the Franciscan his "venomous foe" and accuses him of making the translation in order to bring him into disrepute. This charge Luther makes in his answer to Henry VIII's _Assertio septem sacramentorum adversus Mart. Lutherum_ (1521), the royal theologian's reply to the _Babylonian Captivity_, for which he won from the pope the proud title of "Defender of the Faith." The translation which follows is based on the Latin text as given in Clemen's "student-edition"--_Luthers Werke in Auswahl_ (Bonn, 1912-3), I, 426-512, which reproduces, though by no means slavishly, the text of the _Weimar Edition_ (Vol. VI), which, together with the _Erlangen Edition_ (_opera var. arg., V_), has been compared. The German _St. Louis Edition_ (Vol. XIX) has been consulted, and especially the admirable German rendering of Kawerau in the Berlin Edition (Vol. II) as well as the careful literal translation of Lemme, _Die drei grossen Reormationsschriten Luthers vom Jahre 1520_, 2. ed. (Gotha, 1884). Like the last mentioned, Wace and Buchheim's English translation (London, 1896) is incomplete, and besides is not always accurate; the _Captivity_ is not contained in Cole's _Select Works_. The catalogue of the British Museum notes no early English translation. Köstlin-Kawerau's (1903) and Berger's (1895) lives should be consulted; the former for the historical setting and full analysis, the latter for a fine appreciation of this as of the other two reformatory treatises of this year. For the theological development, beside Köstlin's work mentioned above, and Tschackert, _Entstehung der luth. und re. Kirchenlehre_ (1910), compare the exhaustive article Sakramente, by Kattenbusch, in _Prot. Realencyklopadie_, 3. ed., XVII, 349-81. The treatise is here Englished in its entirety, including those portions of the section on marriage which are frequently omitted. The homeless paragraph on page 260, whose proper location is not found even in the _Weimar Edition_ nor in Clemen, we have placed in a foot-note, following the example of Kawerau.